Confused by Facebook’s new privacy policy? You’re supposed to be

facebook proposed updates to governing documents

As you may have heard by now, Facebook wants to make a bunch of changes to its site governance documents – the so-called Data Use Policy (its privacy policy) and its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (its terms of service). While there are quite a few changes on Facebook’s list, one in particular caught my eye.

Under the section covering Facebook Messages in the Data Use Policy (PDF), Facebook wants to take out this line: “You can control who can start a message thread with you through your ‘How You Connect’ settings. If they include others on that message, the others can reply too.” And it wants to replace it with, “Anyone on a message thread can reply to it.”

After re-reading this language a few times, I still couldn’t figure out what the heck “Anyone on a message thread can reply to it” means, in the context of the Data Use Policy. Having received an offer from a Facebook spokesman to “answer any questions” I might have about the proposed changes, I decided to reach out to him and ask: What, exactly, does this change mean for Facebook users?

This was the Facebook spokesman’s reply:

“With all our products, we carefully monitor user interaction and feedback in order to identify ways to enhance user experience. We are working on updates to Facebook Messages and have made this change in our Data Use Policy in order to allow for improvements to the product.”

Exsqueeze me?

Still confused, I asked the Facebook spokesman for further clarification. He never responded.

Were this simply a press release about a new site functionality, I might have let it drop at that. But we are not talking about a press release – we are talking about language in a legal document, a binding contract that all of us must agree to in order to use Facebook.

History of “huh?”

The intense ambiguity of the Facebook spokesman’s response came as no surprise; the social network has a habit of littering its site governance documents with all types of vague nonsense.

For example, under the hilariously titled section of the Data Use Policy “How Facebook uses your data,” the company explains the ways in which your information is used thusly: “We use the information we receive about you in connection with the services and features we provide to you and other users like your friends, our partners, the advertisers that purchase ads on the site, and the developers that build the games, applications, and websites you use.”

In connection with the services and features – that could mean almost anything! Following that paragraph, Facebook provides a number of concrete examples of what this might mean, but by no means claims to tell us all the ways in which our data might be used.

A few paragraphs down, the company repeats this obnoxious habit, saying that it won’t share your personal data unless it has “received your permission,” or “given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy,” which of course is also incredibly vague.

Given that Facebook has a history of leaving room for interpretation in its terms and policies, I can only interpret the “message thread” language in one way: The social network wants to add intentionally confusing and ambiguous language to its privacy policy to cover its ass when it makes changes later – changes that it has so far refused to reveal to its users.

Sham on all fronts

The troublesome language first came to my attention on Tuesday after two privacy advocacy groups, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), published a letter to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerburg in which they ask the CEO to abandon the changes due to potential privacy risks that could come along for the ride.

EPIC and CDD interpreted the new language – “Anyone on a message thread can reply to it” – to mean that Facebook will remove the privacy control setting that lets people prevent strangers from sending them direct messages. (You can currently allow “everyone,” “friends,” or “friends of friends” to send you messages on Facebook, in case you didn’t know.) The potential result of this, said the groups, is that it would likely “increase the amount of spam that users receive.” Which in turn could result in a greater number of scams or malware being passed through Facebook’s channels.

While this theory may in fact be the right one – Abine’s privacy expert Sarah Downey believes that it is – my complaint has nothing to do with whatever changes Facebook might make to Messages – we have to cross that bridge once it’s built. Instead, I am appalled by Facebook’s willingness to pretend like it is giving its users a choice about how our privacy is treated while simultaneously seeking to include confusing language on purpose.

All of this comes on top of the farce that is Facebook’s voting process. As many other commentators have pointed out, allowing users to vote on proposed changes to policy appears to be nothing more than a show: According to the voting rules established in 2009, a full 30 percent of Facebook users must oppose the proposed changes to stop them from going into effect. Pull out your calculator, and you’ll find that 30 percent now equals roughly 300 million people – the entire population of the United States. Given that a mere 0.038 percent of users voted during the last round of proposals in June, it seems next to impossible that the masses will show up this time around.

Oh, and did you know that one of the changes Facebook wants is for users to give up their ability to vote on any other changes in the future? (Really.)

Prove me wrong – do it right

One one hand, you could argue that Facebook is doing more to include its users in the site governance process than most companies. It is, after all, allowing us all to vote on the changes by its own volition. (This time, at least.) But how are we supposed to vote on whether to change specific language if Facebook is unwilling to tell us what that language means?

Given the absurdity of the voting process, there was little reason to respect Facebook’s efforts already. Now that we know the company is attempting to pack the DUP with language that is intentionally vague, the number of reasons have dropped to zero.

Is this a subjective interpretation of the situation? Absolutely – but no more subjective than terms like “enhance user experience” or “improvements to the product.”

If Facebook wants to allow some wiggle room in its policies in order to roll out new products without violating its own terms, that’s totally fine. All I ask is that the company not hide its intentions behind a democratic puppet show or a veil of meaningless nonsense.

Give it to us straight, Facebook. We’ll like you better for it.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not reflect the beliefs of Digital Trends.

Home Theater

Budget TVs are finally worth buying, and you can thank Roku

Not all that long ago, budget TVs were only worth looking at if, well, you were on a budget. Thanks to Roku, not only are budget TVs now a viable option for anyone, but they might even be a better buy than more expensive TVs.
Product Review

‘Just Cause 4’ is mindless fun that leaves little room for much else

Just Cause 4 revels in explosions and over-the-top action, but its world feels empty and hollow. With few new ideas and a stale open world, it's a fun but shallow piece of escapism.
Movies & TV

Ice meets fire in HBO's latest 'Game of Thrones' season 8 teaser

With the eighth and final season looming, Game of Thrones fever has officially become a pandemic. Our list of all the relevant news and rumors will help make the wait more bearable, if you don't mind spoilers.
Smart Home

Amazon starts crowdsourcing Alexa’s answers. What could go wrong?

Amazon announced a new resource for its Alexa voice assistant. Alexa Answers is an invitation-only program to which select Amazon customers will be invited to supply brief answers to questions that Alexa was asked but couldn't answer.
Mobile

Smartphone makers are vomiting a torrent of new phones, and we’re sick of it

Smartphone manufacturers like Huawei, LG, Sony, and Motorola are releasing far too many similar phones. The update cycle has accelerated, but more choice is not always a good thing.
Opinion

Do we even need 5G at all?

Faster phones, easier access to on-demand video, simpler networking -- on the surface, 5G sounds like a dream. So why is it more of a nightmare?
Home Theater

The Apple AirPods 2 needed to come out today. Here are four reasons why

Apple announced numerous new products at its October 30 event, a lineup that included a new iPad Pro, a MacBook Air, as well as a new Mac Mini. Here are four reasons we wish a new set of AirPods were on that list.
Computing

Razer’s most basic Blade 15 is the one most gamers should buy

Razer's Blade 15 is an awesome laptop for both gamers, streamers, professionals, and anyone else needing serious go in a slim profile, but its price is out of reach for many games. The new Blade 15 Base solves that problem with few…
Gaming

Going to hell, again. The Switch makes 'Diablo 3' feel brand-new

I've played every version of Diablo 3 released since 2012, racking up hundreds of hours in the process. Six years later, I'm playing it yet again on Nintendo Switch. Somehow, it still feels fresh.
Gaming

‘Fallout 76’ may have online multiplayer but it’s still a desolate wasteland

"Is Fallout 76 an MMO?" That depends on who you ask. Critics and players often cite its online multiplayer capabilities as a reason it qualifies. Yet calling the game an MMO only confuses matters, and takes away from what could make…
Digital Trends Live

Microsoft has #*!@ed up to-do lists on an epic scale

Microsoft has mucked up to-do lists on a scale you simply can’t imagine, a failure that spans multiple products and teams, like a lil’ bit of salmonella that contaminates the entire output from a factory.
Opinion

As Amazon turns up the volume on streaming, Spotify should shudder

Multiple players are all looking to capitalize on the popularity of streaming, but it has thus far proved nearly impossible to make a profit. Could major tech companies like Amazon be primed for a streaming take-over?
Gaming

Throw out the sandbox. ‘Red Dead Redemption 2’ is a fully realized western world

Despite featuring around 100 story missions, the real destination in Red Dead Redemption 2 is the journey you make for yourself in the Rockstar's open world, and the game is better for it.
Gaming

‘Diablo Immortal’ is just the beginning. Mobile games are the future

Diablo fans were furious about Diablo Immortal, but in truth, mobile games are the future. From Apple and Samsung to Bethesda and Blizzard, we’re seeing a new incentive for games that fit on your phone.