Finally, Fearless Frictionless Sharing on Facebook

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Ever since Facebook debuted “frictionless sharing” last year, this practice of apps such as the Washington Post Social Reader or Socialcam posting your activity on your Wall without asking your permission each time has produced waves of annoyanceprivacy concerns, and even requests for the feds to ban it. There’s also evidence that Facebook users are rebelling against them.

On Thursday, a company that enables sharing on a number of social networks is introducing a tool for publishers of all kinds to enable frictionless sharing on Facebook in particular, but in a way that may ease many people’s concerns. ShareThis, one of several companies that aggregate share buttons on many websites, including Forbes.com, is debuting ShareNow. The tool lets publishers enable automatic sharing on Facebook without having to build their own social reader like the Washington Post’s, for example.

In beta test mode for now, the ShareNow button will sit on the left side of the page on each website that enables it, showing an on/off button that indicates whether continuous sharing is on or not. Readers can turn it off for stories they don’t want to share and then turn it back on for others. Also, if they change their mind on something they shared, they can delete that share on their Facebook Timeline, again with a click to “undo.” …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

About these ads

Facebook to Debut Ad Exchange in Bid to Boost Revenues

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Facebook will debut an advertising exchange in the next few weeks that will help advertisers target audiences on the social network in the same way they’ve been able to do elsewhere on the Web. That may help Facebook boost its revenues to counter worries by investors, who have knocked its stock down nearly 30% from its initial public offering last month.

The exchange will allow a select group of ad tech companies called Demand-Side Platforms, or DSPs, which gather pools of target audiences that advertisers can reach instantly through automated buying systems, to get access to such audiences on Facebook, according to spokesperson Annie Ta. They haven’t been able to do that before because Facebook only allowed them to target ads using its own data on posts or brands that users Liked or shared, or on information about themselves that the revealed in their Facebook profiles.

Using what’s known as real-time bidding on the Facebook Exchange, a travel site, for instance, could target an ad on Facebook for a discounted air ticket to Hawaii to people who searched for a Hawaii flight but didn’t buy a ticket, or an ad for a Honolulu hotel room to someone who did buy a ticket.

The main advantage for advertisers is simply being able to reach people when they are on Facebook the same way they reach them when they are surfing the rest of the Web. That’s potentially huge, because Facebook boasts nearly a billion active monthly users, who spend hours a month on the site. No longer will those hours be lost to advertisers. What’s more, recent browsing data may be more of an indication of intent to purchase a product or service than stated interests or Likes–or at least advertisers may think so–so the ads may be more successful than some of the targeting currently available on Facebook.

For Facebook, the move is likely to raise the amount it can charge for its nearly limitless ad space, which is widely believed to command relatively low rates. It’s not clear how much this will boost its revenues, but if the resulting targeted ads prove more relevant to users, prices should rise as advertisers will be willing to bid more for the space.

As AllThingD’s Peter Kafka points out, this is not the ad network that Facebook has long been rumored to be considering. That would run Facebook ads on other websites, like Google does with its lucrative AdSense network. But Facebook has steadfastly said it has no near-term plans for an ad network.

Of course, the more relevant those ads are, the more they could raise more privacy concerns for Facebook: Too relevant, and people might get creeped out. They can opt out of this targeting, but not through Facebook–only through the DSPs, which can be difficult to do. However, these ads also will sport the little “X” that lets you get rid of an ad, and clicking on it will send you to information that directs you to the DSP’s website to opt out.  Facebook itself won’t be building user profiles based on the exchange.

Read the complete post on The New Persuaders.

You Are the Ad: Digging Into Facebook’s Advertising Strategy

When I first  started looking closely at Facebook’s booming advertising business for an article that just appeared in MIT’s Technology Review, I was soon struck by an apparent disconnect. The social networking juggernaut clearly is gunning for big brand advertisers, hoping they will view its 600 million-plus audience as the next big ad opportunity beyond television.

Yet it appears that most of the ads on Facebook are actually from either small businesses or no-longer-small businesses (but not traditional brands) such as social games maker Zynga and daily deal service Groupon. What’s more, those ads seem more aimed at eliciting a direct response such as an email registration or a purchase on another Web site than they are aimed at branding, which is intended to implant a brand into consumers’ minds that might get triggered later when they’re ready to buy something. And between Google’s search ads and a gazillion display ad networks, online direct-response advertising is already a wee bit crowded–even if Facebook’s massive database of personal info holds a lot of appeal for targeting likely prospects.

