More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ari Melber

GET UPDATES FROM Ari Melber

New Feature Puts the Stalking in Facebook-Stalking (Video)

Posted: 08/19/10 09:44 PM ET

Facebook is more than a social network. It's the most popular website on earth outside of search engines, and increasingly, it acts as the most important unifying grid where young Americans connect with each other and access information. So when the site launches a new feature automatically enrolling its 500 million active members in an elaborate geographic surveillance program, it's kind of a big deal.

I could try to explain how Facebook's new Places program puts the stalking in "Facebook-stalking" -- a once-hyperbolic bit of Internet slang that has now caught up with reality -- but the company launched its own creepy video to share the innovation (below).

The short version is that it's like FourSquare, a site that enables people to "check in" to locations and see if their friends are nearby. Well, it's like FourSquare if FourSquare forced you to join without telling you, and allowed other people to broadcast your location without your consent. Like so many other Facebook "innovations," this program looks like a bait-and-switch from the site's original offering (or promise) to users.

"Like most great new ideas from social media networks," notes blogger Cindy Casares, "you're already signed up for Places and you have already given your permission for your friends to tag you if they see you out at some place where they've checked in." According to the Facebook commercial, "now we have an opportunity to connect these two people who are just separated by a few yards or a few blocks and allow them to have a serendipitous meeting," a prospect that is "really exciting and cool."  While guiding readers on how to opt-out, Casares disagreed:

No, Facebook. It's not 'exciting and cool.' It's annoying and creepy. If we wanted to connect with that person, we'd call them or text them or Facebook email them or any of the other 9 million ways we have of getting a hold of people we actually want knowing where we are. Also, you know what it's called when you're out on your own and someone you know is nearby and not knowing that you're around? It's called living your life.

Many of the pat responses to this kind of problem don't cut it, either.

"Quit Facebook," says some of the older set, when dropping Facebook today is like getting an unlisted telephone number. (It's an option, yes, but most people can't afford to be that hard to find.)

"Just opt out," say many techies, without acknowledging how that solution discriminates against millions of users who don't even know the what (or the how) of the issue. (I opted out this morning, h/t ValleyWag.) 

Facebook has become a powerful utility, and as I argued in The Nation three years ago, it should be regulated accordingly, with disclosure and transparency requirements that warn users about their exposure in advance, and a default opt-in program for new features that impact their privacy and security.  And that goes for all new features, not just the stalkerish ones.

Ari Melber is a correspondent for The Nation, where this piece was first published.
 
 
 

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:49 PM on 09/04/2010
This is a rewrite of this article, and I find something curious and distressing. Something is being misrepresented, unless you made an error. Kristen Stewart has been added to the paragraph talking about how Rob Pattinson's movie did very well on his name only, being a movie with a serious theme, and how the $55M showing was very good on a $16M budget. Am good with Pattinson and Ephron commentary, it all jives with the "they are true stars" for the reasons you note.

But Stewart, why added now--his movie was same time frame as Pattinson's. And The Runaways (TR) doesn't fit the bill. That is, movie did not do well (compared to budget-it made $3.5M on $10 budget!), it DID have an attractive theme (rock biopic). And it did not do well on the star's name. As a matter of fact, after being heavily promoted as a Kristen Stewart film, the distributor decided to not continue with a wide release because Stewart did not "put butts in seats." Simple as that. So please, give credit where credit is due and not where it isn't.

I have nothing against Stewart, unless her PR firm is behind this rewrite and total omission of the final $result for the film. You reference a link "let's compare" to New Moon blockbuster, but no where do you post $3.5 million. This is deceptive & I ask that you correct this article. Or remove TR as the poor example it is.
10:03 AM on 08/23/2010
Thank you for the article and link to instructions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:03 AM on 08/23/2010
"Opt-in" should be the default for everything online... God forbid people have to read disclosure statements and actually understand how these sites use this information. Willfully ignorant is no way to go through life (online).
photo
SemperVeritas
Truth be told
08:44 PM on 08/22/2010
Most people can't afford to be "that hard to find"??

Oh come on. There are a million ways to find a person.
Google is one. Whitepages is another. Linkedin, still
another.

Facebook is not required.
12:41 PM on 08/22/2010
Watching the video is kinda funny. Here is a bunch of geeks who think this is such a great idea! If a person want to let their friends know where they are it is easy enough without some ridiculous application on facebook. The facebook people need to continuosly come up with more crap for their website and people seem to go for it. I am amazed at how many users sign up for their crappy time wasting games etc. Facebook users- get a life!!
12:34 PM on 08/21/2010
No need for this bizarre feature, that's portrayed as some " friendly favor" to all.
04:34 PM on 08/20/2010
If you don't already know where your friends are hanging out then that probably means they don't want you to be there, or that they aren't your friends.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
michael j norton
07:14 AM on 08/20/2010
I don't use the facebook page I have. In fact I check it about twice a month. Other than that, when I found out that any picture I placed on facebook automatically gave them the copyright on it, I decided not to link it to anything else. It's easy people. Just stay informed and make your decisions based on preference. While I don't think most people can't afford to be disconnected from facebook (after all, in reality I am), I do think it's a good idea to regulate facebook since it seems so willing to invade privacy. Twitter is semi-stalker friendly but unless you tell people where you are, you won't be found. This thing about linking people without consent is indeed creepy.
11:22 PM on 08/19/2010
Nobody reads disclosures or privacy notices. it's presented and then immediately accepted.
09:27 PM on 08/19/2010
""Quit Facebook," says some of the older set, when dropping Facebook today is like getting an unlisted telephone number. (It's an option, yes, but most people can't afford to be that hard to find.)"

Mr. Melber, IMHO you wildly overestimate the importance of Facebook. A very few people can't afford to be that hard to find. Most people use Facebook for utter nonsense.