http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/technology/google-sets-plan-to-sell-users-endorsements.html?hpw&_r=0
How does this article illustrate Lanier's thesis? Your response is due Wed.., Oct 23, by 4 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. -- James Madison
“When a dog bites a
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
About Me
Followers
forthcoming
- "A Newspaper Is a Collection" (poem)
- "News Today" (music video)
- 20th Century Man
- A Walk Back Through a Day's New
- BBC Facebook Parody
- Breaking News
- Bullshit
- Citizen Journalism -- What Is It?
- Civil Rights Movement
- Class Project: Media Parody
- CNN War (music video)
- Colbert versus Keen
- Dead!
- Dirty Laundry (Remix)
- Electronic Book Burning
- F the CC (music video)
- FCCFU
- Future of Book Publishing
- Internet Art!
- Interview With Andrew Keen
- Journalism Back in the Day (short movie)
- Journalism?
- Locus Novus
- Logorama (short film)
- Monoculture
- Murrow Broadcast From London
- Neil Postman on Cyberspace (YouTube)
- New York Times Home Page
- Newsboys
- Newsboys Shooting Craps
- Newsies
- NPR (Your Brain on Computers)
- Penn & Teller on Marketplace of Ideas
- Penn & Teller's FCC
- Perez Hilton
- Postman Comic: Orwell vs Huxley
- Reconstruction of American Journalism
- See It Now
- Story of Electronics
- Story of Stuff
- The Yellow Kid
- Turkel
- Video Game Faces
- Whackamurdoch
- Who Owns the Media?
- Who Owns the Web?
- World of Blogging (music video)
16 comments:
This New York Times article, in short, states that Facebook and Google are soon going to be taking interactions on Facebook and using them for ads for certain companies for a profit. This, without a doubt will turn many users away from Facebook or increase their privacy settings. But also, for those who are not aware of the changes, they will be taken advantage of and what they assumed was private, will be made public. Not only was Facebook perceived to be private, just for friends, but it was also perceived to be free.
As Lanier points out, Facebook users are not being paid for the content that they are generating. Facebook has been perceived as a place where distant friends can reconnect, share with one another, entertain and inform one another. Now, it is ad infested and even more recent, they are able to sell your interactions for a profit. And, the best part, Facebook users don’t get anything in return. I think that this method could either be very successful due to a lack of knowledge or it can backfire if privacy lobbyist are loud enough.
When it comes to creative content, whether it be music, writing, street art, traditional art, and any other facet that applies, creators of the content have copyright and lawyers to defend them. They have rights. So now, with social media, somewhere hidden in the fine print, all of the content that is being produced is owned by someone else and can be profited from. Talk about a bad contract. Facebook users are being taken advantage of.
This New York Times article definitely relates to Jaron Lanier’s thesis in Who Owns the Future? In the very first chapter of his book, Lanier talks about how social media sites like Facebook are taking their users information and making a profit off of them. The users, though, never see any of this money. Instead, they’re just having their privacy invaded, whether they realize it or not. On page eight he says, “people are treated as small elements in a bigger information machine, when in fact people are the only sources or destinations of information, or indeed of any meaning to the machine at all.” Without the people using the sites, companies would have no information to take away. They need the people. Lanier proposes that the public should be paid for their information if that information ends up being valuable, but that’s not a concept we’re seeing happening and I’m not sure if we even will see it any time soon. Instead, as read in the New York Times article, advertisers and social media sites are becoming even more invasive. Now the public is actually going to be used as the advertisement itself, which will end up increasing revenue for a lot of companies. When you think about it, we’re pretty much all more likely to listen to a friend or a “real person” when they tell us to try out a product or buy something new. These ads will virtually be those suggestions only we won’t really have a say in what we, individually, are advertising. They’re just using us to make money (money in which we will never actually see) and that’s something Lanier keeps stating in his book. Lanier has made it very clear that he doesn’t particularly agree with the actions being taken by websites like Facebook.
The article exemplifies Lanier's idea of a Siren Server, and, in fact, in the book he attributes how companies like Facebook and Google run to Siren Servers. Miller's article merely highlights exactly how much Facebook and Google are gathering information for free and using it to exploit the public without consent. At their hands, those companies have a wealth of free information, which the article states they are using for advertising, but the ones supplying the information are left in a lurch. The ones supplying the information, the average public, are ignorant to the wealth their unintended advertisements are making. At the beginning of chapter six, Lanier explains how investors can get rich quick off of Siren Servers “without needing to know how.” Siren Servers are a “perfect investment,” yielding “titanic rewards” while requiring few people to work little sharing. It is an “unpopulated venture,” which Miller's article illustrates. Facebook and Google are taking advantage of their users, who use these social media outlets for free, who advertise without being hired to advertise (which gets rid of specific job opportunities), and so the users supply a large amount of free data to collect without needing to be paid for it. The profit being made is by Facebook and Google, who are being paid by the companies like McDonald's to use advertising space on the website. In turn, McDonald's is making profit from the public, who see their friends' advertising words on the side of their home page and decide to eat at McDonald's that night. Even the “privacy policies” on such websites become moot when it comes to useful data collected by Siren Servers. Like Miller said about Facebook, it does not matter is a person does not want their words to be advertisements, or that the words were meant to be positive at all; it only matters if a company finds those words useful in swaying public opinion.
Based on this article by The New York Times, it seems as though Google and Facebook will be exploiting people and their personal information for the purpose of advertising. This form of advertisement can be described as Siren Serving, and can be defined as a narcissistic tool that incorporates an unbalanced exploitation of information by different agencies.
During the interview between Lanier and Andrew Keen, Lanier gave entrepreneurs the tip to make their consumers rich in order to gain success. This idea can be incorporated by Facebook and Google to their consumer base to make them feel like they are being exploited less than they currently are. Their information is taken without their consent to be the basis of advertisement, and they are not seeing a penny of the profit the advertisement that they indirectly helped create is making. If all consumers found out about this scheme, many would undoubtedly feel enraged and may even stop buying into the outlets that are taking their information for granted. A way for these companies to avoid the feeling of betrayal that consumers are likely to have is to provide them with an option of being featured in an advertisement for some sort of compensation.
According to Lanier, this is what will make both the entrepreneur base and the consumer base more successful on the whole.
Miller's article talks about how social media networks in particular are moving toward the idea of profiting from user posts by including them in advertisements tailored to encourage those they interact with to indulge in the same things. Not only does it seem invasive to receive customized advertisements designed to make you spend more money, but to have your own profile used in an advertisement based on how you interact with media is a leap even from that. Privacy settings are being made more porous so that maintaining an internet presence can no longer be a secret. Lanier's problem with these changes would likely be that the public are being taken advantage of and having their content made more public than they originally intended and being used for purposes that they did not consent to. Google Plus says it will offer the opportunity to opt out of this disservice, but how many people will even know about the change when it happens, or see the ads they're being put in. How will they even know how to opt out? Clearly the pursuit of profit has lead the social media sites to forget how social media is supposed to serve the people by connecting them in the way the people see fit.
The article by The New York Times talks about a type of advertising known as Siren Serving. The article discusses how Facebook and Google are adjusting their privacy settings so that certain types of information that pass through these sites, that most users believe is private, will be used to gain profits from certain advertising companies. For those that use Facebook, they might find this type of advertising intrusive and stop using the social media site altogether, which could potentially cause Facebook to lose business. The other possibility is that Facebook and Google users won’t be aware of these recent changes and will have all of their “private” information sold and used to make advertisements. Those that have their private information made public will not only stop using these sites, but it could also violate their privacy rights. In the book, “Who Owns the Future?” by Lanier, he talks about this idea of Siren Serving and how it can be used to make businesses successful. He explains how Facebook and Google users private information and content are getting bought and sold, but the users are receiving no sort of compensation because these sites are “free”. The reason why this is good for business and success is the content and personal information they are receiving from their users is completely free, we are putting it there with our own discretion. This type of advertising and business is pure profit for sites like Facebook and Google, because they sell our content to ad companies when they don’t pay a dime for it.
It sucks to see sites like Facebook and Google get sucked in by advertising companies because as a personal user, I can’t stand the hundreds of advertisements I come across by simply checking my facebook or going on google. There is nowhere online that users can go where it isn’t infested by advertisements that suggest and recommend products based on your personal information. It is a violation of privacy but these companies will do anything for an extra buck, even if it means selling out the people that brought you your success.
