Google helps the web to go social

Friend Connect is Google’s new offering

Google has joined the drive to make the web more social by introducing tools to enable people to interact with their friends.

Friend Connect follows plans announced last week by the world’s two biggest social networking sites, MySpace and Facebook.

Data Availability and Connect let users move their personal profiles and applications to other websites.

“Social is in the air,” says Google’s director of engineering David Glazer.

During a conference call at Google’s California headquarters, Mr Glazer told reporters: “Google Friend Connect is about being the ‘long tail’ of sites becoming more social.”

“Many sites aren’t explicitly social and don’t necessarily want to be social networks, but they still benefit from letting their visitors interact with each other. That used to be hard.”

Charlene Li, principal analyst at Forrester, told BBC News: “Google is tapping into the ‘all things social’ heat of the moment, but it’s adding a different perspective, not as a data source and social network ‘owner’ but as an enabler.”

Gamut of uses

At the heart of Google’s service is the use of Open Social which will allow third parties to build and develop applications for the site.

Social networking is going mainstream David Glazer Google

The company says with Friend Connect, any website owner can add a snippet of code to his or her site and get social features up and running right away without any complicated programming. This will run the gamut from invitations to member’s gallery and from message walls to reviews.

In an example of how it will all work, Google cited fans of independent musician Ingrid Michaelson who can now connect with other fans without having to leave the site.

Visitors will be able to see comments by friends from their social networks, add music to their profiles and see who is attending concerts all at Ingrid’s website.

“Social networking is going mainstream. It used to be proprietary, but now it’s going to be open and baked into the infrastructure of the net, not just one site or one source,” says Mr Glazer.

Walled garden

MySpace was first out of the gate when it announced plans last Thursday to loosen its grip on the estimated 200 million personal profiles its users store on its site.

Data Availability will allow members to share select information with four partners, Yahoo. PhotoBucket, Twitter and eBay.

Google doesn’t do anything without thinking about… how can it benefit Google Charlene Li Principal analyst, Forrester

Essentially the user will still be tied to MySpace which aims to put itself at the centre of the web by encouraging users to store all of their core data at the site to begin with.

One day later Facebook entered the fray with a service called Connect.

With its 70 million users worldwide, their plans differ from MySpace by allowing users to take their personal profiles to any website that wants to host them and not just the sites that have partnered up.

So what’s driving this move to dismantle the so-called “walled garden” where social networking sites have jealously guarded their users profiles?

Charlene Li, principal analyst at Forrester told BBC News in the end it all comes down to money.

“It’s a smart move by Google which is trying to play the role of United Nations secretary general by making sure everyone talks nicely to one another, getting the data to where they want to move it back and forward, and participate in open standards.

“Remember Google doesn’t do anything without thinking about, not only how can this benefit the larger community, but how can it benefit Google.”

As 99% of sites are not currently socially enabled, Friend Connect has a big potential market in front of it and Ms Li says the route to all things profitable in this space will be through tapping into “the deep profit and user data flowing through Friend Connect.”

In other words, mining that information through advertising.

Google is being cautious about approving sites to use the new code and is creating a waiting list for requests to use Friend Connect. It says it expects to give the go ahead to a few dozens sites in the next few days.

As to opening out to a wider audience, Google says it estimates that will happen over the coming months.

Meanwhile MySpace and Facebook anticipate rolling out their offerings over the next few weeks.

Stark warning for internet’s future

Professor Jonathan Zittrain Photo credit: Joi Ito

With the second billion of the planet’s citizens due to go online in the next 10 years and an avalanche of online-enabled devices hitting the market with each passing year it would be understandable to assume that the internet is in a healthy position.

The 1960s vision of a network of networks has grown into a tool that encircles the globe, drives economies and connects citizens.

But Professor Jonathan Zittrain, one of the world’s leading academics on the impact of the net, is warning that the future is potentially bleak.

His book, The Future of the Internet: And How To Stop It, highlights key concerns about the direction online society is heading in.

“I want a recognition from people that the network they enjoy now is in many important respects a collective hallucination,” he said.

“If too many of them start treating it as a cash and carry service they are going get the network they deserve.”

Zittrain is the professor of internet governance and regulation at Oxford University and co-founder of Harvard Law School’s Berman Center for Internet and Society.

He said the “happy accident” of the net, which was designed by researchers for researchers, resulted in an open platform which facilitated innovation because it enabled anyone online to implement ideas at the edge of the network.

He calls these technologies “generative”, meaning open tools that can be put to a multiplicity of purposes.

