Privacy in the Time of Facebook – Interviews on CBC Radio and the Takeaway

Last week, I was contacted by two radio stations for interviews on Facebook and privacy. I’ve been studying Facebook heavily since it launched in February 2004. As a digital anthropologist, Facebook’s success and information architecture have been an intense obsession of mine.

In December 2009, I went to the Banff Centre in Canada to spend a month doing independent research. As I narrowed my focus of study, I found myself looking more closely at Facebook. Facebook has a sort of technosocial gravity not prevalent in other social applications. It is the Amazon.com of friendship, where micronarratives and recommendation systems allow one to read the lives of others as one might read a newspaper article or book.

Part of Facebook’s pull has to do with the instantaneity of  broadcasts and subsequent immediate feedback. Social rewards and often faster and more widespread in the digital world than in real life. Also, the rewards have a quantitative and lasting value. If you share something intimate, you can get multiple comments and multiple likes. You get immediate feedback. It feels good. And the more you reveal about yourself, the more you often get back. Eventually, you can feel a sense of community where you might otherwise feel you don’t. If you think about it, it’s like a cross between playing a videogame and being your own micro celebrity.

. They show up faster. There is more of an adrenaline rush. Every social interaction and success becomes quantifiable. One can get mega points (when their content goes viral) or micro points for micro updates. Analog interaction is less quantifiable and not as far reaching. THis is the same reason why one is addicted to Farmville-like games.

Why are we so okay with sharing everything?

Privacy. Do people really want it?

-Celebrity

-Analog Sharing

One to one, or one to group.

Celebrity is one to many.

-Digital Sharing

One to many. Similar to celebrity. Owning the means of producing

systemic value.


The idea of using Brightkite to end a picture of a kid — which is “on my way home”

stays in default public.

there are no replacements. nothing as cool. but their models are default private.

connections breaking connections — accounts deleted.

there’s not    areaway good model right now for amknig stuff product.

their need to monetize this stuff eventually changes behavior.

All this stuff keeps showing up in public when one doesn’t mean it to.

privacy affects us on a person by person.

Data that never should’ve been there goes in there.

the default should be – don’t show this to the world.

sense of place. – read in college.

VCR shifting sense of time and place.

people need some sense of whether something is safe.

trust means – i can walk out of the house and have a sense that people wont steal my stuff…

or people eaving a social network and not having all of their secrets getting out.

I really miss the idea of friend being friend.

kids care about privacy in a  very granular way.

friendship is very granular.

@Dayn

Why is privacy hard? Granularity is complicated, security, & there is currently no model for making money on it. @hotdogsladies #webvisions

What kind of platform requires that your subscription is made public? not google reader, gmail, etc
january – zuckerberg interviewed by arrington – “if we were to create facebook new today, the current settings today would be how we built it now” (everything public by default) — see marshall’s post on “privacy is dead”
when people feel secure knowing how far their informatino will spread, they feel more comfortable sharing more informtaion
realtiy tv, twitter, myspace, letters to the editor of papers left in comments in news websites — general trend towards everything being public
less privacy -> more pageviews
one of the top results in google suggest for “how do i” is “delete my facebook account”
deleting your account is not easy to do
the most viable long-term solution is for social networking to be a protocol not a site. server-to-server communications. it’s inevitable. the alternative is to let the few big companies make the decisions.
Faceook –
Marhsalk’s
By defintion about observing others and comparing and contrasting
orgiinally
based on Harvard
the bulk it’s history was — narcissistic.
by default all of your stuff was there for friends
a number of friends was turned by default to public
people had never changedtheir privacy settings before…
some of it irretrievably public by defa

ult
the thing that pissed me off the most during that period

which of the setting bothered them the most
was the most that the fact that back then you brace a fan of paceges and that was the facebook version of subscribing by RSS
originally — that was something you could ckeep private — that makes snese to me –
as of december one of the changes was that it couldn’t bbe public — even if you were not logged in
could still see people’s fan pages
example i often gave was
“i’m secretly gay tanned no one at the office kows it”
a friend not in the tech sphere — told me — a fan of a podcast
heterosexual couples stuggling to concveive
but didn’t want the world at lease to see that podcast
but it was public from tha point on
iretrivably.fb is incredible in that its popularized the syndication of public content
what kind of subscription would require that your material was put public
another object was that your friends were irrevocably public as well.
day after that “don’t expose this on my profile”
but it was still avaialbe programmatically – -through the api.
the fact tha they enabled it — especially one day after the event
at least human invisible and not programmatically invisible.
Jan – mark zukerberg did an interview with micheal arrington
if we were to create facebook again today we’d have the same privacy settings as we do today. current settings today is code word for
zuckerberg says the age of privacy is dead. people join facebook to be public and not private
but for years — but facebook’s contribution
when people feel secure in where their data will go, they will be more willing to share information
then they feel comfortable sharing more information in total.
head of public comma at fb — public rationale for that — their evidence of the fact that the world was changing in th

