Slashdot Mirror
Why Web 2.0 Will End Your Privacy
An anonymous reader writes "This is a pretty good insight into some of the dangers of social networking and website customisation -- marketing and loss of privacy. When marketeers know who your friends are and what you are all into, it makes their advertising a lot more effective. From the article: "Why are the companies worth so much money? Why is MySpace worth over half a billion dollars without a proper revenue model? Why is Digg allegedly pitched at over $20m (at the last count) without any idea of where money is going to be pulled from? The answer is - data. Information. Marketing. Every detail about you and me. That is where the money is."
Meeeoooowwwww!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I am not a journalist, but how do these guys get their credentials? Wil forwards an interesting thesis about the advent of loss of privacy as more people jump on the internet, but he forwards this under the aegis of Web 2.0.
Give Wil credit, he actually tries to define Web 2.0, but it's probably the 10th definition I've seen. (For the record, my definition more typically aligns with the advent of more desktop-like and agile web/browser applications that start to look and feel like desktop.)
However, I don't see the increased loss of privacy correlated much at all to Web 2.0, unless you just consider that, over time, people have less privacy, and that, over time, Web 2.0 continues to evolve (whatever that means). For example, Wil cites: "The one thing the Web 2.0 sites have in common is that they are furiously mining information about you and your buddies. What you like." Again, this has little to do with Web 2.0. That "Web 2.0" is the current buzzword is the only relationship to increased data-mining. Data-mining has been available, happening, and increasing in the internet domain for years.
I think privacy has changed and evolved as a result of increased communications networks... Web 2.0 has little to do with that and is only a small part of it. As databases get larger, networks get faster, data-mining gets smarter, computer processors get faster, an end result is there is more data than ever about more people than ever in more places than ever.
Whether that results in loss of privacy is an interesting debate, but in my opinion not an assumption/axiom. For example, the more data out there, the more it becomes environmental noise. Interesting perhaps at first, and maybe for longer to specially interested parties, but something we will adapt to. (As an aside, I do think there's a learning curve for young people and their interaction on sites like MySpace, they need to learn not to put voluntarily so much personal information out there as to make themselves vulnerable to predators, a lesson I think they're learning.
Another result I find useful is that I get much more directly targeted advertising than ever before. It's nice now, no more tampax fliers in my mailbox, but it's handy to know Staples has a new SD 1G card available for my camera at less than $100.
Stories like this remind me of why I don't get involved in "social networking" and all that mess. The closest anyone can come to knowing anything about me is by tracking my book purchases, which are all IT-related. There is an alarming amount of information about us available to a lot of people right now, I don't understand why so many people are so quick to jump out there and put their entire lives on the internet.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
You mean that posting intimate details of my life on the web may be an affront to my privacy?
Say it ain't so!!!
I have to ask; how much is the data worth when a good part of the data is fake?
I think that myspace is a cesspool, but everyone my age has one. I'll give you a hint: They aren't in their mid thirties earning 250k+ a year.
No matter how much data you have, if it isn't true it;s worthless.
> Why are the companies worth so much money? Why
> is MySpace worth over half a billion dollars
> without a proper revenue model?
Because nobody learned a damn thing from the dot-bomb.
Last week the EU declared the information sharing of people of flights to be illegal because the US GOVERMENT couldn't guarentee the privacy of the information. What is becoming very clear is that in the privacy v terrorism war there will be more business friendly legislation in the US which makes such private information more readily available.
Put it this way, can you imagine George W Bush NOT saying that My Space needs all this information to PROTECT its users from threats from crimial scary group X and to PREVENT My Space being used by terrorists to plan attacks....
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
As long as I'm going to be inundated with advertising, I see no reason to complain if it is at least advertising for stuff I actually care about. [shrug]
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Might we see the formation of groups who create false profiles with these sites, so as to distort any marketing analysis that might be done, in an attempt to protect privacy?
For instance, they might write a blog as a 75-year-old goth who's into snowboarding and hip hop. Or as a 13-year-old girl who likes shuffleboard and orthopaedic shoe inserts. If done enough, it's possible that such profiles could significantly skew the data obtained from such sites. Marketing towards people who don't exist isn't exactly of much benefit.
Privacy has always been an issue with computers, specially since the first inception of a network protocol. There's really nothing new about website and webapps tracking usage, it's been done forever. Why do marketroids and "journalists" have to keep coming back to this overloaded "web 2.0" term?
The internet doesn't have a version number, get over it people.
- sigs are for wimps.
Pervasive advertising, no matter how relevant to my needs, gets a little annoying, but on the whole I'd rather pretty-much see Dell ads over "Get the Facts" any day.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I have no problem with effective, targeted marketing. Actually, I prefer it to ineffective, non-targeted marketing. I'm really into foosball, I'd rather see adds for foosball related stuff than for products I have absolutely no interest in.
That said, what I do have a problem is invasive or disruptive marketing. Stuff that fills up my inbox. Stuff that obscures webpages I'm trying to view, and forces me to find a miniscule "X" in order to close the advertisement. You get the picture.
Anyone who is part of WAYN, HI5, MySpace, Digg, Slashdot [has friends and foes too you know], Stumbleupon, or has blogrolls, is really set up to be data mined rather completely. Either you have to not give a rat's patootie and do it anyway [like I do with some services], or you wear your foil hat and react with hostility to every "Hi :-)" email you get from a distant friend.
If you have matured and realize you really don't NEED that SUV, or Sony laptop to have a high quality daily life, then targetted marketing won't matter. But if you're letting your 10 year old play on the Internet, you should really wonder what Mattel and Disney/ABC knows about your child by now.
Oh You POS
The article is talking about sites where you put information about yourself- myspace, facebook, etc., and how they're worth so much- because of how much infromation people will give out about themselves.
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, that can be edited anonymously, without ads. So few are interested in buying it at an insane price.
Let's assume that Web2.0 had something to do with social networking for the sake of discussin the article...
The thesis that advertising becomes "more effective" is without evidence. Advertisers might hope it is more effective, but historically, it's only proven to be more annoying (both by being more plentiful, and by making hopelessly silly demographic conclusions). I'm guessing that this sort of targeted advertising will go over like Jalapeno-flavored toilet paper.
It's wrong to attach this issue exclusively to the technology called Web 2.0; whatever that term really means anyway - but that's another rant.
The picture is much broader than that, the assault on our privacy is being conducted on many fronts and motivated by the same desire: To waste less money on marketing.
Someone once said: "I know I'm wasting half my money on advertising. The problem is that I don't know which half that is"
The Internet, it seems, is providing a solution to this conundrum. Suddenly, advertisers have the ability to only pay for advertising only when someone responds the advertising. This makes such adverts far more valuable than something that isn't interactive like a billboard or TV advertisement.
But this is just the beginning. In the next few years, we will see the development of schemes where you pay for advertising only when you make a direct sale off the back of it. The scheme will track you from the moment you click, to the moment you get the confirmation e-mail. The problem with this is that in order to audit it properly you need to link that click through to a real person. And there-in lies the privacy problem.
The solution to this problem is fairly easy: Just block all the advertising. People, like the owners of Slashdot might decry this solution because sites such as theirs might not be able to survive without this revenue. I put my money where my mouth was. I like Slashdot so I paid for it directly.Imagine how much higher the standard of Slashdot would be if all it's revenues came from subscribes. Suddenly, quality matters much more than page views. Remember, it took Digg to motivate Slashdot to change, because its cash cow was the advertsing and Digg was starting to threaten that. If we took out this source of revenue, the quality of the web would surely increase.
Only the people who make lucid enough points to attract paying subscribers would be able to sustain a high traffic site. As a result, natural selection would weed out the trash and reward the good. A future without advertising is a future where the user comes first.
Simon.
If you don't participate in this stuff you can't lose your privacy. I don't contribute, visit or have an account on any of the stuff that is mentioned. Why? Don't care. I use the web in the way I want, not the way the advertisers think I should.
Just as if you clear your cookies every time you're done surfing the marketers will always treat you as a new visitor even if you visit every day. In other words, the sites statistics are skewed and will burn money because of inflated figures.
Yeah sure, most people don't care about privacy. Witness the reaction to people when you tell them that their phone messages might be recorded by the government or that the police can search their home without a warrant; "I have nothing to hide so what's the big deal?"
Yet, amazingly, people are paranoid about identity theft. Um folks, just how do you think some of you lost your identity? Naw, it couldn't have been that long winded, detailed bio you posted on MySpace now could it? You know, the one where you posted your first and last name, your hometown, what school you went/go to, where you hang out and all the other useless cruft that people just have to know about you.
While the author does have a point, data mining is the new wave in online transactions, if people don't participate the advertisers will just be burning money for little reward.
Kind of like commercials. I don't watch/listen/read them so the money that is spent to get me to buy a product or service is wasted.
