by Tanaz Irani (Spec. Hon. B.A, Pol.Sci.)

It is common and accepted knowledge that once users establish an account on any one of the numerous social networking sites available today, those users are making themselves vulnerable to privacy invasion in a number of ways. Earlier this year Facebook updated its policies on user generated content to allow virtually all uploaded material to be used by the company for advertising, marketing, or essentially any other purpose, even long after the user deletes an account. These policy modifications did not go unnoticed, and in fact were met with public complaint and threatened legal action. This ultimately encouraged the good people at Facebook to return to the older version of the policy; however Facebook is not the only entity that users need to be aware of in respect to privacy concerns.

More and more employers are using social networking sites as a tool to screen potential employees. With the multitude of recent layoffs, and economic hard times, employers are turning to such digital tools to help sort through the numerous applications they receive – weeding out those whose online profile does not meet the standards or desires of the company. Is this (very personal) background check fair? The truth is that outside Quebec, B.C, and Alberta, Canada’s invasion of privacy laws do not extend to information in the hands of private entities, so user beware!

There are a number of pros and cons involved in the question of social networking sites and their interaction with the corporate world. While employers are accessing and assessing the posted content of current and potential employees, complaints made by these individuals against companies for their hiring and firing practices, are on the rise.

It is worth mentioning the “Cisco Fatty” case (as coined by the Globe and Mail newspaper on March 23, 2009). When following a job offer at Cisco, a Twitter user in California sent out a “tweet”: “Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty pay cheque against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.” In less than an hour, she received a reply -from a worker at Cisco- and word is she never got that fatty pay cheque.

Companies on the other hand not only can benefit from this watchdog potential, but also from the timely, financially-sound simplicity of socializing and networking via these sites. Perhaps a ‘poke’ on Facebook does not make the same impression as an expensive luncheon with a client, however it might suffice as a reminder to the client. Of course, it must be noted that such financial benefits are offset by lost productivity related to employees wasting company time surfing around, chatting with friends, stalking old classmates and taking part in innumerable quizzes, games, and various other applications. Heck, I may not be Twittering about it, but all the research and writing for this particular blog entry was done on company time! Is this lost productivity or will the ebb and flow of the digital corporate collision balance itself out? As an increasing number of people have quit smoking, could taking a social networking break be seen as the new smoker’s equivalency break?

As autumn approaches minds turn to harvests, turkey and reasons to give thanks, so I’ve asked my assistant, Tanaz Irani to gather us a bunch of ideas…! On how to monetize social networks.

Social Networking & the Power of Millions of Clicks by Tanaz Irani (Spec. Hon. B.A, Pol.Sci.)

The fundamentally fluid, non-centered and non-linearly controlled nature of the Internet, and the hundreds of social networking sites on it such as Linkedin, Facebook and MySpace, lends itself to a re-thinking of how ideas can be promoted, virally – and how value can be derived not only in the end result but also in the process. The innumerable array of site applications and groups are examples of how these sites are more than a simple digital diary, photo album, or IM program.

On the server side, with partnership programs these sites can earn revenue per click volume, while redirecting traffic towards sponsored pages. Via strategically targeted ads, applications, or user-generated groups, these sites are able to summons up traffic for everything from breast cancer awareness to local condominium projects. A college can generate interest and awareness using social networking sites popular with the student body to promote, image, or brand their institution. These are the online places where students/audience are, so they must be there too – not to control, but to send out a message, or reach out to prospective members of the group.

Another key element to the intricacies of these types of sites is the notion of advocacy or simply giving someone a voice. For example, recent copyright advocacy had tens of thousands (more than 40,000) individuals joining Facebook groups (click here for source) to speak out! At these numbers you can get effective media coverage and lend legitimacy to a campaign or proposal.

The “I am rich” iPhone app is an interesting counter example (Click here for article). Online protests like “I bet I can find 1 million people who dislike George Bush” show what potential these technologies hold for politics.

On the marketing side, it’s about leveraging metrics. The “I am rich” application boils down to some genius who figured he would tap into a highly specialized, but unrealized market segment, and it paid off. The breast cancer group on Facebook reaches hundreds of thousands of people each day, and they’ve found a way to generate enough revenue to offer free services to women. The breast cancer group members are invited to click to a specially directed site, and then click on partner websites (win/win/ hyper marketing). These partner sites (i.e. shopping sites, vacation sites) pay pennies per click, but it adds up and they then offer free mammograms to women in the U.S. based on the $$ they generate. So it is €˜win€™ for the companies, €˜win€™ for the women, and €˜win€™ for the breast cancer advocacy group. But it€™s also hyper because it depends on millions of clicks, each done individually.Š

Bandwagons are easy to jump onto. “Net neutrality” is one of them. The idea is that a neutral communications medium is essential to our society – that allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online will fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. To broadband carriers this essentially means that rather than allowing them to manage their networks in order to handle enormous flows of certain types of bandwidth-hogging traffic, they should simply keep adding more network capacity to stay ahead of usage demands or let their networks run less efficiently –  and become clogged if necessary – to serve the higher purpose of equally-imperfect access to the Internet for all.

Many stakeholders on the Internet already have sided with net neutrality. For example, Google is a big proponent. According to Google,

Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activities online.

Not surprisingly, broadband carriers see the future of the Internet a bit differently. Here’s a flash animated video from the U.S. based advocacy group, Hands off The Internet, funded by major U.S. carriers, making the point that politicians should not replace network administrators and that government’s role here, properly understood, is not to tell them how to manage their networks – rather, it’s to make sure the customers have alternatives if they’re unhappy with their Internet service.

