By now, the three-day maelstrom surrounding Facebook’s attempt to re-jigger its terms of service to give it more control over users’ content has settled down a bit: the social networking service restored the original language early Wednesday, and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, solicited the input of members to help draft a new set of rules.
Facebook’s avalanche of bad publicity was no natural disaster — it was triggered by The Consumerist, a consumer advocacy blog that usually covers shopping complaints and offers tips on dealing with irritating telemarketers and product refunds.
The controversy began after senior writer Chris Walters, acting on the tip of a reader, published a post Sunday evening detailing the newly adjusted provisions that said Facebook would retain the right to use its customers’ content even after an account was terminated.
“Nothing on the site has ever created as big of a stir,” Ben Popken, co-executive editor of The Consumerist, said in an interview. By Wednesday, the original blog post had been viewed more than 580,000 times, garnered more than 350 comments and been mentioned by 750 various news outlets and blogs interested in the story.
Mr. Popken said The Consumerist — which Gawker Media sold to Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, late last year — has often covered hot consumer issues, such as the lack of access to public restrooms and the poor customer service of cable companies, but this one hit a nerve with readers.
“What you might share among friends online could become a source of embarrassment,” Mr. Popken said. “Facebook’s language stands out from that used by other mainstream sites such as Flickr, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube,” he said. “While those sites retain licenses to the content, the ultimate property right is in the user’s hands.”
Almost as troubling, Mr. Popken said, was the way the company addressed the first waves of user outrage. “Zuckerberg said we wouldn’t use your content in a way you wouldn’t want, but there’s reality and there’s lawyers,” said Mr. Popken. If Mr. Zuckerberg were to sell Facebook or turn over ownership in some way, “all that philosophy is gone and all that remains in the legal language.”
Mr. Popken had more praise for the company’s latest response. “They’ve learned their lesson fairly quickly, and they’re doing what should have done in the first place by engaging user’s input.”
Kevin McKean, vice president and editorial director for Consumer Reports, said the acquisition of The Consumerist helped bring more of a daily news focus to the company, which is something that Consumers Union has not historically had.
“The Consumerist post started a conversation on Facebook about whether or not this privacy policy was appropriate,” said Mr. McKean. “That is exactly what we envisioned The Consumerist doing for us,” said Mr. McKean. Consumer Reports has modeled its news coverage after The Consumerist by posting more frequently to its own blogs and establishing a presence on sites like Twitter and Facebook.
Like its parent company, The Consumerist does not accept advertising, but the boost in traffic could help Consumers Union attract younger readers, with the hope of eventually selling them online or print subscriptions to Consumer Reports.
“This is not a flash in the pan for The Consumerist,” said Mr. McKean. “This is just one incident that raised enough of an uproar that it made it into the national press.”
Mr. Popken says its too early to measure what effect the exposure has had on The Consumerist’s readership, which has about 1.8 million unique visitors a month, according to the online measurement service Quantcast.
By Jenna Wortham and NYTimes.com
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar