You are here: Home / Columnists / Does Facebook’s new ‘subscribe’ button go too far?

Does Facebook’s new ‘subscribe’ button go too far?

by 18 Comments

Here’s a surprise. Facebook is copying Twitter. Again.

But this time, they might be going too far — for their own good.

Today the company announced the imminent arrival of a button that will let users track public feeds from any Facebook user, even if that user is not a Facebook friend. The button will appear next to the “Poke” and “Message” buttons on users’ profiles as soon as Wednesday, though users will have to opt in for the button’s features to apply to them.

Other sites (Twitter, cough, cough) call this feature “follow.” But that would be too honest. On Facebook, you “subscribe.”

OK. To be fair, subscribe does several things Twitter’s “follow” does not. You can choose to see only people’s photo updates, for instance. Or just the updates Facebook deems “important.” Twitter’s never moved fast on filters (or much else, for that matter). So Facebook’s got ‘em there.

A big concern in reaction to this news so far is privacy. Because this is Facebook, and that’s how it goes.

I worry about Facebook’s nature.

Facebook was built on “friending.” And it’s taken them far. 750 million users far. But as the social Web built up around them, a foundation of a different sort proved just as strong — “following.” Contrary to early expectations, the “friending” Facebook and the “following” Twitter have not destroyed each other. They’ve coexisted. On my TV, at my hair salon, even at my deli counter, there they are, “Follow us on Twitter!” and “Find us on Facebook!” — as harmonious as sky and royal blue.

For years Facebook  has successfully adapted Twitter-like features (the reply, the retweet, the linked content) to its News Feed but has failed to make a dent in Twitter’s growth. Why? Because it’s never gone for the jugular — the friendless “follow” feature itself.

Now, it has.

Guzman

I can’t blame them. So far, at least, social platform success has relied on eyeballs and time. Facebook needs us hooked, and streams of new content are the stronger drug. As addicting as Facebook is already, their “walled garden” of friend connections — their foundation — holds them back.

“Embrace and extend” can mean greater success for ambitious companies whose competitors are creeping on their turf. It can also mean disaster. Lust too much after someone else’s moxie and you risk losing your own.

Will the subscribe button bring down Facebook? Of course not. They’re not stupid. Besides, their filtering features might add a bit of awesome to one of the most familiar network growth models in the social Web.

But with that button, Facebook for the first time is reaching not just for branches, but roots.

Seven years is a ripe old age in social media to be digging that deep.

Mónica Guzmán is a Seattle journalist and community strategist who consults for startups and media and can usually be found tweeting away at @moniguzman. Also see this archive of her weekly GeekWire columns.

  • Forrest Corbett

    [...]“will let users track feeds from any Facebook user, even if that user is not a Facebook friend.”

    FB says:”If I allow subscribers, what updates will they see?
    Subscribers can see only the things you share publicly. They can also choose how many and what types of these public updates they get.”So what is the privacy concern between sharing something publicly and letting someone “subscribe” to what you share publicly?

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      I didn’t go into it, but one perennial Facebook privacy concern deals more with whether users will understand what happens if/when they activate the feature. Facebook has gotten much better at giving users ways to control their content. The worry is complexity and confusion.

      I’m adding the word “public” in that sentence to make it clear this is not necessarily the issue. Thanks for pointing it out, Forrest!

      • Forrest Corbett

        :) FB set a bad precedent by saying they were going to keep privacy simple, and then doing a 180. I think really need to rethink the whole privacy structure before they add more features such as this one and complicate the matter. Otherwise users will continue to be confused by the settings.

        One way they could rethink privacy would be to have two options: Simple & Advanced. The Simple option would be just two or three options that would lock everything down now, and in the future. Advanced would let them fine tune the options and pick and choose each scenario. If they don’t understand, they can go back to the Simple interface.

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      I didn’t go into it, but one perennial Facebook privacy concern deals more with whether users will understand what happens if/when they activate the feature. Facebook has gotten much better at giving users ways to control their content. The worry is complexity and confusion.

      I’m adding the word “public” in that sentence to make it clear this is not necessarily the issue. Thanks for pointing it out, Forrest!

  • http://www.shaunnestor.com ShaunNestor

    Good insight, Mónica. Facebook’s bent has been to make as much information public as possible; this is another step in that direction.

    I am pleased that they have learned from previous privacy fiascos and now allow the users to opt-in rather than expect the casual (read: “no social media expert”) user to opt-out.

    We’ll see where it leads.
    -Shaun

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      “I am pleased that they have learned from previous privacy fiascos and now allow the users to opt-in rather than expect the casual (read: “no social media expert”) user to opt-out.”

