kinnon.tv

That Dog'll Hunt

And this guy can write. Can he ever. (You might just want to do what I just did and add him to your Google Reader - assuming your using GR.)

BTW - The title means whatever you want it to.

Ed Brenegar on Kiva & Micro-Finance

Ed does a short, link-filled post on Kiva and the power of micro-financing. Please read it and follow the links.

I'm thinking a lot more about how best to use the moneys we give away. And am afraid that the edifice-complex of most church leaders, will preclude much of those dollars going in that direction. Kiva and the like can and will make better use of those funds.

Facebook Steps back (a little) from the Beacon Precipice

CONFRONTED WITH GROWING RESISTANCE TO its new ad program, Facebook late Thursday said it would no longer publish information about users' online purchases without their explicit consent. - Online Media Daily

It sounds like a victory for those of us who questioned what they are doing. And. At some levels it is.

However, Facebook is still stalking and gathering your data - and looking for ways to monetize it. It is fear that has caused them to step back a little. Fear of ending up on the "slushpile" of social media history. So they momentarily appear responsive. Unfortunately their basic motivation (profiting on your data) hasn't changed. To repeat the tech curmudgeon, John C. Dvorak,

...it's not social networking but marketing...
  ...the social network is less about the social part and more about the sales pitch.

As much as you Facebookians may love the data-sucking, data-selling entity - it is all about monetizing that data for them - they aren't altruists looking for the best way to serve you. Their clients are the marketers. You are the targets.

Keep the 15 billion dollar valuation in mind as you poke, super-poke, throw turkeys or whatever in the land of Facebook. All that data is being tracked, evaluated and stored - to better serve their clientel, Microsoft et al.

UPDATE: Read Om Malik's post, please.

UPDATE 1a: (Added after 2 but I think it's a little more important.) From Umair Haque,

Why didn't Google launch a Google Beacon? After all, it has vastly more data than Facebook, and, because it's Google every retailer, publisher, advertiser etc under the sun would scramble desperately to join.

A Google beacon might transmit details of your searches to your friends, when you click on an ad, for example. The details aren't the point - the economics are: Google could make a near-term killing via a (bigger, more valuable) Beacon style service.

So why didn't/doesn't Google do it? Simple: because, though it makes Google better off in the short run, it makes people worse off in the long run.

That's what evil is about. And that's what Facebook can't process - because its a company with much intelligence, passion, and commitment - but no wisdom, empathy, or courage.

Does that sound familiar? It should: it's exactly the DNA of Microsoft.

UPDATE 2: David Weinberger adds,

...Facebook overall is showing itself not to be on its users side. There is no reason not to give users a big red opt out button — making the whole thing opt in would be even better — except that FB knows we would use it. FB is choosing its own interests over its users’.

And, no, not every company does that. Sure, there’s self-interest in all that we do and all that our organizations do. But companies choose sides. Almost all companies use their customers. A few are truly on their customers’ side. Now we know where FB stands.

And this from TechCrunch:

...Coca-Cola didn’t realize that Beacon wouldn’t be opt-in, and this was key in their withdrawal of support, and continued absence from the program:

“We have adopted a bit of a ‘wait and see’ as far as what we are going to do with Beacon because we are not sure how consumers are going to respond,” said Carol Kruse, Coke’s vice president of global interactive marketing, this morning..“I, like you, certainly understood that it would be opt-in. That’s what I heard before as well as what I heard on the 6th.”

As we know Facebook has now flipped on Beacon, switching to an opt-in model after widespread criticism from users and groups including Moveon.org. The evolving story though is how Facebook got to this point, particularly given key partners were led to believe that the program was opt-in, suggesting that someone, or something caused Facebook to switch to an opt-out model at the 11th hour.

Might as well go for a soda, after all.

 

 

Christian Volunteer Matching

Evan Donovan asked me to point you to TechMission's Christian Volunteering site. From their About page:

ChristianVolunteering.org matches volunteers to volunteer opportunities and helps organizations recruit volunteers through online volunteer matching. In many ways ChristianVolunteering.org is like job matching websites like Monster.com except that we match volunteers to organizations with volunteer opportunities. Individuals can find opportunities as a local volunteer, virtual volunteer (volunteering from home), short term missionary, or intern at organizations across the US and internationally. Organizations can post volunteer opportunities to recruit volunteers online.

