computer and communication: facebook

There's been a lot of chatter in the tech press about Facebook's recent interface update, the backlash to it, and the partial retreat on some of the changes to the popular social-networking site. Among other complaints was the accusation that Facebook was trying to emulate Twitter. In fact, in some ways the new Facebook is less like Twitter. It displays some content non-chronologically, include comments, filtering, and multimedia. Tech news articles report that 1.7 million users have joined the group "Petition against the new Facebook" but fail to mention that that group was started in July 2008. The site actually polled its users, and Christopher Cox, the site's Director of Product, indicated on the site's official blog that the company would roll back some of the changes. Are the changes all wonderful? Hardly. But many bring much-needed improvements.


Here's what the post on Facebook's official blog says regarding three areas of particular urgency in re-redesigning Facebook.

* Live updating: One of the most common requests is the ability to see your stream update automatically. We will be adding the ability to turn on auto updating in the near future so you no longer need to refresh the page.
* Photo tags: In order to surface more photos you might like to see, we'll be adding photos tagged of your friends to the stream. This will happen in the coming weeks.
* More choices for applications: We've heard feedback that there is a lot of application content appearing in the stream. We will be giving you tools to control and reduce application content that your friends share into your stream.

The company has also promised to address (or already addressed) several other complaints. Those include making the right-column Highlights update more frequently, moving friend requests to the top of the same column (already done), and making Friend-list creation easier. The first doesn't make much sense to me, since the central panel is for the latest updates, while the side highlights are more for events, very popular videos, and the like that have a longer timeframe. The new left column already has an easier way to create friend lists, and it's more than welcome (though it oddly alphabetizes by first name).

I think a lot of the backlash grew from misunderstandings. Since long before this redesign, Facebook has employed an algorithm that decides what to show in the newsfeed. Even an Ars Technica reviewer mistakenly claims that before this latest redesign, users saw everything friends shared, which just isn't true. In fact, the latest redesign brings all friend activity into the feed: Before, my home page was about two pages deep. Now it's seven. Previously, users complained about the weeding out of content. Now, that there's no algorithm, I'd like to see some weeding out, and, clearly, others share my wish. Do I really need six separate consecutive entries from one person containing photo upload sets?

One misconception involves the news feed. A user I talked with complained that it's no longer chronological, which clearly isn't the case—each entry in the feed includes a relative time indication, such as "13 minutes ago" or "2 hours ago." Most likely, the upset user was thinking of the new Highlights column, which isn't in chronological order. I actually like this change, though, because it brings up more content that users previously wouldn't have seen in their main feed—for example, photos or videos that a lot of Friends have commented on, invitations, and other less-immediate content. One problem with this new space, though, is there's no way to delete an item you don't care about.

I'm also dubious about the allegation that Facebook is trying to emulate the much-hyped Twitter, which claims a paltry 7 million users compared with Facebook's 175 million. Personally, I welcome Facebook's filtering capability (not to be confused with the deceased feed-weed algorithm) that lets you reduce the high noise-to-signal ratio of Twitter. In any case, the two services fulfill different purposes: Twitter is meant to be one person publishing to the world, and Facebook exists to keep a mutually agreed-upon group of friends apprised of each others' doings.

That said, I can see how users would look at the prominence now given to the update box on the home page as an emulation of Twitter. Facebook also got rid of the "User name is" before the entry box, making the service look more like Twitter. But previously, users were often puzzled about the need to speak of themselves in the third person. I also like how the icons for adding Links, Photos, Videos, Music, and apps slide open only after you click in the update box, for a less cluttered look. And since most people go to their home page more often than their own profile page, it makes sense having the updater on the home page.
Read mOre Guys...

Do you hate the new Facebook?

You're not alone, but is there a safe way to roll back the latest update and use the old Facebook? And on a site with more than 175 million users, do protests from less than a million of those users really warrant any action?

Facebook started rolling out revamped homepages earlier this month. Homepage tabs were cut in favor of combined status updates and news feed activities, while "highlights" from friends' profiles were put in a separate section on the right-hand side.

Some said the changes made Facebook look more like Twitter, a notion that Facebook denied.

But is there a way back to the promise land of "old" Facebook? Amidst the grumpy status updates from angry Facebook users, blogs reports surfaced this week that with a few clicks of your mouse, new Facebook would be gone forever.

An allfacebook.com post, for example, pointed to a Facebook group called "I WILL SHOW YOU HOW TO GET THE OLD FACEBOOK BACK!" The group provided a detailed work-around that would allegedly restore the old Facebook template.

Some of the comments, however, were from 2008, suggesting that the group was actually created for the last Facebook revamp in summer 2008. Other more recent posts said they were too lazy to go through all the steps, while others wondered if the solution was simply malicious software.


Though it was available earlier this morning, it appears that that group has since been deleted. Most of the other "Give us back old Facebook"-type groups only contain petitions or requests for boycotts rather than technological solutions.

