English 112: Blugold Seminar

It should be increasingly obvious that internet culture is becoming increasingly focused on creating public personas within private circles–we have private Facebook accounts, but we share anything and everything we deem relevant publicly on those private profiles.  What seems like an ever-increasing number of major websites–including the Huffington Post, YouTube, Formspring, Gizmodo, CNET, Twitter, and countless others–have integrated Facebook Connect, allowing people to connect their Facebook account to these websites and share their activity across the web on their profile. In 2010 alone, 250 million people used Facebook Connect a month, with ten thousand websites adding it daily.

In addition, the stats that Facebook Connect allows for become oddly specific.  Connecting the music streaming service Spotify to accomplishes two things: First, Spotify automatically posts any and every song you listen to on the service on your Wall, regardless of whether you listen to the song from the Spotify cloud or from your own hard drive via Spotify. Second, Spotify posts detailed specifics of what songs, albums, and playlists you’ve listened to to your profile. All of sudden, people can learn that you don’t just listen to Keasby Nights, you’ve listened to it 115 times since you downloaded Spotify.

So how does this matter? On one level, it doesn’t. Who honestly cares how much you love Coldplay? That you read that article in the New York Times yesterday? That you posted a YouTube video? On a superficial level, it doesn’t matter. However, what does matter is the fact that the option to share is the default option on each and every single website and program associated with Facebook. Privacy settings are secondary to the purpose of Facebook–to share. Sharing is promoted constantly, while privacy on social networks is an issue that is dismissed until a complaint is raised.

And this, this is what scares me, and it’s already escalated to an extent. While shut down fairly quickly, the fact that there have already been potential employers, both public and private, who have asked their employees or applicants for their Facebook passwords so they can view their profiles is disturbing and unethical, and I can’t help but make a connection between the sharing culture of Facebook and the insistence of employers to invade privacy. The sole fact that they even tried to access those passwords show that the companies don’t view online privacy as a right, but as a roadblock to finishing their background check. I have no doubt that this sort of invasion of privacy will continue to happen in some form as long as users are treated as data-mineable sources of revenue rather than people.

And so where does this leave us with the idea of “privacy?” Could it be long before the idea of having a truly “private” online account is the outlier, the kind of action to be shunned? As corporations attempt to dig their way into our lives and the idea of “sharing” becomes spread, the idea of having a “private” account could serve to paint a target on your back. When one in million refuses to be public, suspicion is easy to place, and suspicion spreads quickly.

So what can we do? Unfortunately, all I could argue right now is that you should become acutely aware of exactly what you share if you aren’t willing to forego social networks (or, really, the internet) altogether. The times are a-changin’, and continuing to believe that your “private” information is truly private only opens doors to possibly negative outcomes.

When I think of rhetoric, I think of an author or writer using rhetorical features for the purpose of persuading readers one way or another. After reading “Antisocial Networking?” (2010) by Hilary Stout, however, I realized that rhetoric can also be used in works that are intended simply to present facts and ideas. In her New York Times article, Stout explores multiple viewpoints on whether younger generations’ infatuation with technology will be beneficial or diminishing, especially in regards to childhood friendships and social skills. How does she illustrate that rhetoric can still be used in an objective (relatively objective, it seems like there might be a tiny bit of opinion poking through) article? Stout particularly focuses on the use of dialogue, ethos, and logos in her article to provoke her reader’s thoughts and to establish herself and her references as credible sources.

The dialogue at the beginning of the article is one excellent example of an author appealing to a reader via rhetoric. As I read, I was under the impression that I was listening in on an awkward, flirtatious, preteen conversation. I could visualize the awkward body language, and imagine the insecurity and excitement at the possibility of a new relationship. Then Stout took me by surprise, declaring that this conversation took place on Facebook. My outlook did a full 180 degree flop, as my original visions of face-to-face intimacy were contrasted with the cold, non-humanness of a text smiley and an informal, hurried “c ya.” Though this example is not particularly objective, it is still an excellent depiction of how a writer can use rhetoric to manipulate the opinion of readers, guiding their mindset and leading them towards an understanding of the point the writer is trying to make.

While Stout’s use of dialogue seems to be directed towards convincing others to see as she does, she also uses rhetoric in a more objective manner. Two arguments are presented in her article as she examines what effects technology can have on relationships and social interactions. One hypothesis suggests that technology will allow people, especially children, to remain more “connected (to) and supportive of their friends.” The other claims that the quality of children’s relationships will be “diminished” from the lack of “intimate . . . face-to-face time.” Stout appeals to both the reader’s ethos and logos by referencing highly credible and esteemed people as she provides details concerning each attitude. For example, to support the claim that the quality of relationships will diminish, she references multiple psychologists and researchers, and even has a direct quote from a neuroscientist.  Personally, these qualified references did two things for me. First, they built up a sense of credibility for her, as she had clearly done her research and was qualified to present these ideas. Second, it made both hypotheses seem plausible and valid because both have supporting details that were given by well-researched, scholarly sources.

While this doesn’t technically touch on issues of privacy, I found it interesting because it shows that rhetoric is not necessarily only present in works that are intended to persuade or convince. It can also be found in articles, like “Antisocial Networking,” that are simply comparing different viewpoints, and offering research and educated opinions to substantiate them. With technology on the rise the way it is, it’s important for people to see various viewpoints so that they may have more educated opinions regarding technology, especially to determine if change or improvement is necessary.

Most fights have a rather clear winner and loser. But why should they? Arguments and disagreements have taken on a new form with the means of technological communication available today. No longer do people have to take the time to confront their discrepancies, but they even have the ability to gain supporters for their side of the argument.

It is not necessary for two people to get together and talk through a situation. Rather, there are Facebook walls, texts, and emails to keep a comfortable distance between people. This form of communication allows for a convenience that requires very little time commitment. However, it doesn’t provide the same intimacy as a face to face argument. In my opinion, a disagreement provides a wonderful opportunity to gain insight or even strengthen a relationship by working through a problem. Arguments are something that shouldn’t be looked at from a distance. Communication through texting, Twitter, or other online profiles doesn’t allow individuals to create closeness and possibly build the relationships necessary to work through a situation.

When individuals distance themselves they have the ability to hid behind their phone or computer. They aren’t just missing out on building a relationship with someone, but will likely use the technological separation as a opportunity to say something they wouldn’t say face to face. If individuals think something would be harmful to say to someone’s face, chances are they shouldn’t say it over Facebook or through a text either. In my experience it seems as though arguments over Facebook or Twitter are based around insults rather than stating honest, progressive insight.

Not only do online, technologically advanced fights not allow for personal connections, but they also allow for others in the online community to get involved. This is not as easily the case with texts or emails, but anytime something is put on the internet there is a chance that it will start circulating. Involving more and more people in an argument not only makes it more complex, but it also begins to eliminate the opportunity for a compromise or an understanding between the two original individuals. Through my years  in high school I witnessed many conversations in the classroom and hallways about fights that had taken place on Facebook the night before. Peers would give advice to the individual that they supported and alliances were made. Teams were formed. Now rather than two individuals looking for an opportunity to find an understanding to whatever they may be disagreeing about, there are ‘teams’ fighting to come out on top. Neither individual will risk surrendering and letting their ‘team’ down.

Forming teams and basing argument on insult is the future of resolving discrepancies via technology. It seems to me that there is an easier, way to solve disagreements. Not every argument has to have a winner or loser. And technology should not make us feel as though there should be.

Mark Zuckerberg posted this video on the morning of October 4th to celebrate Facebook’s milestone of having one billion users. The video compares Facebook to things that people use to connect with each other, like chairs, airplanes, and waterfalls. It definitely appeals to emotion and tries to get people excited and inspired about life and connecting with other people. An argument this video makes is that Facebook is another great tool that people use to make their lives meaningful. And they’re right, Facebook is a tool we can use. However, unlike some of the other things we use to connect, Facebook also uses us and can affect our lives intensely.

The video uses rhetorical devices in order for Facebook to further use people. The argument they make is that all of the things mentioned, like chairs, are like Facebook because people use them. While that may be true, it isn’t really saying much. They really had to stretch what a chair was in order to compare it Facebook. While Facebook was designed to connect people, chairs are not: they are primarily designed for sitting. However, there are certain types of chairs that are conducive to connecting people, like sofas. In any case, the video’s attempt at logos is a bit silly, but effective for the intended viewing audience. More effective, however, is the pathos in the video.

The many scenes of people connecting with each other in various ways can tug on some heartstrings. It makes one think of how nice it is to be with people and connect. The most powerful blow of ethos is, in my opinion, when they talk about how lonely people must feel in an incredibly massive, indifferent universe.  Facebook makes this case that it is a tool, that it is on our side, that it’s here so we can connect, and that’s good. But is Facebook really the best tool we can use?

Facebook is a business. Data-mining is used to target ads and make tons of money. While this is not a completely horrible thing, it brings up some good questions. If Facebook is aiming to make money, it will set up how we give information about ourselves and interact with other people so that it can profit from that information. While I think Facebook, when used effectively, can help with friendships, I must also recognize that it is perhaps not the best way. The video makes the case that Facebook is this wonderful thing so that more people will use it and more money can be made. The video is right, connecting with people and finding meaning is a wonderful thing, but a thing best done genuinely and on one’s own terms. Facebook might not always allow for that.