at way as that the fact that reality tv shows were popular, and twitter was by nature public, and also letters to the editor about
why fb changed its privacy policy.
the more people share, the more pages will be read, and the more ads can be served.
less privacy means more pageviews –
helpful to spell out.
well demonstrated by the most recent
2 major things ppl objected to:
1. privileged partners — the fact that exposing your data
when you visit those sites, they look at your facebook cookie – and FB just gives them the data
yelp
pandora
docs.com (microsoft)
2. a much larger nu

a number of websites can be accessed via API level technology.
Facebook will give you an frame – that showed you
visit read white web so it would say – we can see who your friends are – view the articles on rrw –
facebook would serve it up through an frame — and you would click on features that other people have liked on RRW.
the opt out feature is a radical change — vs. opt in (w/facebook connect)
vs. facebook connect — you just “like” things. and that’s exposure of user data.
now yelp.com, ect is OPT OUT> this is dramatic — UI shift.
people are freaking out about all that. who are some of the people who have quit fb
peter rojas
matt cutts (!!)
leo laporte
they’ve quit bc of privacy concerns
“how do it” google
delete my fb account
—-
diaspora — NYU kids through kickstarter approaching 160,000
super geeky about it.

RRW wrote about them first. i don’t think they have any product at all
lots of other people are building decentralized open social networks.

he most viable
not for social networking
where it lives on your server of the server of trusted providers — all of our social networks are interoperable
how verizon customers can call att cusomers- and take our contacts from one network to another when we leave.
kind of inevitable that that will happen.
leave us subject to their policy changes – -putting everyday people at risk and unhappy. it’s a legit desire of ppl to want to communicate online with trusted friends and no one else.
everyone from marginalized populations to prevent from being exposed to everyone else. that’s a very legitimate need.
howfully social networking as a protocol will return control to users of this really revolutary technology back to the whole world.
now social networking has opened up social publishing to the world. a world changing kind of technology that people should be able to trust. because


Facebook executives are preparing for a ‘privacy summit’ to discuss the site’s controversial new default privacy settings (which do little to protect users’ privacy). But in a world of over-sharing online, does privacy even matter anymore? And have our notions of public and private changed so dramatically that we couldn’t reverse things if we wanted to?

Jeff Jarvis is a journalism professor at the City University of New York and author of “What Would Google Do?” He walks us through the history of privacy, and how technology has changed our definitions of what it is over the years.

And Amber Case is a cyborg-anthropologist and tech consultant. She explains how social networking sites have redefined privacy, identity, a

nd the way we interact with others.

Guests: Amber Case and Jeff Jarvis
Produced by: Kristen Meinzer and Jen Poyant

Download

Spark 114 – May 23 & 25, 2010

On this episode of Spark: Facebook privacy, video game localization, and universal translators. Click below to listen to the whole show, or

Recently, the popular social networking website Facebook changed its privacy policy. That has some people worried that once private information may now be public. Others ask, “What’s the big deal?” This week, Spark looks at Facebook and privacy from several perspectives.

First, Nora talked to Philip Moscovitch and Andrew Jones from the Spark community for their views on Facebook and privacy. (Runs 7:50)

Next, Nora interviewed David Wasieleski about this business ethics of social networking sites like Facebook. (Runs 7:01)

Finally, cyborg anthropologist Amber Case explains why Facebook is “sticky” and how its design decisions encourage participation. (Runs 8:10)

The second self. One must manage both the offline self and the online self. The outer appearance and security of the analog self must be updated an maintained. Clothing and skillets, house and vitamins. One cannot look out of date. The digital self must also maintain the extension of self. Sensors must be developed, even mentally, to ascertain where the boundaries of the digital body begin and end.

Security in real life

Security of the second self.

Thanks to everyone at CBC Radio, especially Carma Jolly, for making this an enjoyable experience!

Leave a Reply