New Social Networking Site (And Likely Hoax) Will Only Let You Enter If You're Drunk

from the (hic) dept

There has been no shortage of social networking ideas that have come and gone, some being useful, some being silly, and some being downright stupid. But Reddit user MFLUDER recently directed my attention to a new social network app that only lets you enter and participate -- if you're drunk. The LIVR social network and associated app website claims the idea will launch launch sometime this Spring (assuming my gut is wrong about it being a viral hoax). To join, you've got to plug a breathalyzer device into your phone, and if your blood alcohol content is high enough you're allowed to enter. What could possibly go wrong?

The website claims LIVR users get to use a number of features once they've drunkenly stumbled through the virtual door, including getting to play "crowd-sourced truth or dare," maps that will highlight the other drunk nerds in your immediate vicinity, and the ability to randomly drunk dial another LIVR user. The website also promises users a "blackout button" that will erase all of your incoherent and inappropriate tirades at the end of the evening or the next day, giving users what the founders claim is encouragement to just "go nuts" and "be their true self" without worrying that said true self might result in joblessness, divorce, or worse:

"What Happens on LIVR Stays on LIVR It's 4 AM. You've posted uncensored selfies. Flirted with Drunk Dial. Racked up Truth or Dare points. But you don't want your boss to see. Just hit the Blackout Button and all record of your night is permanently cleared. Relax. Be yourself. Your secret's safe with LIVR."

Right. Except the Internet generally doesn't work that way, and there's really no such thing as privacy online. The potential for abuse seems somewhat high for law enforcement, the NSA, stalkers, and in generally encouraging people to get the highest score when it comes to their BAC. Not that people don't generally do this stuff without the help of an app, but you have to imagine LIVR, if it's even actually real, is going to need some decent lawyers on retainer for the flood of lawsuits headed their way.

"I think some of our best ideas are found at the bottom of a glass," insists Brooklyn-based founders Kyle Addison and Avery Platz in a promotional video for their unlikely-sounding new endeavor:

LIVR App from LIVR on Vimeo.

Says the website:

"LIVR isn't just another tired social network. It's an online party at all times… guaranteed. No baby photos. No puppies. Mom isn't here. Just a global network of similarly buzzed people looking to have a good time."

Yes an endless virtual "party" where half of the people are incoherently arguing over who is the most drunk, and the other half are busy pretending they're drunk by using mouthwash to trick the BAC meter. Who would possibly get tired of that? I still think it's likely a hoax ("Avery Platz," for example, has a strangely-nonexistent digital footprint outside of the LIVR announcement for a Brooklyn developer that likes to drink and talk), but it's still a pretty damn good one.

Update: And, yep.

Filed Under: hoax, livr, social networking

National Intelligence Lawyer Wonders Why People Are Fine With Sharing Data On Facebook But Not With The Government

from the deliberately-obtuse dept

It's a point that's been raised by many people in arguments about privacy and other aspects of government data collection. In a speech given last Friday, the general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence, Robert Litt, broached the topic publicly. After defending the NSA's programs as completely legal (thanks to the Third Party Doctrine), Litt asked more directly:

"Why is it that people are willing to expose large quantities of information to private parties but don't want the Government to have the same information?"

It's a valid question, but not when asked by the overseer of government intelligence agencies. Daniel Stuckey at Motherboard points out that there's a big difference between voluntary and involuntary "exposure."

Now, I'd hate to answer Litt's question so simply by saying that consumers are extorted by their love of what they consume, but it's part of it. And trust in companies that give us free things, that advance self-expression is an inalienable consumer right. If the government, theoretically, already knows everything there is to know—when we didn't directly volunteer our information—it then provides momentum for a rally cry. The shame and disgust when Edward Snowden pulled back the curtain reverberates that government by virtue is supposed to be more clear, more holistic, and an idealized reflection of ourselves.

It's a false equivalent. Thousands of people expose tons of information every day using social media platforms, but they do so with the implicit understanding that the free service is deriving some sort of benefit from their interactions. When the government scoops up the same data, there's no perceived benefit, not even the supposed "targeting" of terrorists.

Furthermore, as Stuckey states, we want to believe our government is above snooping on our "private" interactions. (Private in the sense that they're between individuals, no matter how many others can view or interact with the conversations.) If we initiate the exchange, we don't feel victimized by the lack of privacy.

Beyond that, every social media service has some sort of privacy settings built in that limit what others can see. Most of these have only limited effectiveness, but the fact is that users have the option to exclude others. The underlying platform is the facilitator and therefore, has "earned" the "right" to mine data and can never truly be excluded, and we (for the most part) accept this. There is no "exclude government" option, other than Litt's implicit suggestion: if you don't want the government to see it, don't post it in public arenas.

