Social Networking Rants Against Exes Turning Up In Court

from the careful-what-you-type dept

For many people, it's natural to treat social networking platforms as being the equivalent of just talking -- rather than being any sort of formal written communication. Of course, the big difference is that everything you type can be accurately saved forever -- and, potentially, used against you in court. Obviously what people say out loud can also be used in court, but in an argument between, say, a broken up couple, a yelling fight just becomes a screaming match. In the social networking world, it can become evidence. Two recent stories highlight this. The first, from Eric Goldman, is the "disturbingly humorous" transcript from the court concerning a blog post about a woman's ex-husband:

BY [DEFENSE]: ... Prior to Au-April 22nd, 2008 had you ever expressed or communicated in any way that you wanted your ex to die a slow painful death?

A I believe you're referring to my "My Space" ...

Q I'm not-I-no, I'm not referring to anything. I'm just asking you a simple question: if you'd ever expressed or communicated in any way that you wanted your ex-husband, Mr. Embry, to die a slow painful death?

A I see it right there on your desk.

Q Okay.

A It's my "My Space" blog.

Q Okay, did you say it?

A I typed it.

Q Okay. But the answer is, did you say it? I mean is that your communication.

A I typed it.

Q Okay. And did you ever express um, or communicate in any way that you wanted to be present and dance the cha-cha around his slow painful death?

A It's all there in the blog.

Q Okay. The answer's a simple yes or no. You said it; you've communicated it some way, did you?

A If you want to put that blog there, I ...

Q I'm just asking you a simple question.

BY COURT: Ma'am, will ya just answer the question yes or no?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you ever refer to Mr. Embry or communicate in any way that he was a worthless bag of monkey shit?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever refer to him as dog piss?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever refer to him as a worm puke stale crusty moldy inhuman horrible human oxygen sucking moron?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever communicate the desire, that because he's older and more stupid than you, he will die way before you do?

A I believe I said please assure me that it was possible that he would pass before me."
___

The state's attorney redirects with this understated summary:

"BY [STATE]: Ms. Embry, is it fair-fair to say that you're not very fond of your former husband?

A No, I am not fond of him at all."

The second such story takes place in the UK, where a 29-year-old man has been fined for the message he sent his ex-girlfriend on Facebook. The court won't reveal what was in the note, but apparently it was judged to be "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character."

Perhaps this is just a sign of our litigious times, but it does seem like there's a bit of a clash going on between how people view social networking (as a communication system, like talking, where you can make extreme statements in the heat of the moment) when they communicate, and how it's then used in courts -- as more of an "official statement of record."

Filed Under: court, rants, social networks

Doctors Told Not To Use Social Networks, As It Could Create Ethical Problems

from the oh-really? dept

Just as we were seeing doctors who were embracing social media to do more for patients, it appears that some are trying to clamp down. As in the legal profession, it appears some old-timers are over-reacting to things like Facebook. mhh5 points us to the news that an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is suggesting doctors avoid social networks altogether:

"I would discourage doctors from participating in any form of social networking, but if they do, I would encourage them to privatize their information."

The other big concern is that doctors are told not to look up info on patients on social networking sites or to friend patients. While there are obvious pitfalls there, my guess is that the younger generation of doctors will figure out a more balanced means of still using social networking sites without causing serious ethical problems.

Filed Under: doctors, ethics, social networks

Just As Netflix Gets In Trouble For Data Release, MySpace Begins Selling Data

from the lawsuits-a'comin? dept

So, just last week we noted that Netflix had gotten itself into a bit of hot water for its Netflix prize contest, which used real user data -- which was supposed to be anonymous. Unfortunately, as with most such data, it wasn't really anonymous, and that's illegal -- especially when it comes to movie rental data. Because of all that, Netflix has also canceled plans for a follow-up prize competition. However, just as that happened, reports were coming out that MySpace has begun selling user data. Among the data up for sale? "User playlists, mood updates, mobile updates, photos, vents, reviews, blog posts, names and zipcodes. You would have to imagine that at least some people might not be happy about that.

Now, to be fair, the info you provide MySpace is public -- while the info you provide Netflix is not. However, you could certainly see some people not being particularly thrilled that MySpace is now directly selling that information, and you have to imagine that someone will file a lawsuit before too long over this data.

Update: MySpace PR people sent over word that this content is no different than the free public real-time stream, it's just for those unable to capture it, they can now purchase it in a lump sum via this other site, for which MySpace apparently doesn't make any money...

Filed Under: selling data, social networks
Companies: myspace, netflix

UK Paper Ghost Wrote Blatantly False Facebook Attack Article By 'Child Protection Expert'

from the ah,-the-uk-press dept

Not too long ago, we wrote about a bizarre situation where a UK newspaper was caught flat out making up a story that was completely wrong. It had interviewed an American professor whose findings were the exact opposite of what the newspaper wanted to print, so it just pretended his research said what they wanted it to say. And, now, reports have come out about how the Daily Mail, one of the more popular UK tabloids, published an article by a supposed "child protection expert," all about the evils of Facebook, detailing how he "posed as a 14-year-old girl" and:

"Even after 15 years in child protection, I was shocked by what I encountered when I spent just five minutes on Facebook posing as a 14-year-old girl. Within 90 seconds, a middle-aged man wanted to perform a sex act in front of me."

Except, of course, the whole story has since fallen apart. What he describes in the article is not even possible on Facebook. If you create an account of a 14-year-old, you're limited in who you can talk to, and it's not easy to just start chatting with random people that you don't know on the site. As people began pointing out that the claims in the article made no sense at all, and were unlikely to be true, the BBC's Rory Cellan Jones contacted the author and found out that the whole thing was basically made up:

I contacted Mr Williams-Thomas to check a few facts, and he confirmed that the story had indeed been "ghosted" by a Mail reporter. He says he got back to the paper with a number of changes before publication, but although they acknowledged receipt of his alterations, they were not acted on.

The Mail later changed the story, and appended a correction saying that the social network in question was not Facebook, though it (and Williams-Thomas) refuse to say which social network this happened on. Furthermore, the fact that Williams-Thomas now admits that the whole article was ghostwritten by the Mail seems pretty ridiculous as well. The press has had a field day over the years attacking social networks, but ghost writing a blatantly false hit piece on Facebook goes beyond the typical "blaming" of Facebook for the actions of its users.

Filed Under: child protection, ghost writing, reporting, social networks, uk
Companies: daily mail, facebook

Will Your Home Insurance Provider Jack Up Your Rates If Your Tweet Appears On PleaseRobMe?

from the welcome-to-social-media dept

We were just recently discussing the phenomenon of sites like "PleaseRobMe," which reposted Twitter/FourSquare messages of people announcing that they had left their homes, and wondering if it was all just a moral panic. It seemed unlikely that any burglars were seriously using such sites as a way to pick homes to rob. But do insurance companies agree? Michael Scott points us to the news that at least some insurance providers are exploring social media usage in figuring out insurance rates. Right now, it appears that they're mostly looking at social networking info in doing claims investigations, but it may soon go beyond that. The author of the linked article suggests that at least some insurance companies are looking to take it further, in looking at your social media usage to determine your risk level (and, eventually, your premiums).

Filed Under: insurance, social networks

Yes, Twitter And Facebook Can Make People More Productive

from the understanding-productivity dept

Every few months or so, there's some press release and flurry of news stories (often instigated by an online filtering company) about how whatever hot new internet service there is (take your pick: Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, etc...) is costing companies billions in productivity. The studies all work the same way: they get some sort of estimate of how much time employees use such tools, and then multiply that times the average hourly rate -- and, voila, a nice round number. Of course, this assumes something that's simply not true for many workers: that productivity is a direct function of the amount of time spent on the job. But, of course, people change their rate of productivity all the time. If they're tired and likely to make a mistake, letting them take a quick break actually can improve productivity. Assuming that any time not directly working is lost productivity is simply false.

Wired now has a short article by Brendan Koerner explaining how the opposite might be true -- and for people who are "knowledge workers," things like Twitter and Facebook may be improving productivity. His argument is based on an understanding of how creativity works, in that it's often sparked by random ideas... such as the random ideas you might get while seeing what people are talking about on Twitter. There are two parts to the argument. First, studies have shown that if you're working on a hard problem, it's often helpful to stop focusing directly on it and do something else, while your brain actually keeps working on the problem subconsciously. On top of that, if you're doing something else that might be intellectually stimulating, often something you come across may actually spark a unique and creative solution to the problem:

Incubation is most effective when it involves exposing the mind to entirely novel information rather than just relieving mental pressure. --This encourages creative association, the mashing together of seemingly unrelated concepts -- a key step in the creative process.

History is full of tales of revelations that were helped along by such conceptual collisions. Alastair Pilkington came up with the idea for float glass, the inexpensive successor to plate glass, while washing dishes; the grease that pooled atop the water inspired him to pour molten glass onto melted tin, resulting in a perfectly smooth pane. And George de Mestral had the initial brainstorm for Velcro during a 1941 hunting trip, when he noticed how difficult it was to pick Alpine burrs off of his clothes.

From this, Koerner notes that Twitter and Facebook actually could work quite well in serving as this accidental conceptual collision machine. Of course, he's not saying that these sites definitely do increase productivity, but he's explaining how they could for knowledge workers. It really would be fascinating if someone came up with a way to actually test this and see what the results were.

Filed Under: knowledge workers, productivity, social networks
Companies: facebook, twitter

Because Without Patents, No One Would Ever Come Up With News Feeds

from the no-status-updates-allowed dept

A bunch of folks are talking about a patent that was recently granted to Facebook (7,669,123) that covers creating an automatically generated news feed based on things that you do. While not quite as broad as some of the original reports claimed, it's still fairly broad, and highlights pretty clearly how ridiculous the patent system is.

The purpose of the patent system should be to create incentives to come up with something that is both new and non-obvious, which would not be created without that incentive. And, then, of course, the idea is to share that information with the world, via the patent. But here we have a case where this is an obvious next step advance. Such automatically generated news feeds are found in all sorts of systems and social networks these days. But now we have a case where one company may have the right to prevent others from doing what it makes perfect sense for them to do. That's not what the patent system was designed to do at all. A patent like this should never have been approved at all, as it serves no useful purpose in "promoting the progress" and seems to go against everything that the patent system is supposed to do.

Filed Under: news feeds, patents, social networks
Companies: facebook

Court Disagrees On Whether Or Not Schools Can Punish Students Over Fake Social Network Pages

from the first-amendment? dept

We were just discussing whether or not a school can punish students for their social networking activity, and now we've got two legal rulings on the subject. Unfortunately, they seem to conflict with each other, despite coming from the same appeals circuit!

Both cases involved students creating fake MySpace profiles of the schools' principals. Both students were punished, but in one case the court said the school went too far ("Public schools are vital institutions, but their reach is not unlimited...") while the other said it was fine ("We decline to say that simply because the disruption to the learning environment originates from a computer located off campus, the school should be left powerless to discipline the student."). The difference appears to be that in the latter case, the school claimed that the fake profile resulted in disruption in the classroom because "students were talking about the profile rather than paying attention to class."

That seems like a pretty fine line, because now a school will have to do is suggest that students in the school were discussing an activity that took place outside of school to allow the school to punish the student for off-campus speech. From a First Amendment standpoint, that seems pretty difficult to accept -- and certainly seems to go against the principles set forth by the famous Tinker decision concerning free speech rights of students on campus.

Filed Under: jurisdiction, punishment, social networks, students

Did Manchester United Ban Players From Using Social Networks... Or Alert People To Fake Accounts?

from the and-does-either-make-sense dept

ethorad alerts us to the news that the UK football/soccer club Manchester United put out a statement insisting that none of its players use any social network accounts. The club apparently says that it's just stating a fact -- to stop people from thinking they're communicating with real players when they're actually talking to impostors -- rather than forcing the players off of social networks. However, the BBC notes that there were three ManU players who were believed to have real Twitter accounts, and all have suddenly disappeared -- which suggests the real issue is that ManU banned players from using social networks to connect with fans. If that's true, it seems incredibly short-sighted. Yes, players need to be careful when communicating publicly, but blocking them off entirely doesn't help make fans any more loyal.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, manchester united, social networks

New Study Says Social Networks Not Making Kids Stay Up Late

from the no,-that-would-be-sms dept

While there were some studies last year claiming that heavy social networking users were likely to have lower grades (though, there were lots of problems with that study), it apparently isn't because it keeps kids up late at night. A new study that looked at students and their social networking habits didn't find much difference in the amount of sleep heavy social network users got vs. those who weren't spending all their time on Facebook and Twitter. My guess is that, with both of these things, there are so many other factors that finding any sort of causal relationship is unlikely in a simple comparison of two variables. There could be many other factors that lead to either good or bad grades, and also impact how much a person uses social networks or the amount of sleep they get. And, in the end, looking for something to blame for either really misses the point. It's an attempt to blame a technology for something else, rather than look at the real underlying reasons why a student doesn't get enough sleep or doesn't do well at school.

But, of course, don't expect that to stop the debate. As I was finishing up this post, along comes a different study that again notes a correlation between really heavy users and bad grades. But, the study also finds that for kids these days, they're pretty much online all the time somehow -- even more than the study's authors thought possible.

Filed Under: grades, kids, sleep, social networks