      I agree, Shaun, that has been good to see. Although — and this could get me in trouble — I’m kind of glad they didn’t always opt for opt-in. Earlier in Facebook’s history, users tended to react too negatively to features that they not only grew to love (news feed, etc.) but that helped the social Web take evolutionary steps forward in how it connected and convened us. Obviously opt-in is best for the user, but — again, trouble — the user doesn’t always know what she’ll like and, given the option to reject a new idea, may never give it a chance. That said, scaring users by surprising them with unfamiliar new features hasn’t exactly helped Facebook’s ability to earn its users’ trust — a critical component of any open content platform. Now that social media savvy is beyond mainstream, sneak attacks on user trust not only suck, they also don’t make much sense. And so it goes…

  • http://geekwire.com Todd Bishop

    I just opted in to share my public FB updates, but I agree with what you’re saying here, and I think it could change the tone of conversations on Facebook, possibly for the worse.

    There’s a difference in how people communicate with people they’ve agreed to be friends with and how they communicate with “subscribers” they might not even know. The overall experience of Facebook is bound to be less intimate and personal if it turns into bunch of people broadcasting to the masses vs. talking amongst friends. 

    That said, the ability to opt in to the feature initially and then decide when to elevate a specific update to a public status is good, and made me comfortable enough to give it a shot.

    Here’s my Facebook profile if GeekWire readers I’m not already friends or “friends” with want to subscribe. http://www.facebook.com/tbisho. I promise not to spam you with pictures of my daughter … unless they’re especially cute.

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      I opted in to Facebook subscriptions, too, @toddbishop:twitter . Couldn’t resist! http://www.facebook.com/moniguzman. 

      I’ve been distinguishing what to post to Facebook vs. what to post to Twitter largely by thinking, ‘Well, what makes sense as something a limited number of people can see, vs. what I’d hope people I don’t know might discover?’ This really does break with that whole notion. It’s going to be back to the drawing board for some users as we keep recalibrating how we manage all these shaky social networks…

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      I opted in to Facebook subscriptions, too, @toddbishop:twitter . Couldn’t resist! http://www.facebook.com/moniguzman. 

      I’ve been distinguishing what to post to Facebook vs. what to post to Twitter largely by thinking, ‘Well, what makes sense as something a limited number of people can see, vs. what I’d hope people I don’t know might discover?’ This really does break with that whole notion. It’s going to be back to the drawing board for some users as we keep recalibrating how we manage all these shaky social networks…

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      I opted in to Facebook subscriptions, too, @toddbishop:twitter . Couldn’t resist! http://www.facebook.com/moniguzman. 

      I’ve been distinguishing what to post to Facebook vs. what to post to Twitter largely by thinking, ‘Well, what makes sense as something a limited number of people can see, vs. what I’d hope people I don’t know might discover?’ This really does break with that whole notion. It’s going to be back to the drawing board for some users as we keep recalibrating how we manage all these shaky social networks…

    • http://twitter.com/kegill Kathy E Gill

      @ToddBishop:twitter , I turned FB Subscriptions on, too, even though I have a FB page: http://facebook.com/kathyegill . It will be an interesting experiment, but it won’t make me visit FB more often. :-)
      Here’s the big question: what makes this network “different”? IOW, how do you (generic you) decide which things to make public here? I’m not going to post the same things everywhere; the networks are *different.*

    • http://www.intrinsicstrategy.com FrankCatalano

      I’ve also turned Facebook subscriptions on, though as a practical matter, I’m not sure how much difference it will make. I’d always made certain updates visible to “Anyone” (now “Public”), such as articles I wanted to share or non-personal photo albums.

      This new Subscribe feature just makes it easier for someone who wants to see what I’ve posted publicly to do so. It doesn’t change being able to post something publicly on Facebook.

      That said, I think a sad moment may come when many of us who have allowed subscribers get few. Or none.

      • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

        “That said, I think a sad moment may come when many of us who have allowed subscribers get few. Or none.”

        Good point. That’s where Facebook’s age as a platform becomes a bit of a crutch. So many of its users have been on for so long and have developed such strong habits on the site, that introducing new habit-forming features so that they’re widely adopted quickly is particularly tough.

  • http://twitter.com/kegill Kathy E Gill

    Monica, I don’t think “subscribe” is going to affect the average Facebook user (We Really Need A New Noun). Facebook is “social” and Twitter is “information” — although each has elements of the other. Although I agree that Facebook seems to be reaching, I think in this case the reach is a response to Google+, not Twitter.

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      See above reply to Frank. It may not affect the Facebook user much in part because Facebook has so many users that it’s tough for them to adopt new behaviors every time Facebook launches a new feature. 

      Interesting point about Google+. I think it’s a response to both, or, more accurately, to Twitter and Google’s cumulative strength in the ‘interest graph’ space.

  • Guest

    Facebook is, fundamentally, a simple publish-and-subscribe site. The company is simply providing another mechanism for publication and subscription.

    Remember RSS? It’s back — and now your less-computer-literate friends know how to use it.

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      “Remember RSS? It’s back — and now your less-computer-literate friends know how to use it.” 

      Well said.

    • http://twitter.com/moniguzman Monica Guzman

      “Remember RSS? It’s back — and now your less-computer-literate friends know how to use it.” 

      Well said.