We're all full of sh%!. 5 years ago personal privacy on the net was a HUGE issue. Now, we're looking for MORE ways to relinquish that. It cracks me up when I read about these kids that pasted crap all over facebook and myspace and youtube, only to discover that other people well see that and make judgements based on it.
What the hell happened here?
Ben Parr
· 1 year ago
You have control still. I choose to make my life an open book on the net. Anything I don't want out, I keep in my head. You just have to find the balance you're comfortable with, or use the tools that protect your privacy enough.
But like I said in #5, it'll start another ethics war.
antje wilsch
· 1 year ago
All the more reason you should use StoryOfMyLife.com to leave your REAL story ...... :)
Ron Jeremy
· 1 year ago
What was I doing on July 14th? Banging your mom.
R
· 1 year ago
The beginning of the new world order perhaps? I will stick to blog commenting at the most.
Christian Grantham
· 1 year ago
Talk about social media as a history tool, social media is helping me correct the historic record on behalf of my distant relative Sir Thomas Grantham. History records that the leader of America's first rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon, died of fever.
Sir Thomas Grantham wrote in his notes on Bacon's Rebellion that Bacon actually died of the Lousy Evil - a pubic lice infestation - in 1676. Social Media helped me make sure his version of the facts is known and shared. I linked the story to my name here.
Brendan
· 1 year ago
It used to be "On the internet no one knows your a dog." Now it is everyone knows you are a dog."
In the future we are going to have to stop putting politicians on pedestals. We are going to have to stop expecting that they are more pure than the average Joe, we are going to have to stop expecting that they don't sometimes cheat on their wives, or get drunk and stupid, or even god forbid watch porn on the computer. If we don't we won't have any politicians anymore. (Hey that might not be such a bad thing.)
The Social Reformer
· 1 year ago
"this has a plethora of consequences on how we record history"
How is a more accurate account of history a consequence?
I think what you mean is that our lives are transparent and our daily lives are now accessible by everyone, including the government.
But as far as Historical record keeping, this is one of the best things that has ever happened to us.
Ruben twitter.com/redstarvip
Barb
· 1 year ago
Valid points, but who's going to archive all the social media (and in a format that's accessible by future technology)?
Jeremy Hilton
· 1 year ago
Great thoughts on the subject.
In particular, I am really curious as to how archived social media data will play a part in the lives of other future famous figures. Part of being human is making mistakes, learning, and then changing. What 60+ year old can honestly say that they haven't somehow deviated from the ideas they expressed when they we 20? My fear is that we will fall into over analyzing archived data and unfairly drawing conclusions about a persons current beliefs/values.
JP
· 1 year ago
Further more, who will ensure that the data isn't tampered with before it's archived? It is infinitely easier to alter electronic data (see Electronic Voting Machines affect on the 2004 election) and never get caught then it is to alter print media. Take myspace as example: Rupert Murdoch, owner of the most unapologeticaly biased news source in the US, owns the site and all data listed on it. Do you trust him as a Librarian of History? Truth is not his industry. Great post, but I do disagree with your trust in the incorruptibility of information.
JP
· 1 year ago
Oops, that was meant to be a reply to Barb's comment.
Sherwin
· 1 year ago
There's always going to be the bit of the story that didn't go on to the internet.
I was also going to say what JP said. In electronic media, everything is changeable. Thus the biggest change to history might be that future archeologists have to do more digging. Information is far more difficult to sift through than soil.
Melissa
· 1 year ago
I just wrote about an aspect of this a few days ago at http://blog.zooloo.com/2008/11/care-before-you-.... The photo issue is so right on - people are screwing up their careers everyday by posting party pics and not limiting who can see the pictures. I've had friends who wonder why they can't get a job, when a quick Google search will show you WHY no one (in their right mind) would hire them.
