Monthly Archives: May 2010

Tech Tips From The Nonprofit Technology Conference

This article was first published on the Idealware Blog in May of 2010.

Last month, I reported on the first annual Tech Track, a series of sessions presented at the April, 2010 Nonprofit Technology Conference. In that post I listed the topics covered in the five session track. Today I want to discuss some of the answers that the group came up with.

Session 1: Working Without a Wire

This session covered wireless technologies, from cell phones to laptops. Some conclusions:

The state of wireless is still not 100%, but it’s better than it was last year and it’s still improving Major metropolitan areas are well covered; remote areas (like Wyoming) are not. There are alternatives, such as Satellite, but that still requires that your location be in unobstructed satellite range. All in all, we can’t assume that wireless access is a given, and the challenge is more about managing staff expectations than installing all of the wireless by ourselves. It will get there.
Wireless security options are improving. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), remote access solutions (such as Citrix, VNC andTerminal Services) are being provided for more devices and platforms, and the major smartphone companies are supporting enterprise features like remote device wipes.
Policy-wise, more orgs are moving to a module where staff buy their own smartphones and the companies reimburse a portion of the bill to cover business use. Some companies set strict password policies for accessing office content; others don’t.

Session 2: Proper Plumbing

This session was pitched as covering virtualization and other server room technologies, but when we quizzed the participants, virtualization was at the top of their list, so that’s what we focused on.

We established that virtualizing servers is a recommended practice. If you have a consultant recommending it and you don’t trust their recommendation, find another consultant and have them virtualize your systems, because the recommendation is a good one, but it’s a problem that you don’t trust your consultant!
The benefits of virtualization are numerous — reduced budgets, reduced carbon footprints, instant testing environments, 24/7 availability (if you can upgrade a copy of a server and then switch it back live, an advanced virtualization function).
There’s no need to rush it — it’s easier on the budget and the staff, as well as the environment, to replace standalone servers with virtualized ones as the hardware fails.
On the planning side, bigger networks do better by moving all of their data to a Storage Area Network (SAN) before virtualizing. This allows for even more flexibility and reduced costs, as servers are strictly operating systems with software and data is stored on fast, redundant disk arrays that can be accessed by any server, virtual or otherwise.

Session 3: Earth to Cloud

The cloud computing session focused a lot on comparisons. While the general concern is that hosting data with a third party is risky, is it any more risky than hosting it on our own systems? Which approach is more expensive? Which affords the most freedom to work with our data and integrate systems? How do we manage disaster recovery and business continuity in each scenario?

Security – Everyone is hackable, and Google and Salesforce have a lot more expertise in securing data systems than we do. So, from a “is your data safe?” perspective, it’s at least a wash. But if you have sensitive client data that needs to be protected from subpoenas, as well as or more than hackers, than you might be safer hosting your own systems.
Cost – We had no final answers; it will vary from vendor to vendor. But the cost calculation needs to figure in more than dollars spent — staff time managing systems is another big expense of technology.
Integration and Data Management – Systems don’t have to be in the same room to be integrated; they have to have robustAPIs. And internal systems can be just as locked as external if your contract with the vendor doesn’t give you full access and control over your data. This, again, was a wash.
Risk Management – There’s a definite risk involved if your outsourced host goes out of business. But there are advantages to being hosted, as many providers offer multiply-redundant systems. Google, in particular, writes every save on a Google Doc or GMail to two separate server farms on two different continents.
It all boils down to assessing the maturity of the vendors and negotiating contracts carefully, to cover all of the risks. Don’t sign up with the guy who hosts his servers from his basement; and have a detailed continuity plan in place should the vendor close up shop.
 If you’re a small org (15 staff or less), it’s almost a no-brainer that it will be more cost-effective and safer to host your email and data in the cloud, as opposed to running our own complex CRMs and Exchange servers. If you’re a large org, it might be much more complex, as larger enterprise apps sometimes depend on that Exchange server being in place. But, all in all, Cloud computing is a viable option that might be a good fit for you — check it out, thoroughly.

I’ll finish this thread up with one more post on budgeting and change management in the next few weeks.

How Google Can Kick Facebook’s Butt

This article was first published on the Idealware Blog in May of 2010.

infrastructures.png

(XKCD Cartoon by Randall Munroe)

Facebook really annoyed a lot of people with their recent, heavy-handed moves.  You can read about this all over the place, here are some good links about what they’ve done, what you should do and why it bothers some of us:

Facebook’s Announcement (from their Blog)

Understanding the Open Graph from Chris Messina

Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that internet privacy is “over” from Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb

Three Ways Facebook Will Dramatically Change Your Nonprofit (from John Hayden)

Why I Don’t “Like” Facebook and Void Rage: Unable To Muster Facebook Anger from Techcafeteria

Why You Shouldn’t Delete Your Facebook Account by Janet Fouts

Facebook and “Radical Transparency” (A Rant) by Danah Boyd

Long story short, though, Facebook wants us all to open up, and they want the web to be a place where you do things and report back to Facebook about them.  My take on this is that Im in favor of an open web that offers a rich, social experience with lots of referred information.  I don’t consider Facebook an acceptable platform or steward of that function.

Why Google?

As my colleague Johanna pointed out, there’s already an effort underway to develop a purely open alternative to Facebook. The Diaspora project has received significant funding and seems to be run by some very thoughtful, intelligent people.  But I look at this as a kind of David and Goliath proposition, with the rider that this Goliath won’t even blink if David hurls a rock at him.  If someone is going to displace Facebook, it’s not likely going to be a tiny startup with a couple of $100k.  It’s going to be Google.

You might ask me, isn;t this just trading one corporate overseer for another? And the answer is yes.  But Google’s guiding principle is “Don’t be Evil“. Facebook’s, apparently, is “milk your users for every penny their personal data can net you“.  If someone’s going to capitalize on my interactions with friends, family and the world, I’d rather it be the corporation that has demonstrated some ethics in their business decisions to the one that has almost blatantly said that they don’t care about their users.

Supplementing Buzz

So, how can Google play Indiana Jones to the rolling boulder that is Facebook? Not by just pushing Buzz.  I’ll get to Buzz in a minute, because I’m a fanboy of the platform.  But Buzz alone isn’t a Facebook killer, and Google won’t have a foothold unless they take a couple of their afterthought properties and push them front and center.

Big Google Product: GMail. Afterthought that supports it: Contacts.

Google needs to do some heavy re-imagining of their contact management app if they want to gain a foothold against Facebook. Facebook’s contact management is simple and elegant; Google’s looks like a web app that I might have developed.  They need to get some of the good UI people lurking among the geeks to do an overhaul, stat, adding features like social media site integration (ala Rapportive or Gist) and more ajaxy, seamless ways to create and manage people and groups.

Big Google Product: Buzz. Afterthought that supports it: Google Profiles.

Social networking is all about the profile; why doesn’t Google get that?  Buzz isn’t the home page; the profile is, and what Google has provided for us is cute, simplistic, and far too limited to meet our needs.  But the customization options for the current profile are limited, and the whole thing just feels lazy on Google’s part, as if they spent a half hour designing it and then dumped it on us.

Why Buzz Rocks

I’ve written about Buzz before; more to this point on my other blog.  Google Buzz supports about 90% of the basic features of a full-fledged blogging platform like WordPress or Blogger:

  • I can write a post with images.
  • Commenting, with some commenting moderation, is in place.
  • You can subscribe to my Buzz feed as an individual RSS feed, or just visit it on my profile.
  • But, unlike this blog, my Buzz posts are also subscribable in the Buzz news feed interface, like Twitter or Facebook, making it all the richer in terms of how people can reply and interact.  That’s pretty powerful.
  • Buzz supports groups (via Contacts) and private posts.
  • Google just announced (like, yesterday) an API that will allow people to develop apps that interact with and run on the Buzz platform.
  • And, of course, Buzz integrates right into my email, keeping it front and center, and convenient.

Tying It All Together

Google could make this a powerful alternative to Facebook by doing a few simple things:

  • Almost everyone I know who gave Buzz a try instantly ported in their Twitter feed and then forgot about it, leaving those of us who like Buzz left to sift through all of that stuff that, hey, we’ve already read, because we haven’t left Twitter. So, Google should lose the universal feed feature. Keep it about the value of the conversation, not the volume level.
  • But keep the Google Reader integration, along with link, picture and video posts.  A good blog comments on other web content, not other web feeds, and the integration of Google Reader as a content source works.  One reason it works is because you can post the Google Reader items with comments.
  • Make the profile page more configurable and dynamic, allowing users to add tabs and link them to RSS sources, much the way we add content to the sidebars of our blogs.  This is how my twitter feed should be integrated, not interspersed with my Buzz posts.
  • Make Contacts a tab on the profile page.
  • Add theming to the profile page.  Emulate the Blogger theming options.
  • I own a domain with my name on it, and I would point that domain to my profile page and make Buzz my blog if I had the ability to make that profile a page that I could call my own.

Conclusion

As much as I’d appreciate an open web, not a corporate owned one, I’m just not idealistic enough to believe that it’s still a possibility. If i have a choice of corporate overlords, I want the one that open sources most of their software; maintains high ethical standards for how their ads are displayed; has a track record of corporate philanthropy; and is relatively respectful of the fact that my friends and information belongs to me. That’s not Facebook. Please do weigh in on whether I’m too cynical or too trusting of the alternative, because this is an important topic. The future of the web depends on who we trust to steward our interactions.

Dr. Rand Paul, The First Sign Of The Apocalypse

I’ll happily give Kentucky’s Republican Senatorial candidate, Dr. Rand Paul, a pass and assume that he is no racist.  In fact, his objection to the portion of the civl rights act that denies businesses the right to discriminate based on race is very consistent with Libertarian views. The problem is that those Libertarian views are based on an idealistic world view that is so radical that electing them to high offices would be the first step towards armageddon.

In this MSNBC interview, Rachel Maddow tries to pin Paul to a yes or no on the question of whether he would support a modern-day F. W. Woolworth‘s right to refuse to serve blacks, and he dances around the question so deftly that you’d think he studied under Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, mostly by throwing his own red herring back by equating race-based discrimination with the right to bear arms.

I think Rachel missed the talking point.  The question is, if he takes the absolute Libertarian view that Government should not regulate private businesses, then is he saying that health inspection should be abolished? Zoning ordinances? Safety standards?  It seems so, as, early on in the segment, he’s quoted as saying that the ADA might have gone too far, and suggests that requiring that a business install an elevator for a disabled employee would be unnecessary if they just gave the employee a first floor office.

What is so surreal about the arc of the Tea Party from rage-filled yahoos upset that “the America they grew up in” wouldn’t have elected a black man President to their adoption of Libertarian, “government should keep it’s hands off of everything” ideals is that they are pushing this just as the world is reeling from disasters caused by lack of governmental regulation.  The financial crisis occurred as Federal regulators ignored people who were screaming at them that Bernie Maddow was running a pyramid scheme while the big banks were playing additional con games.  The gulf has just been traumatically infected by the largest oil disaster in history because the Mineral Management Service was too busy partying with the execs to regulate them.

The proof that people would suffer if government didn’t regulate private businesses is screaming from the front page headlines.  And Rand Paul, a guy whose more idealistic than any hippie ever was, has secured a senatorial nomination.

Techcafeteria Turns Five!

Today is the fifth anniversary of this blog, which was started on May 20, 2005.  Back then, it was on another website and not very well-defined. I’d say my purpose in starting it was pretty much “because I should be blogging”. After a year or two, though, I started to find my voice by discussing what I do: nonprofit technology. And then I registered Techcafeteria, the personal arm what I call my “extra curricular activities” beyond family and the day job.

Things didn’t really take off until the fall of 2008, when I stated blogging elsewhere. Many of the posts here are republished from the Idealware Blog, which I now run. Accordingly, the Techcafeteria-only posts tend to be housekeeping ones (like this one); way off of NPO technology topics (such as my more political and personal entries) and overflow, because, while I write regularly for Idealware, I find myself with more things to write about than would be appropriate to flood that blog with, at times. I’ve definitely hit my stride, and expect this to continue to be a steady source of content for some time to come. But, if all you really want is the technology stuff, and could care less about whether we homeschool or how I feel about civil rights, you might be happier subscribing to Idealware, which has the benefits of a stricter focus and nine additional excellent bloggers contributing.

Over the years, a handful of my posts have either gained notoriety or stood out in terms of synthesizing some of my key messages, so I thought I’d re-recommend them. Here’s my best of the first five years list:

  • Message to The Krazy.com Spammer – I occasionally write missives to people who will never read them. I’m particularly fond of this one, based entirely on a true story.
  • Schlock and Oh! Facebook’s Social Dysfunction – This is timely: My initial reaction to Facebook, after reluctantly signing up.  I’ve been bashing them since 2007.  (Take note, Jon Looper!)
  • The Lean, Green, Virtualized Machine – I took a stab at explaining the geeky concept of virtualization in relatively plain english, and I think I nailed it.
  • Why We Tweet – In case you were wondering.
  • The ROI On Flexibility – I consider this to be the best thing I’ve written, a synthesis of my philosophy on technology management and my standard rant against IT control freakishness.
  • Why Sharepoint Scares Me – I think I hit the corporate zeitgeist with a post that doesn’t slam Microsoft’s collaborative platform, but catalogs the things about it that might be difficult for nonprofits to deal with.
  • Why We Homeschool – Homeschooling gets a really bad rap, and, as parents who have determined, for good reasons, that it’s the right path for our kid, we deal with a lot of flack and misconceptions.
  • The Offensive Bardwell Defense – Keith Bardwell was a Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry interracial couples on the grounds that it was unfair “to the children”.  As is gay marriage.  As is any hatred-based viewpoint that a bigot desperately wants to justify and defend.  On a side note, I’m pretty sure that this is the article that spawned a ton of traffic from Sean Hannity’s website.  I hope it was educational for those visitors!
  • Why Geeks (Like Me) Promote Transparency – In order to obtain funding and improve effectiveness, NPOs are going to have to start managing and sharing their outcome data. This is a big theme of mine, and this post said it well.

It’s been a productive five years.  Here’s to the next five at Techcafeteria!

Void Rage: Unable to Muster Facebook Anger

Following is a guest post from Jon Loomer, offering a different perspective on Facebook’s privacy changes.

Jon Loomer’s career has evolved from overseeing Fantasy Basketball product, content, marketing and promotion for the National Basketball Association to his current position as VP of Strategic Marketing for a non-profit. His focus is on social media strategy, Facebook and mobile development. You can follow him on Twitter @JonLoomer or read his blog focused on the subject of baseball atTippingPitches.blogspot.com. The following opinions are his only and do not reflect those of his affiliations.

It took a few weeks, but internet rage over Facebook’s Like button and latest privacy ramifications is in full swing. Bloggers swinging at Facebook’s knee caps with aluminum bats seem to outnumber those who come to CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s defense 20:1. And if a blogger does post a defense, duck and cover as soon as you hit “publish” because the rage will bubble up from the comments section.

So when Peter asked me if I’d be interested in writing a guest post on his blog in defense of Facebook’s changes, I had mixed emotions. On one hand, I’m absolutely flattered that he’d ask. On the other, I’m uncomfortable taking a hugely unpopular stand. The position is so unpopular that it ventures into “controversial” territory. Can I post anonymously?

I’m not a controversial dude. And any controversial opinions I have, I tend to keep relatively private, restricted to my inner circle.

But here’s the irony: I share these “controversial” opinions on Facebook. And I only share them with a small group of friends by using lists. But to the outer circle, I’m a harmless guy without much flare for the dramatic.

You must be outraged!

I may avoid controversy, but Facebook feeds off of it. Everywhere I turn, I read another blog telling me how angry I should be with Facebook’s dangerous disregard for my privacy. And because of this, a small part of me is trying to convince the rest of me that I, too, need to be outraged. But I can’t conjure up the energy.

The Utility of Facebook
First a little background on me as a Facebook user. I’ve used Facebook since it rolled out to the non-student public in 2006. My company partnered with Facebook on an application for that initial launch. So I’ve been there from “the beginning.”

And I’ve also been there through a multitude of changes, some vertical and some lateral. No matter how major the changes were, they were controversial. And the uproars increased as the Facebook population screamed past 100, 200, 300 and 400 Million.

This undoubtedly has something to do with my lack of rage now. I’ve become numb to the anger. Whether it’s a Facebook change or any other controversial revelation, I try to remain level headed. Before I react negatively to Facebook’s changes in particular, I try them out for a while. Think about the end game and why they’d make the change. And when I read a rumor about how Facebook is going to charge a monthly fee, or that they allow pedophiles to access my profile, I research first.

While I haven’t agreed with every change Facebook has made, I still recognize that they have made gradual improvements over the course of the past four years that have resulted in a much better overall product. The navigation is vastly improved, and I have far greater control now over who sees what and when.

Sure, some things (name, profile photo, gender, current city, networks, friends, pages) are available to the public now. But these are not things that bother me. You could already pull up photos of my handsome mug (hereherehere and here) by running a Google search. I’d hope my gender is obvious. And although I did scale down my pages after they became publicly viewable, I am now comfortable sharing those interests with anyone who cares.

After that, I’ve always used my privacy settings. Status by status, link by link, photo by photo, I pick and choose my audience. There are times when I keep what I share to a small audience of “Good Friends.” There are others when I share with all of my friends, some of whom I don’t know. And still others, I’ll feel the need to share with “Everyone,” as in — shudder — everyone on the Internet.

But I also use Twitter. I maintain a blog. So there are certain things I’m used to sharing with everyone. And when I share with the world, I have a reason for doing so.

It’s because of this control that I find Facebook extremely useful. I can contact just about anyone from my 500+ connections in an instant. I can promote my blog or share my son’s lemonade stand to raise money for childhood cancer research. Or I can simply goof off casually with friends. But it’s all controlled.

I also control what it is that third party developers see and what my friends can share about me. Developers can access everything that is already available to the public (which isn’t a whole lot), and my friends can’t share much more than that about me either. So I leave enough available for most useful applications to work, but without giving away more than I am comfortable.

The New Features
So all that said, Facebook rolled out a few features recently that were said to impact my privacy. I personally found them to be brilliant. I knew there would be backlash (there always is), but I admit I didn’t expect anything at this scale.

The Like Button: This addition has essentially made millions of web pages an extension of Facebook. The collage of my friends’ faces acts as a welcome mat at the front door of sites that are new to me. My friend likes this? Let me check it out. My friend says I should go to this restaurant? Not a bad idea. These are things that I would have otherwise seen on Facebook, but now I see them at the source to provide more relevance.

Not only is the Like button good for me as a user, but it is also good for me from the business side — both on my blog (loosely defined as a business) and my organization’s web pages. I’ve quickly realized that users are much more inclined to click a Like button than go through the process of retweeting or even sharing through Facebook. It’s easy. It’s awesome.

Instant Personalization: Policies aside (we’ll get to this later), I love the idea. I can go to Pandora and immediately access music that I like or my friends like. I can go to Yelp and immediately find a restaurant that they recommend. There is so much to like here. It makes the web a warmer, more social, and more relevant place.

Updated Privacy Settings: This has caused a stir, but it really wasn’t a problem for me. As I mentioned before, I’ve always been on top of my privacy. So when the new privacy settings were rolled out, I took my time to make sure everything was set up the way I wanted. While some may claim that Facebook pulled a fast one on us, it’s not as if this was done discretely without you knowing. You were forced to go through the new settings and verify. Might it have been a bit overwhelming? Maybe. But if you care about your privacy like I do, it’s something you should understand.

Community Pages: This one has been run more on the down low because it is a beta product. Thousands of community pages have been created by Facebook and some general pages have been converted (often to the dismay of the administrator). Unlike the typical Facebook page, there is no admin control (at least for now) of the community page. It is, apparently, intended to be a wiki of some sort, with information fed by people’s content who like the page. It’s not clear yet what value, if any, these pages have, but the usage is likely to evolve.

The Confusion
Part of Facebook’s problem is that this new Facebook-centered web can be a bit startling at first. When you go to another website, you don’t expect to see a list of your Facebook friends who like something. You don’t expect a website you did not previously visit to know what you like and don’t like to make recommendations. But people need to simply look at the web as an extension of Facebook, particularly when using social plug-ins. Instead of viewing that your friend likes an ESPN article in your Facebook feed, you see it on ESPN.com. It’s not as if the world can see this information. What you see is different than what I see. And your privacy settings still apply, which may not be immediately obvious.

There is also confusion because there are very few blogs and articles being written on this subject that equally weigh the issue. Many make it seem as though all of our private content is at risk; that no matter how we adjust our privacy settings, everything is available to the world. They are biased towards negativity and rage because that’s what brings traffic. We are told to either delete our Facebook profiles or simply put them on lock-down, preventing everyone from seeing anything, disallowing instant personalization, and blocking as much information from third parties as possible.

The reality, at least as far as I can tell, is that the latest changes won’t harm you if you are already on top of your privacy settings and careful about what you share. But based on the media coverage, it would be easy for someone to overreact and go with the flock.

Show Me
This is my biggest problem with the outrage over Facebook’s changes: Almost everything I read is in abstract terms. Please, show me the danger of Facebook’s changes. You’ve probably seen this example of Facebook users who have told the world, knowingly or not, that they have cheated on a test. Well, I can do the same with Twitter users. What’s the point?

Maybe I should feel bad for people who unknowingly publish embarrassing information about themselves for the world to see, but I don’t. For many reasons.

First, let’s not fall for the claim that Facebook made this radical change from closed to open overnight. The latest change did allow search engine indexing of your public profile (if you kept the box checked to allow it) or of that information you shared with “everyone,” but keep in mind that the former definition of “everyone” was all users on Facebook. So you went from sharing embarrassing photos and information about yourself to 400 Million people to the entire world. Eh.

And again, Facebook forced us — all of us — to confirm our privacy settings. Did you ignore them? If you did, should I feel bad for you? Eh.

I understand that I don’t represent all Facebook users, and that’s a very good argument for anyone opposed to the changes. Most people do not spend the time refining their privacy. And many may simply be confused by the settings.

Still, if you’re confused, just restrict everything as much as possible. I keep seeing stats on number of settings and options, but if you just set everything to “Friends” (and your friends truly are your friends), you’ll be fine. Assuming, of course, you’re still careful about what you share.

Everyone needs their own global privacy policy, and this goes beyond Facebook. When you share, do so with the understanding that, even with the best possible settings, any friend can simply copy and paste your status; or save and repost your photo; or simply post a photo or story about something you did. No privacy settings can prevent stupid activity from being seen. It will eventually get out.

That said, I am leaving the door open slightly for the possibility that Facebook has given others far more access to my private life than I know. If this is the case, show me. Show me the application that could potentially harm me.

The Policies
While I enjoy using Facebook and am not in the “delete my profile” community, I admit that I’m not all that comfortable with the entire path that Facebook has taken. I enjoy the new features and am fine with the current privacy settings. However, I do think that they need to be better at communicating changes. They need to be better at communicating, from page to page, what is viewable and what isn’t. Go above and beyond to explain the user’s privacy. Smack them in the face with what audience they are sharing. While I do think Facebook has done a better job at communicating changes than they are given credit, they need to do more.

And I also agree that opt-ins instead of opt-outs are the best policy, particularly with a potentially controversial change. If you are so sure someone is going to want something, first make the compelling argument. Encourage them to check it. Show them what they’re missing if they don’t.

Even so, I firmly believe that putting too much focus on Facebook takes away the important focus on the user’s responsibility to do everything they can to protect themselves. As mentioned before, users needed to agree to each change. We need to be vigilant and understand the ramifications. And if you are too lazy to do the research to understand it, at the very least you need to be more careful about what you post.

How Facebook Can Get Out of this Mess
Just as I am not completely in Facebook’s corner on some of their policies, I also see ways for them to get out of this PR firestorm. While I don’t have much sympathy for the ignorant user, Facebook is still responsible for communicating that these are positive changes.

If I were Facebook, I’d do the following:

  • Put a My Privacy: Who Sees This? link on Community Page by “Related Posts by Friends”
  • Put a My Privacy: Who Sees This? link within social plug-ins, where feasible
  • Put a My Privacy: Who Sees This? link on “trusted third party” sites that implement instant personalization
  • Provide video and commentary explaining some of the changes, answering the criticisms, showing the user why the changes are good for them, and acknowledging that those changes are not for everyone, providing an easy explanation of how to protect themselves
  • Provide regular webinars or tours on features and use of lists to everyone, not just those with the proper page connections
  • Make Instant Personalization opt-in

The last item may be the trickiest since users have already technically opted in to instant personalization when they went through their new privacy settings for the first time. But considering this project is technically a pilot, there’s no need to automatically opt everyone in. Do what they did before. Bring up a box explaining what instant personalization is. Provide videos. Explain why it is good for them. Explain potential risks. Shoot down conspiracies. And then force the user to check the box if they want it.

In Conclusion
While I am not surprised by user backlash as a result of the most recent Facebook changes, I did not expect this level of outrage from mainstream media and technically savvy, intelligent people. With that in mind, it is important that we all do the following:

  • Research and understand the benefits and risks involved
  • Weigh those risks and benefits with the way that each person uses Facebook
  • Understand and actively utilize Facebook’s privacy settings
  • Establish a global “privacy setting,” understanding that if we are concerned about privacy we should always be careful about what we share

In the end, it’s personal. These changes are likely to affect me differently than they do you. Maybe Facebook is just too much of a hassle for you. Maybe Facebook does not offer enough benefit to you to actively manage a sometimes confusing control panel of privacy settings. Maybe you do have reason to be outraged. But I don’t believe this feeling is universal. We all need to rationally weigh the risks and benefits and decide what is best for us.