New data suggests Google+ is not capturing users the way the Google suggests, but the research may not be as damning as analysts think.
Research company RJ Metrics found that of the 40,000 Google+ accounts it monitored, 30 percent of users who make a public post on Google+ never post again. Metrics also discovered that the average number of public posts is declining steadily each month, and the average post gets less than one reply.
Finally, Metrics said that Google+ users spent just a little more than 3 minutes a month visiting the site, while the average Facebook user spent more than seven hours on its social network over the course of one month.
Metric's data may pour cold water on the glowing statistics Google likes to put out about its new service, which they say boasts 170 million users, but the research does not necessarily mean all is doom and gloom for the young social network. All the activity Metrics observed and recorded was of the public variety; the company was not allowed to watch private interactions between Google+ users.
For example, if a member made a post that was only viewable to a specific circle of friends it went unnoticed by Metric's research. All replies and interactions on those posts were also subsequently ignored.
The exclusion of private posts and interactions in Metric's Google+ research skews the company's findings against the social network. Users' ability to post things so that only specific groups will see the content is one of the biggest draws of the service. Google said that more interaction and sharing occurs privately than publicly on Google+, making public posts just a small part of the social network's overall package.
Still, while Metric's research does not represent all the user's activity on Google+, it's safe to say the service still lags far behind Facebook. The software giant continues to attempt to put a public spin on its social network, and not admit it has fallen short up to this point. It has made recent moves to boost photo sharing and improve its mobile app, but measures have not yet been able to close the distance between the two social network rivals.
Google's social network may not be as vacant as Metric's research makes it seem, but the company is likely telling less than the truth when it says it's happy with its performance. In this case, reading between the lines both parties are putting out gets closer at the reality of the fledgling social network's popularity.
Facebook's IPO is expected to fetch as much as $100 billion, but investors are wondering whether Mark Zuckerberg, the man responsible for much of the company's success, is the right person to lead it into the future.
The social network's co-founder will control a 57 percent majority of his company's stock after it goes public later this month. Zuckerberg's stake is worth $25 billion, but despite all he's done to build the Facebook empire, analysts worry he may not have what it takes to be the CEO of a publicly traded super-power.
In a world where people's moods and feelings can often be discovered just by looking at their Facebook status, Zuckerberg is far less predictable. He, much like his company, has always been a bit of a rebel. His actions in the business world are consistently inconsistent, something that's far easier to get away with when you work for yourself than when you are answering to a room full of angry investors.
For example, Zuckerberg proclaimed publicly that Facebook was not interested in purchasing any other companies. Shortly after, he ponied up $1 billion for the photo editing mobile app Instagram, announcing the purchase on his Facebook timeline. Facebook this week acquired social discovery service Glancee, again contradicting Zuckerberg's previous proclamation.
Maneuvers like this are likely part of the reason investors are tentative about the prospect of Zuckerberg as CEO of a publicly traded company. Major decisions such as this one can greatly affect stock price and are damaging when done suddenly and contradict something a company leader said just a few weeks earlier. And, even investors who do not question Zuckerberg's business decisions could be weary of his often-questionable behavior.
The 27-year old CEO has proven his brilliance and matured well over the past few years, according to those who work closely with him, but there are still some growing pains. Zuckerberg was conspicuously absent at a recent meeting that brought bankers and analysts to his company's headquarters to discuss the upcoming IPO, and he has faced criticism in the past for being completely disengaged in matters that don't interest him.
However, fears Zuckerberg might be getting cold feet about an IPO were put to rest at a meeting about Facebook's IPO this week in New York where Zuckerberg did show up -- dressed in a pair of jeans and a hoodie.
The big shots on Wall Street may not be happy that Zuckerberg's style and attire don't match the level of seriousness the $100 billion sitting on the table commands, but they're going to have to accept that none of it would be there without him.
Facebook is keeping tabs on users beyond what they may expect, Consumer Reports discovered, highlighting how people like insurers and burglars can exploit the activity feed.
For example, Facebook compiles information from users who visit pages with "Like" buttons, even if they do not click on the button or post the page. Consumer Reports found that nearly 5 million users publicly posted their whereabouts on their page, which can tip-off burglars, while another nearly 5 million "liked" health-related pages that insurers can use against them.
The gaping holes in Facebook's privacy settings speak to the widespread challenges in keeping online information private. In addition to its data practices, Facebook's custom privacy controls are often too complicated for users to fully grasp, ramping up their risk for security problems.
