and now for *the dark side* of facebook
some dirt on the facebook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook -robert
While I recognize a lot of reasons to critique facebook, I take issue with some of these claims, for example that Facebook "mediates relationships that already exist." Some of my relationships that are mediated through Facebook would barely exist or would not exist at all without it. And Hodgkinson himself sems to imply it creates relationships when he says Theil is trying to create communities without borders. In fact I have experienced this happening and while the ads now reaching all of us are tiresome, I barely notice them most of the time. I'm not running out for a coke just because a few lines about it appears in my news feed. I'm not going to go through every point with which I disagree, but I feel impelled to also note that the closing paragraph was yet another delightful example of the argument that we should all unplug and read or talk, or (as suggested early on) we are all pathetic losers drinking alone in front of the screen. And I love the assumption that many of us don't read, write and talk aloud with friends as well, and/or we have unlimited time and money for trips and long distance calls. I don't think anyone claims the Facebook TOS or Privacy Policy are good, and yes, the data retention issue is a real concern, but these real issues are couched in such inflammatory terms, which Facebook fans will stop to really think about them? (you know, apart from us? ;-) ) Best, Kim On Feb 19, 2008 6:00 PM, nativebuddha <nativebuddha@gmail.com> wrote:
some dirt on the facebook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
-robert _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
did we not already discuss this article a few weeks back? Hold on a moment I will add something here. This is a flash animation someone made about faecbook and the intelligence community connections. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/facebook I found the BBC web site was better for facebook news items. After just one article on facebook at the BBC site I could chose amy be five more about facebook and then five more etc. in the sidebar On 19-Feb-08, at 9:00 PM, nativebuddha wrote:
some dirt on the facebook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
-robert _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Peter Timusk, B.Math statistics (2002), B.A. legal studies (2006) Carleton University Systems Science Graduate student, University of Ottawa (2006-2008). just trying to stay linear. Read by hundreds of lurkers every week.
No wonder it seemed familiar. :P But 3 weeks ago classes had just started again and I was buried in the preparations for candidate visits to campus, so I probably missed it. Anyway, has anyone from Facebook ever commented on the whole intelligence community connection? Best, Kim On Feb 19, 2008 9:05 PM, Peter Timusk <ptimusk@sympatico.ca> wrote:
did we not already discuss this article a few weeks back?
Hold on a moment I will add something here. This is a flash animation someone made about faecbook and the intelligence community connections.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/facebook
I found the BBC web site was better for facebook news items. After just one article on facebook at the BBC site I could chose amy be five more about facebook and then five more etc. in the sidebar
On 19-Feb-08, at 9:00 PM, nativebuddha wrote:
some dirt on the facebook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
-robert _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Peter Timusk, B.Math statistics (2002), B.A. legal studies (2006) Carleton University Systems Science Graduate student, University of Ottawa (2006-2008). just trying to stay linear. Read by hundreds of lurkers every week.
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
On Feb 20, 2008 12:12 AM, Kimberly De Vries <cuuixsilver@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway, has anyone from Facebook ever commented on the whole intelligence community connection?
Is it just me, or is this a serious association fallacy. No doubt, network visualizations can help to root out conspiracies, criminal or not. But the mere fact that people associate with one another means little more than that: they associate with one another. Given the degree to which corporate boards interlock, I would be surprised if most companies could not be similarly associated with the intelligence community. Let's take one of the claims in plain English: Facebook is a site that collects a lot of information in order to create profiles of individuals; ACCELL is a VC company that invested in Facebook; James Breyer is on the board of ACCELL; James Breyer is also on the board of BBN Technologies; Dr. Anita Jones is on the board of BBN Technologies; Dr. Anita Jones at one point "oversaw" DARPA (among others); DARPA funded the Information Awareness Office, The IAO aimed to data mine profiles of individuals; Kevin Bacon started the IAO! (OK, I added the last one.) It's worth being critical of the overlapping membership networks of corporate boards, but to my mind, the above chain of connections is not particularly interesting. Alex -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //
You put that very clearly, Alex. I have been waiting for someone to say something beyond describing that chain, when criticising Facebook, but everyone seems to stop with just pointing out these links which I agree that by themselves don't offer much. Has anyone seen this aspect pursued, or pursued it themselves in a further investigation of any kind? Best, Kim On Feb 19, 2008 9:53 PM, Alex Halavais <alex@halavais.net> wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 12:12 AM, Kimberly De Vries <cuuixsilver@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway, has anyone from Facebook ever commented on the whole intelligence community connection?
Is it just me, or is this a serious association fallacy. No doubt, network visualizations can help to root out conspiracies, criminal or not. But the mere fact that people associate with one another means little more than that: they associate with one another. Given the degree to which corporate boards interlock, I would be surprised if most companies could not be similarly associated with the intelligence community.
