We the people of the Web can be delusional at times. We believe silly things: "This will make money someday," "We're reallynot evil," etc. So it's not surprising that people often recite five basic myths as fact when it comes to social networking. Nevertheless, it's time to set the record straight.
Myth #1: I own my data. It's a curious question: When I upload content to social networks, who owns it? Why, you do, of course, some social networking oracles claim. But it simply isn't true.
"When we're sharing information, that's a fundamentally risk-taking behavior," says Joseph Smarr, chief platform architect at Plaxo Inc. "Whether I own data per se, I certainly can't control how it's used."
When you upload a photo to a social network, you lose control over it. Therefore, it's not yours. Anyone can save it, repost it as his/her own, make a virtual dartboard -- whatever. And don't think you can delete it, either: A recent study showed that, while you might technically remove a photo from Facebook 's servers, it can remain on its content delivery network for at least a month.
Smarr recommends we just get over it: "Once you get past that, all you can do is be more thoughtful and responsible about who you're sharing with."
Myth #2: I control my privacy. Smarr might have a point about being cautious with one's data, but it's getting harder to make a convincing argument about privacy on the Web. We can set as many controls as we like, but on a social network real privacy does not exist, nor should it be expected. Sorry, but there's nothing quite private about broadcasting one's life story and whereabouts on a public network.
Myth #3: Social networks are democratic. Faced with a media backlash in response to a change to its TOS, Facebook allowed its users to vote on a more appealing set of terms, causing some to believe social networking sites are democracies. While the move seemed democratic on its face, the site kept a short leash, allowing users to vote on two sets of similar terms and not rewrite the language.
"Facebook's recent foray into a user-generated or democratic approach to changes to their terms of service aside, social networking sites are run by for-profit corporations, and [are] not really democratic, nor do I for one expect otherwise," says Jonathan Abrams, founder of Friendster.
Facebook agrees: "Some have criticized us that it's not a pure democracy, and that's right," Facebook spokesperson Barry Schnitt tells Internet Evolution. "We'd agree with that. It's a for-profit company."
Myth #4: Social networks flatten hierarchy. People love this one. Suddenly, because of social networking, you can be "Friends" with your CEO. He or she might even comment on your wall! But regardless of how many virtual sheep your overseers throw at you, hierarchy is not being flattened. More likely, you're giving your boss a sneak peek into your personal life, which could ultimately be bad news during the next round of layoffs, no matter how very Friendly you are online.
Myth #5: Social networks affect real social change. Understandably, one might think that organizing billions of people on the Web can result in social change. And in some cases, it can: "I think the Obama campaign -- and the Howard Dean campaign with less success -- used social networking to great benefit," says Abrams.
But, more often, social networking trends toward the apathetic. If you've ever scanned the Causes application on Facebook, or joined a group dedicated to an issue, you may already know that it takes a combination of technology and passion to truly change anything. Pointing and clicking one's way into a philanthropic group is only 1 percent of the battle. (Maybe 0.5.)
So there you have our Five Myths. Agree, disagree, or want to add to this list? Share with us on the boards below!
Well, I can second it being from up side...I am a university lecturer and I would never add my students to me personal profile-well I don;t want them to see me with mу drunk, or (worser:) or with my friends and boys. I had another profile -especially for the students. I commented on some statuses and some pictures but It really didn't matter anything.The hierarchy is still there:)))
Nicole, what a well written and thoughtful analysis. Simple sounding issues made complex in a networked world. I don't think our laws or courts are ready for the lawsuits coming their way in 2-5 years.
Imran
Will Your Life's Work "Live, Forever"? http://neternity.org
I think, Nicole, that the photo ripoffs are very much the same thing, just a different medium. The plagiarism problem is far more serious to me than just the use of my original thought without permission. You may have notcied my belief, expressed ofetn in comments here and elsewhere, that most information should be made available to everyone, and free, too. BUT I also STRONGLY believe in attribution of sources. I'm glad you were able to catch those who chose to use your blogs without referring back to you. There are actually a couple of specialized search engines that some writer friends of mine use--and they've found their original fiction posted in various places attributed to someone else. Further they had a hard time convincing site operators to take it down!
Thanks for responding to my question, and I hope some more of the good people here will chime in on this one.
My experience here has been that some interactions online -- no matter how thoughtful and true they may seem -- cannot be carried out in the "real world." I have developed "Friendships" with plenty of people online who, when we see each other in person, basically stare at their shoes. They're not nearly as talkative/receptive in person. I actually have a couple of Facebook "Friends" -- who requested my friendship -- who look away if we see each other in public. So is it social? It can be, but no -- just adding someone as a contact online does not automatically mean friendship. Not at all.
That's definitely a troubling twist on the data ownership problem, chuckgregory. Do we need to go around licensing every single sentence we post online?