Don't want to lose your privacy? Don't participate in things that could affect you in that way. It's that simple.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This comment in the summary caught me, especially how it carried a negative/alarmist connotation: "advertising a lot more effective."
I, for one, am really looking forward to "better" advertising. Advertising isn't a bad thing, it can be an informative help to find the projects/services I'm looking for. It's shitty advertising that just fires shotgun marketing in the dark hoping for a hit that sucks. I've actually clicked on a number of Google advertisements when searching for products/services, because they were relevant to what I was looking for and I wanted more information.
It's the huge pop-over, pop-under, flashy, sound making (grraah!) advertisements trying to sell a 24 year old college student home owners insurance or pull me into a pyramid scheme that are the bane of internet existance. (yes, I use firefox, flashblock, etc to lower my exposure, but still.)
If the information that I have voluntarily made public on social networks leads to advertisements for things that I'm actually interested in or even actively searching, I'm all for it. As long as I'm making all the information public myself, I'm not involuntarily losing any privacy either.
It's kind of a bummer, I think, that all the horrible advertising through time has created so many people that just knee-jerk hate the stuff. Maybe in time with relevent advertisements they could turn that around so that they seem useful instead of annoying.
What's worse is people who put too much information online, without realizing that the very same information can be used against them. For example, people like to put personal details on their user pages, whether they're on Slashdot, Flickr, MySpace, or Wikipedia. Unthinkingly, that very same information can be dug up by people and used to threaten your job or your personal life. Wikipedia keeps a record of every iteration of your user page, so that anyone can troll through the personal information you (idiotically) put on the internet. If you are editing an article that's also edited by someone with an agenda, they can dig up your personal information and send an email (or worse) to your employer. This is not unique to Wikipedia's history-versioning, as nearly any user page can be dug up through Google caches or the Internet Archive. If you use the same (or similar) username across multiple sites, someone with a malicious agenda can find out a whole lot about you. Just think of all the information and dumb things you've said on Slashdot, your blog, your Flickr page, your Last.fm/Audioscrobbler page, etc. etc.
The problem is that these online communities work because of personal information: dynamically connecting people with similar interest and opinions is what Web 2.0 is all about (inasmuch as a buzzword can be "all about" something). If we can't trust that the information and content we put online can't be used against us, then Web 2.0 will eventually fail, once enough people get burned.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Do "Web 2.0" sites give marketers more information about users? Yes.
Is this an invasion of your privacy? Absolutely not.
You are WILLINGLY entering this data into these sites and if you read their privacy policies they clearly state how it will be used. Don't want to share this info about yourself? Don't use the site. There is no invasion going on here. They are not hiding spy cameras in your room watching what you do on the computer.
Also, better targeted advertising != more advertising. Unfortunately, what happens is that many of these Web 2.0 sites rely on advertising revenue for their business model, thus why sites with large subscriber bases are worth a lot.
Lots of eyeballs = $$$$
So the owners of the sites then realize, "hmmm...I can make more money if I put more ads on the site!" and thus you have ad creep. However advertising that is more narrowly targeted is actually a good thing. Unless you have adblockers running, you WILL see ads on the internet, and rather than bitch and moan about how you want nothing to do with those sites that are being advertised, ads that are more highly targeted will have a better chance of showing something relevant to you that you might actually appreciate an ad for.
And for those of you who claim advertising is useless and it never affects you....you are liars. Period. Next time you make ANY purchase, take a moment to think back to the last time you saw an ad for that product. If you can remember seeing an ad for it, then you were subconsciously influenced by that ad (even if it was by a tiny amount) and your brand awareness increased when you saw the ad. This isn't something that is debateable, it is a logical fact.
Bottom line? If you don't want advertisers to show you more relevant ads, don't use Web 2.0 sites that collect and share this data. If you don't want more ads install an adblocker or blame the owners of the sites whose business models rely on advertising and thus fall victim to ad creep.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Help.. I'm trapped inside a Web 2.0 BUBBLE! And I can't get out!
Perhaps why MySpace is worth half a billion dollars without any proper revenue model is because... oh lets be radical here.. perhaps because it's ALL HYPE?
The problem is there is lots of room for advertisers to throw their money away and a lot of companies have been catching onto that for the past ~5 years.
The problem with MySpace as their gleaming example is they'd somehow need to be able to re-coup $100 USD from every member (assuming there are ~5 million of them) via advertising, subscribed services etc. I see this as highly doubtful, and looking at examples only 6 or 7 years ago of businesses apparently worth in the range of 10 to 500 million of dollars, but with those estimations based entirely on hype, bullshit, naivety, or just an all-out view to make a quick buck while the newcomers are still gullable.
Tell me when MySpace has a real business model that doesn't rely on click-happy 13 year olds or balding 40 year paedophiles who want to win an Xbox.
Title: Why Web 2.0 will end your privacy
... no real content.
...
... even when those websites don't make money. Welcome to 1999 already!
... but not because of MySpace. Because too many companies are posting your private data on the 'web and allowing anyone with the money to search through it.
Paragraph #1: MySpace, Digg, Flickr
#2: One sentence stating what he believes. Then a lead in to
#3: A "definition". No explanation that was promised in #2.
#4: Back to Digg (see #1).
#5: Back to MySpace (see #1).
#6: Google has ads.
#7: Back to MySpace, again (see #5 & #1)
#8: Why does he belive that Gmail is anything near Outlook in functionality?
#9: Yeah, "neat". Whatever.
#10: Websites don't make money. Welcome to 1999. Don't forget to party.
#11: Companies pay lots of money for popular websites
#12: YouTube. See #11 and #10.
#13: Back to the top of the page. Again, they don't make money. 1999.
#14: Why do companies want to pay so much money for websites that aren't making money? It's like it's 1999 all over again.
#15: The companies paying the money want data.
#16: Even he sees that it's 1999.
#17: Well, it is 1999. But he'll call it "Web 2.0".
#18: All those companies are compiling data on the the people who post pictures of their cats.
#19: Yahoo! knows nothing about me except the news groups I subscribe to through them.
#20: Companies will pay lots of money for "data" on "individuals" and "groups". Even if the "data" is "OMG!!1 U R A QT!!! UR cat is funee"
#21: Web 2.0 has a "bubble" and it will burst. Yeah, whatever.
#22: Free photo hosting.
That's all there is. Toss in "Web 2.0" and name some popular sites and then claim that "privacy" is going away.
Well, "privacy" does not really exist on the 'web and what you did have is vanishing
When you buy a bottle of milk in a supermarket, you diminish your privacy by letting the retailer know, that you need a bottle of milk. When you hire a maid to clean up your flat, you let her know a lot about your dirty laundry (literally and otherwise). And when you buy a book at a bookstore (or a video), the proprietor could offer you another one on your next visit (like Amazon does).
That's how it all begins — computers, WEB-2.0, and other technological advances simply enable us to trade even more privacy for convenience.
When the choice is volunteer, that's perfectly Ok. At least, MySpace and others don't force you to reveal your real name on the site. If the solicitations get too much, all you need is to do is close the account. Government-imposed things, however, are much worse. EZ-Pass — increasingly mandated at toll plazas — is not anonymous at all.
Sadly, nobody seems to care... The worst a marketeer can do to you is spam. Government has much bigger abuse potential.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I would prefer to see advertising for products that interest me, as opposed to all the mindless drivel about things I would never buy. I mean, we're going to have advertising no matter what. Why not make it for stuff I might actually buy? That seems to be a win-win to me. I get to learn about stuff I can buy, and advertisers save money by targeting people who might actually buy their products and services.
Perhaps there might be a problem when advertisers start targeting me for Viagra, or some other product for some embarrassing condition I have. But as many others have pointed out, social networking is built upon user-contributed data. So if I don't want to tell people I have ED, I don't see how the advertisers would be able to figure it out. If they went and got my address from my doctor, then I would be concerned.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
When I read articles like this, besides giving me a good chuckle, it makes me wonder. If big business is really going through all these lengths to find out more about all of us, are they really doing it to know who to target ads to? Is it really that hard to figure out who to show the life insurance ads to and who to show the ads for the new rock album to? If that is the case, I find it pretty sad. That's a problem Google figured out years ago.
Conspiracy theories aside (I could cook up a few but I'm fresh out of the stinky green), it really sounds like big business is trying to figure us out for a larger purpose than just which ads to show us. It sounds more like they're out of ideas for new products and are examining the needs of the public to figure out what we want that doesn't already exist as opposed to what we want that they already have to sell. I think its fairly obvious that MySpace is the equivilant of 1,000,000 monkies typing at 1,000,000 typewriters with Murdoch hoping that one day a monkey will come up with the next Seinfeld, Friends, Simpsons, American Idol etc. which he instantly has the rights to.