Fundamental backbone

A PC is a good example of a generative device because it can be reprogrammed for many uses, and one machine on the net can impact every other without compromising the fundamental backbone of the network.

He contrasts generative devices with “sterile appliances”, closed systems which appear to give consumers access to the net.

He argued such devices were damaging innovation and potentially putting easilly-abused powers into the hands of a few companies and governments.

Do locked down games consoles stifle innovation?

“Consumers are eagerly asking for technologies, which can be used to surveil or control them,” said professor Zittrain.

He said he was concerned that users who wanted basic access to the web were driving the adoption of closed systems.

“My concern is that those are the sorts of people who may well find themselves perfectly willing to live with a browser – and as long as they or their device gives them a browser, as far as they are concerned they are successfully on the internet.

“That move to do everything online accelerates the move to have appliances because there’s no need to have a general purpose reprogrammable machine in your house.”

Games consoles, web-enabled kiosks, set-top boxes, and mobile phones were all offering access to the net, but the terms for such access were being dictated by manufacturers and content providers, argued the academic.

The closed nature of these devices gave them a stability and consistancy that the open net often failed to deliver, he argued. But there was a price to be for using these “very useful, wonderful things”, he said.

‘Roving bug’

He cited the example of the OnStar car tracking system, designed to help US motorists navigate and get automatic help if needed.

“In the US the FBI required that one of the companies that offered this system reprogram it so they could monitor people they were interested in.

“From the FBI’s point of view it’s just a roving bug. But you start to realise the change in the ability of somebody to monitor you.”

On the open net, using a generative machine like a PC, consumers were better protected from such abuses, he said.

“A generative machine on the neutral net is a participant in a cat and mouse game. The way the internet was designed was not to care about identity.”

The way the internet was designed was not to care about identity Jonathan Zittrain

Professor Zittrain said he was concerned about web application development.

“As we move to the cloud computing model and as software programmers move from programming for Windows or Mac to Facebook apps or the Google apps platform, all of the qualities of the [sterile] appliance start to manifest again and that becomes a concern.”

Professor Zittrain said developers were writing applications to run on proprietorial networks like Facebook and Google without checking the fine print.

“I would like to see software developers, the ones who are whimsical and nerdy and code because it’s fun, read the fine print.

“They need to be more demanding with the platform developer to say, ‘We’re not going to code for any platform that could kill our app at any time’.

Fundamental weakness

“Frankly, I think platform makers would love to be thrown into that bush and love to be pressured to change their platform.

“So when government comes along and says ‘We think this application infringes copyright; please kill it’, they then will be able to say ‘Gee, we wish we could but we can’t because it’s on the open net’.”

In the book professor Zittrain makes clear that the open generative net is not all positive and has a fundamental weakness: it is open to malign exploitation.

I am not convinced there will be some watershed moment that will read like the script to an action movie where net is broken one morning Jonathan Zittrain

“I wouldn’t say I am very concerned or confident that there will be a major disaster event on the internet as we know it,” he said.

But he said viruses, malware and spyware were threatening to overwhelm the online experience for ordinary users.

And he warned that the innovation and genius needed to battle such threats were being eroded by the rise of closed systems.

“The point of the book is that there ought not to be a dichotomy between either generative or sterile systems.

“The blend will never be 100% and 0%, nor should it be, but to me such a wonderful historical accident should be maintained by a critical mass of generative machines.”

He argued that ordinary users and expert technologists could work together, using the power of the open net, to solve these problems.

“Having people devote just a little bit of bandwidth and processing cycles, even if they are not experts, then their computer becomes part of a global vital signs chart of the internet.

“It allows us to use the generative net to give diagnostics of itself and ultimately fix itself when it goes awry.”

And that was the ultimate use of a generative net, he said.

What is a government website?

What is e-government?

What is e-governance?

What are the promises of e-government?

What are the benefits of e-goverment?

What are the stages of e-government?

What are the objectives of the UN e-government Readiness Report?

How can we improve e-governance/e-participation in the Arab world?

1. Why do we study Internet politics?

1. What is the Internet?

1. What are push technologies?

1. What are pull technologies?

1. Is the Internet a technology of Freedom or a technology of control?

1. Putnam argues that the process of generational change in America has eroded the mass membership of voluntary associations and reduced (S… C… ), debilitating the ability of communities to work together to solve common problems.

1. We assume that parliamentary websites should ideally serve two primary functions in a democratic political system: Identify them

1. What is Fragmentation thesis in the political communication studies?

1. Define post industrialism thesis in Internet politics

1. What have you learnt from this course right now?

Dear students, 

We will have a quiz tomorrow. Please read the slides. 

