schrockmedia

…I'm rooting for everyone in this war because it sounds as if—the concerns of Harvard's Zittrain notwithstanding—we all win here. Andreessen is right when he says the Web is so vast that it defies attempts to control it. With Google riding shotgun, it strikes me as unlikely that Facebook or anyone else can pull too far ahead. Also, I believe Zuckerberg when he says Facebook will continue to open over time. It's the smart move, and he's a smart cookie. Finally, I want to get my hands on the new iPhone. Its time will come and go. But for now? Great technology, today as always, renders us as gods.

I had a few comments on Quittner’s article up to this point, minor corrections, but this paragraph made gave me pause. Quittner would have us be grateful for technology that “renders us as gods.” If we are confronted with powers that offer us godly powers, the least we can do is be wary, even suspicious. Otherwise we each become a potential Prometheus, worthy of punishment.

One claim he might be well of being more cautious about is that the Internet is naturally too large to be controlled. First, from Andreessen’s quotes in the article, I don’t see evidence that he, as Quittner claims, declares that the web, “is so vast that it defies attempts to control it.” Andreessen discusses how the iPhone is significant, that an open API provides access to a wealth of potential developers, and how multiple platforms may prove successful. Is Quittner projecting his own beliefs here or is there an un-cited source from Andreessen?

Regardless of the source of the sentiment, any mature discussion of Internet regulation and evolution must accept that there is not a natural course that a technology takes. I’m unconvinced that we will “all win here.” Zittrain, another Berkman professor, is hardly the only one wary of claims that the Internet enjoys an untouchable status. In “Code,” Lessig discusses the combination of factors (economic, social, market) that regulation encompasses, and how they can be applied to the Internet. The Internet is not tabula rasa. The freedom we currently enjoy may be merely the first stage of the evolution of a new medium. For example, radio frequencies were initially given away when FM first emerged, but then later, tightly controlled. How musicians and labels make money is arcane, and has nothing to do with the innate rights of recorded and broadcast works. (in San Francisco’s Prelinger Library, where tomes are organized according to their relationship with books surrounding them, the section on copyright is next to that of western philosophy)

Zuckerberg is well intentioned, but he is also so inclined to paint a glowing picture of his company’s latest efforts when interviewed by Time. Clearly, Zuckerberg wants to show Facebook is not a “walled garden,” despite that it has little to currently offer as far as options to break down those walls. Whereas Google is naturally comfortable with openness, Facebook and Apple are somewhat analogous in their closed-ness. Both feel that there is a safety inherent in their products’ user experiences through a clean, uncluttered interface and reduced propagation of viruses and other rogue programs.

When Zittrain wrote “The Future of the Internet” Apple hadn’t yet offered up a public SDK. Now that it exists, his criticism of the iPhone as a “black box” is, in my opinion, less valid. Initial adopters, the innovators, are most concerned with guiding development of the product. To play devil’s advocate here: when technologies enter the mainstream, is the demand for malleability and programmability outweighed by need for a cheaper, more efficient product? The two may be synonymous, but not always.

My personal feeling is that as products mature, the need for this innovation doesn’t entirely disappear, but certainly diminishes. The market acceptance of Android compared with iPhone will be interesting to view as a test of this question. It would be unprecedented if Android-based devices break into the mainstream. I would argue that iPhones have yet to go mainstream, either, but Apple’s recent announcement of the new $199 price point may give them the needed boost to their new consumer electronics image. This is a competition, despite what Quittner writes - both being mid-range, Internet-enabled cell phones with touch screens. How it plays out may very well signal the next chapter in the Internet’s evolution.

Labels: API, apple, google, quittner, SNS, zittrain, zuckerberg

The most recent findings by Ybarra and Mitchell (2008) address the assumption the posting of personal information on social network websites (SNSs) is dangerous. Their results show that when other factors are accounted for, a young person’s posting of personal information online does not significantly increase the likelihood that he or she will be harassed or solicited.

While much more research needs to be done on the topic, it is apparent that other communication mediums are far riskier. Namely, chat rooms and instant messaging (IM) are particularly problematic for adolescents. In the last year, 43% of youth stated they had been solicited over IM, 32% by chat rooms, and 4% by SNS. In the last year, 55% of youth stated they had been harassed over IM, compared with 4% by SNS.

Also, the posting of personal information may be a lesser risk factor when compared with behaviors such as talking with strangers online. Factors in family life also have a strong correlation with likelihood of harassment, such as whether the young individual in question has been abused. This refocusing of concepts is in-line with the ongoing efforts of the CCRC, which in recent years has illuminated why certain young individuals are more vulnerable than others.

For a broad overview on the state of research on cyber-predation, see Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, and Ybarra (2008). Also see: Hinduja and Patchin (2008) regarding their analysis of the rate of disclosure of information on one particular SNS, MySpace.

Labels: disclosure, facebook, harassment, MySpace, online, predation, safety, SNS, social networking