Is it time to revive the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web?

Ben Werdmuller September 25, 2011 | Comments (2)

DataSharingSummit group photo

In some ways, the web industry seems to have lost its way. From empowering users and smashing incumbent gatekeepers, the emphasis is now on how to raise the next round of funding and convert active users into their maximum possible value..

My piece about Facebook, contextual identity and radical transparency continues to get a lot of attention, and the conversation continues. Dave Winer urged his readers to log out of Facebook, and Nik Cubrilovic countered that logging out doesn’t help. In short, when you log out, Facebook continues to remember who you are, and your account details are still sent whenever you access a Facebook resource (like a page or facebook.com or a Like button anywhere). He goes on to say that:

Privacy today feels like what security did 10-15 years ago – there is an awareness of the issues steadily building and blog posts from prominent technologists is helping to steamroll public consciousness. The risks around privacy today are just as serious as security leaks were then – except that there is an order of magnitude more users online and a lot more private data being shared on the web.

It’s clear that privacy is becoming a business factor as well as something that some of us care about from an ethical standpoint, and that’s in large part due to Facebook bringing it to the public’s attention. I’m reminded of the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web, from 2007, which many of us signed as part of Marc Canter’s Data Sharing Summit. It was intended to address many of these issues before they became wider problems.

The meat of the Bill of Rights is:

We publicly assert that all users of the social web are entitled to certain fundamental rights, specifically:

Ownership of their own personal information, including: their own profile data; the list of people they are connected to; the activity stream of content they create;

Control of whether and how such personal information is shared with others; and

Freedom to grant persistent access to their personal information to trusted external sites.

At the meeting, a large and influential (at the time) web corporation suggested that the word “ownership” was a step too far, and that it should be enough for users to simply have control. Since then, I think it’s become acceptable to suggest that users own their data (as in the course of using a web service, a reasonable person would assume that he or she already does); instead, web services are granted an irrevocable license to use it.

Given this, and given the conversations we’ve been having as a community, perhaps the time is right to revive aspects of this document, and bring it up to date for 2011?

Photo: the Data Sharing Summit group, September 8, 2007. A prize for the first person to identify 90% of the people in the picture.

The Facebook Timeline is the nearest thing I’ve seen to a digital identity (and it’s creepy as hell)

Ben Werdmuller September 23, 2011 | Comments (47)

As an application developer, I have advance access to the Facebook Timeline that Mark Zuckerberg announced yesterday. Here it is:

Facebook timeline: main

At first glance, it’s a rather beautiful replacement for the social media profiles we’ve been using since forever. Rather than simply listing your latest content, the timeline allows any visitor to browse your life, literally from birth to the present day. (If you scroll down to the bottom, Facebook prompts you to add a baby photo. Aww.)

This definitely changes the paradigm for social media profiles. As Channel 4 News’s Benjamin Cohen says:

It’s interesting from a personal perspective to look back at the past five years but there’s so much that I wouldn’t want someone else to be reading. It seems like too much information about me for people to be able to discover. While it’s been possible for people to access my photographs from years ago, in a sense they were out of context. Now you can see context because of the posts I made myself and those made by my friends on my wall.

Facebook allows you to connect with an increasing number of sites and applications using your Facebook identity. You can write documents, share what you’re reading, play games, and so on – and for most people, this has been a welcome feature. Everything is controlled from one place, with one username and password, and it’s easier than OpenID. Great!

Facebook timeline: 2006Except now, when someone clicks through from anywhere on the web that uses Facebook Connect to see your profile, they’ll really see you: your life in context. It’s a contextual identity; something you won’t get from a real name, a passport, an ID card, or even a DNA profile. Whereas previously profiles were a collection of hand-picked pieces of information coupled with some things you’d shared recently, now you’ll see wedding photos, pictures of drunken nights on the town four years ago, and perhaps a status update you made when you were hurt and upset after something you’ve long forgotten that happened in 2006 – mixed up with more professional status updates and links, of course.

On one level, it’s brilliant. On another, it’s undeniably, pervasively creepy, to a level we’ve hitherto been unprepared for in human society. These things are designed to be forgotten, but with the Facebook Timeline, much of your life is all but indelible, published front and center until you go through each item individually and hide or delete it.

Nobody’s forced to use Facebook, of course, although for many it’s pretty much a mandatory part of the social experience. What worries me is the trend of radical transparency and social context throughout the web software industry, where it’s expected that everyone will share their lives unless they’ve got something to hide. On the surface, for white males like me living in California, there’s a lot to be said for this on an individual level; don’t lie, be up-front, wear your intentions and motivations on your sleeve. But ultimately the decision about what to share has to be the individual’s – if you don’t feel like sharing something, don’t. Radically transparent interfaces are designed in a way that leads to a kind of peer pressure for disclosure: everyone else is sharing information about A, B and C, so why are you being so evasive?

Furthermore, there’s something particularly jarring about squeezing emotional life events into a social database. Facebook has become a social operating system. Where “social” means “sharing pages, files and resources through electronic means,” that’s great: a much-needed step forward. Where it refers to relationships between human beings, it’s not required, and the idea of placing these things into neat, centrally-defined categories is distasteful.

Facebook Timeline: lost a loved one?

The case for allowing users to control not just their digital identities, but the platform that defines and stores their digital identities, is stronger than ever.

Update: I was quoted about the Facebook Timeline in the New York Times.

Does open source exclude high-context cultures?

Ben Werdmuller September 21, 2011 | Leave a comment

Something to think about for anyone starting any online community:

High context cultures value personal relationships over process. You have to know someone before you can trust them and work with them. They also tend to be less explicit and rely more on tone of voice, gestures and even status to communicate. Typically Asian countries are more high context than Western countries. Think Korea and Japan.

[...] So if you start a project and send email to a bunch of folks and ask them to just jump in and contribute, which group do you think will get going more quickly? The low context culture folks.

Interesting comments, too.

Building a responsible online community for pulmonary fibrosis: real names won’t cut it here

Ben Werdmuller | Comments (3)

In my spare time, I’m building an independent community for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) researchers, doctors, sufferers and their families. IPF is a degenerative lung disease which builds up scar tissue over time, restricting the patient’s ability to breathe. It’s generally fatal and has no cure. My idea is to promote the discussion of the facts behind the illness, and approaches that have worked for different people. (Even things like, what’s the best oxygen generator?)

My aim is to release the community this Saturday, to sit in line with Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Week (which is all this week), but I’m rebooting it, and my day job requires significant attention, so there’s a good chance it may slip. It’ll be ready when it’s ready – but I wish I could put it out there today.

Obviously, it needs to be easy to use, even for very non-technical people. It has to be accessible, work on older browsers, take a very short amount of time to participate in, and so on. I have one big ground rule, which has been hard to fulfill with existing platforms:

An identity spectrum.

On one side of the coin, medical insurance in the US is a mess, and I don’t want participation in the community to adversely affect anyone’s ability to get medical attention. For this reason, pseudonyms should be allowed. Furthermore, while passwords are generally hashed so that nobody can gain access to them, I want to do this with email addresses. Because most people like to email the heck out of their users, nothing out there supports this.

On the other side of the coin, the doctors and researchers involved in the community need to be trusted – so I think verified identities are good idea, with a simple, manual, offline verification procedure.

In other words, users have control over how much or how little they share. If they want to receive email updates, they understand that their email address will be stored on the community servers; otherwise it won’t be. On the other side, if they want to publicly verify that they are, indeed, who they say they are, that’s fine too. And somewhere in the middle, people can choose to share selected information about themselves, either publicly or to other users.

This is very different to the work I do for my day job, or the decentralized social web I often advocate for. Privacy, choice over identity and the ability to feel protected when (literally) talking about matters of life and death are important.

I will, of course, make my work available to the community.

NB: this was originally published over on Google+, and there’s a great conversation developing over there.

“What it means to be a school is now up for grabs.”

Ben Werdmuller September 20, 2011 | Leave a comment

Learner

Education, for me, is still the most exciting field that open source is opening up. It’s a vital part of any civilized society, and so it seems right that the software that helps participants teach and learn should be open. I have no qualms about charging private institutions like Stanford, say, the six figure license fees that some educational software platforms demand – but for tax-funded institutions, these costs and restrictions are unethical. Even for moneyed institutions like Stanford, open source software has built-in feature advantages that commercial or SaaS packages can’t match.

The Tyee, a site covering British Columbia, discovers the movement:

It comes down to how we define public education. Open source advocates might say that all of the educational materials paid for by the public should be available to the public. Some, such as Stephen Downes might go as far as to say that all users of public education, including teachers, students and their parents, should be the ones in control of the entire network.

Well, quite. Education isn’t just another enterprise market. It’s one that all of our economies, livelihoods and lifestyles depend on. Far too important for a significant aspect of the process to be handed over to any one company and locked away in a proprietary system (particularly one that actively sues other vendors, doesn’t fix its own bugs in a timely fashion and charges dramatically over-the-odds fees for its services).

There’s still some work to be done on open source business models for education. People who write software need it to pay their bills for it to be a sustainable endeavor, and most teachers are too overworked to be building software themselves on the side. I think some upcoming server-side products will go some way towards fixing that, and make life easier for educators in the process.

latakoo in TechCrunch

Ben Werdmuller September 16, 2011 | Leave a comment

latakoo’s in TechCrunch today:

Jon Orlin, who runs TechCrunch TV, was initially a skeptic. But he did some beta and real world testing and was very impressed. Orlin says “Latakoo solves a real problem for us. We recently had some large HD video files shot for our Keen On show in Aspen. Andrew Keen was able to use the simple compress and upload software to send the files to us for editing. Without Latakoo, it would have taken at least 6 hours to just upload the files. We were able to complete the transfer and start editing in less than 30 minutes. And the quality was perfectly acceptable, even after the heavy file compression.” Orlin adds there are other ways to transfer large video files, but most involve expensive hardware or software.

