Social Networking and Privacy

Home Forums Miscellaneous Social Networking and Privacy

This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Henry Brown 8 years, 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #104059

    Henry Brown
    Participant

    Interesting if NOT new idea, will add some fuel to argument that the internet should be free, an argument which has been around almost as long as “which came first the chicken or the egg”
    From IT world bloger Dan Tynan

    Should Facebook charge for privacy?
    If Facebook charged fees for its service, would it do a better job of protecting user privacy? At least one Web CEO thinks so.

    June 21, 2010, 05:35 PM —

    Not surprisingly, Facebook’s half-hearted attempts to kick its data-sharing addiction have not exactly wowed the privacy cognoscenti. Last week a consortium of groups — including the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse — wrote an open letter to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg saying essentially what I (and many others) also said after FB’s nominal response to the recent privacy uproar: Nice start, but… not enough by half, at least.

    Facebook’s response? Suck on it, you privacy pantywaists. We’re done listening to you.

    OK, that’s not what they said literally, but that’s the subtext of their letter, a copy of which you can find on Scribd.

    Jeff Tinsley, CEO of MyLife.com, has another idea: If you really want Facebook to protect your privacy, you should pay them for the privilege. No, he’s serious. And he’s got a good point.

    The idea is simple: If you’re a paying customer, Facebook doesn’t need to monetize your data so heavily via ad deals. That means it has less incentive to butter your data all over the InterWebs and more incentive to keep its paying customers (ie, you) happy.

    “When you’re solely reliant on ad revenue, that puts you in conflict with your users,” he says. “To maximize revenue in a business with an advertising model you need to use the information you collect from your users to better target them. Advertisers are demanding the use of that information, which could put Facebook under pressure to collect and expose more and more of its users’ information, especially if it goes public.”

  • #104067

    Henry Brown
    Participant

    Must be the week for fees vs. privacy issues….

    This is a From the NY Times BITS blog

    A Site for the Videos You Don’t Want Everyone to See
    By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER
    June 23, 2010

    Some people post videos to YouTube and Facebook with the hope that they will go viral. But for many others, the idea of the whole world viewing a personal video is a nightmare.

    VIDme.com , a new video site going live on Wednesday, is for the latter group. It lets people share videos privately with only a chosen group of friends; the videos cannot be forwarded or downloaded.

    “The real main thing was creating a service that puts privacy and control in the center of the sharing experience, as opposed to an afterthought,” said Greg Siegel, founder and chief executive of VidMe.

    Advertisers prefer a site like YouTube, where three million, rather than three, people watch a video (and see an ad). So instead of relying on advertising for revenue, VidMe has created a paid service. People who register for the site get some free credits, which are good for uploading several videos. After that, they can buy blocks of credits. VidMe has not yet set prices, but they will be “appealing prices, so it feels very much like an impulse buy,” Mr. Siegel said.

  • #104065

    Scott Horvath
    Participant

    Re: “the videos cannot be forwarded or downloaded.”

    If you put it on the web, I can guarantee you that it can be downloaded. If it can’t be downloaded by some magical new web method, it can always be screen recorded. If you put it on the web, it will be public…period.

  • #104063

    Henry Brown
    Participant

    It is all about Risk Management!

    MOST likely true However if the cost of sharing a private video with walmart or Visa or ??? exceeds the possible gain would offer that Most users could/should feel fairly comfortable with using this type of “social networking”… Now I am of the school that if you don’t want anyone to see or learn something about you, the SAFEST course of action is DON’T put it on the net or to be probably the safest would be to crawl into a cave and only come out at your funeral.

  • #104061

    Paul Day
    Participant

    I think all organization’s should facilitate privacy. Frankly, Facebook won’t rule forever as long as it tramples on user rights. The business model is based on acting without the permission of its users to share information. That’s a terrible business model. People will get sick of it quick when there is a better tool out there. Likewise, the proliferation of marketing organization on there will make it less relevant.

    Charging for the protection of privacy is a terrible idea. Charging to improve the quality of interaction might provide the friction to make social networks great. But this is not an opportunity for Facebook as much as it is a business opportunity for a competitor.

    I see Facebook becoming a wasteland in the next few years with users abandoning it at the opportunity to join better, more closed networks.

    Frankly, I don’t know why organizations interact with Facebook at all. It’s a place for friends, and you are not their friend.

    Conversion-Driven Government

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.