QotW5: Is that the real "YOU" shopping?

After reading “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community” by Judith Donath (1996), identify an online identity you own or are familiar with, show where it is virtually situated (e.g. email, blogs, forums, IM, IRC, MMORPG), and how this chosen identity establishes reputation (i.e. via what kind of interactions). Finally, show how someone else could possibly assume this chosen online identity. (i.e. identity theft)

QotW5: Is that the real “you” shopping?

What is an online identity?

An online identity is a way for other users in an established network to identify or recognize a user. The main purpose is to differentiate one user from another and also allows users to note how the member contributes to that network. Just like our identity cards that are used for recognition purposes in real life, our online identities help other users identify us and allow a community of users to recognize which members belong to their clan. The only difference is we do not really know who that member is in real life as an online identity can be faked.

While we cannot change our identity in real life, as our physical selves are tangible, we can choose to be anything in our online identity. As succinctly summarized by Wikipedia:

“Although some people prefer to use their real names online, most Internet users prefer to identify themselves by means of pseudonyms, which reveal varying amounts of personally identifiable information. In some online contexts, including Internet forums, MUDs, instant messaging, and massively multiplayer online games, users can represent themselves visually by choosing an avatar, an icon-sized graphic image. As other users interact with an established online identity, it acquires a reputation, which enables them to decide whether the identity is worthy of trust.” (“Online identity”, 2007).

Is that “You” shopping?

One area where online identities are commonly used is that of online auctions. While some people use their real names for their User Identification (UserID), this is not very advisable as packages that are sent out tend to have the seller’s address (a return address is required in case of a failed delivery) and this could mean that the seller would be easy to track down. Thus, most savvy users tend to use pseudonyms to buy or sell online.

The use of
an avatar, a pseudonym and the user's reputation
on Yahoo! Auctions

On Yahoo! Auctions, users can now place avatars near their user names to visually identify themselves. Most of the avatars on Yahoo! Auctions are a thumbnail sized icon of either a male or a female to allow buyers to see whom they are buying from or sellers to see who is buying from them. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that an avatar of a female equals to a real female user as the Internet allows users to hide behind a cloak of anonymity and the freedom to choose an identity that they want.

Reputation, Reputation, Reputation!!!

In online auctions, a user’s reputation is established via the ratings system. The rating system works by having both parties leave positive, negative or neutral comments to the ones engaged in a transaction. A smooth transaction will mean that both parties will leave positive comments on each other's page and will be rated as a "Good" buyer/seller. A terrible transaction will mean that both parties will leave negative comments about the transaction and why each party deserved a "Bad" rating. A "Neutral" comment does not leave any impact on the rating of the user. A higher rating with little or even no negative comments means that the seller/buyer is a trustworthy one. As shown in the picture below, though the seller, bratzplace, had 3 “Bad” ratings, she had 1451 “Good” comments from other users. Furthermore, she has earned a trustworthy reputation as a seller, seeing that she has many customers who have continually bought from her.

User's ratings = Reputation on Yahoo! Auctions

What makes online auctions unique is that you do not really need to know the online identity of the buyer/seller in order to engage in a transaction with the user. Donath (1996) noted that knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction. However, this is not necessarily the case in online auctions since only the online identity of the user can be seen. The reputation of the user that one is dealing with is in fact, more crucial, as money and goods are exchanged without knowing the real identity of the user on the other end of the transaction. Furthermore, effective communication takes precedence over knowing one’s online identity.

Seeing Double … elbuoD gnieeS

While it is possible to copy an identity of someone similar, it is almost impossible to assume the same identity as a popular or well-reputed seller. Yahoo! Auctions ensures that the UserID of the person does not match someone else’s and this occurs when an account is being created. This is a similar situation when we sign up for an email account. A message would usually say something along the lines of “this UserID is taken, please choose another” and the email service would provide other similar IDs with numbers at the end. For example, if I wanted the ID “hot_hunk” and if that was taken, I would have to choose others provided such as “hot_hunk15” or “hot_hunk69”.

Hence, it is quite difficult to assume another’s identity on online auctions, as the service requires one to sign up for an account with different user identifications (IDs) to differentiate users.

Phishing... is the catch of the day!

However, the other way to assume someone’s chosen identity is to have access into that user’s account. One method is by “phishing”, where it is a type of deception designed to steal your valuable personal data, such as credit card numbers, passwords, account data, or other information (Microsoft, 2006). A user logs in into an identical page set up by hackers and with the available information, the hackers could easily log into the user’s account and change the password and secret question so that its original owner would be declined access to his/her account. The hacker could then wreck havoc by using that account to bid on items and not pay, leading to negative ratings left on the user’s account. Thus, users should be careful when logging on to their accounts and check that the page has anti-phising ware. In Yahoo!’s case, a sign- in seal consisting of a picture or a text seal could be uploaded to the user’s account before logging in. This sign-in seal is only accessible through that particular computer so as to deter “phishing” activities.

Yahoo!'s Sign-In Seal

Online banking is also a popular service that most auctioneers use to pay for their purchases. Banks have to think a step ahead of phishers as services involving money are highly susceptible to phishing and fraudulent activities. Banks such as DBS iBanking have introduced a second layer of security. This second factor authentication (2FA) uses a security device that generates a unique dynamic security PIN to act as the 2FA for validation and authentication purposes.

Use this to access your DBS iBank!

While there are no foolproof methods to ensure that no one will assume one’s online identity, one should be vigilant in handing out personal information online and also check to see that the page is encrypted and is up to date. Never enter personal information into suspicious looking websites that offers “too good to be true” contests and be wary of emails or anyone asking for your credit card number or passwords online.

References

Donath, J.S. (1996) “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community” Retrieved February 16, 2007 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Online identity. (2007, February 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 18, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_identity&oldid=108207999

Microsoft (2006, September 14). Recognize phishing scams and fraudulent e-mails (Article posted on web site Microsoft Corporation). Retrieved February 18, 2007, from http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/email/phishing.mspx

.: This entry was awarded the Special Mention for Week 5! :.

QotW4: To give and to (indirectly) receive

After reading “The Economies of Online Cooperation” by Kollock (1999), identify an “economy” that you participate in (or with which you are at least familiar), and show that it is a gift economy.

QotW4: To give and to (indirectly) receive

In today’s day and age, where one tends to receive rather than give, it is hard to imagine that altruism exists. Yet it does in exist in the online community in the form of a gift economy. Such an economy benefits users of the online community and reciprocity is not a must, though it is highly encouraged.

What is a gift economy?

According to Rheingold (1993), he noted that a gift economy is one where help and information is offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quo. This can occur where free help and information could be given out to complete strangers that one may never see.

There is a difference between transactions in gift transactions and commodity transactions. In a gift economy, gift exchanges do not involve explicit bargaining or demands that the gift be reciprocated, but a relationship in which there is only giving and no receiving is unlikely to last. In contrast, a commodity transaction is on where no obligation exists after the exchange is consummated (Kollock, 1999). Furthermore, the individuals who exchange gifts in a gift economy are part of an ongoing interdependent relationship. In a commodities transaction, the individuals are self-interested, independent actors (Carrier, 1991). Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that gift economies are driven by social relations while commodity economies are driven by price (Kollack, 1999). Thus, initiating and maintaining social relations is a key concept as to why gift economies exist. As noted by Bell (1991), gift economies increase the range and diversity of one's social network.

Gift Economies are Public Goods

Gift economies exist as users share similar interests and have nuggets of information to share with others. People who need help also head to avenues such as forums to seek information. In this sense, a forum could be considered a public good. Kollock (1999) noted that one person's consumption of the good does not reduce the amount available to another. Secondly, it is to some degree non-excludable in that it is difficult or impossible to exclude individuals from benefiting from the good. Therein lies the question as to who would produce such goods. Yet, there are certain motivations as to why people contribute to gift economies.

Why people contribute to gift economies

There are several reasons why people contribute to gift economies. The 3 main reasons as noted by Kollock (1999) are reciprocity, reputation and a sense of efficacy.

