Apparently, LinkedIn has recently done us the “favor” of having a default setting whereby our names and photos can be used for third-party advertising. A friend forwarded me this alert (from a friend, from a friend…) this morning.
Since Facebook has been such a good model of creative “reuse” of our personal information, and consequent destruction of personal trust in social settings, it seems corporately fitting that LinkedIn would try the same.
Coaching moment: Doesn’t it bother you when people make self-serving assumptions about what you want to share with others? True, you did voluntarily share this information, but shouldn’t you be able to express clear limits on how this shared information is used—before it’s misused? I think so!
Danah Boyd is an insightful researcher. She just wrote a post called “Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power in which she takes Google to task for their changing policies and rather abrupt practice of kicking people off of Google Plus. I agree that being arbitrary is an abuse of power when it affects people so strongly (disabling an account removes the use of all services, not just Google Plus). However, there are two kinds of power: shared, and proprietary.
Google, along with Facebook, Twitter, and in fact nearly all Internet-based services (Amazon, eBay, your Internet service provider, etc.), are proprietary. These services are run by companies that:
are private or beholden to shareholders (their “business model”),
have one-sided Terms of Service and Policy documents that users are required to agree to, and
are based on the selective delivery of their user base to their customers (usually advertisers).
A striking characteristic of these businesses is that they have a practice of reducing things to black and white. Our chosen (registered) name “is” or “is not” really us. See Doc’s post A Sense of Bewronging for more thought on this. In a simplified (business) sense, it is an abuse of social power to declare that many of us are not who we say we are, even if we’re known to many others by our chosen registered name.
Contrast this with a shared power model, like a commons, or services that are implemented according to open standards. The underlying Internet protocols (the apache web server, sendmail, TCP/IP, etc.) are not owned by anyone, everybody can use them, and anybody can improve them. These resources are shared—no terms of service is required to use the Internet or email with any device you choose, with any compatible software, from any location that has access. “Commons” is where you can be who you are, no matter what name you go by.
Coaching moment: This may be a non-issue for some. I have friends that use their name to create a “brand” for themselves—so people will recognize them everywhere, and know what they’re about. However, that’s not an option for people in sensitive situations. Think of it this way: Everyone has a moment when they choose not to disclose some bit of information to the world. Sometimes it’s a name. That’s not a bad thing, and it should be a choice.
This is a joint post with ManyMedia, offering two perspectives on this singular event: a visit to JPAC, a military lab that works to recover remains of the dead following war (repatriation).
This post is about constructing a victim’s identity, which is a puzzle constructed from the bits of a person’s remains and life.
Many people like to think about how each of us are unique, despite our commonalities: basic upright shape, two arms and two legs, 206 bones in our body (most in our hands and feet). In fact, our unique nature is what helps identify who we are. For example, our skull reveals our age, racial affiliation, biological sex, and our specific identity through many features including certain geometries of our whole skull, our teeth, and our DNA.
The DNA is the interesting part. Sampling skeletal or dental remains allows a look at nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Nuclear DNA (taken from a cell’s nucleus) is specific to a person and can display genetic patterns of a family. It’s what is used in standard DNA testing. Mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, is passed down by the mother, and is good evidence (though not conclusive) of a specific family relationship. Here’s an article from Genebase (a global testing service) about mtDNA and it’s role in heredity.
Our DNA has one set of stories to reveal about us, but it wouldn’t be complete without the people, places and activities that also made up those lives. People who survived catastrophic incidents, or pieces of life (sardine cans from a last meal, pieces of helmets or parachutes), or other “material evidence” are also puzzle pieces that help develop an identity. The JPAC lab works with all of this evidence to re-construct the identities of the soldiers and victims of war.
Coaching moment: Sometimes context is everything. Contrary to the common approach in “Web 2.0″ technologies, our lives are rarely as simple as one bone, one face or one persona. Our current tools are poor fits for offering a more robust representation of who we are and what we want or need.
There are tools and concepts in development that will give us better control over what specific information we choose to keep or share, in different contexts, with others. These new tools are more about the living, but will also help us better understand the past.
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?
Social networks are great places to share links, photos, status updates, and more. It often appears that we are the beneficiaries of our personal information sharing. However, we are not the only ones. A much greater benefit accrues to an industry that is, at its core, about public manipulation. Whether we want or need something that they’re pushing is not the point; this is about moving goods, selling units, enhancing commerce and the GDP.
What does this industry see in us (besides our wallet)?
Coaching moment: As a culture, we’ve never been in a position before where we needed to be so self-aware about our communications. We’ve never been so open and vulnerable to the slings and arrows of others. Like any profitable middleman, the Advertising/Marketing Industry justifies its existence in ways that extract a value from our shared information. Their efforts target us with more effective and personally customized messages, but at many different costs to us.
Does advertising make us better people? Does it contribute to more enlightened culture? A better world? All arguable points.
How does it benefit you? What personal information are you willing to give away in support of this industry? Have you found a balance between your personal interests and the influence of others? Do you like television and magazine ads, or highway billboards?
Yes, there are tradeoffs with advertising. I’m just asking if you like these things as a mode of communication. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
Creative commons photo credit: x-ray delta one on flickr. Thanks!
![[del.icio.us]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Ma.gnolia]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/magnolia.png)
![[Technorati]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Danah Boyd
