Jonathan Swift argued in A Modest Proposal that children of the poor should be eaten. He went to a rhetorical extreme in order to illustrate the absurdity of a perspective he mocked and opposed. In order to illustrate how absurd Facebook's new privacy policies are, I want to imagine a fictitious but analogous situation: imagine Google announcing that our Gmail contacts and Google Reader subscriptions were to be made publicly visible to the web at large. If you don't want the world to know who you are communicating with and what you are reading, maybe you shouldn't be communicating with those people and reading that content. The tools you've used to communicate and read privately must stay current with the times, right? Sponsor What Happened at Facebook In the middle of December, Facebook began prompting users to re-evaluate their privacy settings on the site . If users had not changed any privacy settings in the past, then the privacy of status updates, photos, videos and shared was switched to a new default: no longer visible only to approved friends, that data was now by default publicly visible to everyone. That default could be opted-out of, though, and users could return their activity update settings back to private, limited to friends only. Other user-data was switched from private to public without recourse for users. User profile pictures, fan pages followed and lists of friends on the site are now made publicly visible and cannot be limited in their visibility. A fast backlash led the company to allow friends lists to be removed from public-facing profile pages, but anyone's friends lists are still publicly available by programs that ask for it. Friends lists can no longer be made accessible only to trusted friends on the site. RSS never caught on in a big way, but Facebook democratized online subscription to syndicated content. Now your interests and subscriptions are naked as a jay bird before the world. Requiring that Fan pages be public is important because that's how users express their interests and subscribe to updates from organizations they care about. RSS never caught on in a big way, but Facebook democratized online subscription to syndicated content. Now your interests and subscriptions are now naked as a jay bird before the world. (As an aside, did you know that most people who are fans of the Facebook page ComedyTweet are also fans of the page PornstarTweet ?) Why did Facebook do this? Company founder Mark Zuckerberg said this weekend that this is the way the world is moving - towards being more public and less private. He said that the company recently considered what settings it would apply if the site were to be created anew today and "just went for it." I explained yesterday why I don't think that move has been backed up by a credible argument , why privacy is still important. Last night I heard a story about a podcast for parents struggling to concieve a child. Some Facebook users have said they feel unable to subscribe to updates from the show as Fans on Facebook because they don't want friends to know they are trying to concieve. Becoming a Fan but being discrete about it isn't an option anymore. Stories like that are probably much more common than we might think. Consider now what it would be like if this same changes were to be made to a different set of technologies many of us use. Let's Open Up GMail Contacts and Google Reader Subscriptions! You may have signed up for GMail and Google Reader because you thought they would be effective, private and secure ways to communicate with people and subscribe to news of interest - but you were fooling yourself if you thought that information wasn't going to be made public someday! Don't you know that privacy on the internet is an illusion? Do you know how little money Google is able to make from Gmail and Google Reader with your data left private? What do you mean you use Twitter to communicate with people publicly and Gmail to communicate with them privately? Have you seen how seldom people talk about Gmail on TV these days? What's a web service to do? It's really a sign of the times. People are blogging more and more these days, you might even have a public blog on Google's Blogger.com. That's evidence right there that it's time to make your subscriptions and contacts public, too. Google Reader and Gmail are both much smaller than Facebook, half as many people use Gmail as use Facebook. Google Reader is much smaller still. Contacts and subscriptions on Facebook are public now - clearly society is moving in this direction. If you don't want people to know about who you are emailing and what you are reading, maybe you shouldn't be emailing them and reading it. Think this analogy is a stretch? Think that hundreds of millions of people don't think of Facebook as a private way to communicate with the friends they've approved, just like you do with Gmail, and to read updates from organizations they are interested in, but don't neccesarily want everyone to know about, like Google Reader? I don't think it's a stretch at all. I think these are similar tools for many people. As we've said before, Facebook's unilateral privacy policy changes have violated the contract they have with users. Just imagine how that would go over if it happened on other services we consider private. We give Facebook a hard time, but we love the site, too. Come be a fan of ReadWriteWeb there . You won't be able to hide that from anyone, but maybe it will distract people from your Comedy Tweets obsession. Discuss

View post:
A Facebook Proposal: Let's Make Gmail Contacts & Google Reader Subscriptions Public