In a recent development to the ongoing net neutrality debates, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) has filed a formal Application with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), asking the CRTC to stop Bell Canada from rolling out traffic shaping technologies on the network space it sells to CAIP members. Traffic shaping identifies and slows down certain types of Internet packets – usually peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic used for large file transfers – giving priority to other types of data. This is because large file transfers clog the networks, leaving slower connection speeds for others. The CAIP argues, however,

Bell’s traffic shaping measures have impaired the speed and performance of the wholesale ASDL access services that it provides to independent ISPs and other competitors. Data transfer speed is an intrinsic characteristic of a high-speed Internet access service and at the speeds observed by CAIP and its ISP members since Bell’s implementation of traffic shaping measures that are at issue in this Application, [the Gateway Access Service] no longer serves its intended purpose of providing reliable, 24×7 high speed access to Internet content.

Smaller ISPs rightfully are concerned that they won’t be able to live up to promises they’ve made to their customers as resellers, because of the throttling being done by Bell. Plus they want to provide an alternative to Bell’s throttled service by having their networks remain unthrottled, in effect to maintain high speed havens for P2P traffic (n.b. the P2P platform is completely legal).

Nonetheless, the CRTC routinely has taken the position since 1999 that it does not regulate the Internet. The reason is that regulation of new media on the Internet is seen as an inhibitor for growth and likely to put Canada at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Therefore it seems unlikely that the CRTC is going to step forward now with a position that supports the concept of net neutrality. That type of initiative is going to have to come from parlaiment, not the CRTC.

The real crux of the matter seems to be one of competition and choice in the marketplace, to make sure customers have real alternatives if they are unhappy with their Internet services. In that sense, if Bell is unable or unwilling to work out a technical solution to get P2P traffic back up to speed (e.g. like the network management plan that the Wall Street Journal reports has been worked out between Comcast and BitTorrent regarding similar complaints of P2P traffic being throttled in the U.S.), it should be required to allow re-sellers the ability to obtain wholesale unthrottled access – i.e. to stop throttling what it sells to re-sellers – to let the customer decide the kind of Internet access the customer wishes to use, rather than having that decision entirely “shaped” by Bell.

Facebook Beacon either is pure marketing genius or yet another form of online privacy intrusion that needs to be stamped out. It depends on your perspective.

Beacon was unveiled earlier this month as a new Facebook marketing initiative which includes a system for other websites to collect and bounce back to Facebook, information about Facebook users activities on those other sites the idea is to expand the ways Facebook users can share information about their favorite products and services (online purchases, wish lists, etc.) with their Facebook friends. It works in conjunction with Facebooks targeted ad-serving program based on user and friend profiles and activity data (Facebook Social Ads). The genius factor is that advertisers get to harness the analytic data and performance metrics (Facebook Insights) of users where users have acted on specific brand preferences rather than simply having typed in a few key-word search terms as in a Google ad. Its part of Facebooks powerful new form of word of mouth advertising, where Facebook users preferences are published to friends in a way that stimulates a virally-induced buzz about a product or service. So, whats wrong with that? Well, the knock against Beacon seems to be that Facebook has crossed the line, where users previously were prepared to play along within the confines of what was being served up on the direct Facebook experience, but feel violated if theyre being followed once they log off their Facebook account.

With respect to privacy, Facebooks CEO Mark Zuckerberg states that, “no personally identifiable information is shared with an advertiser in creating a Social Ad,” and that “Facebook users will only see Social Ads to the extent their friends are sharing information with them.” Yet, the privacy problem with Beacon relates to its reach. Will your friend, Nancy, find out through Facebook that youve just bought her that new book shes been asking for the one you were going to give her as a surprise?

Yes, the backlash has been predictable. Already there are Facebook groups on Facebook complaining about Facebook (e.g. the group, “I dont want Facebook tracking my Internet use”). There is never a shortage of Internet users ready to complain about a free service. They could vote with their keyboards and move to other social networking sites that so far appear free of Beacon-like intrusions, like Ning, co-founded by Netscapes creator, Marc Andreeson, but the problem with other social networking sites is that they lack the critical mass of Facebook. Not enough people use them. Theyre not the place to be at, and so, Facebook users critical of Beacon say in effect that Facebook has thrown a party where everyone has shown up but now the free hors doeuvres blow.

Its somewhat disingenuous to complain about a free service, yet people do, and no doubt theres already been a rash of complaints to privacy regulators. On the surface, it seems there is something to complain about, especially about the “negative option” where a Facebook user does not opt-in to Beacon, but must somehow try to figure out how to turn the darned thing off the problem being that most users are not sufficiently aware whats going on from a technical point of view to know how to configure Beacon. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada states for example.

“Organizations covered by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act are required to inform you fully and accurately about what personal information they collect, why they collect it, what they intend to do with it and how they protect it. Organizations must always have your informed consent before they may collect, use or disclose your personal information, and you must be given meaningful options for accessing that information and for resolving privacy issues and complaints.”

Informed consent is a touchstone of privacy legislation, yet it tends to be a moving target where companies collecting and using data online will point to terms of service on their sites to demonstrate that users have been informed, with those terms of service being modified as the services themselves are modified.

My continuing hope is that inevitable backlashes to new technologies do not become over-reactions on the part of regulators. There are plenty of sites for squeamish Internet users to play on those users who dont like the idea of their moves being tracked by Facebook. In a free society, the commercial exhibitionism and voyeurism represented by Facebook is a healthy and tolerable thing. Users quickly will deflate Facebooks critical mass if Facebook alienates them by becoming too crass or if too much attention is shifted to product placement. As for intrusions of privacy, well, if you dont like the direction that Facebook is headed, you should move off it, rather than trying to spoil the party for everyone else.