Web 2.0 et société
14.6K views | +0 today
Follow
Web 2.0 et société
La société en mouvement « 2.0 » : quels enjeux, quelles opportunités, quel avenir ?
Curated by BeerBergman
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by BeerBergman
Scoop.it!

‘Dox the powerful’: On @darth and the complex politics of anonymity online

‘Dox the powerful’: On @darth and the complex politics of anonymity online | Web 2.0 et société | Scoop.it
Outing someone's real-life identity has become a form of activism online. But that's not necessarily a good thing.
BeerBergman's insight:

On doxing. Or doxxing :-). ON power and activism. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by BeerBergman from Sciences sociales et la société en mouvement
Scoop.it!

Facebook's Zuckerberg: "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity" | MichaelZimmer.org

Facebook's Zuckerberg: "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity" | MichaelZimmer.org | Web 2.0 et société | Scoop.it

Interesting article about the integrity of people claiming more than one personality, as put by the writer as a comment on a statement by Zuckerberg.

***

I fully understand the authors point of view, all but one : Zuckerberg never said you had to publish everything visible to everybody. Facebook's structure allows you to swift from one context to another, displaying different personal and corporate information to different sets of people. Basically it comes down to one person, different contexts, differents information flows. Correct me if I am wrong!

Excerpt.

***

"There are many different definitions of identity, not all of which make sense. I prefer the view that an identity is a set of assertions about yourself that you may lay claim to. So in a sense everyone only has one identity and has only ever had one ‘identity’. But in practice we expose different sets of claims depending on the circumstances. Nobody puts their membership in Alcoholics Anonymous on their CV."

more...
BeerBergman's curator insight, February 25, 2014 5:00 AM

Interesting article about the integrity of people claiming more than one personality, as put by the writer as a comment on a statement by Zuckerberg.

***

I fully understand the authors point of view, all but one : Zuckerberg never said you had to publish everything visible to everybody. Facebook's structure allows you to swift from one context to another, displaying different personal and corporate information to different sets of people. Basically it comes down to one person, different contexts, differents information flows. Correct me if I am wrong!

Excerpt.

***

"There are many different definitions of identity, not all of which make sense. I prefer the view that an identity is a set of assertions about yourself that you may lay claim to. So in a sense everyone only has one identity and has only ever had one ‘identity’. But in practice we expose different sets of claims depending on the circumstances. Nobody puts their membership in Alcoholics Anonymous on their CV."

Scooped by BeerBergman
Scoop.it!

Digital Identities: Social Networks and Me

The presentation I used for the Distinguished Lecture Series I gave at Sciences Po Paris, Reims campus, on October 1st, 2014, on Digital Identities in social n…
BeerBergman's insight:

Far from being exhaustive, some thoughts about digital identities and social networks

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by BeerBergman
Scoop.it!

Open Data, Data Protection, and Group Privacy - Springer

BeerBergman's insight:

Interesting article by Luciano Floridi on SpringerLink, on data protection for groups, and not only for individuals. Read the article. Excerpt.

***

"As I have argued elsewhere (Floridi 2013) our current ethical approach is too anthropocentric (only natural persons count) and atomistic (only the single individual count). We need to be more inclusive because we are underestimating the risks involved in opening anonymised personal data to public use, in cases in which groups of people may still be easily identified and targeted. Such inclusiveness should not be too hard to achieve. After all, we already accept as ordinary the fact that groups as agents may infringe on someone’s privacy.

***
There are very few Moby-Dicks. Most of us are sardines. The individual sardine may believe that the encircling net is trying to catch it. It is not. It is trying to catch the whole shoal. It is therefore the shoal that needs to be protected, if the sardine is to be saved. An ethics addressing each of us as if we were all special Moby-Dicks may be flattering and it is not mistaken, but needs to be upgraded urgently. Sometimes the only way to protect the individual is to protect the group to which the individual belongs. Preferably before any disaster happens."

more...
No comment yet.