Image credit: http://www.privcom.gc.ca
I recently posted an article about how there was a Revolution Still In Store For Web 2.0. Although, I still feel that enthusiasm to "let the revolution begin", I thought it would be worthwhile to post a counterpoint article. After all, the transparency of Web 2.0 is not all positive and helpful. Sometimes it has quite negative, even dangerous implications for all involved.
The Political Dangers of Transparency
There has been some recent drama over the way Congress members should be allowed to user Twitter. The argument for using Twitter is that transparency will "shine the light on every dark corner" of Congress, which in turn will rebuild American trust in the institution. Twitter should be treated like the "new town hall". However, the argument against is based strongly in the desire to keep politics separate from commercialization. The idea is that a political message, whether through Twitter or a social network, could be placed out of context next to an advertisement. This might create an undesirable connection drawn between the politician and the content of the ad.
That taps into a larger problem about creating new conversation and opening up existing data, two major components of web 2.0 transparency. Ultimately you cannot control who has access to that information and how that information is contextualized and reused.
After the jump... the dangers for business and individuals and can we actually avoid the move towards transparency?
The Business Dangers of Transparency
The biggest fear that business have to overcome when opening up their doors and their data is negative backlash. Word-of-mouth and influencers are some of the strongest tools in the toolbox, but they can be used for good or evil. There is a reason that companies are so cautious about the way they talk to their customers. Opening it up to a more casual conversation could lead to inconsistent messaging and leaking out of vital information to competitors.
Other dangers come from promising something that the business cannot provide. By opening up their ears to hear customer opinion, there is a new expectation that something will be done with that opinion. Companies doing this behind closed doors with market research and product testing is very different that companies doing this in public forum. And then what if a company does listen to the desires of the customer, there is always the fear that maybe the customer isn't right and that it will lead to the creation of a Homer Simpson Car.
The Personal Dangers of Transparency
There are some obvious concerns over personal transparency on the internet: invasion of privacy, potential to encourage stalking, and identity theft. Then there is the fact that you are opening up parts of your life to people who it may be a disadvantage to open up to. In particular, there is the big dilemma with balancing personal life and career life.
It's a known fact that employers will google you and check your social network profiles. But, did you ever consider about how your Twitters could be used for psychoanalysis?
But... Can We Avoid It?
The fact is plainly this: transparency has an edge. Who wants to be the most closed one in the room? Who wants to be the candidate, product, or applicant with the least amount of information on the web? It's like having a house listing up for sale, but with no pictures and no information beyond the street address.
A lack of transparency leads consumers to wonder "what are they hiding". Semi-transparent or inconsistent transparency can be even worse, hypocritical even. Digg, for example, publishes full information on positive votes, but hides information on negative votes. This lack of accountability for negativity on Digg has lead to the uprising of a Bury Brigade with questionable motives when it comes to censoring articles. The result has been Digg being labeled as a false or broken democracy.
Ultimately, all people have an invested interest in each others' transparency. Consumers want to have influence on products and government, in order to make sure their personal motivations are being satisfied. Businesses want to know about potential customers Politicians want to know about potential voters. In a world of such valuable information, you have to give in order to get.
In the end, politicians and businesses will just need to embrace the humanization of web 2.0. It's putting a face to their business and a voice on the ground. Individuals will need to embrace the "cult of personality" that web 2.0 encourages, that it will create a collected version of "you" complete with interview-friendly content and some NSFW content. And everybody just needs to understand the ultimate lesson that transparency brings to the table... the truth is that people may not like you.
Marta Strickland
in
digital culture, the social net
|
Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
|
Strategists & Planners
Comments (1)
Marta, you bring up some interesting points that would be raised regardless of the vehicle. But in this case revolve around web 2.0 In any setting there will always be reward for the risk as well as repercussions for the action. Either good or bad, there will always be some type of action.
The upside though far outweighs the downside. The goal has never been to "be transparent" the goal was and is always to be more sharing and giving of oneself and one's resources. To be social, if you will. The fallout being that you did indeed leave all of yourself subject now to scrutiny, consternation, evaluation and and interpretation. Do all of us know that going in? I doubt it. Are we all prepared for that? No. Are we willing to accept it? I think so. And if not, you walk away.
The bottom line is that this new digital age, though very transparent, and getting moreso by the day, is allowing us to be more of who we are and perhaps allowing us to share of ourselves in ways we never dreamt of. The great thing about verticals is that the majority of people will probably like you, and the ones that don't, perhaps there is a reason, perhaps not, but in the end, who cares, move on.
Great piece and very thought provoking.
Marc
Posted on July 29, 2008 11:32