Short and Sweet

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

When Everyone’s a Friend, is anything private?

In the last few weeks we have had some profound discussions around friendships (specifically what constitutes a friend) and the issue of privacy/trust on social networking sites. How many ‘actual’ friends can one have in ‘real’ life and yet how is it that we have hundreds online?

I came across this great article in the New York Times (published March 7th, 2009) that addressed this exact issue – and hence the title of my final blog! The article focuses on Facebook in particular, stating that “(in) December, the average number of “friends” per member, worldwide, was 100”. According to a company spokesperson, that number has now reached to 120. I don’t have anywhere near this amount but I know many who have double that. The definition of ‘friendship’ in this case is obviously not how Danah Boyd defined it. In his article ‘Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing Community into being on social network sites, Boyd concludes that “it seems as though friendship indicates an exceptionally strong relationship with expectations for emotional and practical support”. By contrast, he says that “when people articulate their relations on social network sites, they are not simply projecting their internal model of tie strength. The public nature of these sites requires participants to perform their relationship to others”.

So, if you consider the old and new definition of ‘friends’, when you bring privacy and trust in the mix, it is no wonder how problematic social networking sites are becoming. The NY Times article I mentioned above supports my view that although most people ‘trust’ their friends with information, when ‘friends’ are defined as anyone who accepts an invitation to be a ‘friend’, this ‘trust’ becomes insignificant. If we start to ‘trust’ everyone and anyone, then ‘trust’ begins to mean nothing – it loses its value. Similarly, the article argues that “as the scope of sharing personal information expands from a few friends to many sundry individuals grouped together under the Facebook label of “friends,” disclosure becomes the norm and privacy becomes a quaint anachronism.”

Even more puzzling is that it appears that many people aren’t even aware of how much of their private information is out there and how easily anyone can own it. To add to this, most people don’t know much (if anything) about the privacy options and terms of service most social networking sites provide. Again, in the same NY Times article, they state that “Facebook offers members a plentitude of privacy options……….43 settings that can be tweaked, not including a bunch for limiting information that can be seen by software applications installed by one’s Facebook friends”.

The article goes on to say that “Facebook’s default settings for new accounts protect users in some ways. For instance, the information in one’s profile is restricted to friends only; it is not accessible to friends of friends. But Facebook sets few restrictions by default on what third-party software can see in a network of friends. Members are not likely aware that unless they change the default privacy settings, an application installed by a friend can vacuum up and store many categories of a member’s personal information.”

I found this article very interesting, here is the full article if you want to read it yourself: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/business/08digi.html?_r=1&em

I think we all need to use better judgment when joining these sites – like most will quickly admit, we don’t even read the contract agreements before AGREEING. Parents need to be more vigilant given how many teenagers are on these sites.

On a final note, while not quite related to this blog’s focus, I did come across this great Youtube video which pokes fun at the fight amongst the more popular networking sites to pull you into their ‘world’………It’s titled Social Networking Wars ..………. enjoy!!!!!!!!

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Trust and Security Online - Not so much!!!!!!

We were beginning to have a great discussion last night at the end of class about Ethics and the Internet and issues of privacy and transparency. This morning I found 2 very recent articles that talk about these issues including cyberbulling.

The first article is one from the Economist (February 2009 issue) and it's titled: Only connect: Reaching out online in an age of uncertainty. It discusses social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn but especially argues how LinkedIn’s business model differs from other social networking sites and renders it more effective in terms of confidentiality and privacy. The article examines Robert Metcalfe’s law to social networking. Metcalfe, who is known as the the father of the Ethernet protocol, states that “the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of devices connected to it”. In short, he argues that LinkedIn is better because it is smaller and has been been designed for professional users, providing little outlet for intimate details—unlike Facebook or MySpace where “you would inevitably divulge a good deal of personal information to quite a few people who could do you harm”. Great read – check it out:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13129427

The second and also very recent article focuses on the issues of cyberbulling, anonymity and freedom of speech on the net. It’s title says it all: Slimed Online. It focuses on two Yale law students, who were severly attacked online and how they may help change the rules by having filed legal suits against their anonymous attackers. The attacks were shockingly mean and carried much reprecusion for these students. This quote from the article calls into question what most are already so concerned about—online trust and security. “And while anything goes in the Google era, everything also stays, and spreads. The whole world is now the bathroom wall, and that can never be entirely painted over”. I encourage everyone to read this article …… it’s disturbing, but most importantly, a real eye opener (for those who are not too still too trusting online!) . Here is the link:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying?print=true

I look forward to having more great discussion around these issues! I am scepticle as it is on the net and never divulge more information than needed. When I read this kind of article, it makes me cringe at the potential distruction of people’s lives with the mass amount of technological tools we have in our hands today.

And on that happy note, I sign off……………………Franca

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Whose definition is it anyway?????

First, I would not be me without injecting a little humour!!!!!

Now on a more serious note....I really enjoyed the last few discussions we’ve had concerning online vs. face-to-face communities. I am especially concerned and surprised over the ‘many’ definitions individuals give to ‘online’ or ‘virtual’ communities. From much of what I have seen and read thus far, I would suggest there is more of a struggle to define ‘online’ communities than face-to-face communities. Perhaps that is because it’s harder to define something you can’t really see and may definitely be much harder to examine. In the most simplistic terms, you would define it as a ‘community’ that happens via the web…..but of course, this would first entail some agreement around what a ‘community’ is in general.