Let's take one of the claims in plain English:
Facebook is a site that collects a lot of information in order to create profiles of individuals; ACCELL is a VC company that invested in Facebook; James Breyer is on the board of ACCELL; James Breyer is also on the board of BBN Technologies; Dr. Anita Jones is on the board of BBN Technologies; Dr. Anita Jones at one point "oversaw" DARPA (among others); DARPA funded the Information Awareness Office, The IAO aimed to data mine profiles of individuals; Kevin Bacon started the IAO!
(OK, I added the last one.)
It's worth being critical of the overlapping membership networks of corporate boards, but to my mind, the above chain of connections is not particularly interesting.
Alex
-- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net // _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Facebook is a site that collects a lot of information in order to create profiles of individuals; ACCELL is a VC company that invested in Facebook; James Breyer is on the board of ACCELL;
Not quite what the article says. Rather Thiel, Zuckerberg, and Beyer are on the board of Facebook. Assumption = Board's have influence over the products companies sell. Hence Beyer has influence over Facebook. That's a tighter argument. (Disputable, but tighter nonetheless.) Beyond this, I'm struck by a between the lines bias towards Facebook (this is directed towards the thread in general). I'm not saying that Facebook is evil (Hodgkinson's claim), but his research does have some validity. And value for its revealing the complexity of social network products. Are there any good academic articles on the political economy of Facebook, or any other social networking products? Citations would be much appreciated. -robert
I'd actually like to go even further than Alex and ask, do we really believe that the only way interested spy agencies can obtain this information is by getting it siphoned through companies they have a *friendly* relationship with? In other words, I agree that none of this information specifically points to Facebook being part of some conspiracy, because, in addition to Alex's point of the nepotism amongst companies, the named agencies certainly have the abilty to log in to a system and build some simple little scrapers to retrieve the data they want all by themselves, with or without assistance from the company. For that reason, I do believe the entire structure of Facebook and ALL business models like it raise serious privacy concerns. Facebook's connections are public knowledge and make it an easy target. But perhaps we should really be asking this question of ALL social networking sites. I think the Facebook discussion has lost the forest for a single tree. -Alexis On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Alex Halavais wrote: ::Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:53:31 -0500 ::From: Alex Halavais <alex@halavais.net> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-L] and now for *the dark side* of facebook :: ::On Feb 20, 2008 12:12 AM, Kimberly De Vries <cuuixsilver@gmail.com> wrote: ::> Anyway, has anyone from Facebook ever commented on the whole intelligence ::> community connection? ::> :: ::Is it just me, or is this a serious association fallacy. No doubt, ::network visualizations can help to root out conspiracies, criminal or ::not. But the mere fact that people associate with one another means ::little more than that: they associate with one another. Given the ::degree to which corporate boards interlock, I would be surprised if ::most companies could not be similarly associated with the intelligence ::community. :: ::Let's take one of the claims in plain English: :: ::Facebook is a site that collects a lot of information in order to ::create profiles of individuals; ::ACCELL is a VC company that invested in Facebook; ::James Breyer is on the board of ACCELL; ::James Breyer is also on the board of BBN Technologies; ::Dr. Anita Jones is on the board of BBN Technologies; ::Dr. Anita Jones at one point "oversaw" DARPA (among others); ::DARPA funded the Information Awareness Office, ::The IAO aimed to data mine profiles of individuals; ::Kevin Bacon started the IAO! :: ::(OK, I added the last one.) :: ::It's worth being critical of the overlapping membership networks of ::corporate boards, but to my mind, the above chain of connections is ::not particularly interesting. :: ::Alex :: :: ::-- ::// ::// This email is ::// [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. ::// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. ::// ::// Alexander C. Halavais ::// Social Architect ::// http://alex.halavais.net ::// ::_______________________________________________ ::The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org :: ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::http://www.aoir.org/ :: + -------- redheadedstepchild.org ------- +
On Feb 20, 2008 9:21 AM, Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org> wrote:
I'd actually like to go even further than Alex and ask, do we really believe that the only way interested spy agencies can obtain this information is by getting it siphoned through companies they have a *friendly* relationship with?
Well said.
...I do believe the entire structure of Facebook and ALL business models like it raise serious privacy concerns. Facebook's connections are public knowledge and make it an easy target. But perhaps we should really be asking this question of ALL social networking sites.
It seems that at least SNSes make the connections in social networks explicit and transparent. Many of you know (far better than I!) that those connections are discoverable and mappable even when they're not made explicit so at least SNSes level the playing field a bit. And transparency seems to be a key virtue when discussing privacy so that seems like a good thing at first blush.
I think the Facebook discussion has lost the forest for a single tree.
That's definitely been the case in my field (American higher education and student affairs)... Kevin
participants (6)
-
Alex Halavais -
Alexis Turner -
Kevin Guidry -
Kimberly De Vries -
nativebuddha -
Peter Timusk