There has been an overreaction to the consequences of technology on our society. Many people are concerned with how children are growing up and developing necessary skills while being surrounded by technology. While I think there is room for some concern, overall we do not need to be too worried. I have been a babysitter and nanny to numerous families over the  years. For the most part this kids were happy and excited to go and play outside. Many did not spend too much time in front of either the TV or a computer. Also, children can develop all of the social skills that they need while attending school and interacting with other children their age. Technology is also benefiting this children. There are many education resources available on the internet.  Many video and computer games are made to help children learn.

Along with the fact that technology is not harming future generations, it is not desensitizing humans. Jason Calcanis claimed through Harris’ law that “At some point, all humanity in an online community is lost, and the goal becomes to inflict as much psychological suffering as possible on another person”(We live in public, 2).  This is a very extreme assumption. There is a lot of negativity online but there is also in real life. People were just as mean and harsh before technology made an online community available. If you’re always looking for the negatives in life you’ll find them everywhere. People often forget the many positives of the web. While there was that extreme tragedy of the suicide of Abraham Briggs being prompted by people online, there have been more cases of  people creating websites to help those debating about suicide. The internet is a resource that can either be used for good or bad. I believe that the majority of people use it for the good. However, there is more emphasize on those who use it for the bad.

While it is easy to concentrate on the concerns of technology, it is also important to look at the positives. People are now able to connect with old friends and meet new people. It is now easier to express your beliefs. There are numerous educational benefits. The list of positives can go on and on.

The series 50 Shades of Grey, by E.L. James has become an internet and media phenomenon since its publication June 20^th, 2011. Originally based as fan fiction for Stephanie Meyer’s teen sensation Twilight, it has become well known for the steamy relationship between its main characters, Christian Grey and Anastasia Steels, as well as its sex scenes, widely fanaticized by both men and women.  Since its release, 50 Shades of Grey has led to many fan clubs and media sites but recently has become the center of a new magazine, 50 Shades of American Women Who Love the Book and Live the Life. Huffington Post blogger and author Lois Alter Mark responds to this new magazine with a funny introduction and humorous take on this ever-expanding phenomenon.  In her blog post she examines different subjects covered throughout the magazine and provides us with 25 random but hilarious things she learned from it.

Mark’s response to this new magazine is effective because of her use of kairos as well as ethos to engage the reader and make her point that this magazine is unrealistic for the average person but a juicy and at times funny read.  According to hashtracking.com, as of 8:37 AM on October 1, 2012, the total number of impressions left by #50shadesofgrey on twitter was 1,313,515. These reached 922,072 followers with 581 tweets, 166 retweets, and 77 @mentions.  Mark displays appropriate use of kairos as she utilizes the release of this new magazine and its growing popularity as an opportunity to explore this expansion of the 50 Shades trilogy and create a response to this current phenomenon for the Huffington post, all for the sake of her readers.  Through her 25 random things, Mark also uses ethos to appeal to her audience and create credibility through the use of humor and casual but ironically nonchalant tone. One of my favorite examples of this is number two on her list “93% of women surveyed want a spanking NOW. Really? Do that many of you feel that way? I’d like to make it clear NOW — especially to my husband — that I am in the 7%.”  By giving an example from her personal life and tying in the rhetorical questions through this as well, she increases her reliability while appealing to her Huffington Post audience.

I chose to look at the rhetorical features ethos and kairos in this post because although a little on the sexual side, this blog post provides us with a good example of timeliness and currency that does not relate directly to our main discussion topic of privacy vs. publicness. Mark’s response still relates to what we have recently been discussing in class with the use of the previously mentioned features as well as their effectiveness, however, I thought we could change it up a little and could use some humor while getting to the same ending point.  Overall, I enjoyed Mark’s blog post as I found it to be a good pick-me-up while drinking my morning coffee and because it gave me a much more relatable sense of kairos as it was applied to a subject and style of writing that I am more familiar with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lois-alter-mark/50-shades-of-grey_b_1907994.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

All of our class readings have centered around different author’s opinions of what privacy means, so I think it’s time I put my two cents out there and state what I believe to be the fundamentals of privacy.