It does look rather interesting. I'd also point you to Guy Kawasaki's post, The Lessons of Kiva and Mak's post on One Hit Wonder. Oh, and check out the Kiva Gift Certificates. Those I could get behind. [via Guy]

Consuming Jesus - the Book

Last night, I began reading Paul Metzger's "Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church". I was already convinced it was a good book by reading Darryl Dash's multiple posts on it. Metzger asks this in the introduction,

When Christ returns, will he find faith, the kind of faith that engages suffering and breaks down walls of division between peoples - or not? What he certainly will find is some version of the shopping-mall church, with wonderful sound systems for the praise songs and a latte-to-go. If we think of the latte as a new metaphor for the "opiate of the masses", we can see the evangelical church often functions as an opiate of the consumer masses. An all-consuming house cleaning is in order.

And later, he quotes Dr. John Perkins,

The only purpose of the gospel is to reconcile people to God and to each other. A gospel that doesn't reconcile is not a Christian gospel at all. But in American it seems we don't believe that. We don't really believe that the proof of our discipleship is that we love one another (see John 13:35). No, we think the proof is in numbers - church attendance, decision cards. Even if our "converts" continue to hate each other, even if they will not worship with their brothers and sisters in Christ, we point to their "conversion" as evidence of the gospel's success. We have substituted a gospel of church growth for a gospel of reconciliation.

Metzger responds to Perkins,

We have been seduced by success, and we will downplay confronting race and class barriers to grow churches quickly. Many evangelical leaders believe that the best way to multiply churches quickly is to make members fell comfortable rather than comfort them with with the cross that breaks down the divisions between God, us, and others. Churches cater to people's consumer passions of getting what they want, when they want it, and at the least perceived cost to themselves.

The Introduction alone has enough meat in it to make the book worth purchasing. What Metzger has written strongly resonates with me. I look forward to delving deeper into Consuming Jesus over the next week. (It will be my main read on my flight to Vancouver on Sunday.) I'll make a point of blogging the read.

In light of this book and the recent consumeristic church conversation, I would again point to David Fitch's most recent post - and the conversation taking place in the comments. And Fitch's "The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies" is a must read - and possibly a perfect companion to Metzger's book.

Give Me My Face Back, Facebook!

UPDATE 2: (See bottom for Update 1) Facebook appears to be reconsidering Beacon, according to a report from Newsweek last evening. 'Twould seem a fair amount of  web noise (including MoveOn) may have gotten through to Facebook. Google's motto is "Do No Evil". Maybe Facebook's could become "Trying to Be Less Creepy." I think Dvorak is still right (see bottom of this post) no matter what Facebook does.

The profane, prolific artist, marketing genius and Hughtrain author Hugh Macleod comments,

HUGH'S SECOND LAW: "The minute the Facebooks of the world forget they are replaceable, is the minute people like me move in for The Kill."

[HUGH"S FIRST LAW: "All online social networks eventually turn into a swampy mush of spam."] (Hugh's cartoon with his post illustrates his point beautifully. Be forewarned, some of you will be offended by the language.)

Wendy Davis, at Media Post writes,

....privacy groups are preparing to file complaints with the Federal Trade Commission against the social networking site.   

The digital civil rights group Electronic Privacy Information Center intends to file a complaint by January about both Facebook's new SocialAds and Beacon programs. The Center for Digital Democracy, which currently has a complaint pending at the FTC about behavioral targeting, also intends to pursue regulatory action against the company.

EPIC plans to protest both Facebook's SocialAds--which tells members which of their friends have signed on as "fans" of the advertisers-- and Beacon ads, which notifies members' friends about their off-site purchases.

The three-week-old programs mark Facebook's attempt to harness users on behalf of marketers, in effect turning members into word-of-mouth advertisers. And that's precisely why some advocates find the programs objectionable; they argue that Facebook is improperly pressing consumers into service on behalf of marketers.

