Archive

from The Great Debate:

How to resist Big Brother 2.0

The ubiquity of digital gadgets and sensors, the pervasiveness of networks and the benefits of sharing very personal information through social media have led some to argue that privacy as a social norm is changing and becoming an outmoded concept. In this three-part series Don Tapscott questions this view, arguing that we each need a personal privacy strategy. Part one can be read here, and part two here.

As the Net becomes the basis for commerce, work, entertainment, healthcare, learning and much human discourse, each of us is leaving a trail of digital crumbs as we spend a growing portion of our day touching networks. The books, music and stocks you buy online, your pharmacy purchases, groceries scanned at the supermarket or bought online, your child’s research for a school project, the card reader at the parking lot, your car’s conversations with a database via satellite, the online publications you read, the shirt you purchase in a department store with your store card, the prescription drugs you buy – and the hundreds of other network transactions in a typical day – point to the problem.

Computers can inexpensively link and cross-reference such databases to slice, dice and recompile information about individuals in hundreds of different ways. This makes these databases enormously attractive for government and corporations that are keen to know our whereabouts and activities.

George Orwell’s iconic text Nineteen Eighty-Four described the dystopian society where a totalitarian state rules in its own interests and everyone is under constant surveillance by authorities. This situation was often correctly alleged about the totalitarian East Bloc countries during the Cold War. It is unfortunately increasingly true of Western democracies today. In the name of national security, governments are collecting real-time information from us, sampling phone calls, emails and social networks, and taking our biometrics at airports and a growing list of other places.

We have little idea what governments are doing with this flood of personal information. And the aftermath of 9/11 should remind us just how quickly our civil liberties can be undermined in the name of national security.

Recently the New York Times reported that: “Law enforcement tracking of cellphones, once the province mainly of federal agents, has become a powerful and widely used surveillance tool for local police officials, with hundreds of departments, large and small, often using it aggressively with little or no court oversight.”

The Times reports that this practice has become big business for cellphone companies, too, as carriers market a catalog of “surveillance fees” to police departments to determine a suspect’s location, trace phone calls and texts, or provide other services.

from The Great Debate:

Can we retain privacy in the era of Big Data?

The ubiquity of digital gadgets and sensors, the pervasiveness of networks and the benefits of sharing very personal information through social media have led some to argue that privacy as a social norm is changing and becoming an outmoded concept. In this three-part series Don Tapscott questions this view, arguing that we each need a personal privacy strategy. Part one can be read here.

Privacy is nothing if not the freedom to be let alone, to experiment and to make mistakes, to forget and to start anew, to act according to conscience, and to be free from the oppressive scrutiny and opinions of others.

It may seem an odd notion today, but in its infancy the Internet was a favorite refuge for many seeking privacy. A famous New Yorker cartoon published almost 20 years ago featured two dogs sitting in front of a computer, with one saying to the other: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

Today such anonymity is essentially non-existent. Practical obscurity – the basis for privacy norms throughout history – is fast disappearing. Our society is collectively creating, storing and communicating information at nearly exponential rates of growth. Most of this data is personally identifiable, and third parties control much of it. This personal data will be archived online forever and be instantly searchable, and few appreciate how many ways this data might be used to harm us.

from The Great Debate:

Should we ditch the idea of privacy?

The ubiquity of digital gadgets and sensors, the pervasiveness of networks and the benefits of sharing very personal information through social media have led some to argue that privacy as a social norm is changing and becoming an outmoded concept.  In this three-part series Don Tapscott questions this view, arguing that we each need a personal privacy strategy.

Since I co-authored a book on privacy and the Internet 15 years ago I’ve been writing about how to manage the various threats to the security and control of our personal information. But today I find myself in a completely unexpected discussion. A growing number of people argue that the notion of having a private life in which we carefully restrict what information we share with others may not be a good idea. Instead, sharing our intimate, personal information with others would benefit us individually and as a society.

This is not a fringe movement. The proponents of this view are some of the smartest and most influential thinkers and practitioners of the digital revolution.

Jeff Jarvis, in his thoughtful book Public Parts, makes the case for sharing, and he practices what he preaches. We learn about everything from details of his personal income to his prostate surgery and malfunctioning penis. He argues that because privacy has its advocates, so should “publicness.” “I’m a public man” says Jarvis. “My life is an open book.” And he provides elaborate evidence on why this has benefited him, and says that if everyone followed his lead, the world would be a better place. He concludes that while releasing information should be a personal choice, privacy regulation should be avoided.

Facebook is the leading social-media site that promotes information sharing, and part of the company’s mission is to “make the world more open.” In his book The Facebook Effect, David Kirkpatrick explains that Facebook founders believe that "more visibility makes us better people. Some claim, for example, that because of Facebook, young people today have a harder time cheating on their boyfriends or girlfriends. They also say that more transparency should make for a more tolerant society in which people eventually accept that everybody sometimes does bad or embarrassing things." Some at Facebook refer to this as "radical transparency" – a term initially used to talk about institutions that is now being adapted to individuals. In other words, everyone should have just one identity, whether at their workplace or in their personal life.

