Last night’s episode of Criminal Minds was about a killer that found his victims through social networking sites. The episode specifically calls out Facebook and Twitter, but also references geo-location social networks like FourSquare. While the details of the episode are fiction, the episode brings up valid points about the information that we share online, and feels real enough to make you check your privacy settings following the show.
For the purpose of analyzing three types of social networks, I’m going to focus on Facebook, Twitter and FourSquare.
Facebook: Facebook is unique because it allows you to have a lot of flexibility with your privacy setting. While Mark Zuckerberg would urge you to keep an open profile with low privacy setting, that is not the smart move. First, make sure you’re only “friends’ with people that you know and can trust. You don’t have to accept friend requests from everyone, especially if you don’t know them or don’t like them. Then, you can limit the amount of information that is available to people. Don’t post where you are at all times, don’t give out your home address or phone number, and don’t put up pictures that share too much about yourself.
Twitter: Twitter has two privacy settings – share everything or create a protected account, meaning that you need to approve everyone that has access to your Twitter feed. If you have a standard account it means that anyone can see what you write, regardless of if they are following you or even have a Twitter account. Think about this again, ANYONE can see what you post. If you’re giving out details about your current location, announcing when you’re home alone or on vacation, anyone can see that. Twitter is much safer as a communication tool that does not offer an excess of information on your whereabouts or personal life.
FourSquare: FourSquare might be the most dangerous social network of them all since its primary goal is to broadcast where you go, and how often. Users check in to locations that they visit, ranging from the office, movies, restaurants, parks, and even their homes. While this builds an online network of people that you can get tips from, it’s really risky. Anyone can see where you are and learn about your daily and weekly patterns. It’s a lot of personal information to provide strangers with, and is a social network that I won’t go near for personal use, no matter how many discounted Frappucinos Starbucks will try and bribe me with.
Location-based News Use By the Wall Street Journal (Via Nieman Lab)
Twitter has been a great tool for the media since its inception. A fact that has attributed to its media darling status. However, as media organizations look for new ways to leverage social and digital technologies they’re becoming more sophisticated with their usage.
When the Wall Street Journal launched its ballyhooed New York Edition in April they also announced a partnership with Foursquare, the location-based social network. From the outside the partnership looked simple. The Journal wanted a way to get in front of early adopters in New York City and planned to offer three types of badges popular on the service — status symbols that Foursquare users earn for checking into a certain number locations. They also planned to offer bits of information on significant locations. For instance, when someone checked into the George Washington Bridge they might see from the WSJ: “Police were told to stop and search would-be subway bomber Najibullah Zazi’s car in September 2009 as he drove up to the bridge—but waved him across without finding two pounds of explosives hidden inside.”
While this was an interesting use, the Journal really took a step in social, location-based, news reporting when they broke news of the Time Square evacuation on May 7 by posting this message to folks checking into New York City locations: “Portions of Times Square have been evacuated after a report of a suspicious package.” According to the Journal, that message was posted simultaneously with additional alerts and coverage on WSJ.com.
The use of Foursquare for breaking news allowed the Journal to check-in with users who follow the media outlet on Foursquare and those who were in New York at the time would have seen the alert at the top of their Foursquare time-line. This type of targeted and localized editorial should be exciting for media organizations of all sizes. Just as marketers look for ways to improve targeting capabilities, media executives should be in the same mindset.
Meanwhile, as Facebook becomes a greater source for breaking news content and driving consumers to stories, media executives are looking at new ways to leverage the largest social network in the land. A division of Time Inc. recently began selling magazine subscriptions through its Facebook news feed, which allowed interested users to fill out their order information and pay directly through a form, without ever leaving Facebook. Meanwhile, GQ and Condé Nast, continue to leverage their Facebook page to personally engage consumers and attempt to interest them in their GQ iPad and iPhone applications, with direct links to the download pages on iTunes. Although, they’ve only sold 365 copies of their current issue to date on the iPad, they’ll be a time in the not too distant future when these more profitable subscriptions (no printing costs) surpass print subscriptions.
While this may make some folks squeamish, given Facebook’s privacy woes, they’re both examples of the progressive approaches media organizations are now taking with social media. As we’ve said before, these media organizations are becoming technology companies first and journalist organizations second. If you’re hoping they don’t disappear, it’s a change for the better.
