Privacy Is Over. Here Comes Sociality.

As widely discussed by privacy advocates and blogs, Facebook recently changed some of its privacy settings. Users are no longer able to limit the viewing of their profile photos, home towns, and friends lists to only approved friends. Those are all public now by default. Moreover, Facebook’s new default settings “recommend” that dynamic content such as status messages and photos be made public. While the blogosphere still closely scrutinizes these changes and is aghast at Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘privacy is over’ claims made at the Crunchies awards (he didn’t actually say it verbatim but his statements more or less implied it), I have to admit I was surprised that all this stirred such an uproar. Facebook is only reacting to a larger social trend as it strives to become an asymmetrical and therefore more growth-enabled network (or communications platform) – like Twitter. Privacy, at least a more traditional notion thereof, is the collateral damage of this strategic agenda. With the value of reciprocity (narrowcasting) succumbing to the prospect of exponentiality (broadcasting), privacy is no longer commercially exploitable. “No one makes money off of creating private communities in an era of ‘free,’” writes social networking researcher Danah Boyd in a blog post in which she otherwise harshly criticizes Facebook’s move. The age of privacy as we know it might be over indeed. Is it worth fighting for?

Privacy (from the Latin ‘privatus,’ according to Wikipedia: “separated from the rest, deprived of something, especially office, participation in the government”), the “right to be let alone,” is considered a human right in most parts of the world, in spite of all cultural relativism. Historically speaking, privacy has undergone a remarkable evolution. Aristotle distinguished between the public sphere of politics and political activity, the polis, and the private or domestic sphere of the family, the oaks. If a citizen of Athens was a private man, then it meant he was stripped of any political office and therefore considered “inferior.” Later, in the enlightened civil societies of Europe, however, privacy became a hallmark of the bourgeoisie, a hard-earned privilege that marked the delineation between upper and working classes. The latter had work – if they were fortunate – the former “had a life,” because they could afford it. This life tended to be private, by definition. In the emerging information economies of the 20th century, various theories described privacy as control over information about oneself (Parent, 1983), while others defended it as a broader concept crucial for human dignity (Bloustein, 1964), or emphasized the social aspect of it with regards to enabling intimacy (Gerstein, 1978; Inness, 1992).

Throughout their historical mutations, the public and private spheres needed one another like yin and yang. Having a life was a private act, but only if it was publicly earned and respected. This dialectic relationship will always remain. There is no privacy without publicy and vice versa. And yet, while privacy may never go away as a philosophical counterweight to publicy, today it is publicy that counts as the new privilege of the digital upper class. Privacy has been marginalized to the fringes of a society whose modus operandi is based on the very public mechanisms of social sharing. In the digital era, a private life does not exist. Google ergo sum.

The search engine’s recent public stance against the Chinese government, threatening to shut down all its China operations after Gmail accounts of Chinese activists had been hacked, highlights this new power structure and the evolving value of privacy in our ever-connected world. When the privacy of Google’s users was violated, the company decided to respond with a public statement, mounting public pressure to press on an essentially private matter. Good for a company that does not want be evil, many people applauded, but it bore a certain irony that Google acted as de facto digital state with its own foreign policy. Isn’t Google, after all, built on the very principle of making private data public? Isn’t it because of Google’s mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” that we have come to terms with the fact that our online lives and afterlives will never be private again and will be perpetually archived in the very public cloud?

In the case of Google vs. China, what was bemoaned as the loss of privacy was in fact the lack of publicy. Privacy is the most precious asset in more or less closed societies in which trust is a scarce resource and true publics don’t exist. But as we live our lives in the openness of the web, isn’t it publicy that we need to enable and protect? An ideal publicy that is so transparent and democratic that it doesn’t need privacy as refuge?

It’s complicated. Stowe Boyd has declared this to be the “Decade of Publicy,” in which he expects “the superimposition of publicy on top of, and partly obscuring, privacy:”

“Publicy says that each self exists in a particular social context, and all such contracts are independent. (…) It’s as if we are gaining the ability to see into the ultraviolet and infrared ends of the social spectrum when we are online, and in some contexts we are dropping out yellows or reds. To those tied to the visible color spectrum we are habituated to, this new sort of vision will be 'irreal.' But ultraviolet has always existed: we just couldn't see it before. (…) This will be a fracturing of the premises of privacy, and a slow rejection of the metaphors of shared space. The principles of publicy are derived from the intersection of infinite publics and our shared experience of time online, through media like Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. The innate capability we have to shift in a heartbeat from a given public, and our corresponding persona, to another, is now being accelerated by streaming social tools. This will be the decade when publicy displaces privacy, online and off.”