In other words, it looks like most advertisers on Facebook aren’t yet using its ad platform for the very purpose it’s designed for: branding. Of course, it’s tough to complain about a company whose ad revenues are doubling, to an estimated $4 billion this year. But if Facebook is to fulfill the huge expectations of its investors, who are valuing Facebook at around $65 billion (give or take $10 billion or $15 billion depending on who’s counting), it needs to do more than provide just another way to drive a direct sale. It needs to capture–or create–a market out of the vast majority of ad spending overall that’s aimed at branding.

One way to do that is providing what Facebook has been doggedly pitching to Madison Avenue for years: ads with a social component, such as its recently introduced Sponsored Stories, in which people’s stated “likes” for a product or brand are turned into ads. These essentially are word-of-mouth marketing on steroids. David Fischer, Facebook’s vice president of advertising and global operations, lays out this possibility in detail in an interview I’ll post here shortly. Suffice to say, there’s certainly potential for brands to divert a significant portion of their television and print ad budgets–and a few are starting–but for a lot of brands and their agencies, that’s still on the come. For now, they seem more enamored of Facebook marketing tools such as Likes and Pages–which are free.

Another strategy is to create a new advertising market, as Google did with its search advertising. Search ads enabled very small businesses, as well as those with just an online presence, to place effective direct-response ads for a global audience for the first time. Likewise, Facebook could open up brand advertising to the business masses in a way no medium has yet done. That’s something Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg makes a good case for in my interview with her. Depending on how you define branding vs. direct-response, this may already constitute a good bit of Facebook’s advertising.

Either way, I came away understanding why investors seem so enamored of the company’s potential–but also why many people in the advertising business aren’t yet ready to place all their chips on Facebook.

Facebook’s New Messaging System: All Your Messages Will Belong to Us

Facebook is set to announce this morning what many people believe is an email system that might go up against Gmail and other Web mail services. Other folks are not so sure a head-on assault on standard Web mail is a great idea, or even a likely one. In fact, CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Robert Scoble that it’s not really email as we think of it, which isn’t surprising. Facebook clearly has the social DNA and the technical chops to add its own wrinkles. Not least, it certainy has the financial resources to do almost whatever it wants–or, perhaps, the financial imperative to fulfill the almost ridiculous expectations by shareholders, even if they are technically private. But we’ll find out shortly.

UPDATE: This is not a new email system per se, though clearly Facebook would like to see it subsume email in coming years–and for that matter, subsume pretty much all your communications (which worries some people). Instead, it’s Facebook’s attempt to 1) help people organize their conversations among various communications systems–email, Facebook messaging, SMS and chat–into single threads; and 2) help people view only messages from close contacts by default, although there will be separate folders for messages from other contacts and for apparent spam. The new messaging system will be by invite-only at first but roll out widely over the next few months.

My quick take before getting a chance to try it out (which I will shortly, thanks to a fast invite from Facebook): This is not a revolutionary product out the gate, and you won’t want to dump your email accounts yet, if ever. Many details remain to be worked out, from how it will work with non-Facebook members to how well it sorts messages in the various ways promised–which is why it’s not rolling out to every Facebook member yet. And like any product offered up by a Web powerhouse, whether it be Facebook or Google, we’ll have to see whether the data and potentially privacy we give up is worth the value. But offering a way to bring together various communications methods in one place–and organize them automatically by conversation thread, as well as by which are likely to be most important to you–seems like a smart move if Facebook can pull it off in a smooth way. That will be the trick.

Here are my liveblogged notes, with some of the highlights in bold. And here’s Facebook’s blog post on the new messaging system, which sums it up thusly: See the Messages that Matter.

And we’re underway. Continue reading

Live from Facebook: The New New Privacy Controls

After enduring weeks of criticism over new privacy controls announced at its recent developer conference, Facebook today is announcing new, simpler privacy controls for its leading social network service. The company, whose latest changes that opened up more information sharing took many users by surprise, has promised they will be much simpler. Expectations are high, not least in Washington D.C., where Facebook executives under fire by Congress members will try to persuade them they’re on the right track.

