• Print

Is Facebook a Brand that You Can Trust?

fox-in-henhouse.pngIsn’t it about time that we started holding our online brands to the same standards that we hold our offline ones?

Case in point, consider Facebook. In Facebook’s relatively short life, there has been the Beacon Debacle (a ‘social’ advertising model that only Big Brother could love), the Scamville Furor (lead gen scams around social gaming) and now, the Privacy Putsch.

By Privacy Putsch, I am referring to Facebook’s new ‘Privacy’ Settings, which unilaterally invoked upon all Facebook users a radically different set of privacy setting defaults than had been in place during the company’s build-up to its current 350 million strong user base.

To put a bow around this one, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), not exactly a bastion of radicalism, concluded after comparing Facebook’s new privacy settings with the privacy settings that they replaced:

“Our conclusion? These new ‘privacy’ changes are clearly intended to push Facebook users to publicly share even more information than before. Even worse, the changes will actually reduce the amount of control that users have over some of their personal data.” EFF adds that, “The privacy ‘transition tool’ that guides users through the configuration will ‘recommend’ — preselect by default — the setting to share the content they post to Facebook, such as status messages and wall posts, with everyone on the Internet, even though the default privacy level that those users had accepted previously was limited to ‘Your Networks and Friends’ on Facebook.”

Ruminate on what that means for a moment. You are a parent, and you regularly upload photos of your kids to Facebook, blithely assuming that they are free from the roaming eyes of some sexual predator. While previously, these photos were only viewable to the Friends and Networks that you explicitly connected with, now, without consulting you, Facebook has made your son or daughter’s pictures readily accessible to friend or felon.

Or, perhaps you are a typical ‘thirty something,’ sharing your weekend escapades with what you thought was a bounded social circle. Now, your current or prospective employer is just a click away from concluding that, perhaps trusting the company’s marketing department to you is not such a good idea after all.

So as not to split hairs, let’s just agree that some potential existed for either of these scenarios to have occurred under the old privacy model, and also worth nothing, if you actually understand what these new settings mean to your world, you can reverse (many of) these settings.

But, that’s beside the point. Why? Because three separate instances now (i.e., Beacon, Scamville and Privacy Settings) have underscored a tendency of Facebook to not only make fairly key strategic decisions without first engaging it user base in a bi-lateral dialog, but to make decisions that are decidedly at odds with consumer protection/interest.

On a human level, one can look at the new privacy changes as akin to going to sleep at night with the assumption that the various doors and windows of your house were locked, only to wake up and realize that while you were sleeping, the ‘locksmith’ decided that you/they were better served if the doors were left unlocked.

Upon waking up to discover this unilateral decision, would you be pissed? Would you trust the locksmith to keep you safe at night going forward?

One last example before I move on, here’s another excerpt from EFF’s analysis on the ‘Good, Bad and Ugly‘ of the new privacy settings:

The Ugly: Information That You Used to Control Is Now Treated as “Publicly Available,” and You Can’t Opt Out of The “Sharing” of Your Information with Facebook Apps.

Specifically, under the new model, Facebook treats information, such as friends lists, your name, profile picture, current city, gender, networks, and the pages that you are a ‘fan’ of — as ‘publicly available information,’ a new definition of heretofore personal information that Facebook held off disclosing in any material way — until the very day it was forcing the new change on users.

Blogger Jason Calcanis puts this policy in perspective in his excellent post, ‘Is Facebook unethical, clueless or unlucky?

I’m sorry, what the frack just happened? I turned over my friend list, photos and status updates to everyone in the world? Why on earth would anyone do that with their Facebook page? The entire purpose of Facebook since inception has been to share your information with a small group of people in your private network. Everyone knows that and everyone expects that. In fact, Facebook’s success is largely based on the face that people feel safe putting their private information on Facebook.

Do with this information what you will (forewarned is forearmed, after all), but me personally, after reviewing each Facebook photo album of mine with personal, family and/or friend oriented photos within it, I couldn’t help but feel that Facebook should be given a new name: Faceless Betrayal.

Some Relativity from the World of Offline Brands: Perrier and Tylenol

perrier_water.jpgI read an interesting stat in Fast Company about the US Bottled Water Industry. Americans now spend more on bottled water than they do on iPods or Movie Tickets – $16B dollars.

