A review of Mark Zuckerberg’s comments about Facebook privacy

A colleague of mine Ivan Bezbradica has also responded to Mark Zuckerberg’s comment concerning Facebook’s News Feed and its privacy implications. To remind readers, Zuckerberg stated:

“When people have control over want they share, they’re comfortable sharing more. When people share more, the world becomes more open and connected. And in a more open world many of the biggest problems we face together will become easier to solve.”

However, he brings something to the forefront which I had previously not considered; that is, that people can still work together to solve the world’s problem. Just because a person’s ideas are not posted on Facebook, does not mean that they will not enter the public sphere via some alternate route. I would like to here reiterate that I believe the premise behind what Zuckerberg is saying to be true, that when people are more comfortable with sharing their information openly, online for example, answers will arise at a quicker speed directly because of this availability of information. However, Facebook is not the place for this. All News Feed accomplishes is the sharing of what one’s friend had for lunch today; hardly the answer to world peace.

If you found Bezbradica’s thoughts interesting, check out his blog at http://ivanbezbradica.wordpress.com/

The Copyleft-Copyright Debate

Photo by Frederick FN Noronha – Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-CA 2.0)

The internet permits users to mix and re-write existing texts, allowing new cultures to surface. However, some argue this process takes away from the professionals who have spent much of their time and effort developing original ideas, only to have them stolen. This is the copyleft-copyright debate, and both present interesting arguments.

Those on the side of copyright contend authors need funding in order to be able to create their works in the first place. Releasing these pieces for free limits theirs ability to profit off them, and hence their ability to create new progressive works, having now no funding. If people can make money from their copyrighted work, it is likely more then work will be created; benefiting society. However, in the 21st century, the idea of protection has grown out of control, to the extent where one must resort to theft. The prices mean the public no longer have access.

Those on the copyleft argue works should be freely circulated so all society can benefit, not just those who can afford. Piracy or theft, as copyright deem it, is the only avenue the less fortunate have left to access these unaffordable cultural goods. Capitalists, with their high priced commodities, do not give these people an option; products completely out of their price range. But why should they miss out because of a greedy industry? The answer is they should not. The copyleft only argue they are taking back what already rightfully belongs in the public domain. Copyleft activists however, utterly ignore a person’s right to profit to some extent off their life work.

Culture exists because it serves both the needs of creators and recipients. However, both the copyleft and copyright only look out for themselves. A solution will only result when balance is found.

The power of quality on YouTube

YouTube! Finally a space exists that allows all access to global audiences. No longer does one need to be a part of the mass media to have their thoughts broadcasted, no longer are people are only exposed to what they show. YouTube allows amateurs to post content, content about whatever they wish. The users are in control. Consequently, society is exposed to a world of culture like never before; posts from all walks of life. We are witnessing the democratization of the web.

However, what made YouTube ‘good’ yesterday, the public with no camera experience having a go, does not today. The audiovisual established conventions of the mass media have crept in. Technical quality is now is highly rated, not the fun content itself. Resolution and colour accuracy now play their part; the barriers between professionals and amateurs are being rebuilt. YouTube videos are even being produced on how to make a ‘good’ YouTube clip (check out this example by Tim Carter). Casio have introduced a YouTube Capture mode on their products, encouraging YouTube fans to buy them if they want to be successful on the site. Just like in the past, the working class are being excluded from something which was designed for everyone, unable to afford such high-tech equipment. This quality discourse ensures the continuation of the cultural elites’ power.

Lacking skills and knowledge about digital media is now an issue; YouTube can no longer be called a symbol of democracy.

A YouTube celebrity under mass media control

Watch the following video to understand whether ordinary people who become celebrities via their own creative efforts on YouTube, remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by the mass media.

If interested, below is the original dance performed by the prison inmates.

What is good and bad web deisgn

According to this blog, a good website is modernist. It is simple, clean, with minimal use of colour. It is for this reason this blog chose to utilise the WordPress theme Emire. It structures; each piece of information appears only in its according section, creating less confusion, readers not having to search where to read next. It utilises a simple colour scheme – green, grey, and white. The white light script appearing on the dark grey backing ensures optimal visibility. It leaves the sides of the pages bare; minimalism ensuring the site is not overbearing to look at, nor too detracting from the blogs’ actual point (its posts). This blog believes in the modernist approach because it communicates orderliness. This in turn convinces its users that the content is as clear and rational as that which surrounds it. Cleanliness and readability translate into credibility. Other corporations whose websites embody modernist principles include Apple and Chanel. Their product’s are considered highly fashionable, so too their sites and logos, and so too now this blog.

