This link has been bookmarked by 207 people . It was first bookmarked on 14 Mar 2010, by samtingleff.
-
21 Apr 12
-
13 Apr 12
-
03 Mar 12
-
11 Jan 12
-
25 Dec 11
-
23 Nov 11
-
28 Sep 11
-
09 Sep 11
Nicole BucknerFound this on the diigo community network.
-
Technophobes love to talk about how technology is ruining everything and technophiles obsess over how everything is radically different. I like to wade through the extremes to see the subtle inflection points. Reality is always in the details.
-
Nothing that the Buzz team did was technologically wrong. There were all sorts of opt-outs available - opt out of Buzz, opt out of the default lists, opt out of displaying the lists, etc. Yet, the service resulted in a PR disaster. Why? I'd argue that Google made a series of non-technical mistakes that resulted in a disruption of social expectations. While it’s easy to blame the users since the technology was fine, I think it’s important to deconstruct cases like this to understand what went wrong and what it tells us about privacy.
- 26 more annotation(s)...
-
-
Google got themselves into trouble by launching a public-facing service inside a service that people understand as extremely private. Gmail seems like a logical integration point because people visit there regularly, but juxtaposing the two services created a cognitive disconnect in users' minds. The result? Confused users believed that their emails were being made publicly accessible. While this was never the case, the integration confused people and gave them the wrong impression about the service.
-
We don't go through the niceties of "Hi, How are you?" because it's optimal for communication; we do it because to do otherwise is rude. In digital worlds, people need to be eased into a situation, to understand how to make sense of the setting.
-
But instead of asking new Buzz users if they wanted to see who else that they know on Google services might be using Buzz, they pre-populated a list and provided it to them as their default list of friends. This made people feel downright creeped out.
-
just because something is publicly accessible doesn't mean people want it to be publicized.
-
think about a conversation that you may have with a close friend. You may think about that conversation as private, but there is nothing stopping your friend from telling someone else what was said, except for your trust in your friend. You actually learned to trust your friend, presumably through experience.
-
When people assess a situation, they develop mental models based on probability calculations and the expectations they bring to the table. They make guesses about who is more or less likely to run across them. Their calculations are completely reasonable, as it's an efficient way of getting a decent handle on the social context, even if they are sometimes wrong. This is true both offline and online. People need to know how to behave so they use whatever information is available to them to make their best guess.
-
one of the most destabilizing issues online is that people aren't good at managing how the system might change the rules on them. Early adopters are consistently surprised by how a community changes when it goes mainstream and adopters at all stages find themselves startled when the rules of a system change after they got comfortable.
-
Facebook built its name and reputation on being a closed network that enabled privacy in new ways, something that its users deeply value and STILL believe is the case. Are there Facebook users who want their content to be publicly accessible? Of course. But 65% of all Facebook users? No way.
-
there's a big difference between something being publicly available and being publicized.
-
Historically, a conversation that you might have in the hallway is private by default, public through effort. It's private because no one bothers to share what's being said. The conversation may be made public if something worth spreading is said. Even though the conversation took place in a public setting, the conversation is private by default, public through effort.
-
when you engage online in equally public settings such as on someone's Facebook Wall, the conversation is public by default, private through effort. You actually have to think about making something private because, by default, it is going to be accessible to a much broader audience.
-
You have to choose to limit access rather than assuming that it won't spread very far. And, needless to say, people make a lot of mistakes learning this.
-
youth focus on all that they have to gain when entering into public spaces while adults are thinking about all that they have to lose. Part of the challenge in this is figuring out where someone's at and what their expectations are.
-
While it's easy to be private in public offline, doing so online can be quite difficult and frustrating. Teens, in particular, complain about
-
hinking that they have the right to look just because it is possible to be seen. By this logic, anyone who can get access to someone's diary has the right to look and anyone who has the ability to overhear something has the right to hear. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's socially appropriate
-
Many people mistakenly assume that tweets and status updates are the same thing. They are not and the difference has to do with publicity. While many started using Twitter to communicate with friends, the site has evolved to be primarily about those seeking an audience and those seeking to follow or contribute to a public in some way. Facebook, on the other hand, is still fundamentally about communicating with a specific set of people who are, by and large, your friends. Facebook is clearly looking to change this but, as it stands, these two services are primarily used very differently by their core users.