Now, think back to 1989. Perrier Water was the imported water market leader in North America, with an eponymous water product marketed as ‘naturally sparkling’ water sourced from a mineral spring in the south of France.

But then, Perrier ran into serious trouble when the noxious, cancer-causing agent, Benzene, was found in the water that Perrier sold in the United States.

Seeking damage control, the company gravitated between silence and evasiveness, with Perrier initially stating that the problem was an isolated one, when in actuality, it had turned out to be a global issue.

Perrier’s ultimate mistake, though, was responding to a serious brand integrity crisis in a less than above-board, consultative fashion with its customer base.

The net effect is that, despite a massive global boom in bottled water consumption, a once-trusted, dominant brand, in essence, collapsed. In the end, Perrier’s sales fell in half; the company was later sold, and the brand never recovered.

Tylenol Extra Strength.jpgBy contrast, when seven people died after taking cyanide-laced Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules, the company did a massive education and outreach effort, culminating with the recall of 31 million bottles of the product, at a then-cost of $100M. Like Perrier, Tylenol’s market share initially cratered.

But, because the company had been proactive, public and always acting in the best interests of its consumers, within a year, its share had rebounded dramatically, and within a few years, had come all the way back.

The moral of the story is that two companies faced crises that threatened to kneecap their brand, but only one maintained a consistent focus on living up to the trust that its customers had put in the brand. Tellingly, the market rewarded the brand that was truest to its customers (Tylenol).

Netting it out: In light of the company’s past consumer-unfriendly initiatives, Facebook’s privacy settings change should serve as a wake up call to its 350M users that they are entrusting a Fox to guard the Hen House; a truth that is destined to erupt into a crisis for the company. Will they handle it like Tylenol or Perrier?

Related Post:
Why Facebook’s Terms of Service Change is Much Ado About Nothing

tags: , , ,
  • Steffan Antonas

    Mark,

    Facebook has shown that they’re much more willing to make radical changes first and adjust to consumer feedback afterwards. Here they seem to be banking on consumers not noticing at all – these are subtle changes to the UI that have huge implications that they know people won’t take the time to understand. That’s what’s so worrisome.

    I’m still in the camp that thinks that the (perceived) high level user control over privacy was Facebook’s winning combo.

    http://blog.steffanantonas.com/status-culture-public-vs-private-and-why-it-matters.htm

    Facebook’s being really smart about this, though, because even though they’re making the data “public”…It doesn’t mean Google will be able to find you (which is what matters to users). They really just mean they can use it in ways that allows them to profit from it in an unobtrusive way. The perception of privacy and control isn’t actually being punctured here, even though it is in reality.

    Here’s an additional links that provide some insight into why Facebook is moving this way, and what I they’re probably counting on happening –

    How Facebook’s Open Strategy Shifts The Roadmap for Corporate Marketing and Support (by Jeremiah Owyang)

    http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/11/03/how-facebooks-open-strategy-shifts-the-roadmap-for-corporate-marketing/

  • Chris

    I have long struggled with “trusting” any social network with massive quantities of content I produce. I want to have ultimate control of when, where, why and how that content is displayed. No matter how “trustworthy” a brand seems today, things can change tomorrow. See FriendFeed for an example. Their community went from implicit trust to almost abject distrust overnight.

    Anyone who is uploading files by the hundreds, writing thousands of words and assuming everything will be hunky-dory forever is probably making a mistake. They should look into alternative ways to post and archive their content online – one they can control.

    Chris
    Fairbanks, AK

  • Travis

    In response to Chris and the general problem: what ways to publish content, especially in the context of a social network, are there?

    I see the problem as centralized vs distributed. Centralized control, like Facebook, means that everyone logged in has to abide by the same rules. The problem is that the rules may be changed for everyone arbitrarily.

    Distributed control allows you to set everything up exactly how they want it, but as soon as information leaves the server it’s out of their control.

    This is a broader problem with information itself. Recognizing the browser as a peer, anyone can scrape their Facebook content and repost it (eg: with the Scrapbook Firefox addon), so the problem with the distributed model is also a problem with the centralized model.

    The only distributed network software I know of are Jabber and email, and that’s hardly near the level of functionality that Facebook offers. Any other solutions?

  • BmoreKarl

    While I don’t appreciate their approach, I’m not abandoning the network yet.

    I’ve found it’s possible to be protective of my information to the same degree – mostly through the vigilance of my friends, followign their tips, and then re-exploring the set-and-forget privacy settings (to find some that haven’t come up here and appear to be new).

    Within the first day of the changes I had narrowed the list of publicly available information down from 30 new possible invasions of privacy to about 2 that I don’t think I can change.

    I think the net effect, if you are vigilant – is 2 more categories strangers can see on your profile page. Granted it took me about 3-4 hours to get back to the level of privacy I previously enjoyed.

  • Mark Sigal

    @Steffan, I think that you are dead on wrt Facebook banking on consumers not noticing at all. It amazed me when this went down and I told friends outside of tech what it meant in terms of personal pics and what not, that they hadn’t a clue.

    Now in the case where media and blogosphere tar them until they get back to a good enough compromise, maybe this will be an disaster averted. Otherwise, I could see this staying under the radar until something happens that turns it into news, and then they’ll really have damaged their brand.

    Thanks for the other links. Will give them a read.

    Cheers,

    Mark

  • Mark Sigal

    @Chris, I think that for a large portion of the population, “dumb simple” meets “lookup and hookup” is a powerful equation, so while I am decidedly more in the camp you put forth, 350M feel differently. Thanks for the feedback.

  • Mark Sigal

    @Travis, check out Posterous. They are weak on the social side of things but very strong on taking decentralized content and giving a measure of centralized control and tracking. Plus, they handle autoposting to Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and a bunch of other services. Here is a post that I wrote on the topic:

    Posterous: The Copy-and-Post Revolution in (Micro) Blogging
    http://bit.ly/6ki7S

    Cheers,

    Mark

  • Mark Sigal

    @BmoreKarl, thanks for the real-world perspective. As another poster commented, the tax we will pay is making a whole lot more privacy choices than we had to make before. In some cases, more control is a good thing, especially once educated, but in others, adding friction to the process reduces use, which can’t serve Facebook’s goals either. Remains to be seen if they have been too smart for their own good.

  • Chris

    @Travis and @Mark,

    I have not abandoned social networks and regularly use both Facebook and Twitter. I post photos on my own blog and distribute links to the content. All of the text I post is sent to a lifestream site via Sweetcron (no longer supported, looking for alternatives). All of those items are then saved in my database.

    Basically, I think blogs should be a home-base and social networks should be a means of distributing access to source-content. Yeah, this is way too complicated for most people…maybe for me as well. Still, if I am publishing original content, I want to have the maximum possible control.

    Eventually all of these sites are going to have to grapple with this concern, especially if they are going to increasingly cater to business users.

    Chris

  • Barbara Segal

    Excellent article Mark!I love your example: On a human level, one can look at the new privacy changes as akin to going to sleep at night with the assumption that the various doors and windows of your house were locked, only to wake up and realize that while you were sleeping, the ‘locksmith’ decided that you/they were better served if the doors were left unlocked.
    I am RT and Facebook sharing your article for sure.

    Happy Holidays!

  • Mark Sigal

    @Barbara, are you giving me props just because we have similar last names. :-) Seriously, thanks for the kind words. As I noted to a friend, I am not down on Facebook as a product/service; my point is that good products don’t make up for questionable ethics.

    @Chris, definitely check out Posterous, as that has what I call infodex like qualities – copy/post/autopost/edit/track.

  • Brian – SocialMediaDefined.com

    I think there is pretty good reason from facebook’s position to try and make everyone’s profile transparent – they return a killing of hits through search results of profiles that show up in google and other engines.

    Not to mention the value of raw data, which advertisers never can have or pay enough for.

  • Mark Sigal

    @Brian, I get that, it’s fairly basic, but that’s akin to saying there’s a pretty good reason to rob banks – that’s where the money is. Somewhere in the mush factoring Facebook’s value proposition that got consumers to sign up has to weigh against the ethical and brand destructive cost of betraying that trust. Sticking to my same analogy, if your bank can make a ton of money selling your identity to the highest bidder, should they? Sidebar: yes, I know that banks and financial institutions play plenty of the same crappy games with consumer data, and would only say that the fact that we are in one of the worst financial crisis’s since the depression, is probably not unrelated. Lazy ethics and sloggish business practices go hand in hand.

  • Paul Willworth

    I think the way Facebook changed everyones’ default privacy settings was completely wrong. But at the same time, I have a hard time understanding what people are so worried about with privacy. I can sometimes see how there can be slight risk, but nothing that justifies exaggerated analogies like equating this to your home being unlocked. It’s more like Facebook just pulled back the curtains in your living room.

