It seems that AOL is gambling with your privacy. I believe this is wrong. Here’s why:
Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life - Instant Messaging Networks vs. Public Social Networks
Of course, nothing stops the recruiter from just blogging about our relationship or creating a blogroll of “people I’m trying to poach from Microsoft” but that’s just her word against mine. With publicly exposing her social network, it is now confirmed that we have some sort of relationship. That’s not what I agreed to when I accepted her as an IM contact.
A lot of this is gut feel from a lot of us who use and build these products. However I’d rather err on the conservative side than piss off our users in a crass attempt to increase the usage of one of our features.
Whether this scenario, or any other, the fact that I might have someone on my IM “buddy” list *SHOULD NOT* infer any rights upon that person (who would in turn have me on their contact list) to make this information public in *ANY WAY*.
By forcing me to explicity allow someone to add me to their social network, whether public, semi-public, semi-private, or private, puts that control into *MY* hands, not theirs. With this in mind the following quote:
Dare warns about automatically converting a Buddy List into a social network. Hmmm - we’re about to find out how that works with AIM. This notion of the Buddy list as social network tantalizes me - the results will be fascinating. Dare claims it will be a ‘privacy nightmare’. I don’t necessarily agree with him - but (as I said above) we’re about to find out if this is true - in spades.
and in particular this statement:
Hmmm - we’re about to find out how that works with AIM
… makes me happy to know that I stopped using AIM, more or less, as soon as I started. The reason for stopping really had nothing to do with anything that went beyond taste — I simply didn’t like the look, feel, or function of AIM. MSN Messenger, Yahoo, and now GTalk have always sat well with me in this regard; each for slightly different reasons, but none-the-less, they each look, feel, and function in a way that has kept me as a so called “customer”, or member of their network.
I can tell you one thing, if that wasn’t the case, or in other words, if I was still a member of AOL’s Instant Message (AIM) network, that membership would now be coming to screaching halt.
Hey AOL — Obviously I’m not one of your customers, but I do recognize the fact that a lot of folks are.
Please don’t “gamble” with your members privacy.
It’s simple enough to enforce a “you must explicity allow someone to add you to their social network” policy. Even if that means an extra week or two of work, enforcing a “Members Privacy FIRST” policy is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do.
Please do this.
Thanks.
IM Friends Lists
With YHOO and GOOG IM clients, I have to approve anyone that tries to add me to their "friends" list. I'm not sure about AIM or MSN.
Social Networking
The whole social network thing eludes me. I go to great lengths to avoid strangers contacting me (e.g., spam), so why would I want contacts from someone whose only link to me is that they met Uncle Joe?
I'm not following the story...
Is AIM going to make buddy lists public? I read ALL the linked stories from this post and still didn't understand. Anyone?
Anonymous,
re: AIM or MSN: I know that MSN is DEFINITELY the same way... I 'm pretty sure that AIM is as well. To me, allowing someone that ability to see when I am online, and chat with me as they see fit is something that I keep safe guard over. The folks that I do allow this I do so because I know they respect my privacy, and I theirs. Contacting them through IM is the exception, not the norm. [EXTENDED: I should note that I have now converted to using GTalk as my 'private' IM tool, Yahoo as my 'professional' IM tool, and MSN Messenger as my 'friends' IM tool. It allows for a clean separation, and works quite well for me as I can log into and out of the various networks as my current work flow allows.]
re: Social Networks: I couldn't agree more. I think there are some smart folks who understand that if done correctly, this could lead to a powerful tool for various purposes... e.g. finding the right person for the job based on recommendations from previous co-workers.
As an example, LinkedIn I think has done a good job of building the right balance of member privacy. For example, you have to first explicitly request that someone add you to their contact list, and to do this you also have to know their email address. The result = no "cold calls" from people who don't at VERY LEAST know your email address in the first place.
But for every one company that is doing it right, there are ten that are doing it wrong. It seems to me that MSN/Windows Live has chosen the correct route -- or at very least has kept user privacy at the top of the list.
All of this stated: I still agree with your point regarding the whole social networking thing eluding you, as, in general, it eludes me as well.
Hi AJ,
As long as I understand things correctly, what AIM is doing is simply converting your "buddy list" into your "social network list", using implicit "if they're on your buddy list, then they must be a part of your 'social network'" type justficaction for doing so. I think this is completely off target, and as Dare points out, will result in a 'privacy nightmare'. The entire point of this post is not to call out AOL for doing something wrong, and instead to keep them from doing something wrong, in this case, using implied justification for making a buddy list part of a public social network. [EXTENDED: In other words, I don't believe that AOL has purposely set out to invade the privacy of its members, and instead simply has not thought this all the way through]
It is my understanding that the term "public social network" is just that -- public. Anyone can see who is connected to who, and how. I assume -- and let me be sure to emphasize assume -- that they will invoke something similar to the other social networks, in which require that you be 'introduced' to someone by someone else who is directly connected to this person. That too says a lot as to why an auto-conversion from 'buddy list' to 'social networking list' is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
An example: There are a lot of folks that I have on my buddy lists that are there because of work related reasons. Because I am a consultant/contractor, and have been now for ten years, this means that there are a lot of folks on my various IM lists that are there not because I know them personally (or at least all that well, anyway) but because while on contract there was a need for us to communicate for work related reasons. That should not be enough to imply a connection beyond the fact that we once traded messages regarding a deliverable, or a need in particular to a project we both were at one point associated with. [EXTENDED: Of course, I could always "clean shop", removing those in whom I currently have no need to communicate with, or in whom I barely know. However, I have always hesitated in doing this as I have been concerned with offending folks who might notice me as "online and available" on a coworkers list (someone in whom I might know quite well and want to stay connected with), but offline on theirs. This might be just me being overly concerned, but as a consultant/contractor you need to be careful with these kinds of things. So I have been hesitant about "cleaning shop". Besides, it shouldnt be MY responsibilty to make sure that every last person I currently have no direct need to be in contact with is cleared of my list, and instead the networks responsibility to ensure they do not use and abuse my membership for their own personal gain, running risk of invasion of privacy in doing so.]
With this in mind, this goes beyond just privacy, and includes simple common sense. Setting common sense aside, privacy is the #1 concern... but common sense should be involved in this decision process as well.
At least thats my opinion, anwyway :)
you guys are gay if you cant just let ppl add you to there list ooo wooo look your on someones "friends" list what are they going to do to you on the net
Um whatever u loser