-
Twitter isn't just for celebrities and their followers. What makes it a fascinating phenomenon is the diversity of engagement on the site. That's also what makes it messy. Consider the role that Trending Topics play. Trending topics are where publicity gets played out most explicitly. It is both the aggregate of people's participation and a site of game play as people work to create and maintain trends.
-
It's not just teens and tweens who are making their voices heard on Twitter through the Trending Topics. If you follow many of the memes that get traction, you will find that there are a lot of black voices out there speaking up loud and proud. As one black user explained to me, joking around on Twitter is a lot like an extension of "yo mamma" culture; it's a place to blow off steam with humor that is sometimes vulgar in nature.
-
As we think about publicity, we need to think about who has the right and privilege to be a part of public life. Who is comfortable speaking in public? What are the costs people face when speaking out in public?
-
Imagine being an immigrant whose family came here illegally 30 years ago when you were six months old. You don't speak the native tongue of your ancestors, have never been back to the country in which you were born. You are petrified of being deported. Are you comfortable telling your story in public?
Or... Imagine that you left an abusive relationship (one of the hardest things to do). You're working two jobs to make ends meet for you and your kids. You're exhausted, but your biggest fear is that your ex will find out where you are and hurt you and/or your kids again. How public do you want to be?
-
The "public by default" environment that we are so proudly creating isn't always the great democratizer; for many, it's exactly the opposite. Just because technology allows us to speak up in public doesn't mean that everyone is comfortable doing so or, for that matter, will be heard. Keep in mind: the technologies of publicity don't guarantee others' attention.
-
ChatRoulette is an odd combination of privacy and publicity. On one hand, participants are typically physically situated in spaces that they deem private - their bedrooms, their offices, etc. But by enabling random connections with strangers, ChatRoulette becomes a networked public space. Most users think that there's no way to locate someone - either physically or digitally - unless they share information. This creates a sense of anonymity, a sense of disconnect that makes it feel safe. Of course, what they don't realize is that someone has started capturing IP addresses and connecting photos to geolocations. So we'll see how long average people who don't understand Tor think that they're anonymous.
-
For starters, know that there's no magical formula for understanding privacy and publicity. There's no equation, no easy algorithm to implement. Privacy and publicity are living things, a stew of complexity that's at the crux of humanity. They are fundamentally processes, grounded in needs, desires, and goals, situated in contexts and transformed by technology. Regardless of how you're trying to engage in privacy and publicity, know that there's no answer.
-
The worst thing you can do is start a sentence with "back in my day." Back in your day doesn't matter. What does matter is that you care and that you too are trying to figure out how to make sense of an ever-changing environment. Rather than approaching teens and telling them how things should be, why they shouldn't be putting material online, please consider the value of opening up a dialogue. You have a lot to learn from what teens are trying to do; you once had to make sense of public life too.
-
Just because a large percentage of people engage in public does not mean that they don't care about privacy.
-
Wanting privacy is not about needing something to hide. It’s about wanting to maintain control. Often, privacy isn't about hiding; it's about creating space to open up. If you remember that privacy is about maintaining a sense of control, you can understand why Privacy is Not Dead. There are good reasons to engage in public; there always have been. But wanting to be in public doesn’t mean wanting to lose control.
-
-
-
28 Jun 11
-
12 May 11
-
just because something is publicly accessible doesn't mean people want it to be publicized.
-
-
10 May 11
-
21 Mar 11
-
What keeps me up at night is trying to make sense of how social media transforms society and, more importantly, what it helps make visible about humanity. Technophobes love to talk about how technology is ruining everything and technophiles obsess over how everything is radically different. I like to wade through the extremes to see the subtle inflection points. Reality is always in the details.
-
My goal today is to invite you to step back and ask: what hath we wrought? We've all been involved in social media from at least one perspective. Some of you are creators, developers, designers; others of you are business folks, marketers, analysts. Some of you use social media in your jobs and some of you live it as part of your daily practice. We are all collectively creating culture through our engagement with social media. So what I'd like to do is offer some insights that allow you to think critically about our collective project so that we can all find ways to do better.
