O'Reilly Webcast
Contents
Cyborg Anthropology O'Reilly Webcast
I'll be giving a short webcast introduction to Cyborg Anthropology next week.
The event is free and should hopefully be interesting.
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010 Time: 10am PT, San Francisco 6pm - London | 1pm - New York | Fri, Aug 6th at 3am - Sydney | Fri, Aug 6th at 2am - Tokyo | Fri, Aug 6th at 1am - Beijing | 10:30pm - Mumbai Presented by: Amber Case Duration: Approximately 60 minutes. Cost: Free
Summary: Cyborg Anthropology is a way of understanding how we live as technosocially connected citizens in the modern era. Our cell phones, cars and laptops have turned us into cyborgs. What does it mean to extend the body into hyperspace? What are the implications to privacy, information and the formation of identity? Now that we have a second self, how do we protect it? This presentation will cover aspects of time and space compression, communication in the mobile era, evaporating interfaces and how to approach a rapidly changing information spaces.
Full details here: http://oreillynet.com/pub/e/1679.
What is a Cyborg Anthropologist?
A cyborg anthropologist looks at how humans and non human objects interact with each other, and how that changes culture. So, for instance, we have these things in our pockets that cry, and we have to pick them up and soothe them back to sleep, and then we have to feed them every night by plugging them into the wall, right? And at no other time in history have we had these really strange non human devices that we take care of as if they are real. And we're very dependent upon them. So that's one of the aspects that I'm studying, the idea of mobile technology and its effect on people's relationships. Another thing is the idea of extending into the second self online, through an avatar. So studying how people interact with each other through these little technosocial interactions, versus just the analog interactions, is another aspect of cyborg anthropology.
What happens in kind of very traditional, analog anthropology is: You go to another culture, and you look at all the people, and you see how they interact with each other. You see how knowledge goes through, you see kinship, you see rituals, you see all these different pastimes and hobbies. You see what they eat. And mostly the anthropologist goes over to another country and says, "Oh, look how fascinating these people are. They're so strange. Look at all their weird customs." Right? But the problem is that people are not doing that to the world that they live in right now.
They're saying, "Oh, this is just normal." Right? Because Facebook has become very normal. People are on it all the time. Cell phones have become very normal. So there needs to be an anthropologist that comes in and says, "Oh my God, how fascinating. Look at all these strange things people do. They're posting on each other's Walls." And things like that. So I look through a traditional lens and apply that to the digital space. And then everything seems weird and strange, because I'm taking the thousand foot view, and actually looking at: What is really going on? And has anything actually changed? Or are people just bringing offline behaviors to the online space?
Topics
Now that we have a second self, how do we protect it?
Yes. Without telling people. Just changing it and then saying, "If you want to change it back, here are some options." Right? People need to know beforehand. And I think what happens is: There's this schism. In real life and this is kind of one of the early things that happened with Facebook, when everybody's parents started showing up on Facebook. They were seeing all these conversations that these kids were having, right? And the problem was that, in real life, you have kids are talking to kids, adults are talking to adults, and the conversation that kids have with adults is very different from what adults have with adults and what kids have with kids.
And when you let those two groups kind of blend together in an online space, and suddenly all that communication gets kind of muddy, it doesn't represent what happens in real life. So the schism happens. Right? So if people are used to all this privacy on Facebook, and suddenly the privacy is gone, there's this enormous schism, because, in real life, if they were to meet up in quiet groups, they would be private. That's as if some newspaper reporter were just to say, "Hey, all these people are doing these things!" And put it on the front page for everybody to see. It's really bad.
The other thing is that, I think, sites like Yelp! and a few others instead of opting in, it's opt out, so Facebook automatically takes data about you from there, if you're logged in to Facebook, and adds it to Facebook. And so it's an opt out. So there's this shift from the opt in yes, I want this to happen. Yes, I want this data to be shared. To opt out, where it's automatically shared. You're automatically not private, and you have to opt out of that, if you want to change it. So that's a little bit strange. The other thing is and I think Marshall was telling me about this, but the idea of I think one of the people from Facebook was talking about well, why did they decide to have Facebook be more public?