Amateurism, with its moving backgrounds, mashes of colours, and unreadable fonts and structure, translates not only into blurred websites physically, but gives blurred meaning as well; users confused by all that surrounds.

photo by silverelfe – Creative Commons License (CC)

Blogs as tools to manage the self, nothing else

G. Lovink noted ‘no matter how much talk there is of community and mobs, the fact remains that blogs are primarily used as a tool to manage the self’ (Lovink, 2006: 28). Here, Lovink is attempting to disenchant society of what be believes as overly romantic views of the blogger, rather asserting they are self-interested and self-absorbed instead.

Blogs are described as means to promote the self, not societal issues. Most blogs consist of information about the personal lives of bloggers, not political ideas. In fact, only 11% of blogs in the world debate policy and policy related issues. Bloggers post personal information not because they believe it will benefit society, but because it makes them feel like a celebrity, special; their intimate details known. C.E. Write notes how many of these bloggers do not even allow others to leave comments, denying the opportunity for informative debate to occur. This is exactly the point of blogs, to facilitate discussion, and now this has even been made impossible.

Although this may be true, this blog does not see this as as negative and as shameful as Lovink seems to propagate. What is so wrong about wanting a personal online diary, a place to express your thoughts, whatever they may be? Blogs were invented in the first place to provide society a site to post what they wished; by tarnishing these blogger’s names, Lovink directly infringes the first rule of blogging – community acceptance of all.

photo by Search Engine People Blog – Creative Commons License (CC BY 2.0)

Do bloggers really only produce noise?

photo by Cayusa – Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Blogs are celebrated new media. While commercial news organisations profile solely the views of their own, blogs voice the opinions of many. However, G. Lovink argues while bloggers wrongly celebrate the death of centralized media, they too wrongly celebrate their own. He contends they are creative nihilists, creating only empty noise.

As noted, bloggers rejoice the fact a centralised media (apparently) no longer exist. According to I. Hargreaves, only a minority read newspapers today compared to the 58% a decade ago (Hargreaves, 2003: 18). A decrease in circulation means a decrease in power; their ideas no longer as thoroughly spread, thus influential, less read (Flew, 2008: 144). According to bloggers, these centralised meaning structures are ‘demassifying’ (Chaffe and Metzger, 2001: 369). They believe it is their responsibility now to fill the information vacuum journalists’ left (Flew, 2008: 154

Lovink argues however, these self-branded information crusaders are not educating the public, but rather, only producing noise. Lovink writes that bloggers consist of the angry and confused; they are not investigative journalists (Lovink, 2006: 1). Their credibility is also more than questionable. According to Wired.com, the 26,000 citizen journalists who contribute to OhmyNews, a collaborative news blog, produce ‘wild’ and ‘inconsistent’ articles (Beers, 2006: 120). L. Lum reinforces this belief, stating her greatest concern with blogs, is the fact they lack proof (Lum, 2005: 22). Bloggers do not present rational arguments, but rather extreme one-sided perspectives (Chaffe and Metzger, 2001: 376). They are too biased to be even considered useful. This is because the majority of bloggers are angst-filled teenagers, not active democratic citizens who know about politics (Caslon Analytic Blogging, 2009: 1); hardly a worthy replacement. Bloggers waffle on about the ‘tabloidisation’ of the mass media. However, this is hypocritical seeing as one of the web’s most popular bloggers, Perez Hilton’s site, is purely based on celebrity gossip (Flew, 2008: 156). Therefore, as Lovink states, blogs are trashy, frivolous, and not serious enough to even be contemplated an adequate replacement for established news media (Lovink, 2006: 3). Blogs should be tagged diaries, not political journals (Lovink, 2006: 6).