As we struggle to maintain the traditional, monolithic privacy-publicy dichotomy, perhaps we must start using a different terminology altogether and embrace a new concept: sociality. In a hyper-individualized society, sociality is becoming the main object of desire for individuals. Or as Markus Albers puts it in his forthcoming book about what he coins the Meconomy:

“The Meconomy does not entail a purely egoistic philosophy. On the contrary, it promotes a new culture of empathy and social engagement. As we increasingly decide for ourselves how, where, and with whom we work, the search for meaning gains more importance. The trend to combine economical with social engagement grows stronger. We want to do good, be happy, and make money. In the old patriarchal, hierarchical, and inflexible working world, these aims were often mutually exclusive. In the Meconomy, their combination is almost a precondition for success.”

The semantic coincidence is telling. “Me” desires “Meaning.” As much as publicy needs privacy and vice versa, the “Meconomy” needs the “Meaning Economy” – as its co-evolutionary, symbiotic partner. With meaning emerging as the core currency of all market interactions (because it is ultimately what consumers buy; and friends, fans, and followers buy into), people, organizations, and brands that provide meaning will be the power players of the new Me(aning) Economy – brands like Apple, conferences like TED, contests like the Olympic Games, sport clubs like FC Barcelona, media organizations like NPR, non-profits like UNICEF, and, yes, politicians like Obama.

Sociality may succeed privacy because it is a critical precondition for meaning. To be meaningful, meaning needs to be shared, and sharing can only occur in open social settings. Open social settings, however, by definition, compromise privacy, in all its four textbook modes (solitude, intimacy, anonymity, and reserve). Meaning means giving things a name, making sense of “Black Swans,” unexpected events. In other words: Only an event that becomes a story (which still is the most powerful social media of all times, a true evergreen on the social web!) is meaningful.

Thus, it makes sense to replace the strict privacy-publicy opposition with a multi-layered continuum along progressive levels of sociality. Sociality may turn out to be a much better variable for describing and regulating our digital lives. The question then no longer is how private we can be, but how social we want to be. Instead of privacy seetings, we should speak of sociality settings: The maximum number of friends we want to have; and through which channels we want to ‘socialize’ our contents etc. Privacy understood as sociality (as an enabling and not a defensive right) grants us the ability to control who knows what about us and who has access to us, and thereby allows us to vary our social interactions with different people so that we can control our various social relationships at different levels of intimacy.

This new sociality is most visibly manifest in online social networks. It is worth noting that these not only mirror the mechanisms of offline social interactions but actually provide users with more control over their privacy (or sociality) than they would ever have in the physical world. On Facebook and other networks, you can pick and choose the people you want to meet and share ‘presence’ with; in a restaurant, bar, and other public spaces, you can’t. Exclusivity in the real world needs to be earned, whereas online it is a given.

Bill Thompson pledges we should embrace the new liberties that come with this new radical transparency:

“The enlightenment idea of privacy is breaking apart under the strain of new technologies, social tools and the emergence of the database state. We cannot hold back the tide, but we can use it as an opportunity to rethink what we understand by 'personality,’ how we engage and interact with others and where the boundaries can be put between the public and private. Those of us who are ahead of the curve when it comes to the adoption and use of technologies that undermine the old model of privacy have much to teach those who will come after us, and can offer advice and support to those who might be unhappy to have their movements, eating habits, friendships and patterns of media consumption made available to all. But every Twitterer, Tumblr, Dopplr or Brightkite user is sharing more data with more people than even the FBI under Hoover or the Stasi at the height of its powers could have dreamed of. And we do so willingly, hoping to benefit in unquantifiable ways from this unwarranted – in all senses – disclosure. I'll argue that we are in the vanguard of creating not just new forms of social organisation but new ways of being human.”

All this openly shared user data represents not only an enourmous amount of social capital but also a huge collective leap of faith. Whether the big digital platforms and ecosystems will honor this trust to maintain civic publics or if they will choose to exploit it for (private) economic reasons, at any price, will be one of the defining moments of this young decade and the most impactful decision it will have to make. Control (as the catalyst of privacy) is good, but trust (as the catalyst of sociality) is better. We can afford to lose our privacy, but we will not survive the loss of sociality.

[image: Geekologie]

Comments

[asdfgt24c]

people abercrombie fitch sale abercrombie fitch sale d of this age has been abercrombie fitch outlet abercrombie fitch outlet e very conscious. They pay abercrombie fitch uk a their own accessories and style abercrombie fitch uk abercrombie fitch uk s of mindfulness. This is one abercrombie fitch sale v reason why so many abercrombie fitch outlet y people have begun to branded products. Now, you see that all the famous brand products have become very demanding.

[smiuuhuaw]

If it wasn’t wilson ramos, it could have been one of the 80 other venezuelans who appeared in the major leagues this year. nike スニーカー If it wasn’t wednesday, it could have happened today, the day after, or any day this offseason. Four gunmen kidnapped ramos - thewashington nationals’ starting catcher - at his mother’s home in valencia, Venezuela. His country, his sport, his fans, his organization, and his teammates are rightfully petrified. But aside from the immediate concern for ramos’ safety, the most chilling aspect of the incident is that we can’t dismiss it as an anomaly. Just the opposite: It was inevitable. “I’m taken aback, asics シューズ ” one american league executive told me thursday, “this hasn’t happened before. ”Venezuela has given baseball some of today’s brightest stars: Miguel cabrera and magglio ordo?ez, Felix hernandez and johan santana, Victor martinez and asdrubal cabrera, Pablo sandoval and elvis andrus. Omar vizquel still wows us at 44. But all is not well in their homeland. Venezuela is an unstable place, because of government corruption and an income disparity cleaved deeper by the policies of president hugo chavez. Wealth is concentrated among a relatively small number of people,ナイキ and major-league baseball players are a large portion of that group.
Baseball superstars are the most visible among the affluent in venezuela - pop sensations, business moguls, along with. 330 batting averages all rolled into one. In a country where the rule of law is a myth, they (or at least their loved ones) are also the biggest targets.アディダススニーカー I would like to portray ramos’ kidnapping as a watershed moment for the security of venezuelan baseball players, a shocking revelation that will force authorities to enact measures that vaporize the chances of this happening again. But that would be fiction. Kidnapping is one consequence of an economic system that won’t change, as long as chavez is in power. “Kidnapping is not new - it’s a business, ” the al executive said. “The country has become exceedingly dangerous. The economics of the country are such that everything is going to hell, to be hones. ”For the most part,アシックスシューズ kidnappers have captured players’ family members - such as yorvit torrealba’s son in 2009 and ugueth urbina’s mother in 2004. Whether due to coordination or habit, it has been their standard practice. But that’s the thing about criminals: They don’t follow the rules, even their own. Ramos, 24, is a player on the rise - a potential all-star in years to come. This holiday season, nonetheless, his base salary was just over $400, 000. One might think his captors would have sought a wealthier victim.エアマックス2011 But actually, Ramos was particularly vulnerable.
It seems that, Ramos and his extended family don’t live in one of the fortress-homes that are popular among venezuelan stars. One player agent who has spent time in venezuela describes these structures as being like “military compounds, with high walls, air max 2011 electrified fences, and two or three guys paid to sit outside with machine guns. ”The alternative to that is establishing residency in the united states. It’s an excellent concept - but one that’s hard to implement. Primary, consider the rigors of a baseball season: You leave home in february for spring training. You work just about every day until october, rarely (if ever) seeing family. When the season is over, you probably want to go home and visit the loved ones you’ve missed for nine months. That is natural, no matter where you grew up. (Think of it this way: Would you be ok with taking a job in europe if it meant never coming back? )Secondly, ナイキ エアマックス it’s not easy to become a dual citizen or permanent resident of the u. UTES. The law of the land doesn’t provide a green card to all those who run, hit, and throw. It takes time. It takes paperwork. There are reasons why, seemingly every spring, at least one player from your favorite team is late to arrive because of a problem with his visa. The federal government makes ballplayers wait in line along with everybody else. Baseball teams secure work visas for their players but rarely undertake the tedious work of applying for citizenship on their behalf. The only surefire way to prevent another baseball kidnapping in venezuela would be to enact legislation that affords immediate u. OHYDRATES. citizenship to every major league baseball player and his family. And no one is advocating that congress do that. Nike Air Max (At minimum, I don’t think so. ).

[uggs.com]

this is definately a way to sustain your growth. Who doesn't need more clients? Give it away if you can, and keep traffic coming in!

[Prokofy]

Why do we have to listen to collectivist idealogues like Stewe Boyd? The individual is not defined by the collective, even if you burnish the socialist concept with a new cyber notion that "each self exists in a particular social context". It isn't just the revealing of an ultraviolent colour, it's defining the individual in a pernicious and self-serving way to benefit the Google ad agency and the widgeteers.

As for Danah Boyd, she's wrong that no one has made money off private communities. Of course they have. Virtual worlds such as Second Life, There, Blue Mars, and others being developed in fact make a profit. SL had about $500 million in transactions last year in real money from people making a profit from virtual goods and services. They can do this because of the proprietary code, membership requirements, and protection of intellectual property that the Second Life platform offers, unlike much of Web 2.0 which follows the rapacious "California Business Model" of allowing content to be put up first, then waiting for a DMCA takedown notice later.

People value privacy, and anonymity is how they gain privacy from the increasing intrusiveness of the Internet and its adsters.

It also strikes me that this description of the privacy sliders on Facebook doesn't quite reflect the capacity, with a little technical tweaking, that you can still get on FB.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000526906710]

Laws on privacy may vary from country to country, but the laws of economics in the information age do not. Information has value and therefore is traded like any other product or service on the planet, following the basic law of supply and demand and under the supervision of local and global regulators ... NQ Logic recommends reading the impact of Facebook steps forward and The New Privacy Age on www.nqlogic.com