Ok, let's stop to consider this for a moment. 30% of the Facebook subscriber base needs to participate if the measure is to pass. What's the liklihood of that happening if:

(1) A significant percentage of all FB subscribers are spambots (estimated at 6-10% - http://www.insidefacebook.com/category/spam-2/ )

(2) The average turnout of a normal adult voting population for US elections is ~50% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout)

(3) There is a gap between "all users" and "monthly active users" - hard to estimate (e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/limyunghui/2012/09/30/1-billion-facebook-users-on-earth-are-we-there-yet/ )

(4) Voting requires registering for an app, which (see other comments) also reduces turnout?

I think we can say, with relative confidence, that it's very unlikely that a full 30% of all 'Facebookizens' will express their right to vote. Which is probably why Facebook set the 30% threshold in the first place.

But, it'll be fun to estimate: what percentage of FB users will actually vote in the end?

--D

There's much talk about combating malware through technical solutions (e.g., adding transparency to communication, building increasingly sophisticated scanning systems, etc).

But what interests me is what we should be teaching our young people (students, in primary and secondary school) with respect to the expertise we wished that all adults possessed.

In your estimation, what are 2-3 things that, if young people understood well, would help them excel in the face of cyber adversity (e.g., malware, privacy theft, etc)?

--Dave

While what Matt Ritchel writes in his NY Times article does raise an issue worth discussing, I have two issues with what he writes. The first is that he fails to mention that this pattern mirrors long-standing patterns of media consumption. Media reports, including those by Pew, the Kaiser Family Foundation (and many others) indicate correlations between consumption and SES (socio-economic status). The presumption is that exposure to media is counerproductive. Which brings me to my second point: the assumption that exposure to media is counterproductive. Matt mentions several students in his article; they indicate that they're falling victim to "media overuse", missing homework and not getting enough sleep. But what's much harder to measure is the value that media users ARE gaining from using media, including Facebook, for their activities. As an example, we see a workplace shift toward hiring workers with 'social marketing' and 'online' skills; and it's no question that big companies are betting on "Social CRM", including the king of CRM, Salesforce. So, it's absolutely possible that using Facebook - overusing, some might say - is actually aiding its users gain in the online social skills they'll need to succeed in the future. But all of this doesn't detract from a central point about media consumption, and that is, that it's at the expense of Other Things: like playing hide and seek, running, gardening, etc - many of the active things that help humans be socially, physically and mentally healthy in ways that interaction with a computer can't. So, all in all, it's a thick question -- Matt does do something important by raising the issue, so KUDOS for that. The question, now, is what we all learn from the dialogue. Cheers, --Dave / PLML

The spread of GPS has caused many a driver to follow directions all-too-explicitly (through some strange, and often incompatible terrain). With Google Glasses, will people now follow Google Maps trails off cliffs?

Let's not be stingy here. I second the contention that non-paying users are forthcoming with questions and reports, but I won't call them demands. The education tools (http://www.glean.org - mainly information literacy-related) we provide serve a number of schools, and some sites have heavy user traffic. All are free, but we do try to ask for donations to support our (nonprofit, 501c3) work.

And, when the sites glitch - or don't function properly, or as expected - those same users let us know about it. Quickly!

While few are likely to donate money to support our work, many are involved in bug reporting, formative evaluation and the testing of new education tools that we're launching. It's these kindnesses - in-kind support, you might say - that has been so valuable in helping us move forward.

At the end of the day, it's not cash - which is needed to move the organization forward. And, yes, our free users do have expectations - not unreasonable, as they rely on our services as well, and that the site has likely set some expectations about the service(s) that will be provided.

Of course, the lack of cash can be frustrating. However, I suggest against labeling, or reading, their expectations as demands. Instead, it's more helpful to understand how the audience is willing to help, and if/what can be done (in the case of TFA) to turn the free user base into paying customers.

Cheers,

--Dave

IPad with a fold-up keyboard? Taking notes with a small stylus (quickly) seems really hard -- end up spending more time to correct the notes taken than keeping pace with the lecture and notes that need to be taken.

Avoiding the Susan Greenfield issue, the topic is definitely worthy to ponder for a moment. I'll speak about myself, and in doing so, suspect that I speak for many of us.

Already, my machine is performing a very important role for me: it's my memory. My e-mail archive is a living memory of all the conversations I've had, which means something rather profound: that I don't have to remember the literal data that were provided, e.g., the specific wording of a decision, but instead, that such a conversation happened at one point, and was tracked via e-mail.

Beyond this capacity, let's address the point of TFA.