I’m at Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto for a press briefing on the details. I’ll liveblog the details here. But first, here are the basics from Facebook’s fact sheet:

* Completely redesigned the privacy settings page to be much more simple.

* Created one control for content. A new simple control makes it easy to share on Facebook with friends, friends of friends or everyone—all with just one click. The corresponding settings are immediately applied and displayed in an easy-to-understand grid. At the same time, Facebook has maintained its more granular settings for those who want to customize their level of sharing. These settings now all appear on a single page for easier access.

* Significantly reduced the amount of information that is always visible to everyone. Friends and Pages (your connections) can now be restricted to anyone you want. To help people recognize you, your name, profile picture, networks, and gender are always open to everyone (though half of these you don’t need to add).

* Given you more control over how applications and websites access your information. Now you can completely turn off Facebook Platform applications and websites, which means that your information will not be shared with applications. We also made it very simple to turn off instant personalization. You can ensure that your information is not shared with current or future instant personalization applications by un-checking the box to “Enable instant personalization.”

* Get a better understanding of how you like to share on Facebook. The new presets help us understand the overall privacy level you’re comfortable with for the things you share. As we roll out new products, we want to apply the right setting for you at the outset—eliminating the need for you to check your setting each time a new feature is introduced. We’re committed to carrying over your presets for new products that facilitate sharing. So, if you choose the “Friends Only” preset for “Sharing on Facebook”, new products that have privacy settings will be automatically set to “Friends Only” as well.

These changes will roll out over the next couple of weeks.

OK, we’re getting underway with an intro by public policy chief Elliott Schrage, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg queued up at the side of the room. Here’s his blog post. You can also find the press release here and a fact sheet here, along with the new privacy guide and screenshots.

And now Zuckerberg is up:

“It’s been a pretty intense few weeks for us,” he says with evident understatement. “Our teams internally have been cranking on what we’re going to show you today for a couple of weeks.”

“People want to stay connected with their family and friends. We believe that people want to share information, and they’re best able to do that when they have control… a good safe environment.”

More background on Facebook’s philosophy and recent changes. Mostly he’s providing reasons for why Facebook has gradually opened up information sharing, and how doing that through features like regional networks and groups got to be unwieldy, exposing more information to more people than users expected. Thus the much more granular privacy controls, broadly creating three categories with changes made last December: friends, friends of friends, and everyone.

And finally after that long wind-up, he’s moving up to today. “We really need to simplify the controls. A lot of what we were trying to do got lost in the shuffle.”

The No. 1 thing we’ve heard: The settings have gotten complex (that’s for sure). Original idea was to give people more granular controls, which will remain. But because of that complexity, “you don’t actually feel you have control over your information.”

Now, sharing will be controlled with one simple control; it will apply to all content retroactively; and it will apply to new products going forward, so you don’t have to decide proactively every time.

So the new Choose Your Privacy Settings page has a simpler template for choosing what info can be seen by friends, friends of friends, or everyone. There’s also a link to go more granular if you choose.

On to the basic directory information by which people find you on Facebook: There will be less publicly available info. And on the platform broadly: There will be full opt-out for all applications (though it’s not opt-in, which will continue to bother privacy advocates). There’s also easy opt-out for instant personalization. And there will be granular (detailed) ways to control info sharing.

“We really want to make sure we communicate this stuff clearly.” So Facebook also has revamped the privacy guide. There also will be a message at the top of your home page in the next week to send people to this new guide.

Any kudos or complaints can be sent to Facebook at this link: http://www.facebook.com/privacyfeedback.

And now on to the press questions. First one, no surprise, is from Robert Scoble: “I’m having a problem with trust”–yes, that’s the key more than privacy itself, I think. “What’s your approach to regaining that trust” given all the criticized privacy changes:

Zuckerberg: “We always listen. … The privacy concerns are very important.” But he says there is no evidence large numbers of people are leaving Facebook, despite a number of high-profile bloggers doing so. Second, he says something called the “net promoter” score, which measures the extent to which users get others to join, often goes down after policy changes but then rises even higher than before after some time.

“We really do think about the trust issues. I take that really seriously.”

Question from the Washington Post: To what extent did concern of regulators play into the new changes? And how are advertisers and partners responding?

Zuckerberg:  They did have input. Had conversations with the senators who expressed concern. But the leading indicator is the number of people using the service, because that represents the actual users. He also says the worries that more open info disclosure will mean intrusions by advertisers is completely wrong. But I’m not really following his line of reasoning, to be honest.

Question from a French journalist: Why not offer complete privacy by default?

Zuckerberg: Because the service itself is intended for people to share information. The site has never worked in a way that when you sign up you only can connect with your existing friends. That’s not really why people are on the service. (Which is true–why join Facebook at all if you don’t want to share anything with anybody? But I think there’s a desire by at least some to have more private groups of friends.)

Question from Australian journalist, who says authorities there are complaining about the greater disclosure of info on Facebook.

Zuckerberg: That’s not what users have told us what they want. They want to share information. That’s one thing we think is changing in the world. (Perhaps true, but not for everybody, and those people want better controls.)

Question from Liz Gannes of Gigaom: Have you seen more negative feedback with this latest round of changes (before today)?

Zuckerberg: Changes in the news feed policy several years ago was actually the biggest protest.

Question from Ben Parr of Mashable: How are you going to avoid backlashes in the future?

Zuckerberg: We did this wave of change (in privacy settings). Maybe we should have gone a bit slower. Maybe we should have communicated a bit clearer. But… privacy by far is the most sensitive thing. … Response might have been a lot worse if we dragged them out over six months. “One of the big takeaways is just don’t mess with the privacy stuff for a long time.”

Question from Wired.com: Do people realize that “everyone” in the privacy settings means “the entire Internet”?

Zuckerberg: Actually the wording on sharing for specific posts says just that. Also, a lot of people change their settings–more than half have changed at least one setting. So that’s a sign (he says) that people do understand the settings.

Question from Julia Boorstin at CNBC: To what extent were advertising and revenue considerations in these changes?

Zuckerberg: We really didn’t think of revenue. … He goes into a story how at age 22, he decided not to sell the company. Money wasn’t an object. “Any amount of money would not be worth the last few years of building the company.” … Same deal now. “We are working on building an ads business, and that’s an important part of what we do.” But when building services for users, that enters in “not at all.”

Question from Nick Bilton of the New York Times: How will you deal with any new backlash against these rules?

Zuckerberg: “We are really going to try not to have another backlash.” Basic thrust of today’s changes: You can set controls once and they will apply to all future products.

One more question from Greg Sterling: Did you see any diminution in usage?

Zuckerberg: “There’s no statistically significant changes.”

Q: So why did you make the changes?

Zuckerberg: “We thought they were the right thing to do.”

“There’s so much more left to do. And we’re open to feedback on what to do.”

And that’s it. The gist: Zuckerberg still seemed to be defending Facebook’s right to open up people’s information disclosure in a way that he believes society increasingly wants. But he’s also offering more concrete ways to opt out. Of course, it’s still largely opt-out, the explicit assumption being that people opt in at the outset: They don’t join Facebook unless they want to share things in at least a minimal way.

UPDATE: I’ve pinged privacy advocates for their take on the latest changes. Read on for the details, but barring further privacy blowups (admittedly a big assumption given Facebook’s checkered history here), it appears that Facebook’s latest moves may be just enough to quiet the privacy furor. (Update: Or, maybe not–though judging from Sen. Charles Schumer’s recent comments, it’s possible Facebook could dodge a regulatory bullet–this time.) To be sure, it’s a mixed bag (and on Zuckerberg’s blog post itself, I’m seeing a lot of critics commenting). The American Civil Liberties Union’s Northern California branch issued a mostly positive assessment. So did the Progress & Freedom Foundation, whose senior fellow and director of its Center for Internet Freedom, Berin Szoka, put out the following statement:

By giving users powerful new tools to further protect their privacy, Facebook has employed a potent weapon to deal with marketplace apprehensions: self-regulation. Government intervention stands little chance in acting as swiftly or as effectively to tackle such matters. Rather than short-circuiting the self-regulatory process, we should trust that users are capable of choosing for themselves if given the right tools, and that companies like Facebook will respond to reputational pressure to develop, and constantly improve, those tools. That approach is far more likely to move us towards the ideal of user empowerment than is heavy-handed government regulation, which would override marketplace experimentation and have many unintended consequences for free online sites and services like Facebook.

