Google Chairman Draws Line in the Pseudonym Sand

Opinions are split on the idea of using real names online, with many questioning the security risks that come with it.

Accordingly, most social networks simply require usernames that aren't actual names themselves. Even sites that urge the use of real names, like Facebook, still have ways to get around the real-name issue.

However, Google recently created a stir by suspending Google+ accounts that didn't use their real names.

Naturally, those whose personal brands were built on fake names (pseudonyms, blog names, etc.) were up in arms over the exclusion. However, I personally felt this issue would go through the same phases that practically all of these social media controversies do:

1. Polarizing decision by company
2. Angry mob of users
3. Retraction and resolution by company

Basically, when users start making a lot of noise, the social networks eventually makes concessions.

Not so in this case. In fact, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt was recently interviewed, more or less saying the if you don't like their policy, then don't use Google+. It's definitely not the typical fence-straddling corporate-speak we tend to get in response to contentious decisions, but it is a firm line the Google is drawing in regards to the use of real names online.

Either way, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out as Google+ continues to push for social networking legitimacy.

Facebook Friday: Gloves Are Off Against Google

I've touched on the Google-Facebook digital arms race before, mostly in reference to the constant changes both companies were making updates to gain as much ground as possible in the online space.

The key phrase there is "arms race" because it was purely a competition for innovation. We didn't see Facebook and Google taking direct shots at each other publicly, instead focusing their energies on new features and products. But that seemingly-good natured race is over, given the feud that's been boiling over the past week.

For those who missed it (or are just confused by the barrage of headlines), here's basically what happened:

• Nov. 4: Google changed their terms of service to prevent Facebook from importing Google contact data without allowing Google to do the same with Facebook's data.

• Nov. 8: Facebook hacked their way around Google's data protection effort, letting them keep their access to Google's data without giving up their own.

• Nov. 9: Google takes a shot at Facebook, in response to Facebook's what's-mine-is-mine-and-what's-yours-is-also-mine approach to data access, saying how "disappointed" they were that Facebook would do something like that.

• Nov. 9: A Facebook engineer shoots back at Google, stating that "[data] openness doesn’t mean being open when it's convenient for you." He went on to claim that Google has flip-flopped on data openness in the past, while Facebook has remained consistent with their policy.

• Nov 10: Google retaliates by sending users trying to import their Google data to Facebook to a jump page warning that Facebook is guilty of data-trapping: 

You have been directed to this page from a site that doesn't allow you to re-export your data to other services, essentially locking up your contact data about your friends. So once you import your data there, you won't be able to get it out.

So there it is, the feud between the two biggest online titans revolves around data portability. And while most people are pondering who won this fight, it's pretty much a split decision. Google has seemingly won the moral high ground, painting Facebook as data-hogging bullies. However, the fact is that Facebook is still the one with all of the data.

That being said, it's hard to tell whether this is a win-win or a lose-lose situation for these two digital giants. What we do know, however, is that their battle for Internet supremacy got a lot more personal.

How Much Privacy Can We Expect Online?

Earlier this week, a security researcher/blogger created a program that hacked 170 million Facebook profiles and organized them into a downloadable file. Ron Bowes, the blogger who hacked the data, claimed the readily-available information is "a scary privacy issue," because if certain privacy settings are not enabled, anyone can access someone's photos, friends and other profile information using their name and profile URL.

But was the information really "hacked," when it's already available in other online search engines? The profile names and URL's were taken from the site's public directory, which users can opt out of by adjusting their privacy settings.

All the discussion that surrounds Facebook and privacy seems counterproductive, especially in this case. Social networking is intended to facilitate sharing of information, and those who don't want their profiles accessible via search engine can adjust their privacy settings accordingly.

However, some would argue, being found by friends on the site is, well, the point of subscribing. To those people, I would say, that we almost always trade privacy for convenience. Take online bill pay for example. In exchange for the convenience of not having to write a check every month, we give up some privacy by allowing companies access to our banking information. Facebook is no different: in exchange for the convenience of connecting with friends online, we trade the privacy of having our names/photos publicly searchable.

Not that I don't also understand the perspective of Facebook users who don't want grandma or potential employers to access photos of them pounding tequila shots. But should those photos be posted online anyway, regardless of your privacy settings? Content posted on social networking sites will essentially live on the internet for years to come, and users should stop tinkering with their privacy settings and ask themselves if they want their content to exist in the sphere of public information that is the internet.

Those who gripe about privacy on Facebook, should stop complaining and unsubscribe.

Only Half of the Story

Facebook recently launched a campaign to celebrate reaching 500 million users. Called Facebook Stories, the point is to let users share quick blurbs about how Facebook has affected their lives.

Browsing through a few of the stories, they seem to be overwhelmingly positive...

Almost surprisingly positive, especially considering how damaged Facebook's image has been in the wake of changes and a heated privacy debate over the past couple of months.

And yes, I understand why there's so much positivity. People who hate Facebook have probably stopped using it, and anyone who's indifferent is not going to care enough either way to write a story. That leaves only those who are loyal to Facebook to share their stories.

But we all know Facebook isn't all rainbows and puppies like Facebook Stories makes it out to be. It's been a tool for online harassment and bullying, it's destroyed relationships, and led us as a society to completely redefine the nature of privacy and communication.

I'm not saying Facebook is evil, just that it's not the beacon of peace, love and hope that it's portrayed as. Facebook Stories could have been a platform to hear a balance of good and bad aspects of the social network, instead of the polarized love-hate view that we see around the blogosphere.

Like at Your Own Risk

New York Senator Charles Schumer has started reaching out to the FTC to address the issues of privacy and social media.  As Facebook’s like feature seems to be plastered on any website worth reading, it might be time to rethink our love of the thumbs up.

