Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Academics To Predict Next Twitter and Its Pitfalls

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the peer-into-my-crystal-ball dept.

Social Networks 150

An anonymous reader writes "University researchers in the UK have put together a team tasked with predicting the next big thing in terms of communication technologies, in a bid to tackle ethical pitfalls before they become a problem. This is in the wake of the rise of social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, which has led to a dramatic increase in the amount of personal information available online."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The next service? "c.hr" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593531)

One character messages only. Now you can say the same things even faster.

Re:The next service? "c.hr" (2, Funny)

jae471 (1102461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593547)

h . . .

Re:The next service? "c.hr" (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595597)

k ...

Re:The next service? "c.hr" (2, Funny)

illumastorm (172101) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593613)

This is perfect when I say the names of all 50 states in one syllable.

Re:The next service? "c.hr" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593757)

Inconceivable

Science Fiction (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593813)

Why don't they just go read some good science fiction? Or talk to some good sci-fi authors?

Re:Science Fiction (5, Funny)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594097)

dont you mean syfy?

Re:Science Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594209)

dont you mean syfy?

OF COURSE he doesn't mean syfy. Syfy is a watered down pablum for the mindless who fell in love with space opera. Syfy has never had an original idea. Sci-fi, on the other hand, boasts genuine genius authors, many of whom wrote as a pastime. Real scientists, who asked "What if my hypothesis is right, how might it affect humankind?" Few syfy clowns can even spell hypothesis, let alone come up with one.

I will thank you to stop muddying the water, and trying to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. Go away now, and masturbate to the metal music soundtracks on your latest apocalyptic mindless blockbuster movie.

Re:Science Fiction (2, Funny)

PhoenixAtlantios (991132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594489)

SyFy is a brand name for a television channel, Science Fiction is still abbreviated to SciFi. People should really stop trying to help spread that brand name around, because the last thing we need is for the layman to exclusively associate science fiction with what they show on that channel.

Re:Science Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594497)

Whoosh!

Re:Science Fiction (1)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595033)

Did you seriously just associate not being a hard Sci-Fi fan with being a member of the laity?

Re:Science Fiction (2, Funny)

Fallen Seraph (808728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594729)

What does syphilis have to do with anything?

Re:Science Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27595091)

If you had it, you would know it has everything do with EVERYTHING.

Telegraph prose (4, Interesting)

grcumb (781340) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595621)

One character messages only. Now you can say the same things even faster.

Feh. Ancient history.

An entire genre of prose was derived from the high cost of sending telegrams. Hemingway is probably the most famous example, but a whole generation of journalists learned to pare down their sentences to the absolute minimum to save on transmission costs.

True story: A foreign correspondent was sent to a distant country to prepare some coverage of an imminent war. Because telegraph costs were so high, the home office had prepared large amounts of background already, and kept it sitting on file. All they needed to know was when to print it.

The parsimonious editor sent the following message to his correspondent:

?

To which the correspondent replied:

!

The same day the front page announced news of the outbreak of war.

Academics To Predict Future! (4, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593551)

Somebody just got a big fat grant for sitting around and smoking dubies.

Re:Academics To Predict Future! (2)

McCat (1438893) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593571)

True. Fine with me as long as they stay away from Phorm.

Re:Academics To Predict Future! (1)

ikirudennis (1138621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593637)

Somebody just got a big fat grant for sitting around and smoking big fat dubies.

Re:Academics To Predict Future! (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593707)

At least they are not calling themselves futurists.

Re:Academics To Predict Future! (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595321)


Of course not - that's no longer a buzzword. Honestly - most of the academics in this field couldn't predict the next big thing until eight months *after* it hit. They run around latching onto any buzzword and then dressing it up in fancy language to research bodies and (if they're lucky) a national newspaper and trying to make themselves sound up to date. There are few things sadder to see than people whose job depends on trying to sound cutting edge.

Some academics are quite good at seeing which way things are going early on, of course. But they're not the same academics who make a living out of talking about it, they're the academics who are just aware of how things are because they're actually involved in producing new technologies. The rest are just parasites - narrating without contributing.

