Nathaniel Perez

It’s like every bit of digital good news these days comes with a grain of  “privacy watchdog” salt. Recent privacy hurdles have set back some really great innovation at Google, namely with Goggles and Buzz. And as if that wasn’t enough, now one of the greatest announcement and advance in Social Media of the decade (Facebook Open Graph) is about to be dissected under a Federal privacy microscope. But this time, it’s Facebook we’re talking about, and it really makes me wonder.

What’s privacy in 2010?

Reality check. It’s year 2010 and our lives have gone digital. We no longer think much of the lasting implications of every digital imprint we make every day. Every word, every like, every Flickr photo, every comment, tweet, blog post, digg, rsvp, check-in is like indelible ink that marks our “digital me” canvas for-almost-ever. But we want it, don’t we? We crave this hyper-connectedness which allows us to enjoy social, human relationships at the speed of light. It’s almost like being teens again and talking to 20 different friends every single day. But this time, it’s super-efficient, easy, natural and fast. Yeah, we want it…

I’m a Gen-Xer with some seriously adopted digital habits. So I think I know much about privacy and what we Gen-Xers have learned to protect and give up in order to enjoy digital life over the years. We’ve gone from mix tapes to Pandora. From 8mm film reels to YouTube. From 8-tracks to iPods. From vinyls to iTunes. Sharing is our game, and we’ve done it through the years. From high speed dubbing to Tweeting that streaming song. We so vividly understand the power of digital enablement that we’ve decided that the benefits are totally worth giving up a bit (or a lot) of our privacy. In fact, the enjoyment we get has dramatically changed what we consider private.

So what is privacy in 2010? Who can answer this? From what generation is she? We’ve been culturally shifted and blended through digital and pervasive technologies. We need our communication, our own way,  and we sometimes don’t care at what cost anymore. We, the users, have “opted in”. We understand that digital isn’t private, no matter how you slice it. We also understand that if we want privacy, we can always turn our phones off or just stay out of social networks. It’s plain and simple.

My privacy, my way, please don’t touch it.

I can opt in, I can opt out. So what’s the problem? Why do they want to protect me from myself? Am I self-endangered? Maybe what regulators need to do is treat Social Media like tobacco or alcohol, and spend their efforts trying to get the world to “Tweet responsibly”. I’m afraid that trying to dissect any aspect of social media to rule in the favor of privacy could really set us socialites (and marketers) way back. It’s a scary thought in a technology optimistic and recovering economy. So while this is surely just political fancy, I’d say that regulators should focus on empowering consumers to more clearly opt-in to giving up their privacy to social media. Surely most already understand this and as for the others, it will give them one last chance to “stay out”.

Are regulators fit for the task?

A quick look at those behind the Facebook rebuke and their social network engagement. NY Senator Charles Schumer, who wrote the letter asking the FTC to develop guidelines for how Facebookers’ information can be used, reveals a Twitter account, @ChuckSchumer, with 2,702 followers, only following 3, with a whopping single tweet stating “Just joined Twitter!”, dated November 19, 2008. Sen. Schumer’s Facebook page (found here) sports almost 5,600 fans but quickly deceives with 9 posts since 2008. His Flickr feed has 373 pictures of his political visits. His MySpace page shows 12 friends (including Tom). Finally, his YouTube channel shows 25,000+ total upload views in 2 years, which I guess is not bad.  Attending Schumer’s press conference was Sen. Al Franken (@alfranken). Franken is quite  more impressive, with a team tweeting on his behalf and using Hootsuite, a 59,000+ fan Facebook page and a very active blog.

I’ll spare you /content/view/2/3/”>cialis 2.5 the entire team’s details only to make this point. What is most scary about this rebuke is that regardless of the team members’ widely varying proficiency with social media, all seem to misunderstand the Facebook changes, rushing at an opportunity to protect 2.2 million Facebook protesters who also don’t have a clue. Everyone seems to think Facebook has just decided to give everyone’s data away. Sen. Franken’s blog states that protesters  “are standing up against the new Facebook application that now takes user information and shares it with outside websites”. He adds: “To say suddenly everything you’ve ever written on Facebook is suddenly going to be ours to send, sell, is not, to me isn’t kosher.” Clearly, there is confusion. And I hope this is only going to be a simple education process. Facebook users are entirely in control of what they share, what is seen and what can show up on the new Facebook social plugins. To be clear, the plugins actually do not share ANY data with third party sites. That is still (as it was) under a user authorization process.

Regulators should focus on deeper issues

In the future, what regulators might need is a task force which will more actively focus on emerging and social media, trying to enhance the opportunities that technology brings to the economic table in a more serious way. In my opinion, the recent FTC regulation on blogger disclosure as well as the recent Ann Taylor investigation fail to address the inherent challenges brands face in trying to forge authentic relationships with “willing” consumers.

There are so many more important issues to tackle at the heart of social media than disclosure. Take user generated content and misappropriation of name or likeness, for example. As brands try to “humanize” themselves, they are prevented from acting like humans by traditional media regulation which cripples their ability to engage in social media without fear of constant legal backlash. Consider how many brands have posted photography of live events on social network feeds without soliciting permission from every single subject in those pictures. What many brands currently do out there today is entirely based on risk and reward, engaging in activities that some may consider illegal while others view them as a harmless risk. The reality is that consumers want brands to be human and therefore regulation in social media should help foster authentic relationships, not challenge them. I’m not sure what it is, if anything, that blogger disclosure solves. In fact, a Harvard Law Review report considered the regulation unconstitutional.

Consumer’s in control. Brands need a break.

I’ll end by saying that the consumer is more than ever in control. While consumers have an endless array of options in front of them to experience brands and media exactly the way they want, brands have also come a long way and under a lot of scrutiny. The social opportunity is real and a step towards more privacy is a step in the wrong direction. I’d say brands need a break for a change, not /content/view/2/3/”>cialis 2.5 consumers. The rules need to be adapted to promote this new age of transparency of communication. And to all you Open Graph naysayers, please go read all the wonderful blog posts and learn to understand that you can only benefit from this, unless of course you turn it all off, which is a choice you can make.