But the most troubling part of Litt's question is this.

It's great that the U.S. government behaves better than corporations on privacy—too bad it trusts/subcontracts corporations to deal with that privacy—but it's an uncomfortable thing to even be in a position of having to compare the two. This is the point Litt misses, and it's not a fine one.

This is the crux of the issue. When someone asks why we don't value our privacy more, in terms of social networking, they have a point. When someone asks why we're willing to give Facebook plenty of data but resent the government doing the same thing, the point is no longer valid. Handing data to advertisers is a lot easier to stomach than the impression that the government is reading over your shoulder.

Ultimately, though, we should never have gotten to the point where the government's thirst for data on American citizens exceeds the demands of corporations. We expect corporations to act in self-interest. We expect our government to be a lot more selfless and its intelligence agencies more willing to sacrifice some effectiveness in order to protect the rights of American citizens.

If Litt honestly feels people don't have privacy expectations in regards to data shared with a third party, he should put some manpower into launching Facebook.gov (or whatever) and see how many people are willing to sign up. Facebook vs. government isn't a fair comparison and Litt knows it. He's just using the question to prop up the third party exception that enables the NSA to acquire vast amounts of data. What he's doing is making a convenient presumption that these users are aware of the protections they lose by sharing information with a third party -- and, consequently, the government. Part of the "expectation of privacy" is the "expectation," something the Supreme Court has noted, and it's safe to say that many Facebook/Google/Twitter users don't expect the government to be accessing their data.

Finally, there's also the utilitarian aspect. As the New Jersey Supreme Court pointed out earlier, no one uses a cell phone simply to provide location data for law enforcement and investigative agencies. And no one utilizes social media in order to provide the government with a treasure trove of personal information.

Filed Under: government, privacy, robert litt, sharing, social networking, third party doctrine

Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife'

from the that-serious,-huh? dept

A couple of days ago Techdirt wrote about how Murong Xuecun, a well-known user of the Chinese microblog Sina Weibo with over a million followers, had his account closed down suddenly. Murong has now written a fine article about the background to what happened: he points out that the deletion of his account looks to be part of a larger clampdown on the use of microblogging services by well-known figures who are critical of the Chinese government. The problem for the latter is that these services are becoming a real channel for free expression and less-than-perfectly-censored information:

Individuals are silenced on daily basis, and the pool of sensitive words grows by the hour: Liu Xiaobo, Gao Xingjian, Ai Weiwei, Wei Jingsheng, Liao Yiwu, Ma Jian, Mo Zhixu, Xiao Shu … The list goes on. It now includes me, as well as two more scholars who have since been silenced: Wu Wei and Wu Zuolai, whose accounts were deleted on the morning of 13 May. Lurking in the shadows, the "relevant organs" carry out such work as part of their daily routine, and expect people to remain silent. They have perhaps failed to foresee that in the age of Weibo, their actions could trigger such a severe backlash. To this, they responded with more censorship.

Given the problems that even China is having with controlling such services, it's no surprise that other nations are getting nervous. Here's a story from the BBC about what Saudi Arabia is doing in an attempt to counter the threat from Twitter:

The head of Saudi Arabia's religious police has warned citizens against using Twitter, which is rising in popularity among Saudis.

Sheikh Abdul Latif Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh said anyone using social media sites -- and especially Twitter -- "has lost this world and his afterlife".

The Saudi authorities are evidently grappling with exactly the same issues as the Chinese government:

Many Saudis have seized on Twitter as the most immediate and effective way to open little windows into a traditionally opaque society.

Recent protests in the Eastern Province have been tweeted and images of human rights activists on trial have been uploaded directly from courtrooms, challenging many taboos.

The situation in Saudi Arabia is complicated by the fact that the well-known Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bought a $300 million stake in Twitter back in 2011. That doubtlessly explains in part the following comments he made recently using his own Twitter account, quoted in an article from CNN:

Dear Saudi Telecommunication Authority, social media is a tool for the people to make the government hear their voices. Just thinking of blocking them is a losing war, and a way to put more pressure on the citizens

As Twitter continues to gain market share -- already standing at a massive 51% of all Internet users in Saudi Arabia according to the CNN piece -- it will be interesting to see whose view prevails there: that of the religious police or a secular prince.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: free speech, saudi arabia, social networking
Companies: twitter

Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI

from the extreme-measures dept

This one is from a week ago, and a bunch of you submitted it (thoughTim K gets the hat tip for being first), but just getting around to it now. Apparently, a woman named Paula Asher, who hit a car while driving under the influence, was ordered by the judge in the case to delete her Facebook account, after she typed the following status message on her Facebook page:

"My dumb bass got a DUI and I hit a car...LOL"

The judge seemed to take the "LOL" statement literally -- that she was "laughing out loud" at her drunk driving accident -- and ordered her to delete her Facebook account. She then ignored that order, leading to a contempt of court charge and jail time. I have no problem with her facing punishment for the drunk driving, but being told to delete her Facebook page seems extreme on a variety of levels. First, the literal interpretation of "LOL" is a bit unfair, considering in context how many people use the term today. Rather than literally meaning that they're "laughing out loud," it's often an expression of exasperation at a situation people find themselves in. Many people seem to use it more as punctuation to a statement they make, rather than as an accurate description of what they're doing.

But, even beyond that, it seems wrong to order the deletion of an entire Facebook account over one off-hand statement like that. Facebook had nothing to do with this woman's drunk driving -- which, again, she should be punished for. I could even see reason to up the level of punishment for potentially showing a lack of remorse or recognition of the seriousness of her crime. But forcing someone to delete their entire Facebook account, when it's a key way that many people communicate today, seems extreme. Facebook didn't make Asher drive drunk. Nor did it make her not show remorse afterward. Forcing her to shut it down completely seems to go beyond reasonable.

Filed Under: dui, lol, social networking
Companies: facebook

Yeah, It Turns Out That Technology Doesn't Make Us Lonely

from the the-lonely-moral-panic dept

Just recently, we were talking about the bizarre claims by Sherry Turkle that social networking makes us more lonely because we spend less time alone (don't try to make sense of it). Soon after that, the Atlantic published an equally vapid feature arguing that Facebook leads to loneliness. These kinds of arguments show up every so often, and they always seem supported by anecdotal evidence.

Perhaps that's because the actual evidence suggests it's a load of crap. Boing Boing points us to a good piece by Claude Fischer in the Boston Review noting that the idea that we're living in an age of increasing loneliness is complete hogwash and not supported by the data at all. First, the article notes just how many articles and books have been claiming the opposite. It seems that claiming that we're all getting more lonely is a lucrative niche sector for the publishing industry. It's one of those things that lots of people want to believe, so books that support that worldview are apparently quite popular. Fischer has compiled a bunch of data looking at their social connections from 1970 to 2010, and finds that "Overall, Americans reported no more loneliness in the 2000s than they did in the 1970s."

It is true that the nature of social relationships has changed, but the difference is just different, not "bad."

The results, which I compiled in Still Connected (2011), show that some aspects of social involvement have changed since the 1970s. In particular, Americans these days sit down to fewer family dinners and host guests in their homes less often; eating and sociability continues, but outside the home. Americans communicate more frequently with their relatives and friends. Critically Americans are not discernibly more isolated—few were isolated at any point in those decades—and Americans remain just as confident of the support family and friends provide.

What the research really shows is that technology is a tool, and people use it for a variety of purposes. Some use it to avoid contact with people, while others use it to increase their contact with people. You can't blame the technology for how people use it. The technology just amplifies the individual aspects of different people:

People using the Internet, most studies show, increase the volume of their meaningful social contacts. E-communications do not generally replace in-person contact. True, serious introverts go online to avoid seeing people, but extroverts go online to see people more often. People use new media largely to enhance their existing relationships—say, by sending pictures to grandma—although a forthcoming study shows that many more Americans are meeting life partners online. Internet dating is especially fruitful for Americans who may face problems finding mates, such as gays and older women. Finally, people tell researchers that electronic media have enriched their personal relationships.

People typically turn new technologies into devices for doing what they have always wanted to do. And people like to stay in touch. A century ago, Americans, especially women, turned two new technologies marketed for other purposes, the telephone and automobile, into “technologies of sociability.” Developers of the Internet meant it to be a tool for the military and for scholars, and only a few imagined it might even serve business. Now users have made the Internet a largely social technology.

As the article notes, this doesn't mean loneliness isn't a problem for those who experience it, but it's not a growing problem, and there's no evidence to suggest that social networking or Facebook in particular increases loneliness.

Filed Under: psychology, sherry turkle, social networking, technology

Huh? Skype Thinks That If You Hate Twitter & Facebook You'll Use Skype More

from the say-what-now? dept

We've seen some bizarre advertising campaigns in the past, but I'm really left scratching my head about Skype's new ad campaign, the sole focus of which seems to be about bashing two other popular services: Twitter and Facebook. Now, I use all three of these products -- but I use them for very, very different purposes. Skype is useful for all sorts of things, but it's an entirely different kind of service than Twitter or Facebook. And, actually, I stay in touch with plenty of people via Twitter and Facebook. More importantly, bashing Twitter and Facebook doesn't make me any more interested in using Skype. It's not like I'm suddenly going to say, "Hey person I normally communicate with via Twitter, thanks to this advertisement for The Skype, I now wish to have a real time audio or video chat with you." No, as always, I use the different tools for what they're good at, when appropriate.

I get that Skype wants to position itself as a social network, but it's not. It's a communication tool -- and it's good at what it does -- but attacking other services that don't compete with it doesn't make much sense. In fact, if anything, it leads me to think less of Skype. I really do find Skype's instant messaging and voice/video features quite useful. But over the last few years, the company has increasingly cluttered its interface and consistently made it more and more annoying, rather than more and more useful. The fact that it now thinks the proper strategy is to attack services that people use in totally different and completely non-competitive ways, only makes me think that Skype has lost its way and its vision. That makes me, a paying customer of Skype, concerned that the company is increasingly focused on chasing some silly strategy that will continue to make my life worse as a consumer. Such a stupid ad campaign just makes me wonder if I should be exploring real alternatives to Skype.

Filed Under: advertising, communication, competition, social networking
Companies: facebook, skype, twitter

Does Google Have What It Takes To Be A Platform, Rather Than A Product, Company?

from the the-challenge-is-(still)-on dept

Nearly seven years ago, I wrote about the idea that there was a "battle to own the internet," and that if Google really wanted to succeed, it had to move away from just being a product company to being a true platform company that had a much more open setup, which did much more to encourage developers to build on top of it. Over the years, occasionally I've repeated that point. And while Google has done a few things at the margin, it still has always seemed to resist becoming a true platform. There are, certainly, some folks inside Google who get this, and I seem to hear from a bunch of them any time I bring this up. But the company has a history of having trouble really opening up to outside developers.

So it's really interesting to see this "internal" note from Google employee Steve Yegge, that he accidentally posted publicly via Google+. It's a very detailed and honest criticism of the company's attitude on certain things, but not done to slam Google, but rather to push Google to change. It's getting tons of attention, and Yegge removed the post, but has allowed others to keep up a reposted version. He's also pointed out that Google PR was careful not to pressure him to take down the post, noting that employees are free to express their opinions.

Some have been reading it as an insider's "attack" on Google, but I don't see that at all. It seems like a call to action from someone who thinks the company is missing the boat on being a platform. Yegge spends a lot of time talking (very openly) about his prior experience working at Amazon, and about how Jeff Bezos got the "we need to be a platform" religion big time nearly a decade ago, and effectively forced the entire company to focus on that as job number one. While Yegge criticizes many problems with Amazon, he does recognize that such a vision has put Amazon in a good position (along with others who have clearly embraced being "the" platform: Facebook, Apple and, almost by accident, Microsoft).

The key part of the post, which is what many people are focusing on, is where Yegge criticizes Google+, and how it wasn't designed as a platform, whereas its main direct competitor, Facebook, has clearly embraced being a platform in a very meaningful way.

Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo). We all don't get it. The Golden Rule of platforms is that you Eat Your Own Dogfood. The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call. One of the team members marched in and told me about it when they launched, and I asked: "So is it the Stalker API?" She got all glum and said "Yeah." I mean, I was joking, but no... the only API call we offer is to get someone's stream. So I guess the joke was on me.

Microsoft has known about the Dogfood rule for at least twenty years. It's been part of their culture for a whole generation now. You don't eat People Food and give your developers Dog Food. Doing that is simply robbing your long-term platform value for short-term successes. Platforms are all about long-term thinking.

Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But that's not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there's something there for everyone.

Our Google+ team took a look at the aftermarket and said: "Gosh, it looks like we need some games. Let's go contract someone to, um, write some games for us." Do you begin to see how incredibly wrong that thinking is now? The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.

This part rings incredibly true. I know that when Google+ launched, I liked it as a program, but asked people about APIs, because it needed to better integrate into my workflow -- and was told that that would be coming "sometime later." And while I still mess around with Goolge+, it's largely become an afterthought to me, because it just lives off in its own separate world, rather than integrating well. There are still features I like, but until developers have a chance to dive in and make it useful... it just doesn't feel like a necessity.

