Last week facebook tried to pull a fast one on it's users and changed the end license user agreement to include that once content is posted to the site, it belongs to facebook - even after one ends their relationship with the site and takes down their profile. As if facebook's licensing agreement wasn't already problematic enough - this added insult to injury and the public reacted in a fierce way. The site instantly "took it back" due to public pressure.
Today I logged on to facebook for a little socializing "light" and found this at the top:
Terms of Use Update
Today we announced new opportunities for users to play a meaningful role in determining the policies governing our site. We released the first proposals subject to these procedures – The Facebook Principles, a set of values that will guide the development of the service, and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that governs Facebook’s operations. Users will have the opportunity to review, comment and vote on these documents over the coming weeks and, if they are approved, other future policy changes. We’ve posted the documents in separate groups and invite you to offer comments and suggestions. For more information and links to the two groups, check out the Facebook Blog.
HMMMM.....
So, what I am trying to figure out is if this format fits Brabham's crowdsourcing model? Instead of forcing policy on the users, they are using their site as a medium to encourage public participation in their policy making. Awesome! The main difference I see between this and other crowdsourcing models such as Threadless is that facebook is posing the problem, yet they are also posing solutions as opposed to Threadless who asks for the T-shirt designs, then the crowd submits, critiques and votes on those designs. Of course, policy issues need to be more narrowly tailored, but I wonder if the policies they are proposing will disengage users from participating. In retrospect, I am pretty sure this isn't crowdsourcing, but it is transparency which is a new thing for profit making business. I wonder if this is the kind of transparency Obama is working toward?
What if it works? If this model for deciding facebook policy - where the company posts the policy then users are asked to critique and vote on the different policies works, how can it be translated to making government more transparent and public policy more fluid, equitable, and fair? Furthermore, I wonder who will actually participate in this facebook venture and who will just go along with whatever the majority decides. After looking at the actual blog, it is clear to me that this is more of a top-down controlled policy making move. Still though - asking the users to participate is a move in the right direction. I wonder who will actually participate.
If you were to submit your own proposal for their privacy policy what would it look like? Should we, as users, have a cut of the advertising profit? If that was proposed would it be posted by facebook as an option to vote on, or would they ignore the request. How much and how little control should Facebook exercise to empower users yet still maintain control over their site. If they ignore user requests will they get the same response as when they changed the agreement, or is the facade of transparency enough to keep people feeling good about the site?
Posts
The New PostSecret Book
10 years ago
I think this is an interesting case. letting the public decide on the company policies is unique. I know they got a bad responce from the old one they created but what is making them leave it up to the public now. Almost seems to good to be true. If this option could only happen in political sistuation that would be great, although i don't think the public would know what it would be talking about in political issues.
ReplyDeleteAs for crowdsourceing I think it would be considered that in a way. I think most people think of crowdsourcing as a gain for a company, but in this case Facebook is not really gaining anything, except maybe popularity for doing it this way.
I don't see how people are going to vote on this policy though. What's the point of changing the policy if people vote on it. Do they think people are going to vote on something they don't want in the policy. what if all the policies have bad things in them, then what, choose your poison.
I'm not sure I'd want to submit my OWN policy. But what I would like is to be able to give them the ideas and then have them flesh it out in legalese while giving me the option to approve or not.
ReplyDeleteAll in all I think they're moving in a very good direction by doing this.
I think that Facebook has come up with a very good idea, there might be some flaws to it, but I know that in any company I would more or less like this new policy. I think that although this is not a crowdsourcing model it is also a problem solving model similar to that of the crowdsourcing model. Any company that says they value their customers opinion and try to act out on it based on what their customers say is definitely going on the right path.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how Facebook utilizes this and if they actually consider policies submitted to them or not. I think that it will be hard for them to know what the customers actually want if people do just follow what the majority says. Hopefully they can go about this in a way that isn't too public like most of the things on Facebook. I don't think it will work very well if they did things in the usual manner like "Amber just voted on the new Red Policy, You should too!" Hopefully they stay away from that. I think that will be very important in getting real opinions from the users.
I think this is an interesting idea. I like how they are giving the facebook holders a chance to put there ideas out there.
ReplyDeleteI think it seems like crowd sourcing except the people who come up with ideas are not getting a money reward. It seems more like a way to get peoples ideas out there and think about the situation. It is like brain storming with both the client and customer. And if it works out hopefully it will benefit both in some way.
Also I don't think that many people will participate because I think most people wont take the time and even bother with it. I think most people just skip over the policy agreements.
I am one who would have to disagree with people taking a cut of the advertising revenue. I think that people on facebook do it for their own personal player. Why get paid to chat with your freinds? Facebook is the one who came up with the idea and worked hard to get where they are at, why would we get paid for that?
I think it is a good idea and it will be interesting to see if anything happens with this.
I think that Facebook has come up with a good idea to get users opinions. However, as a user I dont think that I would take the time to submit an idea.
ReplyDeleteThis new agreement sounds like crowdsourcing, users can submit their ideas, like how Threadless users submit t-shirt designs. The main difference is that people who get their designs selected get a reward, such as prize money,and facebook would not be rewarding, in terms of money to those who ideas get selected. What new application will facebook have to come up with so that users can vote on ideas?