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience this weekend that the world has changed, that it's become more public and less private, and that the controversial new default and permanent settings reflect how the site would work if he were to create it today. Not everyone agrees with his move and its justification. Has society become less private or is it Facebook that's pushing people in that direction? Is privacy online just an illusion anyway? Below are some thoughts, based primarily on the pro-privacy reactions to Zuckerberg's statements from many of our readers this weekend. Though there is a lot to be said for analysis of public data (more on that later), I believe that Facebook is making a big mistake by moving away from its origins based on privacy for user data. Sponsor In Facebook's early days, and for the vast majority of the site's life, its primary differentiator was that your user data was only visible to other users that you approved friend requests from. As of mid-December, Facebook users were no longer allowed to hide from the web-at-large some information including their profile photos, list of friends and interests in the form of fan pages they followed. Text, photo and video updates shared on the site have always been by default private (friends only) but if you'd never changed your privacy settings before last month, then Facebook suggested you switch them to make those updates publicly visible to everyone. That became the new default. Here are three reasons why making some of this data public by requirement and some public by default is the wrong thing to do and why society is not in fact changing the way that Zuckerberg claims it is. Evolving Preferences Don't Justify Elimination of Choice Mark Zuckerberg might be right, people probably are becoming more comfortable telling the world at large about more and different parts of their lives. Why does that mean it's ok to take away peoples' choices and force them to make public some of their information all the time? That just doesn't make sense. Privacy is a fundamental human right and while that may seem less true when we're operating on corporate turf like Facebook, Facebook used to be based on privacy. Why give it up so easily? (Isn't it a cause for concern that so much of our civic interaction now goes on through this and other corporate channels?) It's very hard to believe that the hundreds of millions of mainstream Facebook users are wanting to throw their privacy out the window - and if Facebook believes they are, why not just ask them clearly? Privacy Doesn't Just Mean Secrecy This Summer we wrote about the academic research of University of Massachusetts-Amherst Legal Studies student Chris Peterson, who argues that an accurate and contemporary understanding of privacy is based more on the integrity of context than on absolute secrecy. Peterson tackles the contemporary reality of privacy on Facebook in a very readable draft thesis paper titled Saving Face: The Privacy Architecture of Facebook (PDF). Peterson argues that the idea that anything published ought to be understood as intended for public distribution is an antiquated understanding from the era when publishing was expensive and required a lot of effort. The opposite is true today, it's free and easy to publish - so information at different levels of appropriateness for public eyes is being published. Why not support that? "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment... It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug into your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." - George Orwell, 1984 Instead of what Facebook is doing, Peterson says that a more appropriate understanding of privacy today is based on context. We expect our communication to go on in an appropriate context (no drinking in church or praying in the bar) and we expect to understand how our communication will be distributed. If a college friend took photos of you drinking in a bar and showed them off to people in church, you might feel your privacy has been violated in both appropriateness and distribution. The bar is a public place, though, and not completely secret. Thus the need for a more sophisticated understanding of privacy that is more than mere secrecy. By pushing your personal information and conversation through activity updates fully into the public, Facebook is eliminating any integrity of context that these conversations would naturally have. Posted updates can be directed only to limited lists of Facebook contacts, like college buddies or work friends, but that option is buried under more public default options and much of a user's activity on the site is not subject to that kind of option. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Google CEO Eric Schmidt Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg used to say that people would share more information if they felt comfortable knowing that it would only be visible to people they trusted. He told me in an interview two years ago that users who wanted to do so couldn't take their data off of the site because privacy control "is the vector around which Facebook operates." Now apparently, he's changed his mind. This weekend I argued that his justification for the new stance is not credible. Many People Need Control Over Personal Information Do people no longer need to keep access to some of their personal information online limited just to trusted friends? Facebook seems to be arguing that they don't. There is a long list of people who clearly do, though, including: people who've escaped abusive relationships, people with marginalized religious or sexual preferences, people who fear losing their jobs or who've been pushed around by bullies throughout their lives. That list adds up to a very large portion of the world, in fact. The group of Ivy League elites who run Facebook might think there's no reason to be able to control access to their personal information, but many of them are less socially vulnerable and have less need to control their personal information. Consider this comment left by one of our readers in response to Zuckerberg's statement this weekend. "As a person who is being stalked for being an innocent bystander in a child custody case, I can tell you that losing my choices over what is searchable or not is huge. I have nothing to hide nor be ashamed of but the loss of choice for my privacy has hit home in a poignant manner." Stories like that are far more common than you might think and removing user control over what's public removes the ability for millions of people to safely participate on Facebook. More than millions, tens or hundreds of millions of people around the world have reason to limit visibility of their personal information from the web but still want to be able to share that information with trusted contacts. Facebook became a huge success on that premise and ought to be able to continue to thrive without doing a 180 degree turn on privacy. Coming soon: The positive side of Facebook data made public. Hint. Discuss

