In a follow up to last week's post: Facebook retracted its policy changes pretty quickly. This article, from a blog linked to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, discusses the revocation of February 4's rulebook rewrite. Facebook is now using its old version of the user agreement, with no reference to the website owning users' personal information. The company is now working on making a new, "clearer" verson of the rules.

I find this speedy change telling of Facebook's relationship with its users. One advocacy group threatened to file a federal complaint, but really, would the federal government have forced changes upon a private company? It seems that the very fuel that makes the social networking site run, its relationship with the public, suffered because of the policy changes, and that the reversal was a simple result of the people speaking.

I found this article from cnet connected to our recent discussion about the rights of Facebook and other social networking sites. Recently, Facebook announced changes (or, rather, clarifications) to its policy regarding material posted on the site. The new policy has fewer limits on what the site can do with material posted by users, even after the users delete that material. The Consumerist, a blog site dealing with consumer advocacy issues, claims that the new rules seem to be saying, "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever." In addition, some artists, authors, and musicians are closing their Facebook accounts out of fears that work from which they hope to profit will be shared outside the site.

This all seems somewhat murky to me. Facebook officials say they are not claiming ownership of posted materials, and privacy settings still apply. With Facebook being a free application open to the public, it seems that people should be careful with what they post regardless of slight policy changes. It will be interesting to see where Mark Zuckerberg and the gang go with new rules in effect.

Voter disclosure laws, such as California's Political Reform Act of 1974, have made the names of donors to charitable and political causes public for years. However, the Internet makes this information easier to find than ever before, and websites such as the one discussed in this New York Times article, are creating controversy by flaunting donor information.

The article discusses eightmaps.com, a website listing the names, approximate locations, and employers of people who donated money to fund Proposition 8, the ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California. With a few clicks, you can find the measure's backers in any ZIP code. Some of the donors have received threats and hatemail, and some of their businesses have been boycotted.

This is an issue that I have mixed feelings about. Although I understand that transparency is both necessary in the political system and required by law, there are some serious privacy issues here. However, information made public through sunshine laws is available for anyone to post on their blog, or, in this case, interactive website. There is some discussion of raising the minimum donation that must be reported, protecting the identity of donors of small amounts. There have also been suggested that state websites providing donor information request downloaders' indentity. I don't forsee huge changes coming to transparency law any time soon, however.

While checking out programmableweb.com, I really liked the Congress Spacebook mashup. It's like a parody Facebook for Congress members. I look up information on these people frequently for class, and I enjoyed seeing all their "stats" displayed in a humorous way.

While browsing for a news story, I found this opinion blog from Techdirt.com and felt that, although it isn't a new issue, the topic of copyright laws and technology is an interesting one. The blog's author contends that copyright laws will soon be obsolete due to the extensive file-sharing capabilities the Internet offers. 

I felt the blog post had a good point: when consumers can fileshare at will, what difference will copyright laws make? However, he also stated that "the average consumer" hasn't felt the full effect of online file availability, but that copyrights will be obsolete within a year. Certainly nearly every "average consumer" must know something about file sharing. Even those that don't participate are aware of the fact that iTunes isn't the cheapest place to download music if you're ignoring copyright laws. In addition, corporations in the media and entertainment industry are constantly striving to limit file piracy. It appears that, though copyrights will continue to be violated at an increasingly fast pace, they're not going anywhere any time soon.

You have a paper due, and though your bibliography fills pages, you're still not exactly sure of the difference between a republic and a democracy. You're on the phone with a friend, hearing about her plans vacation in Monteray...is that in California or one of those other warm states? You place a bet with a friend when you're sure that that song is by Led Zepplin and he says it's the Rolling Stones and you say the two bands don't even sound the same. Where do you turn when your grades, your reputation, or even ten dollars stands on the line?

Wikipedia, of course.

But this article from MSNBC points out that Wikipedia isn't always the ultimate source for the ultimate truth. When Senator Ted Kennedy was hospitalized after suffering a seizure Tuesday, Wikipedia was the first to post the news...of his death. It took several editing tries for Wiki's avatars to correct Kennedy's entry and lose the section of his life story where he died. 

The article's author poses an interesting claim here: even though Wikepedia serves as an encyclopediac reference, it's the first place people look when they want to know whether something's true. Why check CNN or MSNBC for late-breaking news when the information you want is available (though at the end of the entry) on Wikipedia? The piecing of information from multiple sources into single comprehensive entries appeals to us. However, incidences such as this serve to remind us that Wikipedia isn't infallible. 

In class today, Ms. Hartsell-Gundy mentioned that watching live streaming coverage of the presidential inauguration supported the objectives of IMS 201 through showing the power of the Internet. Although it seemed a bit of a stretch, I think that she had a pretty good point. After class I returned to my room, where my roommate and I discussed whether we should watch CNN on our television or online. She considered buying a podcast of the ceremony on iTunes. The array of viewing options for this historical event is certainly wider than they have been for any inaugurations in the past. This blog from the BBC discusses these new coverage options and ways in which news corporations and viewers will use them.

The author says that some events, such as this one, are "classic television events," the kind of story that audiences want to sit back and watch. However, viewers increasingly want to participate in events. I found the ways in which audiences can interact with online coverage very interesting. Blogging, Twitter messages, photo posts - the Internet can make every citizen a news correspondent. CNN's request that people in attendance at the inauguration send in photos taken at exactly noon is one example of the way that media companies are using interactive technology and the everyman to enrich their broadcasts and online material. It aslo seems that online media allows more accessibility and archivablility than prior media, granting anyone with Internet access lasting access to historical recordings.