Stanford University professor Andreas Weigend, former chief scientist at Amazon.com, says that “the notion of privacy began with the creation of cities, and it’s pretty much ended with Facebook.” He says “our social norms are changing.”

Other thought leaders like Tim O’Reilly (he coined the term "Web 2.0") or Steward Brand (author of the Whole Earth Catalog) defend an individual’s right to privacy. But they argue that the benefits of sharing personal information are becoming so beneficial to each of us and so widespread that we need to shift the discussion from what to share, to how to ensure the information we share is used appropriately. Says Brand: “I’d be totally happy if my personal DNA mapping was published.”

from Tales from the Trail:

“Talking about” Obama and Romney on Facebook

When President Obama marked the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death earlier this week by unexpectedly addressing the nation from Afghanistan, several commentators cited it as an example of the "advantage of incumbency": the president's visibility and ability to dominate the news are greater, just by virtue of being president, than those of challenger Mitt Romney, and he should be expected to benefit from the groundwork his campaign laid during the 2008 campaign, particularly its vast network of supporters, donors, and social media connections. 

Indeed, across a number of social media platforms, Obama's following dwarfs Romney's: Obama has 26 million Facebook "Likes" to Romney's 1.7 million; while Obama has nearly 15 million Twitter followers, Romney hasn't yet hit half a million; on Google+, Obama has just over a 1 million users in his circles, compared to Romney's just over 500 thousand; on Instagram, Obama has 636,790 followers to Romney's 9,695. In absolute numbers, Obama seems to own a towering advantage over Romney.

But on Facebook at least, sheer number of "Likes" may not tell the whole story, or even the most important part of it. Last fall, Facebook launched "people talking about this," a metric that counts interactions with a Page -- things like "liking" a Page, commenting on a post, or sharing a photo from a Page -- over a seven-day period to measure user engagement.

Here, too, Obama leads Romney in absolute numbers, with a "talking about" total more than twice as high as Romney's -- 283,819 versus 126,990. Yet, as a percentage of overall "Likes," engagement over the past week is much higher for Romney, at 7.6 percent, than for Obama, at 1.08 percent. 

For comparison's sake, the activity of Romney's Facebook followers appears to surpass those of Ron Paul, known for his passionate internet following: of Ron Paul's 949,319 "Likes," 24,943 -- 2.6 percent -- are " talking about" his Page. And the percentage of Newt Gingrich's fans who are engaging with his Facebook Page this week -- 4,887 out of 295,289, or 1.65 percent -- falls short of Romney's -- though it is still higher than Obama's.

At the party level, too, Republicans seem to be more engaged on Facebook: while the "talking about it" score for the Republican National Committee -- which this week launched a new app for Facebook called the "Social Victory Center" -- is 6 percent of total likes (312,462), the Democratic Party's Facebook page, which has a roughly equal number of "Likes" (336,951), is just 2.2 percent. 

Note: The "talking about" numbers on Facebook Pages tend to fluctuate on a day-to-day basis. The Facebook stats cited in the sample above were collected on just one day -- May 3, 2012 -- and reflect only the week prior.

from The Great Debate:

What happened to ‘Yes we can’?

At this pivotal moment in the presidential race, President Barack Obama and his re-election team need to focus on a key question that could influence the outcome of this year’s election:

How do they get the “we” back?

Good question. We all remember how Obama broke new ground in the 2008 campaign by using social media as a powerful political tool. Obama’s campaign created an expansive Internet platform, MyBarackObama.com, that gave supporters tools to organize themselves, create communities, raise money and induce people not only to vote but to actively support the Obama campaign. What emerged was an unprecedented force, 13 million supporters connected to one another over the Internet, all driving toward one goal, the election of Obama.

When they chanted “Yes we can,” it wasn’t just a message of hope for the future – it was a confirmation statement of collective power. They weren’t waiting to be told what to do; they were actively engaged, calling friends to come to events, learn what was at stake, contribute ideas, and help out in some way. The power of “we” was awesome to behold. The “we” not only raised hope for people but also unprecedented sums of money for the old-fashioned campaign on the ground.

But this time, “Yes we can” has been replaced by a new modus operandi for the Obama campaign. It’s “We know you.”

The Democrats are investing heavily in what’s called Big Data to give them significant new insights into the everyday behavior of each one of their supporters. Big Data allows companies, or political campaigns, to probe and analyze information about you – your friends, your shopping habits, what type of events you go to and when, and what issues you care about. With this information, they can presumably be more accurate in sending messages out over email or in identifying the trigger points that send you to events and get you to donate money.

But whatever happened to the power of the people? Whatever happened to the “we”? We haven’t heard about it since the 2008 victory. “They built the largest online community in the history of the presidency,” says Andrew Rasiej, founder of Personal Democracy Media, which tracks the intersection of technology and politics. “But then they stopped talking to them and engaging them” – that is, until they called in recently with a pitch for money.

from Matthew Keys:

Facebook publishes new data on users in amended S-1 filing

In an amended S-1 form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday, Facebook provided updated figures about its user base, and new information on its acquisition of mobile photo app Instagram.