You can read the whole article here. What a great end to a great week.

Some lessons from the startups at TechCrunch Disrupt

Ben Werdmuller September 14, 2011 | Leave a comment

tcdisrupt_flickr-017-23

Be clear. Know what you’re selling. Our backdrop set it out plainly: “Send video fast. Make video easy.” More than a few journalists said we had the best poster of the day.

Build value. If your company allows other companies to build value more efficiently, you’re onto a winner. Mostly this has meant creating advertising of one kind or another – display ads, branded video pages, and so on. (The best way to get rich in a gold rush is to sell shovels. Just saying.)

Be gorgeous. A slick user interface screams professionalism. If you don’t take care over your UI, you don’t care about your users. I’m noticing that more and more apps are moving away from the black, grey and white colorscheme that’s been popular for the last year or so, and there are more Metro-inspired UIs. The less-slick apps stood out, and not in a good way. Build for touch interfaces.

The social land grab is over. If you’re still trying to market a web-based consumer social app or site without a really new and compelling customer story, stop. Checkins have become a running joke; building your social graph is something you can do anywhere. You’re not differentiating yourself at all by doing these things. Even Facebook is emulating at this point.

Finding local things on a map-based interface is the new checking in. i.e., everyone’s doing it now, and the user experience doesn’t completely work. There are probably better interfaces – look at Foursquare, for example. But it’s worth considering whether it’s even a wise business decision, given the number of startups trying to, for example, highlight local businesses.

You can’t just build an iPhone app. Unless that app is so amazing that you forget there’s no Android or web version. The iOS-only ship has sailed. (Thankfully.)

Real technology sells. Some of the best startups here have differentiated by using actual computer science: Vocre is a Star Trek style universal translator, for example. And we consistently wowed with our highly optimized video compression with latakoo.

Someone is always selling coffee cups with your logo on it. At every single tech conference since my first ever, when I was eleven years old. This was no exception. Do something different.

Photo by TechCrunch, released under a Creative Commons license.

Day two at TechCrunch Disrupt

Ben Werdmuller | Leave a comment

With all of the inside baseball politics surrounding TechCrunch lately, what I hadn’t had time to consider was that Disrupt would turn out to be the most high energy, intensively productive conference I’ve attended for a really long time. It certainly helps that I’m here representing a product that wows people in thirty seconds flat – but a lot has to do with the format and organization of the event. TechCrunch waived our fees because they felt we had a disruptive service, so thank you to them for having us. It’s been a lot of fun meeting other startups and seeing demos both on the conference floor and in the Startup Battlefield.

I’ll be back again tomorrow. If you’d like to meet up, or want to see latakoo in action (either at Disrupt or elsewhere), send me a message, or call me directly on (312) 488 9373.

latakoo at TechCrunch Disrupt

Ben Werdmuller September 12, 2011 | Comments (2)

I’m at TechCrunch Disrupt this week with the latakoo team. And not only that – we’ve just closed a $1.3 million seed funding round!

“The feedback from customers is that latakoo is a transformational tool for anyone wanting to transport and manage video,” said latakoo President Jade Kurian. “We just helped TV news crews on the East Coast get their reports back to their stations when satellite technology and other methods failed during the hurricane. We’re very excited about showing off our technology at Techcrunch.”

How are people using latakoo? Here’s a taste:

If you’re at Disrupt, come by the latakoo stand at Startup Alley and say hi!

September 11th, 2011

Ben Werdmuller September 11, 2011 | Leave a comment

The events that occurred ten years ago were undeniably horrific, scary and tragic. They were also an opportunity to show how strong democratic values are; to show how powerful reason is when armed with information; to unite behind our belief in freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge.

I was working at Daily Information, writing some new features for their web platform. It was a little past two in the afternoon, and I was sitting with one of the high school students who occasionally did work there, and its proprietor, John Rose. John was an eccentric but brilliant man – an outsider entrepreneur who had become the hub for a cross-section of Oxford life. (I learned a lot from him, and he’s massively influenced everything I’ve done since.) He had set up the office in the basement of a house he owned; paper, computer parts and assorted detritus occupied every available surface. Although I was writing code and checking on the website, we would often break for conversation. (A sample John Rose icebreaker: “aren’t other people awful?”)