1. Anticipated reciprocity

One possibility is that a person is motivated to contribute valuable information to the group in the expectation that one will receive useful help and information in return (Kollock, 1999). Indeed, some observers (Wellman & Gulia 1997; Rheingold 1993) have reported that individuals who regularly offer advice and information seem to receive more help more quickly when they ask for something.

2. Reputation

The next possibility is concerning the effect of one’s reputation, which likely improves when one frequently and willingly contributes to the community. Kollock (1999) reported that if this is the concern of an individual, contributions would likely be increased to the degree that the contribution is visible to the community as a whole and to the extent there is some recognition of the person's contributions. Such recognition of the person’s contributions would lead to feel that he has a stake in that community that he shares with others, thus, it motivates him to share whenever possible.

3. Sense of efficacy

The third possibility is that the person’s valuable information has an impact on his virtual surroundings. If a sense of efficacy is what is motivating someone, then contributions are likely to be increased to the extent that people can observe changes in the community attributable to their actions. It may also be the case that as the size of the group increases; one will be more motivated to contribute because the increasing size provides a larger audience and a potentially greater impact for one's actions (Kollock 1999).

Forums as gift economies

Forums can be considered as an online gift economy. People with similar passions cluster around a community and share valuable information. In one forum that I have to come to know of (http://www.flowerpod.com.sg/), it is an example of a gift economy where many females head to and share information on new products that they have tried-and-tested, places to check out, salons to avoid, et cetra. Such information is a treasure trove for women who rely on the information of others to know the best places and bargains. Speaking of bargains, this forum also has weekly/monthly sprees that allow members to consolidate their overseas purchases and this saves them shipping costs as they buy in bulk.

Flowerpod is considered a gift economy as it not only provides higher rankings for regular members who share information (a form of recognition), but also increases the range and diversity of one's online social network.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a gift economy is an economic system where an exchange of good and services does not explicitly require reciprocity. This system may end have having free riders but different motivations to contribute implicitly result in more people wanting to contribute for the good of the public. Forums are an example of gift economies and other online communities are other forms of gift economies too, as the broad reach of the Internet allows information to be widely shared and can be easily maintained by the users.

References:

Bell, D. (1991). Modes of Exchange: Gift and Commodity. The Journal of Socio-Economics 20(2): 155-167.

Carrier, J. (1991). Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange. Sociological Forum 6(1): 119-136.

Kollock, P. (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace" Retrieved February 6, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1997). Virtual Communities as Communities. Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization, edited by Peter Kollock and Marc Smith. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

QotW3: File sharing - Why users should pay and why content creators should lower prices

How can we accommodate both the interests of content creators and the public good? What technical and social structures are needed to do so?

QotW3: File sharing - Why users should pay and why content creators should lower prices.

The Straits Times, February 3 2007, Review

With today’s broad reach of technology with the Internet, songs are easily available for free. All that is required is the program to download songs and a suitable Internet connection speed to upload/download songs. By simply typing in the song title or the song artist, one could find many different users to download from. As such, many users regularly download songs off the Net for free, much to the dismay of the recording industry.

File sharing is perhaps the most common online activities (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005) where users can upload/download music off the Internet and pass it around through Peer-to-Peer websites such as OpenNap, LimeWire, KaZzA. While this may seem cost effective to most users, the industry has been complaining of failing sales due to file sharing. Claiming that file sharing was the culprit, the recording industry started suing thousands of individuals who share files (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, p.2). Such an event also happened in Singapore, where seven homes were raided by police as part of a crackdown on the illegal downloading of copyrighted music from the Internet (Ramesh, 2006).

Yet, Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf (2005) reported that file sharing allows users to learn about music they would not otherwise be exposed to. This learning may promote new sales and from my perspective, is true to a large extent when friends recommend one another songs that they enjoy listening to. Granted, this may not be a legal way to share files but what other methods are there to share music in a legal manner? Furthermore, Litman (2003) suggested that anecdotal evidence indicates that untamed digital sharing turns out to be a more efficient method of distribution than either paid subscription or the sale of conventional copies. Thus, the recording industry should have looked into this avenue as a means of dissemination of music from newer or popular artists, rather than sue those who support them. Distribution via the Internet is one of the most efficient ways to reach a large potential client base, without the need for packaging or a physical space to sell the products. The amount of money saved could then be used to promote their music to the diverse market online.