But there's a bigger lesson in this, beyond Google's continued platform-itis. And it goes back to the issue of cargo cult copying -- a topic I've discussed a number of times. People seem to think it's easy for companies (especially big companies) to "copy" products of their competitors. In fact, with Google, many people think it's so easy that there are antitrust investigations going on. But Google+ and the points that Yegge raise remind us, yet again, that while copying the basic "features" of a product may be possible, really recreating what makes it tick and what makes it successful is difficult.

It's easy to copy the superficial. It's difficult to copy the soul.

With Google+, the company built a really nice copy (with some clear improvements) of Facebook, the product -- which is the superficial, public-facing part. But it completely missed the boat on Facebook, the platform -- which is the real soul of what makes Facebook such a powerhouse. Google certainly can get there. And, in the back of my mind, I'd always assumed that was exactly the path they were on. But remembering that post from 2004, and the lack of any sustained, involved effort within and across Google to be a platform, combined with this post from Yegge, again makes me wonder if Google just doesn't recognize the importance of being a platform.

I've argued in the past that one big achilles heel for Google is its awful reputation when it comes to customer service, but it's lack of deeply ingrained platform-focused thinking may represent a much bigger threat.

Filed Under: apis, platform, product, services, social networking, steve yegge
Companies: amazon, apple, facebook, google

Syrian Government Posting Pro-Government Messages On Pages Of Dissidents After Getting Their Passwords

from the i'm-sure-that'll-convince-people... dept

After social networking played a role in the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, we found it interesting that Syria lifted a ban on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube that had been in place for many years. The government claimed that it wanted to show that it encouraged openness and expression, though some found that hard to believe. Indeed, as things have gotten worse in that country, there were reports a few weeks ago of a massive attempt by the government to swipe passwords on Facebook. Further reports are now claiming that either with swiped passwords or by forcing arrested dissidents to cough up their own passwords, the Syrian government has started posting fake pro-government messages on the pages of those dissidents.

I'm curious as to why the government is doing this. Do they really think that anyone is convinced by this or that it's effective? If you have been friends with or following a well-known dissident, who suddenly disappears, and then his page starts posting pro-government messages, it seems like most people would quickly realize that something was wrong. Meanwhile, the various dissidents and activists have found that the best way to avoid this is to just create fake personas on Facebook, despite that going against the company's policies. One hopes that Facebook is willing to let things slide under the circumstances...

Filed Under: dissidents, passwords, social networking, syria

NY Times Editor Claims Twitter Killing Conversation, While His Tweets Spawn Conversation

from the compartmentalism-in-140-characters dept

There's been some buzz about NYTimes Editor Bill Keller's recent column, in which -- in true curmudgeon fashion -- he posits that Twitter and such are a problem because they are killing deep conversation:

As a kind of masochistic experiment, the other day I tweeted "#TwitterMakesYouStupid. Discuss." It produced a few flashes of wit ("Give a little credit to our public schools!"); a couple of earnestly obvious points ("Depends who you follow"); some understandable speculation that my account had been hacked by a troll; a message from my wife ("I don't know if Twitter makes you stupid, but it's making you late for dinner. Come home!"); and an awful lot of nyah-nyah-nyah ("Um, wrong." "Nuh-uh!!"). Almost everyone who had anything profound to say in response to my little provocation chose to say it outside Twitter. In an actual discussion, the marshaling of information is cumulative, complication is acknowledged, sometimes persuasion occurs. In a Twitter discussion, opinions and our tolerance for others' opinions are stunted. Whether or not Twitter makes you stupid, it certainly makes some smart people sound stupid.

He then compares this to claims heard in yesteryear about how calculators meant people weren't good at doing math in their head any more, and how future generations with their brains and retinal displays jacked directly into the network would make people bad at remembering stuff. We've heard such claims before, but I think it misses the point. Yes, it's important for people to be able to understand the basic building blocks of things like mathematics, but is it really such a horrible thing if you can free up that part of your brain and let it work on other tasks?

As for the claims about the lack of deep conversations on Twitter, I think that's unnecessarily compartmentalizing communication. Twitter isn't designed for deep conversations, so asking it to do deep conversations and mocking it for not doing so seems sort of silly, doesn't it? And, yet, I know first hand that short bursts of conversations on Twitter have resulted in much deeper conversations outside of Twitter for me, as well as all sorts of connections to people and conversations I never would have had otherwise. That those didn't all happen directly on Twitter seems entirely besides the point. In many cases they happened because of Twitter, and that seems a lot more interesting and powerful than worrying about how some people sound "stupid" on Twitter. Some people sound stupid off Twitter too. Perhaps the problem isn't Twitter.

Filed Under: bill keller, conversation, social networking
Companies: ny times, twitter