After three long years, Facebook has gone too far. The site has broken a lot of hearts this week and “Facebook is Creepy” global groups aren’t enough to mend them.

First, let’s analyze the “creepy factor.” As Facebook representatives stated in their blog, all of the information that now bombards our homepages has always been available for public consumption. No one can see anything about you that they couldn’t have searched for before. The only difference is that all of that existing information is helpfully compiled on one page.

The current outrage stems from our generation’s complex attitudes about privacy.

The case of BadJocks.com is instructive. The owner of BadJocks essentially patrols Webshots searching for photos of college athletes and their exploits. While the students in question post their photos in a public forum, some find the mission of BadJocks invasive.

The Facebook News Feed and BadJocks emphasize the difference between something being publicly available and something being publicly announced.

To appreciate the difference, consider this extreme example: In 2001, a Texas judge ordered 21 registered sex offenders to post signs in their front lawns. While the information was public record, the results were disastrous. The New York Times reported that “one of the offenders attempted suicide, two were evicted from their homes, several had their property vandalized, one offender’s father had his life threatened” and many civil rights activists cried “cruel and unusual punishment.”

People don’t want to be force-fed particular details about the lives of others, and vice versa. This is why the sex offender signs, BadJocks.com, and now the Facebook changes all evoke such strong reactions.

Clearly, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg overlooked the case of New Coke. Coca-Cola’s 1985 formula change backfired as customers clamored for the return of their beloved, familiar drink. While taste tests revealed a preference for the new version, the company misunderstood the brand’s emotional appeal. Similarly, while the changes to Facebook might be convenient, the emotional reaction to the information overload discounts any benefit.

Coke consumers succeeded in boycotting their way to the return of Coke Classic. But when you’re not directly paying for a service, how can you force a change?

Unfortunately, the few dozen groups and petitions that have arisen on Facebook itself will have little effect on Mark and the gang. The critical factor for them is advertising dollars. Creating, joining and maintaining these groups only inflates page views, which ironically keeps the ad revenues flowing.

Broken Hearts Club? (seaofclouds.com)

Jilted Facebookers have two key options. The first is to go above Zuckerberg’s head and address letters to Microsoft. In exchange for a share of Facebook’s profits, Microsoft now provides all advertising on the site.

The second option is to simply vote with your feet and deactivate immediately. If you’re no longer a member of Facebook, you can’t be tempted to browse and contribute to ad revenues.

By continuing to log on after the News Feed addition, you’re telling Facebook “it’s complicated.” By deactivating completely, you’re saying that it’s really quite simple: get it together or it’s over for good.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 7th, 2006 at 10:50 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.