Furthermore, based on the findings of Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf (2005), they found that file sharing had only a limited effect on record sales. “Although we find some evidence that top albums sell fewer copies as a result of P2P, the economic impact is small, less than 10% of sales even for the most popular releases” (p.36). In addition to their findings, Rob & Waldfogel (2004) noted that for hit albums, which sold more than 2 million copies since 1999, they find no relationship between downloading and sales. However, an interpretation from both studies suggested that piracy does not affect hit albums but hurts smaller artists (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005, p.6). Such an impact meant that independent musicians should have more privileges over the use of copyright laws as their sales were on the decline from music downloads. Thus, music lovers should pay for their downloads, or risk having newer musicians leave the industry if the latter deems the industry unprofitable.

Why, then, are people unwilling to pay for music despite the lawsuits from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)? One main reason is because the music online is FREE. Despite downloads being illegal:

An April 2004 survey revealed that 88 percent of children between 8 and 18 years of age understood that P2P music downloading is illegal. Unfortunately, the survey also discovered that 56 percent of the children surveyed continue to download music anyway. So while many music fans are aware of the "stick" of lawsuits, they seem relatively unintimidated by it.” (Lohmann, 2004).

Furthermore, in a survey conducted by Rob and Waldfogel (2004) found that albums purchased in the store were valued at $15.91. In contrast, respondents’ willingness to pay for albums they downloaded was only $10.66, a value below the average purchase price of a CD. Hence, people would be more willing to pay had the prices been lower for each album. It may seem that the record industry would earn less if each album was cheaper but it would also mean less users would download for free off the Internet (which would leave them nothing) as the albums are now more affordable.

Another alternative is to purchase music at Apple’s iTunes Music Store (http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/). A song sells for US$0.99 and users can buy as many songs as they like. This was one method where music lovers could legally purchase music without having to worry about RIAA knocking at their doors. Apple was a great success in the eyes of the recording companies. It was the most successful of all the authorized music services and sold a total of 100 million downloads in its first 15 months of operation (Lohmann, 2004). However, Lohmann (2004) also noted, “While the authorized music services are attracting a modest number of customers, it is also clear that they together account for a trivial percentage of the total number of digital music files being downloaded today”. Thus, even if Apple iTunes was a viable alternative to illegal music downloads, there was no way it was able to compete with the combination of all the peer-to-peer (P2P) networks that provided free music.

The next viable solution would be to tap into the large P2P networks and try to make money where the large client base is. Furthermore, the laws of copyright are not involved. Lohmann (2004) noted this simple concept of “voluntary collective licensing”:

The music industry forms one or more collecting society, which in turn offer file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway -- share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer -- without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music…more freedom to fans to share their favorite music, the deeper the global catalog of available music.

Furthermore, this gives music fans a more pratical plan and a chance to pay for their music, without costing them too much. $5 a month for an infinite amount of songs is a better deal than a $10.66 album where you probably only want two songs or having to pay 99 cents per song could cost a user around 20 dollars for 20 songs in a month.

In conclusion, music lovers should pay for their music, as it is only fair to the musicians, whose careers depend on sales from their supporters. Not paying for their work is almost the same as not paying a lawyer’s legal fees after consultation, which is considered a crime. On the other hand, content creators could come to a compromise to reduce their albums’ prices or engage in voluntary collective licensing. Either way, lowering their prices would leave them in a better state than having billions of users worldwide download their music for free.

References:

Litman, J. (2003). Sharing and Stealing [Electronic Version]. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141.

Lohmann, F., (2004, September 29). Is Suing Your Customers a Good Idea? [Article posted on Web site Law.com]. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1095434496352

Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Strumpf, K. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis [Electronic Version]. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.

Ramesh, S. (2006, October 9). Police raid 7 homes to track down illegal downloading of songs [Article posted on Web site Channel NewsAsia]. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/234608/1/.html

Rob, R., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). “Piracy on the High C’s: Music Downloading, Sales
Displacement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students.” NBER working paper 10874.

.: This entry was awarded the Special Mention for Week 3! :.