Today, as mere formality, Facebook’s VP of Communications and Public Policy Ellliot Schrage made it official. Facebook has officially chosen to adopt the proposed changes to its policies.

“While participation in the vote was minimal, this experience illustrated the clear value of our notice and comment process. Your substantive feedback on our proposals during the seven-day comment period, along with discussions with our global regulators, resulted in clarifications and revisions to those proposals. For example, we added new language to clarify our proposed updates on sharing information with our affiliates and our privacy controls. After considering these factors, we have decided to adopt the proposed updates to our SRR and Data Use Policy.” he said in a Governance note.

The final tally was 589,141 against the changes and 79,731 for. That’s a total of 668,872 total votes, or less than 1% of the total Facebook users base. The results would have been binding if 30% of Facebook users would have participated.

Schrage says that Facebook did their part to inform users of the vote, a statement which will see no argument here. It turns out that users simply aren’t that interested in policy changes or keeping their ability to vote intact.

“We made substantial efforts to inform our users and encourage them to vote, both through emails and their news feeds. Despite these efforts and widespread media coverage, less than one percent of our user community of more than one billion participated. As stated in both policies, the results are advisory unless more than 30% of users vote”

As mentioned before, this is merely a formal announcement from Facebook, as we all knew what the results were going to be from day one. Facebook says they will attempt to solicit even more user feedback on proposed policy changes, and “explore and implement new, innovative and effective ways to enhance this process in order to maximize user engagement.” But the vote is now dead. Now, we can move on.

Voting is over in Facebook’s third (and final) Site Governance vote. With just under 700,000 votes cast, Facebook users overwhelmingly voted against proposed changes to Facebook’s SSR and Data Use policies, as well as the decision to remove the current voting system for site governance. But in the end, the turnout was simply too low for it to matter.

It’s not like we expected a different outcome. We knew that users would vote against the changes, and we knew that the vote would not receive enough participation to make itself binding. With the current (soon to be dismantled) Site Governance Vote structure, 30% of Facebook’s 1 billion+ users would have had to vote in order to make Facebook act on the will of the user base. Since somewhere around 0.7% voted this past week, the results are simply advisory. Of course, advisory means that Facebook can simply ignore them.

We knew all of this because Facebook’s “democratic” Site Governance vote was set up to fail. The structure simply doesn’t allow for success. It’s not a lack of promotion on Facebook’s end that makes it this way. Another way of saying that is to say that Facebook isn’t trying to hide the vote. They sent out emails to every registered user reminding them to cast their vote. They allowed users to share the fact that they voted with their friends from inside the Site Governance Voting app. They made several public blog posts on the topic, which linked users to additional information on the changes to the policies.

But mobilizing over 300 million people to vote on something that is pretty much immaterial to their daily lives is a task, to put it lightly. Previous Site Governance votes generated 665,000 and 342,000 votes, respectively – and this third and final vote eclipsed those numbers. But despite a record turnout, we still needed over 299 million more users to vote in order to give the vote meaning – which is virtually impossible (and always was). The early pace of participation hinted that the turnout would top one million – but it obviously slowed down in the final days.

Where do we go from here? Facebook will still solicit user feedback on future policy changes. They’re going to hold Q&A sessions with policy people and may end up involving users in the process more than they ever have. But the vote will be gone. The vote that 99% of Facebook users didn’t care about enough to make a few clicks.

So, most people won’t miss the vote. The vote never really meant anything, anyway. Plus, Facebook had a point when they said that the vote triggering mechanism (7,000 comments) was outdated and ripe for manipulation.

But in the end, we can say that Facebook successfully eliminated voting that doesn’t matter with a vote that didn’t matter. Now, let’s move on.

Yesterday we told you that most Facebook users were voting against the proposed changes to Facebook policy, which include additions to the SSR and Data Use policies, as well as the abolishment of the current voting system. We also told you that it doesn’t really matter, as there’s no way that enough people will vote to make the results binding. Facebook requires that 30% of the member base (roughly 300 million, currently) vote, otherwise the results are simply advisory. And in this case, “advisory” simply means Facebook gets to do what they want and push the new policies through.

The last Site Governance vote, which took place in June, saw 342,632 participants. By 3pm ET today, the number of participants on the current vote had already topped 300,000 – and it’s only day three. Facebook users have until December 10th at 3pm ET to cast their vote. So if the participation rate stays roughly the same, just over 1 million users will end up taking the time to vote.

