Tags
The Big Picture
We’re aware that the data we generate is “owned” (or at least maintained) by someone else – the government issues us our identification, the doctor’s office has our health records, the credit agencies know our financial history. We assume our information is private and secure.
But now with so much activity happening online and increasingly on mobile devices, we’re generating a digital representation of ourselves that not only expresses our interests, desires, needs, purchasing behaviors, and the range of social connections and relationships, but also the contextual information of our location in physical space and time.
This is important because we’re generating a detailed profile of ourselves that reveals much more about us that we may realize.
What is Revealed: Macro Level
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, The Really Smart Phone, discusses research conducted by scientists, and the interesting patterns of human behavior they were able to abstract from data collected from smartphones. For example, by analyzing people’s movement records, they were able to predict someone’s future whereabouts with 93.6% accuracy. They’re able to notice symptoms of mental illness, predict stock market fluctuations, and even chart the spread of ideas throughout society, revealing a “god’s-eye view of human behavior.” With billions of people on the planet now carrying a mobile device, we’re able to access data about human complexity that was simply not possible before.
What is Revealed: Micro Level
In a New York Times piece from the other day, Show Us the Data. (It’s Ours, After All.), professor of economics and behavioral science Richard Thaler writes about the vast amount of personal data that is being aggregated about us and sold to third parties.
In terms of consumption, this data is useful for companies in order to target you with highly personalized recommendations, advertising and offers. On a personally empowering level, it could potentially offer us a wealth of information about ourselves to assist us with intelligent decision-making. For example, by looking at medical records and family history, we might receive tailored recommendations for exercise plans or food choices. The problem is – we often don’t have access to this data.
What’s at Stake
There’s a lot of talk about “privacy” on the web right now, and I’m still not completely sure I understand the extent of the argument. If by privacy we mean security, and wanting protection of sensitive data like financial records or social security numbers, I completely agree. But if privacy concerns are around the fear of someone finding out about that bizarre fetish we have or the flavor of porn we prefer, I wonder how much that matters. While that information may be taboo in some circles, it’s actually infinitely less interesting than the data we reveal about ourselves publicly that’s being mined and sold online every day.
Most of the activity done online, from browsing websites to chatting with friends, is being recorded by someone. Your “private” conversations in Facebook are mined, as are your shopping habits on Amazon, or your preferences or personal connections on any number of services.
The issue with these things, moreso than that they are happening, is that we don’t have access to that data that we generate. Challenging this unfortunate reality was the big thrust that led to the formation of the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium, a coalition of individuals and organizations who realize what’s at stake if we don’t reclaim the data that is ours.
Essentially, by third parties locking in our “digital self” into each of their services, we are losing massive collective intelligence opportunites for innovation, value creation, knowledge building, and citizen engagement as a global society.
We have multiple accounts and multiple levels of relationships within and across those social networks. When we click around on sites we are leaving a trail of ‘digital exhaust’, defining our habits, preferences, curiosities, and explorations. We don’t have control/access/ownership of this data, but 3rd parties do. Each of these pieces, and all the contextual information around it, is INCREDIBLY VALUABLE, but currently fragmented, fractured, and scattered. Shouldn’t we have access to it ALL, so we can connect the dots and make effecitve and meaningful choices?
Why can’t I just export my data, activity, and relationships from each service, and be in control of who gets to see it, which parts they get to access, and how they use it once I give them permission?
Why isn’t there an easy way for me to have an overview of everything about me, and be able to selectively share information about myself, my interests, my capacities, my needs, or my resources?
The Future We Deserve
At the moment, commercial entities know more about our preferences and behaviors online than we do. With all the services out there that facilitate social interaction, there is still no easy way to connect with people with whom we share affinities, and then to effectively exchange information with them or collaborate in a meaningful way.
Our online identity and data *should* be our right to control, so that we are empowered to make better decisions about our lives and well-being, find potential collaborators or kindred spirits, or generally create more meaningful and valuable relationships. It’s worth asking:
What would a people-centric web look like?
What if it felt more like walking through a town commons and less like walking through a shopping mall?
How could identity and trust be built into the architecture of the internet?
To contain the length here, I’ll flesh out some ideas about all this in an upcoming post –
“A Framework for Building Online Intelligence”
In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts about identity and personal data ownership.
see also:
Personal leverage for personal data – doc searls
Databuse: Digital Privacy and the Mosaic
emergent by design 
Ownership and identity are the big topics for this decade I think. You can’t have a really effective information economy without them, and we’re still in our infancy in sorting them out.
