Just When I Was Working Up Some Sympathy for Mark Zuckerberg—Facebook Blows It Again

I was going to write an impassioned column this week attacking David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin for the hatchet job they performed on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network. I can’t remember the last time a movie made me so angry; no entrepreneur who’s created such a beloved and successful service, even if he’s the world’s youngest and smuggest billionaire, deserves such shabby treatment.

But a few days after I saw the film, Facebook came along with an update to its Groups feature that really does deserve to be hammered. There’s an unfortunate flaw in the new Groups that once again illustrates the company’s curious social ineptitude—its seeming inability to anticipate how users will react to changes that reduce their ability to control their experiences on the site. The move reminded me why an organization that’s so widely admired is also so widely feared and resented. So I’m going to look instead at why parts of The Social Network do seem to hit the target.

The overhauled Groups feature allows people to chat and share posts, links, photos, videos, and the like with hand-picked subsets of their Friends list. Considered alone, that’s a nice improvement. It’s a common experience to have news or links that you want to share just with a few friends or family members—but the way the News Feed used to work on Facebook, you had little choice but to shout them out all 300 people on your Friends list. Lately, whole companies like The Fridge and MicroMobs have sprung up to offer “private Facebooks” that address the reality of people’s multiple, overlapping social networks, some of which are small and closed, others large and open. (More on one of these startups in a moment.) The new version of Facebook Groups finally allows you to have multiple personas on the site: you can share different stuff with different groups, just as you do in real life.

The problem—and it’s a pretty big one—lies in the way groups get created. Any Facebook user can create a group by unilaterally selecting people from his or her Friends list. (It’s just like tagging friends in a photo.) These friends get added to the group immediately—in other words, there’s no “opt-in.” Unless the creator of the group categorizes it as “Secret,” everyone on Facebook can see who’s in the group. People who’ve been added to a group (which can also function as an e-mail list) have the ability to leave it, but to do so they have to take a few steps—read their e-mail, go to Facebook, click a “Remove” button.

This new feature creates endless room for mischief and spam and almost guarantees that users will end up getting added to groups that they would never join, given the choice. Yesterday, Mahalo CEO and frequent Facebook critic Jason Calacanis published an e-mail to Zuckerberg complaining that he and TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington had been added—presumably as a cheap stunt—to a group called NAMBLA, which happen to the initials for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Calacanis pointed out that he was “never asked to join” the NAMBLA group and claimed that he was … Next Page »

Single PageCurrently on Page: 1 2 3

Wade Roush is a freelance science and technology journalist and the producer and host of the podcast Soonish. Follow @soonishpodcast

Trending on Xconomy

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

8 responses to “Just When I Was Working Up Some Sympathy for Mark Zuckerberg—Facebook Blows It Again”

  1. Hey Wade. I haven’t seen the movie but I’ll be glad to have your lens on it before I go. Happily, it will save me from getting angry over the last objection since you already did it for me.

    But here’s an angle to consider on your main point. Namely youthful blinders and limited life experience. Here’s a parallel. When I look at etsy (also a young founder) I see a site with brilliant content and vision but absolutely no clue how their most likely/productive customers need to search and shop. You are “forced” to spend countless hours experiencing unwanted choices because the founder overly prioritizes an open marketplace over customer experience.

    I often see the same in Facebook. A guy with a brilliant vision but not enough life experience to understand diversity. I have seen these blinders in older founders too so perhaps youth is not the issue. But come on! Forced Groups???

    When I was at social network Ziggs we built a beautiful Groups feature (we competed with LinkedIn and they had not touched Groups. They still really haven’t done it well.). As busy adults with multiple social networks of varying importance, the fundamental tenant was “quick, easy, voluntary.” I think Zuckerberg’s only social network is his group of subordinate employees who have to agree with his vision. (And being a fellow entrepreneur, I can see how very easily that could happen, even innocently.) Perhaps that is the reason for his curious inability to prioritize other points of view.

  2. donna says:

    Facebook is like America — it will eventually do the right thing after it does all the wrong things.

    It is still little more than an amusement to me, where things like Twitter and Tumblr have become profoundly interesting parts of my day. The things most people are willing to post in a forum that may include any of their friends or family are rather mundane. The things people post in a forum of interested friends or strangers who choose to follow them or read their blogs are far more intriguing.

  3. Wade RoushWade Roush says:

    @Jules — I think you’re probably right. So many people have come and gone at Facebook, and Zuckerberg is the one constant. He seems to have a Steve Jobs-like commitment to overseeing product development, so it’s probably safe to say he either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the forced groups feature. Objections that seem obvious to outsiders or those with more experience may simply escape him or seem trivial. The odd thing is that COO Sheryl Sandberg, whose role is reportedly to provide some adult supervision and counterbalance Zuckerberg on decisions like this, apparently didn’t step in.

  4. Jules PieriJules Pieri, CEO Daily Grommet says:

    Wade, I thought that exact same thing. OK maybe Mark has never dealt with a Mother-in-law who likes to send too many stupid cat jokes, or a hyper Softball coach who thinks you want to hear from him every day, or a condo association gone militant, but surely Sheryl has. She should understand perfectly well that all groups are not created equal. And that it is awkward to opt out of your psychotic family or PTA group, but pretty easy not to opt in.

    By the way, I admire Mark for staying close to product and that he trusts himself to be the leader. I just think his definition of leader may be too closed-minded.

  5. While facebook has been an interesting case study, complaining about a service that is free to it’s users seems fairly meaningless. As soon as you enter the web you have implicitly given up some aspects of control and/or secrecy about your identity, ranging from your IP, to Geo Location, hosting/isp, bandwidth access, OS, time of day, frequuency, the size of your monitor, the list is almost endless – you’ve (auto) already been recognized as a part of some group whether you like it or not – and the sites you visit will treat you, and serve you according to their wishes – not necessarily yours.

  6. rjr_of_florida says:

    I’m sold on the Frid.ge for staying connected in ad hoc ways with select people. For instance with selected groups such as groups of friends from school–not elementary school friends who look you up from ages ago and latch on to your whole network via other social networking sites. Work groups, task oriented associations, neighborhood friends, mentor/mentee connections, etc. are other viable examples. This company will undoubtedly scale up as it receives more visibility.