Facebook insists it keeps its data collecting records private, but past security breaches demonstrate third parties can sometimes track users' Facebook movement, which may prove problematic in the future.
One thing that surprises even privacy-savvy users: friends can share personal information about other friends through third-party apps -- so posts set to "friends only" can end up stored in other companies' records.
Consumer Reports, which advised users how to avoid this, illustrates how personal information gets proliferated in subtle ways.
Facebook isn't intentionally sharing information, but rather, these are "holes" in the privacy system it has in place. The social network won't risks the ire of regulators and a loss of public confidence if it doesn't protect user information, but data aggregators understand Facebook is a treasure trove of valuable information, and are equally unlikely to stop trying to grab hold of the site's potent data.
Responding to government scrutiny, Facebook plans to release reports providing details on the data it collects, but people still need use common sense to protect themselves.
A large swath of users are not Facebook-literate enough to filter their profiles to prevent strangers, employers, the police, the >courts, and even debt collectors from gathering sensitive information, prompting lawmakers to examine the issue.
So part of the problem is a social failure, not Facebook's -- people are not taking the time to understand how the controls work, which can put them in a precarious position, often unknowingly giving an edge to burglars, advertisers and insurance companies.
To play it safe, Facebook users may want to assume anything they post or look at on the site is tantamount to public information. Despite efforts from both the public and Facebook to tighten security policies, companies looking to mine the site for data may find new ways to infiltrate the network, or become more sophisticated about tracking users' history.
Facebook can share their status as an organ donor with a new Timeline feature, demonstrating the site's massive potential for good.
Beyond sharing their status with friends, interested users can also find information about how to register as a donor on Facebook, and set the status to public so the medical community has access to the data.
Although raising awareness is the feature's primary goal, its introduction highlights the social network's capacity to facilitate lifesaving procedures, since it may not be long until the function actually connects people in need with available organs.
Users considering kidney, blood or bone marrow donation can actively seek people in need, while people are already organizing searches on Facebook for these willing donors, speeding up the process of locating life-saving connections.
For essential organs, such as the heart, lungs or liver, it gets trickier, but using Facebook is still possible. Although critically sick patients and their loved ones may not want to think about the possibility they will not pull through, if terminal patients set their organ donor status to public, the medical community may be able to harness the feature to find local organ donors when the time is right.
Already, people use informal Facebook networking to find willing donors, reaching out to their friends and extended networks. Socialblood.org, a Facebook app matching blood donors with rare types, also connects recipients and donors through the site.
This sort of feature illustrates Facebook can work for more serious purposes beyond "slactivism," or a culture of clicking on altruistic links without actually doing anything. For example, Facebook engendered an upswing in people discussing and "liking" political articles and NGO pages about the relative merits of Kony2012, but it does not diminish real activism, and in this case, it provides a life-saving service sustained by its users' integrity.
Facebook is a platform for social connectivity, and it can be abused through cyber-bullying and over-sharing -- but others use it to organize protests, check in with loved ones in emergencies, contact authorities about crimes, and now hunt for critical health resources. The platform is not inherently good or bad, and its embrace of organ donation match-ups demonstrates how the site can positively impact society.
Lawmakers are intensifying efforts to ban employers from asking job seekers for their Facebook passwords -- and it's about time.
What's the Plan?
Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) and Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) introduced a bill banning employers from asking job candidates and current employees for their Facebook passwords, complete with a $10,000 fine.
The Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) also extends to colleges and educational institutions, and looks to curb the practice of snooping through Facebook information to make hiring decisions.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) discussed drafting similar legislation, but this is the only federal bill in the hopper, following a ban on the practice from Maryland's state legislature.
Snooping Is Wrong
Demanding Facebook passwords violates users' privacy, not to mention the site's terms of service.
People use Facebook to send and receive private messages, photos and videos, just as they do e-mail. As the practice grows more widespread, a federal bill is necessary to quell the unscrupulous behavior.
Employers shy away from candidates who post pictures of themselves on social media boozing and wearing scandalous clothing, and they also look through their status updates for references to drugs, drinking and other undesirable activities. All of this is within bounds, and savvy job seekers should make sure to present a suitable public profile while looking for jobs. Rejecting someone based on an unacceptable social media persona shows good sense; smarter candidates go into interviews conscious of their online impressions.
