Opinion: On Facebook and privacy

Having now lived in Hong Kong for nine months, I have to say I have little interest in going back to Australia (sorry mum). In my mind, it’s the type of world science fiction writers dreamt of, a spaceship of the world’s people and a collision of cultures that you’d assemble if you intend to colonise a far distant planet. There is so much to enjoy about life in Hong Kong; except local TV, which try as I might, I just can’t watch.

Our family buys its content via Apple TV. On-demand, high-definition, high-quality programmes such as Breaking Bad, The Wire, Mad Men, and The Colbert Report all at US$2.99 an episode — and best thing of all is that they are advertisement free. Now that may sound like hypocrisy from someone who makes their living from targeted advertising and marketing, but I much prefer to watch shows about advertising, than the advertising itself. I choose the unsubsidised business model because I can. And everyone should have the freedom to choose whether they accept advertising in lieu of direct payment or not.

Facebook, which makes money through targeted advertising, has received a lot of bad press over the last year (some deserved) over its obfuscation of its privacy policy and the data it collects from users ‘without their consent’.  Automatically broadcasting to your entire friend network what you have just purchased (the short lived ‘Beacon’ feature) was pretty dumb.

As a result of public backlash and privacy lobby groups, the European Commission is now planning to stop Facebook from harvesting information from users’ activities to infer things such as political opinions, sexuality, religious beliefs and location. The information analysed and stored by Facebook goes beyond your personal details, and ''likes'' and ''dislikes''. It also gathers information about your friends, family and educational background, musical tastes and many other lifestyle attributes and behaviours.  The intended ban is being put in place to stop Facebook making this information available to advertisers, unless a user specifically opts-in to receive it.

As an email marketer working for the largest opt-in ESP in the world, you might think I would support this as a sensible regulation of Facebook. But I think the European Commission is going too far this time. The difference with Facebook (and it’s not a subtle one) is that it provides a service to consumers free of charge.

From the banal chat of bored teenagers through to mobilising free political expression in repressed regimes, Facebook provides a wide array of value to its 800 million users. This is not a charity, nor an open-source movement. It’s a commercial business that makes its money selling targeted advertising.

Yes, Facebook has to be transparent about the data it gathers and how it’s used.  Its track record in this domain is poor, and needs to improve. It has to improve the ease with which consumers can control what others see of their private information. As the custodian of this huge personal database, Facebook has an obligation to securely protect your data in order to keep your trust. But advertisers never see individual profiles, beliefs or lifestyles; only the aggregated statistics of audiences to whom they advertise. Advertisers don’t get access to individual or aggregated data.

The European Commission has no right to dictate Facebook’s business model. It’s a simple choice in my mind. Don’t expect Facebook to provide its service free of charge, if you’re not prepared to accept the advertising. Facebook is to social networking what Hulu is to IPTV; a free service subsidised by advertising. Perhaps there’s a market for a pay-per-month ad-free social network. But there is no free lunch.