"Part of what Facebook is doing is taking from people the value of their endorsements, which traditionally is something that people can be compensated for, and selling it back to their advertisers," says EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg.

'Twould appear that Mark Zuckerberg's brilliant strategy to monetize the gazillion Facebookian eyeballs may be hitting a few potholes on the road to FB's 15 Billion Dollar valuation. "All Your Data Are Belong to Us" may not prove to be as true as Facebook was wishing and a-hoping, hoping and a-praying.

UPDATE 1: In a later post, Macleod asks whether Facebook is consigning themselves to the slushpile of history,

So what's stopping Facebook from putting in a small, tickable box that says, "Please do not let my 'Friends' send me any more of these REALLY ANNOYING Vampire/Zombie/Super wall/Super Poke/Whatever invites. I really, really don't want them etc..."?

Heck, it would probably take one of their junior coders only a few minutes to do. What's the problem?

I'm starting to suspect the short answer is, they WANT you to spend hour after hour after hour every month on their pages, deleting the crap. Makes the numbers look better for their bean counters:

"Yes, Mr Investor, people are spending on average 4 hours a day on our site. Can we have your vast pots of money now?"

And Dvorak writes,

What has been overlooked in the entire social-networking scheme is that at its core, it's not social networking but marketing. In fact, the entire MySpace scene is devoted mostly to selling music and keeping people up-to-date with their fav indie band. Sometimes events, such as a rave or a house party, can be announced on MySpace, although the real winner is still the indie band. Most parties are done with IM lists.

On the whole, the social network is less about the social part and more about the sales. pitch.

Triple D effectively answers the Question - What's wrong with the Church?

By quoting a brilliant, rather rotund, Catholic, long dead, sarcastic English wit. Read Darryl's post, please. It's very good.

A Little More Facebook as Evil Discussion

At some levels, it would seem that Facebookians took only a little notice of Facebook's new personal data driven revenue generator, Facebook Beacon, and disappeared back into their little Facebook worlds. Rather like a momentarily concerned gopher sticking it's head up out of hole, looking around, and disappearing back into it's gopher warren. "Everything's fine. No need to worry. We're all safe."

But the conversation continues amongst those who concern themselves with these things; Doc Searls, David Weinberger, the Scoble Bunny and others. (I would love a dear friend of mine who's an Internet Privacy lawyer to weigh in on this - but, as he only occasionally stops by here, I won't hold my breath.) Via Scoble's link blog, I read Dare Obasanjo's post on Facebook this morning. If you are even remotely concerned with your privacy and are a committed Facebookian, you need to read it.

Dare has some money quotes from Forrester Research's Charlene Li and Windows Live VP, David Treadwell and then says this about Facebook Beacon;

Linking identities and data sharing without user permission: One of the thinks people have found creepy about this feature is that they are automatically discovered to be Facebook users on sites that they have not told they use Facebook. In Charlene’s case, she actually uses different email addresses to log in on both sites which must have seemed even doubly weird to her at first. As Ethan Zuckerman points out in his post Facebook changes the norms for web purchasing and privacy this completely upturns user expectations of how privacy on the Web works especially when it comes to cookies.
 
  It's a genuine concern that Facebook has opened a Pandora's box when you consider what could happen if it is deemed socially acceptable for Web sites to use cookies to actively identify users across sites as opposed to the passive way it is done today. I’m sure the folks at Google would be excited about this since thanks to AdSense and DoubleClick, they probably have cookies on every computer on the Web that has cookies turned enabled in the Web browser. Today it’s Facebook, tomorrow Amazon and eBay are posting your purchase history to every OpenSocial enabled web site courtesy of the cookies from these sites or from Google ads on your machine.

I can safely assume that most Facebookians aren't concerned about their privacy...and their inability to chose whether to share their personal data or not. My kids scoffed at my previous post on Facebook, Is Facebook evil?. Blogdom friends who responded with concern to that post are still active participants in the wonderful world of Facebook.

