A Bill of Rights for Social Media Sites?

Should we have a Bill of Rights for social media sites? It’s something we need to consider as these software become integral parts of our daily communications.

Some might say such a document isn’t needed, that we aught to take a buyer-be-ware approach.

But I would argue that the core issue of the privacy threats of new media isn’t really Privacy, but rather Dignity.

Having to go through fifty steps to set your privacy settings is undignified, even if your privacy is ensured.

So, if we value human dignity, we aught to consider standards of Dignity. A Bill of Rights, even if unenforceable, may at least remind us of the disturbing force of social technologies.

What’s your take?

Healthcare Uses of Social Media

Last week I presented at the Social Media Plus Summit and discussed the importance of understanding the nature of emerging media before just jumping into the latest craze.

Healthcare adoption of emerging technologies (not just new media) needs to be done with a robust understanding of them in accordance with strategic visions. Privacy isn’t the only consideration in healthcare: dignity, content, information and excellence in communication and community-building are just a few of the others.

I wanted to go beyond that typical social media hype and give a deep view of what’s needed in healthcare communications. Included are some slides on how Information and Content related with each other in order to provide true empowerment for patients.

You can view my presentation below or over here (there’s also another copy here).

Too often, organizations and industries attempt to integrate new technologies without delving deeper into their ramifications, possibilities and limits. As a result, they often run into trouble and then back away, leaving internal champions frustrated. Understanding is the first step toward doing. Paradoxically, though, with emerging technologies you need to do a bit of both at the same time.

If you would like to see me speak to your organization or help conduct personalized workshops and bring some perspective and orientation on process design, email or call me: info@CareVocate.com – 484-372-0451.

A Question Concerning the Ethics of Social Media Presence

Facebook Business Solutions
Image by davemc500hats via Flickr

Question: If, as CEO of a company, you personally and passionately oppose Facebook’s Privacy policies and methods, would you withhold having any presence on the site, regardless of what it may cost you?

I’m an advocate for intelligent adoption of emerging technologies and media for individuals, non-profits and businesses. I believe they can be useful, pliant and remarkable tools as part of larger internal and external strategies. But I also believe that the uses of these media need to be integrated in accordance with the specific needs and resources of an enterprise within the larger contexts of what it means to do business.

But one matter is often overlooked, which is what I raised in the question above. What if you believe that a particular medium is run by a company who – in your eyes – has questionable or no ethical standards? Would you shrug off the matter and ultimately decide that you need to reach your customers on Facebook or Twitter or on any other medium which you don’t own and have no say in?

After all, when you set up a Facebook Page, you’re effectively entering a business relationship with Facebook – even if you don’t run ads or otherwise cut a check. Just as any smart and ethical executive would question entering a partnership with an un-trustworthy vendor, shouldn’t executives similarly consider the trustworthiness of the companies who run media sites?

I won’t answer the question here. But I would suggest, that executive leaders (and agencies) fully understand not only the properties of the media companies they use but also the ethical values and practices those companies employ.

We are living in a time when leaders must possess a minimal understanding and proficiency of emerging media. That entails not only a technical understanding of them but also an ethical wisdom and awareness.

Given Facebook’s changing policies with respect to Privacy, Healthcare executives must especially be pondering this question. As my friend Faisal Qureshi aptly stated:

@PhilBaumann if you're a Healthcare CEO you need to be thinking long and hard about using #fb in your marketing mix. #hcsm

@PhilBaumann if you're a Healthcare CEO you need to be thinking long and hard about using #fb in your marketing mix. #hcsm

Companies, and the agencies that advise them, must never forget the fundamental dividing difference between traditional media (print, radio, TV) and emerging media (Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Forums): the former are hardware while the later are software. Hardware is relatively static and straightforward. Software, on the other hand, is pliant, elusive and unpredictable. Facebook isn’t a as much a medium as it is software. Thus the ethical thinking on media like Facebook, must take this key difference in mind.

Of all of the technologies which  our species has brought forth into the world, perhaps it’s the Question Mark which is our crowning achievement. And with that, I repeat my question to you:

If, as CEO of a company, you personally and passionately oppose Facebook’s Privacy policies and methods, would you withhold having any presence on the site, regardless of what it may cost you?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Can We Ever End Social Media Nonsense?

Tweety Bird

Disclosure: I’m fascinated with Technology in general and social software and communities in particular. I’m one of Twitter’s biggest fanboys (here’s proof). I blog and  tweet often about these media because I believe it’s important that we understand our relationship with Technology (and for me, Technology is more than just gadgets – for instance: I consider Law, Democracy, Religion and Capitalism technologies – but that’s another post).

I also believe that we need better or more original conversations about the Web and its deepening influences on our lives, our businesses, our sciences and our health care. Social Media pundits (or however they refer to themselves: gurus, evangelists, mavens) for too long have held the dominant voice in these discussions.

One phenomenon which our Web has engendered is the ability for virtually anyone to express their opinions and experiences and perspectives in accordance with their mastery of media. And therein lies a pesky issue: one’s accumulation of social attention for a particular field doesn’t always correlate with their expertise.

Over the last decade, many brilliant contributors have offered important and refreshing perspectives on the promises of the web. But some of these ideas have yet to be vetted and validated by closer scrutiny and scientific inquiry. The truth is not always intuitive. It’s easy, therefore, for appealing ideas to have fundamental flaws.

Here are three beliefs which many social media enthusiasts propound virtually daily. I’m not going to say that these beliefs are wrong – or right. But I think we need to scrutinize them much more deeply and publicly before they become permanently embedded in our collective conscious.

  1. Privacy Is Dead. Is it? In some regards, my opinion is that it is. Furthermore, I think that may not be such a bad thing: opening ourselves up can provide community benefits. Health care data has the potential to improve our medical knowledge – and yet we have many critical concerns about how we share that kind of data. Privacy is more than data. We shouldn’t make the mistake of confusing one aspect of privacy with other features which make us human. Don’t be too surprised if privacy resurrects itself in 2010.
  2. Social Media Is Democratizing. Are you sure? Our species is replete with examples of disappointed hopes that novel technologies release us from cunning manipulation and the concentration of dangerous powers. Don’t get me wrong: elements of our evolving interactive technologies are doing wonderful things for democratic efforts. The danger in thinking that these media are absolutely democratizing is that we will acquire a mentality which overlooks those tiny dislocations of freedom which lead to tyranny – and it may be us who abet terror. For it is possible that future tyrannies will not be some centrally-governed dictatorship: rather, it may be ourselves who generate communities of sibling rivalry.
  3. Traditional Marketing Is Dead. No, it isn’t dead. Traditional marketing was just incomplete. New media is helping to complete the circle or marketing life cycles. There’s no doubt that marketing will have to undergo radical changes in beliefs and hypotheses and models and practices. Why? Because realtime conversations will forever take place and businesses owe it to themselves to invest in the training and efforts to be remarkable with their ears and eyes and voices. What’s dead in traditional marketing is talk-to-the-hand and clockwork-orange marketing. Most traditional marketing last century was atrociously mediocre and annoying – utterly lacking in creativity and kindness and care. All that the new media are doing is making it clear that the cost of those approaches are skyrocketing.

We need smarter voices to contribute to our understanding of the Web. The marketers have had the loudest voices – some of them have been quite enlightening. But marketing is a tiny component of how we can use the Web. (Plus: Marketing isn’t a science. Physics is a science. We need more scientists.)

We need more physicians and nurses and physicists and journalists to profess their views. But in order for them to do any of that, they will have to master the skills demanded of new media. Just because many of these voices have been a bit missing in online discussions doesn’t mean that the louder voices of amateurish meme-makers are the right ones.

There’s a lot of nonsense that takes place on tech blogs and social media blogs. Twitter has become a virtual cesspool of retweeted rubbish. Can we end all this social media nonsense? Probably not. But we can counter-balance it with the wisdom of those who have deeper and broader real-life experiences which the social medi(ocrity) lack.

I hope that in 2010 we hear a lot more skeptics (note: skepticism is not the same as cynicism).

I hope that in 2010 journalism makes a come-back. And I hope it doesn’t take a painful failure of public mutual misleading on Twitter to demonstrate the need for rigorous journalism.Traditional journalist may have missed the opportunity of a lifetime to learn the powers of the Web. But the newer generation will have to do the hard work of dovetailing the structures of journalistic discipline and integrity with the needs of a real-time Web.

I hope that in 2010 more  doctors and  nurses start blogging and tweeting.

For example: there’s a  chat on Twitter which aims to discuss how healthcare communications can improve patient relations via social media: but that conversation needs to involve a lot more clinical practitioners and patients who more fully understand the nuances of health care in all its forms. It’s a start in the right direction, but it won’t evolve unless more diverse and experienced perspectives enter the conversations.

We need to be clear in our understanding of Technology and the Web. We need to dampen the retweeting of nonsense and pay more attention to what matters most. I’ll close this post with a message from  William Stafford. It’s the most important sequence of words every written about social media (too bad William can’t blog and tweet):

A Ritual To Read To Each Other

If you don’t know the kind of person I am
and I don’t know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star.

For there is many a small betrayal in the mind,
a shrug that lets the fragile sequence break
sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood
storming out to play through the broken dyke.

And as elephants parade holding each elephant’s tail,
but if one wanders the circus won’t find the park,
I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.

And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider–
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.

For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give–yes or no, or maybe–
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Privacy Matters: Dirty Little Secrets Are Essential to Your Health

Psst. Come closer here so I can whisper in your delicate ear: I have dirty little secrets. Not bodies-in-the-basement dirty little secrets, but those tiny wishes and memories and thoughts that arise within the experiences of being human. I keep them in a province called Privacy. Entrance is by invitation only.

You have them too. You and I could get very hurt if our dirty little secrets were pried from our hearts without our consent. Our very integrity as human beings would assaulted by shame or guilt or betrayal or depression or anger or abandonment or terror. In short, our health would be compromised. Health. The very word conveys whole. Health is the integrity to be alive. But integrity isn’t perfection.

And therein lies the beauty of our dirty little secrets: they remind us of our limits; they keep us from making mistakes; and they inspire us to act on desires we pain ourselves to suppress for too long.


Every day, as the Web expands and quickens and infiltrates its way across and through our world, the boundaries of our privacy diminish. There’s not much we can do: Technology does what it wants eventually – one way or another. What does it want? I’ll pass on that for now but I can tell you this: technology doesn’t want your privacy. The question for you then is: do you want your privacy?

For Privacy is more than just data and information. In that sense, privacy – in the face of technology – could be considered dying or even dead. We will have to accept that aspects of our privacy will be undermined. But the more fundamental components of Privacy are far more important and vital and eternal than mere data. They are: dignity, solitude and healing.


The purpose of any civilization is to defend dignity. Once a people – or person – loses dignity they are finished. Nothing is more painful than the loss of dignity. Even in death, it’s the dignity of our dislocation from this life that matters. We must remember this when thinking about our relationship with technology. Dignity is even more important than private information: I may have to violate your privacy in order to save your life. But I don’t have to wreck your dignity. And yet, without privacy in our lives our dignity cannot mature.

Solitude isn’t loneliness. Solitude is a marvelous paradox. Solitude is what happens when we access the greater world through a private connection. Without solitude, there is no peace. Without peace there is no health. Without privacy there is no solitude.

Healing can be conceived as a communal process of enabling natural processes. But ultimately, healing is a private matter: all of us who’ve been wounded – by broken skin or heart or pride – need moments of privacy to rest and reflect and hope.


All this leads us back to our dirty little secrets: the secrets we keep are there to defend ourselves, foster our wholeness and provide our humanity. Until we find the freedom or courage or need to turn, face and name our darker parts, keeping dirty little secrets is part of a life-long healing process. Dirty little secrets are private messages from your own life telling you – and only you – what work you have to do. They’re private because you’re the only one who can do the work.

Lastly, keeping our dirty little secrets is a way to protect others. They’re part of communal health. Don’t believe me? Go ask her: how much better in bed was he than me? She may or may not be in a mood to reveal her secret – depending on how you treat her – but I’m pretty sure you really don’t wanna know the answer. See what I mean? :)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Health Care Privacy: Is It Worth Fighting For?

Is the right to Privacy the right war in the 21st Century or is it Dignity? It’s hard to abandon the ideas we grew up with. It’s harder still to deal with those ideas when they turn on you. You and I grew up in a culture that has highly valued privacy. It certainly is an important value. But the web is changing our ability to maintain privacy. In health care, it will become increasingly expensive to maintain patient privacy. Our policies on health care (eg. HIPAA) can actually hinder our right to privacy and undermine progressive efforts to improve health care.

So: is our right to health care worth fighting for? At what point do we decide that other rights may be more important to defend?

I’m not suggesting that we devalue our privacy. In light of the direction we are headed with exponential technological changes, we will need a re-think of which of our values are worth fighting for. I think the right to Dignity is a fight worth fighting for, perhaps even more important in this century than Privacy.

What do you think? Is our focus on privacy the wrong focus? Is it time that we challenged our assumptions and values about privacy? Exercise your right to speak.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Virtual Omnipresence

Electric field lines emanating from a point po...

Image via Wikipedia

How fast can you change your life?

Pretty soon, computation will stream like electric power: you’ll still use hardware, but your information will be ubiquitous. The applications that we have gotten used to on our desktops, laptops and mobile devices will increasingly move into a Cloud.

Enterprises won’t need to invest in as much capital equipment for their computational needs. They’ll be able to pull computation down from the Cloud. Individuals will be able to access information from virtually anywhere.

We are swiftly moving into a world where data will be streaming all around us. Our lives will become increasingly dependent on a gigantic but seamless flow of data. For all practical purposes, your virtual presence will be everywhere: it will become virtually omnipresent.

There are two problems with virtual omnipresence:

  1. When you’re everywere, you’re nowhere
  2. You cannot hide

These two problems, which seem to form a paradox, have important implications for privacy. Some say privacy is dead. Perhaps it is or soon will be. Whatever its specific fate, our conception of it will undergo radical changes. As Rainer Rilke points out:

…for here there is no place that does not see you.

One of the toughest challenges we have as we enter virtual omnipresence is our search for meaning. As abundance of data swells so does the scarcity of meaning. Finding meaning has been, and always will be, a central quest of being human. You might be able to search for a needle in a haystack, but will the needle have any meaning for you? Ah, there’s a question.

I have no doubt that our brains will plumb meaning out of the world. Still: how will we find meaning in a world inundated with downpours of data? What changes will you need to make? How fast can you change your life?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]