I guess its because I'm not as out of touch with reality as these rich ass execs in buying up all these web apps, but is it really hard to tell what the American public likes? And if not, why is that information so valuable?
When the Web 2.0 bubble bursts - when the massive buyouts are done, the millionaires are made and the sites we love today are in the hands of big business - the innovation will grind to a halt, and what's left will be the endless grinding of the marketeering machine.
I find it interesting that ever since the tech bubble burst in 2000, that everyone thinks that everything else is a bubble. Web 2.0 is so young. Last time I checked, mom and pop day traders are not buying and selling Digg.com. I think it's a little premature and presumptive to think that web 2.0 is a bubble. I don't think it deserves that distinction yet. For comparison, Pets.com raised $175 million in an IPO Febuary 2000 and was bankrupt by the end of the year. These companies are being bought by media companies. It's not a bubble until the public gets involved.
No Sigs!
The computers will alert the store, "Jane Q has stopped renewing her pills prescription, order diapers in June". Web 2.0, a threat to privacy? Come on, they aint got nothing compared to your local grocery store or your credit card. Funny thing is they dont even try to be coy. BP visa card sent me an year end statement running over several pages, summarizing how much I spent on grocery stores, restaraunts, gas stations, auto-repair shops etc etc. I cancelled that card immediately, but I am sure all the cards collect the data. They just dont tell you.
They know my purchasing habits down pat, they dont have to track me in Web2.0.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
there are more like 100 million MySpace users.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
I think you're putting too much faith in the EU. Granted they have better data protection than the US in some ways. However, if you read the stories regarding the EU decision, it is not over. The EU said the current legal justification would not work, and told the parties involved to try again. The US Ambassador has already stated that the US will work with the afflected parties to come up with an acceptable justificiation.
Marketing works, even the stuff you hate. The problem is that these marketing companies are spending billions of dollars a year on researching and presenting new marketing techniques to sell you stuff you didn't know you needed. Then people have the smug arrogance to say, "Well, it doesn't effect me.". Really? Why then does the average American spend 103% of what they make? The truth is that marketing companies are very very good a getting you to think you need something and that somehow this company finally came out with what you are looking for. Whiter whites, iPods, new drugs, and a Coke. And the more data they can grab on what you do, the better they can get at making you need stuff. So you lie when people ask you for information? Well, a little thing called the laws of large numbers and demographics means that what you aren't saying about yourself, someone else is. Using even basic 101 level stats you can tell who is lieing and who is telling the truth once your sample size is big enough... and once the sample size is big enough they can pick out the truth and scrap the rest with the stroke of a key and come out with a probability of your profile, what products you would like and how you would like them presented. Maybe they aren't quite their yet, but this isn't sci-fi, this is just basic stats.
I don't think privacy is much of a concern to people like this:
http://livedigital.com/content/321254/
Maybe you should ask these guys whome are Information Brokers. I'm not kidding, it's a serious industry. In fact, no doubt there will be college courses in the future providing degrees on the topic.
So yes, data is worth money depending on where, when, and whome you pan it from.
Life is not for the lazy.
I hate being marketed at as much as the next one, but I do have to think something along the lines of "at least they won't be trying to sell me things I'll never want ever"... it's sad, but that would actually be better.
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/137212.shtm
And
So SEVEN YEARS AGO, this very site met the "Web 2.0" criteria that is the next wave
No, seriously, this is just like it was back in 1999. By definition, in fact.
Don't worry, it will be fixed in Web 3.0
Kaetemi
They used advertising to promote body hair as, 'dirty' and 'un feminine'.
Sexuality is a moving target, and beyond basic, observable health, people can easily be programmed to think of certain traits in humans as sexy or not.
If you like shaved legs and armpits on your women, then your psyche has been successfully molded by advertising.
It doesn't even have to do with what you see or what you consent to. Advertising affects us all, even if it happens indirectly.
-FL
They can do (almost) the same by simply following me down the street. Storekeepers know that I visit electronic stores and game stores. Police know where I work because a police station is one block away from me. Restaurant owners know what kind of lunches I like to order. All these real-life people can potentially unite and create a database of facts about me.
Yes, interestingly enough, living in a city makes you a target for social observation. There's a phrase, "people-watching", that turns into "monitoring" when used for online content. And suddenly this sturs a panic among some who believe in the first place that the Internet is a dim and anonymous place. Probably, they also believe that no one sees them when they are out on a street.