Some comparisons have been drawn between the anti-Beacon campaign and the furore over the introduction of News Feed. Maybe this one will blow over too, but Facebook is entering a dangerous phase in its growth path.
News Feed was a genuine attempt to improve the user experience.
The motivation for Beacon is different - it is part of a drive for monetization.
We can't expect the site 'for free', and ultimately that drive will be good for both the company and its users. However, there are many ways to keep the company's interests more closely aligned with its users'.
Most obviously, short of an opt-out default, the first Beacon purchase could be kept 'in holding' until the user approves it in Facebook, at which point they can choose to: (1) give advance approval for all future Beacons or (2) elect to consider them all from 'holding' on a case-by-case basis - each time being tempted to give blanket approval.
Jon Nichols
· 1 year ago
I would be happy so long as I knew that no stories would show up unless I specifically approve them. I'd also like to be able to report an item as being 'not from me'. I had a case where a site posted something that I certainly hadn't done, and it appeared in my feed. I had no way to report it as spam.
All Comments
News Feed was a genuine attempt to improve the user experience.
The motivation for Beacon is different - it is part of a drive for monetization.
We can't expect the site 'for free', and ultimately that drive will be good for both the company and its users. However, there are many ways to keep the company's interests more closely aligned with its users'.
Most obviously, short of an opt-out default, the first Beacon purchase could be kept 'in holding' until the user approves it in Facebook, at which point they can choose to: (1) give advance approval for all future Beacons or (2) elect to consider them all from 'holding' on a case-by-case basis - each time being tempted to give blanket approval.