Re:Academics To Predict Future! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595387)

What gets me is this part:

" in a bid to tackle ethical pitfalls before they become a problem."

Ok, I'm stumped, what are the ethical pitfalls of the current things like twitter, facebook, etc?

Aside from a great deal of inane banter, and some bad webpages...what is ethically bad about these things?

Re:Academics To Predict Future! (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593865)

Hee-U! It's OK, it's the UK. Suckaz!! :-)

Self-fulfilling Prophecy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594153)

Even if they predict right their prediction could affect the outcome.

Re:Self-fulfilling Prophecy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27595361)

So?

Re:Self-fulfilling Prophecy! (3, Funny)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595615)

Doctor, could you have a look at the cat I have in this box? It's real sick. Either that, or it's fine.

Can they help with the exacta in the 9th race? (0, Offtopic)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593565)

I'm getting killed here. (Sent my Blackberry from the $2 window)

Re:Can they help with the exacta in the 9th race? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594169)

Green Sallie, dream livr

Social network medical records (4, Interesting)

xzvf (924443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593575)

Thanks to the stimulus input, Medbook Space, the social network for medical records will be the next online sensation. X-rays, videos of prostrate exams, drug history ... all available to employers, insurance agencies and interested voyeurs.

Re:Social network medical records (4, Interesting)

jae471 (1102461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593593)

Well, first you will have to find someone who knows MUMPS [wikipedia.org] to create the back-end.

Re:Social network medical records (2, Informative)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593789)

Enjoy these excellent MUMPS horror stories [google.com] at TheDailyWTF.com.

Begs the question (4, Informative)

eggfoolr (999317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593661)

Who in their right mind would ever put their own personal information on the web?

If people are stupid enough to do it, then let them be the victim of their own stupidity.

Anon.

Re:Begs the question (5, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593691)

The problem isn't people posting their own idiotic adventures online - the problem is people getting tagged in other people's photos and videos. It's easy for me to control what I post online about myself; it's very, very difficult for me to control what other people post about me online, and even more difficult to remove material that I find inappropriate.

Or it would be if I had a social life, anyways.

Re:Begs the question (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594043)

The best thing you can do is not hang around with idiots who feel compelled to blog or twat* about every damn thing they do. That won't eliminate every single photo of you, but it'll eliminate most (currently) searchable references to you. Avoiding having non-friends take your picture can almost always be done without causing a fuss.

The only major loose end that leaves is family, which can be difficult to deal with diplomatically. A lot of older people don't understand the basics of internet socialization - a much older cousin of mine recently got very upset by the result to the "Which of Jesus' Disciples Are You?" quiz on facebook - and trying to explain things like privacy issues can be daunting. The only pic of me on the 'net right now is one of me with my extended family, taken and posted by my mom. Not a good pic, but I'll survive.

*If I have to call it something embarrassing like tweet, I'd prefer to call it something embarrassing and insulting to the service.

Re:Begs the question (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594443)

You're new to the net aren't you?

Re:Begs the question (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27595071)

Yep, only been using it since '93 or so.

What prompted your response? I'm guessing it was meant as a joke of sorts, but I must be too new to get it. Is it because I mentioned my mom and adults are supposed to be too cool to see their relatives?

Re:Begs the question (0, Flamebait)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595631)

That and stay in your parent's basement, friendless and alone with only your super133t social skills for company.

Re:Begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594595)

Having an account actually helps here, since on Facebook you can restrict access to photos etcetera of you to friends only, which gives you more privacy than if you have no account at all. That was half the reason I created an account.

Re:Begs the question (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594701)

So your problem is with freedom.

Re:Begs the question (1)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595013)

Yeah, those faceborg drones are damned annoying with their tag tag tagging...

Academics meh... (5, Interesting)

TempusMagus (723668) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593581)

Seriously, forget the academics. Put 10 teens in a room of various social types with a smart developer who listens and a programmable mobile device. You'll come out with a product.

