The Semantic Web

Might some of them infringe copyrights?

• What does the cloud expect of you? Are any of your documents "discriminatory based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or age?

• Does the cloud back up your data? A typical contract stipulates that you bear "sole responsibility for adequate security, protection, and backup."

• What if you do business abroad? Your memos and e-mail are subject to USA Patriot Act searches when they cross the border if the "cloud" is actually located in the U.S.

• What if you don't pay the bill? Might all your data get deleted abruptly

• Who else might see the data?

Enter the Cloud with Caution Here are nine questions to ask before trusting your company's data or computing tasks to an outside provider

new distributors of online content — think YouTube — are relying on an open data spigot to make their business plans work.

at a time when video and interactive games are becoming popular, the experiments could have huge implications for the future of the Web.

Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic

The next generation of social networking will give people more tools for defining smaller online communities in a way that mimics the real world

“One thing that’s very broken in the social tools we have right now is context and boundaries and a sense of who I want to share what with,”

Researchers help define next-generation social networking

Weizenbaum’s Computer Power and Human Reason

Mumford’s later two-volume study The Myth of the Machine.

Lewis Mumford discusses the impact of the mechanical clock in his 1934 Technics and Civilization.

I found the story of Friedrich Nietzsche’s typewriter in J. C. Nyíri's essay Thinking with a Word Processor as well as Friedrich A. Kittler’s winningly idiosyncratic Gramophone, Film, Typewriter and Darren Wershler-Henry’s history of the typewriter, The Iron Whim.

Maryanne Wolf’s fascinating Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain

study of the behavior of online researchers is here.

Scott Karp’s blog post about how he’s lost his capacity to read books can be found here, and Bruce Friedman’s post can be found here. Both Karp and Friedman believe that what they’ve gained from the Internet outweighs what they’ve lost.

The essay builds on my book The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google, particularly the final chapter, “iGod.”

Since the publication of my essay Is Google Making Us Stupid? in The Atlantic, I’ve received several requests for pointers to sources and related readings. I’ve tried to round them up below.

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?": sources and notes

“It’s just like living in a village, where it’s actually hard to lie because everybody knows the truth already,” Tufekci said. “The current generation is never unconnected. They’re never losing touch with their friends. So we’re going back to a more normal place, historically. If you look at human history, the idea that you would drift through life, going from new relation to new relation, that’s very new. It’s just the 20th century.”

This is the ultimate effect of the new awareness: It brings back the dynamics of small-town life, where everybody knows your business.

Yet Ahan knows that she cannot simply walk away from her online life, because the people she knows online won’t stop talking about her, or posting unflattering photos. She needs to stay on Facebook just to monitor what’s being said about her. This is a common complaint I heard, particularly from people in their 20s who were in college when Facebook appeared and have never lived as adults without online awareness. For them, participation isn’t optional. If you don’t dive in, other people will define who you are. So you constantly stream your pictures, your thoughts, your relationship status and what you’re doing — right now! — if only to ensure the virtual version of you is accurate, or at least the one you want to present to the world.

“These technologies allow you to be much more broadly friendly, but you just spread yourself much more thinly over many more people.”

an even more subtle danger: that the sheer ease of following her friends’ updates online has made her occasionally lazy about actually taking the time to visit them in person.

Parasocial relationships can use up some of the emotional space in our Dunbar number, crowding out real-life people.

It is also possible, though, that this profusion of weak ties can become a problem. If you’re reading daily updates from hundreds of people about whom they’re dating and whether they’re happy, it might, some critics worry, spread your emotional energy too thin, leaving less for true intimate relationships.

This rapid growth of weak ties can be a very good thing. Sociologists have long found that “weak ties” greatly expand your ability to solve problems.

But where their sociality had truly exploded was in their “weak ties” — loose acquaintances, people they knew less well.

Many maintained that their circle of true intimates, their very close friends and family, had not become bigger. Constant online contact had made those ties immeasurably richer, but it hadn’t actually increased the number of them; deep relationships are still predicated on face time, and there are only so many hours in the day for that.

Are people who use Facebook and Twitter increasing their Dunbar number, because they can so easily keep track of so many more people?

He theorized that ape and human brains could manage only a finite number of grooming relationships: unless we spend enough time doing social grooming — chitchatting, trading gossip or, for apes, picking lice — we won’t really feel that we “know” someone well enough to call him a friend. Dunbar noticed that ape groups tended to top out at 55 members. Since human brains were proportionally bigger, Dunbar figured that our maximum number of social connections would be similarly larger: about 150 on average.

In 1998, the anthropologist Robin Dunbar argued that each human has a hard-wired upper limit on the number of people he or she can personally know at one time.

But Seery made a point I heard from many others: awareness tools aren’t as cognitively demanding as an e-mail message. E-mail is something you have to stop to open and assess. It’s personal; someone is asking for 100 percent of your attention. In contrast, ambient updates are all visible on one single page in a big row, and they’re not really directed at you. This makes them skimmable, like newspaper headlines; maybe you’ll read them all, maybe you’ll skip some.

Ambient intimacy becomes a way to “feel less alone,” as more than one Facebook and Twitter user told me.

You could also regard the growing popularity of online awareness as a reaction to social isolation

It can also lead to more real-life contact, because when one member of Haley’s group decides to go out to a bar or see a band and Twitters about his plans, the others see it, and some decide to drop by — ad hoc, self-organizing socializing. And when they do socialize face to face, it feels oddly as if they’ve never actually been apart.

This is the paradox of ambient awareness. Each little update — each individual bit of social information — is insignificant on its own, even supremely mundane. But taken together, over time, the little snippets coalesce into a surprisingly sophisticated portrait of your friends’ and family members’ lives

The growth of ambient intimacy can seem like modern narcissism taken to a new, supermetabolic extreme — the ultimate expression of a generation of celebrity-addled youths who believe their every utterance is fascinating and ought to be shared with the world.

In the last year, there has been a boom in tools for “microblogging”

Social scientists have a name for this sort of incessant online contact. They call it “ambient awareness.” It is, they say, very much like being physically near someone and picking up on his mood through the little things he does — body language, sighs, stray comments — out of the corner of your eye.

he said. “And at times that means stretching people and getting them to be comfortable with things they aren’t yet comfortable with. A lot of this is just social norms catching up with what technology is capable of.”

Users’ worries about their privacy seemed to vanish within days, boiled away by their excitement at being so much more connected to their friends.

Zuckerberg, surprised by the outcry, quickly made two decisions. The first was to add a privacy feature to News Feed, letting users decide what kind of information went out.

Facebook had lost its vestigial bit of privacy. For students, it was now like being at a giant, open party filled with everyone you know, able to eavesdrop on what everyone else was saying, all the time.

the first reaction, generally, was one of panic. Just about every little thing you changed on your page was now instantly blasted out to hundreds of friends

a single page that — like a social gazette from the 18th century — delivered a long list of up-to-the-minute gossip about their friends, around the clock, all in one place. “A stream of everything that’s going on in their lives,”

News Feed, a built-in service that would actively broadcast changes in a user’s page to every one of his or her friends

Brave New World of Digital Intimacy