Organizers' Collaborative

There are two fairly straightforward attitudes toward Facebook and other commercial social networking services: (1) if that’s where our people are, let’s organize there; (2) Facebook is an extension of corporate power, boycott it. Between these disparate positions there is little common ground and space for nuanced debate. As someone whose own moral compass flickers between these two poles, I found Facebook's recent terms-of-service (TOS) volte face fascinating. Here's what happened:

(1) Founder Mark Zuckerberg quietly updated the corporation's TOS which governs users' rights and ownership of content in early February. It included a provision that granted Facebook ownership of all materials and content that users create – even after they terminate their accounts. Chris Walters, writing for The Consumerist described it as a "We can do anything with your content – forever" TOS.

Yours truly's FB page.

(2) A user revolt ensued resulting in more than a 100,000 users joining the People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS) user group on Facebook (you'll need an account to access the last link) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center preparing to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

(3) By late February, Facebook surrendered: "VICTORY! YOU SPOKE, and FACEBOOK LISTENED" was how the People-against-the-new... described it. Instead, a new Facebook group—Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities—was created to propose and discuss and "vote" on the TOS. Now—while inadequate from a democratic point of view, but that's another topic—anytime a third of the users oppose a change in the TOS, Facebook will not make the change.

A different, more existential kind of critique can be found at "Facebook is the end of humanity" site. Visit Wikipedia for a review of the different FB critiques.

(4) More interesting though, is Mark Zuckerberg's concession to the reality of creation on the web: "On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information". Of course, for most of us, this does not exist in our everyday lives. Rarely do producers own and control those things they create; usually the employers do, but not the workers (i.e. almost everyone I know).

So why the about face? I think it is relatively straight forward: corporate campaigners have long realized the a corporation's image is its most valuable asset. This insight originates with the pioneering work of Corporate Campaign, Inc.'s Ray Rogers and exemplified by his Killer Coke campaign.

Facebook's "product" is fundamentally about image and Facebook's guarantee of privacy: (1) its users create their own product based on their own relationships, (2) they "display" their relationships and personal lives on Facebook only to the degree that they can control how much they display to whom, and (3) they are both producers (adding photos, content and friends) and consumers (enjoying friends invites, posts and content) without Facebook adding anything. The moment the corporation threatens to undermine privacy, it destroys its own image and therewith the goose that lays Zuckerberg's golden eggs.

For organizers, all of this should come as good news!

Resources: Social Networking Privacy (Electronic Privacy Information Center)