As you can see, the users that have already voted are overwhelmingly voting no:

Although the vote is on pace to best the previous level of participation by over 200%, it will still only account for around 1% of all Facebook users.

Facebook is sending out emails to all of its members reminding them of the vote, but barring some sort of Stanford band-level miracle, this will be the last time that Facebook users will ever be able to vote on proposed policy changes.

Like previous Site Governance votes, Facebook is letting users weigh in on proposed changes to the site’s governing documents. The big difference this time is that Facebook is also letting users weigh in on whether or not this should be the last time they get to vote on these types of changes. Facebook wants to get rid of the roughly three-year-old system that allows users to trigger a vote on policy changes with a comment threshold, saying that the site has “outgrown” the system.

Have you participated in a Facebook Site Governance vote? Do you even care? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Apart from the voting mechanism, Facebook wants to change their policy on sharing data with affiliates, as well as Facebook Messages and data visibility on users’ Timelines (for more on those policy changes, check here). As expected, the early vote looks to swing hard toward “nay” on these changes. But with Facebook’s current Site Governance voting structure, users simply have no real chance in affecting the company’s policy.

That’s where Facebook and its users can agree: the voting system is flawed and the site has most definitely outgrown it. From Facebook’s point of view, the 7,000 comment threshold designed to trigger a vote lends itself to manipulation by over-zealous privacy advocates. And they’re right – it’s happened before. The last Site Governance vote back in June was triggered in large part by the efforts by a privacy group called Europe v. Facebook, who flooded the policy proposals with comments to force the vote.

That vote saw a whopping .038% participation rate from Facebook users. Because of the low turnout, Facebook was able to push the proposed policy changes through even though a majority of users voted against them.

And that’s the other reason why the current voting system is broken. Once a vote is triggered, users have about a week to cast their vote. Facebook then requires that 30% of the active user base vote in order for the results of said vote to be binding. If fewer than 30% vote, the results are merely “advisory.” Read: Facebook can ignore them altogether.

Since Facebook has over 1 billion MAUs, that means that over 300,000,000 users would have to vote in order for Facebook to be held to the will of the user base. Last vote saw 342,632 participants. I’m sure you see the problem here.

That’s why it’s incredibly unlikely that the current Site Governance vote, no matter how it turns out, will be a binding mandate from the people. There’s just not enough interest in the process. As it stands, Facebook’s voting system is too easy to manipulate and so demanding as to render it worthless.

In June, when the vote received such a low participation rate, Facebook defended their 30% threshold, saying,

“We made significant efforts to make voting easy and accessible – including translating the documents and voting application into several of the world’s most popular languages and providing extensive notice through users’ news feeds and desktop and mobile advertisements. There has also been widespread media attention and coverage of our notice and comment and voting process.”

At the time, Facebook said that they would “review the process to determine how to maximize our ability to promote user engagement and participation in our site governance process in the future.” And as we now know, that review led to the conclusion that the whole thing be scrapped in favor of a more involved user feedback program for proposed policy changes.

That brings us the the current vote, in progress. After nearly a day of voting, users are overwhelmingly against the new policies. Here’s what the vote looks like right now:

Although 58,000 votes in less than 24 hours seems like a lot of interest, you have to realize just how small of a chunk of the entire user base it really is. Considering Facebook has 1 billion active users, the current tally represents .0058% of all users. That has to somehow make its way to 30% by December 10th. I think it’s safe to say that it’s highly unlikely, if not impossible.

So, Facebook’s new privacy changes and the abolition of the voting process will go through as planned. While the current voting system is obviously worthless, I don’t think that a voting system is worthless. One that made it harder to trigger a vote, but easier to make that vote binding sounds like a pretty good option – at least to try. In reality, generating enough interest in something like a Site Governance vote would always be a difficult venture. But eliminating the vote entirely is sure to piss people off.

The only problem is that it’s not going to piss off nearly enough people for it to matter.

What do you think? Should Facebook get rid of the voting mechanism for proposed policy changes? What kind of system do you think would work best? How could the company prevent manipulation but allow users to have their voice heard? Let us know in the comments.

A couple of weeks ago, Facebook announced that they wished to eliminate the current process of voting on proposed governance and policy changes. They claimed to have “outgrown” the system, which triggers a vote on any change if a 7,000-comment threshold is reached. In lieu of this voting system, Facebook has suggested open dialogue sessions and Q&As with privacy officers.

