« Universities as copyright warriors | Main | On the demise of the scheduler »

24/03/2009

Comments

Clari Hunt

Martin,

You might be interested to see the following posts criticising the cyber-bullying of her and her subsequent response:

How to use technology wrong http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41777/114/

How to use technology correctly and with class http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41804/117/

Clari

Martin

Thanks Clari - hadn't seen that - it says what I was trying to say much better. Hence rendering this post obsolete. Damn.

Sonja Tack

It's an utterly disgraceful invasion of privacy in my humble opinion. If whingeing were a sackable offence, all of us would be rendered permanently unemployable.

John Connell

The young woman in question has followed all of this up with a thoughtful post on her own blog that puts a slightly different perspective on the whole sorry episode - although it does not change the key points you make, Martin.

http://www.theconnor.net/?p=12

None of us likes a clype (http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/clype) and, if I ever bump into my over-zealous colleague in Cisco, I will be telling him so.

Martin

Thanks John - have updated the post to include this. As she says it is essentially a boring story, which some people have decided to whip up into something.

Lawrence O'Connor

I am pondering an idea that I think I heard on Radio 4 -
When we are aware that we are being observed by someone/thing that we do not trust, we modify our behaviour. If, as a result of making ourselves more observable, we are further modifying our behaviour and we are becoming further removed from being able to exercise freewill. -

For me, I am noticing a 'centrapetal' force to 'market' my ideas/thoughts/opinions to as many people as possible and a contending 'centrafugal' force to share only with those whom I know & trust very well.
My experiment of the previous many months or so (since having my eyes opened somewhat at the OU Social:Learn workshop last year) has been to try near total transparency, without discrimination between, for example, work colleagues/friends/family.
I think the results are, rather predictably, that inevitably one caters for one's audience and that catering for a wide-ranging trust-quotient of trustee (if that is the correct term for someone on whom we bestow our trust) results in inevitably settling on lowest-common-dominator targetted communications.

Soluton/way forward?
I think the clue to the way forward for me is in one of theoconnor's conclusions to 'check the check box'. I interpret this for myself as meaning to not be lazy with my network of 'friends' just because I connect with them primarily online e.g. to now begin actively manage what I shared & with whom, just like I would with realworld friends. To build, not assume, trust. Here begins the next phase of the experiment!

Martin

Hi Lawrence, the idea of changing your behaviour if you are being observed, or more importantly, even if you aren't actually being observed but could be, stems back to Foucault I think and the panopticon.
I have gone for the open approach, particularly on twitter - but what you say is true, I have developed an online persona which is part of my overall one (or exaggerated elements of that maybe). I suspect as these things move more into the mainstream becoming more selective won't be as difficult eg open on twitter, closed on Facebook. Generally my open approach on twitter hasn't caused me any problems and has given me lots of good interaction. But I know there are things I won't talk about there.

Robin

Is it possible to frame somebody online?

What if a jealous colleague posts writings using a rival's name to deliberately ruin their career? Can a person use technology like Facebook and Twitter to make their competitor look bad to future employers?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from edtechie99. Make your own badge here.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter