http://www.zenofnptech.org/2007/10/social-networks-and-digital-sharecropping.html Redes sociais e o Compartilhamento-Seletivo Digital Estava lendo o artigo de Deborah Finn sobre Facebook. E venho tendo pensamentos //curmudgeonly?// sobre redes sociais em geral. Meus pensamentos //curmudgeonly// caem em três categorias básicas de sugações: suga tempo, suga conteúdo e suga segurança. Sugação de tempo: Redes sociais sugam tempo. O que é gasto os assinando, fazendo perfis, adicionando amigos, aplicaçoes etc. E mais um login e senha. pelo menos as redes sociais focadas-no-conteúdo como del.icio.us, flickr, my personal favorite, own Social Source Commons tem alguma coosa lá. Já alcancei um esgotamento de redes e me recuso a me juntar a uma outra, a não ser que seja algo realmente instigante, e algo que eu não conseguiria fazer de outra maneira. Sugação de conteúdo: E porque as redes sociais de-lucro existem, quando vc realmente olha para elas? Nick Carr, um desses espertos favoritos chama de compartilhamento-seletivo digital: O que está sendo concentrado, em outras plavars, não é o conteúdo mas o valor econômico do conteúdo. MySpace, Facebook, Orkut e muitos outros negócios se tocaram que eles podem fornecer as ferramentas de produção mas manter a possessão dos produtos resultantes. Uma das características econômicas mais fundamentais da web 2.0 é a distribuição da produção nas mãos de muitos e a concentração das recompensas econômicas nas mãos de poucos. É um sistema de compartilhamento-seletivo, mas os compartilhadores-seletivos estão no geral felizes porque seus interesses estão na auto-expressão ou socialização, não em fazer dinheiro, e, ainda mais, o valor econômico de suas contribuições individuais são triviais. É apenas agregando essas contribuições em uma escala massiva - em uma escala web - que esses negócios se tornam lucrativos. Colocando de uma outra forma, os compartilhadores-seletivos operam bem contentes em uma economia de atenção enquanto aqueles que os olham operam bem contentes na economia de dinheiro. Nesta visão, a economia da atenção não opera separadamente da economia do dinheiro; isso simplesmente significa uma forma de criar inputs baratos para a economia de dinheiro. É muito para digerir, mas faz todo o sentido. Como disse antes, eu sei que Facebook está tirando muito mais do meu tempo gasto em Facebook do que eu. Eles são donos do meu perfil e de todo o tempo que gasto adicionando conteúdo. Não é realmente meu, e não gosto disso. Sugação de privacidade: Não muito tempo atrás, hoive um pequeno soluço na bondade da web 2.0. um novo site de redes sociais chamado ?Quetchup? mandou vários emails sem permissão (spam) com os contratos das pessoas que se inscreveram para o site. Isso porque muitos dos sites de redes sociais te permitem achar outras pessoas no site dando para eles o seu usuário de gmail e senha, ou sua lista de contatos de e-mail. Não há questionamento do quanto está se desenvolvendo o espaço das redes sociais. Mas não vou me juntas a outra rede social a não ser que: 1) É realmente instigante a nível de conteúdo, e prov uma forma de fazer coisas que não é possível de outra forma, ou 2) Usa OpenID 3) Tem //open social graph// e 4) eu tenha possessão e controle dos dados do meu perfil Quando tudo isso acontecer,serei a primeira a assinar. ---------------- contrato do you tube http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/andrewl/news/freebeer-anat/ "?by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business? in any media formats and through any media channels.? By uploading to YouTube you grant them the right to do near anything with your video, including modifying and selling it, as long as your video stays on their site. Even as it appears the big players are giving up control by opening their sites to user contributions there remains a strong desire to control the content as much as possible. YouTube is perhaps the most extreme example; I use it here as it most dramatically illustrates the conflict that is occurring between those who own the infrastructures and those that merely use them. Communities for Sale Up until a few years ago the idea of building a site based on user generated content was a fringe idea that worked counter to the 'in control' philosophy of most business practices. Additionally there was no business model for this type of site. How could you make money hosting and distributing people's content for free? One of the key business models for these ?Web 2.0? start ups has been the basic idea of providing an infrastructure for users and then selling those eyes to advertisers and often the community itself to a larger company ? it happened with Flickr, YouTube, MySpace and more. The acquisition of YouTube by Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion US highlighted just how much money is at stake and just how big the gap is between those making fortunes and those making media. The work of the founders and employees of YouTube, whilst responsible for creating the infrastructure that allowed others to publish and distribute their content, represents only a fraction of the work that made the site such a wild success. Literally millions of people added videos, comments, promoted the site, built profiles and more, all creating value for the company and enhancing the experience of other users. All of these users should be paid for their contributions given the wealth they generated; none have been. Most of these platforms offer a simple trade off; distribution, storage, membership in a community and an audience in exchange for advertising next to your content. You provide the reason for coming to the site, they provide the infrastructure. This situation however is similar to the current exploitation of artists in many other fields; you get an opportunity at a slice of the pie but you must provide your work for free or almost nothing just to prove yourself. It's like being on permanent provisional employment, ?we (might) make you famous, just give us your talent and we'll see.? Sites like YouTube, Google Video and MySpace employ a 'hoarding architecture' that provides only a form of fake sharing.These sites severely limit what you can and cannot do with the media you upload and view. For example YouTube doesnt enable you to download the videos on their site (there's a small hack you can get that will allow you to do this but it isn't official), only embed them in your blog with YouTube branding. As such you can only share through YouTube and the videos are of such low quality they are almost useless offline. You can't control how your video is encoded and instead get left with a generic low resolution Flash Video version, a proprietary codec that Macromedia control. You can't subscribe to feeds of other users videos off-site (video podcasting) only through the YouTube site ? where you'll of course get to view many ads. Added to this, and this applies to even the more 'progressive' companies, the software used to run the site is entirely proprietary and not available to you the user to share and improve upon lest you go and build your own site. With all these limitations why do people publish to these sites rather than ones that are more likely to respect their rights? One key reason is the ubiquity they've been able to establish; YouTube and MySpace are the names that get thrown around most in mainstream media and as such many people just don't know about the alternatives. They've reached such a scale as to be able to offer potentially huge audiences, if you dont get lost in the noise every other contributor is making. Additionally the massive resources these companies command means they can offer features many smaller initiatives can't and implement them much quicker. What's concerning and puzzling however is the apoliticism with which many creators approach these sites. Even with the knowledge that Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace somehow it doesn't seem as corporatised and controlled as the 'old media'. People are happy to make the compromise for the additional features and the larger audience. All this adds up to a more subtle form of control that is in many ways more exploitative than the passive consumerism of television. TV just asks you to be a passive receiver of information and sells you to an advertiser ? these sites sell your creativity, thoughts, social relationships and feelings. At the same time we offer our labour for free whilst others make millions.