Web 3.0, Facebook, Privacy, Identity Control

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/zuckerberg-privacy-stance_n_556679.html

As this article points out, don't post anything on Facebook that you wouldn't mind the whole world reading.

In fact, I always consider the issue as, don't write anything on the Internet that would make you upset to have publicly distributed to the people most concerned with the topic you've written about. (What does this mean?)

This has a lot to do with identity control--online PR, so to speak.

While yes, we all write things in anger to our nearest and dearest, I always try to remind myself that unless it's an argument that I can rationally and logically support, I probably shouldn't put it online, whether in an email, or Facebook, or a blog. Because, really, there is no surety of privacy on the Internet, and this is only going to get worse. Although I'm a huge proponent of common sense, I recognize that a lot of things get put onto the Internet that violate common sense. Instead, I deviate farther from common sense and closer to pragmatism. If I said to my dearest friend in the world something that I would probably not have said to my boss, it should be something that is at least clear-sighted, about which I could say, "Well, this is true." (Now, I should also say, I think very highly of my boss, and I'm not just saying that because she sometimes reads my blog.)

Two things people need to stop conflating are security and privacy. Take your house, for example--just because you have deadbolts bolted and doorknobs locked, there is nothing to stop the peeping Tom (or Tina) across the street from watching you through an un-curtained window as you change clothes; similarly, you can have plenty of security to protect credit card payments to your electric company, but you're not about to stop anyone from knowing that you've gone to Sprocket's Electric website to pay your electricity bill.

As I told my friend Catherine (friend for 4.3 billion years) in an email--Facebook is actually behind on their privacy settings. I have repeatedly been surprised by how hesitant they are to get their feet wet. I'm not saying I like this lack of privacy; simply, there isn't a whole lot that anyone can do about it, and Facebook was a slightly later sell-out than I would have guessed.

For instance, take the Skittles-Twitter experiment. (Where Wrigley Candy Co. tracked everyone's tweets, and any tweet in which the word "Skittle" had been used was posted onto the Skittles website.) It's not like these abilities don't exist; it's simply a question of, who is going to take the initial heat/hate for doing it first--because, realistically speaking, the people who take the hate/heat (yup, deliberate there) are going to wind up being more advanced.

And yes, I love Google--I'd have loved Palpatine, too, yes--and guess what...they've been doing an awful lot already that you don't know about. So, look at the Facebook implications and be grateful that they're being (more) upfront about it. Web 3.0 is here, and it's not going away. Capitalism is driving it. And I think, eventually, we're going to see more corporate involvement in the writing of laws to accommodate for the digital environment.

Question is: Is the digital environment as real as the "real world?"

Answer: Hard to say. For instance, in grad school we used to have a professor who said that indeed, the digital environment -was- just as real, and he taught his classes over a webcam--which, for the early 2000s, was a very innovative idea. But we'd always threaten to wire the laptop on which he taught into the bathroom, just so we could roll him around on the laptop cart and hear him say, "Where are you taking me?"

Ah, pragmatism. I love you.