From TechCrunch’s piece on Facebook’s recent announcement/http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/21/zuckerbergs-buildin-web-default-social/

Facebooks concern for themselves over their users (and disregard of their privacy) also shows up in creating poor “social” experiences much like the ones Google Buzz made as the comment above shows.

Self-agency is a core element of social engagement.

Everyone participates in different publics. But technology doesn’t differentiate between them well. People do. That’s why algorithmically driven automation (made more intense by fb by default opting in people to sharing their info across the web) assumes that what one says to this group one says to everyone or even more clearly..that everyone is sharing the same context all the time.

re: social-agency.. I very much am a fan of openness and use it a great deal in tummeling and opening people up is part of creating a socially engaging space or convo. but if people don’t feel they are choosing to participate..if they are doing so because of peer pressure only or because of tech defaults then the act of engagement isn’t actually engagement. Ones sense of self isn’t coming with you. In FBs case it’s even lamer (Google Buzz did this too) bc it’s laying info / people where it makes no sense.
By definition, controlling relationships, ones which are not consciously chose ( and I don’t justm ean initially I mean continually) are not relationships on one being WITH another. Its one reason tummeling is so criticaal. It’s how we people can help make connections but it is based on seeing the other person and connecting with them subjectively. (Facebook and Goolge in its own way) aren’t trying to do this. FB wants the *result* of youy but they aren’t particularly interested in you. this is still industrial era relating even if it happens in a web 2.0 candy “social” shell.

Posted via email from subvert with heather gold