Who are we, online?

There are at least two ways to view our identities online. There is the self we choose to present either under our own name or anonymously, and then there is the information we put out there that we can never be sure who has access to. All of the information we “share” comes from us, but it does necessarily represent us in the way it seems to. From the Orwell/Zuckerberg reading, we get the examples of doing research for a murder mystery novel and searching for information on mental health problems for a friend. Elsewhere, we see anonymous accounts created in order to troll. The output from an individual IP address, even when generated from a single individual, does not truly represent any one individual. On the other hand, we have our (somewhat) sanitized profiles on sites like facebook. We may share information more publicly than we mean to, but it still represents a persona we wish to be identified with. Which one of these artificial personas, the one we create ourselves or the one created by some omniscient other, is a better representation of our real, offline, self? The two entities our readings seemed most concerned with are advertisers and governments. Should advertisers be more concerned with how we think and what we are curious about, or how we wish to be seen? Should governments judge us based on online speech, or seemingly incriminating queries? And should either even have access to that kind of information? I don’t have any answers or conclusions here, except that the web has become a very very blurry place. 

Facebook Nation

I think Lori Andrews has taken to this idea of “Facebook as a nation” too quickly and without proper explanation. Just because there are however many millions of users does not automatically call for nation status. That’s like me saying that there are so many socks in my closet, they could be the 45^th largest nation in the world! It doesn’t just work that way.

I understand her point, and it is a good one. Facebook users have little or no protection from a “governmental entity” with regards to their privacy. There is no way to know who is watching you on Facebook. It can be scary when you think about it. But I have a very simple solution for Andrews: Don’t use Facebook.

It is very difficult to live in the real world without belonging to some nation. You need somewhere to live, you need food to eat, places to buy things, and opportunities to make a living. This is what a nation provides, in return for your consent to their policies (which far too many people in this nation don’t bother to learn). It is not so difficult, however, to live in the online world without being part of a nation. It does not provide you with any necessities for survival. Its major draw is communication, but it seems like Facebook isn’t even really about that anymore. Everyone is too busy playing Farmville.

For me, there is a clear line between a nation like the United States and a “nation” like Facebook, which Andrews attempts to blur. You have to allow your government access to your most personal information, that’s just how it works. You hope that they will protect it and not give your social security number to bad people, but it is unavoidable that they will have your information. You don’t have to give Facebook anything, even if you do choose to participate. Sure you have to register with a name and email address, but do you really think someone couldn’t find your name and email address anyways if they really wanted it?

People get into trouble because they don’t think about getting in trouble. People put personal things on Facebook by choice, and then complain when they are revealed. I don’t mean to be cruel, but, personally, I have no sympathy for people who do this, who post a picture of their shiny, new credit card, number and all. If you don’t know by now that the Internet is a dangerously insecure place, you shouldn’t be using it. We don’t need a more protective Facebook government; we need a less careless citizenry. 

Facebook, User of Users?

Lori Andrews' article Facebook Nation is enlightening.  Andrews articulates how social networking works for others more than for the social networker.  This is based on profit.  Giving up one's information for others to profit is not what governments are meant to do, they are meant to protect its citizens; nonetheless, Facebook takes us into unchartered waters:

     "Social networks are taking over many of the traditional functions of government without any legal protections for their citizens.  The underlying economic goal of social networks--monetizing personal data--is invisible to their citizens and may in fact be herding them into a land that they wouldn't want to inhabit."  [13]

Relatively speaking, social networking is still in its infancy and perhaps has more 'evolving' to do.  While I am curious and participate (until recently) in social networking, I cannot help but feel powerless over my personal information and safety as a citizen.  This is exposure taken to another dimension and has its risks, as we can see from the article; on the other hand, we build our own digital community, larger than the regular social networking methods can offer.  I suppose we, as well, evolve along with digital social networking creating a "digital" persona along the way, the question is...how do we protect ourselves, is there a guarantee, or could there ever be one that would protect us from harm?  As citizens, our governments have that obligation but, Facebook Nation??

After reading this article, I feel divided about using Facebook or any other social media network.  It gives me a feeling of insecurity to know that once I have a "digital persona" out there, that it could be vulnerable to misuse; however, sometimes the pressures are such that we need to rely on this service, because one's environment is subscribed to it and, if we are to be part of that environment, we must take the risk.  I like what Facebook can do and be for the world but, I have my reservations and hopeful that social media will continue to evolve into serving its user well.

Welcome to the New World?

In my perspective (whom never used social media sites), Facebook seems to be more than a formation of a virtual nation, it is perhaps an evolutionary human enhancement. The physical act of calling and meeting someone face to face has drastically changed as the enhancement social media connecting one another in virtual space such as Skype with little effort. In some sense, Facebook is a human encyclopedia of an individual and their thoughts/feelings through their comments at a given moment. You don’t need mind reading abilities to understand someone, you jut have to look at their page. In contrast with the physical world, people on social media seemed to be more trusting to the Internet by saying things they would probably never say in a real situation. A great quote from the Andrew reading, “Unlike Vegas, what happens in Facebook doesn’t stay in Facebook.” Thus as I previously stated that this is analogous to an encyclopedia, future generation will probably find an individual’s primary information about their depth of thinking because once online, always online.  

          Facebook is an independent company that the government cant control, and today’s governments around the world are having a difficult time deciding how it can influence Facebook in providing some “laws” that can be placed within the site. The Nation of Facebook seems to be only dictated by those who created it, and in some sense shows no democracy. They made the system, and they make the rules of that system. Although the government probably can’t influence Facebook much, what can influence it are the people who use it. An indirect democracy can cause major change from Facebook and other social media sites. If there is an aspect, such as making your friends list public, that the majority of the people dislike, this may lead to excessive complaints to the social media site headquarters and even abandoning the site. In most cases, people do have the power.    

Breaking News: Can Open, Worms Everywhere!

Due to the widely accepted belief that the speed of Internet progress has outstripped legislative process, it is unsurprising that Internet aggregators are able to compile more data than many would prefer. Personally, I understand the risks of tracking, and go to some lengths to avoid leaving a snail trail across the Internet. Although it can be unsettling when recent Amazon items I’ve been browsing start popping up when I’m reading current events, I’m not under the impression that the targeted advertising has a substantial impact on my life. The expanded prevalence of data aggregators is indeed a shocking and upsetting revelation to many, but before flipping on the public emergency sirens, it’s worth taking a closer read of some of the consequences. What goes unmentioned in the George Orwell Meet Mark Zuckerberg chapter, is the potential benefits of targeted information.

The text poses the question “… If we are all reading a different, narrow range of articles, how can we participate in a civic democracy?” This question feels a bit disingenuous, as it glides down a slippery slope in which we’ve reached a society where no one reads the same headlines, or engages in more widely applicable topics of discussion. Yes, algorithms and data design allows us to increase in higher levels of specificity, but at the same time the Internet is still a very powerful tool for sharing information with others, regardless of their algorithmic paradigm. Targeted media and targeted advertising in some way affect what I view, but they do not wholly determine what I’m interested in, and do not necessarily lead to a disengaged, fragmented population incapable of democratic process.

Having put most of my 20’s into real estate finance, I believe that I can say with some authority a few of the issues raised in the chapter in relation to credit scores are indeed frightening. The fact that the credit card company can cut your limit based upon pretty much whatever metric they feel is applicable, is a problem. It’s no trivial matter when someone’s credit score drops below a certain cut off. I’ve seen people lose their homes by being unable to secure new financing because a credit card cut their limit, thus increasing their debt to high credit ratio, and then lowering their credit score as a natural consequence. That being said, giving different rate quotations based upon ZIP Code is totally reasonable, and is unfairly demonized in the chapter. ZIP Code has a whole lot to do with mortgage rates, as they vary from state to state and sometimes by areas within states. This is not new, is not a dynamic created by the Internet, and seems like a scare tactic more than a reasonable problem.