    And what’s the difference between photos of my child being available publicly on the internet, and letting my child be outside in the public where any sexual predator could take their own photos of my child?

    Yes, Facebook is taking advantage of us, but what am I missing? What are the specific risks, other than someone making judgements about the kind of person I am because they get more info about me? Maybe someone who has some specific concerns can share what it means to them here.

  • Mark Sigal

    @Paul, thanks for the perspective on this one. My take is that a brand is a promise, and when brands break their core promise(s), minimally, it is bad form, possibly it’s bad ethics.

    I am guessing that you don’t have kids, but when you say “what’s the difference between photos of my child being available publicly on the internet, and letting my child be outside in the public where any sexual predator could take their own photos of my child?” I would answer by saying that if the babysitter had instructions to keep the kid inside and decided unilaterally that it was safe to leave them outside, every parent would freak out, and the babysitter would either be fired or potentially, face legal issues.

    The distinction in both cases is that its for the parent to decide, there is a default state, or definition of the situation, that folks are operating under, and thus, a material change like that should be consultative, not presented after the fact, IMHO.

    In the big picture scheme of things, you may be right in the sense that going forward, folks just default to assuming that if its on the web it’s public, and with distance, we will see this as the beginning of the next stage.

    That is fine and good. As a brand “trusted” by 350M people, Facebook spent more time prepping the media than they did their audience, and the way they communicated and productized was clearly designed to confuse and complicate, which is the opposite of communication and coordination, especially since it represents such a material departure from the original DNA of what Facebook was.

    Regards,

    Mark

  • Scott Robinson

    Your opinion piece seems to take this as a given, but why does Facebook has a responsibility for consumer protection/interest?

    Social networking sites are for broadcast of personal information. This is a well understood fact. Facebook, in particular, only even offered “private” profiles in the last few years. And enabling that was a very explicit and time-consuming act.

    The “consumers” of Facebook provide it value as an audience for advertisers and a mostly untapped pool of crowdsourced data. The former means Facebook is interested in protecting the privacy of its users insofar as it can continue building an audience while still attracting marketing dollars. And the latter’s potential is one of the reasons for the new privacy “migration.”

    Your “human level” analogies are a bit disingenuous. Replace “locksmith” with “college dorm RA” and we’d be much closer to the reality of the situation. And, sure, you’d be pissed.

    But what realistic expectation of privacy did you have in such an environment?

    No user has paid Facebook for their service or privacy. Every user has uploaded slices of their lives to be “shared” with their “friends” on to a service that has been upfront about the irrevocability of such decisions.

  • Scott Robinson

    As a side note, it’s disappointing to see a “for the children” emotional appeal on an O’Reilly blog.

    Evoking the spectre of “child predators” isn’t an auspicious beginning to a reasoned discussion.

  • Mark Sigal

    @Scott, first off, thanks for the hard push back. We obviously have different reads on this one, but your position is certainly reasoned.

    Beginning with the end, the “for the children” angle is based on first hand experience, so to the extent it doesn’t wear as well with your dorm room analogy (also good), so be it. It just happens that in my world, as techie parent, many of the most engaged users in my circle are women with kids, and often the heaviest usage pertains to pics of kids so that use case screamed out when this one played out, especially as this is exact audience most likely to be unaware of what’s going on.

    As to the underlying pushback, which is “What does Facebook owe a bunch of non-paying users?” I would submit that to the extent very little of Facebook’s technology is what one would call deeply proprietary/differentiated (although solid and well-integrated, to be sure), Facebook owes a pretty material portion of its estimated $9.5B valuation to its user base.

    Given that precept, and given that their new privacy policy represents a material change away from what was in place, and given that it fits within a pattern of similarly troubling moves by the company (including Beacon and allowing the Scamville activities to promulgate), we agree on one thing: from this point going forward, users should not be surprised by a continuing slippery behavioral slope. What was ‘first time, shame on you’ (i.e., Facebook), should now be treated as ‘next time, shame on me.’

    We should know better at this point.

    Best,

    Mark

  • Scott Robinson

    We definitely agree on that point.

