Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
On Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Raven Jiang CX wrote: I think Sterling is suggesting that most people are not cognizant of this trade-off and that as Facebook does more with your personal information, that trade-off becomes increasingly disfavourable compared to the relatively stagnant value of the service. Excluding high-risk populations, most people simply do not care what Facebook does with their information. It's the same I have nothing to hide - I don't care - not my problem argument that we've seen from other discussions. Facebook fully understands that the only thing that matters is user safety, i.e. users have control over their public image and how the community perceives them, and are not embarrassed or humiliated by content shared by them or their friends. This is the only trust that Facebook must maintain in order to keep users at bay. Eventually, it's all about participating in society. The value of the service is that, for the most part, it _is_ society, and people will not give that up easily. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25/02/13 19:03, Raven Jiang CX wrote: I think a subtle difference is what exactly the bargain entails. In the case of television advertising, it's a relatively straightforward exchange of your attention for entertainment. Facebook is asking for more than that. The marketing is less oppressive because they receive the addition payment of your personal information. No one really knows what that information in aggregate is worth or can be capable of achieving in the long term, so I suppose implicitly the users (at least those aware of this bargain) are betting on it being worth less than the services Facebook provides. I don't think framing it as an individual bargain fully captures what's going on here. Each user gives Facebook information not only about themselves but about the people they know (including those who don't use Facebook). So it's a social dilemma or tragedy of the commons: the cost of each person's privacy choices is shared by others. Each user of Facebook produces a negative externality that affects those around them. As such, perhaps the appropriate metaphor is not personal information as property but surveillance as pollution. Cheers, Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRLNj2AAoJEBEET9GfxSfMqSAH/RPSLGIRRVc6IyLJMAKBYSJE UVHZ97boE2d9NlatEHenhGmDBoe7Tm2P2oZEnjWS/nazi3Z/mBCS3xOI0HVdH+xH HcPhDIE/cV0FjhpKAPsW5lYqDQfr3XDauAlvLhzVeMEkzeC8ccDv8TztWEI1spzI hX2DC9PtKEDuPjkDC50qRazuqWzyGwW3Dj4FGqo8xKRe0i7ZLQFuR9avoOKDI2hi uUU6+h6P2ORwxotO41GRZHBaFtcGM+kcPS+llidRfuRDu42x57zqAbJRdd24xZAs yoz9PE28pGe/x1UHMXdzt3bHyCPdoDyeEAloJ324c0+g9sMfr+Lznsmm9vQcfGs= =ehnW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
I want to respond to Paul Bernal's post about why to leave Facebook, point by point. Privacy: I think the problem is not a lack of privacy, but an expectation of privacy on the part of the user, who should definitely leave if she considers privacy important. If you don't want to be seen, by all means stay indoors. I've never assumed that the information I've dumped online is private, in fact I think that would be a crazy assumption. What we really need is digital literacy education to help users understand the the nature of the beast. Real Names: Sure, that's an issue for some, and for them, Facebook is probably not the platform of choice. But it doesn't bother me - I can see arguments for an against anonymity, valid on either side. I think it's important to have the possibility of anonymity in some contexts. Facebook doesn't have to be one of them. Monetization: How is Facebook making money with my data, other than by serving me targeted ads? I'm not posting anything there that's especially valuable. And I wouldn't. I don't think my personal information is such a big deal, and while I've always argued that we should be able to control our data and how it's used, I wouldn't leave Facebook over this issue. I might nag 'em about it, though. Profiling: I've never been able to see the issue here. Somebody gathers my data to serve me ads for items I might want vs ads for items I don't care about: where's the harm? I guess the worst case is that they might inform the authorities that I'm a subversive whacko bohemian (who's also got a boring suburban middle class alternate aspect)... I can't see how that will ever bite me on the ass, though. Facial recognition: To me, it's a trivial concern when it's happening on Facebook. The bigger concern is broader and more sinister uses. Monopoly: Facebook is big, for sure, but I'm not seeing it as a monopoly. There are many ways to aggregate and share online. Facebook happens to be pretty good, and it's attracted so many users that it has a powerful network effect, but that actually makes it more useful. It doesn't feel like the phone company (I'm old enough to remember THAT monopoly). I probably shouldn't have taken time to write this response, but I think Facebook-slamming is similar sport to I don't watch television, except for PBS... I wouldn't want to make anyone feel guilty about either of those choices. The Internet is in deep trouble, there are real risks that we'll lose this amazing free space over issues related to the value it's created by being so free. I'd rather focus there, than on Facebook, which is the least of my worries. ~ Jon On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Michael Rogers mich...