There’s been quite a few articles and presentations I’ve run across recently in working with the http://www.clinicalgroupwarecollaborative.org that I highly recommend :
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/XGR-socialweb-20101206/
http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083 (by @bblfish)
http://epeus.blogspot.com/2011/04/evs-identity-map-ignores-what-we-say.html
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2011/04/09/UnderstandingOnlineIdentityInThePostWeb20World.aspx
In healthcare, it’s obviously critical to have these thing sorted out.
My personal belief is that patient data belongs to the patient, and consumer data should generally follow the same rules, but there needs to be some sensibility. I can look out and see my neighbors lawn, so there’s some information I have on them and their identity, but in the real world it’s pretty clearly demarcated. Not so online. We rely on government to set up the rules about who owns what and establish laws around privacy, but I fear in this climate we may not have the impetus to establish that clarity.
thanks for the links! that’s funny, i saw the post by ev the other week and have been wanting to comment on it too. i’ve been getting a lot of great insight from kaliya hamlin (@identitywoman) about the many facets of how online identity works.
Concepts regarding Identity and information as well as privacy and transaction all have their roots in hunter-gatherer society…
While no solutions will be found by attempting a return to those ‘socially small’, Dunbars Number-sized worlds we evolved within… I’m convinced its by recognizing some fundamentals of that landscape that will find pragmatic means for moving forward.
Leveling The Transaction Landscape: Technology and the Campfire
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2011/04/leveling-transaction-landscape.html
(trying to keep things short and hopefully clear… bottom line is there’s an ancient connection between transaction, trust and concepts regarding privacy which my innovation is at least trying to get at)
i just started reading The Gift by Lewis Hyde. ever read it?
http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/0394715195
No, but quick look suggests its on a good track!
Question is how to get back there (or rather to some newer but analogous form)?
Clearly the issues seem to be being recognized: trust, the need for reciprocity and that “the gift must always move”
(which is another reason wealth concentration actually quite literally DESTROYS real wealth… which is what’s going on in this country today. And why ‘trickle down’ economic theory is bogus and corrupt.)
Also is the need for a visceral awareness of mutual inter-dependence. Its possible an intellectual awareness may not be sufficient to overcome other drives… (this relates to that altruism problem I’ve been so unclear about)
Actually David Brin when he suggests the need for mechanisms enabling ‘reciprocal accountability’ between individuals and institutions is touching on this need for a visceral awareness by ALL sides that they must rely on the goodwill and trust of the other.
Both the individual as well as the Commons are disadvantaged by the lack of mechanisms to ensure that ‘reciprocal accountability’.
The latest Supreme Court ruling btw, is a great example of how out of touch these institutions are with the real world needs of real people… and how unaccountable they remain.
Supreme Court backs AT&T, limits class-action suits
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-27-supreme-court-class-actions_n.htm
I’m not seeing how this “micro-payments everywhere” notion addresses Apple / Google / Facebook capitalizing our privacy. What’s my one-clickable-button wired *to*? A fund made available to Zuck if he stops stealing privacy? A campaign contribution to some politico who promises to make that happen? A reimbursement fund for people who’ve been injured by these invasions?
Yes, Of course, micropayments everywhere do not solve the world’s problems. Nor will any single magic answer.
However there’s quite a bit more involved in the model. I keep looking for that 140 character tweet that tells the story. Haven’t found it.
Sometimes a bit of examination is required. In the broader sense the model is about re-creating an earlier transaction landscape. And about who takes care of that landscape.
Leveling The Transaction Landscape: Technology and the Campfire
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2011/04/leveling-transaction-landscape.html
You won’t find solutions in political ideology or cynicism.
I know… I’ve been there.
However its an easier road than trying to wake people up… my last few years have certainly also convinced me of the truth of that.
In some circles pragmatism mixed with enthusiasm is considered ‘crackpot’.
Someone acquiring intellectual property for an idea expressed in writing or other media is contrary to collaborative solutions. Few people have original thoughts. Those who claim otherwise are shouting from the shoulders of giants. Sure it is common courtesy to give credit to those contributing to a solution. One should not be restricted in advancing a solution for community betterment do to another’s claim on that thought.