    From my perspective, as a technical “20-something”, I’ve understood that I’m giving Facebook control of the material I upload. Worse, the attendant network effects of my membership means my “friends” are giving them control of materials just as personal to me- the only difference being I didn’t personally upload them.

    I argue Facebook’s $9.5B valuation isn’t from robust privacy protections. It’s from just enough privacy protections to maintain growth while releasing as much information as the userbase will swallow. If they push too hard, users leave. If they don’t push hard enough, their market cap decreases.

    So, it seems in Facebook’s best interests to learn the fine art of pushing as hard as possible.

  • Scott Robinson

    I have few, though an increasing number, parents in my “friends” list. However, if young parents- and, I can only imagine the demographic we’re discussing is young- are so truly concerned, then it sounds like a serious business opportunity.

    I would definitely pay the toll for a social network with robust privacy protections, a simple and firm commitment to its users, and the true option to quit and take my marbles with me.

    Would that satisfy the grown-ups, though? ;-)

  • Mark Sigal

    @Scott, touche, and to your point, the valuation difference between ACTING first, and apologizing later (and backtracking, if necessary), and ASKING first before implementing, is material enough that history COULD show this to be the right call.

    Of that, I have no doubt. It’s just that from a probability analysis, there is a non-zero chance that the ‘perception is reality’ nature of these things could lead to something a lot more cataclysmic than they’ve bargained for.

    TBD, how this plays out, and appreciate the counter-perspective.

  • John Biebel

    From a behavioral standpoint, I think ‘what the market will allow’ is the rule. Web users generally do understand the concept of default settings, but choose not to bother with them because the assumption is that they’re being used as what is best FOR the user. Of course we know this is not always so, and the general trust we have for the internet is too large and all encompassing.

    What we have seen is that users’ desire to share is stronger than their collective fears of having some of their visual and intellectual property mis-used. And I do believe that users need to understand what they are getting themselves into when they are posting on any social network. In a way, the rapidity with which both Facebook and Twitter allow users to post is detrimental because it doesn’t allow that aspect of ‘stop and think’ that generally ruled human behavior for centuries.

    What would be interesting (and important) is if we could see the data: What percentage of users ARE changing their default settings, reading the terms, being proactive? I’m sure we won’t get such data, but it’d be great to see.

    I think your marketing comparisons (the Perrier and Tylenol examples) are interesting, but consumption of products that have physiological affects on the body are really in another realm of experience – Facebook has endless brand recognition and just a sampling of public opinion of everyday users will warrant more complaints about Farmville not working right than concerns about privacy.

    I’d like to see Facebook ‘care’ more, but then I wonder at how many Web interfaces are really built to care?

  • Mark Sigal

    @John, I would love to disagree with some of your takes about lack of brand relativity between real products and virtual ones like Facebook, but I can’t. I say wish mainly from the perspective that folks like parents with young kids and older folk seem generally shocked with the new default but the very premise of configuring this stuff is such an abstraction that they don’t get to second base, and the college age crowd truly doesn’t care from what I’ve seen.

    Wouldn’t that be rich to see what percentage of users ARE changing their default settings, reading the terms, being proactive? Damn straight!

    Like you said, that won’t happen unless and until some forcing “event” brings it to the level of the mass consumer.

    Thanks for solid push-back thinking. :-)

    Mark

  • John Biebel

    Back at you Mark: I like the term ‘such an abstraction’ in reference to understanding the default settings on Facebook, and you do frame that in an interesting light – for the people who are most desirous of privacy, is the technology too far gone to be understood by such users?

    I think there are two paths of thinking here: What Facebook ought to do for such users, and what Facebook is doing. Clearly, they are really lacking in using this moment for education. When the privacy settings were updated, it would have been great to see a company as large as Facebook take the time to educate users about how much of their privacy they were (basically) giving away.

    Your analysis of the products (Tylenol and Perrier) must have struck a chord with me, though, because I was looking at a bottle of Perrier the other day and thought, ‘He’s right! No one ever mentions Perrier anymore…’ Nicely done.

  • Mark Sigal

    @John, thanks for circling back. It will be interesting to see what plays out (or doesn’t) in the months ahead.

  • Soenke Dohrn

    To me Facebook has lost it. The settings you can set, don’t say something as “don’t sell my pictures” effectively leaving it to FB to sell my pictures if they decide the price is right.

