Do I or can I believe @facebook or #zuck? #privacy #sharing.

My picture last week approaching Christchurch NZ. On  my way to pay respect at Al Noor Mosque

Dire Straits Telegraph Road. "Then came the liars and then came the rules"

Two major posts about Facebook (and web content/ data) by Mark. Both have had lots of coverage, some repeat the messages and some don't have a clue what they are talking about.  Life is normal.


31st March 2019 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10107013839885441

7th March 2019 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634


Both pieces are responses to how to address the very real 21st century, 1st world problems of data: harmful content, election integrity, sharing, privacy, real-time, data portability, bias, manipulation, consent, addiction, and surveillance.   For me it is all very real as I was in Christchurch taking time to visit Al Noor Mosque, to pay my respects and reflect.  

If you have time - read the commentary on both posts as it allows one to gain an insight into the diversity of opinion and views on these topics.  The purpose here is not to repeat but to add a viewpoint. 

---

What I sense is just more of the same.  Picking up a thread like, "we need an ability to privately connect in a public world" Misses the point that everything that is shared is ( and always has been) public, the issue today is the accessibility (search) and scale. 

I already have a perception of "private" messaging, but what does this actually mean.  It is not that no-one else can have access, I have that. I don't want the postman to open my post; which is the wholly different issue and not addressed.

Rebuilding Facebook on these (new to Facebook) ideas is not the case.  Facebook needs to start with these (well established and market accepted current and existing) ideas and build privacy by design as they are not bolt-on's. That would be transformational. 

Whilst #Zuck asks for regulators to act, and many have responded this is great news, regulation is not the answer. The role of government regulators serve two purposes, sometimes but not always concurrently: protect workers and protect consumers. #Zuck wants someone else to stand up and take the pain. He wants someone to protect him and his business, that is not the role of the regulator.  What we do need is a new form of governance for the issues of content and privacy, but these can be new legislative powers to prosecute directors.  That would change the game.

Worth noting is the there is a evidence from the gambling market that with addiction (which Facebook is), that by offering more choice and options to get out (alternatives); actually feeds and enforces more addiction. Some of this plays to Surveillance Capitalism and the writing of HBS Professor emerita Shoshana Zuboff, however having read her massive book (every page) it is not that good for the industry. I need to write it up.

How do I read these communications.  Very carefully worded and beautifully articulated messages to provide a smoke screen until all the current scrutiny passes over and they can continue as they were  ... until the next time, when FB can then say "we are trying."  Politics at a different level.  If Facebook wants be to believe in a real change, start with the Terms and Conditions; whilst they are the same - there is no motivation to change. Then head into privacy by design.