Oh, I should think Isaac Newton with the paraphrase of his great quote. Here are a few other giants building on the thought.
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren’t very new at all. — Abraham Lincoln
Our best thoughts come from others. — Ralph Waldo Emerson
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. — Aristotle
The belief that youth is the happiest time of life is founded on a fallacy. The happiest person is the person who thinks the most interesting thoughts, and we grow happier as we grow older. — William Lyon Phelps
Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world. Science is the highest personification of the nation because that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest the works of thought and intelligence. — Louis Pasteur
An idea is a point of departure and no more. As soon as you elaborate it, it becomes transformed by thought. — Pablo Picasso
We are what our thoughts have made us; so take care about what you think. Words are secondary. Thoughts live; they travel far. — Swami Vivekananda
RE: “Someone acquiring intellectual property for an idea expressed in writing or other media is contrary to collaborative solutions.”
This is often true!
But not always. (Pragmatism has few absolutes! )
To deny all intellectual property rights virtually assures that sometimes ideas and/or other creations with powerful implications but costly to implement…
Will end up under a virtual control of powerful forces able to do that implementation. Thereby increasing concentration of wealth and power and foreclosing necessary evolutions.
Certainly worthy of discussion and thank you for the opportunity for respectful dialog. The intent was not absolute, as you say pragmatism has few absolutes. I think your argument discounts that democracy may have never existed. Maybe closer to reality in the Greek or Roman period than within American history. The question of whether complex powerful ideas can be implemented in the public instead of through monopolistic measures requires more analysis than provided in this discussion.
The laws protecting intellectual property are too restrictive. Legally, I’m not allowed to copy a Political Comic to extend my thought. Paraphrasing is allowed, though copying is prohibited. Fortunately there is a limit to copyright duration. At some point I will re-write David Hume’s thoughts, for now he expresses an idea I have yet to paraphrase.
Of the Connection and Association of Ideas
http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/160
ps – are you aware of scott lewis? @jazzmann91 – he is developing an “emotional based debate website”. maybe you could connect with him. http://g-a-i-a.org/
Pingback: Storytelling Business Social Media Marketing PR & Technology Curated Stories April 28, 2011
Indeed, Venessa, with our fractured digital identity given to be held hostage in corporate silos, we are on the way to say thank you for shouldering the pioneering cost, we enjoyed it while it lasted,and made you rich in the process. Sayonara.
When I began exploring this topic some time ago, inspired by the Junto works of yours,
little did I know how famous the commenters on my beginner’s blog were.
A year ago, Doc Searls said,
on my musings at “Why CRM doesn’t work – is VRM any better?” – http://bit.ly/cpLVXm
As necessity rises to build and program personal data servers, I feel communities worth bringing together include the makerbot scene, Diaspora, the Mine project and more. Let’s grow the list.
Pingback: Why the Online Identity & Data Ownership Debate Matters « emergent by design | Shelfless
You appear to accept the premise that the most important thing to do with information is to profit from it, and the only remaining question is who, and how much.
I reject that notion. I think, for much information, the most important thing is to keep it private. I wish to disclose it, if at all, in exchange for profits other than monetary. I wish to disclose it, if at all, on considerations of trust and community, not finance and marketplace.
A people-centric web would not be foremost defined by where it puts the dollar signs, but where it puts the souls.
Will we be able to measure souls at some point? If so, do they become a part of the economy?
Science can analyse a pork-chop, and say how much of it is phosphorus and how much is protein; but science cannot analyse any man’s wish for a pork-chop, and say how much of it is hunger, how much custom, how much nervous fancy, how much a haunting love of the beautiful. The man’s desire for the pork-chop remains literally as mystical and ethereal as his desire for heaven.
