[Air-l] Google is watching !

[Thomas Koenig]

At 16:48 21/05/2004, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
>(from Dewey) the public sphere is called into being whenever two (or
>more) people are involved in a conversation, and that conversation has
>unintended consequences that reach beyond the originators of the
>conversation.

And that is already the "public sphere"! I merely argue that material on 
the WWW/Usenet is *public* and may (or may not) enter the "public sphere".

>Thomas and Eero, as I understand them, continue to argue that what is
>posted online is inherently public. As a result, following guidelines
>for attributing sources, it's A-OK to do what we will with it.

I am unsure, what your concept of "posted online" is, but if you mean 
Usenet and most parts of the WWW and observe the limitations (minors, 
mentally ill, etc.) I listed and am willing to extend on, if you present me 
with suitable cases, that sums it up for me.


>My position is that although posts online are durable, persistant, and
>visible, it does not mean they are inherently public such that
>researchers can do with the posts what they will. Now, I agree with
>Nancy that researchers should not have to get consent from participants
>in a discussion group, such as Usenet, that are open to anyone to
>participate and to read, and where identities (that is, first and last
>names and identifying information) is generally unavailable, rendering
>the posts anonymous. But, there are many grey areas, as others have
>identified, like the AoIR list. Few of us are anonymous on this email
>list. Our posts have email addresses and names (usually first and last)
>attached to them.
>
>So, I point back to Dannah's eloquent post, that the *experience* of
>participating online, the *perceptions* of those involved in the
>interaction, need to become the primary concern in determining how to
>proceed with research. If the conversation between Sally, Kate, and
>Jamaal had happened in a support group for gays and lesbians, I'm
>unconvinced that many participants would feel it okay for a stranger to
>record, analyze, and publish the discussion, just as they likely would
>not feel okay if someone secretely recorded the conversation at
>Starbucks. But, that is a question that requires a researcher to know
>and understand the group and abide by the norms the group has
>established.

Now, here is my puzzle. Suppose, I post something really nasty about you or 
a group dear to you on the Usenet and attach my full name to it (in fact, 
in my experience, it is a piece of cake to find out the RL identity of most 
usenet posters, even if they use pseudonyms), but I am unaware that anybody 
except the buddies I know in the Usenet group would read that stuff, so I 
perceive it as "private". Along come hundreds of people, who get a bad 
impression about you and/or your group, among them a couple of your friends 
or associates, who decide upon reading my rant to leave your group or 
circle of friends. Along comes a researcher, who investigates, why your 
group is rapidly losing support. She figures that a host of rumors that 
originates the postings of me and my buddies have seriously damaged the 
reputation of your group. She could write an article that would explain, 
why your group has lost support, but, alas, she cannot infringe on the 
*presumed* privacy of the conversation.

Next day, a journalist comes across my posting. He thinks it's funny and 
links to it on the webpage of his paper, and he is not bound by some code 
of ethics that makes privacy the default assumption. Now, thousands of 
people laugh about your group based on the posting. My posting, which was 
intended to be "private" has generated very real public consequences.

>At the heart of this, I'm urging that the primary consideration when
>engaging in research of people online is not if posts are durable,
>archived, visible, public, then they are fair game for research, but how
>do those who participate in the conversation perceive their
>participation?

My point is, I guess, that *not* only the posters are partaking in the 
conversation, but the lurkers, too. They might be many and most of them 
will perceive the posting as public.

Thomas