- 15 more annotation(s)...
-
-
To give you something to munch on, I've decided to focus my talk on two interwoven concepts that keep coming up whenever we think about social media: privacy and publicity. I'm highlighting these issues because I think that they're going to play a crucial role in the evolution of social media. I think that we're going to have to work them out and I need your help in doing so.
-
No matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what privacy means may not be what you think.
-
To get at the challenges around privacy, let's consider a recent privacy FAIL: Google Buzz. What the outrage around Google Buzz showed us is that people care deeply about privacy and control. Don't get me wrong - plenty of people will use the service and it will be extremely popular, but this doesn't mean Google didn’t screw up. They’re taking a hit in terms of trust, because not everyone benefited from what they did.
For the uninitiated, Google introduced a new service called Buzz that is basically a stream (ala Twitter or Facebook's Feed) with content populated by the people that an individual chooses to follow. The service is situated within Gmail, requiring users to access it via the Gmail interface. When first launched, new users were invited to check out Buzz on the way into Gmail. If they agreed, they were prompted to give information that would result in the creation of a publicly accessible profile, if they didn't already have one. And they were given a popup of users that Buzz calculated that they'd most like to follow. While any user could be unclicked, the default was that they were clicked and clicking through would result in users automatically accepting these people. The default also meant that a users' list of followees would be listed on their publicly accessible profile, even though there was an option to uncheck this. Likewise, if the user used other public features of other Google products - such as Reader - these too would be all integrated into a user's public profile, even though there was always a way to disconnect these sites.
-
Nothing that the Buzz team did was technologically wrong. There were all sorts of opt-outs available - opt out of Buzz, opt out of the default lists, opt out of displaying the lists, etc. Yet, the service resulted in a PR disaster. Why? I'd argue that Google made a series of non-technical mistakes that resulted in a disruption of social expectations. While it’s easy to blame the users since the technology was fine, I think it’s important to deconstruct cases like this to understand what went wrong and what it tells us about privacy.
First, Google got themselves into trouble by launching a public-facing service inside a service that people understand as extremely private. Gmail seems like a logical integration point because people visit there regularly, but juxtaposing the two services created a cognitive disconnect in users' minds. The result? Confused users believed that their emails were being made publicly accessible. While this was never the case, the integration confused people and gave them the wrong impression about the service. This created unnecessary panic amongst users, resulting in bad PR for Google that was technologically inaccurate.
-
Second, Google assumed that people would opt-out of Buzz if they didn't want to participate. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one because a more insidious framing would be to say that they wanted to force people into opting-in because this makes the service more viral and more monetizable. While I'm trying not to let conspiracy theories cloud my analysis, I can't help but notice that more and more companies are opting people in and waiting until they flip out to adjust privacy settings.
-
To understand this, you need to know that there's a difference between what sociologists understand as "personal social networks" and the two kinds of networks known by technologies: "behavioral social networks" and "articulated social networks."
-
Articulated social networks are the lists of people that you indicate that you know, either privately (like in your addressbook) or publicly (like on Facebook). Behavioral social networks are the networks of people that you regularly communicate with or share space with, the kinds of networks that you can discern from email exchanges or mobile phone records. All of our theories about social networks - weak and strong ties, homophily, etc. - stem from studies of personal networks. While there's a lot we don't know about behavioral and articulated networks, we do know that they are NOT the same as personal networks. Google collapsed behavioral and articulated social networks and presented them in a way that indicated that they might be one's personal network. And for many users, this wasn't quite right. You may talk to your ex-husband frequently via email, but that doesn't mean that you want to follow him on Buzz.
-
When thinking about privacy in a digital context, there are five main things you need to know.
-
First, you must differentiate between PII and PEI. If you've spent any time thinking about privacy, you've probably heard of PII - "Personally Identifiable Information." All too often, we assume that when people make PII available publicly that they don't care about privacy. While some folks are deeply concerned about PII, PII isn't the whole privacy story. What many people are concerned about is PEI - "Personally Embarrassing Information." This is what they're brokering, battling over, and trying to make sense of.
Because most people are interacting online with people that they know, they expect to make PII available. They do so because they want to be found by friends. But they also want to keep PEI hidden, at least to those that might go out of their way to use it maliciously. Unfortunately, it's hard to be visible to some and invisible to others. People develop elaborate schemes to try to do so.
-
When people make information available, they make themselves vulnerable. We do this all the time in social settings. We make ourselves vulnerable because we believe that we might have something to gain from it. This is how we build friendships. We also make ourselves vulnerable to machines because we hope that we can gain something from it. Yet, just like we trust people to understand the context in which information is shared, so too do we trust machines. When either our friends or our technology fail to maintain the social context, it feels like a huge privacy FAIL.
-
Second, we're seeing an inversion of defaults when it comes to what's public and what's private. Historically, a conversation that you might have in the hallway is private by default, public through effort. It's private because no one bothers to share what's being said. The conversation may be made public if something worth spreading is said
-
Third, people regularly calculate both what they have to lose and what they have to gain when entering public situations. Having control over a situation is extremely important, but it must be weighed against the opportunities that one might have to gain a friend or have a new experience by being public. The equations people use differ depending on where they are at in their life. Most generalizably, youth focus on all that they have to gain when entering into public spaces while adults are thinking about all that they have to lose. Part of the challenge in this is figuring out where someone's at and what their expectations are.
-
Fourth concept. Keep in mind that people don’t always make material publicly accessible because they want the world to see it. Consider this quote from 17-year-old Bly Lauritano-Warner:
"My mom always uses the excuse about the internet being "public" when she defends herself. It's not like I do anything to be ashamed of, but a girl needs her privacy. I do online journals so I can communicate with my friends. Not so my mother could catch up on the latest gossip of my life."
-
Finally, I want to come back to what I keep raising briefly but not properly addressing. Just because something is publicly accessible does not mean that people want it to be publicized. Making something that is public more public is a violation of privacy.
-
Wanting privacy is not about needing something to hide. It’s about wanting to maintain control. Often, privacy isn't about hiding; it's about creating space to open up. If you remember that privacy is about maintaining a sense of control, you can understand why Privacy is Not Dead. There are good reasons to engage in public; there always have been. But wanting to be in public doesn’t mean wanting to lose control.
-
-
-
22 Feb 11
Gary RitzenthalerTranscript of danah boyd's keynote speech at 2010 SXSW on common themes in privacy and "being public" in social media.
2010 blogpost conference speech sxsw danahboyd socialmedia facebook privacy google identity socialnetworks
-
13 Feb 11
Sam SethiThe crib from my SXSW talk on privacy and publicity is now available for those who couldn't attend: http://bit.ly/b0zN5K Enjoy!!!
-
20 Jan 11
-
06 Jan 11
-
16 Dec 10
Heather BraumText of Danah Boyd’s SXSW talk on privacy http://bit.ly/cnMDDe and a video interview http://bit.ly/aIHvi2
-
15 Nov 10
-
No matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what privacy means may not be what you think.
-
Google got themselves into trouble by launching a public-facing service inside a service that people understand as extremely private.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
-
-
Years ago, a group of engineers realized that people frequently posted "A/S/L?" in chatrooms to elicit age, sex, and location. They noticed that most people responded to this query with information like 32/F/Austin. They thought they'd make people's lives easier by inviting them to fill out a profile that included age, sex, and location. What they failed to realize was that A/S/L? wasn't simply about information solicitation; it was an icebreaker.
-
-
-
08 Nov 10
Chris GrieserNo matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what
DanahBoyd EricSchmidt MarkZuckerberg Diskriminierung Post-Privacy Privatsphäre
-
06 Nov 10
-
03 Nov 10
-
25 Sep 10
-
20 Sep 10
-
03 Aug 10
-
27 Jul 10
Tuija Aalto… I'm an ethnographer. I study how social media has become a part of daily life. In recent years, I’ve been focused on teen engagement with social media. But I'm also an activist, driven to making the world a better place through the production and dissem
henkilöbrändi toiminta identiteetti verkkoidentiteetti tutkija tutkimus bloggaaja yksityisyys nuoret sosiaalinenmedia research culture facebook identity privacy socialmedia google security danahboyd
-
24 Jul 10
-
22 Jul 10
-
20 Jul 10
Joe Showkermore from danah boyd... "We are all collectively creating culture through our engagement with social media. So what I'd like to do is offer some insights that allow you to think critically about our collective project so that we can all find ways to do b
danahboyd facebook web2.0 culture privacy media research socialnetworking
-
10 Jul 10
-
privacy is about having control over how information flows. It's about being able to understand the social setting in order to behave appropriately.
