Part two: twitter.com

These two tweets from Michael Stephens got me thinking that this would be a good Branch to start:

"Transparency is evolving into an even more clearly defined “full frontal” strategy for some corporations - will libraries follow suit?"

I've talked about this topic briefly here: justinthelibrarian.com

and am curious to what you think about the evolution of Transparency and libraries.

My thoughts: What have we got to lose by putting honesty out there? Why do we need to hide anything?

I've always been the first person to question people when they say that they want privacy on the Internet. I feel that it's important to remember that if you don't want someone to know about something, *don't post it on the Internet*. That is your best form of privacy and the only sure way to have it.

That being said, I fully support the idea of a transparent Internet. As I've discussed in previous Branches, forcing people to take responsibility for what they post will both assist in cutting down on the anonymity that happens with online hate attacks and also help people more fully create a story line with their lives to share.

If you want to share on the Internet, I don't see why you shouldn't just be open and embrace it. (:

@Nick: Good point with this:

" I feel that it's important to remember that if you don't want someone to know about something, *don't post it on the Internet*. That is your best form of privacy and the only sure way to have it."

I agree 100% and I feel that in order for that to be "standard knowledge" with the rest of the world, we should be teaching that to kids, teens, and adults. Corporations adopting (what Michael is calling) a “full frontal” will help the public wrap their head around this idea.

You are what you want to be.

Transparency in government is one of the buzz words I would love to throw out. I am all in favor of easy to find and understand information about the who, what, and how much but the differences between TMI, smoke and mirrors and true sharing of appropriate information have not been defined.
I am at my office during what should be my lunch hour but I can't leave because we are short staffed (as usual) Not all information, even government information belongs in the public domain. (Want to know how much money I make? It's on a website maineopengov.org.)

I'd be interested in knowing what is meant by "full frontal strategy." How does this relate to a library? I'd love it if we could actively highlight the amazing accomplishments and professional recognition that our librarians have achieved to our patron community. Let people know that those serving them have proven themselves to their own peers. However, I've been told that patrons are only interested in what we can do for them here and now, not what leaders we are in the field. I suppose our day-to-day interactions should demonstrate our abilities. However, how would a patron know that that the paper unjammer can do even more for them?

I know that is tricky, since you don't want to be bragging. Perhaps it could be sorta like going to a doctor or other professional office with awards/certificates on the wall. You'd see the librarian has been noted as an expert/knowledgeable in their field.

/tangent

I am trying to embrace transparency, but I understand the need for anonymity as well. For example, people who participate in online fandoms. These fan communities are highly active and engaged, but the participants may not want others to know their interests.

Another case are people hiding from abusers. They should be protected. Revealing who you are should always be voluntarily.

@Amanda

Regarding the last piece there, the inherent beauty of if everyone was unable to use anonymity on the Internet is that abusers would be doing it publicly and wouldn't be able to get away with it unlike usual. Now, that being said, yes, that's speaking as if we are in a perfect world, which I understand we aren't, but the point is, making people use their real identities associates how they behave with THEM, not with an online persona that someone may or may not be able to track.

In the case of fandoms and such, yes, I fully respect and agree with that. If you role play or such, you will be using a fake persona and therefore I find it acceptable. But in the social media realm, we need to rid ourselves of what we hide behind.

I'm still not sure that even with social media people should be required to reveal their real names. Sure, if you're doing it professionally. I am also thinking of several different types of bad online behavior. There are:
1) spammers -- whatever, delete/block them even though it's annoying.
2) people who say harsh things in disagreement
3) those who are pointedly harassing you
4) people who stalk you

In most cases, I'd say that after a few years on the net, you'd be able to shrug off the spammers and people who disagree with you in a harsh manner or use language you don't appreciate. 3 & 4 are more difficult to be freed from especially since laws are still weak regarding online interactions.

So, you should be able to stay anonymous as long as you're playing by the rules of not harassing, threatening, stalking someone, or engaging in real world activities that harm someone (golden example: child pornography).

I think I would support a way to find someone who is making serious threats (like bomb or death), but it should require a strict legal precedent where it has to be proven to a judge that this person's information and location needs to be found out. However, even then, you probably cannot prove absolutely that it was person A in this building doing it and not person B.

@Amanda

I mean no offense when I say this, because I respect and fully understand where you are coming from, but this exact argument hearkens to a very similar discussion happening over guns in our country. Why should the "good" people have to get rid of their guns if there are "bad" people who have them? That is an extreme example, but, it makes my point apparent.

The main thing here is something that you touched on, though. It is imperative that we have stricter laws on illegal activities on the Internet, including hate speech and online abuse. That is not to say that a government should take over being the "police" of the world wide web, but there needs to be measures in place to stop these acts when they happen, just like offline.

I think we will have to agree to disagree then!

Ah, I thought of something else. People who have sensitive or non-mainstream aspects of their lives (political, sexual, medical, etc.) may not find acceptance within their own communities. So they should also be free to communicate and form new friendships online with others who can help without endangering their lives.

Of course, we both know your points and mine are both standard arguments online for other side. I'm still not sure how transparency relates to libraries unless it's about financial data or purchasing policies.