Re: FaceBook taking over the web, and semantic web

High Mischa,
I scanned through [2].
Just spent last hour reading up on and commenting to
http://kck.st/9QC2zkwhich is the diaspora project. What a clever,
cheeky, name. (Why cheeky you
may ask? em...) And now I'm a backer. There is a first time for everything!

The link etc. is below. I think it worth having a look at what they are
trying to do, which is just to tie various existing protocols through e.g.
pubsubhub asnd offer P2P and put a RonR application on top as the WGUI.

I wonder though, how much more is actually needed than having everything
decentralised, or running through one of many hubs?
Are semantic technologies needed beyond, maybe, the semantic representation
of a profile, or maybe that is just it?

1. There may be legal issues, especially if they allow or encourage content
sharing, but even without that facility. (And how would it be stopped?)

2. Only small numbers will use it, or so I think. There seems to be some
appeal to being able to broadcast to all of Facebook, although it is a
crazzy thing to do! Security in numbers?

Anyway, I would be interested in your comments about this.

Adam

Decentralize the web with Diaspora — Kickstarter <http://kck.st/9QC2zk>

Maxwell Salzberg is raising funds for Decentralize the web with Diaspora on
Kickstarter! Help four talented young nerds raise money to build Diaspora,
an open source personal web server to ...


On 12 May 2010 10:39, Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Excuse the late response, I have been thinking about the concept of
> practical obscurity, and how the web changes such concepts, I blogged about
> it a while ago [1]. A former colleague of mine Kieron O'Hara has been
> writing about such things for a while now, his most recent paper [2] talks
> about such things, and he also talks about how the digital world we are
> living changing notions of privacy in his book called "The Spy in the Coffee
> Machine" [3].
>
> Mischa
>
> [1] http://mmt.me.uk/blog/2009/08/05/privacy-web-practical-obscurity/
> [2]
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1666437&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=88061093&CFTOKEN=45481263
> [3] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spy-Coffee-Machine-Privacy-Know/dp/1851685545
>
> On 10 May 2010, at 14:50, K. Krasnow Waterman wrote:
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
>