My dad happened to be nearby, and came into the office to tell me what had happened. The second plane had hit by this time, and it was obvious that it wasn’t an accident. He feared that this was the prelude to something bigger. We had ISDN in the office, and we immediately began checking the news sites: the BBC, CNN, and so on. I remember vividly that within a few minutes, the only website that stayed up was the Guardian, and we all sat there at our Windows 2000 workstations, on a makeshift network in a cluttered office in North Oxford, reloading the page in the newly-released Internet Explorer 6 and gasping in horror at each new revelation. John had been to New York not long before, and told us about his trip to the top of the World Trade Center. By 5pm, though, we’d returned to work, shaken but determined to continue.

I waited at the bus stop for twenty minutes that evening, and remember thinking that the world had changed irrevocably. Although I would become increasingly politicized over the next few months (and have been ever since), I didn’t know enough about the world to really understand what was going to happen. But I knew enough that day to understand that President Bush would probably want to go to war, and that rather than being mourned as a great loss, this was going to be used as an excuse to do some pretty terrible things. I remember watching the faces of the people driving by, behind the wheel or sitting in the Oxford buses, searching in vain for a mirror of the unease that was welling up inside of me. Person after person seemed unemotional; distant; detached.

I browsed my Livejournal friends page that night, using the Demon Internet dial-up connection at my parents’ house (I was staying with them that autumn), and reactions ran the gamut from fear to – and here I sadly quote word-for-word, the post etched forever on my memory – “burn, America, burn!”

It wasn’t a lone sentiment. I was the only American in my friends group, and many (but by no means all) of the people I knew felt that, at least to a certain extent, America deserved this. Not in the third world, not in the midst of fundamentalist religion – but well-educated, middle class kids all over England. I’m close to being a third culture child, and often say that my family is my nationality and my religion all at once, but for the first time in my life I found myself defending one of my source countries. I love America, and I love the values of its people – even when its government is clearly not in sync.

The Onion said it best, of course, both following the attacks and a year earlier, when George W Bush finally assumed the Presidency. And as the insanity ramped up and the Bush administration began to drag much of the western world into illegal wars (enabled by a fabrication or two from Tony Blair’s government in the UK), news sources who dared to bring the irregularities to light had their wings duly clipped. I was one of over a million people – over 2% of the entire population of the UK – who marched against the impending war in Iraq. Nothing happened; the war went ahead as planned. And as the government failed us, and the TV news became more obviously watered down, two sources stood out. One was the Daily Show, which became the primary political commentary source for a generation by pointing out the increasing hypocrisy. And the other one was the vast expanse of independent websites and communities on the web.

This is my personal opinion about the decline of the news media over the last decade: they’re dying not because someone came up with a better model, but because they lost our trust. From the events of September 11th itself, through Enron the month afterwards, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the entirety of the Bush Administration, and so on and so on and so on (pick a scandal, any scandal), right up to the curated illogicality and overstated popularity of the Tea Party, my perception is that, as a whole, the news media hasn’t been with us. Instead, I think the best analysis has been found in books (a hat doff to my colleague Jim Moore, whose book Bush’s Brain was one of the first in-depth criticisms of Bush); in magazines like Rolling Stone and the New Yorker (Seymour Hersh has become a personal hero); in documentary movies (Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, though imperfect, is a kind of turning point). The television news and the daily newspaper, once staples of modern life, have all but obsoleted themselves by bowing to pressure to neuter the principles that underwrite their content, and by reacting poorly to their economic decline. This is a tragedy of democracy, because my god, the investigative journalists are still out there. We need them more than ever, but they’ve lost their platforms, either because those platforms have lost their ability to be honest, or because they’ve lost their ability to pay for experienced journalists (or both).

On the web, we are at the forefront of a new kind of discourse – we not only participate in the content, as I am with this piece, but also by influencing the form of conversation, debate, communication and dissemination. Imagine being back in the 17th century, inventing the form of the newspaper, or creating the newsreel in 1908 – that’s what our industry is doing today, except we’re also inventing the wire, the telephone, the telediagraph, the telex, the fax machine and the wire photo: the back-end technology that makes the content that goes into the end-user product possible. Sure, we’re building cool new music apps or remixing kitten pics, but we’re also influencing how people will create and consume information for generations. It’s an exciting field to be in, but it’s also a great responsibility. Information and community sit together at the center of democracy.

Back to those events ten years ago; for me, back to sitting at a bus stop, watching the faces of passers-by, searching for meaning and wondering what would happen next. I think there’s great value in reflection and remembrance on September 11th, not only of the tragedy that occurred, but all of the tragedies and all of the injustices that occurred in its name. This was an opportunity to show how strong democratic values are; to show how powerful reason is when armed with information and education; to unite behind our belief in freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge. I believe that in the content of our actions, discourse and stated values, we went the other way.

But if we remember what’s important, and build what we know, we have the promise, perhaps more than ever, of creating something much greater. Freedom is a core value of both us as a people and us as an industry. Let’s bring it on home.

Next Page »