    They can sell my data on my friends and the geographical distance to Deutsche Bahn for example, so that I can get a voucher to my mobile phone by Deutsche Bahn offering 15% off when taking the train to meet Paul this week-end in Cologne.

    To some this may sound great but I actually signed up to stay in touch with friends and not with companies to give me individual, personalised crap and spam on my doorstep.

    I made a choice for certain information being available to certain entities. I don’t want Facebook to overrule me on that so that they can make ever more money. Since they no longer offer the service under the brand ‘Facebook’ that was in place when I signed up, I don’t see a reason why to be part of this commercial data whole that is called ‘Facebook’?

    Facebook is a word with an ever changing meaning. But somewhere along this process of change, FB has lost touch and no longer offers what they once did. Thus, no longer do I see myself being present in their service offerings regardless of the name Facebook remains unchanged.

  • Mark Sigal

    @Soenke, my issue is two-fold. One is that Facebook has repeatedly shown a willingness to fundamentally change the rules of the game without consulting their user base beforehand. This puts the onus on its users — the vast majority of which are technically challenged — to understand what’s really going on.

    Two is that the company is disingenuine in the controls that they provide to users, obfuscating them through technical complexity, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I am pretty libertarian on this stuff so if Facebook instead said, “We believe consumers want targeted offers, they want to aggregate their online universe, but we will give them the controls in PLAIN ENGLISH, and NEVER change the defaults to LESSEN your privacy defaults,” I would be all for it.

    Their approach. however, has been the exact opposite of this.

  • arizona dennizen

    As of the F8 announcement… Facebook’s “complete lack of privacy” settings have astonished me…

    Basically, no matter how locked down and completely private I set my own profile… my data is now at the mercy of my most privacy illiterate friends on facebook…

    The harried moms who just wanna upload photos or play on farmville… who absolutely never pay any attention to privacy settings… end up being a vector to my personal information

    After many admonishments and warnings from me… most of which were ignored or commented on as “what? privacy settings?” I decided to delete them all from my circle of friends…

    As I ponder my own future on Facebook, I have been slowly scraping my all my comments, likes and posts from as far back as possible…

    I’m sorta saddened by this. I’m fascinated with the evolution/devolution of the http://WWW...

  • Mark Sigal

    @arizona, agreed but the sheer aggressiveness and arrogance of Facebook’s approach is a real test to whether people care or not. I still expect this to blow up as people connect the dots, but plenty of ignorance and a whole generation that is too young to perceive downside of having everything public. Thanks for the thoughts.

    Mark

  • Sercan Y?ld?r?m

    Your opinion piece seems to take this as a given, but why does Facebook has a responsibility for consumer protection/interest? Social networking sites are for broadcast of personal information. This is a well understood fact. Facebook, in particular, only even offered “private” profiles in the last few years. And enabling that was a very explicit and time-consuming act.

    The “consumers” of Facebook provide it value as an audience for advertisers and a mostly untapped pool of crowdsourced data. The former means Facebook is interested in protecting the privacy of its users insofar as it can continue building an audience while still attracting marketing dollars. And the latter’s potential is one of the reasons for the new privacy “migration.”

    Your “human level” analogies are a bit disingenuous. Replace “locksmith” with “college dorm RA” and we’d be much closer to the reality of the situation. And, sure, you’d be pissed.

    But what realistic expectation of privacy did you have in such an environment?

    No user has paid Facebook for their service or privacy. Every user has uploaded slices of their lives to be “shared” with their “friends” on to a service that has been upfront about the irrevocability of such decisions.

  • Mark Sigal

    @Sercan, where we disagree is on the assumption that users have no right to expect anything because they’ve paid nothing. Users have paid Facebook dearly in terms of their personal information, and in exchange for that they have every right to expect: A) a great service, and B) a decent online citizen.

    Facebook is knocking the ball out of the park on A), with no one else even in the same conversation; and they are daring their audience to care enough about B) to change their behavior, which users – myself included – are not changing behavior on – so usage continues to grow unabated.

    You probably didn’t see my subsequent post where I acknowledge that despite many users not trusting Facebook, they are using it more and more:

    Facebook Mountain
    (I wish I knew how to quit you)
    http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/07/facebook-mountain-i-wish-i-kne.html

    Check it out.

    Mark

  • http://www.blurty.com/users/magpulmags555 Scurvy

    I never really though about not trusting facebook. it just seems that if everyone is using it, it must be good, I never gave it a second though