RE: FaceBook taking over the web, and semantic web

We might want to think worldwidely though:). There is still a huge amount people with no access to the net. The more complex it goes, the more it advances....the more those who are excluded remain excluded.

Wouldn't this re-draw some maps as well?

----------Original Message----------

From: "K. Krasnow Waterman" <kkw@MIT.EDU>
Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 10:53 AM
To: "'adasal'" <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>, "'Sampo Syreeni'" <decoy@iki.fi>, "'Stephane Corlosquet'" <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, "'Melvin Carvalho'" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, "'Matthew Rowe'" <m.rowe@dcs.shef.ac.uk>, "'semantic-web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Subject: RE: FaceBook taking over the web, and semantic web

KKW's final comment:  I've been thinking more and more about how the web
will let people grow up (or reform).  In the US, most juvenile criminal
records are expunged, so a mistake made in youth does not follow you into
adulthood (unless you keep making them).  And, historically, adults could
move away from a home town or the site of a particularly poor error in
judgment and leave it behind.  We don't yet seem to have an idea for a web
corollary.    

 

  _____  

From: adasal [mailto:adam.saltiel@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:41 AM
To: K. Krasnow Waterman
Cc: Dan Brickley; Sampo Syreeni; Stephane Corlosquet; Melvin Carvalho;
Matthew Rowe; semantic-web
Subject: Re: FaceBook taking over the web, and semantic web

 

KKW, Dan,
Thanks for longer responses.
These are deadly serious issues which need constant monitoring from various
parties. That is why these stories are in the press, not because of hype,
but because in the US there is a very strong tradition of using the media to
defend freedoms, one of which is the right of privacy.
I wont make the obvious points about this where the state effectively spies
on individuals.
However, I was a psychotherapist and I can say that in dealing with
individuals, groups and sometimes organisations, privacy is absolutely
essential.
Certainly one would not get very far with a teenager if they didn't trust
you in this regard.
My position is that Facebook owes a duty of care to the individuals,
particularly teenagers, who use their service.
Some people are happy to be cavalier in this regard, others do, or, worse,
will come to, feel exposed.
There should be ways of accommodating this in the technology, not the case
at the moment.
Interestingly this morning for the first time I noticed the 'like mechanism'
in practice, being told that two adults with whom I am 'friends' have liked
certain items on Scribd. My feeling was that I was spying on them, although
it was entirely innocuous.
People have a right to have their privacy respected and, if anything, should
be encouraged to exercise that right.
Of course, don't do it and you'll make more work for psychotherapists, so
.... it's a joke.

Best,

Adam

On 10 May 2010 12:08, K. Krasnow Waterman <kkw@mit.edu> wrote:

I agree with Dan.  Teenagers, as a group, don't have the long view.  When I
was younger, it was popular to slather on the baby oil and lay in the sun
with metal reflectors.  Teenagers didn't worry about skin cancer (or
wrinkles), but as they reached their 30's and 40's there were some pretty
serious regrets.

For those who didn't see it, yesterday's New York Times had a piece on folks
reaching that transition from "don't care" to "do care" with their web
presence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/fashion/09privacy.html



-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Dan Brickley
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:25 AM
To: Sampo Syreeni
Cc: adasal; Stephane Corlosquet; Melvin Carvalho; Matthew Rowe; semantic-web
Subject: Re: FaceBook taking over the web, and semantic web

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi> wrote:
>  I'm also of the highly sharing kind, so I don't think they could violate
> my privacy even if they wanted to.
> They really don't have half the data I've already divulged online. I just
> invited my boss into my Facebook network, despite the fact that my perv
> friends' updates would then often be seen by him. Yet I'm having no online
> problem at all.

Be careful what you wish for!

People young enough to have never done anything very wrong, never had
serious conflict or major life disasters, often assume that their
future will look pretty much like the past. If their uptight boss
fires them, who cares, they're bright and could walk into another job.
If they leak private information from their crazy friends into the
public never-forgetting Web, ... well it's a big planet, you can
always make new friends. If their abusive ex-husband finds out where
they live from a leaked geotagged pic, there's always another city
they can move to, always another school that'll take on their kids....

Young people act more immortal than immoral, and the assumption that
things can only get better doesn't work out that way for everyone.

The biggest problem with data flow in online social networks is the
network bit; each participant takes responsibility not only for
sharing and leaking information about their own lives, but about their
friends, contacts, acquaintances too. The thing you should be
concerned about isn't so much the damage you might do to your own
online life by acting around so optimistically, but to others'. Every
random fb app you trustingly install, for example, gets to see much
the same information as the party who installs it; not just about you,
but about your friends.

None of us can safely predict the values and priorities of the
societies we'll be living in in 20-30 years. What we can predict is
that information about -say- youthful indiscretions will be ever
easier to track down, cross-reference and attach. And probably in a
cool 3d heads-up display setting like in the Terminator films ;)
Perhaps universal access to information will give a boost to some
older values ('He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
stone at her'...), but ... well it's been a long time waiting for that
change in human behaviour.

We can't afford to be all "privacy is dead, get over it" about these
technologically-driven changes. Or rather, *we* probably can but we
most likely have friends, contacts and acquaintances who are less
fortunate or less technical and will pay the price of this
devil-may-care-ism. When you say things like "I don't think they could
violate my privacy even if they wanted to." you frame the discussion
in an overly individualistic manner that doesn't help people think
through the consequences of these sites sharing info about user X via
the settings and behaviours of user Y (for millions of values of X and
Y).

cheers,

Dan

Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 14:19:12 UTC