In their article, Jenny Preece & Diane Maloney-Krichmar (2003) (http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/7%20Handbook%20v1.7Final.pdf) begin by asking the question: What constitutes an online community? They begin their argument by stating that “There is no accepted definition of online community. The term means different things to different people” and they support this view by examining definitions and descriptions from a variety of disciplines.

I came across another interesting article which compares online and face-to-face communities. Oren Etzioni, in his article, Face-To-Face And Computer-Mediated Communities, A Comparative Analysis (http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/E31.html) defines ‘community’ as “having two attributes: first, a web of affect-laden relationships that encompasses a group of individuals--relationships that crisscross and reinforce one another, rather than simply a chain of one-on-one relationships……(s)econd, communities require a measure of commitment to a set of shared values, mores, meanings, and a shared historical identity--in short, a culture”. This further begs the question: What constitutes a shared ‘culture’?

I think it is valuable to see how it is defined in Wikipedia since it is a collaborative website and people all over the world get to edit these definitions…..So why not ask those who make up ‘online’ communities how they define ‘online’ community?!?! ..........Anyway, here is the Wiki definition of a virtual community, e-community or online community: “a group of people that primarily interact via communication media such as newsletters, telephone, email, online social networks or instant messages rather than face to face, for social, professional, educational or other purposes. If the mechanism is a computer network, it is called an online community. Virtual and online communities have also become a supplemental form of communication between people who know each other primarily in real life. Many means are used in social software separately or in combination, including text-based chatrooms and forums that use voice, video text or avatars. Significant socio-technical change may have resulted from the proliferation of such Internet-based social networks”.

During my googling, I also discovered another interesting article/book called: Communities in Cyberspace (By Marc A. Smith, Peter Kollock) where the authors discuss many of the same issues including communication and interaction examinations. (http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=210IkjyN8gEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA167&dq=online+communities+versus+face+to+face+communities&ots=Xu1UkJPmqx&sig=M1QAi3bmjA4X3BwNLN7B35vcR_A#PPR21,M1)
Ok one last interesting bit of information ……… this guy has dedicated a blog to trying to define ‘online’ community. Check it out: http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2007/12/28/defining-the-term-community/.

Going beyond trying to define ‘online’ community, there are even more pressing questions like: How do people interact in online communities? What is a successful online community? (Jenny Preece & Diane Maloney-Krichmar, 2003). This opens up an even bigger debate!

Next week, my team and I will be presenting on communities and social networks and hopefully provide an engaging discussion on whether communities are social networks and furthermore, whether online social networks support community development. This brings yet another twist to this intriguing debate……….Stay tuned!!

Franca

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

More on the Digital Divide

Hello again ..............It's amazing what can happen just over night (the things that happen with the Internet!!).........Early this morning (actually dated Jan 28/09), I found another interesting article with this title "Half of Americans Now ‘Frequent’ Internet Users as Digital Divide Narrows" .......... well not so fast!! They specifically comment in the article that "Though internet use is up overall, the poll of more than 1,000 Americans reveals that large education, income, and age gaps still exist in terms of internet usage". So yes, while more individuals are using the Internet, "the least educated, least affluent, and oldest Americans are those who least often use the internet". Look at the table on the left (might be best to go to the article, the print is quite small here).

If you want to read the article, you can find it here:http://seekingalpha.com/article/116945-half-of-americans-now-frequent-internet-users-as-digital-divide-narrows?source=article_lb_articles

Franca

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Digital Divide

Ok so here is my first formal blog ……… well not so formal!!

I really enjoyed our brief discussions and the reading on the concept of the Digital Divide. When I googled it, I was struck by how often it comes up and just how prevalent it is, not just between developed and developing nations, but also as Selman states in his article “within western advanced capitalist societies (where) the…focus of these debates (is) on the technological inequalities within individual countries”. We don’t have to look too far to witness this widespread phenomenon. I, like many others I'm sure, thought that the technology we have today would serve to bring more people together, rather than intensify the existing division.

Selman's argument around the definition of ‘access’ really caught my attention. He expreses his view that “instead of either ‘having’ or ‘not having’ access to these many different technologies in many different contexts, it follows that access to ICT and the digital divide are hierarchical rather than dichotomous concepts”. This means to me that there are different degrees of ‘access’ and just because you have access to the Internet does not automatically mean you have access to all information. It makes me wonder just how profound this debate could get! Selman’s article was written in 2004 and here we are in 2009 and the Digital Divide has only widened and become more prominent as more technological advances are made.

I found several recent articles that demonstrate just how significant this issue is today and in one of the world’s richest nations no less! The newly elected President of the United States, Barak Obama, is making the issue of broadband one of his top priorities, together of course with the other imminent issues like the economy, the housing slump, unemployment, etc. Check out this blurb in one of the recent articles I read:

“Such a poor showing after more than 10 years since DSL broadband technology was introduced only exacerbates the criticism that the U.S. is not doing enough to close the ‘digital divide’ between major metro areas and rural America, and between the broadband haves and have-nots.”
(Here is the article, if you want to read more:
http://telephonyonline.com/broadband/commentary/broadband-obama-1110/)

I also found another recent article that debated this same issue but with a different twist. Again, here is a little blurb from this commentary:

“The issue of providing widespread and more robust broadband is taking on new relevance in light of President Obama's push to bring broadband to rural and lower-income areas. Most Americans in rural areas have said they want broadband, but they are often frustrated because only dial-up service -- and sometimes not even dial-up -- is available to them. The story is different in many lower-income areas and among some older citizens -- they aren't particularly desirous of getting broadband access.” (Here is the article if you want to see more: http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212902072&subSection=News)

Well, I look forward to learning more about the Digital Divide in our discussions!