Well, because if you look at blogs and blog comments and newspaper comments, that's, like, an open invite. That's like an open letter to an editor. And Twitter's always been open from the start. And there's private accounts on Twitter, and there are privacy options, but that's all been open. So making Facebook open is just like, you know, doing anything like those other sites do. But the problem is that Facebook has been a site where people can say private things to a limited audience, for a while. And to open that up, it's not like when you post on Twitter, you know it's public. And people have known that since the beginning of Twitter.
But on Facebook, you're dealing with a number of youth, basically, in transition. They're defining themselves, they're figuring things out, they're making mistakes, they're trying to figure out not only how to represent themselves in real life, but how to represent themselves online. So they're dealing with two versions of themselves: This digital self that's conceived of these images and this text that interacts with other people's images and text, and their actual analog self. And sometimes there are incongruencies in that. And they're also trying to figure out life in general.
So they can't be expected to think of privacy, think of legal aspects, think of representing themselves in a responsible way. Versus on Twitter, where it just says, "Hey, look: It's public." And whatever somebody's public thing is, it's that. And you're not joining tons of groups on Twitter that can be looked at, or something like that. You have hashtags, and you can search people's timelines, and that data goes away after three days. It's really hard to search for. So Facebook is very different, in that respect.
Future of Advertising
Future of Interfaces
Solid to liquid to air. Erving Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
The second self. One must manage both the offline self and the online self. The outer appearance and security of the analog self must be updated an maintained. Clothing and skillets, house and vitamins. One cannot look out of date. The digital self must also maintain the extension of self. Sensors must be developed, even mentally, to ascertain where the boundaries of the digital body begin and end.
A schisim. Two kids whispering to each other are not heard by adults. Two adults talking about adult things are not usually heard by children. On Facebook, everyone can hear each other. The demarcations are not defined. It's uncomfortable. As uncomfortable as if these things happened in real life.
Security in real life Security of the second self.
Taking one's private data is like a giant ripping off the roof's of people's houses and exposing their secrets to the world. what ourselves look like online do not match up to our models of what something looks like in private connections breaking connections -- accounts deleted.
people need some sense of whether something is safe.
trust in real life means - i can walk out of the house and have a sense that people wont steal my stuff… trust online means that i can log out of a social netwokr and have a sense that the network won't open up my data.
or people eaving a social network and not having all of their secrets getting out.
Why is privacy hard? Granularity is complicated, security, & there is currently no model for making money on it. @hotdogsladies #webvisions
Privacy
stays in default public.
there are no replacements. nothing as cool. but their models are default private.
Life as a Game
Why are we so okay with sharing everything? Privacy. Do people really want it?
Online there's this idea of immediate feedback. Social rewards and often faster and more widespread in the digital world than in real life. Also, the rewards have a quantitative and lasting value. Analog interaction is less quantifiable and not as far reaching. If you share something intimate, you can get multiple comments and multiple likes. You get immediate feedback. It feels good. And the more you reveal about yourself, the more you often get back. Eventually, you can feel a sense of community where you might otherwise feel you don’t. if you think about it, it’s like a cross between playing a videogame and being your own micro celebrity.
Immediate feedback. Rewards are faster than in real life. They show up faster. There is more of an adrenaline rush. Every social interaction and success becomes quantifiable. One can get mega points (when their content goes viral) or micro points for micro updates.. THis is the same reason why one is addicted to Farmville-like games.
Facebook and Participation Architecture
A Greek hero goes to an island, and there's this big cornucopia type table spread set up, with this infinite amount of food, and every time he eats from it, the food keeps reappearing. And if he eats from it at all, he gets stuck on the island. Right? So, in a way, Facebook has infinite content. The content never runs out. Any time you consume content, it doesn't go away. It stays there, but it gets replaced with new content. So all the time you have all this content that you can look at as a very sticky surface, and even if you're trying to look at your own images or you're trying to look at somebody else, you find yourself just going deeper and deeper into the structure, and then, maybe 30 minutes later, you wake up and you say, "Oh! Where have I been? What have I done?" It's this very you know, it plays upon the thing of surveilling everybody.