-
Google got themselves into trouble by launching a public-facing service inside a service that people understand as extremely private. Gmail seems like a logical integration point because people visit there regularly, but juxtaposing the two services created a cognitive disconnect in users' minds.
- 18 more annotation(s)...
-
-
I can't help but notice that more and more companies are opting people in and waiting until they flip out to adjust privacy settings.
-
Another issue is that Google foolishly told users what they wanted rather than asking them.
-
To understand this, you need to know that there's a difference between what sociologists understand as "personal social networks" and the two kinds of networks known by technologies: "behavioral social networks" and "articulated social networks."
-
Articulated social networks are the lists of people that you indicate that you know, either privately (like in your addressbook) or publicly (like on Facebook). Behavioral social networks are the networks of people that you regularly communicate with or share space with, the kinds of networks that you can discern from email exchanges or mobile phone records.
-
And second, just because something is publicly accessible doesn't mean people want it to be publicized.
-
A few years back, Technorati pointed out that the average blog was read by six people. Just because something can be accessed, doesn't mean that it will be. And for that reason, people regularly calculate that there's not much to lose in making something public, just like they think that there's not much lost in going to a cafe.
-
Facebook built its name and reputation on being a closed network that enabled privacy in new ways, something that its users deeply value and STILL believe is the case. Are there Facebook users who want their content to be publicly accessible? Of course. But 65% of all Facebook users? No way.
-
By continuously arguing that Privacy is Dead, technologists justify their efforts to make publicly available data more public. But there's a big difference between something being publicly available and being publicized.
-
"Personally Identifiable Information."
-
"Personally Embarrassing Information
-
Most generalizably, youth focus on all that they have to gain when entering into public spaces while adults are thinking about all that they have to lose.
-
While it's easy to be private in public offline, doing so online can be quite difficult and frustrating.
-
What's at stake is often a question of trust. And all too often, parents erode their relationship with their children because they believe they have the right to snoop
-
ust because it's possible doesn't mean it's socially appropriate.
-
Yet, when we argue that there's nothing wrong with making something that happens in public more public, we are basically arguing that we have the right to sick the paparazzi on everyone, to turn anyone into a public figure.
-
Many people mistakenly assume that tweets and status updates are the same thing. They are not and the difference has to do with publicity. While many started using Twitter to communicate with friends, the site has evolved to be primarily about those seeking an audience and those seeking to follow or contribute to a public in some way. Facebook, on the other hand, is still fundamentally about communicating with a specific set of people who are, by and large, your friends.
-
. The "public by default" environment that we are so proudly creating isn't always the great democratizer; for many, it's exactly the opposite. Just because technology allows us to speak up in public doesn't mean that everyone is comfortable doing so or, for that matter, will be heard. Keep in mind: the technologies of publicity don't guarantee others' attention.
-
"the Internet's like Mexican food - every site's got the same ingredients, just in different combinations.
-
-
-
08 Jul 10
-
24 Jun 10
-
14 Jun 10
-
25 May 10
-
23 May 10
Diane CourtDEAR ERIC SCHMIDT, PRIVACY IS NOT DEAD. KTXBY.
No matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much aculture danahboyd facebook privacy public information socialmedia socialnetworking technology googlebuzz identity security google
-
20 May 10
Allison Kipta"No matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what privacy means may not be what you think. Fundamentally, privacy is about having control over how information flows. It's about being able to understand the social setting in order to behave appropriately. To do so, people must trust their interpretation of the context, including the people in the room and the architecture that defines the setting. When they feel as though control has been taken away from them or when they lack the control they need to do the right thing, they scream privacy foul. To get at the challenges around privacy, let's consider a recent privacy FAIL: Google Buzz. What the outrage around Google Buzz showed us is that people care deeply about privacy and control. Don't get me wrong - plenty of people will use the service and it will be extremely popular, but this doesn't mean Google didn’t screw up. They’re taking a hit in terms of trust, because not everyone benefited from what they did."