However, who said the mass media was dead anyway? Barber and Anixx contend they remain a potent force influencing society; bloggers have not taken their place (Barber and Anixx, 2008: 1189). Their ratings remain high. The mass media, proving how powerful they truly are, even ventured into blogger territory; countering blogger progression, stripping viewers away. The BBC now for example, invites user’s content to sit beside its own, yet still gets its message across above all others. Top online newspapers’ traffic has more than tripled; there is no sign of it slowing down (Nielson, 2007: 1). Newspapers have not been losing their readership as stated previously; their readers have simply been getting their daily dose online. Each new blog is supposed to add to the fall of the media system, however, it obviously is not (Flew, 2008: 17).

This blog conversely to what has been stated, does not agree wholly with Lovink’s statement; bloggers do not only produce noise. According to Lum, their writings are gaining more respect, and increasingly driving news coverage (Lum, 2005: 21). Blogging inIndonesiahas played a vital role in the scrutinizing of elections and political affairs; no longer are government’s views the only portrayed (Flew, 2008: 158). Even if not as powerful as first envisaged, bloggers are still acting as ‘gatewatchers’; keeping an eye on the government and media, communicating important ideas back to society (Lovink, 2006: 5).

Works cited:

Barber, J.S. and Axinn, W.G. (2004) ‘New Ideas and Fertility Limitation: The Role of Mass Media’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 (5): 1

Chaffe, S.H. and Metzger, M.J. (2001) ‘The End of Mass Communication?’ Mass Communication and Society, 4 (4): 365-379.

Flew, T. (2008) ‘Citizen Journalism’ pp. 106-116 inNew Media: An Introduction. Melbourne:OxfordUniversity Press.

Hargreaves, I.(2003) Journalism Truth or Dare? Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.

Lovink, G. (2006) ‘Blogging, The Nihilist Impulse’ pp. 1-38 inZero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture. London: Routledge.180-1200.

Lum, L. (2005) ‘The Rise of Blog Nation’, Black Issues in Higher Education, 22 (12): 20-22.

The magic of Creative Commons

photo by Jorgeandresem – Creative Commons License (CC BY 2.0)

Creative Commons (CC) offer free digital copyright licensing, designed to protect creator’s rights, while still allowing the public accessibility (Baumann, 2009: 1). According to J.K. Valenza, the licensing tools offer creators a ‘simple and standardized’ way to permit others access to their work, while still retaining ownership rights (Valenza, 2011: 50). Creators choose the level of freedom and protection the suits them (Medosch, 2008: 75).

This blog has chosen the Attribution-NonCommercial CC license (CC BY-NC). It permits users to share (copy, distribute, and transmit), remix (adapt), tweak, and build upon works for non-commercial purposes (Creative Commons, 2011: 1). It also allows users to choose not to attach the same license to their offshoot work, only having to acknowledge the original (Creative Commons, 2011: 1). This blog chose the CC BY-NC license because unlike the Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, and Attribution-NoDerivs, it does not permit use for commercial purpose; ensuring gains are rightfully not redirected from the original author, to those adapting the idea. It also did not incorporate the Attribution-ShareAlike and Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike due to the fact these hold new works to the same license; hindering users’ freedom to do with their pieces as they please. Finally, it did not choose the Attribution-NoDerivs or Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licenses because they do not allow changes to be made to the original text, again impeding on users’ freedom to do as they wish (Ceative Commons, 2011: About the Licenses).

Adding the CC BY-NC license is relevant because it enables this blog to physically demonstrate to its readers how new media grant access to voices unheard of before. The internet (where the licenses are found) allows access to a multitude of new voices. It is an environment where different thoughts and mentalities are freely expressed (Lovink, 2006: 21). However, its capability to do so was hindered for a while. In the US, The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 lengthened copyright regulations (Gordon-Murnane, 2010: 1). This was attributed to the work of the mass media, fearing the internet would undermine their dominant market position (Garcelon, 2009: 1307). Media organizations, persuaded governments to implement such acts, to prevent works from entering the internet’s public sphere, ensuring their viewers did not venture away elsewhere (Garcelon, 2009: 1308). Freedom to information was consequently hindered, opinions more difficult to access due to the copyright regulations (Garcelon, 2009: 1308). Users were deterred from accessing ideas due to the monetary charge usually incurred (Stallman, 2002: 124). As Lawrence Lessig, founder of CC says, when works are not commercially accessible, they disappear, too costly to use (Garcelon, 2009: 1312). The media won, retaining audiences, they had no where else to go.

Adding a CC license is directly relevant because it shows readers that the internet, through CC, overcame this media barrier. CC gave creators the option, to varying degrees, to make their works more publicly accessible (Garcelon, 2009: 1307). By CC providing less strict copyright terms, open access to information was facilitated, previously denied by the media (Lessig, 2005: 352). This blog, carrying a CC license, is just one example of a piece that would have been previously inaccessible; users’ unable to use its ideas at all due to the strict copyright. However, society on the internet banded together to say this was wrong, and gain back some control. By carrying a CC logo, this blog publicizes that it believes in the power of the people and the internet to create change, just as CC did.

A. Medosch argues however, by adding a CC license, society is disregarding the revenue writers need to survive, seeing as works can be used freely by others (Medosch, 2008: 76). However, CC gives users the option to make their works for non-commercial use only (Garcelon, 2009: 1314). Other users can therefore not take away deserved profits. It is for this reason as noted, a non-commercial license was added, demonstrating this blogs belief in credit being given where it due.

Thomas Jefferson said ideas needed to be spread around the world if man wanted to improve his condition (Lessig, 2005: 353). The law needs to conform to ethics, not media moguls (Stallman, 2002: 121). CC finds a balance; ensuring ideas are still publicly accessible, while also ensuring creator’s wishes are adhered too. By using the CC license, this blog reinforces to readers its belief in new media’s power to share a broader range of information than ever before, by reducing control.

Works citied:

Creative Commons (2011), Creative Commons website, http://creativecommons.org/ 17^th May, [date accessed].

Garcelon, M. (2009) ‘An Information Commons? CreativeCommonsand Public Access to Cultural Creations’, New Media & Society, 11 (8): 1307-1326.

Gordon-Murnane, L. (2010) ‘Creative Commons: Copyright Tool for the 21^st Century’, Online, 34 (1): 18-21.

Lessig, L. (2005) ‘Open Code and Open Socieities’ pp. 349-360 inJoseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam and Karim R. Lakhani (ed) Persepectives on Free and Open Source Software. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Medosch, A. (2008) ‘Paid in Full: Copyright, Piracy and the Real Currency of Cultural Production’ pp. 73-97 inDeptforth. TV Diaries II: Pirace Strategies. London: Deptforth TV.

Stallman, R. (2002) ‘Why Software Should Be Free’ pp. 121-124 inJoshua Gay (ed) Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard Stallman. Boston: GNU Press.

Valenza, J.K. (2011) ‘Creative Commons’, Library Media Connection, 29 (4): 50.

WikiLeaks – dangerous or beneficial

WikiLeaks is a website that publishes sensitive religious, corporate, and governmental documents, from anonymous donors, previously hidden. Some believe this to be reckless, raising security concerns, while others acknowledge its service to democracy. Both issues will now be discussed.

In April 2005, WikiLeaks released a classified USmilitary video depicting the slaying of over a dozen people in Iraq ‘thought’ to be terrorists. However, the video reveals recklessness on part of the American soldiers, not accurately analysing the situation. Some killed were journalists; innocent bystanders murdered because of soldiers’ carelessness. Many would argue it is important this information was released to the public, so now they may better understand, especially in the West, their soldiers are causing harm not only good, as governments would have believe. With this information, citizens can consequently make more informed decisions about theirIraqstance, knowing now both the bad and good.

The Pentagon on the other hand, argues a website which allows public to leak sensitive information is a threat to national security. They have argued this information could be wrongly used by foreign intelligence, insurgents, or terrorists to attack. It is also noted the lack of editor oversight can lead to it being used to spread lies and propaganda. Some of these ‘dangerous’ leaks include releases concerning details of military equipment, troop strength, and its publication in 2007 of US forces’ entire combat order forIraqandAfghanistan.

However, these claims were made only after WikiLeaks posted a string of secrets embarrassingUSarmy intelligence. It would be foolish not to contemplate that these organisations were more fearful of the damage WikiLeaks does to their own reputations, rather than the damage it may cause to the public.

Below is the video released by WikiLeaks of America’s carelessness in Iraq.