In a way, in the past, you see these celebrities and you see television shows, and suddenly now everybody in everyone's vicinity becomes this television show that everybody's watching. And so you can watch your friends like a show, and they have updates. They have status updates and they have photo updates. And you're watching them without ever talking to them or communicating with them. Like, you can just idly watch these people. And so it's this watching, gazing, observing, peeping type thing, which really kind of excites people. And it's more image based, so you can just go through and get these narratives really quick, or these short jokes.
It's kind of like when a mother bird digests food for the baby bird, and, like, stuffs it down the throat. It's very easy to digest. So versus actually, you know, taking out a book and reading something, and having a narrative build up slowly over time, you get these micronarratives, and they stitch into macronarratives, and they're really addicting because they're so quick. It's a quick fix on something else that somebody else is doing. So it's this vicarious, you know, living through somebody else's eyes. So it's a very interesting interface. It flows forever. And it's like a really long run on sentence with a bunch of really interesting words, and you can't stop reading it, because there's no punctuation. And I think Facebook's architecture and Facebook engineers try to reduce the punctuation in the site, so that you never stop.
In terms of the architecture, because it has things like news feeds, there's a constant flow of information.
Facebook is sticky because it has endless interesting content, based on the former clicks that you contributed to the site about what you're interested in, and it always presents interesting data to you, without end, so that hopefully you never stop clicking. You never stop. You don't have to stop. Versus, you know, a book ends at the end of the book. A newspaper ends at the end of an article or at the end of the newspaper. It's bounded, right? Once you have that piece of paper, it's not going to be anything else. Nothing is going to change. But Facebook is the infinite content thing. So it never, ever ends. And you can never fully exhaust it. So it's this really strange thing, because you just keep getting addicted to it, and keep looking at it.
But is being connected in that way necessarily a bad thing? I mean, what are the benefits of being connected in that way?
A lot of people have to connect that way, because that's how you contact all your friends. So I know that a lot of people, in college especially, they'll go and study abroad, and all their friends will be studying abroad for, you know, junior year, and they'll all be able to contact each other as if they were the same distance away. And I think that's one of the great things about social networks, is that geography is annihilated, as in everything could be you know, you kind of sit at even sitting at a table, right, you sit at a long table at a dinner party, and if you're at the head of the table and somebody else is at the other head, it's really hard for you to talk to each other. But online, everybody at the table is sitting the same distance apart, and everyone can talk to each other. And so, in the same way, on Facebook, anybody in the world can talk to anybody else in the world, immediately. Not as if they were in the room, but in a different way. So it's really nice, because people can really keep in touch with each other, without having to be there. So I think that that's one of the positive benefits of it.
So we've been looking a little bit at the privacy changes on Facebook, and part of what they seem to be doing here is both bringing the broader web inside of Facebook, by publishing things that you like to your Facebook news feed, but also bringing Facebook out into the broader web. What do you think this means for sort of the participation architecture of Facebook? Is this just a furthering of that great feast of data?
I definitely think so. One of the things is, if you like something on the outside, and having the like button brings it into Facebook, it adds more data. I kind of think of Facebook as a really big like, a planet with a lot of gravity, or a sun. Or, actually, more like a black hole that keeps getting mass and sucking things in. So now that Facebook has so much mass, it's getting all these other pieces of asteroids and, like, matter, and it's sucking them in. And so, when you like something on the outside of Facebook, it brings that in to Facebook and says that you like it, and basically subscribes you to those updates, which is interesting. I guess the other thing that happens is, if you list things that you like on your profile, instead of linking out to that actual page, it becomes a link within Facebook. So the idea is so that you never have to leave Facebook, and all the clicks outside of Facebook add content to Facebook.
So it becomes this universe that's kind of enveloping as much as it can. So if people are really engaged with Facebook, they're going to be voluntarily adding content and adding clicks and adding things that they like from the outside, and adding them. So Facebook users become kind of curators of the web, saying what they like and what they don't like, and all of that is stored in Facebook. So it's this complete treasure trove of data. And the other thing is that there have been some really kind of bad and dangerous things that have happened with the lack of privacy that's going on.
