Digital ID Coach

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

friends/family, records apache web server, Boyd, Communication, Danah Boyd, Doc Searls, Google, Identity, Internet, Internet protocols, Internet service, Internet-based services, ISP, online identity, Online social networking, Proprietary software, researcher, Sendmail, Social Issues, social media, social media services, Technology/Internet, Twitter, underlying Internet protocols, web 2.0, web server, World Wide Web

Platform vs Relationships

February 15th, 2011

No comments

A little while ago, Scott Adams wrote his thoughts about FutureMe and how it might become a Facebook killer. Adams pointed out that information about our past–what we’ve already done–is useful, but less so than what we’re looking to do in the future. He suggests a new fourth party (user-driven) service:

The interface for Futureme is essentially a calendar, much like Outlook. But it would include extra layers for hopes and goals that don’t have specific dates attached.

For every entry to your Futureme calendar, you specify who can see it, including advertisers. If you allow advertisers a glimpse of a specific plan, it would be strictly anonymous. Advertisers could then feed you ads specific to your plan, while not knowing who they sent it to. The Futureme service would be the intermediary.

Now imagine that you never have to see any of the incoming ads except by choice. If you plan to buy a truck in a month, you would need to click on that entry to see which local truck advertisements have been matched to your plans. This model turns advertising from a nuisance into a tool. You‘d never see an ad on Futureme that wasn’t relevant to your specific plans.

The biggest benefit of the system could come from your network of friends and business associates. Suppose you post on the system that you would like to see a Bon Jovi concert sometime in the next year. Now your friends – the ones you specify to see this specific plan – can decide if they want in on it. Maybe someone you know can get free tickets, and someone has a van and is willing to be the designated driver. Maybe someone has a contact that can get you backstage passes. By broadcasting your plan, you make it possible for others to improve your plan.

Conversely, if you plan to do something stupid, your contacts have time to talk you out of it or suggest a superior alternative.

The great thing about Adams’ plan is that it shows how our data and online presence can be user-driven–meaning we make choices about who gets to see what. Moreover, by identifying Futureme as an intermediary on the user side, Adams has described a fourth-party service. (I’m guessing that Adams is intending this to be on the user side, or it can’t really live up to the promise of being a “Facebook killer.” I don’t know of any way at this time to be a perfectly neutral intermediary, so he likely has to fall on one side or the other.)

Coaching moment: I’d like to point out a significant distinction here between platforms and relationships. Adams is apparently describing a platform for social interaction and commercial services. This is also the Facebook model. On Facebook, someone else (the shareholders of Facebook) owns your user data and service usage logs. Facebook is in control. As we’ve seen before, it’s one thing to set your privacy wishes, but if Facebook is calling the shots, the rules can be changed anytime. Moreover, you’re always under surveillance whether you knowingly agree to that or not.

Now consider the idea of personal data stores where you control your data in any way you wish, using software tools that you choose, on hardware that you own (or not), at any time or under circumstances that you want. Nobody gets access that you don’t authorize. Wouldn’t that be something?

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

friends/family, future, history, records, tools Access control, Authorization, Communication, control, Eben Moglen, Facebook, online presence, Online social networking, personal data cloud, personal data store, Scott Adams, self-determination, Social information processing, social media, Technology/Internet, web 2.0

I Shared What?!?

November 27th, 2010

No comments

Voluntary personal information sharing comes naturally to most of us. When given an opportunity, a few tools, and a community in which we can share our most intimate details, many people don’t hesitate to document their every movement and mood. We readily identify our friends and our preferences, and even document our vices.

Facebook is the place right now where a great many people share the most detailed information about themselves. Are you on Facebook? If so, you might be interested in a new site called I Shared What?!? that will open a window for you into what Facebook sees–and lets others see.

Coaching moment: Did you know you were sharing this much information? Do you know who has access to it, for how long, and for what purposes? Does this make you uncomfortable? Why?