Even though Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stands by the changes he’s made on the megasite, questions still loom about how easy it is for the average user to understand the bottom line. In other words, do you really know what happens to your photo once it’s uploaded to Facebook? How about who all knows once you give a company the thumbs up?

As we continue to push the privacy boundaries with each new social media platform, when will users say enough is enough? Or do we need the government to step in and say it for us?

And most importantly, how far is too far?

What Marketing Looks Like to a 17-Year-Old

What better way to start a week than by sharing the gift of knowledge with the industry's up-and-comers? Today, we're excited to have Abbie hanging out with us, a 17-year-old writing extraordinaire from a local high school. Halfway through her day spent skipping school, uh, I mean learning from professionals, we asked her to reflect on what she came in expecting and how she sees things now.

Everyone, meet Abbie:

Hello, my name is Abbie. I’m a high school senior job shadowing at Axiom Marketing Communications for the day to learn about marketing. To my knowledge, I always thought marketing was about advertisements and meetings.  But within the first ten minutes of being here it was all about social media and reaching numerous people at once.

Social media in my eyes is just a fun way to connect with friends, family, and classmates. But because of social media there is the chance of creeping and stalking, which is the main reason why I don’t personally have a Twitter account. However, in a matter of minutes, I realized the amount of people that are reached through a single Tweet and the impact that would occur.

Marketing is a lot different than it was once thought to be, but with the rapidly changing technology and communication, it’s clear that the marketing business also has to change in order to keep up with their directed audiences. It’s crazy to think that a one-hour Twitter Party can influence and benefit multiple people.

Weird, our 17-year-old visitor is noticing what Mashable thinks will be a big trend for 2010: The give and take between personal privacy and online "TMI." While college students seem to lean towards online popularity (and earning it by posting shocking, possibly embarrassing photos and information), the High School Class of 2010 (or at least Abbie) is still skeptical to reveal personal information online.

So, that leads to today's question. How do you decide what to post online? Are you guilty of the TMI trend in hopes of getting more attention and, in turn, more followers and friends? Or are you a little more modest in what you share in hopes to protect yourself? In other words, how do you gauge what's okay and not okay to share online?

Will Foursquare Turn You Into a Yes Man?

I finally took the plunge. After giving it several months of thought—well, avoiding it for several months is a little more accurate—I decided to turn my personal privacy settings down a notch and sign up for Foursquare, the new social networking tool that allows you to tell your friends exactly where you are at any given time.

After looking up a few of my favorite Minnesota places, I was overwhelmed with a Jim Carrey-esque “Yes Man” attitude. For those of you who have not yet seen the film, Carrey leaves his life of nay-saying and starts saying “yes” to every opportunity presented to him. Much like the character, I saw a tip listed at one of my new favorite breakfast spots:

“Arrive early. Line up behind someone who's almost done. Come hungry. Enjoy the taste of those hash browns for the rest of the day!”

Good idea! Yes! Next time I go I’ll order hash browns. From there I stumbled to places I haven’t been, but have heard about.

“#5 pizza. Red wine. This is all you need to know.”

I might not know what a #5 pizza is, but I can tell you I want to go get it right now.

Where most applications encourage you to stay home, all curled up adding comments to blogs, updating Twitter or adding discussions on Facebook, Foursquare encourages people to take their social networking to the real world. I'm not sure what it is, but I’m so eager to go out, visit new places, and tell my friends all about it. (And of course I can’t wait to be major of something.)

Is this the new bridge that connects online conversations to real life places? Or is this application one step too far in the destruction of personal privacy? Facebook started by encouraging you to update your friends on your life, Twitter encouraged you to make new friends by revealing information to strangers, and now Foursquare is encouraging you to post your exact location on the world wide web.

If you’re on Foursquare, are you as eager to get to be “mayor” as I am, or is this something you have just to have without frequent updates? If you haven’t signed up yet, what’s holding you back? I’m ready to get started by exploring new places and taking recommendations from my new Foursquare friends, but am I alone? Or is Foursquare well on its way to stimulating the economy by turning stay-at-home online enthusiasts into adventurous "Yes Men" ready to hit the town?

The Balance Between Transparency and Privacy

We have constantly been told by experts (and our parents) to not give away personal information online. Addresses, phone numbers, where we will be at certain times, and personal ID numbers are all off limits because they could be used against us to harm us financially or physically.

Being transparent and "real" with online activity and identity are very important these days. Instead of hiding behind "coolguy14" on blogs, online accounts, and screen names, many people are opting to use their real names and become more transparent with their actions. But have we become too comfortable with transparency? Are we ringing the dinner bell, ready to serve up our personal info?

I regularly read/watch a lot of different bloggers and social media people out on the internet. I know what these people look like, what some of their interests are, their ages, and where many of them live. Does Gary Vaynerchuk ever worry that someone will track him down and kill him? Okay, so that's a little extreme, but what could a malicious person do with all of this easily accessible information?

Now more than ever it is extremely important to be mindful of what kind of information we provide, and how we provide it. If we tweet our home address, that information will always be out there for people to find for years. Mistakes and slip-ups are very possible with the level of comfort many now feel online. I believe it is important that you are truthful and real with people you interact with online, but building online brand identity and equity doesn't mean you have to risk your safety or future.

Newsflash: Employers Check Facebookk

This isn't really surprising or new information, but apparently more and more employers are checking Facebook profiles before hiring candidates.

Currently, 20% of employers check Facebook and another 9% plan on using Facebook to check out future employees.

My thought is: If candidates know their Facebook profiles are going to be looked at, why wouldn't they just create a fake account? Or I suppose the easier option would be to change your privacy options to limited.