Oct. 23: News Stories: Social Media

Social Media News Stories: The New York Times October 23, 2010

Helft, M. (2010). Marketers Can Glean Private Data on Facebook. pp.B1, B2.

According to Helft who reported that two “academic studies”, one from India and one from Germany, demonstrated the possibility that even though Facebook is a secure site that does not allow sharing of personal information, advertisers may still able to find information. Advertisers seek such information so as to selectively target their adds to likely customers. It appears that if a user clicks on an advertisers link they are identified as a likely candidate for further adds in this area. Such information on personal characteristics as sexual orientation, age, religion, political views, or relationship status were mentioned as possible data that could indirectly be obtained or “uncovered” through various manoeuvers. This journalist referred to another article this week in the Wall Street Journal that brought up similar concerns about Facebook. Facebook has acknowledged that they have looked into their vulnerabilities and have had problems where information about their users and their users friends has been inadvertently shared with advertisers. It was mentioned that MySpace had similar problems with such information being obtained by advertisers wanting to target customers although that “violated” their policies as well.

It seems to me that although sites attempt to be secure, there is a large question as to whether it is possible for them to do so and even think of the many ways creative advertisers, kids, or hackers can be anticipated or stopped in cyberspace.

October, 18:

Eligon, J. & White, R. (2010). A Juror’s Blog Chronicle Stirs an Age-Old Question. p. A12.

Journalists Eligon and White reported on a juror, Bruce Slutsky, who used a blog to talk about his experience of being called and serving as a a juror in a civil case before the State Supreme Court in Queens court. A lawyer in Texas happened to see his blog and became concerned that he had violated protocol by blogging and revealing too much in his dialogue of laying out his frustrations with the slowness of the process and a details about what was happening in the court room. Although the judge presiding did not find this to be the case when it was brought to his attention, the questioning and uninvolved lawyer from afar did bring up the fact that jurors are not allowed to do research on the Internet on Google, Facebook, or Twitter about the case. This brings up an issue that could potentially need to be defined more extensively now that people are using the Internet to talk about their daily experiences openly and publically. This juror felt that he had done nothing wrong, which brings up the question of who decides out there in cyberspace and do we need more or less watchdogs and regulations and is this even possible?

Another article on the front page of the Business Section, Determined to Crack the Social Code (pp. B1, B8) by Claire Cain Miller addresses the issue Google faces in trying to compete with social sites, particularly Facebook, which supposedly prevent search engines used by advertisers from gaining access to personal data. Googles’s Buzz is their entrée into the social networking world hasn’t done for them what they hoped and they are researching something more effective. One problem brought out here was that emails where automatically available when on Buzz, this was changed. According to this report, Google’s Linkedin and Twitter allows “ information their friends have published online can appear in search results” (p. B8). They mentioned that only a few Google account holders have set up these accounts. This gives me pause as Linkedin is billed as a professional site and it was my understanding that you had to allow people to be part of it. U-Tube is also a Google site and one of the ways Google had developed to obtain information. This article points out that many people are now asking their friends for information that they might have gone to Google to find before the popularity of social sites, particularly Facebook, have gained so much use by preference. It appears that there is fierce competition our there and isn’t there enough room in cyberspace for companies to specialize in different areas of client’s interests, or does one site have to do all things for all people??