@briarproject.orgwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25/02/13 19:03, Raven Jiang CX wrote: I think a subtle difference is what exactly the bargain entails. In the case of television advertising, it's a relatively straightforward exchange of your attention for entertainment. Facebook is asking for more than that. The marketing is less oppressive because they receive the addition payment of your personal information. No one really knows what that information in aggregate is worth or can be capable of achieving in the long term, so I suppose implicitly the users (at least those aware of this bargain) are betting on it being worth less than the services Facebook provides. I don't think framing it as an individual bargain fully captures what's going on here. Each user gives Facebook information not only about themselves but about the people they know (including those who don't use Facebook). So it's a social dilemma or tragedy of the commons: the cost of each person's privacy choices is shared by others. Each user of Facebook produces a negative externality that affects those around them. As such, perhaps the appropriate metaphor is not personal information as property but surveillance as pollution. Cheers, Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRLNj2AAoJEBEET9GfxSfMqSAH/RPSLGIRRVc6IyLJMAKBYSJE UVHZ97boE2d9NlatEHenhGmDBoe7Tm2P2oZEnjWS/nazi3Z/mBCS3xOI0HVdH+xH HcPhDIE/cV0FjhpKAPsW5lYqDQfr3XDauAlvLhzVeMEkzeC8ccDv8TztWEI1spzI hX2DC9PtKEDuPjkDC50qRazuqWzyGwW3Dj4FGqo8xKRe0i7ZLQFuR9avoOKDI2hi uUU6+h6P2ORwxotO41GRZHBaFtcGM+kcPS+llidRfuRDu42x57zqAbJRdd24xZAs yoz9PE28pGe/x1UHMXdzt3bHyCPdoDyeEAloJ324c0+g9sMfr+Lznsmm9vQcfGs= =ehnW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl) Jon at Google+ https://plus.google.com/107989370857115020482/posts | Twitter http://twitter.com/jonl | LinkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlebkowsky | Facebook http://www.facebook.com/jonlebkowsky | Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lebkowsky Work: Polycot
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
Hi Jon Thanks for the detailed response - and I can see your points. Indeed, to an extent I agree with them! I'll try to do a more detailed response tomorrow, but just a few points now. 1. On privacy, I agree, it's more about helping get a more 'savvy' community than anything else. 2. On real names, it's as much about fighting the bigger battle for the need to allow anonymity. If real names becomes the norm, we're in real trouble when the going gets tough... 3. The monetization issue isn't just about what's happening now, but that there's an increasing drive to squeeze revenue from our data. Sponsored stories, the Instagram saga etc just give a clue where it's headed. 4. Profiling is an issue for more people than you might think - the Raytheon RIOT stuff hints at that. More on that tomorrow! 5. Again, think of the extended use of this - Facebook will be mined more and more by those with less benign uses. 6. Yes, there ARE alternatives, but who's using them? Ask a class of my students, and they're ALL on Facebook... Much more tomorrow I hope! Thanks Paul On 26 Feb 2013, at 19:37, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.commailto:jon.lebkow...@gmail.com wrote: I want to respond to Paul Bernal's post about why to leave Facebook, point by point. Privacy: I think the problem is not a lack of privacy, but an expectation of privacy on the part of the user, who should definitely leave if she considers privacy important. If you don't want to be seen, by all means stay indoors. I've never assumed that the information I've dumped online is private, in fact I think that would be a crazy assumption. What we really need is digital literacy education to help users understand the the nature of the beast. Real Names: Sure, that's an issue for some, and for them, Facebook is probably not the platform of choice. But it doesn't bother me - I can see arguments for an against anonymity, valid on either side. I think it's important to have the possibility of anonymity in some contexts. Facebook doesn't have to be one of them. Monetization: How is Facebook making money with my data, other than by serving me targeted ads? I'm not posting anything there that's especially valuable. And I wouldn't. I don't think my personal information is such a big deal, and while I've always argued that we should be able to control our data and how it's used, I wouldn't leave Facebook over this issue. I might nag 'em about it, though. Profiling: I've never been able to see the issue here. Somebody gathers my data to serve me ads for items I might want vs ads for items I don't care about: where's the harm? I guess the worst case is that they might inform the authorities that I'm a subversive whacko bohemian (who's also got a boring suburban middle class alternate aspect)... I can't see how that will ever bite me on the ass, though. Facial recognition: To me, it's a trivial concern when it's happening on Facebook. The bigger concern is broader and more sinister uses. Monopoly: Facebook is big, for sure, but I'm not seeing it as a monopoly. There are many ways to aggregate and share online. Facebook happens to be pretty good, and it's attracted so many users that it has a powerful network effect, but that actually makes it more useful. It doesn't feel like the phone company (I'm old enough to remember THAT monopoly). I probably shouldn't have taken time to write this response, but I think Facebook-slamming is similar sport to I don't watch television, except for PBS... I wouldn't want to make anyone feel guilty about either of those choices. The Internet is in deep trouble, there are real risks that we'll lose this amazing free space over issues related to the value it's created by being so free. I'd rather focus there, than on Facebook, which is the least of my worries. ~ Jon On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Michael Rogers mich...