Before yesterday evening I was out of town and aimed at a quiet dinner. But the fourth SMS received from friends asking me if I was in front of the TV watching Report, I had to give up and I did what I do every Sunday evening to watch the program Gabanelli undertaken to examine the business models of Google and Facebook and the implications for our lives internettara.
Yesterday, at least on websfera a bit 'nerdy and a little' geek that I and my party with pride we missing diopters, there was no talk of nothing else. My personal analysis of the episode may also end with the words of those who know more than me, that Stefano Epifani, who last week wrote on his blog: "[Sunday] we celebrated yet another wasted opportunity to speak (once so seriously) Network and the problems it raises.
" Report of the episode, in fact, was rather superficial as I believe that the reactions of fans and experts of the Network against the program of RAI 3 has been overly defensive. Basically you have to start from a premise: the program and in-depth journalism but has the ambition to address topics of interest in a language understood by large segments of the population.
It is likely that someone will not have tried any kind of surprised to see me for drug investigations such as that on or about Finmeccanica Marchionne, as someone else will be appalled by listening to the "revelations" about the operation of Facebook. I would add that very meritorious Gabanelli's attempt to give light to a world often ignored by traditional means, in respect of an asset and a pervasive as to make inexplicable lack of interest in new media journalism as an agent of change anthropological least of our media consumption and our language.
Facebook is still used as a cultural phenomenon, when in fact it is the first Italian to medium number of users. But the investigation of Stefania Rimini (which I do not have profiles on social media) betrays, in my view, the attempt to match the hypothesis with the thesis, namely that Google and Facebook are dangerous places for people (potentially true ) and that these two companies will fill the mouth of noble values such as sharing the sole purpose of generating profit (no doubt true, as for all the brands).
Some musical choices and mounting reinforce this taste a bit 'sour, as well as the presence of respondents with no "qualification" (common Internet users) mixed with influential industry experts: a choice for this unique program as a Report. We should therefore balance the reflections heard during the episode, many of which are absolutely acceptable, bearing in mind the context in which social media are based.
Facebook and Google are companies, and as such should generate profits. Who is surprised that this is at least naive. Like all companies there is a transaction between producer and consumer in which case the user decides to voluntarily share personal information in exchange for free networking opportunities and relationships.
There are those who earned money, who has found work, those who have lost someone who has known the bride. The exchange, of course, is tolerable for all members. Or maybe the majority of members did not read the privacy policy, but this well-hidden. This (laziness in reading the terms of use, or the cunning of Fb in hiding) is a topic of discussion Report has, unfortunately, very marginally affected.
Where you make money in Web 2.0? It is a question still lacks a definite answer to such an extent that in many discuss the actual market value of Facebook and Google, recalling the time of the explosion of the new economy bubble in 2000 and explaining that the commercial value of these two companies is largely oversized.
The mechanism that regulates many of the products of new media is called freemium: Free access to all, access to payment for those who want additional features. Just Google, for example, allows the purchase of extra space on your mailbox in exchange for an annual fee, which I have done without coercion.
I purchased a service, just as you buy a video game for a platform that is Facebook. Voluntary choices, which seem to be marginal in the analysis of the Report. The most controversial of the investigation relates to the possibility of a third party, to discover "life, death and miracles your and your family." Of course not.
Once again, just not to share sensitive content and nobody will find out. With regard to the child of two years then ended in Italy One, it is right that the mother has made a complaint, but probably should imagine social media as inevitably and public spaces where there is no guarantee of privacy.
In general, all information may also end up everywhere because of the behavior of our friends. In this case, who can rule out that it was a friend of the lady to have downloaded the video and then sharing it with other people until it get to Italy1?. I, for example, are finished to Tg5 because I wrote something against Berlusconi in the dialect of my hometown on my private profile after 40 minutes I finished up an agency and 13 have appeared in the mash of comments the famous phrase of our Prime Minister about the gay and beautiful girls: some of my friends gave a tip to a news agency.
These two experiences teach us that nothing is really private on Fb. Zuckerberg, admittedly, has been honest from this point of view, stating that "the privacy today is not a value." If you think otherwise, just unsubscribe from Facebook. Moreover, from the point of view of web marketing, the name and surname of the individual user has no interest is more important to measure the data, the mean and behaviors of a large number of users, because only then you get a chance to check what the various socio-demographic segments they want, what they like, what they share and what to ignore.
The product we are, as always, just as we are when advertisers buy space on television based on market research or data Auditel. This analogy has been emphasized. Another strangely incomplete pass to the relationship between history of navigation and the ability to receive personalized ads.
It is said that what we do on the Net is registered, it is said that the records can be removed and how. So this mechanism is not fatally inevitable. To close, we talk about the investigation of fraud related to access social media, as if the spam did not exist before the birth of Facebook, as if the fraud did not exist before the birth of electronic mail.
It only changes the formula, not the substance. Social media diversify the possibility of being duped, but not necessarily create a new season of fraud. In short, just do a little 'attention and read the contracts for the use of these tools, as well as we would for all activities that affect our economy and our image.