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

friends/family, history, records, tools advertising, business, Communication, Facebook, Facebook Inc, Human Interest, information sharing, marketing, Mass media, Online social networking, personal information, Philosophy of mind, PII, security, Self-awareness, Social information processing, social media, voluntary, web 2.0, World Wide Web

Agreeing with Maureen’s Manifesto

June 21st, 2010

2 comments

Now and then I run into someone’s thinking and notice that I’m nodding and laughing while I’m reading it. So it goes with Maureen Johnson’s Manifesto: I Am Not a Brand. I find that her message of being yourself, not being there to sell yourself, is what’s uncommon in many “social media” conversations. It’s not about turning the whole connected world into one huge commercial interruption. Read the whole post. It’s much more than this little bit:

I think the divide is pretty basic. I think there are people out there who see the Internet as a way of employing the same old techniques of SHILL, SHILL, SHILL. A hundred years ago, they would have rolled up to you in a wagon, shouting about their tonic. Fifty years ago, they would have rolled their vacuum cleaners up to your door.

The other side, the side I am on, is the one that sees an organic Internet full of people. Sure, when I have a book come out, I will often say, “Please, could you buy a copy? I need to buy food and Post-it notes and hamsters.” But in reality, I wouldn’t suggest it if I didn’t think you would like it. I have a lot of fun writing my books, and hey, if you can buy one, great! I think it’s just as great if you take it out of the library. I write because I actually like doing it, and through some miracle of science, I get paid, so wayhay!

Coaching moment: It’s important to take a minute and think about what great things computers, networks, social media, and other interactions with technology bring to you. Is it about being more of who you are? Well, yes it is. It’s also about who your friends, family, and colleagues are. It’s a shared environment. Not very many people will stand for others who don’t listen or hear, where the conversation is only one way. How long would you put up with it?

Creative commons photo credit: [puamelia] on Flickr. Thanks!

Update: Love Doc Searls post on this too.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

friends/family, records brand, brand names, branding, business, Deception, experts, Human Interest, Maureen Johnson, Personal selling, self-determination, Shill, social media, Technology/Internet

Commerce and Self

April 29th, 2010

No comments

What happens when someone learns you’re a blogger and then offers you something to write about? What if that thing they offer has commercial value? What if they’re offering it to you for free, asking you (express or implied) for a favorable review on your blog? Would you do it? Does that act change you?

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission says that if you accept things of value (cash, goods, services), you must disclose it in your review. In a news release, FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements, the FTC states, in part,

The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

How does this work (or not) in real life?

There are two people I know who rarely blog or tweet about anything they haven’t benefited by (directly or indirectly). Their disclosures are hidden if included at all. Does that make them sneaky or dishonest? Not necessarily, but probably (according to the FTC statement above).

Compare: Someone who is very good at promotion, and who loves helping people and companies understand how to use different “social media” tools to help with their commercial outreach efforts. This is clear to everyone who meets her. She discloses her connections and endorsements, and is hired by companies wishing to learn how to be more social.

Current communication tools–including those referred to as “social media”–allow us to blur the lines between our opinions and reviews. When someone does something nice for us, we might spontaneously and publicly say thanks (via a wall post on Facebook or a tweet on Twitter). If someone gives us something with a shared expectation that we’ll say something nice about them, that’s covered under FTC guidelines. “Oh, you’re blogging about our restaurant? The manager says the dessert is on the house.” Who will know? Maybe nobody, but it’s more than your reputation that you’re risking.

Coaching moment: Do you become a different person, all bubbly and joy, when someone does something nice for you? I bet; most of us do. What about when someone does something nice but then advises you how much it’s going to cost? (“Nothing is really free,” and all that.) Not so bubbly and joy, this more manipulative and generally undesirable.

So where’s the trade-off? What goods and services would you happily engage in a social conversation about–because you love the company or their stuff, with our without getting anything free in return? What goods, services, or companies would you feel like you’d be selling your soul to promote? How much are you willing to “leave out” of a review because of free stuff? Where is your bottom line?

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.