 ____________________________________________________

AL AKHAWAYN UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

COMMUNICATION STUDIES

Version 1.0

(Last Updated 23 January 2008)[1]

CONTACT DETAILS:

Class time: M-F 08.00 to 09.20

Class place: 4/101

First class Wednesday 23 January 2008

Last class Tuesday 8 May 2008

Total 31 classes

Supervisor: Mohammed Ibahrine

Office: Building 6, Room 9

Tel.: (212) 0 35 86 24 42

Email: mohammad.ibahrine@googlemail.com

OFFICE HOURS:

Tuesday: 11.00-12.30 am

Tuesday: 14.00-15.00 am

Wednesday: 08.30-12.30 am

Thursday: 11.00-12.30 am

Thursday: 14.00-15.00 am

COURSE SYNOPSIS

The course examines the major issues in Internet politics through analyses of the “history of the Internet, patterns of citizen use, debates over the impact of e-politics, and comparative perspectives on e-government, citizen participation, activism, privacy issues, and the governance issues facing the most decisive political technology of the twenty-first century”. Students will evaluate the political impacts of ICTs, the shifting relationships between leaders and led, governors and governed and rulers and ruled, and the political communication trends associated with the rise of the Internet.

THE AIM OF THE COURSE

The aim of the course is to introduce students to the main concepts, theories, practice and controversies of the history and modern state international communication. The overall objective of this course is to develop the knowledge for understanding and critically assessing the role of new media communication, especially in poltics, political communication, in the international relations and diplomacy.

THE COURSE DESCRIPTION

The course presents a comprehensive examination of significant political issues in the exciting field of political communication. The course also deals with the issues of how, why, and with what consequences the Internet affects politics in democracies and authoritarian regimes. The Internet as a new political communication medium is fraught with tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions. How do we make sense of these? In this course, we will address such concerns and gain a comprehensive overview of Internet politics.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:

The lecturer will follow lectures and seminars format. The student’s participation in class and seminar discussions is expected and encouraged and will be considered in final course evaluations (30%). Broad understanding of participation includes the preparation of outline before the class and a detailed content outline after the class, the maintenance of a blog and contribution to the Wikipeida. Students should also be prepared, during each class session, to discuss current media events and news as they relate to the subject. Each student has to present two required chapters of the textbook (25%) and one research paper (20%). Six tutorial quizzes (12%) and final exam (13%).

One of the major requirements for this course-seminar is the research paper. It should be from 2500-3,000 words, excluding notes and references. It should be typed, double-spaced with one inch margins, 12-point font, and consistently adhere to an accepted style, such as Harvard or American Psychological Association (APA). The papers will be presented in class, prior to the final session, and discussed from time to time throughout the term. The paper could take the form of a proposal for future capstone. Deadline, March 2, 2008.

The research paper should be based on desk research, conducted in the library and over the Internet, including the readings central to this course. However, students should move beyond this base, where feasible in the context of a one semester course. For example, they might include a limited number of interviews, a pretest or pilot of a survey or questionnaire, secondary analysis of an existing database, content analysis, direct observations, participant observation, ethnography or other approaches that involve you directly in researching your topic.

ACADEMIC HONESTY:

If you expect others to respect you, please respect yourself. So if you feel desperate, don’t make things worse by acting out of desperation: please come and talk to me about your problems before you do anything foolish. We will find a way. Office hours are of great value for intellectual and educational exchange, please respect the office hours. This is useful for the professionalism.

Please note that the intellectual involvement in the co-creation process of the lecture (attendance + participation) has the lion’s share of this class’s grade. And since there is no class participation without attendance; attendance is highly encouraged to increase your grade. The university’s new attendance policy will be enforced in this class.

READINGS:

Do the readings before class and come to class. You will come to class having completed the assigned readings and participate fully in class discussion. I expect you to be a fully contributing member of the class by being prepared, taking responsibility for having productive discussions, helping yourself and others understand the material, and generating interesting ideas. I want to avoid the “professors teach, students learn” view of this enterprise.

Please note: The course requires a minimum of 8-10 hours of outside work per week (e.g., reading, analysis, group meetings, writing assignments).

REQUIRED READINGS

In addition to the basic textbook reading, there are many sources of reading for this course: one textbook.

1. Andrew Chadwick, Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies (Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, April 2006).

1. Pippa Norris, (2002) Digital Divide Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide (http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/Books/Digital%20Divide.htm)

1. Pippa Norris, (2003) A Virtuous Circle Reinventing Political Activism (http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/Books/Virtuous%20Circle.htm)

TENTATIVE CLASS SCHEDULE AND READINGS