As discussed in class, a census machine possessed by the Nazis during World War II was utilized for efficient categorization and genocide. That same census machine technology was used to aggregate accurate data about a population, which could be used to improve infrastructure. It seems reasonable that a technology must be analyzed in terms of the complete spectrum of its consequences, good and bad. Monitoring capability that allows Google to find out if I’m logging into my email from Timbuktu instead of Berkeley is the same technology which can be used to monitor my movements for area specific advertising. It’s important to remember that benefits and the consequences often go hand-in-hand. Although we can change legislation in order to protect identity and privacy, we have entered into a new societal paradigm, and it’s going to be very hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

Facebook as a Nation

In Lori Andrews’ article, I Know Who Your Are and I Saw What You Did, she identifies the role of social media as a nation with its own regulations. As people live their actual lives in a digital that represents their real life, their actions can suddenly be scrutinized under the law. However this law does not always falls under the United States because Facebook extends into the global arena. From a human rights perspective, social networks have allowed for the organization of revolutionaries in the Middle East to overthrow oppressive governments. This form of social responsibility placed onto a relatively new tech company leads to the issue of who has been placed in charge of this digital “nation” and how were they appointed. In the case of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is placed in charge of determining the social and political implications of his company in this new controversial role.  Although the United States abides by values of freedom of speech and equality for all people, does that mean these same principles are natural for the rest of the world? In the case of the Egyptian uprising, the Egyptian government went so far as to shut down their Internet in an effort to block out the spread of news and the mobilization of revolutionaries within their own country. Facebook, as a company for making friends and sharing photographs, takes on a whole new set of responsibility for in the global political world. Andrews touches on the issue of a Constitution that would govern these new social media networks with their global reach, however does that mean that those in charge of the company should be able to assume absolute power over its users? 

The Price We Pay

Andrew's piece on the proliferation of behavioral advertising and data aggregators, was nothing if not eye-opening. I always found it intriguing while online shopping at my favorite store- "Anthropologie," that all of the things I might like were suggested to me at the bottom of the page in addition to the particular item of clothing I was looking at. If I was looking at a nice blouse, full of unique prints and cuts, the bottom of the website page would suggest different pants that might look nice with the blouse. If I was looking at pants, the reverse would be true, and if I was shopping for a dress, there would be a tabe exclusively for accessorizing my new gown. Similarly, Youtube suggests lots of Ellen Degeneres clips to me because its server keeps track of the ridiculously excessive amount of Ellen clips I've watched.

There is absolutely something to be said about Andrews skepticism and discomfort towards his privacy on the Internet (or lack thereof).  Sure, it's a bit unsettling to know that the web is aware of my likes and dislikes, and tracks what I tend to watch. But ultimately, I don't think data aggregators really care about the fact that I watch too much Ellen or that I spend too much money online at Anthropologie. Like Andrews points out, behavioral advertising is just advertising. Data aggregators want to be able to cater to my desires so that I may be so inclined to buy more merchandise from their site. After all, most of the web is composed of businesses who are trying to sell as much online as they do on the sales floor. Moreover, if you don't want to participate in the world of the web to the degree many people do, then don't. Don't share much about yourself on Facebook, and don't rely on cites like Amazon or Ebay to buy books and other merchandise.

Behavioral advertising is a growing pain of the digital divide. There are still millions of individuals and societies that do not have access to a computer, let alone internet. These societies are getting left on the wrong side of the digital divide and in doing so are not only at a disadvantage in terms of having access to the world wide web, but left marginalized from the beating heart of the 21st century. The internet is here to stay and if everyone were on an equal playing field online, then data aggregators would no longer have as much "power" per say. Everyone is exposed to identity theft. At any given moment, someone could be stealing your SSN. Why not try and actively stop those thieves? The problem with identity theft, is that there is almost no accountability. It is nearly impossible to find someone to blame. Similarly, behavioral advertising and data aggregators are just part of the package.  Furthermore, They are the price we pay for having the kind of freedom we have on the internet and if this post is taken by "blogger.com" to suggest me to a thread that offers more of this kind of debate, I'm okay with it.