It's well known that neural circuity develops as a human spends more time with something, e.g., a talented musician has larger areas of cortex devoted to the things that make a talented musician talented, e.g., hand movements, musicality, etc. Whether these areas are separate, e.g., modular, and/or if they're represented as an integrated system is a conversation for another day. Suffice to say that brain areas expand as a human practices things more.

So it's fair to say that using technological tools in the commonplace way that we do builds neural matter that support our expanding use of the same. Whether this is at the expense of other skills, neurally, we don't know.

On the other hand, how many of us take the time to bake our own bread, fix our own cars, and plow our fields? It's fair to say that we spend less time building the products for our basic needs, which means that we develop those skills - and the related neural matter - less

So, while the author of TFA may (or may not be) a lady with a funky background, clearly the idea has merit and its implications - tradeoff of neural representation in areas of skill - is important to consider as we expand our use of social and media devices, and decrease the time we spend developing our ability to perform other tasks (supplanted by technology, as it were).

Heya, That's one way to read it, and I appreciate the interpretation. But, as far as I can tell, Google genuinely does want to do good - they provide *great* support for some things. My hope was to point out others that might extend their impact further. Basically, it's a way of saying hey -- some people used what was provided at no charge (formerly) for causes that didn't turn revenue, but did some social good. The API changes had a big impact on us (even if, for commercial entities, it was a small deal). Is there a better way to state it?

Dear Google,

We ( http://www.plml.org/ ) use many of your API services for our tools. Recently, we had to switch from the Google Search API to Bing's Search API due to the new fee-for-access system. Bing works, but does not yet deliver the same quality of service that teachers and students expect. We hope they improve, but so far, have seen little action from their API team.

With respect to the Google Search API: While our sites (for instance, http://www.boolify.org/ ) do utilize more than the maximum number of hits per day for the free API access ( with Search, it's just 100! ) we do not have the ability to pay the fees associated with the usage we incur.

Nonetheless, it is our mission to continue to provide free access to the educational tools we develop (there are many others like us), and struggle to continue to provide tools that schools expect to be of high quality, while balancing that ability with what we can provide within existing technological services.

The other grant programs you provide to nonprofits are essential (AdWords, Apps Enterprise, etc). We, and many others, make use of these grants daily, if not every minute, of our operation.

So, as you roll out additional fee-for-access programs, we humbly ask that you extend the grants program to cover these services as well. A little leeway on your part will go a long way toward helping us deliver on our social mission!

Many thanks,

Staff @ Public Learning Media, http://www.plml.org./

Man, all of those transaction fees probably cost more than $2/user. What a waste of time - except for the lawyers involved! On the flip side, thankfully there are prosecutions of marketing and selling techniques such as these. Somewhere out there is a future of simpler, more secure and less scammy online transactions... somewhere... over the rainbow...

And, oh, send notes to bloggers and twitters, too. But hey, if you get Slashdotted, you're in a good zone!

Megacorps aside, the interview process has changed significantly in the past few years. We're a small nonprofit devoted to building complex educational designs. While we're keen on building a lithe workforce during out startup stage, and while we're compensating only at the stipend level, our interviews are meant to bring in the best individuals we can find.

What does that means? It means that in addition to the interview itself, we discuss cases and, in many cases, ask for a code sample and/or add a programming challenge. The process isn't meant to be dispiriting in the least; but it is meant to bring in the most compatible, most visionary young people we can find, and, in our case, to help them get a significant boost onward toward their dream (read: visionary) career.

So, the arduous selection process isn't just a part of big-megacorps; it's becoming a part of many smaller (but highly innovative) organizations as well.

--Dave

Elaborated response: http://www.plml.org/node/93

There is a difference between something that is not a social norm, and something that is not a primary consideration OR an option - until it's too late!

Website and web service users seem very much open to trying new systems; and even letting people, typically friends, view their information. That's no big surprise, and predates websites like Facebook.

On the other hand, websites like Facebook are increasingly opening users' data to the world - reacting to the data on their systems! - and providing users with limited opportunities to change that fact. Isn't it the case that Facebook recently added new "features", such as extended friend network update viewing, and then responded to privacy outcries by building-in limited mechanisms to control the privacy of information?

Furthermore, users are keen to try services without really understanding the possibility that their information ISN'T private -- until it's too late. For example, the user who is rejected from a job application because of his/her photos and/or writing on Facebook is likely to restrict access in the future, as a response to the openness of their personal life.

So: I reject Zuckerburg's notion that privacy is changing, and instead suggest that the nature in which private information is treated as private information, by companies that offer users services, is changing! Changing for the better of their wallets, without a doubt.

Cheers,
--Dave