Re:Academics meh... (5, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593599)

The only thing that product will do is make farting noises when you press it, but it will still be a product.

Re:Academics meh... (1)

DavidChristopher (633902) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593981)

They're gonna invent the index finger?

Re:Academics meh... (5, Funny)

chromas (1085949) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594047)

No, the index finger was based on client-pull technology. Press is what's hot now.

Re:Academics meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594453)

Nope. Push is what's hot now. Ask Apple.

Eureka! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594033)

Here [jaycar.com.au] is your chance to corner the world market for the next big thing and have Bill Gates cleaning your shoes. As a bonus, they are even on special! Remember me when you're rich? (Can I have a research grant now? Please?)

Re:Academics meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594077)

The only thing that product will do is make farting noises when you press it, but it will still be a product.

Surely there is an iPhone app somewhere in that; I mean, just imagine the various uses...increadible. Need a seat on the subway? Press the button. Want to get rid of annoying coworkers? Press the button. Want to end the relationship quickly and certainly? Press the button.

Re:Academics meh... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594971)

You're so right. [venturebeat.com] Not to mention that the market is fiercely competitive, and pulls in 6 figures in a week. Whodathunkit?

Re:Academics meh... (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594975)

They already did this on the iPhone.

Somewhat predictably, it made the developer quite a lot of money.

Re:Academics meh... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593737)

I was the programmer and we did this for a startup I used to work for. We just ended up blowing a few million on some really bad ideas.

Re:Academics meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594351)

Marketing people already do this to figure out whats "cool". They give the teens $100 and it is still like pulling teeth to get anything out of them.

Re:Academics meh... (3, Insightful)

XorNand (517466) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594655)

Any "smart developer" will tell you the first problem with that plan is that it assumes that users know what they want.

Re:Academics meh... (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594813)

But they do know what they want. A faster horse, or whatever the equivalent is these days.

Re:Academics meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27595677)

There are 2, and ONLY 2, types of users :

1) Those who do not know what they want

2) Those who know what they want, but are unable to articulate it

(I forget who said this first)

If you could do that... (5, Insightful)

iPaul (559200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593583)

You'd probably not be swatting away for some douche at a University, trying to finish you thesis or get tenure. You'd probably scrape together every last penny you had and become a first round VC.

Re:If you could do that... (3, Interesting)

Pinckney (1098477) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593815)

Ah, but nobody is claiming they can do so accurately. They can, however, make educated predictions, some of which will be right. It's the shotgun approach. The point isn't in the predictions, but in the ethical issues they address, so that others can take responsible actions if some of those technologies become big.

The headline could better have read "Academics to predict pitfalls of potential next Twitters."

Strangled in the crib, or earlier (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593631)

So now they're trying to figure out a way to regulate new technologies out of existence before they've even been conceived of? Such progress....

Re:Strangled in the crib, or earlier (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593785)

A conspiracy to bring back punch cards and the priesthood. Can you manage Twitter on a punch card?

Re:Strangled in the crib, or earlier (1)

sfbanutt (116292) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593883)

Tweets would be limited to 80 characters or less instead of 140...

Re:Strangled in the crib, or earlier (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594137)

What I don't understand is why these so-called "tweets" have a limit 20 characters shorter than an SMS. The impression it leaves to me is that they must be intentionally meaningless. In which case your own meaningless blather is awash in a sea of meaningless drivel. If I were in the prophecy business, I would predict a short existence for Twitter, since sooner or later people will get bored with that.

Re:Strangled in the crib, or earlier (3, Interesting)

TSPhoenix (1367187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594363)

The character limit makes you aware how much fluff we add to what we say. Most comments on this article could be half as long and lose little. I wouldn't claim it is bringing succinctness back to English, sum ppl jus rite lyk dis nstead.

Other sites do it, one takes anecdotes with word limit of ~50 makes good use as readers can absorb many stories quickly increasing how much they enjoy their time at the site. In a time poor society I'd appreciate more people going straight to the point.

(FYI, I wrote this post, realised how long it was and trimmed it down to below half as long without sacrificing any content)

Re:Strangled in the crib, or earlier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594095)

Well, when you suggest that as a way to have prevented the scourge that is twitter, it doesn't sound so bad.

OpenBank (1, Troll)

Centurix (249778) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593677)

Rather than keeping your bank account a secret, make it available to the online community. Part of the Free, Unlimited Community Knowledge and Education Department.

Re:OpenBank (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593773)

open banking is communism --ballmer

Re:OpenBank (-1, Offtopic)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593913)

    You haven't been in IRC lately, have you? I was just DCC'd the master list of all active bank accounts. I'll be pulling $1 from each, marking it as a "service fee", and I'll be filthy rich. I'm thinking of buying a tropical island. Maybe Hawaii.

    For my next trick, I'm going to buy a small fleet of slightly retired naval warships and freighters, and head over to Somalia to do some business. Those pirates will have nothing on me. Handheld weapons on speedboats? Ha! Wait til I level the guns of my slightly used battleship at them. I don't think anyone will argue with that. :)

  "Pirate ship Smythe to merchant vessel off our port. Please have all of your crew board the lifeboats, or we will turn your cargo ship into an artificial reef. You have 2 minutes to comply"

    I'm sure with the purchase of a fleet of slightly used warships, we could get enough small arms to equip several squads of mercenaries who will be more than happy to secure the boat for us.

    If the local pirates tried to play rough, they wouldn't have a chance. I'm not sure a radio call would even be in order (or possible, they probably don't have radios). Deck guns would be enough to eliminate any threat, should they show any resistance.

    With enough money (hey, a few catch and releases should fund that), I'm sure a few soviet states may be willing to let some more interesting ships go. Ever wonder what happens when you do an emergency surface in a Yankee class sub under a small boat? :) They may not be the latest greatest ships, but with what they'd fighting against, you don't need it.

    It's all about the money though. The crews would be given safe passage to the nearest safe port with a nearby airport, and a paid ticket home. Of course they'd have an apology note, so their bosses wouldn't be upset.

    Ya, if I was a bad guy, I could be dangerous. It's a good thing I'm a good guy. I'm sitting comfortably in the US, with no plans on getting any bank account lists, nor my own navy. Then again, if a rogue navy started really screwing with the pirates by Somalia, it would probably stop all that BS. What are they going to do? Declare war against a navy with heavy weapons, flagged as pirates? :) Maybe the US Navy could be encouraged to free up some mothballed ships of various flavors for a few false flag missions. I can't imagine that US Navy ships are the only thing they have laying around. A rogue navy could be useful in many ways. Need an enemy seaport destroyed without implicating your own country? Leave it to Smythe Industries. We'll lay waste to any port city you want. Pesky pirates interfering with your commerce traffic? We'll blow them out of the water. Need a war started with a couple tense countries? A little paint and we'll have them believing they started it themselves. False flag operations starting at only $1 billion. Need your special forces moved into unreachable waters with no questions asked? Take a ride on our "fully loaded and documented" freighter. We'll bring them right into port! No target too big or too small. Radio first, and have an unarmed helicopter drop cash on the ship named "Pirate Funds".

    Just wait until the false flag navy gets a hold of a couple carriers and some decent (yet retired) aircraft.

    You thought Blackwater had something going? Nah, we'll show you how it's done. Think "Air America" meets "Lord of War"

Re:OpenBank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594331)

A battleship to chase pirates. Good luck. Do you have ANY idea how much one shell for a 16" gun costs - never mind the cost of the crew? You could buy several Zodiac boats for the cost of one shell.

Scrap the battleship plan, and check out the plans for old WW2 PT boats. Build a couple thousand. Arm them with nothing more than a 30mm cannon. One of those gatling designs might be nice, 6 barrels would be enough. Then, invest in some good comm equipment, satellite imaging, hire some daredevil sumbitches, and let them loose.

Assaulting a harbor with twelve of these things would be almost equivalent to Puff the Magic Dragon.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/vietnam/spooky-puff.htm

Salutes to the Diggers.

