Archive for the ‘Social Business’ Category

Mutual ownership of data – B2B B2C P2P O2O O2P

Monday, June 15th, 2009

So how did I get here?  this concept of mutual ownership of data.  To be honest I did not get there from the perspective of the individual.  I got here because I wanted to figure out how to create a mesh of social nets so that I could have multiple personas.

The big piece is getting groups that control the Social nets to share the data.  I had to create something so that competitive groups would share data.  That is when I realized

business 2 business

org 2 org

business 2 client

and org 2 patron and even person to person

were all the same issue.  Setting up a TRUST relationship and keeping that balanced.  To do that mutual ownership must be acknowledged then maybe we can begin to negotiate what might be an equivalent relationship to create that trust.

Trusting without recourse… isn’t very smart in business though as people we do it naturally (and I think it is why we are losing our data left and right and suffering the advertising overload consequences.)  good fences make good neighborhoods.  good contracts make good business partners just by SETTING EXPECTATIONS.

I honestly believe that a mesh of Federating Social Nets cannot exist without this mutual ownership of data.  How else do we get Businesses and organization to share data?

Mike Neuenschwander wrote an awesome blog post about the equivalence issue – and explains it better than I in business terminology.

He calls it the law of relational symmetry.  I should state here too that one of my top five movies is “Brazil.”  Also Princess Bride, Dune (6hr version NOT TV), Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and The Fifth Element.  But that did not bias me to his article :-)

Sometimes I am upset that we do not learn to barter in this country.  I think this aspect of figuring out the relational symmetry of ownership of data would be more intuitive if we realized – Data is money therefore negiogate cash for its release!

Share

Mutual ownership of data – FSN

Monday, June 15th, 2009

the most basic problem in social nets today ( and actually MOST data)

is that it is rare that data is actually owned by one party.  It is typically owned by at least two (see my previous example of friendship in social nets)

So this mutual ownership – this “child” data has responsibilities.  The problems typically occur when inequalities exist.  Typically I think most problems today are because of the fact that one entity believes they are the sole owner of the data.  For example, Facebook and Beacon,  they believed that purchase data was theirs to do as they pleased with it.  The funny thing is people were/are foolishly happy with letting facebook gather it.  The only became unhappy when facebook used it foolishly by revealing purchases to their peers.   Then many left or threatened to leave if facebook didn’t fix the issue.  Perfectly illustrating the joint ownership of that data.

So the normal facebook data as potentially as useful as it maybe isn’t an extreme example of inequality.  I think banks and Credit cards are an even better example.  That shared bank account  they view the data to be theirs.  When they do the security threat analysis they do not factor in YOUR cost as the individuals if your identity is stolen?  If they did view the data as mutual, they would need to add that to the equation.  Then there would be accountability for that data and banks could more easily be held legally accountable for their actions.  Nothing better than a mob of hundreds of thousands pissed off and filing a law suit of identity theft.

So how do we deal with these issues of inequality of risk in regards to this mutually owned data?  well for that we need to turn to the law.  First contracts…. (hello Lessig are you reading this?)  We need a standard of mutual data ownership – a contract to create first the acknowledgment of shared data and secondly to balance the inequality of responsibility (perhaps thru lawsuits not sure what this looks like.)

Though honestly I think the biggest issues is people’s inherent lack of awareness in regards to these inequalities…  Google has done them the public a favor in my opinion by making their transparency obvious in a social way.  Facebook’s mistakes as well.  Though I do know Google trying to protect people’s data – at the same time I am pissed because they teach BAD HABITS in regards to sharing.

And to those (I know you are reading this) that claim “I am transparent on the net!  I have nothing to hide!”  I ask…

So where’s that nekkid pic of you on the net?  Where are your bank account records?  Where are your medical records?

I don’t know anyone that is completely transparent except maybe the invisible man…

Share

Relative Reputation

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

firstoff – Reputation what is it?  and how do we as computer geeks – replicate it?

Wikipedia says basically – “Social evaluation of the public towards something used for social control”

What does this mean?  Well the main part that most in the tech industry seem to forget is that the “public” decides what your reputation is.  It is not a statistical average but instead a matrix of social interactions on a one to one level…  it is relative to your own set of criteria.  For example a cynic may have a very different base rating as an optimist.

I decide if you are “good at” dancing.  Now you might be an overall “okay” dancer but with me something special happens and you become a “better than okay” dancer.  I have a reputations as a “very good” follow.  So when I say that you are “good” rather than “okay” several follows will reevaluate your skills but in context of ME saying it.

If I regularly find leads to be better or if I have a different dancing style,  the other follower or followers may discount my rating.

So social does not simply mean an mathematical average.

It is specific to an instance in time with many factors.

I suppose to go back farther into what is reputation we have to look at trust

1) how one feels that day

2) your expertise on a specific topic

3) mine expertise on a specific topic

4) my belief in your expertise

oh and remember you do not OWN your reputation – the community does.  And the Community owns the data that creates your reputation too.  So you have an advantage in being transparent… but you give up ownership.

I find these days it is pretty rare when anyone actually “OWNS” their data.  Most things are built on work of others…  Sometimes I don’t even realize I am doing or thinking something emergent or derivative.

And friendship and reputation are created from the interactions btn at least 2 people.  Both of those people own that “child” that is the relationship or statement of friendship.  Facebook doesn’t…  Facebook owns the behaviors it monitors (oh and trust me they are monitoring else de be fools.)

oh well noodle noodle…

Share

Something new? I don’t think so

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

So here I am working on my Federated Social network concept for a presentation in DC next week. And Again I find I am not original…

See the way I do things is I come up with an idea and then I look for stuff to justify what I think “feels right.” Yea sorry it’s just how my backassward brain thinks.

Why do I do it – backwards? I am unknown and lack in reputation. So no one believes what I say unless I can prove it. So I cheat and use others reputation points to prove my concept :-)

So here I am falling in love with Feynman again. And As I am researching the concepts about my peer review process, I find some other amazing gems…

like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
this equation makes me happier than I can ever explain!
PS_1 -> TT_1 -> EE_1 -> PS_2
“In response to a given problem situation (PS1), a number of competing conjectures, or tentative theories (TT), are systematically subjected to the most rigorous attempts at falsification possible. This process, error elimination (EE), performs a similar function for science that natural selection performs for biological evolution. Theories that better survive the process of refutation are not more true, but rather, more “fit”—in other words, more applicable to the problem situation at hand (PS1)”

an equation for evolution of ideas (and well evolution period)

which then leads me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_Indefinablity_Theorem and Tarski’s “semantic theory of truth”!

yea – my brain is happy and feeling validated…

now to work on my wallet

Share

reputation and anonymity

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

I don’t believe reputation and anonymity are mutually exclusive.

I believe as we get closer to quantifying relative reputation (because reputation is just as much your profile information merged w other profile information)  we will watch “reputation brokers” emerge.  People that will act as third party validation mechanisms.

I also believe that those 3rd party brokers if THEY have a good reputation with you can serve as anonymity brokers.  Such like reporters had to do in the day w their “sources”

Share