— Heretics, G.K. Chesterton
hi jack,
i’m rather shocked that that was the takeaway you got from the piece. i actually believe quite the opposite. well, depending what you mean by “profit from it.”
in terms of ‘how it works now,’ 3rd parties profit off your information by selling it to each other and marketing to you as a “consumer.” i find this personally rather off-putting and irritating.
what i was trying to convey was that each individual should be in control of the data they generate and who has access to it. i’m personally not really interested in the commercial web – where i see amazing opportunity for innovation and creating wealth together as a global society is if we were able to have an online identity structure that allowed us to express our needs, desires, aspirations, skills, resources, and connections, with permission and in context, however we choose, and have a way to connect those intentions to others.
so, for example, say i want to start a food co-op in my city. maybe i would be able to send that “intention” out to the web, share information about the proposed location for it and the community it would serve, and be able to express the resources i had so far and what i needed. then others, both within my city or from other locations might be able to come forward to say, ‘hi, i saw your request about starting a food co-op. i actually started one in my city. here’s how.’ or ‘hi, i have a used commercial refrigeration unit for sale, and saw that you’re hoping to open a food co-op and you live within 150 miles of me. would you like to know more about it?’
make sense?
this is just one of a million examples of intentions/ideas people have about doing something interesting, but don’t know how to go about actually doing it. so a people-centric web that was focused on global cooperation, collaboration, and resource sharing, would be an amazing tool. having the capacity to set the filters of your identity based the context you’re in would be incredibly useful in this case.
Venessa please forgive me for the discomfort with your forum. Like many intellectual blogs I perceive a peer pressure to stay on point. The tangency invoked in reading such stimulating thought provides self enjoyment which often agitates a collaborative group.
Speaking of On Point, a recent discussion about Ayn Rand has been bouncing around my head for a few days. Admittedly I’ve never read her books. What I’ve heard about her from the liberal talk radio program provides little incentive to explorer her point of view. Subjectively, I would say On Point provided a fair and balanced perspective of the conservative and tea parties resurrection of Ayn Rand’s ideology. The conservative explanation of Ayn’s resurfacing is the heightened value of individualism. I respect that as an answer. Not that I look fondly on a mentality of pull them up by the boot straps, just that it provides an explanation why those favoring the conservative ideology side with Ayn.
Actually I hold strongly to an ideology of individualism. I view individualism in a total different manner than Ayn. I perceive myself as an ordinary individual. I have bachelor degree in computer science and describe myself as a Benjamin Franklin Christian. That is, I see the good in a church but would rather read a book than attend a service. I enjoy Kung Fu type Zen movies. The illustration of journey, enlightenment, and the acquisition of internal wisdom is the appeal.
A couple of days ago I watched a David Carradine movie from the mid seventies called Circle of Iron. This movie depicts my view of individuality.
I’m attempting to determine the difference in individualism as described by Ayn Rand and the movie Circle of Iron.
Maybe morality has something to do with. I see no checks and balances for morality in Ayn Rand’s way of thinking. While Zen type of movies seek an inner peace of enlightenment. Immoral acts of self interest or doing harm to others often influence turmoil likely to come full circle. Maybe it has something to do with a focus on economics as the means of accomplishment. Zen type movies seek wisdom and inner peace at a minimal societal and earthly cost.
Maybe individualism is not the word to describe the acquisition of inner satisfaction.
The Zen type of movies often deal with martial art. Physical battle is not appealing to me. The martial art in these movies is a metaphor for overcoming obstacles. Overcoming an addiction of the seven deadly sins; wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony requires an inner battle often as demanding as combat.
Back on point. I agree with Jack’s point in the value of economics to this discussion. In many ways I dislike the idea of data ownership. Though do respect individuals being provided the opportunity to move on from their mistakes. Life is a journey of trials and tribulations. Mistakes are the building block to understanding and perfection. A new media must not demonize individuals for past mistakes. Instead it should motivate and glorify the progress of development.
i am fascinated that you dislike the idea of data ownership. can you please expand on that?
in my mind, i see data ownership to be like holding a map that helps you navigate the world and make better/more effective decisions & choices. the way it seems now, someone else has the map of your potential empowerment, not you. so i would want to own my own map.
why do you not want to own yours?
(if you respond, post a fresh comment thread please, as this one is getting skinny! and please be patient, i am upgrading my blog soon…..)
You know its easier to find fans of yellow skateboards online than it is to send out a message to a neighbor or neighbors on the next block and co-ordinate local activities.
But what if there were a network common to both you and your neighbors, which allowed (on an opt-in basis) for you to make those connections? Which facilitated transaction and communication but with users in control?
What if you could say… “Okay, I don’t want anyone to know my name or address but I’ll accept messages from local groups within my this area I specify”… (or of course the option to accept no message at all)
And as trust builds using systems similar to online dating sites people can begin to walk out of their doors and meet at the local park! And can even give there real names and get to know their neighbors.