@briarproject.orgmailto:mich...@briarproject.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25/02/13 19:03, Raven Jiang CX wrote: I think a subtle difference is what exactly the bargain entails. In the case of television advertising, it's a relatively straightforward exchange of your attention for entertainment. Facebook is asking for more than that. The marketing is less oppressive because they receive the addition payment of your personal information. No one really knows what that information in aggregate is worth or can be capable of achieving in the long term, so I suppose implicitly the users (at least those aware of this bargain) are betting on it being worth less than the services Facebook provides. I don't think framing it as an individual bargain fully captures what's going on here. Each user gives Facebook information not only about themselves but about the people they know (including those who don't use Facebook). So it's a social dilemma or tragedy of the commons: the cost of each person's privacy choices is shared by others.
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Paul Bernal (LAW) paul.ber...@uea.ac.ukwrote: 2. On real names, it's as much about fighting the bigger battle for the need to allow anonymity. If real names becomes the norm, we're in real trouble when the going gets tough... I think there's room for platforms that do both, and maybe a great opportunity for someone to develop something like the Tor Project of social networks. 3. The monetization issue isn't just about what's happening now, but that there's an increasing drive to squeeze revenue from our data. Sponsored stories, the Instagram saga etc just give a clue where it's headed. I get the point of voting with your feet, but I don't think a few people leaving FB will fix the age-old problem of greed. It's a wicked problem. 4. Profiling is an issue for more people than you might think - the Raytheon RIOT stuff hints at that. More on that tomorrow! Looking forward to hearing more. 5. Again, think of the extended use of this - Facebook will be mined more and more by those with less benign uses. Would love to hear more about that, but I think this comes back to digital literacy, thinking about what you share. 6. Yes, there ARE alternatives, but who's using them? Ask a class of my students, and they're ALL on Facebook... Right, but a popular service is not necessarily a monopoly. I could get an argument that we have an oligopoly (the stacks). best, Jon -- Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl) Jon at Google+ https://plus.google.com/107989370857115020482/posts | Twitter http://twitter.com/jonl | LinkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlebkowsky | Facebook http://www.facebook.com/jonlebkowsky | Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lebkowsky Work: Polycot Associates http://polycotassociates.com: Advanced Internet Solutions Twitter http://twitter.com/#%21/polycotplus| Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/polycot Blog: Weblogsky.com http://weblogsky.com/: Smart Thinking About Culture, Media, and the Internet Activism: EFF-Austin http://effaustin.org/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
Hi,Iwasn'tgoing to post on this topic but as it still has steam, I'm giving my 2 cents afterJon Lebkowsky last email [which I agree with].My main thing isparticipatorye-democracy, but I've been working on the privacy angle re social networks for a few years, and I've asolution, but its a year+ away from launch, when its in beta, I'll ask the list to have a poke around:)!As Jon points out though there are other networks, some with much better privacy then the monster that is face book.I'm not sure if you if you guys ever came acrossdiaspora? Diaspora was a good concept and the first social network [to myknowledge] to be funded by crowdsourcing[kickstarter], though horrid UI when theyfinallylaunched. The only true competition to face book [in the west anyway] is google, and talk about jumping the frying pan into the fire. You have the megaliths of google on one side and microsoft/facebook/skype on the other, neither in my opinion inspire confidence, or trust.The main issues with the alternative sites is their usability, and momentum. Very few gatherenoughmomentum, or offer enough to encourage users to shift.Most users do understand and areangrywith facebook [or google etc], but they at presentaren'tgiven true alternativesthat keep the ease ofcommunicationthat they are used too, and maintaintheirprivacy, so they accept the trade off. In the last 2 years about 5 of my friends dropped face book, then came back. My cousins [14 19] are much morecarefulin the way they post or pm [progress], then they used to be even only a year ago, my friendsunfortunatelyaren't, though they dont like or trust it. Theyaren'talone in that, as [if you use face book] you can see every 4 months or so a message invariably appearsposted by someone "Iownall my copyrights/ photos / posts etc]", face book don't have their users trust, and that is thebeginningof their end, slow though it is.PsI do use face-book, I post and pm nothing I wouldnt be happy for my grandma or the government to see or read, its set with a fake name [off my first manifesto], attached to a free emailaccountset to a fake name, its not linked to my phone, and I've have no photos up of me up, and I've never beenpersonallytagged ever, as my friends know of "my paranoia", their cool, and the only ones I want to keep in contact with.After the article I did wonder should I leave out of asenseof social responsibility, I wont because I need to keep an eye on the competition :P, though it has given me anadditionallayer of guilt in staying! Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook From: Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.com Date: Tue, February 26, 2013 9:36 pm To: liberationtech liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Cc: liberationtech liberationt...@mailman.stanford.edu On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Paul Bernal (LAW) paul.ber...@uea.ac.uk wrote: 2. On real names, it's as much about fighting the bigger battle for the need to allow anonymity. If real names becomes the norm, we're in real trouble when the going gets tough... I think there's room for platforms that do both, and maybe a great opportunity for someone to develop something like the Tor Project of social networks. 3. The monetization issue isn't just about what's happening now, but that there's an increasing drive to squeeze revenue from our data. Sponsored stories, the Instagram saga etc just give a clue where it's headed. I get the point of voting with your feet, but I don't think a few people leaving FB will fix the age-old problem of greed. It's a wicked problem. 4. Profiling is an issue for more people than you might think - the Raytheon RIOT stuff hints at that. More on that tomorrow!Looking forward to hearing more. 5. Again, think of the extended use of this - Facebook will be mined more and more by those with less benign uses.Would love to hear more about that, but I think this comes back to digital literacy, thinking about what you share. 6. Yes, there ARE alternatives, but who's using them? Ask a class of my students, and they're ALL on Facebook...Right, but a popular service is not necessarily a monopoly. I could get an argument that we have an oligopoly (the stacks). best,Jon-- Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl)Jon atGoogle+|Twitter|LinkedIn|Facebook|Wikipedia Work:Polycot Associates: Advanced Internet Solutions Twitter | Facebook Blog:Weblogsky.com: Smart Thinking About Culture, Media, and the InternetActivism:EFF-Austin -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
Greetings, Though I imagine that the facebook use is significantly lower (and more judicious) among the libtech users than among a more generic tech-savvy population, this essay makes a rather good case on why quitting facebook entirely is the proper thing to do at some point - sooner rather than later. Best /P http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html Why I'm quitting Facebook By Douglas Rushkoff, CNN (CNN) -- I used to be able to justify using Facebook as a cost of doing business. As a writer and sometime activist who needs to promote my books and articles and occasionally rally people to one cause or another, I found Facebook fast and convenient. Though I never really used it to socialize, I figured it was OK to let other people do that, and I benefited from their behavior. I can no longer justify this arrangement. Today, I am surrendering my Facebook account, because my participation on the site is simply too inconsistent with the values I espouse in my work. In my upcoming book Present Shock, I chronicle some of what happens when we can no longer manage our many online presences. I have always argued for engaging with technology as conscious human beings and dispensing with technologies that take that agency away. Facebook does things on our behalf when we're not even there. It actively misrepresents us to our friends, and worse misrepresents those who have befriended us to still others. To enable this dysfunctional situation -- I call it digiphrenia -- would be at the very least hypocritical. But to participate on Facebook as an author, in a way specifically intended to draw out the likes and resulting vulnerability of others, is untenable. Facebook has never been merely a social platform. Rather, it exploits our social interactions the way a Tupperware party does. Facebook does not exist to help us make friends, but to turn our network of connections, brand preferences and activities over time -- our social graphs -- into money for others. We Facebook users have been building a treasure lode of big data that government and corporate researchers have been mining to predict and influence what we buy and for whom we vote. We have been handing over to them vast quantities of information about ourselves and our friends, loved ones and acquaintances. With this information, Facebook and the big data research firms purchasing their data predict still more things about us -- from our future product purchases or sexual orientation to our likelihood for civil disobedience or even terrorism. The true end users of Facebook are the marketers who want to reach and influence us. They are Facebook's paying customers; we are the product. And we are its workers. The countless hours that we -- and the young, particularly -- spend on our profiles are the unpaid labor on which Facebook justifies its stock valuation. The efforts of a few thousand employees at Facebook's Menlo Park campus pale in comparison to those of the hundreds of millions of users meticulously tweaking their pages. Corporations used to have to do research to assemble our consumer profiles; now we do it for them. The information collected about you by Facebook through my Facebook page isn't even shared with me. Thanks to my page, Facebook knows the demographics of my readership, their e-mails, what else they like, who else they know and, perhaps most significant, who they trust. And Facebook is taking pains not to share any of this, going so far as to limit the ability of third-party applications