Here are some of the highlights from the filing:

• Facebook says it has 901 million active users. Based on a rounded world population of 6.8 billion people, this breaks down to about 1.3 Facebook accounts for every 10 people on the planet.
• Facebook says it serves 3.2 billion “likes” and comments daily.
• Facebook says it hosts 300 million photo uploads every day.
• There are 125 billion established friendships on the social network.
• It was widely reported that Facebook would choose NASDAQ for its listing. This was confirmed in the amended filing, with Facebook proposing "FB" as its market symbol.

Additionally, the filing dove into the acquisition of Instagram:

• It was widely known that Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion, but the stock-to-cash breakdown wasn’t known until Monday.
• Facebook says it bought Instagram for $300 million in cash and 23 million shares of common stock.
• If the U.S. government blocks its acquisition of Instagram, Facebook says it has agreed to pay Instagram a termination fee of $200 million.

Read the amended S-1 form here | Anthony De Rosa: Interesting points in Facebook's IPO

from MediaFile:

Unmetric gets funding to help brands gauge their social media clout

This guy probably has social media clout. How many 'likes' will he get this November?

What would you get if social media ego measurement tool Klout had a baby with comScore, the Web traffic measurement firm? It would  probably be Unmetric, a new "social media benchmark" tool that helps brands measure their social media engagement.

If you're a big brand-owner all those Facebook Likes and Twitter Retweets by your customers and 'fans' are fine but what do they really mean in terms of engagement and customer sentiment? More importantly, how do they stack up against your rivals? These are some of the questions Unmetric hopes to help answer after raising $3.2 million in Series A financing led by Nexus Venture Partners.

Chicago-based Unmetric will debut its Unmetric Score, tailored for Fortune 500 companies, based on weighted data from at least 24 qualitative and quantitative metrics measuring online brand performance versus competitors. The Unmetric Score will be somewhat similar to the Klout Score but Lux Narayan, Unmetric's Chief Executive, hopes its own score will have, er...more clout (sorry).

As far as marketers and advertisers are concerned these are still very much the early days of social media as they try to engage with their customers in more tw0-way conversations in a range of these fledgling platforms.  Even Narayan admits it's too early to declare what the value of a "like" on Facebook really means in itself. But he believes a "like" for example offers a very important tool for brands in the new world.

"A Like is a right for the brand to engage in a conversation with their customer," said Narayan.

from Lucy P. Marcus:

Why boards need to adopt social media

from Breakingviews:

Crowdfunding for the masses may spoil its promise

By Daniel Indiviglio The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Allowing firms to raise capital online or by using social media is basically a good idea. But bringing in novice investors demands stronger rules when it comes to startups. U.S. lawmakers don’t seem to appreciate that. Without safeguards like audited financials, wider crowdfunding is destined to be a disaster.

The whole concept is gaining traction. One company, Loyal3, is expected to launch its service, which will let Web surfers invest as little as $10 as easily as they can “like” Lady Gaga on Facebook. And unlike online brokerage firms, Loyal3 won’t charge investors any fees. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is expected to pass the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, permitting small firms to use crowdfunding.

In theory, letting amateurs buy in to new companies should be a good opportunity for both sides. New middlemen will help break down investment barriers and let capital move more freely. Only about a fifth of U.S. households own stocks. Some companies will prefer to escape the demands of large institutional investors. Sales might also get a lift. According to a study by consultancy Bain & Co, customers who become investors tend to spend over 50 percent more at those companies than regular customers.

But with startups, crowdfunding can get messy. For example, Loyal3 is developing a system so average Americans can participate in initial public offerings. But beating Wall Street’s entrenched cronyism won’t be easy. And the most promising companies not yet public will already have caught the attention of venture capital firms and angel investors. That will leave mostly dregs for Main Street.

The JOBS Act pumps this downside with poison. It requires little to no disclosure for many emerging companies that want to crowdfund. And under the proposal, ones looking to raise more than $1 million must provide audited financials, a burden that could easily price many out of the market.

That makes the whole concept a better innovation for established companies than for startups. By allowing the masses to gamble on business long-shots, Congress is taking a big one of its own with crowdfunding. The bet here is that it ends in tears.

from MediaFile:

Tello tries to make customer service gripes more effective

From firing off angry tweets to writing nasty Yelp reviews, there are many ways to vent about bad customer service in the age of social media.

But while it feels good to blow off steam, it doesn’t always produce results for companies or customers.

Tello, a year-old mobile app that lets consumers rate the employees who served them at restaurants, shops and other businesses, is looking to make all that online griping more productive for both consumers and businesses.

On Wednesday, Tello debuted a customer feedback service with an online tool that lets businesses respond directly to the customers who rated their employees. A manager at a restaurant can then reach out to a disgruntled customer to ask for another chance. But it's not all bad--a retailer can inform a customer that the pair of shoes they wanted are now in stock and a business can also write back to thank a customer who gave an employee a stellar review.

The service also lets businesses track the ratings that their various employees are getting on Tello.

While Tello’s app remains free for customers, the company will charge bigger businesses $99 per month per location to use its service. A basic version of the service is free for businesses with up to three locations.

Tello has raised $2.7 million in a Series A round of venture funding from True Ventures and Bullpen Capital.