With the money I have just saved you with this idea, you can buy a couple supply ships to keep the crews of the PT boats supplied with ammo, food, and beer. These tenders can also host a small fleet of helicopter gunships.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/vietnam/gunships.htm

They'll take care of anything that is just a little out of range of the PT boat fleets.

Re:OpenBank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594577)

Then, invest in some good comm equipment, satellite imaging, hire some daredevil sumbitches, and let them loose.

s/daredevil sumbitches/adventure tourists/g

I'm not much of a navigator, but I'd pay $10K for an 8-hour shift behind one of the guns as long as I've got the rest of the crew to handle navigation, engineering, seamanship, and someone else on another set of guns in case I fuck up. Shit, I'm sure there are people who'd pay $100K. (I would, except I can't afford $100K for the privilege.)

(Can anyone remember the short story that featured this as a premise? Not the old "Most Dangerous Game" one, I'm thinking of something I read on the 'net a few years ago, probably kuro5hin or somewhere similar. Think it was set in Cuba, but don't quote me on that.)

Pseudonyms, encryption and Identity theft (4, Insightful)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593719)

I use pseudonyms as a barrier between me and Identity Theft, because facebook, myspace all look like vectors for Identity theft to me. Using a fake identity can't be a bad thing when people are inclined to steal it.

Unfortunately, our institutions are yet to realise that protecting privacy by educating people about using encryption is a good first step to reducing fraud related behaviour. Until that happens, the bad guys have the advantage.

Simply put, the authorities have related encryption to illicit activities instead of a set of basic tools that people can use to protect themselves on line. In terms of protecting ourselves people are often encouraged into the worst sets of behaviour, so we haven't even done the basics now, let alone 10-15 years time. I predict more scams in the future.

Re:Pseudonyms, encryption and Identity theft (1)

nmoog (701216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593905)

I was going to say that pseudonyms are no help anymore, because other people will tag REAL stuff and point it at your pseudonyms. For example, I have NEVER put my real name on my blog. But search for my name on google and my blog is the first result. And it sure doesn't take much work to find my name from my pseudonyms either. (This may have been addressed in the article, but I couldn't read it because it started with the word "Boffins")

Re:Pseudonyms, encryption and Identity theft (4, Informative)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594175)

Unfortunately Facebook, Myspace etc. do not allow pseudonymous identities. It is required that all information be accurate and truthful. Recently a woman in the US was convicted [wikipedia.org] for "unauthorized access" on Myspace because she signed up pretending to be some make-believe boy. There were aggravating factors that led to her investigation and arrest (she trolled some teenage girl who ended up killing herself), but, still, what she was convicted for was just that, computer fraud because of signing up on false pretences, not for harassment or anything like that.

I would have gotten a Facebook account a while ago if they did not have that requirement.

Re:Pseudonyms, encryption and Identity theft (3, Insightful)

lennier (44736) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594641)

"Unfortunately Facebook, Myspace etc. do not allow pseudonymous identities."

That's not a bug, it's a feature. Some of us actually *want* people to know who we are online, and want to know who the people are who we are dealing with.

Yes, we'd no doubt get a whole lot more privacy if we always went by Zasduhauy Q. Viisufod online and posted a picture of our cat run through a Gaussian blur as our photograph.

But why not extend that logical principle and go to the office and supermarket every day wearing a Guy Fawkes mask? The Man shall not chain me! I shall be a free, unharrassed, absolutely private individual! None shall know my secret identity!

If you have stuff you don't want the world to know, don't put it up on public forums.

Conversely, if you want to create a public forum where people can trust each other, don't let them lie about their identity.

Works for me.

The next thing is "flaps", 26 character max (3, Funny)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593725)

Flutter is the new twitter. [tinyurl.com] Duh. KIM GET COFFEE!

Re:The next thing is "flaps", 26 character max (1)

Spasmodeus (940657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593817)

I figure we'll skip this step and go right to the logical end of this progression of non-communication.

