@theartofmadeline
Andulka
RMH
h
No title available
taylor price
No title available
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
todays bird
tumblr dot com
No title available
we're not kids anymore.
Cosimo Galluzzi
Product Placement
One Nice Bug Per Day
NASA
untitled
tannertan36
Three Goblin Art
Kaledo Art
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Iraq
seen from Palestinian Territories
seen from Canada
seen from Spain
seen from Brazil
seen from India
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine
seen from Maldives
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from Italy
@thetruthaboutcensoring-blog
Specifics are still just stored.
" 'Facebook, like many companies, runs analytics on its site. Sure, Facebook has much more sophisticated and specialized analytics than your average business site, but…If you’re looking for new reasons to hate on Facebook, I’m sorry to say that I couldn’t find any trace of the self-censored status update being sent. Nothing but meta data here.” -Faison Zutavern of Orion Web' "
[http://gobrandgo.com/facebook-self-censorship/]
Dino Time.
Facebook; protecting it's users one dinosaur at a time.
"One announcement is that the company is encouraging new users to initially share only with their “friends” rather than with the general public, the previous default. And for existing users, the company plans to break out the old “privacy dinosaur” to do a “ check-up” to remind people of how they’re sharing. Facebook employees say that using an extinct creature as a symbol for privacy isn’t subtle messaging, but simply an icon to which their users respond well."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/22/facebook-wants-to-listen-in-on-what-youre-doing/
Facebook Tracking Self-Censorship Could Help Us Learn About Today's Societal Workings
"...Facebook is reading the stuff that you’re not even writing! The hemming and hawing rose to a fever pitch in the form of a Care2 petition entitled “Facebook Stop Stalking Our Unposted Thoughts!.” The petition currently has 28,517 digital signatures. Here’s the thing: In the onrush of alarmism brought on by news of the NSA and LifeLock’s marketing team, we actually missed a really interesting study on human behavior and how it plays out on social media networks."
[http://gobrandgo.com/facebook-self-censorship/]
I agree with Ms. Ritchie about the fact that society has missed out on a major behavioral lesson. By creating a petition such as the one she explains in her article about Facebook tracking individuals' self-censorship, and being against this data collection, we are unable to learn about the patterns and norms of the users of Facebook and networks like it. By Facebook tracking the information that individuals choose to not post at the last minute, they learn numerous facts about the users and can form theories/information centered around individuals within society today. The information that we do choose to make "public" is already tracked and has had studies done on it, but by typing an idea or thought into a bar, the individual is choosing to put their idea or thought out there with the possibility that someone else may see it. By looking specifically at what users choose NOT to post at the last minute, we could learn a lot about what people think about their extended selves (Belk) and own narratives (Lyotard), and how they view themselves in these settings and within these positions. Further down on this page I specifically go into detail and where I stand with Facebook tracking self-censorship, and what I feel needs to be done about this happening. By following the ideas that I shared, I feel that Facebook could help us learn a lot more about ourselves (as a society) than we already understand from previous studies, and could help us to have a more open sharing place.
Understand what you agreed for Facebook to know about you in order to learn about yourself.
Facebook knows all, and wants to help us know, too.
"For 17 days, from July 6th to July 22nd 2012, Facebook collected data from 3.9 million English speaking US and UK based users about whether or not they “last-minute self censor” comments and posts on Facebook. The primary aim of the report was to investigate how users are actually using social media and how to improve the Facebook platform in a way that encourages the open sharing of content without users feeling the need to self censor."
[http://gobrandgo.com/facebook-self-censorship/]
Tracking Self-Censorship: What we already share and what we could learn about ourselves; within bounds.
"Das and Kramer’s article closes with the following: "we have arrived at a better understanding of how and where self-censorship manifests on social media; next, we will need to better understand what and why." This implies that Facebook wants to know what you are typing in order to understand it. The same code Facebook uses to check for self-censorship can tell the company what you typed, so the technology exists to collect that data it wants right now...It is easy to connect this to all the recent news about NSA surveillance. On the surface, it's similar enough. An organization is collecting metadata—that is, everything but the content of a communication—and analyzing it to understand people's behavior. However, there are some important differences. While it may be uncomfortable that the NSA has access to our private communications, the agencys are monitoring things we have actually put online. Facebook, on the other hand, is analyzing thoughts that we have intentionally chosen not to share."
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/facebook_self_censorship_what_happens_to_the_posts_you_don_t_publish.html]
I agree that Facebook has the ability to track the information that users are not officially sharing on their pages and through their accounts due to the fact that they have the technology and resources to do so. Google and other browser systems do this already, and in the society and time that we are living in, I feel that this is not a drastic step in the "wrong direction", for society has already been allowing Facebook and Google (to name a few) to own all of it's information for years. The public is aware of the fact that anything that they post is made public in some form, and by now they should be aware of the fact that this is an every day occurrence to an extreme measure. The companies already have all of this data on individuals and the society as a whole, and researchers have been using this information to do studies that aid us in learning high levels of information about ourselves that we previously were unaware of. [1] By companies obtaining this information from researchers, or doing research themselves, they can better cater to what people want from looking at what people are most inclined to do. This data is the reason why specific ads are catered to individuals' webpages, and certain items/ads are mailed to people. So, with all of this already happening, why not accept and allow the information that we type and delete to be studied along with all of the other information that we put out there to be locked in history and studied? Again, Google already has been doing this for a couple of years, so why not be at ease with Facebook doing the same? Let's take this one step further. I do, obviously, agree with Facebook collecting this data of when and what we self-censor, but in order for higher amounts of people to accept this occurrence (and myself to fully accept this) something must be done first. From this, I mean that I propose a policy be put in place to regulate the way that the information that is collected through tracking self-censorship be within bounds. It is important that Facebook does have a policy to follow on the collection and sharing of our information, and that they be ethical about what they use this information for. The policy that I propose is for Facebook to only be able to narrow studies down to specific zip codes (depending on population) so that there is a level of anonymity that is upheld. More specifically, a population regulatory number must be set on the minimum number of people that have to be within a study before the information can be released. Along with this, names, job locations, etc. need to be kept private and unconnected to the information. Age, gender, and general zip code area information may be tagged on, though. This type of policy allows Facebook to gather the information, as they already have been doing, and will continue to do. It also allows us as a society to maintain individual anonymity, and be able to uphold our reputations/selves by not allowing our personal self-censorship to be connected to us specifically. Due to the fact that a policy for this type of action even needs to be considered, I do agree with and understand the fact that Facebook does have such power as the NSA, or very similarly to the NSA, and that it is parallel to what the NSA does when they use surveillance on individuals searches, posts, etc. What I do not agree with is the idea that what Facebook is analyzing (our thoughts) is different than A; what the NSA is surveying and analyzing, or B; what we already officially "post". Saying that Facebook is analyzing our thoughts is true, because what we post, comment, etc. are our thoughts. The company looking at what we decide not to share that we have already typed are the same kinds of thoughts, we just decide that those thoughts do not fit with the public persona we wish to uphold. More than anything, tracking this self-censorship allows us as a society to learn more about ourselves and about who we are trying to be by covering up what we decide to delete. In this way, maybe we can create an understanding of what we are all trying to be and create a more understanding and accepting place for there to be a higher level of sharing information that we previously (right now) felt that we were unable to share. This is more so, in my opinion, what Facebook is trying to do along with selling our information, which they already do. The one other piece of this that I propose be tagged on with the idea of a policy is the idea of a statement about them performing this tracking of self-censorship be put within their contract that Facebook users agree to in order to use the website. [2] Facebook already has a major list of policies and statements that you must understand and agree to in order to use their services, and it should be tacked in this list, although it is your job to read, understand, and agree to their terms and conditions. [3] In conclusion, I propose this policy and this agreement statement, but I agree that Facebook tracking this self-censorship is both beneficial to us learning more about ourselves, and is not a drastic change, or much of a change at all, from what has already been collected through Google, Facebook, and numerous other browsers/websites. If you are so worried about what might be tracked, stored, and shared in the future, you should read up and study the policy agreements closely that you've already agreed to. You must be highly unaware of what already has been and is happening to your information and how much that these companies already know about you.
[1] http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/study/2265547/46-of-searchers-now-use-mobile-exclusively-to-research-study#
[2] https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/update
[3] https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/update/
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/facebook_self_censorship_what_happens_to_the_posts_you_don_t_publish.html]
If you're doing it, why not try to understand why?