Week 10 Response

After further reading and deliberation, I can elaborate on my framing questions.

1. How can educators use Facebook to connect with their students?

For the educator that was looking for advice on how to use Facebook to connect with one’s students, boyd provides an answer.  Boyd suggests that the educator creates profiles on what is popular, keep it the profile public, professional, and not lame, accept students but not search them out, and be active.  I think the most important parts are keeping the profile public, professional and not lame and also accepting students friend requests but not searching for them.  Its important to act like a normal person on the site while still being a role model.  Trying to be like one of your students (or be a friend to your student) isn’t a good look.  When my mother signed up for Facebook (she had been recently retired), she had a similar quandary to figure out.  She was getting friend requests from former students, from a long time ago and recently.  She really wasn’t sure how to go about it, but for the most part she figured out these guidelines on her own.

2. How can Facebook avoid public outcry when adding new features or changing privacy settings?

In the second boyd reading, he mentions that if the default settings are loose, those who care the least or are the most ignorant of the settings (and probably need to be protected the most) are the most likely to be vulnerable.  I propose that setting the defaults to be the most restrictive might be a good way to continue.  When features are added, I have noticed that this is often not the case — the defaults are extremely permissive.  I know that having the default settings really buttoned up wouldn’t end the outrage, but it at least might save them from a few lawsuits.

3. How does WikiLeaks ensure good information and not info that is planted by foreign nations or corporations?

The most interesting part of WikiLeaks comes from one method they can use to authenticate information that they cannot confirm themselves.  While watching the TED chat featuring Julian Assange, he mentioned one specific document that they had issues authenticating.  The WikiLeaks staff read it and felt it was authentic, both intellectually and with their guts, but could not confirm it.  They posted the article with the disclaimer that they thought it was real, but it might not be.  At a later point in time, they were contacted by the company that had sent this memo out — they wanted to trace how it was leaked.  Assange asked for info proving they owned it and suddenly it was confirmed to be real.  I’m sure the people at the company thought nothing of it but they really hurt themselves in this situation.  They maintain a staff to look at the language of a document and to do background checks on those who leak stuff, but sometimes they just have to outsource.