A prepared statement by the plaintiff’s attorney John Torjesen read: “When a teenager sees that their Facebook friends ‘Like’ an ad, it piques their curiosity, making them more likely to click the ad or visit the page. We believe it is a clear case of exploitation of children for the sake of profits.”
Co-counsel in the lawsuit Antony Stuart added: “The consent of the minor for this commercial use of his or her name and likeness is not obtained by Facebook. Under California law, the minor’s consent cannot be obtained without the consent of the parent or guardian. Facebook makes no effort to obtain parental consent.”
OExchange is a protocol that defines the way services like Google Buzz, Digg, StumbleUpon, or Addthis receive, find, and share content. (Video Below)
It’s a great idea as sharing has become one of the backbones of the internet and traffic. OExchange calls content publishers “sources” and places or services that share this content as “targets”. By providing a open protocol the new platform hopes to be not only the standard but ease the sharing between sites, services, and platforms. OExchange ask a few great questions:
Hopefully you got a chance to see the presentation by LiveIntent over at TechCrunch Disrupt. If you haven’t I’ve included the video below and I’ll briefly summarize what this tool does.
Essentially it takes those static social media buttons, like the ones I have in the upper right–and turns them into dynamic content aggregation windows. The example given in the presentation is on Twitter. Let’s say you click on the Twitter button, what will pop-up is a window of conversations that based on the content would make sense to follow. On my page maybe what would show up is my Twitter account, plus a comment from YouBrandInc (because I’m associated with You Brand), then maybe one of my followers because they are talking about the same subject matter as this post.
I read a report this weekend from the marketing solution provider Alterian– Your Brand: At Risk or Ready for Growth? The report is somewhat of a rehash of things that is already common knowledge but there are few things that stand out.
First, a full 95% from a survey conducted for the report indicated they did not trust advertising.Only 8% trust what companies say about themselves. A little over half 58% think that “companies are only interested in selling products and services to me, not necessarily the product or service that is right for me”.
But this report gives you the answer… wait for it… wait… yes you guessed it… social media. Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and Twitter are going to enable people to trust companies again. Also it’s going to allow or somehow change the attitude that companies sell you the product you really want.
When the internet really got going the ability to be anonymous was really the natural state of interaction. As the web has matured this ability has slowly eroded. For social scientists, social anthropologists, and just plain old people watchers this is a burgeoning market.
I would argue that we used to be able to classify people in three parts. The person you are at home, the person you are at work, and the person you are online. These different persona’s are quickly coming to an end. As we take our real world connections and connect online suddenly this opens up the ability to build out a full 360 degree person.
There is a lot of conversation about what this means for people, transparency, the future of the workplace, and that it will foster a better society. The more open we are the more likely we are all going to act responsibly. That’s great but I just don’t find that interesting. Here’s what I find interesting…
Maybe you saw this the other day, Diaspora a social network that a group of NYU graduates are just about to start building . Diaspora is a distributed social network. In their words: Diaspora – the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network. To me this makes tons of sense if implemented correctly. If you watch the video (I’ve included it below) one of the things they ask that to me does make tons of sense is… why should we be tied to a hub?
Update: It seems that if you take 4 geeks, a blackboard, a crowd sourced capital raising platform and throw in a little arrogant privacy moves by the 2Facebook you can make just about any idea fly, last I checked they had well over 10K raised– all the way up to $174,414.
This does make sense. The relationships (people) in the social network that I have are mine. So why should you have to log into a centralized hub that not only controls these friendships but also controls your data? I’ve talked about quite a bit on my podcast Defining New Media.
Who owns this data? There are young children right now that are tagged on Facebook from just about the day– if not the day they were born. That sure is a early start for a digital life. So what if you wanted all that to go away? What if you truly did want that data, pictures, or video to not be seen anymore? You don’t have that choice.
What This Could Mean
I welcome these guys effort. In fact I fully support them and would like to be an early adopter of their product in September 2010. Even if this idea does not take off I hope it is a catalyst for other networks like it. Plus keep Facebook in check a little would help.
I’m hoping it wont be something like Identa.ca. Not sure what that is just think of a open source version of Twitter. While there is a core group of users on this system it has never fully taken off. Time will tell.