Hey all,
I’m sure we’ve all heard about Mark Zuckerberg’s recent post on Facebook titled “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking” that many are calling a manifesto of sorts. I don’t want to give too many opinions about the post since it has been commented on ad nauseum (including in a few good articles included in this week’s “News of the Week” section). However, I’ve included a link to the post below and will give a brief summary before asking the main question I’m interested in hearing all your thoughts about.
SUMMARY:
Zuckerberg thinks the future of online social networks is leaning more and more towards privacy-focused communications platforms. He thinks there will be more growth in this area that he refers to as “the digital equivalent of a living room” where you communicate with your friends and connections in private (like in Messenger) than there will be in one-to-many platforms (like Newsfeed) that he’s dubbed the “digital equivalent of a town square.”
So, Zuckerberg intends to, over the next few years, build out Facebook’s products and services to better allow for this privacy-oriented messaging/communicating. Apparently, this will involve 1) making changes to some of Facebook’s current products (like making timelines more ephemeral than they are today unless you opt out and allowing you to choose a time after which your Messenger messages will be deleted so that past posts/messages don’t come back to haunt you) as well as 2) creating a new product in the Facebook suite (it seems Zuck is unsure what this will be).
In order to accomplish this mission, Facebook will look to encrypt many of its messaging services so that no one can access the messages you send, not even Facebook themselves. Unfortunately, though, this will make it harder for them to crack down on bad actors – those using the platform for things like “child exploitation, terrorism, and extortion” (it seems they don’t intend to launch this encryption feature until they can figure out how to continue policing messages for instances of the above mentioned bad actors). Facebook will also consider reducing the permanence of much of what users post.
Many are calling this new direction for Facebook a pivot from a culture obsessed with growth and increasing monetization of its users to one of user privacy, seemingly even at the expense of the current business model.
QUESTION:
WHY DO YOU THINK FACEBOOK/ZUCKERBERG IS TOUTING THIS PIVOT? WHAT IS THE DRIVING FACTOR BEHIND THE CHANGE? IS IT PRIMARILY 1) MARKET FORCES AND THE DRIVE TO DELIVER THE PRODUCT CONSUMERS MOST WANT, 2) A WAY OF APPEASING OR GETTING AHEAD OF REGULATORS, OR 3) SIMPLY A RESPONSE TO BAD PUBLICITY AND THE DESIRE TO REPOSITION THEIR BRAND IN THE EYES OF CONSUMERS?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/?utm_source=Benedict%27s%20newsletter&utm_campaign=a333b6b622-Benedict%27s%20Newsletter_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4999ca107f-a333b6b622-70806285
Here are a few of my other thoughts, in case readers care:
1. In startupland/the tech world, the word pivot is usually used by an early stage startup that determines their original business model or product isn’t going to be successful and so they “pivot” to a different product or market or model. Essentially, startups pivot when they realize their idea doesn’t have product-market fit. It’s really interesting to see Facebook, a company worth almost $500 billion and generally doing well, talk about pivoting. Maybe Facebook/Zuckerberg are geniuses and are really staying ahead of the curve, going to where product market fit will be in the future despite – and at the expense of – where it is now. I just think this big of a pivot away from a massive and successful company’s core business is a little unprecedented. It’ll be exciting to see what happens in the future and if Facebook is even able to effect this pivot. Changing company culture is hard enough at a company of 20 employees, let alone 35,000.
2. As far as I can tell, the timeline is the main way Facebook makes money – putting ads there. As they start to focus on messaging, do we know how they plan to monetize that aspect of their platform? My intuition plus what others are saying is that they will focus on being THE messaging app and then leverage that popularity by implementing other montetizeable services that naturally go hand in hand with a messaging platform later on, not including ads. Folks seem to think e-commerce and payment transfers could be a big part of the eventual revenue model. Is this what WeChat does in China? Does anyone have any insight or ideas here?
3. The paradox of encrypting messages but also weeding out bad actors is one I can’t even fathom. But, at least it restores my faith in the idea that our best and brightest minds are solving important problems again. You know, as opposed to just figuring out how to get a few more cents of value out of each advertising placement.
4. In 2014, Mark Cuban backed a company called CyberDust (now called Dust Messaging) that allowed you to message folks. The catch was that the message would only appear to the recipient for 30 seconds and then disappear forever – no one could ever find it. The app never really took off. Snapchat and Instagram have both flourished with similar ephemerality, though. And, now it looks like Facebook might as well.
I think this post is in large part meant to address specific bad publicity that Facebook has suffered recently, but it could also be, in part, a good faith response to consumer demands for more privacy in their online lives. Facebook could be trying to stay well ahead of potential competitors looking to position themselves as a privacy-respecting alternative to Facebook.
I think calling it a “pivot” is a bit of hyperbole. These changes, if they ever happen, will likely be gradual and piecemeal, not like a true “pivot” in the startup world. Zuckerberg even seems to be hedging his bets a bit, saying “A lot of this work is in the early stages” and talking about how difficult it is to get this right, and how much they need to consult with experts. This may keep regulators and critics at bay with respect to Facebook’s privacy issues, so long as he can keep saying “we’re working on it, it’s difficult to get right”, etc…
Ah, a fairly sinister view. And yeah, I think you’re right to say “if they ever happen” with respect to the changes. One of the articles regarding this post in “News of the Week” pointed out that Zuckerberg has announced features and other things in the past that have never surfaced. I feel like Facebook is quite deliberate at ensuring they can change direction on a whim as new information comes available. There is a lot of new information that could come available here – they can’t get the encryption to work while also curbing use by bad actors, regulators cool down, new technology becomes available forcing them to focus on that instead, stakeholders come out of the woodwork (whether users, employees, investors, or board members) in opposition to this “pivot” to block it from happening, etc. Plus, given how nothing Zuckerberg talked about in his post has been implemented yet (I don’t think) or is even close, it does really seem like this is, at least in part, a PR move – especially in the world of big tech where companies like to keep their projects under wraps only to show off them off once they’ve been finished and are ready for use. I would think this would apply to Facebook especially, since their space is quite competitive and known for competitors copying each other.