Scouring candidates' personal social media information, however, and demanding access to an employee's entire profile, is a whole other matter. Even people who take care to post professional-caliber photos to their public page may make send racy pictures to lovers or dirty jokes to friends through Facebook's messaging function. The public profile on Facebook can be used as a supplement to the traditional resume, but the rest of it is tantamount to snooping through personal e-mails, letters and diary entries.
"We'll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action," said Facebook privacy chief Erin Egan, who likely welcomes the bill. Facebook is building political clout, and may use its alliances to push the bill forward, as the employer controversy undermines Facebook's privacy goals.
Personal E-Mail in Danger?
SNOPA is expected to face opposition from Republicans, but if it does not go through, employers will likely continue asking for Facebook passwords, which will erode public confidence in Facebook's security and cause major problems for the social network. Allowing this behavior to continue begs the question: is anything really private on the internet?
After all, if employers can read personal Facebook messages, what will stop them from asking for personal e-mail passwords as well, especially in a world where they are basically the same? Granting access to private electronic information to employers will have serious implications for the way people communicate.
If every e-mail and Facebook message sent has the potential to be read by bosses, teachers and admissions counselors, people will stop using these forums of communication for personal correspondence. This may be a big win for the postal service and land lines, but it will likely spark widespread outrage. Interests are lining up against SNOPA, but this bill will happen sooner or later, as people continue to fight for their rights to personal online communication.
Denise Abbot used Facebook to send a stern message to her 13-year-old daughter, fueling debate over parenting in the digital age. What took so long?
The Ohio mom took to daughter Ava's Facebook page, posting a picture of her daughter, with a red "X" across her mouth and the following caption: "I do not know how to keep my [implied by picture as mouth shut]. I am no longer allowed on Facebook or my phone. Please ask why."
Abbot's actions were prompted by a familiar situation for many parents. Ava was mouthing off to her mom in front of her friends while her mom was driving them -- providing a running, immature commentary about her operation of the vehicle. As the chatter continued despite Denise's warnings, she considered an appropriate punishment. By the time they got home, Denise decided on a course of action.
Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?
"I decided to do something that I know would totally impact her, and that the next time she started that, she'd think 'I don't want my face all over Facebook again with a red 'X' over my mouth," said Abbott to NBC, adding that she thought her daughter was fit to handle her punishment. Abbott said she doesn't regret her actions.
Almost immediately, traditional media picked up on Abbot's Facebook punishment, bloggers took to their sites to cheer and jeer the mother, and parents on soccer sidelines and baseball bleachers buzzed about the story, just as they did in February when a frustrated gun-toting dad made his point to his daughter on the social network.
These parents' specific tactics will likely be subject to ongoing debate, but the question of whether parents can or should use social media in parenting is much more obvious.
Using Facebook to Lay Down the Law
Parents make use of the things that kids value to discipline, motivate and reward, whether that is a car, hobbies or technology. Twenty years ago, nobody would bat an eye if a parent took the car keys away from an unruly teen. Today, teenagers report they actually value smartphones over cars, making technology and its attendant social media connection a powerful parental tool.
Today's teens, born and bathed in glowing light of the digital age, often feel entitled being on Facebook, but that doesn't mean they are, especially when they have developing ideas of what's appropriate to post on the social network.
Are parents so intimidated by the digital edge kids have over them that they are afraid to cut off the connection? Maybe, but they are making strides.
Where the Kids Are
Parents are increasingly checking up on their kids' Facebook activity, according to the latest phase of the "Digital Diaries" project by online security firm AVG.
But tellingly, words like "snooping," and "peeking" describe the practice for parents, suggesting there may a double standard in play here. When the general population browses Facebook to check up on friends, they are using the site as intended, so why the outcry when parents do it?
Some compare social networks to diaries, but parents and children shouldn't have any illusions -- this is not the case. Without restrictions, these sites are easily accessible by friends, strangers, colleges, employers and others. So, what's a parent to do?
"You have to adapt your parenting skills with the times," Abbot told NBC. And, her daughter's response indicates she may have gotten the message.
"I feel like I deserved it because I was mean to my mom and spoke disrespectful to her in front of my friends," Ava wrote in an email to the television station.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg has something new to put on his info page: lone billion-dollar dealmaker, as he apparently acted alone when he snapped up Instagram.
Tags:
