Millions of users of Facebook are being urged to take part in the most dramatic “screenwipe” in history on Monday. People are being asked to end their addiction to the social networking site by closing their accounts and turning billions of family videos, photographs and “friend requests” into little more than digital debris.
Two Canadian campaigners have declared Monday as Quit Facebook Day in protest at the company’s decision to make more of that valuable personal data available to advertisers without the users’ permission or, in some cases, without their knowledge. Their protest reflects a growing feeling of unease about how Internet giants such as Facebook and Google, and upstarts like Twitter, use the information we give them.
It also completes a miserable few weeks for Facebook’s 26-year-old founder, Mark Zuckerberg, the whiz-kid who lists “openness,” “revolutions” and “making things” in the interests section of his own Facebook page. Zuckerberg is facing a rebellion by users over privacy and has been warned by regulators in Europe and the US that the company may be in danger of breaching data protection laws.
Worse still, a new Hollywood film produced by Kevin Spacey, The Social Network, is set to portray an even younger Zuckerberg, who set up Facebook six years ago after being dumped by his girlfriend while studying at Harvard, as a sexually insecure computer nerd.
For the first time, there is danger that the fairytale about the man from White Plains, New York, who turned a site for his college friends into a global phenomenon, might not have a happy ending.
In truth, the great Facebook revolt is unlikely to happen overnight. The social networking site is weeks away from announcing its 500 millionth registered user and is still expanding at a healthy rate. Nearly 40 percent of the world’s Internet users have a Facebook page they have visited at least once in the past month and it is not just the young who use it; 28 percent of the site’s users are older than 34, a demographic that has plenty of cash to spend.
In terms of scale, if not profits, Facebook is second only to Google. A small rebellion by a few thousand users is unlikely to dent its prospects. Yet recent changes to the site’s privacy settings, which determine how much personal information users can keep hidden, have prompted an outcry that senior executives, Zuckerberg included, cannot ignore.
At a stroke, the company made most of that information accessible to other users by default last month, although it continued to allow subscribers to apply restrictions to who can see what, should they choose to. Those “privacy settings” are complicated to change, however — users are faced with a menu with up to 150 options — and few can work out how to do so. Many have concluded Facebook is simply trying to hoodwink consumers into sharing more information than they would like. For an Internet company that has built its reputation on honesty and openness, and grown rapidly by exploiting the good feeling that surrounds a medium in its infancy, there can be few more damaging allegations.
A routine executive meeting at Facebook’s California headquarters earlier this month turned into an emergency discussion about privacy amid fears that pushing through the changes without consultation might do irreparable damage to the company.
Simon Davies, a former consultant turned privacy campaigner who knows most of Facebook’s senior management team, says: “My information from the people who participated is there is a sense the company has gone off the rails somewhat and realistically it could go downhill. The feeling in the meeting, as I understand it, was that, right or wrong, [the] privacy [issue] was damaging the company and that, right or wrong, something has to change.”
The company is likely to simplify its privacy settings, possibly as soon as this week. It is reported to be planning to introduce a “master control” that would simplify users’ privacy settings. Users would be able to choose which groups of people they wished to share information with — everyone, friends of friends, or just friends. This would replace the automatic system that shares users’ information with third parties.
The planned move acknowledges the fact that, as Zuckerberg told Time magazine: “What people want isn’t complete privacy. It isn’t that they want secrecy. It’s that they want control over what they share and what they don’t.”
This may not assuage wider concerns about how our digital footprints can be exploited, however. The novelty of tracking down an old school friend or boasting about how many people attended your birthday party has given way to anxiety over whether we might have given away too much. Facebook has been criticized for failing to address concerns that pedophiles are using the site to identify and “groom” potential victims.
“It has been exposed to more public relations problems in the last 18 months than any social network business can bear,” Davies says.
Potentially more serious, however, is growing anger among Facebook users over the company’s determination to mine their personal data for commercial gain.
The company’s office campus in Palo Alto, a community of 50,000 people in the San Francisco Bay area, is a large but unremarkable space that was once occupied by computer giant Hewlett Packard. It’s open plan and with high ceilings, and employees can break off from their work to play table tennis; bikes litter the floor; and some of the elevators have been painted by a New York graffiti artist.
Visitors describe the atmosphere as “orderly yet bohemian.” Yet behind the trendy facade, the company is carrying out a prosaic task, collecting information for what is in effect the largest and most sophisticated direct marketing exercise ever undertaken. Facebook is handing over information about its users’ favorite films, brand of coffee, what car they drive, even their shopping habits, to companies that will pay handsomely for it. Selling data to “third parties” underpins the company’s business model, which, like that of many Internet companies, is built on acquiring huge scale and reach quickly, then making money later.
The company is worth about US$14.3 billion, but that valuation is based on optimistic expectations about future profits. Banner advertising can generate only so much cash. If shareholders, including Microsoft (which paid US$168 million for a 1.6 percent stake in 2007) are to see a return on their investment, Zuckerberg must persuade users that even a free service like Facebook comes with a price — in this case allowing big corporations a glimpse of their spending habits.
Facebook users did not sign up in order to be targeted by marketers, of course, and the Internet has proved resistant to overt commercialization in the past. When Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp bought MySpace for US$580 million in July 2005, the company used it to plug its own products and the site’s hip audience of teenage music fans soon began to search for other online hangouts.
Most observers predict that Facebook is too well established to go the way of Friends Reunited, Bebo or Excite, Internet fads that failed to turn overnight popularity into lasting success. But if Facebook flirts too brazenly with commercial partners, it may see its growth slow down dramatically.
On his own Facebook profile, Zuckerberg demonstrates he still has the right credentials to claim membership of the IT fraternity by listing The Matrix, Dark Knight, Iron Man and Star Wars among his favorite films. The enigmatic Facebook founder also lists “eliminating desire” as one of his interests, alongside “breaking things.”
Breaking Facebook now would be a remarkable achievement, given its global dominance. In order to fix it, however, Zuckerberg must resolve the tension between what users want to tell Facebook about themselves and what Facebook wants to tell other companies about them.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s