Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

In the era of social networks thousands of users can turn into hundreds of thousands, even millions, in a matter of weeks.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/04/internet-mores?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/eternalseptemberliveson


"SEPTEMBER 1993 will go down in net.history as the September that never ended," wrote Dave Fischer in an internet posting in January 1994. Mr Fischer, an early digital artist, was talking about the move by AOL, then the biggest internet service provider, to let its customers participate in a threaded newsgroup system called Usenet, previously the preserve of academics, government and military types. Prior to 1993 September was when each year university IT departments issued a new crop of uppity 18-year-old geeks with account logins that came with access to time-sharing systems on mainframes—and so, too, to the inchoate internet. Before long, though, the freshmen would be put in their place (or, more likely, would switch to quaffing beer). 


AOL's decision meant that each day was as the first day of school—with a constant influx of "newbies", as the old guard disparagingly labelled first-time users with no knowledge of the tacit rules which had allowed newsgroups to function smoothly. The web may have aged into October, but any new service that reaches a critical mass lives through its own "eternal September", as the phenomenon came to be known.


In the era of social networks thousands of users can turn into hundreds of thousands, even millions, in a matter of weeks. This makes September especially febrile. Existing users, in particular early adopters who had braved beta tests and server failures, are prissy about the "noobs" who don't know the rules—or, worse, fiddle with them. Eventually, though, their number plateaus and services switch from reeling in new customers to keeping existing ones happy, so that they do not start pining for another autumn jaunt elsewhere.


Instagram, a photo-sharing service, has already lived through one metaphorical September (in fact, October 2010), when the service hit a million users of its iPhone and iPad app within weeks of launch. People loved how it let them degrade pictures they took to resemble those made using old snapshot cameras (something your correspondent never quite understood). Nowadays, the unspoken rule seems to dictate that every other photo on Facebook, Flickr or Twitter must be Instagrammed.


On April 3rd it released a long-awaited version of its software for Google's Android operating system, which powers at least 200m smartphones, most of them advanced enough to run Instagram. The Android app was downloaded a million times in the first 24 hours. (On April 9th the firm announced its acquisition by Facebook for $1 billion in stock and cash, a significant premium over its previous private valuation.)

Predictably, a spate of articles and blog posts has already begun to sprout, with existing Instagram users fretting about the cluelessness and ineptitude of Android parvenus elbowing their way into the blurry photostream. Carps abound about Twitter feeds overwhelmed with a flood of banal photographs of yellowed grainy parking meters and solarised shots of streetlamps at night. Or Facebook friends' snapshots of people and routine occurrences suddenly all aping New Wave album covers. It may be April, but September is here again.

New media and internet marketing jobs

Saturday, January 28, 2012

The Dangers of Sharing - Lori Andrews



It may surprise anyone under 16, but even before the advent of social networking we faced threats to our privacy. A hospital accidentally releasing patient records or a shady marketing firm engaging in Stasi-like data collection — such violations were substantial enough and disturbing enough to make the evening news. Today, however, the “death of privacy” is more like death by a thousand cuts: information leaks out slowly and invisibly, and so routinely that we’re hardly shocked when it does. Internet companies, which use the word “sharing” almost as a euphemism for “oops,” like to pretend these lapses are normal, even natural. If Mark Zuckerberg’s private photos are up for grabs (as when a recent glitch exposed his Facebook account), what can the rest of us expect?
Illustration by Edel Rodriguez

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND I SAW WHAT YOU DID

Social Networks and the Death of Privacy
By Lori Andrews
253 pp. Free Press. $26.

Related

Such sloppy reasoning is under fire in “I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy,” by Lori Andrews, a law professor and bioethicist whose previous books include “The Clone Age” and “Body Bazaar.” For Andrews, the Internet is a natural subject. She ventures far beyond the social networks of her subtitle to consider the ramifications of search engines, data mining, targeted “behavioral” advertising and other technologies. Likewise, she covers a range of issues beyond privacy, including discrimination in the workplace and free speech in schools.
Some of her questions are challenging and potentially explosive. Is it valid to expect judges to refrain from “friending” lawyers they work with? Should sitting jurors be prevented from using social media? If a parent once wrote on Twitter that he or she didn’t want children, should that statement be admissible in custody hearings?
As she weighs these topics, Andrews uses hundreds of anecdotes for illumination. She is particularly provocative on the dangers of data-mining technologies. What if our online searches for anti­depressants or bankruptcy lawyers were to make their way to insurance companies or banks? This may not be going on yet — most of Andrews’s concerns here are hypothetical — but, as our digital traces are collected and analyzed by for-profit intermediaries, it’s worth worrying about.
Andrews’s larger point is that many of our long-cherished rights have been curtailed in cyberspace, and she wants us to take them back. She argues that Internet companies are in it for the money — not to change the world, as many of them claim — and that their customers are in the dark as to what happens to their personal information. We may be getting more choices and controls over our data, but this doesn’t always help. “Your right to control is currently being diluted by the sheer number of things you have to do to exercise it,” Andrews writes.
So far, so good. Encouraging Internet users to demand respect from governments and corporations, Ralph Nader style, seems a sensible idea. But it’s not new. Andrews shows little interest in existing Internet social movements, and glosses over their continuing campaigns to promote digital rights. The European political scene is already changing thanks to the Pirate Party (which campaigns on an agenda similar to Andrews’s), while numerous other groups, from the Anonymous movement to the Chaos Computer Club in Germany, draw attention to vulnerabilities in data protection. Andrews mentions none of this.
Instead, she proposes a rather odd solution of her own: the global adoption of a “social network constitution” that could become “a touchstone, an expression of fundamental values, that we should use to judge the activities of social networks and their citizens.” This “constitution” is relatively short — just 10 articles — and some of its prescriptions are common-sensical (“No person shall be discriminated against based on his or her social network activities or profile”).
Not all of Andrews’s suggestions, however, are as cogent. Consider just two. The first article of her constitution — “The Right to Connect” — proposes that “no government shall abridge the right to connect, nor shall a government monitor exchanges over the Internet or code them as to sources or content.” In essence, it demands that governments keep off the Internet. But how would this work in countries with less expansive free-speech protections than America? Many European nations, for example, place reasonable restrictions on Holocaust denial or hate speech. Andrews’s account is predominantly United States-centric, yet the Internet’s global context dictates that any broad “social network constitution” account for such cultural differences.