The history aspect is also very interesting to me. The other day I was thinking about how in the next few years (not to mention the next 100 years), kids will no longer carry around big heavy books to school, to learn about history...it's all on the Internet.
imodotcom
· 1 year ago
But Note: ========
1. Info and Precison are only available IF NOT DELETED. Take the example of what the Republican RNC did to E-mail.
2. Just like Conspiracy Theories, after a 100 years, you may have Conflicting Data. The PROVENANCE of Data may be weak as the years pass by, and this can lead to Ambiguity and Confusion, and not Precsion.
--- imodotcom
Clubit.tv
· 1 year ago
I love social media, its one of the best systems !
MooseMasher
· 1 year ago
Like everything else on the Internet that has come and gone:
1> When it's free, it will save the human race as we know it 2> Eventually somedoby figures out how to monetize it 3> Our appetite for paying for it is tested, and retested 4> A few people become fabulously wealthy, everyone else makes very little 5> Much wailing and complaining ensue. 6> {Loop} #1
Microblogging, location aware messaging, tagging, etc. will all follow the same path. The real question is will you be one of the lucky ones, or will you be left bitter and demaning?
Jim
· 1 year ago
great post! at least one downside thought. as the husband of a lawyer all this documentation of our moves and opinions makes discovery MUCH easier so be careful. whoa.
Diamonds
· 1 year ago
People who give away their privacy from these social networks are stupid. Also, these stupid parents should monitor their kids, if they are not old enough to drink and gamble then they are not old enough to use MySpace, Twitter, etc...
Jeremy Hilton
· 1 year ago
I don't for one minute think that most people tarnish their online reputation because they are stupid. If it were truly a matter of stupidity, then these same people would have reputation problems offline as well. In my opinion, people just don't understand the technology and definitely don't understand the power/pitfalls of syndication. I chalk alot of social media scandals up to naivete.
I wouldn't begin to call Bono stupid. In fact, he is extremely intelligent and very savvy. What he didn't understand is that no matter how tightly he attempts to control his own PR, there is a new mechanism that he can't control. It's called the Groundswell.
For Bono (and all of us) the game has changed. It's our job to learn how to operate in it.
Marcus
· 1 year ago
This is an absolutely huge question.
I do not doubt that social media will change the recorded history. It would be a fallacy to do so.
What I doubt is assumption by some that this is necessarily a good thing, or indeed that it will make some people more accountable. I disagree particularly with your fourth point Ben. Who cares if someone was angry as a child? And what definition do we give to angry? What was the context surrounding this alleged character trait?
Social media may give future access to some more of the daily minutiae of people's lives, but it will provide very little context to that information.
Damian
· 1 year ago
Great post and great discussion. People really need to be aware that everything they post on facebook, myspace, and joe's blog will all be used against them one day. Over the past few years, I've been in a position where I hire many people. A new part of the employee screening process is to look them up on the internet. If they have a distinct enough name, a simple google search usually gives me a good picture of who they are. Now the challenge, for me, is ignoring information that shouldn't impact my hiring decision... I doubt everyone will be able to do that.
Salihu
· 1 year ago
All those aspiring to political offices, beware! Your history - terrorist friends, communist friends,homo friends, what you did innocently,what you did delibrately are being recorded. That is in case you want to run for any office.
Brendan
· 1 year ago
That is kind of the point I was trying to make. We are going to have to start being more tolerant of the past or we are in for a bit of trouble.
Rami
· 1 year ago
This all is true only if we are able to permanently capture electronically recorded information. Who knows if our posts will all be accessible in 500 years or even 100? Paper is much more permanent.
Not that this invalidates the main points here, which are reasonable, but there are definitely diaries out there that do capture interactions with others. I write in one, and for the past 14 years I've been writing about my interactions with those around me on a daily basis. And just look at what Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was able to do with Martha Ballard's diary, the midwife in Maine who wrote fragmentary comments between 1785 and 1812. Ulrich made a fabulous study of the everyday and ordinary, so keep in mind there is history out there that does that.
I do hope a historian is able to do it with all of our electronic musings down the road.
Laura Stafford
· 1 year ago
You're absolutely right.
FMJ
· 7 months ago
I am constantly amazed at the willingness of the current generation that has grown up with the Internet as mainstream to be completely open and "on display". Even intelligent, well informed young adults are comfortable in a way that is suprising to me.
All Comments
What the hell happened here?
But like I said in #5, it'll start another ethics war.
I will stick to blog commenting at the most.
Sir Thomas Grantham wrote in his notes on Bacon's Rebellion that Bacon actually died of the Lousy Evil - a pubic lice infestation - in 1676. Social Media helped me make sure his version of the facts is known and shared. I linked the story to my name here.
Now it is everyone knows you are a dog."
In the future we are going to have to stop putting politicians on pedestals. We are going to have to stop expecting that they are more pure than the average Joe, we are going to have to stop expecting that they don't sometimes cheat on their wives, or get drunk and stupid, or even god forbid watch porn on the computer. If we don't we won't have any politicians anymore. (Hey that might not be such a bad thing.)
How is a more accurate account of history a consequence?
I think what you mean is that our lives are transparent and our daily lives are now accessible by everyone, including the government.
But as far as Historical record keeping, this is one of the best things that has ever happened to us.
Ruben
twitter.com/redstarvip
In particular, I am really curious as to how archived social media data will play a part in the lives of other future famous figures. Part of being human is making mistakes, learning, and then changing. What 60+ year old can honestly say that they haven't somehow deviated from the ideas they expressed when they we 20? My fear is that we will fall into over analyzing archived data and unfairly drawing conclusions about a persons current beliefs/values.
Great post, but I do disagree with your trust in the incorruptibility of information.
I was also going to say what JP said. In electronic media, everything is changeable. Thus the biggest change to history might be that future archeologists have to do more digging. Information is far more difficult to sift through than soil.
The history aspect is also very interesting to me. The other day I was thinking about how in the next few years (not to mention the next 100 years), kids will no longer carry around big heavy books to school, to learn about history...it's all on the Internet.
========
1. Info and Precison are only available IF NOT DELETED. Take the example of what the Republican RNC did to E-mail.
2. Just like Conspiracy Theories, after a 100 years, you may have Conflicting Data. The PROVENANCE of Data may be weak as the years pass by, and this can lead to Ambiguity and Confusion, and not Precsion.
--- imodotcom
1> When it's free, it will save the human race as we know it
2> Eventually somedoby figures out how to monetize it
3> Our appetite for paying for it is tested, and retested
4> A few people become fabulously wealthy, everyone else makes very little
5> Much wailing and complaining ensue.
6> {Loop} #1
Microblogging, location aware messaging, tagging, etc. will all follow the same path. The real question is will you be one of the lucky ones, or will you be left bitter and demaning?
For example read about Bono's Facebook dilemma.
http://www.briansolis.com/2008/10/where-streets...
I wouldn't begin to call Bono stupid. In fact, he is extremely intelligent and very savvy. What he didn't understand is that no matter how tightly he attempts to control his own PR, there is a new mechanism that he can't control. It's called the Groundswell.
For Bono (and all of us) the game has changed. It's our job to learn how to operate in it.
I do not doubt that social media will change the recorded history. It would be a fallacy to do so.
What I doubt is assumption by some that this is necessarily a good thing, or indeed that it will make some people more accountable. I disagree particularly with your fourth point Ben. Who cares if someone was angry as a child? And what definition do we give to angry? What was the context surrounding this alleged character trait?
Social media may give future access to some more of the daily minutiae of people's lives, but it will provide very little context to that information.
We are going to have to start being more tolerant of the past or we are in for a bit of trouble.
Not that this invalidates the main points here, which are reasonable, but there are definitely diaries out there that do capture interactions with others. I write in one, and for the past 14 years I've been writing about my interactions with those around me on a daily basis. And just look at what Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was able to do with Martha Ballard's diary, the midwife in Maine who wrote fragmentary comments between 1785 and 1812. Ulrich made a fabulous study of the everyday and ordinary, so keep in mind there is history out there that does that.
I do hope a historian is able to do it with all of our electronic musings down the road.