Nov 132007
 

There are some issues with Web 2.0, mostly in the areas of pri­vacy, secur­ity, copy­right — all those things you’d rather you did­n’t need to worry about. Take pri­vacy for example. On many social net­work­ing sites people sign up and then put in all their per­son­al inform­a­tion simply because there’s a field there for it. Often those pro­files are pub­lic by default, rather than private, and often they’re open to search engines as well. So people think their inform­a­tion is private and then dis­cov­er it isn’t, and have to go search­ing through menus to find out how to turn on those pri­vacy fil­ters that are turned off by default. In many cases what’s good for the site own­ers isn’t neces­sar­ily good for the users. One big factor in Flick­r’s early suc­cess was the fact that uploaded pho­tos could be seen by the world unless spe­cific­ally made private, and lots of users did (and still do) get con­fused by copy­right issues (cre­at­ive com­mons licenses don’t solve the issue of what “pub­lic domain” etc actu­ally mean).

Then there’s the per­sona issue. I might have a leg­al but slightly embar­rass­ing hobby that I don’t want work know­ing about. So I need to set up a sep­ar­ate online iden­tity for that — people need to think about the implic­a­tions of this in advance if they don’t want cor­rel­a­tions of that hobby per­sona with their “real” one on the basis of an address or phone num­ber or email.

Oth­er prob­lems with the pleth­ora of new Web 2.0 social net­work­ing sites: they often don’t under­stand what pri­vacy and user con­sent mean. You sign up for some­thing, they ask you to upload your address book to see wheth­er oth­er friends are already there, the next thing you know they’ve done spam-a-friend and emailed every­one in your address book without your know­ledge, let alone your con­sent. Or they ask you to give them your user­name and pass­word to some oth­er social net­work­ing site under the “trust us, we will do no evil” motto (whatever happened to “trust but verify”?).

There are some solu­tions to this: users have to be care­ful about the inform­a­tion they hand out (fake birth­d­ates, any­one?) and start demand­ing that sites take care of their inform­a­tion. If I want to hand out inform­a­tion to the world, that’s my decision, but it should­n’t be up to some web site to make that decision for me.

The last of a series on Web 2.0, taken from my talk at the CSW Sum­mer School in July 2007. Here’s the series introduction.

  3 Responses to “Web 2.0: Issues”

  1. You’ve touched a top­ic I’ve been think­ing about in the vir­tu­al worlds busi­ness. Some claim that online games are the right mod­el. For aspects of tech­no­logy, games are a con­trib­ut­or, but for busi­ness sys­tems, fidel­ity of com­mu­nic­a­tions is more important. 

    One won­ders if games and fidel­ity are mutu­ally exclusive. 

    We could parse this into vari­ous domains, but essen­tially, as in all soft­ware, busi­ness rules determ­ine the applic­a­tion domain. The Web 2.0 cus­tom­er gen­er­at­ing con­tent may not quite under­stand the dif­fer­ence between user-beware and vendor-beware.

    BTW: and just an aside. A com­mon theme in some quar­ters attempt­ing to cre­ate new stand­ards for vir­tu­al worlds is the expressed desire to get rid of XML (too verb­ose, too slow). See Raph Koster (Areae) and Jon Watte (For­t­erra).

  2. Hi Lauren — I too have been very con­cerned about my online pri­vacy, not simply what is pub­lished on social net­work­ing sites (http://www.realtea.net/who_is_gammydodger), but more the detailed data about me that is accu­mu­lat­ing in vari­ous data­bases. This data is cur­rently dis­par­ate, but it won’t be long before it is all joined up and someone will be able to build a com­plete pic­ture of me — more com­plete than the one of myself.

    I have set about build­ing my own pub­lic data­base of me, one that is under my con­trol in terms of what is pub­lished and who will be able to see it. (http://www.realtea.net/too_much_info). Over the next few weeks, I am hop­ing to devel­op this into a site that mar­keters can come and dis­cov­er me.

  3. There are some issues with Web 2.0.” Yes, there are. espe­cially when it come to the use of the term “Web 2.0.” I find any­one using the term to be a poser. Someone who knows some techno web babble who think it makes them look hip. This is so back in the day.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

/* ]]> */