If you want to surf the zeitgeist, then look at the most common queries on Google. When I looked the other day, “How do I delete my Facebook account?” was fourth on the “How do I ...?” list. Just to put this in context, No. 2 was “How do I know if I’m pregnant?” You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to twig that something’s up.
What’s happened is that Facebook’s latest tweak to its default privacy settings has sparked a firestorm. Four US senators have voiced their concern. Fifteen privacy groups have filed complaints with the US Federal Trade Commission. In Europe, the EU’s data protection working party has written to Facebook, saying recent changes that made previously private information publicly viewable by default were “unacceptable.” Many online commentators, influential and otherwise, have also joined the fray.
If you think that privacy is an abstract concern of EU bureaucrats and libertarians with too much time on their hands, then might I suggest that you consult youropenbook.org. This is an ingenious site that allows you to type in a search phrase. It then ransacks the publicly available Facebook “status updates” and displays what it finds.
A search for “I cheated,” for example, brings up all kinds of intriguing stuff. A nice young woman from Baltimore posted “dam right i cheated i coulnt get it from u wen i needed it.” There’s also the odd potentially embarrassing reference to cheating in exams. A search for “I lied” brings up updates like “I’m sorry, I lied before when I said I used to make lots of bets. My therapist tells me I should try lying a lot to help get through my ... gambling problem.” Another writes “im not gonna bother anymore ... theres no point hiding the truth .... iv lost too much and all because i lied to the one i love ... im such a fukin dick head, i fucked up the best girl i’ve ever had.”
I could go on, but you get the point. All of these people are instantly identifiable. Millions of Facebook users are posting embarrassing or damaging messages that can be read by the entire Internet. My guess is that most of them think they are just writing to their “friends” because they don’t understand how to fix their privacy settings and have simply accepted the defaults provided by Facebook.
There’s a trend here. Privacy on Facebook has been steadily, inexorably eroding. To track the erosion, see the timeline posted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or a sobering animation created by IBM researcher Matt McKeon. What we’re looking at is the implementation of a corporate strategy designed to maximize return for Facebook’s owners.
The response of the company’s public relations flak is predictable. Users are free to set their privacy settings, they say, and if people don’t like what Facebook’s doing then they can always leave. Nobody’s forcing them to join the network.
On the face of it, both assertions are true. It is possible permanently to delete a Facebook account, but doing so involves quite a palaver and takes about a fortnight. A bigger problem is that because the service has become so ubiquitous, many users are discovering it’s become essential to their professional lives.
“Don’t think I don’t think about [leaving],” wrote one on her blog. “I don’t like supporting Facebook at all. But I do ... The rewards are concrete and immediate. The costs are abstract and ideological. When I try to balance the two, the rewards win, but that is because of my friends and despite Facebook ... Telling people with complaints to leave ignores the very real value of the networks they have built and what should be their right to continue those networks on the grounds on which they were built.”
Welcome to Metcalfe’s Law — the idea that the value of a network increases dramatically the more people belong to it. It’s the same phenomenon that keeps people using Microsoft Office — not because they love it, but because their professional lives would be impossible if they couldn’t share Office documents with workmates.
It’s one of the great ironies of information technology — that the aggregate effect of billions of free choices made by independent agents results in a kind of tyranny imposed by the winner that took all. We first saw it with Microsoft, and then with Google. Is it now Facebook’s turn?
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
RSS