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND I SAW WHAT YOU DID

Social Networks and the Death of Privacy
By Lori Andrews
253 pp. Free Press. $26.

Related

Another article in Andrews’s constitution proposes that “each individual shall have control over his or her image from a social network, including over the image created by data aggregation.” It’s hard to object to the spirit of this dictum, but what does it mean in practice? Would users be able to see all the categories — “single,” “metrosexual,” “middle-aged” — that online marketers stick on them? Would they actively shape (and perhaps even cancel) those categories? More important, wouldn’t this hamper the business model of sites like Facebook and potentially drive them out of business? One is unlikely to come up with effective ways of regulating cyberspace without paying attention to how it makes money. There is nothing wrong in attacking the business models of Internet companies, but the criticism would be stronger if accompanied by some alternative vision for how a different Web might emerge and function.
Andrews also has a flair for colorful metaphor that nonetheless gets in the way of her argument. She repeatedly refers to Facebook as a “nation state” and even starts her constitution with “We the people of Facebook Nation.” At one point, she explicitly compares the complex relations between governments and citizens to those between companies and their customers, writing that “unlike in a democracy, Facebook is unilaterally redefining the social contract.” There may be a contract between Facebook and its users, but it’s surely not the social contract of democratic theorists. Besides, if Facebook were a nation with its own constitution, why would we still need real-world courts to enforce it?
As Andrews herself shows, amending existing laws and ensuring that courts develop a richer understanding of the Internet could solve many of the problems she highlights. What’s needed, then, is not a constitution, but a manifesto that can mobilize the public to exert pressure on lawmakers and educate the courts.
But what if most people are willing to surrender their privacy in exchange for coupons, free music and videos, or simple book recommendations? This seems to be Facebook’s preferred strategy, an instance in which the mere right to privacy — even if enshrined in a constitution — is not going to be enough. Someone also needs to make a powerful argument about the dangers of sacrificing that right. Otherwise, the constitution Andrews is promoting would end up defending something no one values. She is mostly silent on this new type of threat.
Andrews has written an informative but occasionally frustrating book. Had she taken a more empirical approach to questions of Internet activism and a more philosophical approach to questions of privacy, it would have been better still.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

In less than 20 years, the Internet has transformed the way we shop, socialize, and communicate. What’s next?


11 November 2009
Writer and novelist Mark Helprin drew the ire of hundreds of thousands of readers when he argued for the extension of copyright laws in a New York Times op-ed article two years ago. His recent book, Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto, fleshes out his key arguments in defense of authors’ rights.
30 October 2009
Here’s a thought experiment: try to imagine what it would have been like to create Google before the era of the Internet and open standards. You would probably have had to pay millions of dollars to create the necessary software on a proprietary operating system.
27 October 2009
Technologies such as high-speed Internet, mobile broadband and GPS are enabling new ways of providing value to customers. In this article, Scott Griffith, CEO of Zipcar, describes the relationship between technology and his company’s innovative business model.
27 October 2009
Knowledge workers fuel innovation and growth, yet the nature of knowledge work remains poorly understood—as do the ways to improve its effectiveness. The heart of what knowledge workers do on the job is collaborate, which in the broadest terms means they interact to solve problems, serve customers, engage with partners, and nurture new ideas.
14 October 2009
On Sunday, July 12, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published on its front page and on four full inside pages an article headed, “Problem nurses stay on job as patients suffer”. Of the many extraordinary things about this story, one stands out: it was written and principally reported by two reporters, Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber, who do not work for the Times. They work at ProPublica, a New York–based nonprofit and nonpartisan team of investigative journalists founded in 2008 and funded by philanthropy, including major support from the Sandler Foundation.
14 October 2009
The marketplace for news content is growing. More people in more places seek out news more often than ever. Yet we, the creators of that content, don’t get paid appropriately for our hard work and the risks we take.
26 February 2009
When organizations think about strategy, it’s often in the context of their own objectives. But when the surrounding reality changes—as it is doing in the media landscape—both strategy and goals need to adjust.
26 February 2009
At the moment, all the talk in media circles is about the death of newspapers. These obituaries strike me as extremely premature.
26 February 2009
Americans are increasingly using the Internet to participate directly in democracy. And over the next 20 years, our governance will include forms of direct democracy that have never before been possible.
26 February 2009
“Peer production”—large-scale distributed action by many individuals—is transitioning from a curiosity to a general phenomenon.
26 February 2009
Until recently, the core principles of management had hardly changed since the innovations conceived by former General Motors chairman Alfred Sloan. Over the last decade, however, the stable environment in which companies have flourished has been changed by technological innovations, globalization, and continued specialization.
26 February 2009
As the global economic slowdown hits government revenues hard, the natural tendency will be to seek fresh sources of revenue such as higher sales taxes. Look out, Internet!
26 February 2009
The consumer economy that was born in the 1950s is lurching to an end, and a new “creator economy” is emerging. This shift represents the third economic turning in just over a century. A look back at its antecedents reveals much about what to expect.
Home | Contact | Terms | Privacy | Site Map | © 2010 M