The Question Concerning Social Technology

PB [2009-05-18 03:52 PM]

Excellent post. Outstanding historical perspective on a deep problem with the emerging social/knowledge web. I look forward to further installments.

TJ Downes [2009-05-18 04:50 PM]

As with any technology, it can be good and bad.

However, as someone who has intimate knowledge of the amount of use of these social networking tools by workers during work hours for non-work related communication, I can tell you that these tools are doing damage to businesses, due to loss of productivity. It's not just a few businesses this affects, I've seen it affect every business that I've monitored.

Proponents will deny, but the numbers are there. Why isn't anyone addressing this aspect of social networking? Is it because the business managers are just as involved?

Thomas Lord [2009-05-18 08:56 PM]

Joshua-Michéle,

I appreciate the roughly Foucault-ian framing.

Here is an excerpt from something else I'm working on that is also apropos here. I hope it doesn't get too mangled in the quick and dirty HTML-ization of it. (You folks ever considered a preview button?)

-t

* Background

The concept of software freedom relies on an assumption that users will normally have control over the computers they use. A user with control over his computer decides what programs to run on that computer and when.

Software freedom is the principle that users should always have complete control of the programs they run. Control over the computer itself isn't enough: the user must also have control over the programs. Without control over the programs, control over the computer is nearly meaningless. The only choice that wouldn't give up control of the computer would be to run nothing.

The four software freedoms - to run, study, share, and improve software - are conditions that describe what "control over a program" means. They help to define the concept of software freedom.

Copyleft is a legal mechanism that helps to defend software freedom. It makes it more difficult for someone to receive a copy of a program offered in freedom but then pass that program along in ways that harm the software freedom of others. It does so by refusing to give copyright permission for that kind of theft of freedom.

* A New Challenge to Software Freedom

The cause of software freedom faces a new challenge in the era of the World Wide Web and of the rising popularity of centralized web services.

A centralized web service is one in which many users access and run programs on a shared central server but control over the server computer or computers is limited: most users do not enjoy that control.

With a centralized service users run programs on the server but don't control the server. Consequently users do not have software freedom over their running of those programs.

In and of itself, a user's lack of software freedom over a server is not automatically a problem. Sometimes it is very sensible and seemingly necessary. For example, if I send a web request to my bank to check today's balance, obviously I mean this request to cause some program or subroutine to run on the bank's own computers. I don't expect control over the bank's computers in return. Software freedom is absent in this case but for overriding reasons that are not objectionable.

The problem arises when users give up their software freedom on servers without any real need. Here are some examples:

- hosted email - many users have no control over their email servers, for no good reason beyond momentary convenience

- document sharing - many users use document sharing services with web based word processors, spreadsheet programs and so on, yet have no control over these services

- social networking - blogging, network home pages, friend declarations, instant messages, and so forth all take place on centralized web services

Technologically and economically there is no good reason for those programs to be implemented as centralized web services. There is no need for users to give up software freedom in all of those cases.

The problem of users giving up freedom over servers becomes a tragedy when those who do control the servers exercise that power to take advantage of the users. For example, the operator of a server might spy on users and inappropriately share a user's private data with a third party. For another example, the operator of a server may refuse to let a user enjoy certain features of the server software unless the user pays a ransom to the server operator.

* Copyleft Alone is No Help; Technology Matters

Copyleft is not, in and of itself, a solution to the problem of inappropriately centralized services. It is not enough even if users are able to obtain a copy of the programs a server runs, if users generally can't count on controlling the servers.

The technical design of web service software also matters. A copyleft, free software program that needlessly implements a centralized service is a setback to freedom.

For example, consider a hypothetical free software program that implements a server for a kind of instant messaging. Users can broadcast short messages on this service. Users can search through messages that others have broadcast. Users can "subscribe" to other users and receive all of the broadcasts of those others.

If a service like that is written as a program that assumes all users use the same servers, then the program creates a centralized web service - needlessly, in this case. It doesn't help that the program is free software (unless someone takes a copy and modifies it to no longer be a centralized service).

From that and many similar examples an inference can be made:

Copyleft is not enough. Free software web services must technologically resist needless centralization of services.

Inkahexe [2009-05-18 11:17 PM]

I really appreciate social networking - in some sort it became an very important part of my work as a traditional shaman, and I agree, that the consumer gets more and more visible in all his aspekts, he fills out many social profiles linked with the websites he likes, he provides very personal informations in dating-sites and so on. If somebody wants to get to know you better he only have to type in your name in google and he gets very detailed informations about you. When you sell something through a market-place like ebay or amazon and etsy and one of your customers is not satisfied you´ll get bad reputations that can destroy your whole business...
So you have to face the same problems like in a very close and conservative society (small towns/villages like here in south-america) - everybody knows nearly everything about you and watches all your steps and if someone is comlaining about you you have to explain yourself in front of a tribunal of elders... So I would say that the social networking has actually not so much to do with the social theories of Enlightenment, in opposite...

bruce [2009-05-19 05:17 AM]

My take on the topic and posts are that indeed we are within a new age of "enlightment" however I disagree that Social Networking in and of itself is at the core of this movement. To me, the age of the Internet parallels The Enlightment and Social Networking is just one of the new avenues or institutions that has emerged. The blogsphere; online marketplaces; the geosphere; univeral searchs; etc are all new public institutions each with it's own goals, characteristics, nuances, etc. I believe the premise that Social Networking in and of itself is the new Enlightment is a bit overstated.

Regarding the "dark side" of this new age. There always will be naysayers and opinionators on what could go wrong with any new or emerging enlightment, technology or discovery. Human Genome research comes to mind as the next great scientific achievement but there are already those who are protesting this as the age of the ultimate human species manipulation. Are we really ready to shut down the internet because of some small loss of human productivity surfing the net?

That being all being said, the preface for your disussions is excellent and I am looking forward to further dialogues.

Bob Calder [2009-05-19 05:31 AM]

Open access to APIs that include standards-based storage is one way web services remain somewhat open.

Another thing to look at is legislating ownership of personal information by vesting it in the individual who then licenses it for a limited period to a service provider.

Admittedly a vain hope given the close cooperation between data brokers, lending institutions, the government, and of course criminals.

AReader [2009-05-19 08:00 AM]

Thanks for addressing these issues, I really look forward to reading the rest of it, and the comments also.

Justin Davey [2009-05-19 07:27 PM]

You definitely raise some interesting questions and the language of today's social enlightenment definitely obscures the darker side of things. But on the other hand, while companies like Facebook and Google have all of this personal data of ours, the nature of community makes it nearly impossible to use it in a way that could hurt us. Look at what happens when Facebook rearranges a few things. A multimillion strong backlash. Irresponsible data use by social companies can accomplish nothing but a big blow to shareholder value.

Kristal L. Rosebrook [2009-08-11 02:02 AM]

Interesting comments.

Kristal L. Rosebrook [2009-10-19 01:39 AM]

Good insight Joshua.