The voluntary nature of our actions is still our resource. Oh, by the way, if you want to share the broadcast of "Report on Facebook, you can do so from the links that I have reported before. Or to find the bet on the Facebook page where Rai was announced yesterday afternoon chat with Stefania Rimini, the author of the investigation. 
Yesterday, at least on websfera a bit 'nerdy and a little' geek that I and my party with pride we missing diopters, there was no talk of nothing else. My personal analysis of the episode may also end with the words of those who know more than me, that Stefano Epifani, who last week wrote on his blog: "[Sunday] we celebrated yet another wasted opportunity to speak (once so seriously) Network and the problems it raises.
" Report of the episode, in fact, was rather superficial as I believe that the reactions of fans and experts of the Network against the program of RAI 3 has been overly defensive. Basically you have to start from a premise: the program and in-depth journalism but has the ambition to address topics of interest in a language understood by large segments of the population.
It is likely that someone will not have tried any kind of surprised to see me for drug investigations such as that on or about Finmeccanica Marchionne, as someone else will be appalled by listening to the "revelations" about the operation of Facebook. I would add that very meritorious Gabanelli's attempt to give light to a world often ignored by traditional means, in respect of an asset and a pervasive as to make inexplicable lack of interest in new media journalism as an agent of change anthropological least of our media consumption and our language.
Facebook is still used as a cultural phenomenon, when in fact it is the first Italian to medium number of users. But the investigation of Stefania Rimini (which I do not have profiles on social media) betrays, in my view, the attempt to match the hypothesis with the thesis, namely that Google and Facebook are dangerous places for people (potentially true ) and that these two companies will fill the mouth of noble values such as sharing the sole purpose of generating profit (no doubt true, as for all the brands).
Some musical choices and mounting reinforce this taste a bit 'sour, as well as the presence of respondents with no "qualification" (common Internet users) mixed with influential industry experts: a choice for this unique program as a Report. We should therefore balance the reflections heard during the episode, many of which are absolutely acceptable, bearing in mind the context in which social media are based.
Facebook and Google are companies, and as such should generate profits. Who is surprised that this is at least naive. Like all companies there is a transaction between producer and consumer in which case the user decides to voluntarily share personal information in exchange for free networking opportunities and relationships.
There are those who earned money, who has found work, those who have lost someone who has known the bride. The exchange, of course, is tolerable for all members. Or maybe the majority of members did not read the privacy policy, but this well-hidden. This (laziness in reading the terms of use, or the cunning of Fb in hiding) is a topic of discussion Report has, unfortunately, very marginally affected.
Where you make money in Web 2.0? It is a question still lacks a definite answer to such an extent that in many discuss the actual market value of Facebook and Google, recalling the time of the explosion of the new economy bubble in 2000 and explaining that the commercial value of these two companies is largely oversized.
The mechanism that regulates many of the products of new media is called freemium: Free access to all, access to payment for those who want additional features. Just Google, for example, allows the purchase of extra space on your mailbox in exchange for an annual fee, which I have done without coercion.
I purchased a service, just as you buy a video game for a platform that is Facebook. Voluntary choices, which seem to be marginal in the analysis of the Report. The most controversial of the investigation relates to the possibility of a third party, to discover "life, death and miracles your and your family." Of course not.
Once again, just not to share sensitive content and nobody will find out. With regard to the child of two years then ended in Italy One, it is right that the mother has made a complaint, but probably should imagine social media as inevitably and public spaces where there is no guarantee of privacy.
In general, all information may also end up everywhere because of the behavior of our friends. In this case, who can rule out that it was a friend of the lady to have downloaded the video and then sharing it with other people until it get to Italy1?. I, for example, are finished to Tg5 because I wrote something against Berlusconi in the dialect of my hometown on my private profile after 40 minutes I finished up an agency and 13 have appeared in the mash of comments the famous phrase of our Prime Minister about the gay and beautiful girls: some of my friends gave a tip to a news agency.
These two experiences teach us that nothing is really private on Fb. Zuckerberg, admittedly, has been honest from this point of view, stating that "the privacy today is not a value." If you think otherwise, just unsubscribe from Facebook. Moreover, from the point of view of web marketing, the name and surname of the individual user has no interest is more important to measure the data, the mean and behaviors of a large number of users, because only then you get a chance to check what the various socio-demographic segments they want, what they like, what they share and what to ignore.
The product we are, as always, just as we are when advertisers buy space on television based on market research or data Auditel. This analogy has been emphasized. Another strangely incomplete pass to the relationship between history of navigation and the ability to receive personalized ads.
It is said that what we do on the Net is registered, it is said that the records can be removed and how. So this mechanism is not fatally inevitable. To close, we talk about the investigation of fraud related to access social media, as if the spam did not exist before the birth of Facebook, as if the fraud did not exist before the birth of electronic mail.
It only changes the formula, not the substance. Social media diversify the possibility of being duped, but not necessarily create a new season of fraud. In short, just do a little 'attention and read the contracts for the use of these tools, as well as we would for all activities that affect our economy and our image.
The voluntary nature of our actions is still our resource. Oh, by the way, if you want to share the broadcast of "Report on Facebook, you can do so from the links that I have reported before. Or to find the bet on the Facebook page where Rai was announced yesterday afternoon chat with Stefania Rimini, the author of the investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment