Cisco has started developing software, that will allow big media companies develop their social -niche- networks. According to c|net news

The new software called Eos, which stands for entertainment operating system, will allow media and content companies to build online communities for niche groups. Specifically, the software will help these companies monitor the community’s interaction with each other and the content itself.

Eventually, it could even offer content recommendations from other parts of the Web site to community users. And it could help target community members with online advertising. In short, it offers content providers and media companies new ways to monetize content in a more efficient way.

I understand that the big, mass media want a piece of the pie called social networking, web 2.0 or call it whatever you want. So maybe they will buy such a software (paying a monthly fee), but how long could such a thing last?

I mean with all these social networks online, with this huge, vast variety (and with the recent data portability expansion of important online hubs), please name me a logical reason to join a social network, whose sole purpose is to “…monitor the community’s interaction with each other and the content itself”.

Most of us got a taste yesterday of the whole Facebook-kicks-Scoble-off debate. After several hours and numerous posts on the subject from various bloggers, Facebook explained that this was a standard security process against all kinds of scripts.

When our systems detect these types of scripts, they immediately disable the account of the user responsible as a preventative measure.

The aftermath of this story brings up a series of questions:

Is there a monopoly of data?

When Facebook noticed a potential competitor (Plaxo), it did its best to block its development (in this case by forbidding the extraction of data). Plaxo’s script wouldn’t extract any data that the users kept hidden – only the ones, that were public (see Wired’s post on that).
When Scoble explained to Facebook his (not malicious) purpose, Facebook replied:

Since you contacted us and have agreed not to run the script again, we have reactivated your account. You should now be able to log in with your normal email and password. In the future, please refrain from running these types of scripts again.

So although the script wasn’t malicious, Scoble (or anyone else for that matter) is not allowed to use it.

Other social software (linkedin, yahoo, etc.) seem fine with the implementation of their services in plaxo.

It seems to me that Facebook tries to monopolize a service, with malicious ways.

[The coming war over data is a thorough post on data ownership]

Who owns the social network?

So Facebook actually implied that users (and developers) are allowed to bring data in, but not allowed to bring data out.
In other words, the contacts in your digital address book are your friends, but the data belongs to the network.
Social networks are explicitly made out of people. Without people, these networks wouldn’t exist.
Nonetheless, Facebook has clarified its opinion on that one:
Your network belongs to the service provider.

[An interesting discussion about this subject can be found at Center Networks]

Which social engine to trust?

• Do you read the Terms of Use, when you sign up in a social network? I don’t, but maybe I should. Facebook makes it clear in the Terms of Use that we have a limited access to our network:

All content on the Site and available through the Service, including designs, text, graphics, pictures, video, information, applications, software, music, sound and other files, and their selection and arrangement (the “Site Content”), are the proprietary property of the Company, its users or its licensors with all rights reserved. [...]
Except for your own User Content, you may not upload or republish Site Content on any Internet, Intranet or Extranet site or incorporate the information in any other database or compilation, and any other use of the Site Content is strictly prohibited. Such license is subject to these Terms of Use and does not include use of any data mining, robots or similar data gathering or extraction methods.

• Maybe we should take a more careful look on the protection the network provides.

After this whole story, I got the impression that Facebook is very safe. I mean it blocks any kind of scripts, no matter what.
But it doesn’t seem so.

Although Facebook tries its best to protects its users from any kind of scams, some spyware still made it through; and it gets worse with phishing scams.

Conclusion

What to do? What to do?
After such a discussion, do you still remain a Facebook member?
I mean you will lose your big, nice network of friends.
It is a moral question, i think. I never was a Facebook fan (I had a network of 10 friends), so I have nothing to lose.
But think about it. Do you really have something to lose?

A wonderful article was posted today in the ReadWriteWeb concerning ‘Questions to consider in the coming privacy wars‘.

Although the entry reaches perfection, I would like to express my opinion about some points.

How do we balance the benefits of data openness with the need for privacy?

Now this is a tricky question. I’m afraid we (the ones participating to the online community) have gone beyond a threshold, where privacy is a very thin layer. Facebook gives us the option to find long gone relatives, acquaintances, love affairs; and be found. With twitter we allow everybody to follow our every move. And anyone can keep a database of these entries.

Our need for privacy (if there is one) is in great danger, if not lost, when we decided to actively enter so many online social communities.

Welcome to the global village.

Are users savvy or motivated enough to control our own data?

If we weren’t capable of controlling our own data, we would be (at least indirectly) allowing the centralization of data in a single vendor (Point No. 6). Either way if we are dealing with private data, then each user alone is responsible for his/her information. I find decentralization a better way to protect information, than leaving it in the hands of a central power.

The result

Our private data are not being threatened from one day to the next. It is a situation, which slowly evolved, elevated; and therefore it is a situation, that is hard to recognize. We don’t realize to what extent our privacy is actually at stake, because we embraced each step of this development. We gladly participate in all these communities, without really considering the side-effects, because we are taking our privacy (each one has a different conception of privacy) for granted. But examples have come forward, proving that these communities can evolve differently. I don’t know if you have heard about the StudiVZ (facebook service in Germany) and how it evolved (see also Karsten Wenzlaff’s post on the subject. this one too). Even facebook phishing scams have been developed, to get a hold of people’s data.

Last thoughts

Under that perspective, maybe a central authority protecting us is needed. But who can guarantee, that this central control will not take advantage of its knowledge?

The subject Marshall is discussing goes beyond the web. With the shadow of national security, individual privacy is constantly at stake. But I wonder if the public has actually a say in the whole process?

From January 20, restrictions will be issued in online chatrooms, websites and mobile phones to protect children from viewing unsuitable material.

The Austalian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted.

(according to HeraldSun’s article).

Adults will not be affected by this law as explained by the chairman of ACMA, Chris Chapman.

“In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism.”

News, current affairs and personal communications will also be excluded by the new law.

The debate

Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted:

I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as “real,” it’s more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I’ve seen, I think I’m pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I’m probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let’s just leave the Internet alone, no?

That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I’m fine with it.
A discussion of similar gravity has started in Releaselog. Will the government regulations end in children protection? Is it impossible to witness a new law proposal ‘protecting’ adults too?

My Conclusion

I can’t see how regulating content can protect children - and to be honest I agree with thegnu’s view.

• Such law implies that children may become ‘corrupted’ by improper material. I find it a bit naive. Like blaiming heavy metal music or video games for the columbine tragedy (or any similar tragedy); its a solution, which does not identify the deeper problems.
• We underestimate childrens creativity. If they want to smoke they will find a way - and if the want to see porn, then they will see porn.
• Sugar coated reality, with teletubbies, disneyland and yellow/pink clouds of fluffy marshmellows? And enforced by the law? I totally agree with Thegnu.
• It reminds me of a Bill Hicks gig, you should check it out. He makes an interesting point.

I know its not as bad as it sounds, since (as noted by n4sa in the releaseLog) “…the focus will be on domestic content providers (.com.au) only and what they are allowed to display. Its not like they are filtering content thru the ISP’s.” And apart from that, the web is worldwide (duh) and Australia is just one country.

The question is: will it get worse?
Update: Traditional ‘hubs’ of the blogosphere have raised their voice against Australia’s movement.

• Scobleizer would rather raise his kids with freedom of speach rather than “…some government deciding what they can and can’t see”
• A news cast in Techcrucnch, proved (unfortunately) my worries that the Australian censorship will get worse.

The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.

As recently as the week prior to the election, Labor Party candidates were telling those concerned about the proposed law that the censorship wouldn’t be compulsory, and that the “clean feed” would be opt-in, not opt-out. Today’s announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states that the censorship regime will be mandatory, although people will be able to opt-out of it. The problem of course then becomes if you opt-out questions will be asked as to why you want out, which in itself may lead to Government monitoring.

See also Mashable’s Australia to censor part of the internet for additional information.

Let’s see how our online rights will evolve.

From January 20, restrictions will be issued in online chatrooms, websites and mobile phones to protect children from viewing unsuitable material. The Austalian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted. (according to HeraldSun’s article).

Adults will not be affected by this law as explained by the chairman of ACMA, Chris Chapman.

“In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism.”

News, current affairs and personal communications will also be excluded by the new law.

The debate

Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted:

I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as “real,” it’s more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I’ve seen, I think I’m pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I’m probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let’s just leave the Internet alone, no?

That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I’m fine with it.
A discussion of similar gravity has started in Releaselog. Will the government regulations end in children protection? Is it impossible to witness a new law proposal ‘protecting’ adults too?

My Conclusion

I can’t see how regulating content can protect children - and to be honest I agree with thegnu’s view.

• Such law implies that children may become ‘corrupted’ by improper material. I find it a bit naive. Like blaiming heavy metal music or video games for the columbine tragedy (or any similar tragedy); its a solution, which does not identify the deeper problems.
• We underestimate childrens creativity. If they want to smoke they will find a way - and if the want to see porn, then they will see porn.
• Sugar coated reality, with teletubbies, disneyland and yellow/pink clouds of fluffy marshmellows? And enforced by the law? I totally agree with Thegnu.
• It reminds me of a Bill Hicks gig, you should check it out. He makes an interesting point.

I know its not as bad as it sounds, since (as noted by n4sa in the releaseLog) “…the focus will be on domestic content providers (.com.au) only and what they are allowed to display. Its not like they are filtering content thru the ISP’s.” And apart from that, the web is worldwide (duh) and Australia is just one country.

The question is: will it get worse?
Update: Traditional ‘hubs’ of the blogosphee have raised their voice against Australia’s movement.

• Scobleizer would rather raise his kids with freedom of speach rather than “…some government deciding what they can and can’t see”
• A news cast in Techcrucnch, proved (unfortunately) my worries that the Australian censorship will get worse.

The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.

