LinkedBook - or just InYourFace?

A lot of us have come to expect, if not completely accept, that Facebook will farm out their users data to advertisers faster than a crop-crazy Farmville aficionado, given half the chance and a way to slide it into some New and Improved User Preferences. LinkedIn, that quasi-professional counterpart in the major social media arena, has seemed less inclined to stoop to such unprofessional tactics.

Until now.

I don’t much appreciate the irony that only recently did I decide to go ahead and share my one and only photo on Linkedin. Being somewhat camera-shy, I was careful to make sure it was shared only with those already in my network. Granted, anything posted on the intarwebs is out there for all to see if they really know how to find it. That doesn’t mean I want my social networking venue furtively taping my image to the cyber-walls as they see fit for fun and profit (it's bad enough that I just gave people I actually know tacit permission to do so). It doesn’t mean I’m automatically agreeing to be affiliate advertising fodder, either.

Considering that one of the main things people do on LinkedIn is business related networking, the ramifications of having your profile information and/or your photos affiliated (bad pun absolutely intended) with advertising you may or may not want to endorse - or you may or may not even feel is appropriate - are potentially more than simply annoying or embarrassing. LinkedIn promises you'll be connected to ads "related" to content you have publicly endorsed. The problem is, the term "related" is open to a lot of interpretation, and the further down the chain it goes, the more (mis)interpreted it can get, especially if that interpretation is being done by marketing algorithms. I'm sure we've all gotten search results sprinkled with suggestions that were pretty well removed from what we were actually looking for. I've definitely gotten "You might also like" suggestions that I definitely would NOT want to "like", not even on Facebook. Most certainly not on LinkedIn.

The delivery method leaves a bit to be desired, as well. Opt outs are, IMHO, all too often underhanded tactics used to get people to consent to, or even purchase, services and goods they would otherwise avoid, given full disclosure. I suppose I shouldn't complain. A good part of my income comes from cleaning bloatware off computers where the user wasn't careful enough to opt out of everything but what they intended to install. Still, both from a consumer advocate perspective, and a LinkedIn user perspective, this is one option I couldn't opt out of fast enough.

Before you decide this is yet another privacy-tempest-in-a-teapot, you might want to let your imagination run a little wild on how your endorsement of streaming cable TV could ultimately wind up being represented. Some of that late night programming might not be the kind of fare you want paired with a personal photograph...or, then again, it might (and if it is, you probably should at least make sure your photo is "appropriately" flattering...*cough*). Then you can decide if you want to opt out of LinkedIns latest offering - or not.

Update: Attitudes can result in adjustments.

It's nice to know the noble motivation comes back to that ubiquitous excuse of "delivering useful ads" . Personally, I've never yet had an ad delivered that I found useful. I suppose it could happen someday, but I'd still rather not find myself making a surprise appearance in one.

Shiny, happy advertisers. Really!

I finally logged into Facebook this morning to do a bit more than just make sure I remembered my password. Poking around the "My Account" section for the first time since the Great Privacy Update, I received the following popup when I hit the "Facebook Ads" tab:


Advertisers using my photos? Misleading rumors? Get the whole story? I'll give 'em this: they know how to hook a person.

The Facebook blog entry is an interesting read in and of itself, but more interesting to me is the reference to "two entire advertising networks" being unfriended by the big FB itself (actually the number now stands at four). Turns out there's also a list of ad networks that are still considered friendly, for the time being anyway.

Presumably Facebook is aware of the members on this list, even if the "providers are not approved by nor affiliated with Facebook", since the content on the Facebook Developer Wiki "is created by the Facebook team with help from our developers". You still might want to weigh just how evenly matched your social standards are with Facebooks, seeing as how RockYou! isn't very careful with its users passwords, Offerpal recently ditched a foul-mouthed CEO, and Zedo-induced spyware/adware has long been a gift that keeps on giving. Neither of these latter two are getting great reviews from my trusty Firefox plugin, either. I could spend the rest of the day playing in this sandbox with my little bucket and shovel, but I think you get my drift.

Granted it's possible to dig up dirt on just about anyone or anything, and everybody's got a skeleton or two rattling around (I've never kicked a puppy, but I've stuck a few mirrors in front of Siamese Fighting Fish). Facebook taking a shot across the bows of lowend malvertising is a step in the right direction. The Facebook community trying to set some standards with a list of who is nice (or at least not blatantly naughty) is another step in the right direction. That doesn't mean it should be taken at face value, or that the shiny, happy advertisers who made the Nice List are there because they met a bar, rather than just slid underneath it.

It is a place to start, at least for the conscientious crowd who have their eyes set on a long term, sustainable business model as opposed to a short term, rake-it-in-and-run racket. If consumers back them up by voting with their wallets, there may even be a light at the end of the "Scamville" tunnel.