In a tweet last night (I caught this morning), @ConvincingIndie shared and article that has me thinking… If Randall Stross can be published in the New York Times, anyone with an eight-grade education and a MySpace account is ready for a byline. With one short article, he erodes intricate privacy concerns to caveman-speak.
…”disclosure becomes the norm and privacy becomes a quaint anachronism.”
Is he kidding? As more and more middle-agers add their boring to Facebook’s vast yawn network, we need more privacy, not less. This proves Randall can easily blather about a topic he misunderstands. (Journalism!)
[FB] offers advertisers a target of 54.4 million members of all ages. But if an advertiser wants to narrow its target audience to those 25 or older, the number drops to 28.8 million. Narrow it to those 30 or older, and [FB] has 20.3 million to offer.
So, Randall, you’re saying a 5yr-old network, only open to non-college/-high school users since 2006, has more under-30s than over? Do the math, neuron-free, and you’ll realize 95% of users from before 2007 are still under your insignificant age choice. (Journalism!)
Considering FB claims it has 175mill users, you have to wonder why Randall didn’t do an arbitrary age comparison on the larger group of non-targets. (And maybe mention how FB defines this market?)
Asked how many members ever change a privacy setting, Mr. Kelly said 20 percent.
FB’s revenue (when they eventually start getting some) is based on active users and their connections. For that reason (and others), they make the settings hard to find. A tech-savvy, long-time FB using friend of mine just found friend lists. That 20 percent is miraculous.
Members can selectively restrict access to some items, such as photo albums and videos. But customizing permissions for this or that, via multiple clicks, is no one’s idea of a good time.
Seriously. This guy has a job?
Anyway… It’s not that people are too impatient to update their settings, they’re not aware they can. It’s understating to say the settings are tedious but to downplay them as useless is absurd. (Let’s see how that first inappropriate status/photo read/seen by your boss hits you and how motivated you are to create a “colleague” list.)
When the distinction blurs between one’s few close friends and the many who are not, it seems pointless to distinguish between private and public.
Psst… less than ten minutes devoted to creating a friend list with separate permissions would solve his “blur” problem. His understanding of the tool is overestimated, misguided and terribly short-sighted. (Journalism!)
FB’s a remarkably useful platform for networking, keeping up with family and sharing with friends. Take an hour today (I don’t advocate using FB during work because you already do) and make a list of friends, colleagues and family. Use the privacy settings to adjust who sees what and share freely from here on out.
Then email Randall (stross//at//nytimes//dot//com). Tell him how easy it was, why you find it useful and that I sent you. The NYT seems in need of some insight that I’m happy to provide. (At a reasonable price.)
Cross-posted at SD&IF.