The 7,000-comment threshold was quickly hit on this post, which triggered the vote that begins today. So yes, users now get to vote on whether or not to strip themselves of the right to vote.

“Some of you were concerned that by ending the vote mechanism, you were losing your ability to shape the policies that govern Facebook. To be clear, our goal in modifying our site governance process is to make sure that we receive feedback from you in the best, most productive way possible so that we can be responsive to your input. Many of you provided us with ideas on how we could continue to meet that goal. You pointed out that our decision to update the process gives us an opportunity to innovate and search for new and better ways to enhance participation. We agree and will incorporate your suggestions into creating new tools that enhance communication on Facebook about privacy and governance,” says Facebook in an explanation of changes posted today.

Other than the voting mechanism, this current Site Governance vote covers data sharing with affiliates, changes to Facebook Messages, and changes to data availability with regards to the Timeline. You can check out Facebook’s explanation of these policy changes here.

To vote, held on over to the Governance Voting app. In order for a vote to be binding, 30% of Facebook users have to participate. That’s roughly 300 million users. If fewer than 30% turn out to vote, the results are simply “advisory,” meaning Facebook can do what they want. considering a whopping 342,632 users (.038%) voted in the last Site Governance vote, it’s safe to say that these changes will probably be pushed through in a week’s time.

You have until December 10th at noon PT to cast your vote.

We took to the Twitterverse to see what is being said today about the changes. Will anyone even notice?

>>> Check out WebProNews’ special page covering Google Privacy … updated live. Subscribe to the Google Privacy RSS feed too!

Here’s the announcement…

And, the reaction…

Does America need a federal privacy law? Share your thoughts.

Advocates of the bill say it would enforce protection for consumers’ digital data and would also limit how large companies collect and utilize information. Those who oppose it believe that it would have a negative impact on the future development of the Web.

“The reality is, I don’t think we’ve yet determined that there is a clear market failure or harm that needs to be addressed through preemptive, prophylactic forms of regulation such as the McCain/Kerry bill,” said Adam Thierer.

Thierer is a senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He believes that a “hands off the Internet” policy is a better approach for the Web.

Up to this point, the U.S. has relied on a model that lets users work out problems in the marketplace through experimentation. Other countries, however, have extensive privacy regulations that govern their information flow.

Thierer, and others that oppose the bill, believe it would create an “information control regime.” He also pointed out that there are tools already available that ensure for the same privacy measures that the bill would enforce on a federal level.

“An important thing that’s often overlooked in this debate is how few people actually really care enough to actually do these sorts of things… that’s not a market failure, it’s just a choice consumers have made,” he said.

Supporters of this “privacy bill of rights,” as this bill is being called, believe it should include a measure that stops companies from tracking online actions. Incidentally, Congresswoman Jackie Speier introduced the Do Not Track Me Online Act of 2011, which specifically covers online data collection.

Just as opponents to the “Do Not Track” bill believed that it would harm the online advertising industry, opponents to the McCain/Kerry bill believe it would have a similar impact. Many of the free services that consumers use daily are possible because of online advertising. If advertising were limited, companies would likely have to charge for services such as email and social networks.

“What is it that powers the Internet? It’s information and advertising,” said Thierer.

One further issue that opponents bring up is the fact that this bill could lead to more regulation for the Internet.

“Where we begin with certain types of rules and regulations is not where we always end,” he added.

Interestingly, Microsoft, eBay, HP, and Intel have all voiced approval for the bill. What’s even more intriguing is that Google and Facebook, who are both mega influencers, did not join this tech group of supporters.

Do you believe in a “hands off the Internet” approach, or do you think the McCain/Kerry privacy law would be beneficial?

Do I sound upset? I am. You see I have a child that loves Facebook. Because I am involved in the industry I have been able to lock down my child’s profile to the best of my ability. The friends of my child though now have lists of other kids that are on display for everyone to see. That everyone includes those with good intentions and those that see the new Facebook ‘privacy’ as a pervert’s WalMart SuperCenter of data to carry out their deviant needs. Over reaction? When it comes to the safety of a child be it mine or anyone else’s there are no over reactions.

So how does Facebook suggest you move forward? According to a TechCrunch report one option is to violate the Facebook’s own ‘voted on’ terms of service.

At least, that’s what Barry Schnitt, Facebook’s Director of Corporate Communications and Public Policy, told the Wall Street Journal in an article this evening. From the story:

Facebook also made public formerly private info such as profile pictures, gender, current city and the friends list. (Mr. Schnitt suggests that users are free to lie about their hometown or take down their profile picture to protect their privacy; in response to users’ complaints, the friends list can now be restricted to be viewed only by friends).

Back to my real life example, the WSJ article makes the point

But those who want a private experience on Facebook will have to work harder at it: if you inadvertently post a comment on a friend’s profile page that has been opened to the public, your comment will be public too.

Now you have to police whether your friends are private with their profiles if you say something to them that you would rather not have broadcast. This could get complicated quickly. So complicated, in fact, that some may throw their hands up and just walk away.

As for the ‘lie to protect’ policy. Mr. Schnitt backpedaled fast in an attempt to avoid a media snit about his intentions.

I think WSJ is paraphrasing. What I said is profile picture and current city are optional. You don’t have to include a profile picture or you can include a picture of your dog or anything you like. Similarly, you don’t have to indicate your current city or you can indicate that your current city is “Atlantis”, “Valhalla” or, again, anything you like. We hope people will use accurate information if they are comfortable doing so because that information helps them to be found by their friends, which is part of the point of joining the site.

So let’s sum this up. Facebook puts a default ‘privacy’ policy in place that is private in name only. They claim that 50% of the users have already made changes to their privacy profiles (which is difficult to believe but I will give the benefit of the doubt). That only leaves about 175 million people walking around with their Facebook kimono wide open to the world.

Is there anything good coming out of this? Is the need to have real time data and marketing information worth the risk of being ‘wide open’ with your data? Of course, there is the option to not be involved at all which is a valid argument. If that were the case though, and a lot of people walked away, then just how valuable does that Facebook data become when it only represents a certain kind of user? Is this the start of Facebook’s move to a MySpace type of case study in what not to do to stay on top of the social media world?

So your thoughts are welcome and desired. Be warned: We expect you will tell the truth but what’s a few lies between friends?

Comments

Image via CrunchBase

I took last week off, and it was a big week for Facebook watchers. Facebook decided to change its terms of service, putting its millions of users on notice that Facebook owns their data and isn’t planning any opt-out mechanism. Now, to many observers, including Chris Brogan and me, it’s not news that free Web services own the data posted to them, but this Facebook announcement caused a firestorm, and Facebook backed off before the week was out. Watching this play out caused me to realize why Facebook is dumber than Google.

So, Mark Zuckerberg, you probably aren’t listening to me, but I have some advice: Stop being so damn innovative on privacy.

If you are able to learn anything from Google, you should learn from Google’s strategy on privacy. They actually go out of their way not to blaze trails. Google’s strategy seems to be to watch and see what is accepted and what creates firestorms (they’ve been watching you at Facebook carefully). Google wants to be a follower on privacy and learn from what others do.

Google needs to act this way, because they are so large. They are too big to experiment with privacy, which is the third rail of Internet marketing. Mark, you’re too big to do it, either.

I know that you still think of yourselves as an upstart. You wish you has a tenth of the resources and profits of Google. You think you’re still an underdog. But the public doesn’t see it that way. The public thinks you are a big fish–a huge player.

So, stop experimenting with privacy and start letting others do the testing. You can then follow along once the public tells you what they’ll accept and what they won’t. Google rarely gets pilloried for privacy missteps, even though they have control of loads of information. Figure out how to slowly and quietly do what’s acceptable rather than constantly testing the boundaries.

Comments

Google Wrestles With EU Privacy Discussion

Google wants to handle the privacy question as well as it can, the company noted in the wake of a recent discussion held in Brussels. The answers to that question have been a challenge to find.

A number of countries, which Google counts as three out of every four, do not have established privacy rules. Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, said on the company’s Public Policy blog, “Google will identify and abide by the highest common denominator of privacy protection, even though in practice it’s not always easy to know what that standard is.”

There are points of difference between what Google sees as effective for privacy versus the European Union’s perception. Alexander Alvaro, who sits on the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament, would prefer Google delete query data after 18 months. Google wants to keep that data, but anonymize it after that period.

The debate on privacy will continue, given the myriad existing standards, proposals, and needs of an entire globe of countries. Google does have it right in noting that without consumer trust in the Internet, it will be hard for their business to thrive.