‘News Feed’ and privacy

The internet has allowed information to flow more freely than ever before (Solove, 2007: 17). In 2006, social networking site Facebook launched ‘News Feeds’. Now upon logging in, a list of the users’ friends’ activities automatically appeared (Boyd, 2008: 13). However, this sparked privacy concerns; users felt exposed, their information hard to miss (Boyd, 2008: 13). Although none of the data on ‘News Feed’ was previously private, posted on Facebook by users themselves, the information became far more accessible; mechanically displayed on homepages (Boyd, 2008: 13). Facebook were forced to make changes. However, this did not stop founder Mark Zuckerberg contributing his opinion to the privacy debate.

Zuckerberg believed ‘News Feed’ could help users learn (Boyd, 2008: 14). He noted:

‘When people have more control over what they share, they  feel comfortable sharing more. When people share more, the                             world becomes more open and connected; and in a more open world many of the biggest problems we face together will                                 become easier to solve.’

Zuckerberg argues users should feel comfortable with ‘News Feed’, due to the fact they still have control over what they post and don’t. Zuckerberg believes this choice actually encourages users to share more, because they know their limits, and generally post up to them. He claims this is beneficial to society, more sharing creating a more open and connected world; more open because a multitude of new perspectives suddenly become available, more connected because society can then relate to others on the other side, knowing this information. Zuckerberg continues that it is directly because this information is now available, it is more possible to solve global issues; the more information out there, the more chance of finding a cure. Thus, ‘News Feed’ is not hindering user’s privacy, this information already available, but providing easier access to the information, and incomprehensible effects.

Many social networkers agree. Sites such as Facebook allow anyone to communicate their thoughts to the entire world, and receive inciting responses back (Solove, 2007: 19). As stated, Zuckerberg contends making information more publicly accessible, like on ‘News Feed’, enables problems to be more readily solved, more answers available due to the information increase. It is true. People have posted questions about illnesses such as HIV and cancer, and received helpful tips back in return (Solove, 2007: 23). Zuckerberg sees ‘News Feed’ as fulfilling a similar purpose.

However, this is not Facebook, collaborative practices say. Most commonly, posts are made about generic everyday issues, such as what one had for lunch; hardly life saving (Solove, 2007: 23). Users thus see no benefit having their information sprayed across homepages.

‘News Feed’ has been branded an invasion of privacy by many internet groups. Although it is true, the information is already available to see, users said they feel exposed, having less control because of the increased ease of accessibility; the data brought to the forefront of attention on homepages, not just to those who visit walls (Boyd, 2008: 15). Zuckerberg said ‘control’ was key, but if users no longer feel they have any, then why would they post more? Previously announcements were easy to miss, but now participants are reconsidering what they share, in fear of others more easily stumbling across. This limits the amount of information available, what Zuckerberg did not want (Boyd, 2008: 15).

Facebook has said, if one has nothing to hide, then one has nothing to fear. Society uses reputations as trust gauges. Privacy can therefore be seen as a plea to misrepresent one’s self, by hiding facts (Solove, 2006: 35). Take WikiLeaks. Its main purpose is to reveal hidden information from governments and major corporations (Lovink and Riemens, 2010: 1). WikiLeaks is not invading privacy, but rather sharing information with society which it has the right to know. Many argue however, WikiLeaks is not a personal Facebook, and users not government ministers. Nonetheless, the principle remains the same; privacy undermines others’ ability to know their friends for their true selves. This is what is truly damaging. As Zuckerberg said, information can help society, privacy can not.

Nevertheless, Facebook has given users what they want – increased privacy settings. The question remains however, was this all just another ploy by Zuckerberg to again lure users into posting more personal information, giving them their control back, only to sell it to advertisers? Only time will tell.

Below is this video of Mark Zuckerberg’s comments on sharing (start 0:26 – stop at 0:39)

Works cited:

Boyd, D. (2008) ‘Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck: Exposure, Invasion and Social Convergence’, Convergence: The International Journal into New Media Technologies, 14 (4): 17-49.

Lovink, G. and Riemens, P. (2010) ‘Twelve theses on WikiLeaks’, Eurozone, pp. 1-6.

Solove, D.J. (2007) ‘How the Free Flow of Information Liberates and Constrains Us’ pp. 17-49 inThe Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. New Haven: Yale.