Facebook did not respond to questions about whether there was a safe way to restore the old profiles, or whether users were any more outraged over this revamp than the last.

Reports surfaced yesterday that 94 percent of Facebook users were unhappy with the change. The data stemmed from a poll app created by a Facebook user that asked users to rate the changes via thumbs up or thumbs down. As of 4 P.M. Eastern time, the thumbs-down corner had 981,142 votes, while the thumbs up category had 60,363 votes.

That may be 94 percent of users who voted, but among the 175 million total Facebook users, are these people activists for the Internet age or just whiny users who can't handle change?


And what are people so worked up about? The most cited problem appears to be the revamped news feed, which users say is too confusing and omits valuable gossip.

"I miss being able to get more than status updates on the news feed," Lisa wrote.

"I liked the old home page layout. It was easier to tell the difference between types of posts. Everything was listed by time and easy to tell the difference between types (in case I wanted to skim over status updates and just read wall posts, notes, and videos)," wrote an anonymous user.

"Mixed reaction here, I like how it is easy to post web pages and easier to control some of your friends content," Mike wrote. "The bad is the stupid applications take up too much of the newsfeed."

Dissention in the ranks is nothing new when it comes to Facebook overhauls. The social networking site revamped the site last summer, introducing tabbed profiles, streamlining what people saw on the newsfeed, and integrating Wall posts, status updates, and any other activity into a single stream on peoples' pages.

For that update, Facebook did a phased transition- allowing users to retain their old profiles until September. But people were just as annoyed with the changes then as they are now, suggesting that regardless of what Facebook does, there will also be those who hate it and feel the need to join a group and vocalize their anger.

Last time, however, users did not have the option of putting up the changes to a vote. Last month, Facebook introduced its new "democratic" process, which lets users vote on Facebook changes that have a lot of feedback from users.

If a particular topic garners more than 7,000 user comments, users will be given the opportunity to vote on the issue. A vote will be binding if more than 30 percent of all active registered users vote.

No word on whether the redesign will go up for a vote. The issue could likely gather at least 7,000 user comments, but can it get 30 percent--or 52.5 million--of its users to vote on it? Stay tuned.
Read mOre Guys...

Facebook is doing something unheard of, announcing at a press conference on Thursday that it is giving its users the right to weigh in on changes to its policies and Terms of Service (ToS), in effect creating what some have called a virtual "Bill of Rights."

You probably remember the massive explosion that happened when Facebook modified its Terms of Service (ToS) such that it implied Facebook owned all your content, forever. They eventually backed down, reverting to the prior ToS, but the damage was done.

Out of that fiasco has come a new initiative, though, one never before seen. In their press release, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook said:


"As people share more information on services like Facebook, a new relationship is created between Internet companies and the people they serve. The past week reminded us that users feel a real sense of ownership over Facebook itself, not just the information they share.

"Companies like ours need to develop new models of governance. Rather than simply reissue a new Terms of Use, the changes we’re announcing today are designed to open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future."

Nicely, Facebook even had a privacy advocate chime in on their press release. In fact, no less than Simon Davies, Director of Privacy International.

"This is an unprecedented action. No other company has made such a bold move towards transparency and democratization. The devil will be in the detail but, overall, we applaud these positive steps and think they foreshadow the future of web 2.0. We hope Facebook will realize these extraordinary commitments through concrete action and we challenge the rest of the industry to exceed them."

Here is the list of the Proposed Facebook Principles:

1. Freedom to Share and Connect

People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want, in any medium and any format, and have the right to connect online with anyone – any person, organization or service – as long as they both consent to the connection.

2. Ownership and Control of Information

People should own their information. They should have the freedom to share it with anyone they want and take it with them anywhere they want, including removing it from the Facebook Service. People should have the freedom to decide with whom they will share their information, and to set privacy controls to protect those choices. Those controls, however, are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it, particularly outside the Facebook Service.

3. Free Flow of Information

People should have the freedom to access all of the information made available to them by others. People should also have practical tools that make it easy, quick, and efficient to share and access this information.

4. Fundamental Equality

Every Person – whether individual, advertiser, developer, organization, or other entity – should have representation and access to distribution and information within the Facebook Service, regardless of the Person’s primary activity. There should be a single set of principles, rights, and responsibilities that should apply to all People using the Facebook Service.

5. Social Value

People should have the freedom to build trust and reputation through their identity and connections, and should not have their presence on the Facebook Service removed for reasons other than those described in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

6. Open Platforms and Standards

People should have programmatic interfaces for sharing and accessing the information available to them. The specifications for these interfaces should be published and made available and accessible to everyone.

7. Fundamental Service

People should be able to use Facebook for free to establish a presence, connect with others, and share information with them. Every Person should be able to use the Facebook Service regardless of his or her level of participation or contribution.

