Posted By: Michael Hackmer

There is fundamental thing I hear over and over when it comes to people going online and using social networks – and that is the concern over privacy.

I am not one to dismiss the concerns over identify theft, Internet scams that rob people of their money, or pirates, hackers and malicious individuals who break into personal accounts and poison someone’s reputation (or far worse). There is no doubt that people need to be careful about who they share information with and take steps to safeguard their accounts and online activity.

Actually, what I am referring to is the position people who live on the tail end of Generation X and beyond who think the general practice of giving away personal information is somehow detrimental. Now, by “general practice” I am referring to the posting of pictures (parties, family events, etc), stories and other personal accounts of someone’s life that a vast majority of us do on a daily basis.

On this front I hear time and time again that those pictures or stories, posted by NextGeners and younger GenXers will come back “to bite them when they seek a senior corporate job or public office.” Today, this may be true. But in 5 to 7 years, do we really think anyone will care? I mean really care?

If we take into account the changes in culture we are experiencing, as well as how the workforce is changing, people are going to be less concerned about some college party picture over the next 5 years than they are today, because the chances the same kind of picture exists for them is probably pretty high. Or – they have experienced so many other people who have shared similar images it will not strike them as that big of a deal. This is not to suggest that our overall moral attitudes will change, or that we will start to accept reckless behavior in the workplace. Far from it. But people will certainly be more understanding of what people once did or do in their personal lives.

Technology is encouraging a lot of changes. Changes in our activity level, recognition of other people and cultures, and overall, I think technology – specifically the consumption of information online – is making us more tolerant and accepting.

With that said, I would be interested in hearing comments or opinions about this. Take a moment and respond the poll below. Let me know what you think about privacy and online use today.

I was asked late last year to present some thoughts at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable regarding widgets and how they relate to advocacy.

I was told the audience is expected to be largely from internet advocacy groups, non-profits / associations, and possibly a few tech companies. The goal is to give a brief presentation and spend a bulk of the time in Q&A, sharing thoughts about what constitutes a widget (this discussion includes widgets – both in and out of social networks, RIAs and desktop applications), how can they be used for advocacy, what circumstances are they effective or perhaps ineffective, and more.

So, I first set out and completed some initial research, which I later shared at the Roundtable and will share through this blog (I know, it was December… I’m running behind).

One aspect of my research that I found interesting (and I’ll take the time to share now) was how integrated, robust (I think a “robust” social network includes multiple web application offerings) and populated social networks can be the more area they cover, whereas social networks tend to be less integrated (within other aspects of one’s daily life), robust and populated in smaller communities or more niche environments.

Clearly, I am basing this statement on some initial evidence and more research will need to be done to verify this theory. Assuming the facts support the theory, the question then becomes: How is the effectiveness of social networks relevant to the discussion on widgets?

Quite simply, I think the dynamic of online participation in social networks and utilizing web applications (widgets) that are largely viral, possess a large degree of overlap. After all, at the most basic levels they both need to exist, require some measure of community acceptance, and the user needs to initiate their involvement. At another level, they exist to create a bridge of information and contact between a person and a larger community. And they often coexist – with widgets in social networks.

This brings me to the state / local elections in Virginia in 2007 (I’ll get into the current election cycle in my follow-up piece).

Where were the social networks and widgets? What happened to internet-based advocacy?

Ted McLaughlan, a Senior Solution Architect at Blackstone, noted to me in a LinkedIn email exchange that despite the presence of high-octane issues such as transportation, growth, education and the Board of Supervisors elections and Sheriff’s race (each of which were driven with charges of corruption and dirty politics), these events barely registered in social networks, campaigns did not utilize widgets, and SEO was nonexistent.

Despite the PPC ads from “Campaign for Loudoun’s Future” and the Loudoun Independent’s video interviews, search engines, McLaughlan wrote, were not tracking advocacy groups in Loudoun during the recent election cycle.

Of course, while search engines are not perfect, they can, more often than not, indicate the online presence of issue / advocacy groups… or the lack thereof. Being in the neighborhood and on the ground, I certainly can attest to the lack of online advocacy in Loudoun County, and the reliance to traditional media. I think the SEO information provides a decent proof point.

In summing up some of my thoughts – it may just be that the bridge virtual social networks and widgets provide across larger areas does not translate at the local level. There may just be some issues where the ROI or the impact is just not noticeable – that people make their local connections more physical.

It also could be that because local activists are not investing in building or participating in social networks, deploying widgets, and maximizing their SEO / SEM, that people who execute searches to locate information and do not find it and just move on. If that is indeed the case, local organizations could be missing on that 5% or more of people, who receive some key information, seek to act on it, but then move on because they cannot locate the information quickly. That’s a missed opportunity that could mean the difference between funding an initiative and passing a referendum or not.

MORE THOUGHTS TO FOLLOW ON THIS SUBJECT… Stay tuned…