The next big thing will be "Grunter" -- one syllable "grunts" that you can use to express your emotions to anonymous strangers on the internet who will pretend to be interested in you as long as you subscribe to their "grunts".

I've already patented this six ways from Sunday, so don't even think about getting your grubby dick-beaters anywhere near my idea.

Ugh! You heard it here first.

Re:The next thing is "flaps", 26 character max (1)

chromas (1085949) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594101)

I will beat that with null-blogging; all you can send is a null-terminator. After I get rich from that, I'll get double-rich with nega-blogging!

Re:The next thing is "flaps", 26 character max (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594157)

a null-terminator won't go through without a chip.

twitvid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593873)

twitter + video.
No clips longer than 3 seconds.

I pray that it replaces the retardation that lives on youtube.
Quality will still be shit, but quantity will decrease drastically.

Re:The next thing is "flaps", 26 character max (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593901)

Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeLZCy-_m3s

The tinyurl goes to some adsense blog with the video embedded. Lame.

What are these folks talkign about? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593753)

...in a bid to tackle ethical pitfalls before they become a problem...

The question that has to be asked is: "...they (ethical issues), become a problem to who?"

As far as I know, those who put info online do so with knowledge of what they face and especially the privacy issues that may arise. I get a feeling that folks involved in efforts as mentioned in the introduction are living in the 50s where privacy was such a big deal.

Today's kids do not see that as much of an issue I might add. I hope they direct their efforts elsewhere.

Avoid Marketeers (3, Insightful)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593759)

The only way to make a social networking product be as big as My Space / Facebook / Twitter AND not suck monkey nuts is to keep the marketeers out of it, and that just isn't going to happen.

Re:Avoid Marketeers (1)

cboslin (1532787) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593909)

And of course someone has to pay for the server, storage and the bandwidth too.

Re:Avoid Marketeers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594321)

And of course someone has to pay for the server, storage and the bandwidth too.

You think marketers pay for anything? Advertising money doesn't come from nothing. Marketers are just middlemen that add no value.

Re:Avoid Marketeers (1)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594061)

Do you mean without advertisements, or without accounts for Coke, Pepsi, and Torgo's Executive Powder? It would be a neat idea to put it in the TOS that companies cannot have a profile for marketing/spamming purposes, but who the hell has the time to approve something once it became as big as MySpace/Facebook?

Maybe I misunderstood your whole post.

Re:Avoid Marketeers (2, Interesting)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594487)

No that's what I meant. I don't mind banner ads and stuff. It's the companies posing as 'people' who want to be your friend. I get enough spam in my email, thanks.

I enjoy being able to white list my instant messaging and email accounts, but a "social networking" service needs to be open.

Twitter is so stupid . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593791)

. . . that it requires a two-decades old word to describe it: "lame".

If it became half as lame as it is, it would still be "whack" (from only one decade-and-a-half ago).

Thus is explained the interest of academics in seeking out its kin.

"Academics" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593805)

"Academics" = a bunch of socialist, condescending liberal assholes sitting around talking about nothing. Typical liberalism.

So Rush is an Academic? (0, Troll)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594485)

So you're implying that Rush, Hannity et al. are really academics and liberals? They certainly fit the description as condescending assholes who sit around talking about nothing.

What big thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593853)

Outside of the news media and various politicians, does anyone actually use Twitter? I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention it outside of those spheres.

I mean honestly I don't really see what the big deal about it is.

Re:What big thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593907)

I know a guy who uses it. He says he does it because he works at Google and it's important for him to keep up with what's happening in his industry. So go figure ... kinda the snake eating its own tail on that one.

About 850,000 Ashton Kutcher groupies? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595177)

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/13/ashton-kutcher-promises-to-punk-ted-turner-if-he-beats-cnn-to-a-million-twitter-followers/ [techcrunch.com]

From TFL:

So Kutcher is throwing down the gauntlet. In a video released on YouTube today (embedded below), he's promising to "ding dong ditch" billionaire Ted Tuner (founder of CNN) if he beats CNN to a million Twitter followers. What is a ding dong ditch you may ask? Well, it's when you go up to a person's house, ring their doorbell, them run away and watch as they look around to see who's there. Yes, it's kind of a wussy version of stuff they used to do on Kutcher's hit MTV show "Punk'd."

