Covered a few days ago on Mashable. The time is fast approaching when users will have to use the new design–now they still have a choice between the update and the older version. Facebook is trying to push a questionable focus on its activity stream feature, which I’ve already argued might warrant an abandoning the whole network. A less drastic response has been taken by users who’ve banded together to form facebook groups demanding that they be allowed to keep the option to use the old facebook interface.

What happens next is something of an open question. The Beacon controversy already forced facebook to partially back down from new features once, will a user revolt make them change their plans again? If so, does this mean that social website companies are losing control of the direction in which their product evolves? If this facebook acquiesces to the demand of these users, it would bolster the argument that the web is becoming more democratic.

On the other hand, will dissatisfied users leave if facebook forces the redesign on them? That would also be a somewhat positive development–even though the protest was unsuccessful, facebook would be punished for their lack of flexibility. Maybe that gesture would force them to then reconsider their decision. Regardless, the people would have spoken.

However, if the redesign becomes the only design and those users who objected to the move stay on the network, then there’s bad news for the web. That scenario would demonstrate that networks like facebook don’t have to listen to their users because those users are stuck there or the number that would leave is to small to worry about. Beacon was a bit different–that resulted in negative coverage in broader media, not just outcry from the community. A new interface for the site isn’t going to result in massive public scrutiny, so this is unlikely to become a public relations issue.

If the majority of users as sufficiently committed to maintaining their presence on large, popular sites like facebook that a vocal minority can’t influence the development of the site, then the companies that own them can act against the wishes of their users without consequence. If facebook marches on as planned, they’d effectively be saying "What are you going to do, Leave? And sever all the connections that take place on our site, become invisible within the communities that rely on facebook as a near-universal directory? We doubt it, so we’ll do what we like." That’s a far cry from the user-centric, democratic web that the optimists describe.