4 ms·

Socal media is orthogonal to privacy. If you want to keep something private, don't post it on a social media platform -- or at least, encrypt it out of band be

Socal media is orthogonal to privacy. If you want to keep something private, don't post it on a social media platform -- or at least, encrypt it out of band before you do.

jrochkind1 9y ago
I don't think "orthogonal" means what you think it means.
- dvt 9y ago
  If so, he's in good company[1] :) [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103690.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01...
  - jrochkind1 9y ago
    ha!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zardo 9y ago
  To expand on that... If social media is orthogonal to privacy, then there should be no conflict combing the two concepts to create (privacy + social media). If they are incompatible, they aren't orthogonal, they are opposed.
luk32 9y ago
I think you meant antisymmetric. Orthogonal means "irrelevant to". But it's like saying that publishing is opposite to privacy. Yeah... It is so by design and definition.
lioeters 9y ago
Perhaps "antithetical" to privacy.
dredmorbius 9y ago
I disagree with that, though you might want to think strongly on what you mean by "privacy". For some people, this is strictly limited to the technical capability to prevent (or allow) the flow of information. I'd long subscribed to this point of view, but have found it inadequate, if only because capabilities have been changing so dramatically on this point. Rather, and this is something of a personal definition, though I'm not certain it's specific or original to me is that privacy is the ability to define and defend limits and boundaries on information sharing. You might ask "why use that definition?" My principle answer is that if it isn't possible to share information in a limited context, then there's something immense and profound which is lost. Two people, or twenty, or even several tens of thousands (say: a large company or government bureaucracy) might need to share information without disclosure. I've been following the ICIJ's multiple projects on various data leaks, which are particularly poignant in revealing both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the ICIJ itself farms out its data to several hundred journalists from numerous organisations, and keeps a lid on the project until an agreed-on release date. (The group has produced a video showing just this process.) On the other, ICIJ's stock in trade have been leaks of information from other organisations whose privacy has been breached. The question of "which of these is right?" should very much arise. And it's not an easy question to answer, though I believe there are some guides which can be used. As such, privacy is not an inviolable right, but it is a crucial element of social organisation.
- rowyourboat 9y ago
  Your definition is not unusual at all, in fact, it is pretty close to the German definition of "Datenschutz" (data protection): Individuals have the right to know who has what information about them and the right to determine to what extent what information may be shared.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't aware of that specifically. The definition draws in part on Jeffrey Rosen's The Unwanted Gaze, published in the late 1990s, and apparently quite underappreciated and/or known. Though it's been a while since I've read it.
rowyourboat 9y ago
Social media platforms are used for one-to-one communications and should support that. Furthermore, social media platforms should support sharing something with a group and only that group of people. Really, the only time I should expect the content I share on a social media platform to be public is if I shared it as public content. [Note that I am talking about technical capabilities and privacy here. Of course somebody with whom I shared private information can re-post it publicly, but solving that is out of scope for a technical solution - and is also true outside of social media platforms]

Socal media is orthogonal to privacy. If you want to keep something private, don't post it on a social media platform -- or at least, encrypt it out of band before you do.

jrochkind1 9y ago

I don't think "orthogonal" means what you think it means.

dvt 9y ago
If so, he's in good company[1] :) [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103690.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01...
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  ha!
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zardo 9y ago
To expand on that... If social media is orthogonal to privacy, then there should be no conflict combing the two concepts to create (privacy + social media). If they are incompatible, they aren't orthogonal, they are opposed.

luk32 9y ago

I think you meant antisymmetric. Orthogonal means "irrelevant to". But it's like saying that publishing is opposite to privacy. Yeah... It is so by design and definition.

lioeters 9y ago

Perhaps "antithetical" to privacy.

dredmorbius 9y ago

I disagree with that, though you might want to think strongly on what you mean by "privacy". For some people, this is strictly limited to the technical capability to prevent (or allow) the flow of information. I'd long subscribed to this point of view, but have found it inadequate, if only because capabilities have been changing so dramatically on this point. Rather, and this is something of a personal definition, though I'm not certain it's specific or original to me is that privacy is the ability to define and defend limits and boundaries on information sharing. You might ask "why use that definition?" My principle answer is that if it isn't possible to share information in a limited context, then there's something immense and profound which is lost. Two people, or twenty, or even several tens of thousands (say: a large company or government bureaucracy) might need to share information without disclosure. I've been following the ICIJ's multiple projects on various data leaks, which are particularly poignant in revealing both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the ICIJ itself farms out its data to several hundred journalists from numerous organisations, and keeps a lid on the project until an agreed-on release date. (The group has produced a video showing just this process.) On the other, ICIJ's stock in trade have been leaks of information from other organisations whose privacy has been breached. The question of "which of these is right?" should very much arise. And it's not an easy question to answer, though I believe there are some guides which can be used. As such, privacy is not an inviolable right, but it is a crucial element of social organisation.

rowyourboat 9y ago
Your definition is not unusual at all, in fact, it is pretty close to the German definition of "Datenschutz" (data protection): Individuals have the right to know who has what information about them and the right to determine to what extent what information may be shared.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Thanks, I wasn't aware of that specifically. The definition draws in part on Jeffrey Rosen's The Unwanted Gaze, published in the late 1990s, and apparently quite underappreciated and/or known. Though it's been a while since I've read it.

rowyourboat 9y ago

Social media platforms are used for one-to-one communications and should support that. Furthermore, social media platforms should support sharing something with a group and only that group of people. Really, the only time I should expect the content I share on a social media platform to be public is if I shared it as public content. [Note that I am talking about technical capabilities and privacy here. Of course somebody with whom I shared private information can re-post it publicly, but solving that is out of scope for a technical solution - and is also true outside of social media platforms]