What if they could co-ordinate small amounts of money to get supplies for that garden… and then working with applications developed for utility with this same network and system… they could perhaps set-up trading tokens for what they produce and for exchange locally for their labor, etc.
What if local small businesses could reach neighborhood customers easily and cheaply w/o a middleman?
Just for a moment imagine this as a ubiquitous network or network of interacting networks… yes, I believe properly done there’s real potential for natural monopoly since benefits rise rapidly with scale.
I’m not religious. But that’s the day the meek will have inherited the earth.
Of course that’s a scary proposition. Because then it really IS up to us what we do with it.
Catalyze the Network!
A General Utility Internet paysystem structured as I describe, (simplifying, unburdening and monetizing outside the transaction, facilitating a viable micro-transaction, and especially the p2p networking of transaction)… is a gateway and catalyst to a more vibrant public landscape.
I suggest that its liberating the political micro-transaction that will form the ultimate catalyst for deep market penetration (even though most now never contribute) but it could arise out of its general utility or some combination of the two.
The key is that can compete! It can drastically reduce transaction costs while vastly increasing supply chain participation.
Chagora Assumptions
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/01/chagora-assumptions.html
Maybe I took two steps, or three, down the road without leaving bread crumbs. Let me step back to the beginning, and annotate the journey.
As others have mentioned, we can rely on the commercial interests in this area to work for their commercial advantage. Whatever we do as individuals, or technologists and thinkers who care about individuals, happens against that backdrop. If we dream what could be, without planning ways to rein those commercial interests in, we end up shilling for them, and our fun individualist connections end up only camouflage.
Take, for example, the wonderful notion of an “Terms of Use” document, that clearly explains your obligations and how your personal information will be used and protected by the web site you’re connecting to. Really cool, don’t you think? Seen any lately? Of course you have. *Read* any, lately? Oh, not so much. In fact, these ubiquitous documents have become a universal exercise in pulling the wool over our eyes.
So: if we focus on how we can give up our personal information for personal use, without first ensuring limits on the commercialization of that same info, then we’re only ensuring rampant (and largely not-us-serving) commercialization. If it was inadvertent … sorry for jumping to conclusions.
Great join of data … i have some theory and this corroborate it . Web Semantic ^-1 .
Thank you for share.
Click to access WonderWebD17V2.0.pdf
http://www.ieml.org/spip.php?article156
Continuation of Venessa’s thread ending at April 29, 2011 11:54 pm.
I’m not steadfastly opposed to data ownership, just my current journey finds disapproval. I use a javascript graphics library for displaying statistical piecharts, barcharts, and even gantt charts. I gladly paid the $120 site licence to use it on my webserver. It saved hundreds of hours of development providing a superior interface that I lacked the time to develop. I often develop similar utilities freely building upon open source libraries. I appreciate all of those individuals sharing their technologies. It is the same kind of appreciation Ward Cunningham had in developing the Wiki and Jimmy Wales had in providing a freely distributed encyclopedia in Wikipedia.
Venessa, I’m all for making a sustainable living and would enjoy contemplating how emergent technology will do so. Maybe the point of difference is in the definition of data. Privately generated data could justifiably be intellectual propriety, though public data is questionable. On my website I’ve collected nearly 1500 historical quotations. Some from books of quotations, others while watching movies, others from biographies or non-fiction, many come from searching the internet for key words in addition to the word quote. Sure it took several years to collect so many quotations, though I don’t feel I own them. I enjoy that Google provides a great service of drawing people to my site from the quotes, as well as the many people frequenting the Google Gadget Quote Randomizer. I don’t claim ownership to this data. Albert Einstein, Plato, Gandhi, Werner Heisenberg, and Carl Sagan deserve credit for their words. Actually if anyone requested a copy of the library, I would gladly provide a mysql dump of the data and schema at no cost.
The internet provides the opportunity to utilize crowd sourcing as a means of collecting data. Isn’t crowd sourcing just another word for public utilization? There something about privatizing public data/knowledge that I have yet to find appreciation for. I can appreciate the potential to profit from it or to leverage knowledge. Though I can’t condone intellectual hoarding of data acquired from the public.
Venessa, I’m only touching on a small aspect of the thesis you are presenting. The topic of identity security is worthy of separate analysis. I’m sure we would have a strong common agreement on the subject.
ok, i hear you. perhaps “ownership” is not the correct word to be using here, because it’s not really ownership, it’s persistence of identity and access to data.
in terms of identity, you could never fully “own” that. in the ‘real world’ your identity is contextual. who i am when i sit in the classroom is different than the role when i’m in a business suit and different than when i’m having sunday dinner with family. who i am shifts based on context. same with online – who you share yourself to be with close friends on facebook is different than who you present on linkedin and perhaps differently on twitter and so on. the thing that doesn’t change in either of those examples, is that you are still YOU. you may show different pieces of yourself, but they are all part of an integrated person that you are. you also can’t control what others say or write about you, and the impression that that leaves on others, so in that sense also, you can’t fully own your identity.
now with data, there is the argument for access and interoperability.
basically, it’s not about “intellectual hoarding of data” at all. it’s being allowed to have a copy of the data you create, and making the information from a service interoperable with other services. so let’s say your quote library was on tumblr, and they did not allow you to export that info that you had been collecting over the years. and then one day out of nowhere, they just shut off your account without permission or notification.
what would you think of that?
in terms of interoperability…. every time you sign up for a new service or social network, you probably are asked to fill in all this profile information. chances are, you’ve already filled in that same info many many times before, and it’s a hassle. (now Facebook Connect is making it easier, but that is a whole separate issue that is being discussed…. do people want to trust Facebook to be the main keeper of identity on the web?). so say ‘the next big social network’ comes along, and instead of having to ‘friend’ or ‘follow’ or whatever all the people i want to keep up with, i can just port that social graph data that i’ve already created into this new service. but again, to be able to do it selectively and as i choose…. i think it was Quora when they first came out that just automatically ‘followed’ everyone you follow from twitter in their service. that’s also not cool, because they didn’t ask first.
so anyway, these are the 2 areas i’m learning about right now. a paper i just read that’s really interesting is the Augmented Social Network. it was written in 2003, but it’s incredibly relevant today. http://asn.planetwork.net/
I agree that the smart thing and the right thing for the industry to do would be to give users maximum and total control and transparent access to their data. The current industry subterfuge and smoke and mirrors is creating hell of lot of bad will and leaving the door wide open to fearmongers. The best example of this is the insistence that B T should be opt out, I think the industry would have much more success with an approach that focuses on the benefits of B T and invited people to opt in.
Centralized power and vested corporate interest ever will serve themselves at the expense of “consumers” because that’s the way the game is played.
2 key points that ring true for me:
• “by third parties locking in our “digital self” into each of their services, we are losing massive collective intelligence opportunites for innovation, value creation, knowledge building, and citizen engagement as a global society.”
(All we need 1st is a paradigm shift.)
• “Why can’t I just export my data, activity, and relationships from each service, and be in control of who gets to see it, which parts they get to access, and how they use it once I give them permission?”
(All we need 1st is a paradigm shift.)
yes…….”all we need” ……..
Pingback: Meditations on personal data trails : roots.lab
Pingback: The problem with the iPad and Facebook « Esko Kilpi on Interactive Value Creation
In response to Venessa’s April 30, 2011 9:13 am Post.
The thought of cloud technology seizing control of public intellectual property is a concern. So much so I host my content from a home server. You mentioned the inadequacies of your existing blog software. I would like to discuss the thought on or off thread. I’ve been following Emergent By Design for about a year. There is something unique to blogging in the effort. It appears you are using public dialog to refine a larger piece of work. Developing a new forum to facilitate creative development is my thesis. I would like to share your thoughts on such a tool.
I like the way you present a well thought out topic to engage conversation in refinement. Though suggest the average creative thinker has not acquired the level of research skills you demonstrate. I believe an average citizen wishing to express a thought may start with a less polished draft to build upon. Your current tool does not illustrate your process as being iterative. It’s probably not a problem for you, though your research formula is not obvious to others.
In a prior thread I mentioned a discomfort in posting on your site. Probably because I would prefer my conversation being between you and I, privatized. My comments are intended to enhance your thesis. I don’t expect to replace your thought, only to learn and share association.
The technology described in my thesis is not developed. The little dialog acquired gives insight to what a blog can provide to a creative thought process.
1. The author of blog comment should be able to edit/delete the entry. Spelling mistakes,
grammar errors, wordiness (guilty), and errors in judgement are correctable.
Threading these errors only confuses the matter.