Lanier poses the question “If network technology is supposed to be so good for everyone, why has the developed world suffered so much just as the technology has become widespread?” He then links this question to the economic fall and asks if it is a coincidence. With the boom of social networking it has given these major imposed engines control over everyone. They carry this ability to manipulate consumers for their own advantage. It is now present that they can extract our information and use it for advertising. From the article, “For example, if you post that you love McDonald’s new Mighty Wings on the chain’s Facebook page, McDonald’s could pay Facebook to broadcast your kind words to all your friends.” This has made sponsoring stupid because they are using us, the armatures. And this takes away jobs that are already present because they extract our stupid posts on the internet. So, technology has created fewer jobs when it should help create more. I think that it is no coincidence that technology is related to economic decline, there should be more jobs created from technology in order to keep an economic balance. Lanier says, “Information and money are mutable cousins, so the investor will become rich without needing to know how.” This article paints a clear picture of how these networks are using us to make a quick buck. In order to fix this problem they need to create a different approach of marketing; an approach that is reasonable to everyone without the invasion of privacy.
Jaron Lanier believes that companies such as Google and Facebook shouldn’t be using users’ private information for profit, but instead should be allowing the users to profit from such information. As it stands, Google and Facebook are primed and ready to start (and in come cases, continue) using private user information for advertisements, such as names and faces. This information is gathered when a user simply “likes” a Facebook page or follows a Google Plus page, posts a comment on a Facebook wall, or shares information with a friend through Google Plus. For example, if I go on Facebook and “like” the page for Vitamin Water, Facebook can then use that “like” to advertise to all my Facebook friends, as well as others, that I like Vitamin Water. In others words, Facebook and Google are beginning to use freely obtained information that their users share as advertisements which then garner profits for the companies. From the business perspective, this seems rather cunning and intelligent; Since they are pressured by stock holders and employees to be profitable, gathering free information and converting it into advertisements seems to make the most sense. However, Jaron Lanier does not think that this method will ultimately last. According to Lanier, if the companies found a way to make their consumers profit from such advertising (that is, if users were paid for the information they put out), users would ultimately be more happy and more willing to give out such information. Currently, Google and Facebook are both under fire from many users who are not so thrilled that their personal information will be used in ways that they believe breach the boundaries of privacy. If these users were instead compensated for the information they share, they may not be as upset that said information is being shared.
In a way, this reminds me of the case of the Aymara Indians from Bolivia. For many years, the Aymara were not slaves, but bounded peasants. The elite of Bolivia, ie. the Europeans (or in this case, Facebook and Google), did not pay the Aymara (Facebook and Google Plus users) for their work on the land. Instead, the elite allowed the Aymara to take food for their families. Because the Aymara weren’t paid with any monetary amounts, they had no means to try to move to the cities and find paying jobs, but since their families were then taken care of they were complacent enough to continue with their lives the way the were. This is actually pretty similar to the Facebook and Google situation. Because Facebook users and Google Plus users are able to use the services provided, ie. sharing posts and pictures with friends, posting status updates, finding old friends, etc. without much concern, they don’t think too much of the fact that they are not compensated for the information they share that the companies are then using for advertising and are therefore complacently continuing with the way things are. The Aymara did not last very long in bounded peasantry however, and as Lanier believes, neither will Facebook and Google users. He theorizes that if they make your users rich, they will in turn make their companies rich, which is definitely true. If Google and Facebook compensated their users, the users would be more likely and more willing to continue sharing such information, which then allows for more advertising which increases profits overall for the companies.
The New York Times article entitled “Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements” is basically everything Lanier feared was the threat posed by digital networks. Google announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products, much like Facebook has already started doing.
This illistrates Jaron Lanier's thesis. Lanier calls these efforts by sites like Facebook and Google 'Siren Servers' that depend on accumulating and evaluating consumer data without acknowledging a monetary debt to the people mined for all this “free” information. It is pure profit for these companies. Lanier argues that people do not understand the value of data. They have been infused with the idea that if they obtain free services in exchange for personal data, is a fair trade. Google and Facebook say that with the most recent changes, they are trying to offer users more comprehensive and personalized services, however it actually sends out personal information that users might not necessarily want public. The more I see about websites selling our information to ads, the more I am tempted to delete my Facebook.
This article is the perfect example of Lanier's "Siren Servers." A large site/group collecting your information and making money off of it while giving you a pittance, in this case, the opportunity to reconnect to friends. Yay! Lanier would believe that you deserve something for that use of content. If Facebook is going to use my clever riposte about McDonalds new bone-in wings as advertising, I'd like whatever McDonalds pays its copywriters. However, in contrast to Lanier's beliefs, you signed away any right to that in the Facebook EUA, which also give ownership of any photos or text you upload property of Facebook in perpetuity.
I wonder what Lanier would say about the use of a photo of Rehtaeh Parsons, a Canadian 17-year-old girl who committed suicide because of cyber-bullying, in a Facebook ad for a Canadian dating service. Somehow, I don't think he'd favor it.