This is sort of related (but maybe not really) -- but I've known quite a few people who have had their photos taken from MySpace and Facebook by others who have reposted them as their own! How sick? These people basically took someone else's photos and claimed them as their own. Then, when the actual person requested they be taken down, the photo thieves would often argue at first that they were theirs.
It's really difficult to keep track of who is using "your" data as their own online unless you're actively and obsessively searching. I've stumbled across a couple of my blogs posted around the Web on other people's blogs without proper attribution. Fortunately I've been able to have them taken down, but finding those only makes me wonder what else is out there -- not just of my own stuff, but everyone's.
There's a difference between observing and noting the content of a FB profile and stealing its content. As part of a Google profile, I remain anonymous.
On the other hand, would someone working for Google (or any other company with tracking plans) have the potential to look a bit more closely at the profiles of particular demographic members and illegally take what they find?
It's time for major lawmaking on the tracking of online activity and the way the info gathered is used.
"Data Mining" -- they call it "market research" -- and the operation isn't limited to Twitter, FaceBook, &c
The interesting thing to ponder is: what is the relationship between all theis pieces? Are the "Browser Wars" really an effort to build the Best Browser? What is the "Best Browser", -- and why?
Data ownership is one of those issues that keeps on coming up. Here it's in the context of social networking, and recently it's been discussed with regrard to copyrights and piracy and that sort of stuff.
This latest article from Nicole brings up some interesting points about data ownership, with the bottom line being that once you make it available on a Social Network it's pretty much up for grabs by other members, the site operators, and just about anyone else. The recommended action is to 'deal with it' and just don't put up anything that you may not want to see over and over again on someone else's site. We've read about people who were burned by this--sex pictures put up by college students that later kept them from getting a job, for instance. I would think a bit of common sense might tell us what NOT to put up, though.
What I have not seen addressed lately, that I perceive as a far more serious problem, is that what we put up may actually be claimed by someone else AS THEIR OWN. While it might not bother me overmuch to see my rants reposted all over the place, I would be quite upset if I were to repost my own work and have someone accuse me of plagiarizing it. Yet this is a very real possibility, and an insidious one. I hereby and forever claim the right to use and reuse my own work, ad infinitum! I think that's a pretty reasonable ownership claim, whether I'm publishing on my own site, a social network, or elsewhere.
I'd like to see others' thoughts on this particular nightmare scenario. I
I will say far as twitter, you notice that many key players display their blog url and their twitter url.
I think it's safe to say that twitter isn't going anywhere but forward..it doesn't even seem to be at it's height..when you see everyone with their blog url and twitter url associated with their screen name, or on their business cards...perhaps that is when it will be at its plateau.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
We're live on IE Radio with Naomi Baron, author of Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, and professor of linguistics and language at American University.
Hey, IE Radio fans! We hope you're ready for another exciting interview. Today we're welcoming Naomi Baron, author of Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, and professor of linguistics and language at American University. Baron is joining us at 2:00 p.m. ET.
The Internet is making us stupid. No wait, the Internet is making us smart. Multi-tasking helps us consume more information... orrrr it reduces the amount of knowledge we can retain.
The Web has become the preferred spot for documenting personal flaws. With every online confession, Web users are crafting their detailed autobiographies and setting them free for the public's consuming pleasure.
Earlier this week, Facebook made a big fuss over the fact that it has allegedly registered its 500 millionth user. In an effort to celebrate, we here at Internet Evolution called for your Facebook Horror Stories. Hoo boy, was this going to be fun!
Getting to Work on Smart Work: How IT Is Transforming the Implementation of the 'Internet of Things' Organizations in all industry sectors are becoming more instrumented, interconnected, and intelligent -- and that's changing the way they approach virtually every facet of their operations. It's up to IT to help organizations adopt a "Three I's" approach that leverages the emerging Internet of Things and enables them to work smarter. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
We do love our social networking, but, according to computer scientist Jaron Lanier, we may be diminishing ourselves when we join the hive. “May be? Ha!” says Mr. Cramer.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
There's a public-policy war on copyright that nobody is winning, and inconsistencies in viewpoint and interpretation seem to be multiplying. We need to step back and think our policies over again, or we risk having a strategy that fails everyone.
Ultraviolet is an industry-wide attempt to standardize video content delivery across multiple platforms. Apart from the fact that it’s based in the cloud, relies on the DRM system, and isn’t backed by Apple… it sounds great!
The FCC's Sixth Broadband Report has a hidden secret. But here’s a hint: The regulatory body plans to regulate broadband as a telecommunications service.
Once defined by epic journeys, planning, and maps, the phrase "on the road" takes on new meaning in a digital age, where we can make all our decisions using our connected devices en route.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