to utilize any of this data. Given that this was the foundation for Facebook's business plan from the start, perhaps more recent developments in the company's ever-evolving user agreement shouldn't have been so disheartening. Still, we bridle at the notion that any of our updates might be converted into sponsored stories by whatever business or brand we may have mentioned. That innocent mention of cup of coffee at Starbucks, in the Facebook universe, quickly becomes an attributed endorsement of their brand. Remember, the only way to connect with something or someone is to like them. This means if you want to find out what a politician or company you don't like is up to, you still have to endorse them publicly. More recently, users -- particularly those with larger sets of friends, followers and likes -- learned that their updates were no longer reaching all of the people who had signed up to get them. Now, we are supposed to pay to promote our posts to our friends and, if we pay even more, to their friends. Yes, Facebook is entitled to be paid for promoting us and our interests -- but this wasn't the deal going in, particularly not for companies who paid Facebook for extra followers in the first place. Neither should users who friend my page automatically become the passive conduits for any of my messages to all their friends just because I paid for it. That brings me to Facebook's most recent
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
I think a subtle difference is what exactly the bargain entails. In the case of television advertising, it's a relatively straightforward exchange of your attention for entertainment. Facebook is asking for more than that. The marketing is less oppressive because they receive the addition payment of your personal information. No one really knows what that information in aggregate is worth or can be capable of achieving in the long term, so I suppose implicitly the users (at least those aware of this bargain) are betting on it being worth less than the services Facebook provides. I think Sterling is suggesting that most people are not cognizant of this trade-off and that as Facebook does more with your personal information, that trade-off becomes increasingly disfavourable compared to the relatively stagnant value of the service. On 25 February 2013 10:55, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.com wrote: Left out a word... that should've read: I actually reject the notion... I was arguing with my own first paragraph. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.comwrote: As Bruce Sterling was saying, from the perspective of Facebook the company, users of the system are cattle - they're product sold to advertisers. That kinda sucks, but here's the thing: Facebook is useful to its users, or they wouldn't be there. Doug is making an ideological argument, but ideologues often revel in ascetic rejection of the world and the agora. I love Doug, but I won't follow his lead here. But then (guilty admission), I also watch television. I reject the notion that Facebook users are cattle, and I'm not sure they're mere consumers. They accept a bargain, but it has benefits for them. And as with television, you learn to ignore the ads, or if not completely ignore, at least avoid being somehow enslaved by them, and as part of the bargain you're entertained. Facebook is more useful than television - I get more from the bargain and the marketing is even less oppressive. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Allucquere Rosanne Stone sa...@sandystone.com wrote: We've been on this bus before, in (perhaps) a less sophisticated incarnation. See Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman's 1973 film *Television Delivers People* http://www.ubu.com/film/serra_television.html. -sandy On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:52:14 +0100, Petter Ericson wrote: Greetings, Though I imagine that the facebook use is significantly lower (and more judicious) among the libtech users than among a more generic tech-savvy population, this essay makes a rather good case on why quitting facebook entirely is the proper thing to do at some point - sooner rather than later. Best /P http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html Why I'm quitting Facebook By Douglas Rushkoff, CNN (CNN) -- I used to be able to justify using Facebook as a cost of doing business. As a writer and sometime activist who needs to promote my books and articles and occasionally rally people to one cause or another, I found Facebook fast and convenient. Though I never really used it to socialize, I figured it was OK to let other people do that, and I benefited from their behavior. I can no longer justify this arrangement. Today, I am surrendering my Facebook account, because my participation on the site is simply too inconsistent with the values I espouse in my work. In my upcoming book Present Shock, I chronicle some of what happens when we can no longer manage our many online presences. I have always argued for engaging with technology as conscious human beings and dispensing with technologies that take that agency away. Facebook does things on our behalf when we're not even there. It actively misrepresents us to our friends, and worse misrepresents those who have befriended us to still others. To enable this dysfunctional situation -- I call it digiphrenia -- would be at the very least hypocritical. But to participate on Facebook as an author, in a way specifically intended to draw out the likes and resulting vulnerability of others, is untenable. Facebook has never been merely a social platform. Rather, it exploits our social interactions the way a Tupperware party does. Facebook does not exist to help us make friends, but to turn our network of connections, brand preferences and activities over time -- our social graphs -- into money for others. We Facebook users have been building a treasure lode of big data that government and corporate researchers have been mining to predict and influence what we buy and for whom we vote. We have been handing over to them vast quantities of information about ourselves and our friends, loved ones and acquaintances. With this information, Facebook and the big data research firms purchasing their data predict still more things about us -- from our
