Never Too Much Information

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The man behind, professor at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and author of, Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live, Jeff Jarvis, continues to explore the way the internet affects our lives.


Jeff Jarvis
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [15]

Evan from Brooklyn

Not a bad idea, Anna. I think that's why Jeff Jarvis loves the whole on line transparency thing (I only did it once while I was on Fb--in a naked bike ride photo, with a conveniently placed bike seat preventing full frontal nudity :) BTW Fb has research to support the hypothesis that guys visit gals pages more after they post photos--I heard it discussed here:

Slightly off topic: I used to think the runaway train in Runaway Train was an apt metaphor for Western Civilization. Then it was the sinking ship in The Titannic. Now in my mind it's the little fishing boat in The Perfect Storm struggling to get over the lip of that giant wave (which I am convinced has been significantly contributed to by the internet and social media).

Sep. 28 2011 01:02 PM

I can't believe this entire interview occurred with no mention of how much money the CIA/FBI has invested in Facebook.

Sep. 27 2011 06:40 PM
anna22 from new york

I think I had it.
I started the day with a certain health forum where someone informed everyone that we have been misinformed since our birth and that to know the truth we must read Kevin Trudeau. Sounded like promotion of charlatanry. It was. Kevin Trudeau is a charlatan.
I checked than Democracy Now where the host also informed her listeners that they have been misinformed since their birth and to know the truth we must read about evil Jews and hegemony. It sounded like promotion of charlatanry. It is. Amy Goodman is a charlatan.
I came to NPR where a guest tells me that I have been misinformed since my birth and that to know the truth I have to undress and show to the world what I have. Sounds like charlatanry to me. It is.
I am not American born and I really, really, really don't care what Zuckerberg "thinks" (in spite of his billions).
dr anna

Sep. 27 2011 11:07 AM
Paul from Brooklyn

I'm listening to Jeff Jarvis now. His argument generalizes based from a viewpoint of privilege. It ignores power imbalances between people, institutions and groups. He says the technology is neutral. Just listening to his stupid comments about coming out pissed me off.

Ok, how bout this for transparency? Jarvis may be a nice guy, but he sounds like a pompous ass.

Sep. 27 2011 11:06 AM
Inquisigal from brooklyn

I agree with the guest about being more open with certain issues - health issues, and getting support and more information is a great example of the benefit of openness.

But Zuckerberg's ideal of "sharing" was conceived by a college-aged person, and continues to perpetuate an ideal that frankly seems childish. As you get older, you just don't have the time, or frankly the desire, to seek out every little detail of what your friends and family or up to; knowing what the last song is that someone listened to, or article that that person read, is overkill.

Sep. 27 2011 11:02 AM
Arthur from Astoria, NY

RE: Facebook et al: As long as we aren't paying for the information or the framework through which we get it, we have no reason to bitch and moan when the provider decides to make a buck off us. We DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy for services we do pay for - our doctor, pharmacist, etc.

The "right to connect" as Jervis has defined it is a fallacy - it's only a right if we also have the right to control the degree to which we connect.

Sep. 27 2011 11:00 AM
Derrick from Lower East Side

How neutral was the cell phone jamming in San Francisco and the network shutdowns overseas? How neutral is the way Google is using data from competitors to fill their own content and overshadow other business? How neutral is the scientifically targeted advertising that bombards us as we share more about ourselves? Who controls this? These are private companies with motives that are not known to us. Should we blindly trust private corps?

Sep. 27 2011 10:59 AM
Donna from NYC

To the guest - it is not ridiculous to not want to tbe tracked.

Sep. 27 2011 10:57 AM

It's nice that Mark Zuckerberg wants to help us all share. But he also stands to personally profit tremendously for us doing so. You're leaving this dimension out of the conversation.

Sep. 27 2011 10:56 AM
Donna from NYC

Good point from the caller. You do not have a choice - everything is tracked and saved.

And from Paranoid or Not?: "I'm worried we will get to a point soon where, without our permission, a person's every move on the Internet will be made public on Facebook"

You aren't paranoid.

It's coming.....

Sep. 27 2011 10:56 AM
The Truth from Becky

TMI...never good!

Sep. 27 2011 10:49 AM
Robert Bienenfeld from Long island

There is no privacy, your given the illusion there is, or for the most part given the illusion your posting a blog opinion when your not, it get reflected back and given the illusion you are but your not

Sep. 27 2011 10:48 AM
Joe from NJ

Recent fb post:
"Tomorrow, Facebook will change its privacy settings to allow Mark Zuckerberg to come into your house while you sleep and eat your brains with a grapefruit spoon. To stop this from happening, go to Account> Home Invasion Settings> Cannibalism> Brains, and uncheck the “Tasty” box. Please copy and re-post to save lives."

Sep. 27 2011 10:45 AM
John A.

On Topic: Ever-ready information is like a big hole in your head. Stuff can go in fast, but for the same reason there's a greatly reduced need to keep anything in there.

Sep. 27 2011 10:29 AM
Paranoid or Not?

Regarding the latest changes and changes to come on Facebook:

Is it Mark Zuckerberg's goal for everyone to know everyone? And also for everyone to know everything about everyone?

I'm worried we will get to a point soon where, without our permission, a person's every move on the Internet will be made public on Facebook ("Charlie is reading erotic poetry at right now"), And the only way to disable it will be through an ever more complicated labrynth of privacy settings that can be easily voided without warning by Facebook.

Is that going too far or is that a realistic notion of what's to come?

Sep. 27 2011 09:49 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.