Dr. Erin Karper ([info]drkarper) wrote in [info]aswemaythink,

Reading Discussion for September 25

The theme for this week's readings is privacy (or the lack thereof). Web communities and opportunities for collaborative Web writing can bring people together for support, connections, or even romance, but putting oneself out there on the Web can also have significant consequences.

Some of this might be related to audience: often times people put information on the Web without thinking about audience, or people assume that the vast and sprawling nature of the Web implies that no one will notice the content they create for the Web, and that they will thus be invisible except to a specific audience which knows them. Or, people assume that certain people whom they wish to exclude from their audience will not use the Web (due to a lack of access or personal choice) and thus will never locate content which might affect them: "In a trend that first came to the fore on the online diary site LiveJournal, they're posting information online that they wouldn't offer their parents or teachers, as though they can't imagine that their virtual space would ever be visited by paternalistic eyes. ("Scenes from the MySpace Backlash")" A lack of technical skill or awareness might lead users to believe that Web content is ephemeral and that audience is therefore only a temporary concern if Web content is accessible to an audience only for as long as they allow it to be present. However, placing content on the Web makes it easily archivable and reproducible by Web archiving and caching services such as Archive.org or Google or by other individuals or groups. If you don't consider who could be reading, or you assume that no one is reading, then you may not make wise choices about the content you present.

Others might argue that trust filtering tools such as “friending” and other social networking tools available on many Web sites which allow users to control who has access to some (or all) of the Web content they create often encourages people to feel as if their information is more private than it is, or that they alone control – or invoke – a specific audience whenever they write for the Web. The "Craigslist experiment" described in the article by Bill Thompson certainly proves that point. In many ways, so does the furor over Facebook's recent changes:
Martinez says the privacy concerns are the real heart of the issue and the cause for most of the outcry. "The feeds provide too much information that users don't want to share and don't necessarily want to know about," he says. "You used to do something in Facebook and your friends would happen to see it. Now, you do something and people have to see it. Your actions are being announced with a bullhorn. ("Privacy Fears Shock Facebook")


My questions for this week:

  • "The debate over privacy in the social networking sphere is taking place on relatively new ground. When it comes to sharing personal data, how much is too much? After all, people participate in social networking communities because they want to share personal information about their lives with their friends.("Privacy Fears Shock Facebook")"
  • Why do you think the situations described in these articles happen? Is it because people don't understand audience? Is it because people (especially the "digital natives") feel comfortable sharing things online than previous generations and thus don't consider the possible consequences?
  • Where do you think all of this is headed?
Tags: community and collaboration, myspace, privacy, reading discussion, web 2.0

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 3 comments

[info]mjhiggins

September 20 2006, 16:28:20 UTC 5 years ago

Response for Sept 25th

In response to the article about Facebook I definitely believe that there is a boundary which was crossed by the creators. Yes they do have a valid point that none of the information on the newsfeed was private but the new way it is being displayed makes it even more public than before. I don't blame users for being upset, even I myself was upset. The question which the article raises, "how much is too much?" is a difficult one to answer. I would say that it depends on the individual. I myself, for example joined Facebook to reconnect with old friends and stay in contact with current ones which I don't see very often. I did not join it to broadcast my personal life. I didn't post my number, my address, my screen name or other private information about me on my website. To me, those types of things are something which I don't want everyone to know and I consider putting those to be sharing too much information. Other people, however, do post such things and for them it is not putting too much information. Basically I feel that the question is a hypothetical one and can not be answered easily. I think these situations happen because the users of the site don't realize just how public they are making their life. As the creators of Facebook stated, they were not making any private information public, it was all available to other users before the changes. I do think that the situation is partly the creators fault for overestimating just how open users want to be about their actions on the site, but I mostly blame the users because they are the ones who originally joined the site. (Yes I am including myself as part of the blame). If they don't want people to see their private lives then they shouldn't post it on the internet. I think that all of this is headed to stricter restrictions put on websites like Facebook and Myspace. The government has been trying to regulate the internet for years but have been unable to due to public opposition to the regulation. If incidents like these keep happening, however, I feel that more people (especially parents of digital natives) will want sites like these to be regulated in order to ensure the privacy and protection of their children.

[info]nufy8

September 24 2006, 18:34:28 UTC 5 years ago

How much is too much? It depends on the person. I could rattle off every single little detail about myself and my life, or I could pick and choose what I want to divulge; at this point, we have the necessary tools and communication platforms to accommodate either decision. And that's just what it is - a personal decision. If you want to post nude pictures of yourself, and are legally able to, then go for it - it's your responsibility to be discreet about it, and you should know the risks involved. The man who did the Craigslist "experiment" certainly acted with malicious intent, but the married men who fell for the ad were very naive in believing the Web would instantly shroud them in secrecy when they weren't even being anonymous in the least. The necessity here is the use of caution. The Web is not the bastion of privacy some make it out to be, and because of this ill-advised perception, many fall prey to the potentially harsh consequences. I believe - and hope - that in the future, Web users will be wiser in the choices they make. The Web can still offer some measure of security, but again, is not infallible. It will be up to the users to decide just much of themselves they want to make known, and they must come to terms with the fact that their intended audience isn't always going to be their actual audience.

[info]nickhas

October 1 2006, 23:24:41 UTC 5 years ago

I think that when it comes to sharing personal data on the web, there is no specific limit as to how much is too much. I personally think that that is a relative question. It’s all a matter of how much you are willing to let the world find out about you. If you want the world to know you were out last night at a dance club and got drunk beyond belief, let the world know, but be prepared to have your actions frowned upon by others, whether it be your family, friends, coaches, or teachers. Anyone that is letting personal information flow on an online community needs to know that anyone else can access that and know they can get in trouble. People have been breaking the law (not necessarily in just a legal sense but also in a rebellion sense) for years, our parents did it, their parents did it, and so on and so forth; it's just becoming a problem now because kids are going public with their thrill ride on the wild side bandwagon. And parents can’t get mad at their kids for being a part of facebook or myspace; it’s the same as any other fad that a kid from any generation was in to. It will come and go with time and like it was said in one of the articles, if they are going to outlaw it, that must mean it is cool (in a kids eyes) and thus will further encourage them to take part in these online communities. The online stalker and predator thing is more than just a threat in places like myspace and the non digital natives are just too naive to realize it. A parent that used to let their kid go on online chat rooms doesn’t realize it, but the things that happened in there were just like what goes on on facebook or myspace, just the content doesn’t stay up forever. But you go into these chat rooms and make "friends" and form "relationships" with these people. Its easy to open up to them because they are from "Cali" or "FL" or "GeoRGiA" as they would say; but what’s it matter where they are from because on your computer they are just one click away; and the next thing you know, you have a 45 year old twice divorced half bald drunk knocking on your door because you gave him a little too much information about you and he knows where you live (this never happened to me but I’ve read news stories on it). And it’s all going to go to the same place as any other predation story has in the past. Eventually it wasn’t safe to play on the basketball courts anymore in the neighborhood because someone was abducted there, and then it wasn’t safe in the arcade, and soon enough it “wont be safe on the internet” as far as a parent sees it, but in reality, people just need to know how not to get themselves in these types of situations.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…