As recently as the week prior to the election, Labor Party candidates were telling those concerned about the proposed law that the censorship wouldn’t be compulsory, and that the “clean feed” would be opt-in, not opt-out. Today’s announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states that the censorship regime will be mandatory, although people will be able to opt-out of it. The problem of course then becomes if you opt-out questions will be asked as to why you want out, which in itself may lead to Government monitoring.

Let’s see how are online rights evolve.

Wayne Porter started a discussion today about a very interesting subject:

Is the web moving towards an organized, centralized network, where exchange of information will be under control?

In my previous post about ‘Torrentspy, ThinkSecret and the declaration of independence of cyberspace‘, I argumented that the recent development of the TorrentSpy, ThinkSecret and Yahoo cases show traits of such movement; Large corporations and governments silence popular blogs, torrent hubs and search engines. I quoted John Perry Barlow’s ‘Declaration of independence of the cyberspace‘ to advocate for the freedom of speech in the Web.
The role of decentralization in a scale-free network

I agree with Wayne, that decentralization (along with anonymity) is a very important key to guarantee freedom of speech and free exchange of data on the Net. Indeed the Web is vast decentralized network, a fact that makes it robust in any attacks. Bringing some nodes down, will not effect the network as a whole.

But the Web is a scale-free network, which is defined by a power law distribution. Indeed, this suggests the strength of the system. But it doesn’t mean it is invulnerable. The work of Albert-Làszlo Barabàsi on the subject, arguments that scale-free networks are vulnerable when a specific number of their hubs goes out of service. The system’s interlinkage suddenly breaks down. This happens because hubs collect the biggest number of inbound and outbound links (The 80/20 Rule).

So, yes indeed decentralization can provide online users an uncontrolled environment. But if the hubs of the network were ever down, the network wouldn’t be decentralized any more. Actually, there wouldn’t be a network at all.

My conclusion

I know this is a far fetched scenario. The hubs are numerous and the web is enormous and extremely interconnected. But when governmental and other institutions attack Yahoo (a search engine hub), TorrentSpy (a torrent hub) and ThinkSecret (a blog hub), it just makes you wonder. I’m not saying that we are at a gates of a new era of web control, but I see some steps towards this direction.

There was the past days also a discussion (are you willing to pay taxes on your blog?) about applying taxes on the internet. Maybe this is just a way for the government to put her hands on more money, but I also see it as a form of regulation. [When you don't have money to pay for your blog, you are not allowed to talk].

Update: By the way check this one out: Could Fake Steve Jobs be about to go away?

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather….

…Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here….

…In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media…

…We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

John Perry Barlow, A declaration of the independence of cyberspace February 8, 1996

Yesterday a barrage of news, shattered Barlow’s vision of cyberspace. Legal concepts of copyright, governments and collosal companies made clear their presence in cyberspace.

First, in peer-to-peer networks. TorrentSpy was found guilty for facilitating the online exchange of films, music and TV programs without permission.

Then in the blogosphere. Apple succeeded in shutting down the ThinkSecret blog, for exposing unreleased information.

And finally in search engines. China found Yahoo! guilty of copyright infringement.

Are we slowly witnessing a fate that was feared and expressed by Lawrence Lessig (for example in: The furure of ideas and in Free Culture), Andrew Shapiro (in The control revolution ) and others?

Peer-to-Peer Networks

TorrentSpy - according to the verdict of a California judge - has violated copyrights owned by the MPAA.

TorrentSpy was also found guilty of destroying evidence (for example deleting logs of user IP adresses). A very noble act - if i may add - protecting the privacy of its users. After this behavior, it seems TorrentSpy will have difficulties participating in the file sharing community.

As Matt Jensen noted, “…this case sets a precedent for future cases, potentially making user information more transparent”.

Prominent figures (Chris Anderson, author of the Long Trail) have argued that p2p networks and file sharing are an ideal way of low-cost marketing and that the reason of the decrease in blockbuster sales is not just unauthorized file sharing. But Hollywood prefers to be short-sighted and to disregard the fact that the public is now more demanding.

The Blogosphere

A debate of similar context but in a different community rose, when Apple succeeded in shutting down the ThinkSecret blog. It seems to me that this subject has received much more attention (not that it shouldn’t). Legal discussions have taken place in Wired, ethical ones in gizmodo and the role of context in similar cases has also been accounted. Even possible settlement scenarios and polls are publicized.

I understand that this was a David against Goliath fight, and logically it received more attention. But the wider context still remains; putting the web under control.

Search engines

And the final strike: Yahoo was found guilty of mass copyright infringement by a Chinese court, while Baidu (who were also sued) got away with it. Nat Torkington suspects Baidu got off the hook because “…it is viewed as a local (chinese) product” and China supports its local companies. I agree, that this is a potential scenario.

Conclusion

I believe it all comes down to this: The cyberspace is increasingly gaining in popularity and everybody wants a piece of the pie; and control is the way to get that piece.

Update: Meanwhile, the Japanese file-sharing population explodes