Read more here:
Why Facebook is Wrong: Privacy Is Still Important

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience yesterday that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public, not private as it was for years until the company changed dramatically in December. In a six-minute interview on stage with TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington , Zuckerberg spent 60 seconds talking about Facebook's privacy policies. His statements were of major importance for the world's largest social network - and his arguments in favor of an about-face on privacy deserve close scrutiny. Sponsor Zuckerberg offered roughly 8 sentences in response to Arrington's question about where privacy was going on Facebook and around the web. I'll post those sentences on their own first, then follow up with the questions they raise in my mind. You can also watch the video below, the privacy part we transcribe is from 3:00 to 4:00. Zuckerberg: "When I got started in my dorm room at Harvard, the question a lot of people asked was 'why would I want to put any information on the Internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?' "And then in the last 5 or 6 years, blogging has taken off in a huge way and all these different services that have people sharing all this information. People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time. "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are. "A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they've built, doing a privacy change - doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner's mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it." That's Not a Believable Explanation This is a radical change from the way that Zuckerberg pounded on the importance of user privacy for years. That your information would only be visible to the people you accept as friends was fundamental to the DNA of the social network that hundreds of millions of people have joined over these past few years. Privacy control, he told me less than 2 years ago, is "the vector around which Facebook operates." I don't buy Zuckerberg's argument that Facebook is now only reflecting the changes that society is undergoing. I think Facebook itself is a major agent of social change and by acting otherwise Zuckerberg is being arrogant and condescending. Perhaps the new privacy controls will prove sufficient. Perhaps Facebook's pushing our culture away from privacy will end up being a good thing. The way the company is going about it makes me very uncomfortable, though, and some of the changes are clearly bad. It is clearly bad to no longer allow people to keep the pages they subscribe to private on Facebook. This major reversal, backed-up by superficial explanations, makes me wonder if Facebook's changing philosophies about privacy are just convenient stories to tell while the company shifts its strategy to exert control over the future of the web. Facebook's Different Stories First the company kept user data siloed inside its site alone, saying that a high degree of user privacy would make users comfortable enough to share more information with a smaller number of trusted people. Now that it has 350 million people signed up and connected to their friends and family in a way they never have been before - now Facebook decides that the initial, privacy-centric, contract with users is out of date. That users actually want to share openly, with the world at large, and incidentally (as Facebook's Director of Public Policy Barry Schnitt told me in December) that it's time for increased pageviews and advertising revenue, too. The Flimsy Evidence What makes Facebook think the world is becoming more public and less private? Zuckerberg cites the rise of blogging "and all these different services that have people sharing all this information." That last part must mean Twitter, right? But blogging is tiny compared to Facebook! It's made a big impact on the world, but only because it perhaps doubled or tripled the small percentage of people online who publish long-form text content. Not very many people write blogs, almost everyone is on Facebook. Facebook's Barry Schnitt told us last month that he too believes the world is becoming more open and his evidence is Twitter, MySpace, comments posted to newspaper websites and the rise of Reality TV. But Facebook is bigger and is growing much faster than all of those other things. Do they really expect us to believe that the popularity of reality TV is evidence that users want their Facebook friends lists and fan pages made permanently public? Why cite those kinds phenomena as evidence that the red hot social network needs to change its ways? The company's justifications of the claim that they are reflecting broader social trends just aren't credible. A much more believable explanation is that Facebook wants user information to be made public and so they "just went for it," to use Zuckerberg's words from yesterday. (Why didn't Arrington press Zuckerberg on stage about this? The rise of blogging is evidence that Facebook needs to change its fundamental stance on privacy?) This is Very Important Facebook allows everyday people to share the minutia of their daily lives with trusted friends and family, to easily distribute photos and videos - if you use it regularly you know how it has made a very real impact on families and social groups that used to communicate very infrequently. Accessible social networking technology changes communication between people in a way similar to if not as intensely as the introduction of the telephone and the printing press. It changes the fabric of peoples' lives together. 350 million people signed up for Facebook under the belief their information could be shared just between trusted friends. Now the company says that's old news, that people are changing. I don't believe it. I think Facebook is just saying that because that's what it wants to be true. Whether less privacy is good or bad is another matter, the change of the contract with users based on feigned concern for users' desires is offensive and makes any further moves by Facebook suspect. Discuss

Read the original post:
Facebook's Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over

In December, I visited Parrot 's development labs in Paris to check out the company's newest project. While Parrot is mostly known for its Bluetooth headsets and speaker systems, the company's newest project combines augmented reality with a remote controlled helicopter. This helicopter - the AR.Drone - features four rotors to keep it stable and a front-mounted camera that is linked to an iPhone or iPod touch. The rig is controlled via an iPhone or iPod touch and the device's screen can show an augmented view of what the helicopter's camera sees. Sponsor AR Meets the Real World What's most exciting about this product is how it combines a real helicopter with this augmented reality view. Instead of just looking at an augmented view of the world through the phone's camera, you get to see the world through the drone's camera. The iPhone takes the view of the camera (via Wi-Fi) and replaces markers with anything from walls to dinosaurs. During our discussion with Parrot in December, we couldn't get any information about the price of the AR.Drone out of the company's representatives. Given how sophisticated the hardware is, however, chances are that it won't be very cheap. The drone, for example, features two camera. Besides the camera that feeds the video to the iPhone, the drone also features a second came that is mounted underneath he structure and augments the drone's autopilot. Hands-On With the AR.Drone We got a chance to play with a prototype of the AR.Drone in Parrot's labs and while it took a while to get used to the controls (the app uses a combination of the phone's tilt sensors and on-screen controls to manipulate the drone). The video on the iPhone was surprisingly clear and didn't show any noticeable lag. Sadly, we didn't get a chance to try out the AR features of the app, though. Parrot will launch the AR.Drone later this year. The company plans demo the helicopter at CES this week but the exact date of the public launch remains unclear. A Drone for Developers In its current iteration, the hardware and software is clearly laid out for gaming, but Parrot also released an SDK that will allow developers to use the hardware for other purposes as well. It will definitely be interesting to see what games and other tools the developer community will come up with one the AR.Drone is launched. Parrot told us that it hopes that developers will look at the hardware as a platform and the company hopes to create an active developer ecosystem around the AR.Drone. More Videos Click here for more videos of the AR.Drone in action. Disclosure : Frederic met with Parrot during a trip that was partly sponsored by Parrot . An Early Demo Discuss

Go here to read the rest:
Parrot's Remote Controlled Helicopter Takes Augmented Reality to the Next Dimension

