Sunday, October 30, 2011

Jarvis defend over-sharing on social media (CNN); progress on Facebook's "Timeline"

Howard Kurtz interviewed Jeff Jarvis (the “Pied Piper of sharing”), author of “Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live” (Simon & Schuster), about the modern culture of openness online Sunday morning.  (The title reminds me of “We Work and Play” from first grade in 1949!, book reviews, July 20, 2007).

Jarvis talked about the change in the structure of media, as to how established media now goes to the people for sources (and can still check them),  from what people “share”.  Kurtz had asked about the idea that you can let others see what you are reading.  Jarvis took a libertarian view of the tendency of employers to snoop on personal blogs and social media: "do you want to work for that kind of employer?"  In some industries, its a business necessity. 

They got into a discussion about sharing medical issues online.

Is it narcissistic to “live online”?

As far as I can tell, by the way, not all of us can use Facebook’s “Timelines” yet; it seems to still be in Beta or development.  Here’s an account by Richard McManus, Oct. 25, link

The concept sounds intriguing; but it would probably be seen only by other “Friends” as at various levels, not be searchable like an online autobiography (essentially like my first “Do Ask Do Tell” book) would be.  I don’t have apps to put on it – but I probably will when I get my music composition (that is, resurrection of teenage and young adult compositions) going.

Update: Nov. 3

Users of Facebook's "Timeline" are sometimes facing "cleasing their pasts" for reputational and employment reasons. USA Today has a story Nov. 3 by Michaelle Bond "Facebook Timeline faces a new privacy test" here.

Update: Nov. 9

ABC GMA is characterizing "Google+" as different in the ability to set up separate "circles of friends" to whom posts are specifically directed.  But Facebook has been saying that it offers that, too.  (It gets complicated with privacy settings, which I don't use myself, and with photo tagging, which I never do -- staying within the PG-13 range, too.) Again, the significance is changing the nature of online posting from "publication" to "online conversation" (maybe rumor mongering), which does have significance in the "conflict of interest" area.
Update: Nov. 10

Facebook is nearly a settlement with the FTC regarding supposed "deception" in the way it handles its privact settings, Wall Street Journal (subscription) story  (Julia Angwin, Shaydni Raice, Spencer E. Ante) here

No comments: