"Online social networking sites and privacy: revisiting ethical considerations for a new generation of technology" by Peter Fernandez

In this article, the author very clearly and succinctly breaks down how social networking sites work:

These sites allow users to create profiles that maintain a record of personal information submitted by the user. This profile can contain things like the user's favorite music, birthday, contact information, and favorite hangouts. This information is shared with other users to facilitate networking and to generate traffic for the site. Traffic represents people using the site, which is the key to making them attractive to their ultimate customer, advertisers. Whatever the values of the individuals running the site, this creates pressure to encourage users to share private information as freely as possible. This allows them to attract additional users, as well as to provide data for targeted advertisements.

This description serves as a healthy reminder for overly enthusiastic librarians that these sites are "controlled by third parties [and] they represent a space whose owners create the parameters for what is possible" [emphasis mine]. As such, librarians "cannot exert direct control over the social networking sites they interact with" ... As a profession, we cannot place ourselves within an SNS environment like Facebook or Twitter and expect to exert influence/maintain control over our patrons' information; in effect, librarians are entering someone else's "yard" and have to play by "their" rules (whether they like it or not).

Of course, this doesn't stop librarians from "working to integrate social networking sites into their outreach efforts by creating profiles that allow them to interact with their patrons in this new space"; in fact, some libraries take it a step further and try to adapt some of their "rules" into the social experience by "integrating services such as catalog searching directly into their social networking sites" ... A lot of articles I've read point out features such as this (and I must admit that building one's individual OPAC into a Facebook page does sound cool on the surface), but I am curious if librarians who've attempted this have made public any actual usage statistics; being able to search the catalog directly through a social networking site seems rather impressive, but do patrons actually use this feature? If not, and they're ignoring this feature, then it suddenly seems a lot less impressive, as it's serving no real purpose for the library's outreach efforts (other than trying to make the library look "cool").

In the end, the author warns that "future updates to [social networking sites] could potentially track how people use library profiles; collect information about how their users access the library catalogue; or perhaps most worryingly, do something else entirely that librarians cannot anticipate" ... Librarians need to be aware of these types of scenarios when putting their "trust" into a third-party for-profit business like Facebook or Twitter. After all, once a library encourages their patrons to join a social networking site, they are basically "handing over" that information for unknown purposes ("Once a user's information has been placed into the system, there is no way to retain full control over how it is used").

I think this statement by the author highlights the concerns we as librarians must have when using social-networking sites, rather than simply rushing in blindly and adopting the latest trends:

By creating a profile on these sites, libraries also risk further legitimizing them, and encouraging users to be passive regarding their own privacy. If libraries take a comprehensive view of privacy as a core value, encouraging their users to use products that do not have the same regard for privacy should give librarians pause. Furthermore, it raises the issue of the role that libraries should play in actively promoting awareness about the priacy issues inherent to these sytems.

"Privacy and Generation Y: applying library values to social networking sites" by Peter Fernandez

Let me just start off by saying that I like the author's definition of Generation Y ("persons born between 1977 and 1994"), because it just barely squeaks me into that demographic ... and here I've always thought I was one of those disillusioned Gen X slackers ;)

Other observations:

* Fernandez encourages libraries to "look into the future and anticipate the needs of a wide variety of patrons", and I believe this is a rational way to look at the adoption of social networking sites into the library's online presence ... It's important for librarians to investigate and see what their individual communities want (and not just rush into the latest "flavor of the month" just because it's what everyone else is doing). If the patrons communicate a desire for the library to have a Facebook page, then go for it; if they don't, then don't force the issue just to appear "hip"!

* With our recent discussions on socially targeted advertising, I found this paragraph interesting: "A study conducted in 2009 revealed that the majority of 18 to 24 year olds surveyed did not want tailored advertisements. When the participants were informed that their online activities would need to be tracked in order to include tailored advertising, the number who opposed tailored advertisements increased."

So, it appears that the younger generation isn't so eager to have their information used for targeted ads after all ...

* The author points out the Beacon and terms-of-service controversies surrounding Facebook, as a way to remind his readers that social networking sites are businesses that are out to make money ("The bottom line is that the profitability of SNSs - even their very existence - depends upon their users transmitting information about themselves freely"), so they may often play fast and loose with that information (while hoping that no one will notice!).

Again, librarians have to take these types of behavior into account when deciding whether or not it is appropriate to encourage their patrons to join these sites. Fernandez says as much when he points out that there is "ample historical evidence" for social networking sites to "continue to push at the boundaries of what their users find acceptable", and that for this reason "librarians have an obligation to consider their values and the practical implications of acting within these spaces."

In fact, the author states that librarians cannot use ignorance by patrons of how social-networking sites work as an excuse for ambivalence towards their stances on user privacy ("The fact that many users are legally complicit in the invasion of their own privacy as SNSs conflate public and private realms does not relieve librarians from considering how the value of privacy should influence their actions").

* Fernandez claims that if "librarians do not find ways to articulate their roles in relation to SNSs they risk being left behind" ... Again, if users do not want to accept "authority figures" (like librarians) into their respective social-networking realms, then they are going to be "left behind" and left out regardless!

* He does touch upon this issue when he quotes Danah Boyd's statement concerning authority figures and students ("You should enter the students' social networking space only as a mentor and only as invited"); he compares this to corporate marketers who have found that users of social networking sites "react poorly if they feel as though their space is being invaded" ... Again, if users are willing to accept "outsiders" into their social circles, then individual librarians may proceed; however, don't expect patrons to automatically respond just because you set up a Facebook page. They could just as easily reject your participation and ignore your presence as an undesirable nuisance ("It would be a mistake to override students' boundaries and break the trust libraries have developed").

* Finally, Fernandez is talking about privacy with this particular statement, but he could just as easily be referring to the "parents at the party syndrome": "Libraries must ensure that the patrons do not feel violated. Simply being legally covered does not ensure that the user will not feel offended at an unwanted intrusion into a space that operates between public and private realms."

If the patrons don't want librarians around, then we shouldn't try to make them accept us (i.e. perpetrate an "unwanted intrusion" into their social-networking space)!

"Balancing outreach and privacy in Facebook: five guiding decisions points" by Peter Fernandez

Three things that I'd like to point out in this article:

* Right from the start, the author repeats the argument that "Facebook and other social networking sites are new spaces where library patrons are, and therefore provides opportunities for libraries to reach out to them" ... However, the question is whether or not patrons actually want to "meet" librarians in these types of spaces; social networking sites are for (believe it or not) socializing and having fun, not necessarily research and studying.

I wish I could remember which of our previous readings had this quote, but someone compared libraries on social networking sites to the "parents at the party syndrome," whereby authority figures (like librarians) are trying to "hang out" with all of the "cool kids" but they just wind up embarrassing themselves ... If patrons do not show any interest in interacting with librarians in these social spaces, then librarians are fighting a losing battle if they try to "force" themselves into the equation.

* The author does echo some of my concerns from the data-mining article discussed on Sakai, as he states that "the library has an ethical obligation to be aware of potential abuses" when patrons contribute to any part of the library's Facebook page, and "determine how [the library] wants to regulate the interactions that occur on its site." Again, librarian have to determine whether or not it is their responsibility to educate their patrons on the privacy concerns/issues that come with adopting social-networking tools into their online presence.

* One statement by the author that I find troubling is when he states that "libraries do not always have the technical expertise to ensure that any information conveyed through Facebook remains secure"; this is something that the profession as a whole should work on. Since the world of information retrieval is becoming much more technologically-driven than it has been in the past, librarians should familiarize themselves with these aspects and become more "technologically aware" (as I've said before, there need to be more geeks in the library profession!).

EDIT: I found the "parents at the party syndrome" quote ... It was from Dempsey's "Always On" article. Thanks Google!

Media sites (YouTube, Flickr, DeviantArt)

YouTube (youtube.com)

I must admit that I'm a bit of a YouTube addict; I've had an account since March of 2007, and started uploading videos only a few months after that ... So far none of my creations have made me "internet famous" yet, although footage I took of Wes Welker dancing at a Boston Celtics game did go "viral" for a couple weeks (over 40,000 views as of this writing, and it was linked on the websites of the Boston Globe and Sports Illustrated).

While many people still consider YouTube to be nothing more than a place to waste time watching stupid cat videos and bizarre internet memes (or a combination of both!) when you really should be working, a lot of libraries have been using it as a potential resource to reach their patrons ... Many of the resulting videos created by these libraries/librarians have been informative, emotional, humorous, silly and visually striking.

Flickr (flickr.com)

As a photo-sharing site, Flickr definitely promotes itself as a social-networking tool as well ... The language used on the frontpage ("Keep up with your friends and share your stories with comments & notes"; "Upload your photos once to Flickr, then easily and safely share them"; "Join one of over 10 million active groups to take part in the conversation, learn from our other 60 million photographers and share your own story through photos"; "See the world through someone else’s eyes, right here on Flickr") certainly sends the message to potential users that this is a thriving community for people to become a part of.

Taking the tour only strengthens this message, as Flickr bills itself as "the best online management and sharing application in the world" (bold statement!); you can add notes to your photographs (like annotations on YouTube videos) and add people's names to the photos you've taken (like tagging other users in Facebook photos). There's even a "guest pass" to invite people without a Flickr account to view your private photos (no doubt in an attempt to entice them to sign up themselves).

In addition, there is a tool called the Organizr which allows Flickr users to "label, tag and organize [their] photos on the web" ... This helps make it easier for users to find the kinds of photographs that they're looking for, since they can be organized by things like category ("Galleries") or location ("Places").

Flickr even allows users to get really creative via the App Garden, a place where "anyone can write their own program to present public Flickr data ... in new and different ways; the App Garden is a place where developers can showcase the applications they've created and where you can find new ways to explore Flickr." This is a great way for social-networking sites to really let their users feel like they have a hand in the direction of the growth/evolution of these communities.

DeviantArt (deviantart.com)

Don't let the name of this site scare you off; while the term "deviant" has certain negative connotations which you might not necessarily want associated with your library (and believe me, there is some freaky stuff to be found here if you dig deep enough), this site actually houses some very talented artists.

Unlike Flickr, which focuses more on photography, DeviantArt places an emphasis on illustrations, calling itself "the largest online community of artists and art-lovers" ... Taking the tour reveals that there are "over 100 million original works of art" created by its over 12 million members, with artists "from over 190 countries"; that certainly is a very diverse and thriving community!

The site encourages users to group their favorite images into "art collections" (it's interesting to note that they never use terms like "images" or "graphics files" but instead emphasize the uniqueness and creativity of their users by referring to everything as "artwork" or the more eye-catching "deviations"), while also offering tutorials on how to better create one's own artwork.

In fact, DeviantArt members (the "deviants") are not limited to simply creating images, as the site accepts "images, literature, film or Flash [animations]" and displays them all for free ("build an instant audience by displaying your work in front of over 11 million members!").

Much like a typical social networking site, DeviantArt emphasizes the interactive elements of their community ("engage with other artists by commenting on their artwork and profile pages") and allows users to post journal entries that others may follow and comment on.

Searching for artwork is pretty easy (there is a "mature content filter" if you don't want to stumble upon anything controversial), and can be divided either by category or groups ... In fact, using the latter search led me to this group of creative librarians sharing their artwork ("Ranganathan Has a Posse!"). There's also a gallery for the Worcester Public Library Manga Club; maybe Stacy can tell us more about that one ;)

"This Week in Law" podcast talks about Twitter and Facebook privacy

Since this week's discussions are about Facebook and internet privacy, I thought I'd share this podcast featuring the thoughts of Denise Howell (a California lawyer who specializes in technology-related legal matters) and her guests on those subjects ... Here are links to the relevant parts of their discussion:

0:29:30 - Two creators of the Twitter account "omgfacts" are suing each other over which one actually "owns" the account and its two million-plus followers. This case brings up the issue of online ownership and what it actually means to "own" an account and the stuff that's created for that account; whose intellectual property is it (and is there such a thing as "copyright of tweets")? Collaborative efforts like this within the social-media realm may give rise to other ownership/legal issues in the future (which is something that librarians might need to be aware of).

0:47:38 - This talk was more about for-profit businesses, but it may still be applicable here ... If a librarian creates a Twitter account for their library, does their employer actually "own" the intellectual property created therein? Even if the librarian maintains it on their own time, they're using "company" equipment/resources.

0:57:04 - Privacy and the workplace (when people apply for jobs, some potential employers are now asking for their Facebook passwords in order to nose around and see what they're up to!)

1:00:48 - Story about a school teacher who posted private photos of herself drinking alcohol on Facebook, but the pictures still managed to find their way to members of her school district and led to her termination ...

1:15:20 - Do we need new laws on the books to govern social media in regards to privacy issues? It is voluntary, after all (no one's forcing people to have a Facebook account), but it's getting so ubiquitous that it may cause problems down the road ...

1:29:17 - Could you be liable for embedding an infringing YouTube clip on your blog (not uploading copyrighted material yourself, but just linking to it)?

"Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: a survey of student opinion" by Ruth Sara Connell

Connell's article is another example (in my opinion) of librarians trying to skew the numbers to create a desire for social networking tools where none actually exists ... Unlike the previous article, this one at least attempts to gather patron input on the subject, but - as you'll see - that still provides data that can be easily manipulated to "prove" the authors' point.

Connell starts off with a literature review of other attempts to drum up support for social-networking tools within the library profession, and she comes up with some interesting observations: one librarian at the Georgia Institute of Technology sent out more than 1,500 Facebook messages to students (in an apparent attempt to spread the word about the library's collection), but received a paltry 48 responses. The librarian actually had the temerity to claim that his venture was a "success," but the more logical conclusion would be that students were not interesting in hearing from a "stranger" (especially one in a position of authority like a librarian).

Another librarian mentioned in Connell's literature review had her staff sift through MySpace profiles in order to find "4,000 Brooklyn College students, faculty, and graduates.". Aside from the fact that these actions could be construed by some as "stalking" (and thus having the potential to negatively affect these students' view of the library and drive them away), the librarian sent "friend requests" to her designated targets and "seven months later had approximately 2,350 friends." On the surface, this story appears to be a success, but what about the other 2,000-odd students who ignored the request? Were they "turned off" by the obtrusive nature of this "friending" campaign? Additionally, there is no indication that any of these friends had actually come from the original 4,000 targeted; for all we know, those "friends" were nothing but MySpace spam accounts!

Connell also highlights the Mississippi State University libraries as using a different (far less "creepy") approach to attracting students via Facebook, as they advertised their site through posters and ads - but not through unsolicited "friending" - and were able to accumulate 180 members; she applauded this approach as allowing "those interested to participate but … not [forcing] the library on those not interested." It certainly seems like a more successful method, although once those students became friends, how "engaged" did they remain? The literature failed to establish whether they checked out the library's Facebook page once, and then ignored it; we do not learn what effect (if any) the method had on "repeat business" for the library.

"Use of Facebook in academic health sciences libraries" by Dean Hendrix ... [et al.]

In many of the article I've read for my literature review, I see librarians give glowing recommendations for social-networking sites like Facebook as tools to "create and market library services" ... That may very well be true, but the problem with those articles (and I see it in this article as well) is that the authors offer very little in the way of hard data to actually back up their claims; the "evidence" provided is either skewed to better reflect their already-established opinions, or they fail to take the actual patrons' input into account.

This article, for example, examines the results of a 2008 survey on the use of Facebook by academic health sciences libraries as a marketing/promotional tool ... While the authors eventually decided that the "small number of actual libraries using Facebook" at the time made the resulting data inconclusive, there were still some details that (in my opinion) were "glossed over" when they were establishing their argument.

Let me give an example: Of the 72 librarians who responded to the survey, only nine reported that their libraries maintained a Facebook page, and (of that number) thirty-four percent of their total "fans" were "employees of the same library" ... In other words, over one-third of the library's "fans" were other librarians; now, that doesn't really speak very highly for Facebook as a "marketing" tool, when you're pretty much only talking to other members of the same staff!

That's not all, however ... Reading the results a little more closely, we see that the authors use the phrase "of the same library" when describing these employees; now, there's no indication that the other 66 percent of the "fans" couldn't have been librarians from other institutions who were looking to network! As such, the percentage of "fans" of these libraries who were actual patrons (the people that marketing tools are supposed to be targeting) might be even lower than this report would have us believe; there's just no way of knowing with the way that the data is presented here.

The results of this survey, as reported by the authors, go on to say that many of the librarians that maintain Facebook pages "felt more positive about the future success of their library's Facebook page", while 28 percent of the librarians who do not maintain Facebook pages believe that "Facebook demonstrated little to no utility in an academic setting" ... This all sounds well and good, but statements like these are replacing hard evidence with opinions and conjecture. Not only that, but it's leaving out the most crucial element: patron input.

If the librarians surveyed bothered to actually find out what their users thought of Facebook as a part of the online presence provided by academic health sciences libraries, it's not evident in the article; we're merely left to speculate on guesswork. After all, when the authors use a phrase like "positive feelings", are the librarians they're questioning basing that on user feedback, or do they just have a "hunch"? On the flip side, when the other librarians dismiss Facebook as having "little to no utility" in an academic setting, do their patrons feel the same way, or are they simply making a kneejerk reaction without taking their opinions into account?