On the other hand, Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy just penned a blog post that’s more critical:

Facebook made some positive changes today, but only because of political pressure from policymakers and privacy advocates on both sides of the Atlantic.  Mr. Zuckerberg’s failure to acknowledge the political realities don’t bode well for Facebook’s future approach to privacy:  he appears to be living a Alice in Digital Wonderland fantasy, where he only makes changes on privacy because he has the goodwill of its users in mind.  Just last December 9, after all, Facebook made one of its typical self-reverential announcements that it was “rolling out easy-to-use tools to empower people to personalize control over their information.”  These changes triggered a user revolt, letters from Senators, an opinion ordering a reversal from the EU, and concern from the FTC.

There are more simplified and manageable privacy settings, and Facebook has made an important first (or back-tracking!) step.  Unfortunately, Facebook still refuses to give its users control over the data it collects for its targeted advertising products.  The defaults should also be initially set for non-sharing, with the minimization of data collection at the core of Facebook’s approach to privacy.   CDD and other privacy groups will examine these new settings and identify where further changes should be made, including on advertising data.  Meanwhile, we want Congress to hold hearings on social networking privacy, with Mr. Zuckerberg as a star witness.  Mr. Zuckerberg should be asked to explain how Facebook continues to develop new approaches to data collection and privacy–from Beacon to Instant Personalization–that continually lowers the bar–until the company has to do some form of hasty retreat.   Congress needs to examine how Facebook develops its approach to privacy, and what its business plans mean for the future.

CDD will also press the FTC to investigate Facebook, including acting on complaints filed with EPIC and other groups.  It’s time for the FTC to announce guidelines to protect social networking privacy on Facebook and other sites.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation seems to come down squarely in the middle with a commentary by senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston entitled, Facebook’s New Privacy Improvements Are a Positive Step, But There’s Still More Work To Be Done:

The changes are pretty good, though more is needed.

All of the new settings are positive steps toward giving Facebook users more control over the privacy of their data, directly responding to several of EFF’s criticisms and reversing some of the worst of Facebook’s privacy missteps. However, we still have some fundamental concerns about the amount of user information being shared with third-party Facebook applications and web sites. So we hope that this is only Facebook’s first step in a more privacy-conscious direction, rather than its last. Ultimately, Facebook must respect its own principles and users’ privacy rights by giving users full control over how all their information is shared. (See EFF’s Bill of Privacy Rights for social network users.) …

In Conclusion…

We appreciate that Facebook has taken the time to listen and respond to the public outcry over its latest privacy changes, and although today’s changes don’t address all of our concerns, they are a great first step in what will hopefully be a more privacy-driven direction for Facebook. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with Facebook on how to improve privacy on the site. In the meantime, stay tuned for more information from EFF on how to use these new options to maximize your privacy when you choose to share information with your friends and family on Facebook.

Awesome, Facebook–But the Users Will Still Own the Web

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his handlers clearly have found a way to replicate Steve Jobs’ infamous reality distortion field, that charismatic glow during the Apple CEO’s product introductions that seems to soften the hearts of even the most jaded skeptics. I didn’t attend the company’s F8 developers conference today, where Zuckerberg held forth on a number of new initiatives intended to extend its influence across the Web, taking people’s interests, likes, and online behavior beyond Facebook to many other sites. But watching the chorus of tweets on Twitter, it was clear that the young CEO had most of his audience in thrall.

And with some good reason. As paidContent.org sums it up:

Facebook is making it even easier for users to take their Facebook identity with them as they navigate the web. At its developers conference this morning, the company announced a set of “social plugins” that, among other capabilities, let visitors to third-party websites indicate to their Facebook contacts that they “Like” a specific piece of content, without having to log-in to the third-party site (The user does, of course, have to be logged in to Facebook). To add the plugin, websites only have to add one line of code. The “Like” button is just the start. Once a site has added that plugin, it can also add others so that visitors can see what their Facebook friends have “Liked” and also get content suggestions.

The upshot, says Mathew Ingram at GigaOM:

Facebook wants to own your activity on the Internet. Zuckerberg did his best to portray this as a great thing for users, but the corollary is inescapable: Facebook will be everywhere you are, watching what you do, keeping track of that data, and talking about what you’re doing to your friends and companies you “like.”

