During a recent speech, Mark Zuckerberg made an astonishing announcement. According to Facebook’s data, the site’s nearly 700 million users now publicly share around 4 billion things* a day! (TechCrunch) This is an absolutely staggering statistic, and shows how much serious attention the topic of social sharing deserves. To someone who hasn’t been a part of the revolution, this kind of data may seem baffling. Through examining why people are sharing the way they are, we can understand the true significance of our new ways of sharing.

We live in a world that is progressively virtual. From tending to corn on Farmville to accessing documents in the cloud, it’s clear to see that people are more comfortable with the digital world than ever before. Because of this, one’s personal digital life takes center stage. In a recent survey, I found that 40% of people who use social networking sites spend about 2-3 hours using them daily! For various reasons, new generations of tech users are using online tools as integral parts of their social lives.

The technology available today gives people the power to communicate this digital life like never before. The internet provides everyone an equal opportunity to be heard and connect with others, instantly. Through these kinds of online interactions, internet use can help establish truly meaningful communities. Rachel Botsman, author of The Case for Collaborative Consumption, claims that online networks “create cross cultural interaction and collaboration through a mixture of diverse groups, much like the interactions of marketplaces from the past.” The internet, in many ways, has taken the place of the traditional community spaces where social interaction used to occur. Social networking online helps recreate the sense of community that may seem lost elsewhere. The communal interactions that occur online appeal to something inherent in the human psyche. Despite the fact that these interactions occur virtually rather than physically, they still satisfy our basic human need for connection.

Our new methods of communication are certainly useful, but at what cost? There are some glaring downsides to the way we share online. For example, the idea of ownership of digital content is particularly frightening to me. Did you know that Facebook owns ALL of the content you post to the site? (Consumerist) Personally, I’m a little upset by that notion. I place a high value on what I share on Facebook and similar sites, and knowing that I essentially abandon complete ownership of my content when I post it makes me question my sharing habits.

In addition, I am not a fan of my privacy options on the internet. As a good rule of thumb, it’s smart not to post anything online you wouldn’t want your grandma to see, but sometimes that’s not so practical. When I use the online social tools available to me now, I have no faith in the security of what I post, and I’m tired of walking on eggshells. I don’t want an off-kilter joke or embarrassing photograph to compromise the integrity of my internet identity.

I think we have to value our digital lives the same way we value our physical ones. With technology’s growing importance in our lives, it’s irresponsible not to. We value what we post, the connections we make, and our personal security. It’s time to ask our technology to do the same.

* status updates, images, etc.

I feel like Facebook has become something sacred in many people’s lives. I mean, your profile and your wall become social realities for you. These outlets define who you are on the internet, and are an assertion of identity in a very real, yet virtual way. I inadvertently define myself by the actions of my News Feed, or peer group, and my time spent with Facebook is exceedingly personal. I’m sorry, I feel that the ads I’ve been getting are invasive. Already you’ve defiled me by collecting very personal information about who I am, but now you’re turning it right back around on me to turn a profit. When did I agree to this?

So, this is why Facebook ads really piss me off; they’re getting access to a special part of me as a consumer and can access a very large part of who I am, unlike any other advertising platform. Ads can be tailored to exactly who I am as a consumer, in an alarmingly precise manner. I am even subjected to direct peer pressure from my friends to support various consumer brand through seeing who “likes” what. I have noted three specific kinds of ads on Facebook that make me feel like my digital life is being exploited:

Specialized ads based on words used – Say you’ve been on Facebook chat with a good friend of yours, discussing skateboarding. It is highly likely that you’ll soon have a “Sponsored Page” appear on the right-hand side of your screen advertising a skateboard shop. This is a phenomenon that most Facebook users have become accustomed to by now. Personally, I feel that this is a severe invasion of privacy. The chat feature gives the illusion of privacy between two individuals, but your personal messages are actually mined for data to be used for advertising.

Just a coincidence?

Sponsored stories – This kind of ad takes a friend’s post about a Facebook sponsor and publishes it on the right side of your screen. In this way, the users themselves are turned into ads, without their knowledge. Personal posts are being profiteered.

Big corporations – I don’t want McDonald’s ads on my Facebook. When I see them, not only do I feel personally exploited, but I also shudder to think that Facebook probably also published the same ad to every single profile in use. The sheer magnitude of the platform, combined with the power of another multi-billion dollar corporation, makes me a little uneasy.

I can guarantee that Facebooks ads are regarded as irrelevant non-issues by over 90% of users. For the most part, they are small and non-disruptive on one’s page, unlike advertisements on most other sites. With this being said, one might ask: why care about Facebook ads at all? One quick look at Facebook’s fortune provides a glaring answer. Facebook makes over $2 billion from advertising annually, more than any other online outlet. All of the personal data contained on the site is directly monetized, in a big way.

I feel that Facebook plays a dual role in my life. On one hand, the service adds to my life in many ways and has completely revolutionized the way that I interact with people. On the other, my dedication is used to turn a huge profit, and there’s nothing I can do about it. The truth is, Facebook is here to stay… for now, at least.

Whether you know it or not, there’s a serious technology revolution underfoot. And no, I’m not talking about iOS5.

Recently, there have been a multitude of Internet attacks that have raised questions about the security of classified data in various forms. At the center of this epidemic has been LulzSecurity, a group of loosely agglomerated hackers who have attracted some serious media attention over the past few months. Through targeting large organizations such as Sony, PBS, Infragard, the CIA, and Arizona’s Department of Public Safety (PC Mag), LulzSec demonstrated just how much power a group of hackers can have in this digital age.

Most interesting to me was the short-lived Operation Anti-Security, in which LulzSec announced they would be teaming up with Anonymous, another notorious internet organization (fyi, their Wiki), to “open fire on any government or agency that crosses their path,” claiming that “government and whitehat security terrorists across the world continue to dominate and control our Internet ocean” and that “together we can defend ourselves so that our privacy is not overrun by profiteering gluttons. … If you’re aware of the corruption, expose it now, in the name of Anti-Security” (Gizmodo).

Opinions of LulzSec have been remarkably polarized in the media. Those starkly opposed to their mission have coined their activities as “cyberterrorism,” drawing parallels between their structure and mission to those of Al Qaeda. Admittedly, some of LulzSec activities have been malicious, particularly when they compromised the personal data of over 77 million Sony users in April (Washington Post).

When asked why they decided to release compromising information of innocent bystanders, Topiary, one of the group’s leaders, stated, “LulzSec is the expression of energy through comically malicious and entertaining cybermaterials … As an arrogant and violent sociopath driven to a frenzy by the sense of my own power, I can’t divulge the upcoming releases” (Gawker). Though it is important to keep in mind the sarcastic attitude of the group when analyzing their statements, it is clear to see that LulzSec values causing a ruckus by any means necessary.

However, another word has been frequently used to describe LulzSec’s movement: “hacktivism” (PC Mag). Much like WikiLeaks, whose mission was to achieve greater government transparency through releasing confidential document, LulzSec sought to challenge the status quo of who should have access to information (Huffington Post). In this day and age, technology is power, and LulzSec has demonstrated this fully. Through extensive knowledge of various computer systems, this group successfully proved that the assumption of virtual security might be an erroneous one all together. If a small hacker group could pull the monumental feats they have, what else is possible?

Currently, LulzSec has disbanded and is facing the possibility of extreme prosecution by government agencies. Though AntiSec wasn’t the movement they had hoped for (or at least hasn’t been yet), their ambition was poignant and cannot be ignored. Personally, I believe that there is currently a growing rift between the values and intentions of technology users and providers, and recent activity has proven this. Though currently only a small margin of users are acting upon anarchistic impulses, I think this might be a sign of a larger ideological shift. A few large organizations control a great deal of technology, and this technology translates into both information and power. Through momentarily shifting the power structure in place, LulzSec showed that this doesn’t have to be the way, and that users have the ability be more in control.

I do not advocate such destructive and antagonistic rebellion, but definitely think that the power of the user should be paramount. After critically evaluating how large organizations profit from users and their data, I believe that there is serious room for improvement. Though change cannot come easily, I think it is certainly a distant option.

To try to make sense of LulzSec for yourself, visit their Twitter page.

This is one of a series of op-ed posts aimed at starting a comprehensive dialogue around Gogobeans.

Hi, my name is Shannon, and I’m addicted to Facebook.

My heart races every time I get a new notification. I’ve spent countless hours sifting through meaningless posts from people whom I don’t care about. I check my news feed more often than I do anything else. I’ve posted personal information about myself that the internet cannot unlearn. And if you’re one of Facebook’s nearly 700 million users, you probably know what I’m talking about.

More so than ever, the social world has turned digital. As a member of what has been coined “the Screen Generation,” I cannot imagine a world without my virtual outlets. MySpace taught me how to make friends. AIM taught me how to communicate with others. LiveJournal taught me how to write. And now, Facebook is trying to teach me how to live. It seems as if every aspect of my life is somehow funneled through Facebook, and I’m no longer okay with it. According statistics by The Neilsen Company, U.S, users spend about 23% of their time online on social networking sites, illustrating just how much of a hold sites such as Facebook have on the minds of the masses.

Undoubtedly, Facebook has some serious perks. Because of the site, I have reconnected and stayed in contact with people who I never would have previously. In addition, I can effortlessly communicate with my friends and family. However, I am uncomfortable with how important this service is to me, and how I now feel that I cannot properly function without it. Conversations I’ve had with my peers suggest that I am not alone in feeling this way; several individuals reported that they would get off Facebook if they could, but the fear of social isolation is so great that they cannot make the break. Rather than having their life enhanced by the service, many users appear to feel trapped. Better yet, countless studies point to Facebook as a serious cause of depression.

However, recent data implies that Facebook may be losing its hold on the masses. It is said that six million Americans deactivated their accounts in May alone. In addition, marketing research firm Inside Facebook reports that the service lost a significant amount of users in Canada, Britain, Norway, and Russia as well. This may be the beginning of a larger trend of people becoming conscious of the implications of their social networking habits. In addition, recent privacy scares undoubtedly raise questions about how the information shared and thus compiled on Facebook really affects the individual. Facial recognition technology recently unveiled already has the internet buzzing with concern.

Now, the question arises: where does social networking go from here? Countless contenders already exist, but currently lack the immense following that makes Facebook so prevalent, as outlined by Liz Gaines in her NPR Talk of the Nation interview. Personally, I can’t wait for Facebook to meet a worthwhile competitor, and believe that it is only a matter of time. I have looked at some other options that provide the same sharing capabilities without the threats of dependency and privacy exploitation, such as Gogobeans, and it seems that there are alternatives out there that offer what I am interested in.

Please comment and share your thoughts on how Facebook has impacted your life, and where you would like to see social networking headed.

This is the first of a series of op-ed posts aimed at starting a comprehensive dialogue around Gogobeans.