apophenia: just because we can, doesn't mean we should - The Diigo Meta page

• 14 Sep 12
  

  Lucie Sommer

  privacy ethics

• 11 Feb 09
  

  mhamburg

  socialmedia privacy

• 24 Jun 08
  

  L@jost EU project

  Danah_Boyd Web_social_aspects privacy SocialNetworking l@jost

• 

  laura malita

  Danah_Boyd Web_social_aspects privacy SocialNetworking

• 18 Jun 08
  

  Kyla K

  privacy socialgraph security ethics web2.0 social google apophenia

• 20 Mar 08
  

  marshallrww

  google_social_graph privacy privilege toread

• 04 Mar 08
  

  matthew solle

  SocialGraph

• 13 Feb 08
  

  Gordon Haff

  "Being socially exposed is AOK when you hold a lot of privilege, when people cannot hold meaningful power over you, or when you can route around such efforts. Such is the life of most of the tech geeks living in Silicon Valley."

  social

• 11 Feb 08
  

  Mark Pegrum

  security privacy SocialGraph

• 06 Feb 08
  

  Rekha Murthy

  +1. and her point applies to the tech world far beyond just this issue.

  socialnetworking technology web2.0 privacy community facebook google

• 05 Feb 08
  

  Kai Turner

  privacy socialnetworking

• 

  McBride Courses

  Just because people can profile, stereotype, and label people doesn't mean that they should.

  google facebook social web2.0 socialgraph ethics security privacy

• 

  Just because people can profile, stereotype, and label people doesn't mean that they should.

  google facebook social web2.0 socialgraph ethics security privacy

• 

  Triangle Program

  Just because people can profile, stereotype, and label people doesn't mean that they should.

  google facebook social web2.0 socialgraph ethics security privacy

• 

  Martin M

  ethics socialgraph socialnetworks

• 04 Feb 08
  

  Jeremy Price
• 

  gsiemens

  privacy security

• 

  infontology

  social_networks privacy

• 

  Howard Rheingold

  danah on dangers of exposing ppl's social graphs: "Just because people can profile, stereotype, and label people doesn't mean that they should."

  digital_natives facebook socialsoftware social_networks

  • “Just because I can doesn’t mean I should” is a decision dilemma and it doesn’t just apply to personal decisions. On a nation-state level, think about the cold war. Just because we could nuke Russia doesn’t mean that we should’ve.
  • Being socially exposed is AOK when you hold a lot of privilege, when people cannot hold meaningful power over you, or when you can route around such efforts. Such is the life of most of the tech geeks living in Silicon Valley. But I spend all of my time with teenagers, one of the most vulnerable populations because of their lack of agency (let alone rights). Teens are notorious for self-exposure, but they want to do so in a controlled fashion. Self-exposure is critical for the coming of age process – it’s how we get a sense of who we are, how others perceive us, and how we fit into the world. We exposure during that time period in order to understand where the edges are. But we don’t expose to be put at true risk.
  • The odd thing about forced exposure is that it creates a scenario where everyone is a potential celebrity, forced into approaching every public interaction with the imagined costs of all future interpretations of that ephemeral situation.
  • Just because people can profile, stereotype, and label people doesn’t mean that they should. Just because people can surveil those around them doesn’t mean that they should. Just because parents can stalk their children doesn’t mean that they should. So why on earth do we believe that just because technology can expose people means that it should?

  2 more annotations...

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.