Already, some observers are saying that Facebook has just seized control of the Internet and that it’s about to conquer the rest of the world. For pete’s sake, let’s get a grip. I’m not going to stop searching on Google (I kind of like that Google’s algorithms produce results informed by the judgment of thousands or millions of people rather than just my dozens or hundreds of friends and acquaintances). I’m not going to stop using Yahoo Mail (unless it keeps getting slower and slower). I’m not going to stop tweeting (Twitter is a different service and a different audience than my circle in Facebook). And neither are you.

Maybe, even as a fairly active Facebook user, I’m missing something. Facebook’s moves no doubt will spread its tentacles across a large portion of the Web. But it’s by no means certain that most users (let alone all developers) will go along–especially once they realize how far and wide their likes and preferences and behavior could travel beyond where they expected.

One problem is that Facebook doesn’t yet command the complete trust of its users–not even as much as Google, which has come in for a lot of its own privacy-related criticism lately. Whether it’s because of multiple privacy gaffes or Zuckerberg’s recent statement that public sharing of personal information is the new social norm, the company still has to prove it’s not going to make people uncomfortable sharing stuff on Facebook–and now, well beyond. Even Facebook uberfan Robert Scoble notes, “What we’re really scared about is another very powerful company is forming. One that we don’t yet fully trust.”

And with privacy policies and controls so complex that many people are confused or simply ignore them, it seems likely there will be more privacy blowups to come. (Like these.) After all, notes Greg Sterling, with these new features,

Facebook will eventually be sitting on a mountain of secondary data or metadata: favorite restaurants, places, musicians and many more categories of information. All this data will be structured and associated with its millions and millions of users. What it does or doesn’t do with that information and data will also be interesting to watch.

Very interesting indeed. And this gets to an even more fundamental challenge for Facebook. Its very purpose is to make the Web (and the world, to hear Zuckerberg rhapsodize at F8 about creating heaven on earth) more social. That’s a fine goal. I really like the idea of a social Pandora, for example. But this can’t be done with too broad a brush, because life ain’t that simple.

The thing is, I don’t want most friends and certainly acquaintances (who honestly make up the bulk of my “friends” on Facebook) to know what I’m searching, or to know what articles I read on other sites or even what other sites I visit. For that matter, I don’t care what most of them bought or what movies they like, since I don’t choose friends (and certainly not casual or work acquaintances) based solely on their tastes, which often aren’t the same as mine. Most of all, I’ll share stuff with close friends that I don’t want anyone else to know.

I’m not alone here. Even younger people, whom so many companies whose businesses depend on open data access insist don’t care much about privacy, actually do. Indeed, they’ll care just as much as their elders when they get older and have kids they need to protect, careers they can’t afford to endanger, and longstanding relationships they don’t want to lose because of some offhand post on Facebook.

So we all have perfectly good reasons for not sharing everything with everybody. And yes, I know that technically, I have control over who sees what data. Facebook deserves credit for giving people more tools to control that. But that’s not even close to good enough if those controls are so complex or cumbersome or hard to find that relatively few people use them. The fact remains that what gets revealed by default too often goes against social expectations, and that’s got to come back to bite Facebook–especially since it was built originally on the promise of at least a certain amount of privacy.  As Marshall Kirkpatrick wrote on ReadWriteWeb in January:

By pushing your personal information and conversation through activity updates fully into the public, Facebook is eliminating any integrity of context that these conversations would naturally have. Posted updates can be directed only to limited lists of Facebook contacts, like college buddies or work friends, but that option is buried under more public default options and much of a user’s activity on the site is not subject to that kind of option.

Update: I just went to the personalized music service Pandora, one of several initial partners on the new Facebook features. Lo and behold, there’s my profile photo from Facebook, along with a suggestion that I “try an artist you like from Facebook,” namely Bob Marley, whom I recently “liked” on Facebook. I don’t completely dislike this suggestion. But it is disconcerting for me to see my Facebook mug and likes on another site when I didn’t specifically opt in for this information to be shared. And check out this timeline of changes in Facebook’s privacy policy.

So for all that Facebook announced today, its toughest job remains: Convince users it can be trusted. It’s still too early to count on that.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers