As I wrote in my book Streaming: Movies, Media and Instant Access, Facebook has been from the beginning little more than a data mining operation, which simply tries to collect as much information on all of its subscribers as it possibly can, and then use this information for profit. And they keep upping the ante with every passing day. As Casey Johnston reported in Ars Technica on December 16, 2013, in addition to the material you actually post on Facebook, the site also wants to know about the stuff you type in, and then think better of, and decide not to post.
As Johnston writes, “Facebook released a study last week indicating that the company is moving into a new type of data collection in earnest: the things we do not say. For an analysis of self-censorship, two researchers at Facebook collected information on all of the statuses that five million users wrote out but did not post during the summer of 2012. Facebook is not shy about the information it collects on its users. Certain phrasings in its data use policy have indicated before that it may be collecting information about what doesn’t happen, like friend requests that are never accepted.
Capturing the failures of Facebook interactions would, in theory, allow the company to figure out how to mitigate them and turn them into ’successes.’ Adam Kramer, a data scientist at Facebook, and Sauvik Das, a summer Facebook intern, tracked two things for the study: the HTML form element where users enter original status updates or upload content and the comment box that allows them to add to the discussion of things other people have posted. Over the course of those 17 days, 71 percent of the users typed out a status, a comment, or both but did not submit it.
On average, they held back on 4.52 statuses and 3.2 comments. In addition to that information, Das and Kramer took note of the users’ demographic information, ‘behavioral features,’ and information on each user’s ’social graph’ like the average number of friends of friends or the user’s ‘political ideology’ in relation to their friends’ beliefs. They used this information to study three cross sections with self-censorship: how the user’s political stance differs from the audience, the user’s political stance and how homogenous the audience is, and the user’s gender related to the gender diversity of their network.”