2. Blogging is secondary in the creative development process. In some cases public
comments help build or market participation in a thought. Other times they distract or
move the conversation tangent to the authors purpose. On my site the option for a blog
poster to mark an entry as private is provided. A private post is viewable only
by the thesis author or the blog poster. I also allow the thesis author the right to mark
a blog post as private.
3. The current emergent by design site does not demonstrate an iterative process. I realize
each post is building upon some larger picture. A creative development blog should
not expect the initial draft to be the quality of an Emergent ByDesign topic. Each
blog poster can be thought of as a coach. Feedback provides the opportunity to
dynamically build upon the draft. Coaches may get annoyed if an author publishes
changes too often. A blog system should allow an author to edit a topic in private
creating many revisions, though only publishing to the public periodically. Publishing
could then notify coaches for additional feedback. This iterative process is not
unique to the author. The coach or blogger should be provided the ability to refine
their perspective. Example: I realize this post is wordy and would like the opportunity
to republish based yours or others comments.
Venessa, what are your thoughts for a better tool to facilitate your research process?
“I would like to discuss the thought on or off thread.”
you are always welcome to email me at emergentbydesign at gmail dot com
“It appears you are using public dialog to refine a larger piece of work. Developing a new forum to facilitate creative development is my thesis.”
i didn’t really have a “goal” when i started my blog. this is just where i put down my thoughts about stuff i’m paying attention to and learning about. so if by “facilitating creative development” you mean me expanding my brain and thought process, then yes, that’s why i write and engage with others online.
“1. The author of blog comment should be able to edit/delete the entry.”
yeah, that would be a nice feature. sometimes i get emails from commenters asking if i can make a correction when they put a typo or whatever, but sure, it would be nice if commenters could do this themselves.
” I also allow the thesis author the right to mark a blog post as private.”
if i was going to make my blog posts private, i doubt i would even write them. the whole point is for me to put my thoughts in writing and then engage with others about those thoughts.
“3. The current emergent by design site does not demonstrate an iterative process. ”
i’m not sure what you mean by this.
“I realize each post is building upon some larger picture.”
i guess…. basically i write about how humanity & technology are co-evolving. i guess that’s the big picture.
“Venessa, what are your thoughts for a better tool to facilitate your research process?”
i just started a google group if you’d like to be able to have further discussions outside of this comment thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/emergent-by-design
a better tool for facilitating my research process is an enormous question… i mean…. then we’re talking about the future of the web and what it could be as an advanced communication & learning tool.
i mean… essentially it would be amazing if one could ask a question about a topic/issue/interest area, and then be given all the relevant information about that topic, related influencing factors, key people and organizations involved, etc, so you could immediately get a big picture snapshot of the content area.
so say i’m interested in knowing how money & financial solutions are being innovated in the united states at the local level in order to improve local economy and sustainability . i’d like to be able to immediately know the most effective solutions that currently exist, as well as the most promising prototypes that are in development, as well as the concepts and organizations i should know about to understand that content area.
for example, it might be useful for me to understand what a “solidarity economy” is, what “asset based community development” means, what a “mutual credit system” is, or what a “Local Exchange Trading System” is or what “transition towns” are or what the “slow money movement” is. i might want to explore what’s being done by The Metacurrency Project (metacurrency.org), or Bernal Bucks (bernalbucks.clearbon.net/) or the Internet Archive Credit Union (http://creditunion.blog.archive.org/). I might want to read a book by Bernard Lietaer or check out the International Journal of Community Currency Research or the Community Currency Magazine.
i mean, this list could go on and on. but the point is, if i didn’t know the above things, how would i know to search for them? where are the knowledge maps online that point me to this information?
it doesn’t yet exist.
so the better tool i’d be looking for is a global knowledge infrastructure that connects the dots between the relevant information and shows it to me.
– v
Pingback: pinboard April 30, 2011 — arghh.net
Pingback: Today’s DQChronicle’s Twitted Times | The Data Quality Chronicle
Have you checked out mydex.org? We’ll be at IIW…
It’s interesting to see how third party companies have access to this information. Reminds me of a world turning into something like Minority Report or 1984.
o
The real problem of course is the total lack of respect for peoples privacy-property. You got guys – – figureheads now like Zuckerberg, Crowly, and many others who have no qualms about doing this stuff and exploiting people to make a fast buck. Under the wings of investors of course which makes it’s scale or the potential scale of it even more disturbing.
Nasty stuff.
for example, it might be useful for me to understand what a “solidarity economy” is, what “asset based community development” means, what a “mutual credit system” is, or what a “Local Exchange Trading System” is or what “transition towns” are or what the “slow money movement” is. i might want to explore what’s being done by
Very nice post (and comments too).
CarsOfficial
http://CarsOfficial.com
In case you may want to join my weblog’s Q BLOG AWARDS 2011:
http://thequeerlifestyle.com/the-queer-lifestyles-q-blog-awards-2011/
This is an interesting topic. If a website offers a service (especially for free) and you sign up and use it then I think they are entitled to the data. A forum for instance has to use and store your conversations otherwise it can’t really function can it.
Inevitably I think it is going to be a fact of life that if we want these services then we have to give up privacy. You do have a choice however in what you choose to disclose in the internet.
You could also run under multiple accounts to help spread your footprint too I suppose.
If a website offers a service, I think everyone would agree that they have reasonable rights to the information that’s essential to the service. Your example of the contents of messages posted to a public message board is a case.
But this is not universal.
– If a message board provides security settings to limit who can see your messages, then this also implies limits on how the board uses the information outside the strict board context.
– If a service composes information gathered from many sources, to create higher-value information, then that would also be dubious. Case in point, Apple insufficiently securing information that’s a reasonable analog to your location.
Just as is true of governments, services should be constrained by any “expectation of privacy.” Police can’t take your DNA off your body without your consent: you have an expectation of privacy about that. But if you toss your gum into the trash, privacy expectations fly out the window, and it’s fair game. Something along those lines needs to be in place for web services.
Interesting blog, really. So many ideas I don’t know where to begin.
I get what you are proposing here. But the problem is, we need every social network, shopping site, online discussion forum to follow certain and strict standards in order to achieve such “online unity of information”. Given the size of the Internet and the number of websites out there, this seems a little unrealistic? I don’t know, but businesses like to do things their way.
You are proposing something absolutely beautiful, to cluster our online existences into one global and consistent existence. But again I believe the majority of people would not like this. You mentioned the kind of information about our online behavior and how our fetishes and porn preferences do not matter much. This maybe true in developed countries like Europe or the US, but in areas like the Middle East for example, I can think of a million reason to reject this.
Pingback: Why the Online Identity & Data Ownership Debate Matters (via emergent by design) « InformationUnplugged
Pingback: Why the Online Identity & Data Ownership Debate Matters (via emergent by design) « Karthikeyan's Blog
Hell! Don’t forget that for the globalists we are simply serfs and knowing all about every body is of the utmost importance. That way they ensure we the people do not revolt.
Pingback: Why the Online Identity & Data Ownership Debate Matters « Thesis
Pingback: Facebook: I do it to myself. I do. And that’s what really hurts. « Angry Flat Cap
Being able to extract the very information that we inject into the web about ourselves, whether it’s a quote on Tumblr or a purchase on Amazon is definitely an important issue and should be a right as we are all participants in a huge commercialized cyber industry. The tidbits of data that we provide make us nothing but products, for a lot of third parties that collect the aggregated information for their own use. Hopefully, more people will become aware about just how exposed and tracked they are online and begin to make better decisions by taking control of their online data in order to manage their web presence.
well said!
Pingback: The Future of Baby Pictures | Traxier Social Competition
Pingback: 2011 Year in Review & 2012 Intentions & Aspirations « emergent by design
Pingback: Privacy Identity Innovation in the News | Privacy Identity Innovation | pii 2012 Conference – Seattle
Big Brother is watching over us.
very valuable material, in general I imagine this is worthy of a bookmark, cheers
Eventually it will be realized that the account network I’ve been actively advocating both as to its theoretical necessity as well as its practical implementation are the root of what Doc Searls calls “The Personal Event Network”.
The speech-related microtransaction is both a vital element by itself but also the key to catalyzing this network of independent accounts. And ‘personal data’ has long been a central element to be under the user’s control.
Stop making cows. Quit being calves.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2012/02/21/stop-making-cows-stop-being-calves/
This IS the key to a vitally necessary landscape I’ve been pushing for the last five years.
Wake up and smell the manure.
Hi, I do think this is a great web site. I stumbledupon it
😉 I will revisit once again since i have book
marked it. Money and freedom is the best way to
change, may you be rich and continue to help others.