ownership

This page considers questions about identity management, ownership of data on social networks and the interaction between virtual economies and the real.

It is under development and for the moment is restricted to discussion of privacy, intellectual property and other issues noted in the equaintance page.

    concerns

As that page suggests, many concerns about the networks essentially relate to identity management.

A salient concern with all of the services is the extreme difficulty of removing personal information from a network's database. Most do not have clearly identified deletion mechanisms (especially if your contact details have been captured by an acquaintance rather than provided as part of membership).

A second concern is ownership of that data. It is common, when reading the terms & conditions on network sites, to see statements that the operator owns the data. Orkut for example notes that

By submitting, posting or displaying any Materials on or through the orkut .com service, you automatically grant to us a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable, transferable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to copy, distribute, create derivative works of, publicly perform and display such Materials.

Such releases are often encountered online and are arguably a matter of caveat emptor. A more serious issue is ownership of address books. As we've noted in discussing privacy, individuals don't own their contact details. Participants in the services have opted in to a regimes that often include scope for operator provision of individual and aggregate data to third parties, with few apparent restrictions on how the data is used ... or misused.

Given the uncertain nature of most business models it is likely that some networks will fold; others will simply commoditise their database while they are still active. In discussing commercial privacy watchdogs elsewhere on this site we've questioned whether oversighting by bodies such as TRUSTe is particularly meaningful, particularly when network operators and watchdogs are located outside a strong privacy regime such the EU.

A third concern is what some users have perceived as unauthorised installation of software on their personal computers.

Another concern is how networks are used by some participants rather than the network operators. Some have been bitterly attacked as venues for marketers to harvest data: sign up and become a friend of everyone's extended network so that you can send them the unbeatable offer for better living through modern chemistry or unique investment opportunity. Sixdegrees.com for example faced criticisms that members had been spammed by 'friends'.

Others have been criticised as venues for defamation and online stalking. The testimonial feature on some sites can be used to assert that a particular ex-partner is an indolent lounge lizard with unsavoury habits. Inadequate policing of avatars offers scope for creation of multiple profiles claiming to have been dumped, duped or otherwise abused by that partner.

An Australian critic suggested that the "viral marketing invitation
process" was merely "socially inept" -

An invitee who doesn't want to join is placed in the socially awkward position of having to, in effect, tell their friends and acquaintances something like, "hey look, you may think this thing's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I think it's irkky and ickky. What's more I'm really quite annoyed that you've given my personal information ... without my consent given they contend a right to do just about anything they want with it.

That's a reflection of the jingle, encountered elsewhere on the net, that "true friends don't give their friends to friendster".






::