The first, the Facebook Principles, sets down 10 rights and responsibilities within the Facebook community. The second, the Statement of Rights & Responsibilities, will replace the controversial Terms of Use, plus the Developer Terms of Service and the Facebook Advertising Terms and Conditions.
What does it mean for users, and why would Facebook go to all this trouble?
This post is part of Mashable’s Facebook Week. To discuss everything Facebook, join our authors and community at Mashable’s Facebook Page.
The Terms of Service Controversy - Who Owns My Facebook Photos?
With all of the press, both good and bad, Facebook has been receiving lately, it may be hard to remember February’s Terms of Service Controversy. The short version is that Facebook changed their TOS to state that they had the right to use anything users uploaded to Facebook, even if they quit. This caused an uproar that prompted founder Mark Zuckerberg himself to respond. In the end, Facebook relented and reverted to their old TOS.
It was this controversy that led to the creation of the Facebook Principles and the Statement of Rights & Responsibilities (SRR), intended to let Facebook users have input on how the site is managed and governed.
On April 16, Facebook will release the revised version of the governance documents to the Facebook community. And from that date until April 23, users will have access to a Facebook App where they can vote on the changes. The results will be audited by the professional services firm Ernst & Young.
This is a complicated series of events that still begs the question: why is Facebook going to so much trouble for these documents? Is letting users vote in the best interests of Facebook? And does this truly empower the user or change the user experience in the end?
Do Governing Documents Prevent User Revolts?
The release of these two documents and the quasi-democratic system Facebook has decided to implement still derive from one event: the Facebook TOS controversy. Facebook consistently reacts to user revolts, from adding privacy features to the News Feed to tweaking the new Facebook homepage after harsh criticism. The Facebook Principles and the SSR, however, are the most elaborate response Facebook has ever put together to a controversy. The first question that must be asked is this: will democracy prevent user revolts?
The likely answer is no. Why? Because so few users have or will participate in the process (no more than several thousand added comments to either document), and the process is only useful for controversies related to the TOS and governance of Facebook. Most controversies have stemmed from new features Facebook has implemented, and I doubt that Facebook is going to let users vote on whether new features are implemented.
So do these documents serve another purpose to Facebook? These documents do give users a sense of ownership over a site that is instrumental in many of our lives. It is an attempt at transparency. It makes for a great PR campaign. But most of all, it is an attempt to make Facebook bigger than just a website or a company, but into a cultural gathering place, and in maybe a few respects, its own nation. No, Facebook is not a country, but these documents are clearly inspired by the documents used by nations for governance.
For Democracy to Work, Facebook Must Respect the Users’ Will
It’s tough to determine if Facebook’s democratic push is in the best interests of everyone involved. If Facebook is going to allow users to vote on changes to the TOS and governing documents, it must respect the will of the users at all times. The problem is that Facebook has no real incentive to follow through if a decision goes against its wishes. Facebook is a company, not a nation, and its leadership cannot be voted out by the users.
This distinction will always be an obstacle in Facebook’s push to transcend the web and indeed world culture. Yes, Facebook is bringing in a 3rd-party auditor to make sure the vote is fair, but that doesn’t change Facebook’s sole authority to control everything that happens within Facebook.
We think empowering the user is a good thing, and we think that Facebook’s openness and willingness to listen has been a breath of fresh air as well, but it needs to remember that its goal is not to give users the right to vote, but to be profitable as a U.S. corporation.
The bottom line: democracy and Facebook governance documents will probably change very little for either the user experience or Facebook’s ambitions, simply because Facebook has the final say.