Facebook CEO Zuckerberg Admits Mistakes

This article I read recently sheds some light on the behind the scenes thought process at Facebook’s HQ. Facebook’s Chief Executive, Mark Zuckerberg, is no doubt one of the most successful .com entrepreneurs in the history of the internet. In class we have repeatedly discussed the shadier side of Facebook, such as its fine print stating that it owns anything a user uploads, or its controversial advertising scheme, Beacon, which displayed information on users shopping habits without any option to opt-out (initially). Zuckerberg recently revealed his thoughts regarding some of the failed features that the company tried to introduce. On Beacon, Zuckerberg stated "We probably got a little bit ahead of ourselves; we came across as knowing more than we really knew.” It’s refreshing to hear the CEO of a multi-billion dollar internet enterprise come clean with the failed attempt to implement what Zuckerberg, prior to Beacon’s launch, referred to as setting the standard for the advertising industry. He also discussed his thoughts on the inability to opt out of the system, "Almost all of the mistakes we made, we didn't give people enough control, we need to give people complete control over their information. The more control and the more granular the control, the more info people will share and the more we will be able to achieve our goals.” Zuckerberg’s ability to speak openly about his company’s missteps impressed me; to me it displays his resiliency and his capability to evolve his company according to the response of its users. These traits are no doubt essential to any .com enterprise in these days.

Should cyberspace have its own courts?

This is an issue which will be growing in its necessity to receive attention as the world's markets begin to blend together thanks to internet commerce. The author's experience with PayPal is no doubt an indication that the entities which exert a major influence on internet commerce (electronic payment institutions like PayPal) will have to continually revise their policies as the nature of what's "tangible" evolves. The example Julian Dibbell gives to the PayPal employee is a good example of how technology is changing the meaning. A football ticket is tangible, surely, but the experience of witnessing such a sport is just that, an experience, certainly not tangible. And yet, as the PayPal dialog displays, major institutions have yet to evolve where policies are formed with consistent logic all across the board. Personally, I don't think there needs to be a governing body for the internet. I'm a proponent of deregulation, and I believe that competition amongst electronic payment institutions (although rare for PayPal) will eventually be the stimulus needed to craft acceptable policies. If one particular institution does not cover an individual's needs, then he/she should have the option to use another carry which may. An online court system just doesn't seem necessary at this point.

Copyright Laws and Google

First of all, there's no doubt in my mind that the United States' system of using copyright laws to protect intellectual property is simply outdated in the age of the Internet. Never before has information flowed so incredibly fast that an entire book can be transferred as a .pdf in less than a minute. Google's controversial book project seeks to allow users to search for a string of text contained within the contents of an entire book, and allow limited viewing of the piece if the work is still contained in the private domain. The controversy lies in Google's inclusion of snippets of copyrighted work, presented in a user's relevant search results. Google claims that the inclusion of these snippets falls under the legal category of "fair use", implying that the work is scholarly in nature and therefore permission is not needed from the respective authors. As far as this is concerned, I agree with Google. As long as Google Inc. is not making ad revenue based on generating traffic via copyrighted snippets, it indeed should be deemed a scholarly project and not subject to scrutiny. Certainly, this will not be enough for some authors (and most publishers), as they will seek to squeeze every bit of profit out of their projects. The delegation of authors and publishers is facing an uphill battle; the inevitable reality of technology increasing to the point where intellectual property laws are no longer relevant is a very real one. If Google gives up on its project (unlikely given the large amount of capital invested so far), there will no doubt be another party willing to host the material. Google needs to find a way to please all of the parties involved, without resorting to settling in court over every single instance. One way could be to utilize Google's advertisement system, giving the publishers a percentage of the revenue derived from specific copyrighted pieces.

Facebook

It is true that Facebook is enjoying mega-success by appealing to the interpersonal relationships formed by people in real life and in cyberspace. Its niche University market has exploded wide open, offering accounts to anyone who is willing to agree to the privacy policy (I admit, like most privacy policies, I skipped over Facebook's). Tom Hodgkinson's article on why he despises Facebook brought some new information to light; specifically the philosophy and intentions of the key financial backers such as Thiel. Hodgkinson's claims are partially grounded in truth; Facebook is the most evolved form of capitalism currently available. Advertising partners must be truly excited to be a part of Facebook, as they can target consumers with precision and accuracy never before seen on any other medium. It seems that Facebook & co. were so excited that they foolishly misjudged their actions and implemented the Beacon system without warning. My girlfriend was affected by this.. after purchasing a pair of shoes on Zappos.com, the Beacon system set up a space on her profile showing the whole Facebook world exactly what shoes she had just ordered, without ever so much as even notifying her this would happen, let alone offering the option to opt-out. Although legally, Facebook is entitled to do this (read the privacy policy), this was a very poor decision. Think about how many holiday surprises were ruined by Facebook.. for example if a guy buys $100 furry Ugg boots, they clearly are intended for a ladyfriend (who is now aware of his purchase). The fact that Facebook never let its users know the extent to which the system monitors users activities is really frightening.