Another week in the books, another tool added to the Web 2.0 toolbox. I signed up to try several tools this week:
Pearltrees,
Diigo,
Wakelet,
Pinterest (okay, I was already signed up for Pinterest) but as in previous weeks, this was just barely scratching the surface of what is out there. I did not immediately take to Diigo or Wakelet; perhaps I didn’t give them enough time to win me over. Waklet’s interface seemed rigid to me and the process for adding items to a collection was clunky and limited. Diigo I think has potential with the ability to search tags and the suite of tools available to add content through the
Google Chrome browser extension was impressive, but the interface was cluttered making it difficult to use. I’m sure given more than a few days of playing with these tools their better features would shine and their limitations would feel, well, less limiting.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are tons of tools out there that are trying to solve the problem of information glut. I think two quotes from
Wakelet’s about page sum up the current predicament rather well:
"The web is filled with disconnected pieces of information and it’s growing all the time."
"Perfectly good content gets buried in no time at all."
It is impossible to keep pace with the amount of information generated online every day; heck, even every minute presents an insurmountable mountain of stuff that we may never even see. Social bookmarking and digital content curation tools are two ways that we can harness the power of social networking to tackle this problem. Even with these tools, there is no way to see everything, but we have a better chance of seeing the right things, the things that are important to us.
What I found interesting from the article on Diigo use in an online graduate-level class was the sort of trickle-down effect of the curated content (Im & Dennen, 2013). The knowledge didn’t just stay within that group of students but rather spread to others that were connected to those students and presumably to others connected beyond that. The act of collecting, aggregating and cultivating the disconnected pieces of information on the Internet greatly extends the reach of this information as it piggybacks on the network of connections between users.
The other issue we dealt with this week was intellectual property and copyright. Kirby Ferguson had a very convincing argument for why he believes
everything is a remix and there is no doubt that both the volume of content available on the Internet and the ease of appropriating it has significantly complicated these ideas. Social media is built on a foundation of sharing, so I was curious about the fate of this continuous stream of content. Do we still own it or are we giving up our rights to it when we click post? Turns out, buried in those terms of service agreements that 99.9% of people blindly accept without so much as a second thought, you still own the content you post on social media;
but...by using the service you are granting Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or whoever pretty much carte blanche to use your content without compensation.
In her article titled "User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation," Jessica Reyman (2013) draws an important distinction between content and data and while you may own your content, social media companies make a fierce claim over ownership of your data. Some may ask what’s the difference? Data includes a wide range of information like status updates, friends and groups you belong to, the things you like, your browsing history and information (metadata) embedded in the material you upload. Most of this stuff is invisible to the end user and that’s the point Reyman is making. People may not be fully cognizant of what data they are implicitly agreeing to give up and more importantly, how that data will be used. This data appropriation by social media companies is viewed as an acceptable cost for the privilege of using the platform.
Reyman cites examples of how Facebook mis-appropriated this data in ways that were unexpected and certainly not welcomed by users and resulted in considerable outrage. The problem I see as social media continues to grow is that users are unable to give their informed consent to these data use practices. Technical settings in many of these applications give the appearance that users are in control of their data, but are they really? Do they know and understand the implications of turning a setting on or off? I would say that most people don’t and the majority of people trust that the default settings will be adequate and provide them with an appropriate level of security and protection. But whose interests are those default settings designed for? The user or the company?
In many ways, the Internet is still the Wild West, with new technologies emerging every day that require us to renegotiate how we interact with this evolving medium. Social media is the current trend in this evolution and with it comes valid concerns over the ownership and use of our content and data. As digital citizens, we need to be aware of these issues and be active voices in the discussion to ensure a fair and balanced distribution of rights.
References:
Im, T. & Dennen, V. P. (2013). Building a collaborative knowledge base in Diigo: How links, tags, and comments support learning. In T. Bastiens, & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (ELEARN) (pp. 794-797). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Reyman, J. (2013). User data on the social web: Authorship, agency, and appropriation. College English, 75(5), 513-533.
