One reaction is to diversify: Hotmail instead of Gmail, MapQuest instead of Google Maps, AOL Instant Messenger instead of Google Chat ’ though that would mean losing the accumulated benefits of linked services. Another reasonable response is to focus efforts on improving our (new) media literacy so that we’re more mindful of how much even free stuff can still cost. If we don’t force ourselves to be aware of those trade-offs, we risk stumbling into an increasing dependence on yet one more company that’s too big to fail.

From Google Everywhere by Nancy Scola in The American Prospect.

Google pretty much runs my life right now, and considering this recent Buzz fuck-up, I’m not okay with that. Facebook’s handling of privacy and user data issues are precisely why I avoid it. Now that Google is trying to out Facebook Facebook, I might go in the same direction.

Trading privacy for convenience is not something I oppose. Hell, Amazon has an 11 year search and purchase history on me and does a pretty effective job of getting me to buy more stuff because of it.

I had few problems with GMail at first because the targeted advertising is automated. But I am not a fan of articulating every social connection I have in public. Yes I am on Twitter, but it is a mostly a mix of people I know, people I sort of know, and people I don’t know at all. My email connections are different because they contain information about connections to people that I have not otherwise articulated in public and connections that are very loose. That’s Buzz’ fatal flaw as far as I am concerned: it assumes a lot of things. Sometimes that’s good because it assumes incorrectly — it obfuscates. And sometimes that’s very bad.

That Google made Buzz opt-out shows either stupidity, callousness, or arrogance. Not cool with any of the above. It’s encouraging that they’ve since made it easy to opt out. But I think the original decision is a sign of the decision-making culture at Google. My advice is to use Google services carefully.

As networked technologies proliferate around the world, we can assume that there is a channel of distribution available to everyone and between everyone. In theory, anyone could get content to anyone else. With the barriers to distribution collapsing, what matters is not the act of distribution, but the act of consumption. Thus, the power is no longer in the hands of those who control the channels of distribution, but those who control the limited resource of attention. This is precisely why YOU were the Person of the Year. Your attention is precious and valuable. It’s no longer about push; it’s about pull. And the law of two feet is now culturally pervasive.

Yeah, we know that and live that, right? But danah explains why and how this current Web2.0 wave is different from the early adopter wave/

One of Plurk’s signature features is “Karma,” a rewards system that awards or removes points based on how users interact with the Plurk community.

Plurking daily builds karma. Taking a few hours or a few days away can lower karma. Having plurk-arrhea lowers karma. Invite your friends and your karma goes up. Get de-friended, and your karma goes down. Get your friend request rejected and you lose some more.

Karma, then, is a system that rewards users who practice good community behaviors — being active, but not obnoxious — and penalizes those who don’t.

But the weighting of user activity to calculate Karma has concerned or annoyed some Plurk users. Disappearing karma points = a disincentive to using the site.

I suspect users feel that way because karma is something that you earn. To lose it because of a busy day at work or a web-free vacation feels unfair. Couple that with a lack of transparency — which, much to its credit, Plurk has addressed — and you have a system in which some users opt out of the system of rules because they don’t know which rules they are being penalized for breaking.

I am still intrigued, though, by Plurk’s idea of rewarding or penalizing user behavior algorithmically rather than by community reporting or internal policing. One obvious advantage is that you mitigate some dumb mob effects.

On the other hand, your site runs risk of being perceived as a digital disciplinarian. You’re not the boss of me, dang it! Screw you and the karma-removing-horse you rode in on. I’m taking my ball and going home … or back to Twitter full time.

I think a better karma-style behavior system would:

1. Be transparent about the rules, norms, and expected behaviors.
2. Be very, very obvious about where users can find those rules, norms, and expected behaviors.
3. Always reward for use. Stay neutral on a lack of use. Deduct points only for more serious violations such as obvious spamming, or maybe obvious friend-whoring.

Elsewhere

• Plurk’s “Safe Plurking” Guide
• Plurking Help the Complete Plurk How To Guide for Plurkers old and Plurks Noobs too

The obvious question is ‘How much should you trust code from strangers?’ And can this be done in a safe(-ish), secure(-ish) way?

Possibly related: Cross-domain Ajax links and Access Control for Cross-site Requests (implemented in Firefox 3)

Sex 2.0 will focus on the intersection of social media, feminism, and sexuality. How is social media enabling people to learn, grow, and connect sexually? How is sexual expression tied to social activism? Does the concept of transparency online offer new opportunities or present new roadblocks — or both? These questions, and many more, will be addressed within a safe, welcoming, sex-positive space.

I know there will be at least two people of color speaking, which I hope is a sign that race — and how sex and pornography are racialized as well as gendered — will at least be mentioned.

I will also try my best not to blush, giggle or tee-hee while attending.