I think that the article without a doubt runs parallel with Lanier's thesis. In the first chapter of his book he states how social media sites are going to be using their users information to make a profit. This is highly unethical. The users will not be notified of this and will be taken advantage of completely. This is already been evident today in social media and search engine sites such as Google and Facebook. Some are not aware of target advertisements. Every time a user of Facebook stays logged into his or her account and searches something on Google, the information is remembered and used to pitched specific advertisements via facebook targeted for that user. Lanier believes that the public should be paid for their information if that information ends up making a profit for these corporations but this will not be the case which makes this situation highly unethical.
Lanier’s commentary on “Siren Servers” indicates his discontentment for the type of things illustrated in this article about Google’s move to be able to show “users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products.” In Lanier’s eye, the “customer,” or anyone that uses the internet, is being taken advantage of because they are not always aware of how the information they are sharing will be shared with other. Not only does it undermined the internet users by taking their info without them willing to hand it over, but helps companies they may not support or wish to endorse by supporting them inadvertently. One of Lanier’s main points throughout his book is that technology should help the consumer, not hinder them or weaken them, so that they can in turn better society. This sharing of consumer information by Google in no way does a service to internet users, who do not understand the value of data being collected and redistributed at their own expense.
The New York Times report describes how now even more of what Facebook users post on the site can be used by third party agencies for business. It is only another example of the progression of online policies to protect their customers' personal information less and less. Lanier describes this tendency in his book who owns the world. The picture he paints is that the internet is largely a one way street in which large amounts of information are collected by users of the internet many times without their knowledge.
Many people disregard the terms and condition section of many use agreements on the internet because they are written in format which isolates many people except those with understandings of copyright law. This is done on purpose to passively deceive its users into giving up their rights. Companies like Google and Facebook will soon control a large share of the information market. The most insulting part of this situation we find ourselves in is that our image and thoughts no longer full serve our own economic or social advancement. Someone else is reaping in the monetary benefits based on what our ideas are.
Once again, as Lanier has pointed out to us, "free" web services are taking the liberty of using the content we provide them and using it for their profit and the profit of other large companies- all at the expense of our privacy and autonomy. Lanier sees this as an injustice to the 99%; even though we have the liberty to use these "free" information services what we concede for free should be much more precious- like the ability to hold an opinion for yourself instead of becoming an endorsement for a product that you may have vaguely posted about, not meaning to endorse it. Lanier thinks we should try to restructure the information economy so that the content has monetary value paid to the content provider (even if its just a facebook like that makes it easier to advertise to someone). This might be an effective check on targeted ads and cookies because they will cost companies a lot more money and they will (hopefully) use these marketing strategies less or more discretely.
Once again, as Lanier has pointed out to us, "free" web services are taking the liberty of using the content we provide them and using it for their profit and the profit of other large companies- all at the expense of our privacy and autonomy. Lanier sees this as an injustice to the 99%; even though we have the liberty to use these "free" information services what we concede for free should be much more precious- like the ability to hold an opinion for yourself instead of becoming an endorsement for a product that you may have vaguely posted about, not meaning to endorse it. Lanier thinks we should try to restructure the information economy so that the content has monetary value paid to the content provider (even if its just a facebook like that makes it easier to advertise to someone). This might be an effective check on targeted ads and cookies because they will cost companies a lot more money and they will (hopefully) use these marketing strategies less or more discretely.
According to the New York Times article, Facebook and Google have now committed to selling content generated by users on their respective social media sites to advertisers. From the company perspective, this is a genius idea. They are using their social media sites as a kind of farm. With zero or very little effort, and most importantly no cost, the companies are then selling this content for a 100% profit.
However, from the consumer perspective, this should be considered theft. Neither Facebook nor Google are compensating their users for the content being used. Also, users are often unaware that their comments are being used. Going even further, The Times article states that comments made years ago that may have been said with no intent of supporting a company are used too. If this trend continues, I have a feeling either companies may be facing privacy lawsuits of some kind, or even a suit for compensation for ideas used.
This is a perfect example of the ideas presented in Lanier’s book Who Owns the Future?. The companies are mining user generated ideas and profiting from them, while users are seeing none of the profits, if they are even aware their content is being used. This is a completely one sided relationship with every advantage going to the corporations. However, this could be even more profitable if the corporations weren’t so greedy. As Lanier advises future entrepreneurs in his interview, the way to make a successful enterprise is to make your clients rich. When you do this, they are more willing to work with you and support you. In the bigger picture, is a little compensation really too much to ask for?
Post a Comment