-
18 May 10
carrie saarinenexcellent keynote (SXSW2010) by Dana Boyd. Covers the Google Buzz fiasco neatly. exaplins privacy concerns in plain English. provides good talking, thinking points for social media users of all levels.
-
12 May 10
-
10 May 10
-
05 May 10
-
24 Apr 10
avner pinchuko matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what
-
22 Apr 10
-
18 Apr 10
-
15 Apr 10
-
14 Apr 10
Clive Thompsondanah boyd's excellent speech at SXSW
boyd danah danah.boyd socialmedia technology think_different
-
12 Apr 10
-
Trending topics are where publicity gets played out most explicitly. It is both the aggregate of people's participation and a site of game play as people work to create and maintain trends.
-
-
11 Apr 10
-
07 Apr 10
-
01 Apr 10
-
-
Darren Kuropatwa"Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity"
danah boyd
SXSW
March 13, 2010-
Add Sticky Noteprivacy is about having control over how information flows
-
Darren Kuropatwa on 2010-04-01
Given this definition something like Facebook can never be private because you can never really control the flow of your information. According to their TOS FB "owns" any data you bring in.
-
-
-
29 Mar 10
-
28 Mar 10
-
25 Mar 10
Learning McDonald
This is a talk recently given at the SXSW which focuses on Google and its disasters with Buzz and Chinaprivacy socialmedia social media articles google controversies
-
Articulated social networks are the lists of people that you indicate that you know, either privately (like in your addressbook) or publicly (like on Facebook). Behavioral social networks are the networks of people that you regularly communicate with or share space with, the kinds of networks that you can discern from email exchanges or mobile phone records. All of our theories about social networks - weak and strong ties, homophily, etc. - stem from studies of personal networks. While there's a lot we don't know about behavioral and articulated networks, we do know that they are NOT the same as personal networks. Google collapsed behavioral and articulated social networks and presented them in a way that indicated that they might be one's personal network. And for many users, this wasn't quite right. You may talk to your ex-husband frequently via email, but that doesn't mean that you want to follow him on Buzz.
-
Articulated social networks are the lists of people that you indicate that you know, either privately (like in your addressbook) or publicly (like on Facebook). Behavioral social networks are the networks of people that you regularly communicate with or share space with, the kinds of networks that you can discern from email exchanges or mobile phone records. All of our theories about social networks - weak and strong ties, homophily, etc. - stem from studies of personal networks. While there's a lot we don't know about behavioral and articulated networks, we do know that they are NOT the same as personal networks. Google collapsed behavioral and articulated social networks and presented them in a way that indicated that they might be one's personal network. And for many users, this wasn't quite right. You may talk to your ex-husband frequently via email, but that doesn't mean that you want to follow him on Buzz.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
-
-
k to your ex-husband frequently via email, but that doesn't mean that you want to follow him on Buzz
-
-
-
-
-
I'm an ethnographe
-
study how social media has become a part of daily life. In recent years, I’ve been focused on teen engagement with social media
- 12 more annotation(s)...
-
-
What keeps me up at night is trying to make sense of how social media transforms society and, more importantly, what it helps make visible about humanity.
-
My goal today is to invite you to step back and ask: what hath we wrought
-
We are all collectively creating culture through our engagement with social media
-
We are all collectively creating culture through our engagement with social media
-
privacy and publicity. I'm highlighting these issues because I think that they're going to play a crucial role in the evolution of social media
-
People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what privacy means may not be what you think.
-
To get at the challenges around privacy, let's consider a recent privacy FAIL: Google Buzz. What the outrage around Google Buzz showed us is that people care deeply about privacy and control. Don't get me wrong - plenty of people will use the service and it will be extremely popular, but this doesn't mean Google didn’t screw up. They’re taking a hit in terms of trust, because not everyone benefited from what they did.