Facebook's getting its own movie , Ashton Kutcher is the social web's unpaid spokesman and now NBC is launching a show dedicated to mobile apps. What's the world coming to? Call me old fashioned, but where I come from, a geek is a geek and a mainstream actor with an iPhone is still just a mainstream actor with an iPhone. The Oprahtization of technology is at least a bit demeaning, from my point of view. Sure, this trend brings exposure to our heroic exploits, but it's often done through stereotypes about geeks and an air of naïveté about how technology really works. What do you think? Am I being a curmudgeon? Is all this mainstream-tech integration really a good thing? Sponsor Granted, we all have to discover technology at some point. None of us were born nerds. But there's a certain je ne sais quoi that is unique to geeks: a melange of smarts, social pickiness, a willingness to be different, insatiable curiosity, a desire to learn and create new and amazing things, and frequently, a very necessary shell to protect oneself from the rejections of the larger world around us. As a people accustomed to being ostracized for speaking in terms too technical, having a bizarre sense of humor or caring more about bandwidth than baseball, we have generally existed far outside the cool kids' club. Not to frame my entire argument in a high school analogy, but we have mostly been useful for one thing: Doing other people's homework. When they - the non-technical of this world - want an application, device, website or feature, we built it and teach them how to use it. This has been the geek's role for eons: Doing the jocks' dirty work and then skipping prom. Can you imagine Einstein hobnobbing with Marlene Deitrich? Or a young Steve Jobs on an early '80s red carpet with a young Harrison Ford? Yet we are seeing more and more crossover between mainstream media and our little world of technology to the point that you can't tell the tech from the tinsel. Perhaps it's just disconcerting to see those two worlds meshing for the first time. Perhaps all my angst is simply discomfort. Yet when I see and hear innovators and geeks referred to as ugly, graceless basement-dwellers, even in jest, by mainstream talking heads, it still gets to me. But what gets to me more is the new set of faux geeks - folks who know just enough about tech to send a misspelled Twitter update from their mobiles but who thrive on the attention and revenue they gain from this scene. They wouldn't know an API from a IP; the red carpet is more likely their natural habitat; yet they incessantly appear in blog posts, pictures and videos until the real geeks don't even remember how they got there. It happens on a small scale (every tech scene has its skill-free new media douchebag), and it's starting to happen on a larger scale, as well (why is Olivia Munn a geek, again?). Call me bitter, call me jealous, call me cynical - but let me know what you think, too. Some of our friends on Twitter told us they didn't like mainstream media's encroachment onto geek territory, but others who responded to our query see this exposure as a good thing, and we want to hear this point of view, as well. After all, I was excited the first time I heard Twitter mentioned in a news report, too. Give us your opinions in the comments, and don't hold back! We love a good, long-winded discourse at ReadWriteWeb. Note: Lest you throw stones at the writer for not being geeky enough herself, she was building LANs and playing the first version of King's Quest when you were still in diapers. Discuss

Excerpt from:
Open Thread: Mainstream Media Discovers Geekery, Is This a Good Thing?