Facebook is not a benign social community. Its a business designed to make money for its owners. (I have no issues with businesses making money - having owned my own business for most of the last 26 years.) Facebook makes that money by placing advertising in front of Facebookian eyeballs in any way possible and whether you want to see it or not. They make their money by tracking your web wandering to better target you...and more specifically your wallet. You have value to them exclusively as a consumer.

I strongly believe that you must be in control of your web identity and presence. Facebook doesn't agree. (Their opt-out features are designed to be hard to use and confusing. In spite of what they say, here.) You are nothing but eyeballs to them - eyeballs they are working hard to monetize. At least have those eyeballs open.

A Suggestion to Facebook: Why not allow people to pay for their Facebook service, allowing them to completely opt out of your intrusive eyeball-selling strategy? Offer Facebook accounts for $50/year to students and $100/year to non-students. People that want to stay in for free can suffer through your money-making strategies. At least they are willing participants in selling their data. Fools that they may be.

UPDATE: Follow the links in this Doc Searls post from a little earlier today.

And now a word on consumerism (sort of) from Doc Searls

Doc is talking about Facebook, it's Terms of Service and the Faustian bargain we seem to make with supposedly "free" services. Doc says this,

I wrote about this in Go from Hell, back in September. Here’s the section that pertains most to the Facebook Matter at hand:

(The Industrial Age) violently split apart two aspects of our lives that had always been one… production and consumption… In so doing, it drove a giant invisible wedge into our economy, our psyches … it ripped apart the underlying unity of society, creating a way of life filled with economic tension.

I wrote about that split, that tension, in Listen up, back in 1998 — eighteen years after The Third Wave and nine years before now.

David Weinberger and I also wrote about it a year later, in this chapter of Cluetrain. We called it “The Axe in Our Heads”:

Ironically, many of us spend our days wielding axes ourselves. In our private lives we defend ourselves from the marketing messages out to get us, our defenses made stronger for having spent the day at work trying to drive axes into our customers’ heads. We do both because the axe is already there, the metaphorical embodiment of that wedge Toffler wrote about — the one that divides our jobs from our lives. On the supply side is the producer; on the demand side is the consumer. In the caste system of industry, it is bad form for the two to exchange more than pleasantries. Thus the system is quietly maintained, and our silence goes unnoticed beneath the noise of marketing-as-usual. No exchange between seller and buyer, no banter, no conversation. And hold the handshakes.

When you have the combined weight of two hundred years of history and a trillion-dollar tide of marketing pressing down on the axe in your head, you can bet it’s wedged in there pretty good. What’s remarkable is that now there’s a force potent enough to actually start loosening it.

Here’s the voice of a spokesperson from the world of TV itself, Howard Beale, the anchorman in Paddy Chayefsky’s Network who announced that he would commit suicide because “I just ran out of bullshit.” Of course, he had to go insane before he could at last utter this truth and pull the axe from his own head.

We’re all still Howard Beales today. We haven’t run out of bullshit, and there’s no less cause for anger than there was when Network, The Third Wave and Cluetrain each came out. The Information Age is here, but its future is not just (as William Gibson put it) unevenly distributed. Large parts of it aren’t here at all. The largest of those is actual empowerment of customers — in ways that are native to customers, rather than privileges granted by vendors. The difference is huge.

That’s why yelling doesn’t work. What we need instead is to make tools that work for us, and not just for them. We need to invent tools that give each of us independence from vendor control, and better ways of telling vendors what we want, when we want it, and how we want to relate — on our terms and not just on theirs. As Neo said to the Architect, “The problem is choice”. That problem will be with us as long as that axe is in our heads.

Becoming Consumed by the Consumerist Discussion

I'd promise that I wouldn't link to another post that deals with Consumerism and the Church today, but then I might find another good one.

My friend, John La Grou writes, Melting in Luxury and quotes John Chrysostom,

…see us building ourselves fine houses, and laying out gardens and baths, and buying fields: they are not willing to believe that we are preparing for another sort of residence away from our city. Do you not perceive Christ asking us to be salt and light in this world in order that we may both brace up those that are melting in luxury, and enlighten them that are darkened by the care of wealth? John Chrysostom, circa 400 A.D.