1) If I do not want to be found on a website, I should not be able to be found. When I turned 18 three weeks ago, I had to change my Facebook privacy setting so that people could still not Google search my name and find my Facebook profile.  As a minor, Facebook is on that setting as a default.  However, enough Facebook posts with my name in them pop up on Google that people know I have (or had) a profile.  Pinterest has the same setting, but I searched my name after changing it, and my profile and pins were still all over the internet.  Not to be antisocial, but I prefer strangers not be able to find me through Google.  Neither should anyone else who wishes to restrict their social networking profiles to people they are actually social with on a regular basis.

2) The above statement should not lead people to believe I have something to hide.  Harry Blatterer made the argument in his piece that visibility is seen as having nothing to hide.  But, what if I just would rather not have everyone know everything?  I fully admit to hiding my Facebook posts from my dad when they are about boys and other teenage girl stuff, but just because until this class my Twitter was private, does that really have to mean I was hiding everything?

3) When I cease to be as a human, my online profiles should also be taken down.  In “Generation Why” by Zadie Smith, she references a British teen who was murdered and whose friends continued to post on her Facebook like nothing really happened.  In the 17 years my high school had been open when I graduated, there have been 2 unexpected deaths of students, and the same thing happened both times.  Frankly, I find it creepy.  Facebook still suggests one of them on “People You may Know,” and it is odd to see her picture there like she’s still alive.  The first death happened 6 years ago, and there have been posts to her wall as recently as yesterday.   Am I the only person that thinks this is wrong?

I realize my opinions may differ from the “kids these days” statements and stereotypes of our generation, but I can’t be the only one who looks at overly-public peers and scratches my head.

The origin of the Internet also saw the dawn of a new tool, immediate publication; before the Internet in order to convey ideas in a written medium, it was required to publish your works on paper, and these works would need to go through an editing process, and would be tailored for an audience over time, and multiple drafts, before being shown to the world. With the Internet, you can press a button that says “post”, “comment” “send”, or “tweet”, and whatever was typed in the last few seconds is sent out into the world, visible to a large group of people. What happened because of this was a huge blast of publicity, and a rising sea of questions about privacy.

When it comes to privacy on the Internet three camps have arisen. The Facebook generation, and a variety of other tech-savvy individuals, who claim that Internet privacy is as easy as clicking for higher privacy settings on Facebook, using incomplete versions of your full name, and simply adapting the technology available. Another, the journalists, politicians and more tentative, saying that those measures are not enough, government intervention is needed as data is out of user control and in the hands of the corporations. And the final, who rave that people are not the issue, it is corporations, governments and organizations that can and are misusing the information of this age to hurt us. Now I don’t think any one of these groups is right, or wrong, but instead I feel like most of Internet privacy isn’t the program, the Internet or the government’s fault, nor is it because of the users around you, it is you yourself who carries the blame.

I have a story to share. It starts with a simple Google search, typing my own name into the world wide web, and within a tenth of a second after pushing the enter key I can see (in descending order):

1. My home town, and the street I live on, with the names of my family right next to mine (although they are merely related people, it’s not too far of a stretch)
2. A verification that there is only 1 of me in the US, with the origins of my name
3. My Google + account, with a list of everywhere I have ever traveled, with my gender, list of friends, and who is in my circles. (all seen without logging on to Gmail or other such identification) I did quickly change my Google settings immediately after this.
4. Another list of family members
5. A web site post I made from freshman year of high school, only my name appears, and some thoughts on single sex educational facilities
6. A history of people who looked at the site above, gives an alias that I used in high school as a user name for myself
7. My Google plus friends page, with my page linked to it
8. A post on another blog about my team winning a history competition

Thanks to: (www.google.com, www.whitepages.com)

And that’s only in the first 8, on the next page, for $10 I could see my whole history from my great grandfather on my mother’s side coming to America, and the Great, great grandmother on my father’s side coming to America.

This is a ton of data about me, even though I am not on Facebook, not on twitter, or engaged in almost anything.

Now the results of this search aren’t particularly scary, it isn’t startling and it isn’t horrifying to you the audience. I as a person am not endangered, and can safely browse the web at night without worries that someone armed with my data will attack me with it.

However, this situation is easily reversed; when looking at my Google + page, the only reason that I didn’t learn more about myself is that I don’t ever use Google +, Facebook or any other such sites. Had I used these I may have had dozens of results that would have shown more about exactly who or where I was. The key to Internet privacy isn’t are you on the Internet, its how much you publish, and what you publish.

To illustrate: As of March of this year,

“Twitter now has “more than 140 million active users” sending a heady 340 million tweets each and every day. Or, in another words, over a billion tweets every 72 hours.” –Shea Bennet

And that’s just twitter from a few months ago, it has only become more popular. (Check out these stats to learn more about the amount of data and messages sent everyday by everyone, although we are going to focus on twitter for this example). But more about these tweets; Given that twitter has 500 million registered users, but only 175 million active users (thanks to this helpful site) and assuming the same number of tweets are made as when it only had 140 million users (a very conservative estimate), and the number of posts by active users is equally spread, this means that people are making at a minimum two tweets an hour (like I said a very conservative estimate). And that doesn’t include face book posts, or anything else.

When someone rights a tweet, we don’t spend more than a few minutes quick typing down a fast little message, updating people about what we are up to or how we feel, so it only takes a few seconds. Then we hit enter, and poof it’s gone. You can’t save a tweet for further revisions, although you can delete one after it has been sent out. But after that it’s already been seen. Thanks to new technology that alerts you about new tweets all over the place, your phone, email, even your face book.

Because of the speed we use the Internet with we often don’t recognize the things we put out. Most posts are made in a few seconds, with little more than a few seconds of revision, sometimes none at all. This leads to us making mistakes grammatically, but more importantly, not thinking about what we are writing… at least not as much as we should.

Granted, we are thinking about who we are writing to, electronic communications are all made with a specific audience in mind, but often we don’t think of secondary, or even tertiary audiences, the near epidemic of sex-ting scandals in everything from high schools to the white house shows us that people just aren’t thinking about the possibilities of where their data can go.

We assume that our data is safe and sound, we know only our friends, and those who follow us get our tweets, and our privacy settings are locked up tight, so we are safe right?

Nope, Internet security comes down to your ability to self-sensor over the Internet, if you want to have an illicit conversation, go somewhere private, don’t assume the Internet is a safe place to send an email with your credit card numbers (or a private photo) to someone. The Internet is plenty safe, but just like most household appliances, although they have measures to protect you from normal hazards, it isn’t modeled for the stuff you might try to do with it. Similarly, twitter, Facebook, Gmail, Gmail +, and all the other companies out there want you to be public, the biggest part of the service they give is a way to meet new people. Therefore they will set your default settings to be as public as possible, and maintain your privacy when it comes to your log-in data and such, not what you post (they assume you want to .

But for those of us who still want to use these public mediums, pay attention to what you are using. Treat the Internet the same way you treat writing a letter, or a note, it’s written proof of your ideas, and opinions. And when you tweet your standing on the corner of 5th and Rye, maybe you could just say a corner, it probably won’t ruin your totally lol inducing observation about the lady next to you, and you will be better off in the long run.

The state of California has passed a law that prevents employers from requiring you to provide your login information for social media sites, with a companion bill that prevents universities from doing the same. Similar legislation is being considered on the national level  (Kerr 2012). These laws are designed to protect users from invasions into their privacy. While I do appreciate what this law is attempting to do, it has brought some interesting questions to my mind about ownership of what I publish and where it goes once I publish it, and where further regulation and education might be needed.

1) Does Facebook own your posts?
When I post something to social media, is it then the property of that agency I used to post it? These agencies are paying for the servers, the buildings they are housed in, and utilities to keep this process going. I am sending it to them with the expectation that they will send it into the world for others to view. Some providers will send it to a list of friends that I have approved, some send it to anyone interested, but they are all being published and stored by that company. If that agency wants to data-mine what I have provided to them and use it for targeted advertising, what rights do I have to complain about privacy? I sent it out to be made public, and that is what has happened.

2) Is the law designed to protect something that isn’t really private?
Considering the fact that I have posted my article under a public website, why should I have any expectations of privacy? This law is aimed at protecting my password, but what about the only thing this password covers, my data? This law doesn’t say they can’t Google my information and act on what they see there. Some data is still publicly available; it seems even with the strictest privacy settings. How important can it be to see this data from my vantage point rather than from the outside?

3) What were the employers looking for?
What better way to gauge a perspective employee than to see what they have placed as their public identity? If this data is being used to support focused advertising campaigns by the service provider, why is it any worse to use it as a form of assessment by employers? What if the field they are going into is a high risk area and the data is used to weed out dangerous behavior? I am certain there are traits that would not be beneficial in nursing and law enforcement that could be evaluated by five minutes on an applicant’s Facebook page. Would we want someone less than qualified or even dangerous in these fields?

I am glad that social media privacy is an issue, and that steps are being made to protect users.  However, it seems to me that more thought and effort should go into the side of the service providers and what they do with the data, rather than the situations covered by this new legislation. Stricter regulation and transparency of data collection and storage to me is a much larger issue, with the potential for a lot more invasion into my privacy then what is addressed by this law.

Kerr, Dara. “Calif. law passed to halt employer snooping on social media”. C NET.  CBS Interactive, Inc. 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2012.