According to a report released today [ PDF ] by Reporters Sans Fronti

Editor's note: This story is part of a series we call Redux, where we'll re-publish some of our best posts of 2009. As we look back at the year - and ahead to what next year holds - we think these are the stories that deserve a second glance. It's not just a best-of list, it's also a collection of posts that examine the fundamental issues that continue to shape the Web. We hope you enjoy reading them again and we look forward to bringing you more Web products and trends analysis in 2010. Happy holidays from Team ReadWriteWeb! As machines learn to understand what the web means, what perspective will they understand it from? Who is teaching them? "Objective" descriptions of the world and the relationships in it can cause real problems, particularly for people with little power in those relationships. How will the emerging Semantic Web understand relationships and what will that mean for us as human users? Sponsor Editor's note: In this series, called Redux, we're re-publishing some of our best posts of 2009. We hope you enjoy reading them again and we look forward to bringing you more Web products and trends analysis in 2010. Happy holidays from Team ReadWriteWeb! Austrian researcher Corinna Bath argues that there is a real risk that the semantic web of the future will be built with the perspectives and assumptions of male computer scientists baked-in unconsciously - at the expense of everyone else. Background Corinna Bath is currently research fellow at the "Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society" in Graz, Austria. She's now working on engaging the several decades old study of gender and technology with the emerging world of the semantic web. What is the semantic web? We define it as a paradigm that makes the meaning of particular web pages understandable by machines - not just in full text searches or keyword categories, but in terms of which concepts are central to a given page and the relationships between them. The semantic web is hot. World Wide Web founding father and W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee says all the pieces are now in place for a semantic web to emerge. So is it a boy or a girl? When You Assume, You Make an... Corinna Bath did an interview last week for the Austrian Semantic Web Company where she articulates her concerns about gender and the semantic web. Unfortunately, the interview is extremely academic in language and tone - so we'll try to explain her arguments here. Her first argument is that the architects of the semantic web need to be very careful about the assumptions they carry into the creation of categories of relationships. Bath draws a historical parallel with the first phone books, where listings were organized by the names of the husband in each household. That appeared to the authors to be the logical way to do it at the time. It wasn't until after years of feminist political organizing led to general cultural change that the phone books changed. Why is this important? Because systems like the phone book help color our view of the world we live in and are the building blocks of basic inequalities. Too often, Bath argues, "binary assumptions about women and men are not reflected [upon] or the (gender) politics of [a particular] domain is ignored. Thus, the existing structural-symbolic gender order is inscribed into computational artifacts and will be reproduced by [their] use." Right: The Semantic Web made me grow this beard. Semantic web t-shirt via SpreadShirt. For example, the Dublin Core ontology concerns Documents. It consists of a list of elements that can be used to describe a document, including "creator," "contributor," and "isReferencedBy." Are there types of relationships that aren't included on the list but are important to an accurate understanding of a document? There probably are, and different perspectives could help articulate what those relationships might be. For example, some feminist critics argue that the Western cannon of almost every type of literature is full of work that men didn't give women appropriate credit for. Some argue that Albert Einstein's wife deserves substantial credit for his theory of relativity - should that be included in semantic markup wherever the book is cataloged? How should that relationship be described? Calling her a contributor would be controversial and wouldn't really capture the history - a new category may be needed. There are no shortage of ways to describe documents, events, people or concepts. The roster of people who will participate in the creation of a standard way to describe them will become increasingly important as machine learning becomes more important in our every day lives. Failing to take this seriously, Bath argues, could lead to the silencing of "minority views, quieter voices, and allows the dominant voice to speak for everyone, which seems highly problematic." Is Categorization Itself The Right Solution? The semantic web today is based largely on what are called "triples" - sets of subject, predicate and object. For example Marshall Kirkpatrick [subject], loves [predicate] Punkin' the Tabby Kitten [object]. (Hypothetical, I don't have any kittens and please don't send me any.) This way of describing things isn't beyond question, however. As Bath argues: Even the modeling concepts themselves should be questioned as Cecile Crutzen suggest, since e.g. the class concept and the inheritance concept lack to represent social processes, because of limited formal expressiveness for conflict, change and fluidity. Such an ontology abstracts from human sociality, situated action and real meaning construction processes. In other words life aint so simple: people change, conflicts and context matter and things in this world don't just get their meaning by one object bumping into another, one event leading to another, child inheriting traits from a parent, etc. Computer logic may necessitate simplification of some of life's richness - but this is nothing to take lightly. We're talking about helping computers understand meaning and that is not a simple or trivial matter. Is Knowledge Only The Absence of Doubt? Bath calls into question "computer science modeling that rests on the Cartesian epistemology," or the belief that way we know that we really "know" something is by having no doubt about it. If our semantic markup reading robot finds markup asserting that a certain relationship exists and does not find any markup asserting that it does not exist - ought we conclude that we've determined the truth of the matter? Particularly if not all perspectives on the matter have been taken into consideration in even formulating how the situation is described, then an assertion that a particular object has a certain property or two subjects have a particular relationship may be woefully inaccurate in describing reality. There are a lot of things people disagree about and there's a lot of knowledge that people deny for political convenience. The absence of doubt is not sufficient basis for determination of truth. Repeated attempts to disprove a theory make a much better basis for working knowledge. Or, as political blogger Karoli Kuns said to NPR's Andy Carvin this morning when Carvin asserted otherwise, "I'd argue that tag dissent balances folksonomies, not undermines." Let's talk about "working knowledge" and stop whispering about "truth", before the robot children hear us. Philosophy Aside, What Does This Mean? It means that as the language we use to communicate meaning to machines develops, we'd better watch out who is building it and what perspectives they take into consideration. Unconsidered assumptions could lead to a real disconnect between the meaning that machines know of the world and they way that millions of other people experience it. Bath isn't suggesting that the semantic web should be rejected, quite the opposite in fact. "I am convinced," she says, "that the perspectives I tried to sketch here can contribute to build better semantic systems or even prevent them from failure in function or on the marketplace." She has her own explanation why this is important: "With the use of the Internet we are already witnessing a radical change in practices of how knowledge is represented, stored and spread. In the future most of our work and life will involve the manipulation and use of information. It will crucially depend on the epistemologies, concepts and leading metaphors of the Semantic Web, which direction the semantic "human-machine reconfigurations" (Lucy Suchman) will take." That's a nice way to say that we need to work hard to avoid creating fascist robots that exercise a homogenizing influence on diverse human experiences. There are people who are doing semantic web work in directions that take this into account, but it's something worth considering for all of us. Disclosure: The author has consulting relationships with a number of pre-launched semantic web companies. Discuss

Continued here:
Will The Semantic Web Have a Gender?