-
I'd argue that Google made a series of non-technical mistakes that resulted in a disruption of social expectations.
-
Confused users believed that their emails were being made publicly accessible.
-
Many users were extremely confused, uncertain of what opting out would mean, especially since it was located in Gmail.
-
While you want your services to go viral, help users walk through the value proposition first
-
We don't go through the niceties of "Hi, How are you?" because it's optimal for communication; we do it because to do otherwise is rude. In digital worlds, people need to be eased into a situation, to understand how to make sense of the setting.
-
-
-
pedro_daltroArticulated social networks are the lists of people that you indicate that you know, either privately (like in your addressbook) or publicly (like on Facebook). Behavioral social networks are the networks of people that you regularly communicate with or s
dados danah.boyd privacidade ética publicy network google google.buzz
-
24 Mar 10
Gordon RossTo give you something to munch on, I've decided to focus my talk on two interwoven concepts that keep coming up whenever we think about social media: privacy and publicity. I'm highlighting these issues because I think that they're going to play a crucial
-
23 Mar 10
-
meanderinglaraNo matter how many times a privileged straight white male technology executive pronounces the death of privacy, Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what
-
22 Mar 10
-
Tara HuntWanting privacy is not about needing something to hide. It’s about wanting to maintain control. Often, privacy isn't about hiding; it's about creating space to open up. If you remember that privacy is about maintaining a sense of control, you can understa
imported privacy danahboyd socialnetworks socialweb delicious
-
-
iaria p[W]hen we argue that there's nothing wrong with making something that happens in public more public, we are basically arguing that we have the right to sick the paparazzi on everyone, to turn anyone into a public figure.
-
21 Mar 10
-
20 Mar 10
-
"Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity"
-
We are all collectively creating culture through our engagement with social media.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
-
-
Privacy Is Not Dead. People of all ages care deeply about privacy. And they care just as much about privacy online as they do offline. But what privacy means may not be what you think.
-
To get at the challenges around privacy, let's consider a recent privacy FAIL: Google Buzz. What the outrage around Google Buzz showed us is that people care deeply about privacy and control. Don't get me wrong - plenty of people will use the service and it will be extremely popular, but this doesn't mean Google didn’t screw up. They’re taking a hit in terms of trust, because not everyone benefited from what they did.
-
-
-
copracatEach of you - as designers, as marketers, as parents, as users - needs to think through the implications and ethics of your decisions, of what it means to invade someone's privacy, or how your presumptions about someone's publicity may actually affect the
-
Fire crackerdanah boyd's keynote at SXSW 2010. Interesting talk on privacy and its differing meanings, publicity, what you can do wrong (eg google buzz), issues of privilege, assumptions of privacy, defaults of public/private differering on and offline, and stuff
-
19 Mar 10
T. PoIt's easy to think that "public" and "private" are binaries. We certainly build a lot of technology with this assumption. At best, we break out of this with access-control lists where we list specific people who some piece of content should be available to. And at best, we expand our notion of "private" to include everything that is not "public." But this binary logic isn't good enough for understanding what people mean when they talk about privacy. What people experience when they talk about privacy is more complicated than what can be instantiated in a byte.
-
Phil Liff-GrieffDana Boyd's Keynote address at SXSW 2010
privacy social_media cyberculture digital_footprint facebook socialmedia
-
18 Mar 10
SJLibrary Learningdanah boyd, keynote speech at SXSW Interactive 2010.
privacy facebook google security social research culture technology sxsw conference presentations
-
17 Mar 10
-
16 Mar 10
-
Felipe HoffaJust because a large percentage of people engage in public does not mean that they don't care about privacy. Pew found that 85% of adults want to control who has access to their personal information...
Wanting privacy is not about needing something to hiculture facebook google identity privacy media research social socialsoftware technology
Public Stiky Notes
Page Comments
hello
My name is lillian,I saw your profile today
and became interested in you,I will like to know you more,and I want you to send an email to my email address at lilliandon53@yahoo.co.uk, so that I can give you my picture for you to know me.
I believe we can move from here!
I am waiting to hear from you.(Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters more in life)
Thanks
send me a message in my email ID now
lilliandon53@yahoo.co.uk
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.