In releasing this to the Internet and tweeting it out, it's pretty clear that Kutcher wants to be the first Twitter user with a million followers. That should be enough to put him over the top, but he may need a little more help as singer Britney Spears also remains ahead of him (though slightly with just over 870,000 followers).

So, Tweeter user base goes something like this:

1 - News and politics junkies
2 - People of questionable music tastes
3 - Teenagers with no taste or imagination whatsoever
4 - Whatever the groups above feed upon

Mooder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593877)

Click on your mood and you get a corresponding smiley on your blog, website or friend's computer. Surely I need not go into the ethical implications of it?

i just got off the toilet (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593889)

i shit out an obama.

plop!

Let's wish them luck with that (1)

stoicio (710327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27593925)

Considering that NONE of the major disruptive social
technologies have come from academics, thus far, it would
behoove this group to tell us what they plan to use
to divine these gems of knowledge.

-Pick a card, any card.
-Runes
-Dice
-Flip a coin

Perhaps they should just stick to what academics do best,
measure things when/after they happen and then explain what
we all just saw.

Sounds like a funding ploy. Do they get paid
anyway if it turns out they're wrong?
Will taxes be used to pay for this?

Re:Let's wish them luck with that (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595469)

Considering that NONE of the major disruptive social
technologies have come from academics, thus far

There were quite a few academics involved in this one [wordpress.com] .

140 characters is too many (4, Funny)

hessian (467078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594007)

In the next Twitter, there's no typing. You signal emoticons. If you are too fat to use the mouse, they will develop a device that interprets your emotions from the configurations of your fat cells, and you don't ever have to get off the couch.

  • :| - at work
  • }< - taking a dump (not sure how this works with the couch)
  • %) - chatting up the opposite sex
  • || - writing code

etc

Re:140 characters is too many (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27595685)

$@%$| - writing perl

FTFY.

Social Networks Don't Threaten My Privacy (1)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594275)

I don't see an ethical dilemma with technologies that allow me to share information voluntarily. I want them to respect my preferences and disclose what they do with the data, but it's no different with doctors, banks, or retailers. Why is this an ethical problem for a web site?

Re:Social Networks Don't Threaten My Privacy (2)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594399)

I don't see an ethical dilemma with technologies that allow me to share information voluntarily. I want them to respect my preferences and disclose what they do with the data, but it's no different with doctors, banks, or retailers. Why is this an ethical problem for a web site?

Because at least one of the academics involved fancies himself an ethicist which means he knows if he thinks about it long enough, he can come up with an ethical dilemma in anything.

Will they predict centralized or distributed? (1)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594421)

It's a bit depressing how these recent Internet-based "communication technologies" are all centralized. In some sense, this seems to be a natural offshoot of applications springing up on the web -- individual websites are centralized entities by design. It's also about control and monetization, which is good for the service provider... perhaps less so for the user and for reliability/redundancy/etc.

But I also wonder how much the unanswered technical challenges presented by anonymous internet-based attackers hinders development and adoption of new distributed protocols. The last thing anyone wants is another medium for distributing spam, malware, and so on.

So what will these academics predict? Another Facebook? Or another World Wide Web?

They should be looking for the next Webvan (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27594503)

After all the social networks are using the same business strategy.

What are the issues? (2, Insightful)

Boffin_Bernd (1533771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27595315)

If you think you have a better idea of emerging technologies, ethical issues they raise and ways of addressing them than the boffin academics, why don't you post a comment on the "discussion" blog of the project website at www.etica-project.eu?

Knowing academics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27595339)

they will miss it altogether!

My Guess -- Scatter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27595613)

Scatter - The social network site where you see all kinds of sh*t about your friends that you really wish you did not see.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?