This article has many, many problems, and misrepresents what's actually being proposed. No data is shared in either way without clear consumer opt in. No bank is randomly giving data to Facebook. Facebook is not buying data from the banks.
The totally misconstrued experience the article appears to be about is primarily for messenger chatbot approaches that are already in use for paypal and a few banks (BMO, Wells Fargo to name two) across the world. The user has to volunteer to start the chatbot in FB messenger, then go through a myriad of permission screens (including an oAuth) to give permission to the chatbot to see some transactions and answer a few other basic account questions ("How much do I spend on groceries?" "When is my payment due?"). Privacy policies for existing chatbots describe all data usage. Users can easily revoke their permissions and remove the chatbot.
This is the same level of data you've given to various PFM apps like Clarity or Mint. And if you haven't, cool, you won't want to do this with Facebook either, no problem. It's with clear and conspicuous permissions. Facebook has publicly and clearly said that they won't use the data to target ads, and they would be sued by everyone if they turned out to have lied about something as important as credit card or bank data. Not to say they won't get caught a year from now abusing the data, nor can anyone say that banks won't abuse any data they get from FB... but if you believe this, don't use the chatbot and they won't see your bank data nor let the bank see your FB data.
Facebook has done and facilitated some dreadful things, but letting folks access their banking data with permission via chat is the US catching up to what WeChat already has: millions of people accessing their banking via chat.
If thats the case then the article is very wrong. Its like saying telco providers ask banks for banking data when you receive SMS notifications of transactions or use SMS banking.
However the devil is in the details - and there are a few tricky details here:
- Why would FB be talking to banks about a chat bot integration? Surely the banks can just integrate to FB messenger for business like every other provider. This is pretty standard fare for e-banking as you mention, its been around for years.
- Why is it valuable to them? Their share price climbed. If its a straight out chatbot integration then FB cant benefit much - You cant leverage that. Its not an interface into the bank that facebook itself can use to build services on top of and the users data will be covered by banking privacy regulations. At most it increases user retention a little.
- Then there is the usual tricky language. “We don’t use purchase data from banks or credit card companies for ads” => Then why am I able to target "online shoppers" as a category in an ad campaign?
Overall I think your right though. Even if they are looking at deeper banking connections its all standard with other wallets/platforms like alipay/wechat etc. These platforms are light-years ahead of FB in that respect. They will struggle to catch up in no large part due to the lack of trust after all the privacy issues.
The problem with Facebook chat access to banking is Facebook. I don’t want Facebook to become just like WeChat where you pretty much have to have WeChat to engage in many forms of commerce in China. I want less Facebook pervasivness — not more of it. iMessage for Businesses is far better from a privacy standpoint as well as usability. Facebook apps on iPhone are notorious battery hogs not to mention have a history of very sketchy practices. Facebook lost my trust long ago. The only way I’d use Facebook again is if Tim Cook ran it. In the meantime, I can simply open the Chase app and see my balance in literally one-tap (assuming FaceID is turned on.) Much faster than typing a Messenger message. I don’t want Facebook having access to my bank balances either.
The point is that the issue is being misrepresented, not how popular or not FB is.
If you don't trust them, don't use it.
Also Tim Cook is doing the same thing FB ever did, it's just that Apple has the advantage of making $$$ by selling hardware, not personal information. They are in the enviable position of not primarily selling ads.
that may be true now but I think its fair to say that the fear is it will lead to banking data being sucked into the FB ecosystem followed by any number of scary scenarios.
if your argument is 'oh you dont have to use it', that doesn't works either because they can offer you a slight service/rate discount depending upon the desperateness of you situation. remember FB already has access to a lot of your data through FB/whatsapp/insta & pretty pervasive tracking everywhere. they are rapidly achieving monopoly status in many communication forms so some panic is warranted when they go after your banking or healthcare data.
let me paint a picture not too implausible for you. you walk into a hospital, as it stands today there is no way you can find out the costs of services you are gonna consume without having to go through the complicated dance of billing/negotiation/copays etc. Now say there is a tie-up between FB/Banks/Insurance companies (and hospitals because why the heck not). they can track you, find exactly how much money you have & what your cash flow looks like. you have to be incredibly naive to think they will not use this information to create some kind of 'adaptive pricing' to squeeze every last penny out of you before they let you go. now let take this a step further, how about FB turning into a kind of payday lender for your unpaid hospital bills? All you need is one in-elastically priced service to monetize the shit out of that.
this is just one example that took me 2 minutes to think, it can get WAY worse!
the bigger issue that (IMO) bothers people deeply but they are often dont articulate is tech used to be about building bridges but now tech is basically trying to turn everything into a toll-booth.
"ou have to be incredibly naive to think they will not use this information to create some kind of 'adaptive pricing' to squeeze every last penny out of you before they let you go."
No, you have to be highly conspiratorial to wrap up hospitals, Facebook, the banking system all working together to concoct an illegal, real-time price discrimination scenario.
What you described is not plausible, moreover, if you don't want your finances integrated into your social feed ... then don't integrate. I'll imagine that most won't.
"No, you have to be highly conspiratorial to wrap up hospitals, Facebook, the banking system all working together to concoct an illegal, real-time price discrimination scenario."
If you go read the comments on the original WSJ story you'll notice a pattern, not a single comment echoing your sentiments, in fact, most of them fear almost exactly what I described. so basically the whole world has become conspiratorial.
Given the casualness of your response to something so serious, it makes me think you are a Fb shill or somebody who has invested a lot in FB stock. BTW since the announcement FB stock is up 5pc+, that makes me think market is pricing in such predatory scenarios.
Yes, populism is like that - people are conspiratorial and easy to rile up by the press who are always looking to spook us a little bit.
To the point wherein if someone doesn't buy into their conspiracy, they immediately call others 'naive' and then claim they must be 'paid secret plants' by said organization.
The scenario you described is not going to happen, and analysts are not remotely 'pricing it in'. They're not even thinking about that.
They are however thinking that if FB gets into 'current account banking' for folks ... then that could be a very popular thing.
You may be surprised to find that most product managers and analysts are surprisingly normal people.
The totally misconstrued experience the article appears to be about is primarily for messenger chatbot approaches that are already in use for paypal and a few banks (BMO, Wells Fargo to name two) across the world. The user has to volunteer to start the chatbot in FB messenger, then go through a myriad of permission screens (including an oAuth) to give permission to the chatbot to see some transactions and answer a few other basic account questions ("How much do I spend on groceries?" "When is my payment due?"). Privacy policies for existing chatbots describe all data usage. Users can easily revoke their permissions and remove the chatbot.
This is the same level of data you've given to various PFM apps like Clarity or Mint. And if you haven't, cool, you won't want to do this with Facebook either, no problem. It's with clear and conspicuous permissions. Facebook has publicly and clearly said that they won't use the data to target ads, and they would be sued by everyone if they turned out to have lied about something as important as credit card or bank data. Not to say they won't get caught a year from now abusing the data, nor can anyone say that banks won't abuse any data they get from FB... but if you believe this, don't use the chatbot and they won't see your bank data nor let the bank see your FB data.
Facebook has done and facilitated some dreadful things, but letting folks access their banking data with permission via chat is the US catching up to what WeChat already has: millions of people accessing their banking via chat.