8. Common Welfare

The rights and responsibilities of Facebook and the People that use it should be described in a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which should not be inconsistent with these Principles.

9. Transparent Process

Facebook should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations. Facebook should have a town hall process of notice and comment and a system of voting to encourage input and discourse on amendments to these Principles or to the Rights and Responsibilities.

10. One World

The Facebook Service should transcend geographic and national boundaries and be available to everyone in the world.

Facebook is planning virtual town halls to discuss their new policies. They are also going to create a user council to address matters in the future. At the same time, there's also a group where you can comment. It's called Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

Finally, voting on the The Facebook Principles and the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (formerly their ToS) will only be available for users who were active by Feb. 25th, 2009. Likely they will use the same formula going forward; you will have to be active prior to the posting of an initiative to vote. At least 30% of eligible users must participate for the vote to be valid.

Facebook has summarized the feedback received at the group so far here:

"Forever" won’t work: Facebook’s use of our content has to have clear limits.

* If I do not wish any of my content to be used for commercial purposes, or submitted to 3rd parties, I should be able to select this in my Privacy settings. Also, I should always be informed what 3rd parties my content is sent to.

* Facebook’s use of my content should be subject to an easy-to-understand license, like Creative Commons, which lets me maintain ownership and control.

* If I post or upload any piece of content to Facebook, their license to use that content should expire the moment I delete it. If I close my account, all of my content should be deleted off of Facebook’s network.

Opt-in only: Facebook can't just change the terms whenever they want.

* If Facebook updates its Terms of Use, it should be done in a way that’s open, obvious and highly visible to everyone. Post it at the top of the site and/or send an e-mail... updating a blog on an obscure part of the website doesn't work.

* Users should be notified of changes to the ToU ahead of time, so they can decide whether they want to continue to use Facebook or to close their account.

* If Facebook really wants to test user response to any new policy changes, they should submit them to a vote before implementation.

Write it in English: No legalese (or Latin!) please.

* Facebook’s previous Terms of Service included highly technical legal language and even Latin. This needs to be changed. I’m not sure what "forum non conveniens" means and I shouldn’t have to.

That last complaint though is fairly typical. Everyone uses legalese. If Facebook truly follows through on this, it will be a new day in the ToS world.
Read mOre Guys...

Just in time for the weekend, social networks Facebook and MySpace were dealing with several new security issues on Friday that could expose personal information and communications from friends.



This screenshot shows the notification that popped up with the latest rogue Facebook application.

(Credit: Trend Micro)

Facebook said it had removed a new rogue application that was spamming users and exposing their information. Before it was halted, the application sent messages claiming that a friend had reported the recipient for violating Facebook's terms of service and offered a link to click to find out more information.

Users who clicked on the link were providing the app access to their profile and personal information as well as unknowingly forwarding the message on to everyone in their Facebook contact list, according to Graham Cluley's blog for Sophos.

"Our team disabled this application for violating the Facebook Developer Terms of Service," Facebook spokesman Simon Axten said in an e-mail. "Some additional versions of it have sprung up, and we've disabled these as well. We're actively monitoring the site for others and are working to block the application completely."

Cluley said Facebook should do more to prevent such rogue applications from spreading in the first place than just shutting them down on an isolated basis.

"One of the problems is that Facebook allows anybody to write an application, and third-party applications are not vetted before they are made available to the public. So, even as Facebook stamps out one malignant application, it can pop up in another place like a poisoned mushroom with a different name," Cluley wrote.

"It sounds like this could be a new favoured trick being used by spammers and identity thieves to build up their databases of intended targets," he wrote. "My advice to Facebook users is to think very carefully before adding any new applications."

The problem prompted a Facebook user to create a Facebook group for victims of the scam, noted Trend Micro in its anti-malware blog.

The rogue app surfaced less than a week after the spread of a similar app dubbed "Error Check System" that falsely warned users that their friends were having problems viewing their profiles.

"Surely these two events in just a single week mean that it's about time that Facebook reviews its application hosting policy," the Trend Micro blog said.

What that quote suggests is akin to saying, 'there have been two robberies, we need to implement martial law in the city,'" said Facebook spokesman Axten. He noted that there are more than 660,000 developers and the "vast majority" of Facebook applications are not "nefarious."

The company makes it easy to be a Facebook developer--asking only for a valid e-mail address to get an application key--to foster innovation, and has a dedicated Developer Operations team that investigates applications that show "anomalous activity," Axten said.

"In this case, we responded quickly to user reports and disabled the application before too many people were affected," he said.

Meanwhile, over at MySpace, a spokeswoman said the company fixed a vulnerability on Friday that enabled strangers to view MySpace users' private comments. As with the other privacy holes that have been reported on, someone would have to know the exact URL and insert the correct user ID to exploit the weakness.
Read mOre Guys...