There is no doubt that Facebook has rapidly climbed the ladder of the competitive social networking market, more than doubling the user base of the previously popular MySpace since its debut in 2004. In fact, it has become popular enough to be a substitute to exchanging numbers with people we meet, and reason enough to call you a weirdo if you aren't on Facebook.
Being a user myself, I have noticed the growing amount of concern regarding issues of privacy, such as data mining, and potential monetizing of personal information. It seems that we now have evidence of the latter, as a Facebook user named Harman Bajwa had his vanity URL (facebook.com/harman) revoked two days ago, for apparently 'violating' the site's policies. Meanwhile, Facebook made a sales deal for the vanity URL with Harman International. Here is a sample of the official reason for the revocation by Facebook:
Loosely translated, that basically means, we are making money from your vanity URL and accusing you of some BS policy violation. As far as I can tell, Harman Bajwa had every right to be using the URL, since it's his real identity, and in no way attempting to impersonate anyone or anything.
It will be interesting to see whether Harman will get his URL back, or receive some sort of compensation. With over 300 million users world-wide, Facebook has adopted a lot of power over the social networking medium, and with that power, one would hope, comes responsibility.
Being a user myself, I have noticed the growing amount of concern regarding issues of privacy, such as data mining, and potential monetizing of personal information. It seems that we now have evidence of the latter, as a Facebook user named Harman Bajwa had his vanity URL (facebook.com/harman) revoked two days ago, for apparently 'violating' the site's policies. Meanwhile, Facebook made a sales deal for the vanity URL with Harman International. Here is a sample of the official reason for the revocation by Facebook:
"A Facebook username should have a clear connection to one’s identity. In addition, impersonating anyone or anything is prohibited." (read the full article)
Loosely translated, that basically means, we are making money from your vanity URL and accusing you of some BS policy violation. As far as I can tell, Harman Bajwa had every right to be using the URL, since it's his real identity, and in no way attempting to impersonate anyone or anything.
It will be interesting to see whether Harman will get his URL back, or receive some sort of compensation. With over 300 million users world-wide, Facebook has adopted a lot of power over the social networking medium, and with that power, one would hope, comes responsibility.
I agree, Harman was in no direct way impersonating or posing as someone or something else. What's even more interesting to me is how site workers at Facebook clearly didn't seem to look into his particular profile at all. I mean personally my Facebook page has my name on it and I share my first and last name with a fashion designer. Needless to say, I'm not misrepresenting myself online. I predict there will be some sort of compensation for the hassle Harman is encountering.
ReplyDeleteHa, ha. I linked to the letter Harman's agent sent to Harman Bajwa, offering to "work with [him]to acquire the name."
ReplyDeleteApparently in the past, they wanted a domain name for Avatar and offered "promotional items to the owner of twitter.com/avtr for Coke Zero." In spite of the grammatical error (misplaced modifier) I interpreted this to mean that they were going to give the domain holder some free Coke Zero products. What a deal! And if Harmon doesn't work with them, what then? However, this is also an example of the power of the Internet and the Facebook community to bring shame on a corporation. If Tapscott is right, Facebook (and Harmon International) will back down because your generation values corporate integrity.