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
In case anyone's interested, I've written about this before too: my 10 reasons to leave Facebook. http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/10-reasons-to-leave-facebook/ There's quite a lot of stuff written on this in the academic world. Paul Dr Paul Bernal Lecturer UEA Law School University of East Anglia Norwich Research Park Norwich NR4 7TJ email: paul.ber...@uea.ac.ukmailto:paul.ber...@uea.ac.uk Web: http://www.paulbernal.co.uk/ Blog: http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @paulbernalUK On 25 Feb 2013, at 19:03, Raven Jiang CX j...@stanford.edumailto:j...@stanford.edu wrote: I think a subtle difference is what exactly the bargain entails. In the case of television advertising, it's a relatively straightforward exchange of your attention for entertainment. Facebook is asking for more than that. The marketing is less oppressive because they receive the addition payment of your personal information. No one really knows what that information in aggregate is worth or can be capable of achieving in the long term, so I suppose implicitly the users (at least those aware of this bargain) are betting on it being worth less than the services Facebook provides. I think Sterling is suggesting that most people are not cognizant of this trade-off and that as Facebook does more with your personal information, that trade-off becomes increasingly disfavourable compared to the relatively stagnant value of the service. On 25 February 2013 10:55, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.commailto:jon.lebkow...@gmail.com wrote: Left out a word... that should've read: I actually reject the notion... I was arguing with my own first paragraph. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.commailto:jon.lebkow...@gmail.com wrote: As Bruce Sterling was saying, from the perspective of Facebook the company, users of the system are cattle - they're product sold to advertisers. That kinda sucks, but here's the thing: Facebook is useful to its users, or they wouldn't be there. Doug is making an ideological argument, but ideologues often revel in ascetic rejection of the world and the agora. I love Doug, but I won't follow his lead here. But then (guilty admission), I also watch television. I reject the notion that Facebook users are cattle, and I'm not sure they're mere consumers. They accept a bargain, but it has benefits for them. And as with television, you learn to ignore the ads, or if not completely ignore, at least avoid being somehow enslaved by them, and as part of the bargain you're entertained. Facebook is more useful than television - I get more from the bargain and the marketing is even less oppressive. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Allucquere Rosanne Stone sa...@sandystone.commailto:sa...@sandystone.com wrote: We've been on this bus before, in (perhaps) a less sophisticated incarnation. See Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman's 1973 film Television Delivers People http://www.ubu.com/film/serra_television.html. -sandy On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:52:14 +0100, Petter Ericson wrote: Greetings, Though I imagine that the facebook use is significantly lower (and more judicious) among the libtech users than among a more generic tech-savvy population, this essay makes a rather good case on why quitting facebook entirely is the proper thing to do at some point - sooner rather than later. Best /P http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html Why I'm quitting Facebook By Douglas Rushkoff, CNN (CNN) -- I used to be able to justify using Facebook as a cost of doing business. As a writer and sometime activist who needs to promote my books and articles and occasionally rally people to one cause or another, I found Facebook fast and convenient. Though I never really used it to socialize, I figured it was OK to let other people do that, and I benefited from their behavior. I can no longer justify this arrangement. Today, I am surrendering my Facebook account, because my participation on the site is simply too inconsistent with the values I espouse in my work. In my upcoming book Present Shock, I chronicle some of what happens when we can no longer manage our many online presences. I have always argued for engaging with technology as conscious human beings and dispensing with technologies that take that agency away. Facebook does things on our behalf when we're not even there. It actively misrepresents us to our friends, and worse misrepresents those who have befriended us to still others. To enable this dysfunctional situation -- I call it digiphrenia -- would be at the very least hypocritical. But to participate on Facebook as an author, in a way specifically intended to draw out the likes and resulting vulnerability of others, is untenable. Facebook has never been merely a social platform. Rather, it exploits our social interactions the way a Tupperware party does. Facebook
