Big fuss over "Big Brother"

There are three certainties when you deal with censorship in Western countries. (a) Censorship never goes down well in Western countries. (b) If you try to impose censorship, refer to certainty (a). And (c), Orwell has to be dragged in there somewhere.

So after the Australian government proposed in January 2009 to impose some compulsory Internet safety filters, the headline "Big brother plan insults parents" summed up all three certainties in one.

The debate begins. In this corner, Communication Minister Stephen Conroy suggests that filtering Internet use is a vital part of making the vast world of the Internet a safer place for children. Like CyberSitters, the government wants to impose restrictions on Internet use in order to make sure children are not exposed to explicit or "unwanted" material.

But in this corner, passions are even more fierce. As Nick Minchin - author of the above mentioned Big Brother article - intones:

There is no technological substitute for adult supervision and it's
irresponsible and misleading to infer otherwise.

Three guesses whose side he's on. Minchin charges the government with ignoring expert opinion, which consistently shows that filters can be easily overcome by a technology-savvy user, and that adult supervision and law enforcers should not be usurped by CyberSitters. The $40 million proposed to be spent on this project, Minchin argues, could be better spent on funding for law enforcement, which he suggests would crack down on such explicit Internet material at its source.

While Minchin raises some good points, there are a few problems with his arguments that I could see. Firstly, adult supervision is definitely better than government censorship, for sure, but parents aren't omniscient. Think of the number of things you've slipped past your parents. While little kids may not be as adept at this, older kids certainly are; it's in the nature of childhood. Even the best parents can't possibly know everything their child is up to, and especially not on the Internet. Is it the old adage that you need to raise your children right and then hope they know the difference between right and wrong? Or is surveillance more necessary for one age over another? Where do we draw the line between censorship and protection?

And secondly, law enforcement won't solve all the problems on the Internet. While child porn is illegal, there is plenty of other objectionable material on the Internet that is perfectly legal - the dark side of free speech and general freedoms that we can take for granted in Australia. You can't legislate against a lot of what goes on on the Internet. While law enforcement is definitely a good step, it won't solve everything.

What are your thoughts on Internet censorship/filtering? Would you want to filter the Internet for your children?

Looking for a job? Social networking could be your friend

YOU HAVE:
2 friend requests
3 group invitations
1 job offer


You could one day sign into Facebook to find something like this on your feed. And although this isn't literally the case today, an article in the Economic Times suggests that social networking is becoming more and more important in the hunt for jobs.

Not sticking with Google and employment sites, young people are increasingly turning to Facebook and Twitter to chat about prospective employers online. Users get advice about recruitment processes and tips for interviews from peers, with about 30% of those students surveyed also chatted to current employees of the prospective company to see if the job lived up to its hype after the hiring process is done.

It's funny how things like this still surprise us. Before the Internet, you would not only check the classifieds for listings, but you naturally would talk to your friends and find out connections in order to stake out jobs. That hasn't changed. Social networking has just moved this strategizing to an online environment. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of first-hand interactions with people you've never met from places around the world, taking the job search to a whole new global level. The access to information is also much greater and more immediate, meaning that research can be a lot more thorough. Social networking, again, is in a no man's land between the familiar and the personal.

But while job-hunters are happy to research online, being offered jobs is a different story. Although businesses are beginning to hock jobs on Facebook and Twitter, surveys from the article present that 70% of students are against organisations using social networking sites to offer them jobs, saying that this is "exploiting" social media for their own ends. This suggests that Internet users want to use the web for their independent research to hunt their own jobs, not be caught with cloying advertisements. This also suggests a sense of sanctity of the social networking sites: that it's a place for people to interact with their peers, not for companies to intrude.

Something this article doesn't cover, however, is something I talked about in an earlier blog post: what about employers finding their employees true "opinions" of their jobs? Could the free speech of the Internet, used for job researching, prove detrimental if current employees are a little too "honest" with their assessment of their job/employer?

What do you think about social networking and job hunting? Would you want to be offered a job online? Have you ever researched a job by using social networking sites?

Facebooking Advice from Obama

Not sure about anyone else, but putting politicians and online pop culture in the same sentence strikes me as a little funny. I tried friending Kevin Rudd on Facebook once. He never replied. Maybe he worked out I'm American. I also logged into "John Howard's" blog, where I read about "the man under my super hip funky exterior" (it wasn't really John Howard by the way).

Yet articles about Obama's Facebook advice have hit the headlines. Young people, Obama said, are not being wise about their Facebook use, with uploaded content that could come back later to haunt them in life. This comment was part of a wider speech about youth motivation, with Obama entreating young people to "stay focused, find something you're passionate about". Too many kids are underachieving, and in the dog-eat-dog global economy, it's more important than ever for American teens to take charge of their futures.

Uproar followed Obama's comments, with parents and teachers leading the backlash against Obama's "interference" with American kids. Conservative politicians also pushed for a boycott against the address, saying Obama was trying to push an agenda on American kids.

To be honest, I don't quite get what the fuss is about. It's not like Obama is trying to legislate against the use of Facebook, and telling kids to try hard in school is not new. Sports stars have been doing it for years.

The idea of Facebook being pulled up later in life, though, is an interesting one. For me, I don't really think about what my Facebook will be like in ten years. Or if I'll even have one. Or whether there'll be anything I'll regret on there.

But the very public nature of the Internet makes it entirely possible that somewhere, someday, someone might look up my profile (why, I don't know) and Facebook-creep on me from across the years. My social interactions - which had always been a private sphere, until the advent of the Internet - has become public. Once upon a time, we kept diaries and had private phone conversations; now, we Facebook and Twitter. Private & public have collided, and currently there's no legislation to divide the two. What kind of implications does this have? Where does private and public start and end?

Do you ever think of what repercussions your Facebook may have in the future?

Climbing the Social (Networking) Ladder

Who knew you could assert your social status with your... um, status? Upper-crust society types used to show their superiority over champagne cocktails on their yachts, but now it seems - as in most things *rolls eyes* - it's all about technology, as this NineMSN article suggests.

New York Magazine is apparently renowned for its "upwardly mobile air-kissers", and it recently published an article that gives tips on how to "namedrop" in your Facebook updates. No really.

Instructions are included to slot in a casual reference to that new maid you've hired here; a sly mention of the house in the Hamptons there. It's not just a Facebook, dah-ling, it's the key to your social success!

Yeah it's nuts. And the writers of the piece sum it up wonderfully:

Without so much as a smirk, we are reminded that "names must be dropped carefully!" Oh, but whose names exactly?

"Give away too much, and you’re a braggart with no respect for personal privacy (“I’m having dinner with Anna Wintour!” How gauche)."

The penny drops then, and we realise that the average New York Magazine reader really is in another league; socially placed to share a table with Anna Wintour, stupid enough to think she makes great dinner company, and sufficiently narcissistic to brag about it.

That's all suitably crazy, especially in today's society when we tend to think of ourselves as "classless".

But thinking about it, don't we kind of have a class system in Facebook? Maybe not their status updates, but what about "friend" lists? I know a person who has over 1,000 "friends", and someone who's been on Facebook for years but "only" has 20.

What about people's photos? Friends of mine have been hurt by other friends who've uploaded photos from parties and events... to which we weren't invited.

Some people have walls full of comments; others have barely anything.

Have you guys ever felt a class system online? What other examples are out there?