(Crossposted from FacebookOrganizing.com)
Two years ago at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, Eli Pariser and I took MySpace to task for censorship on their site.
We began dropping hints about an "Internet user's rights movement." The main goal? Internet users working together (like a union) to win input into things like the "terms of service" that big sites like MySpace were able to change on a whim -- the equivalent of one side changing a contract after both sides signed.
At the time, such a movement seemed far-fetched. But then, it got a little more real. In late 2007, Facebook responded to resistance to Beacon after news stories were generated around the world. This past month, Facebook responded to similar objections to their new terms of service.
Then, this Thursday, Facebook did something very bold: They offered "users around the world an unprecedented role in determining the future policies governing the service." Facebook deserves major credit for kicking off a month-long conversation about what users want, and potentially ushering in a new era of transparency and users' rights.
Hundreds of people have already given feedback to Facebook about the "10 Principles" they proposed to guide their site. Many of these principles look great.
But I'm starting FacebookOrganizing.com to draw attention to a principle that was left off Facebook's list -- or that at least needs to be made more explicit:
Principle #11 -- Organizing people around issues shall be encouraged. Barriers to Facebook organizing shall be taken down.
Facebook has the potential to revolutionize how citizens engage in democracy and organize around issues together. Indeed, Facebook has increasingly made democratic participation part of its identity, co-hosting a presidential debate in 2008. But too many barriers to online organizing have remained on Facebook for too long, and this new era of users' rights is the time to break these barriers down.
What are these barriers to organizing? There are many -- so many that this entire blog will be dedicated to exploring them. (I can't do it alone. If you've got good examples of barriers to Facebook organizing and want to begin a conversation about them by blogging on FacebookOrganizing.com, email facebookorganizing@gmail.com right away!)
But here are a couple obvious examples:
Facebook's willingness to invite feedback and increase transparency is a golden opportunity to have an honest conversation about the struggles that online organizers (who love Facebook in general) have when trying to use Facebook to organize people.
It's also a golden opportunity for Facebook to tell their side of the story -- perhaps there are perfectly good explanations for certain barriers, or solutions in the works that we just don't know about yet.
FacebookOrganizing.com will help foster the conversation around Facebook organizing, and hopefully move the ball forward in a constructive way.
(Please sign up on the right to join the Internet user's rights movement and to stay in the loop. And please email facebookorganizing@gmail.com if you'd like to write on FacebookOrganizing.com with your insights.)
Comments
Monetizing the tools
I wonder if Facebook would eliminate those "success penalties" if they could monetize groups/causes/etc by charging a nominal fee to message extremely large populations. I mean, how many other quality services can you use to freely email half a continent of people?
I get the hesitancy in adding unlimited messaging capabilities to a page. Look at it from a business point of view. Adding messaging to pages might effectively kill the ad engine that they have so closely tied to the page. Why buy ads if I can already freely message fans, who in turn will virally spread their "fan" status via profile updates wall posts?
Stop the Mass Blasting -- Talk to People
I share concerns about the lack of true democracy on FB and limits on friending and groups.
But it's duplicitous to suggest that evil Facebook does this because they wish to "punish success" or "squelch union organization."
No, it's just their servers on this *free service for which you pay nothing* are screaming in overload.
And they have a huge spamming problem, as anyone who has been on there more than casually can tell, like any social media service. If you wonder what it will be like to have every SEO Joe blast you notices, you should join some of the thousands-strong groups in Second Life or just stay on Twitter for five minutes to get the idea. HUGE problem.
I do have to ask: why all this...massness. What is this desperate greed and need to *broadcast the old fashion way like Lenin* to the masses? First of all, you could just use old-fashioned listserves, which would allow people to *gasp* talk back to all those would be message-blasters, and secondly of all, people could network in smaller and more substantive groups. They could GASP have representatives that in turn are in other top level groups without losing any of the authenticity and immediacy you want.
Why the huge need to unleash mobs? And why not just make relays? If you really have a substantive group that can sustain interest, make 100 and have relays. Talk to each other. Stop blasting memes.
Social media is not for broadcasting. It's for a conversation.
Twitter Has 2000 Limit
BTW, few seem to care about the exact same limits put on Twitter follows. While an unlimited number of people can follow you, you can't follow an unlimited number even if you are doing this manually and slowly over years as some have already. The cap is now set at 2000, and until your followers match your followees, you can't move up the ladder again, under a proportionate formula.
This unfairly rewards power tweeters on the Silicon Valley A-list like all your friends, who stocked up their friend inventories in the 20,000 and 60,000 by following every single person who followed them and frantically working the Public Time Line (which used to be accessible with one button click on the main interface).
Yes, we get there is spam, but the devs could be relying more on community block gestures and reporting and staff culling out of spammers.
Re:
which would allow people to *gasp* talk back to all those would be message-blasters, and secondly of all,(Graduate Diploma Program) people could network in smaller and more substantive groups.(online university) They could GASP have representatives that in turn are in other top level groups without losing any of the authenticity and immediacy you want.college degrees online
Facebook has the potential to
Facebook has the potential to revolutionize how citizens engage in democracy and organize around issues together. Indeed, Facebook has increasingly made democratic participation part of its identity, co-hosting a presidential debate in 2008. But too many barriers to online organizing have remained on Facebook for too long, and this new era of users' rights is the time to break these barriers down. Why is this all about Facebook recently? buy panic away and error smart guide.
I was completely unaware of
I was completely unaware of the whole Farack situation with his Obama group on facebook. What facebook did was completely wrong. Farack should not be penalized for this. In fact, he should have been awarded something for it. He not only help generate the buzz for Obama, but also help create the growth facebook experienced as a result of his group.
CG Wells
Elder Abuse Attorney | Increasing Elder Abuse Awareness - Report Elder Abuse
MUI Fatwakan Facebook
Sulumits Retsambew Dukung MUI Fatwakan Facebook