Disqus analyzed 500,000 comments made via their platform and found (shocker) that digital citizens using fictitious names (pseudonyms and persona), are actually responsible for the highest quantity and quality of comments on the web. They determined that 61 percent of its commenter's use pseudonyms, 35 percent remain anonymous and just 4 percent log in with Facebook to comment with their real identity.

“The average commenter using a pseudonym contributed 6.5 times more than anonymous commenters and 4.7 times more than commenters identifying with Facebook,”

These partially veiled commenters are also soliciting more “likes” and replies — positive quality signals, according to Disqus — than their anonymous and real name counterparts. Sixty-one percent of comments made by people using pseudonyms showed positive quality signals, while 51 percent of comments from those using their real names and 34 percent from the anonymous types possessed positive quality signals.

And what is the implication?

Google/ Twitter and Facebook centre on "identity" or at least an ability to track and Disqus thrives on comments. Disqus’ wants to show users will leave better comments when they can choose how they want to represent themselves.  Next round to the identity boys.....

Network is a remarkably piece of motion graphics by graphic design student Michael Rigley exploring the secret life of our MMS data and the tradeoffs we inadvertently face as we choose convenience of communication over privacy and control of personal data.

Not sure about the "identity" link - but what is a word when the concept/ content is so good

The Journey To Big Data Analytics - so here http://chucksblog.emc.com/chucks_blog/2012/01/the-journey-to-big-data-analytics.html is a blog from Chuck Hollis

VP, Global Marketing CTO EMC Corporation.  It is kind of interesting that they look at gathering data, storing data, analysing data and creating value aka the Digital Footprint business model - however they don't close the loop and complete the story.  They don't look into how to build it as a business for yourself and not them.  Great at selling a solution to the point where is has value for someone else but no growth for you.....  However it does put together the story, data scientist and what data if you need some back group.

Original article is on Read/Write Web http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_why_do_people_use_facebook.php

A new study entitled "Why do people use Facebook?" from Boston University's Ashwini Nadkarni and Stefan G. Hofmann proposes that the social network meets two primary human needs: (1) the need to belong and (2) the need for self-presentation. The study also acknowledges demographic and cultural factors as they relate to the belonging need, and the variation of personality types on Facebook usage.

Comment : Neither of these are new or revolutionary and continue to show that our digital self is just us – warts and all

Abstract

The social networking site, Facebook, has gained an enormous amount of popularity. In this article, we review the literature on the factors contributing to Facebook use. We propose a model suggesting that Facebook use is motivated by two primary needs: (1) the need to belong and (2) the need for self-presentation. Demographic and cultural factors contribute to the need to belong, whereas neuroticism, narcissism, shyness, self-esteem and self-worth contribute to the need for self-presentation. Areas for future research are discussed.

Guilt through association is a well written about topic and there are well published errors in analysis that have caused many outcomes to be misguided.  danah boyd wrote an article here on “Guilt through algorithmic association”  It is well worth reading and which picks up on several blogs on My Digital Footprint

When Big Data says "Happy Christmas", what is the sentiment?

Google changes the algorithm; nothing new but what about the bias of coders?

It is well reasoned (opens a debate) with some great comments, the critical point here is how does the fact become fact, is it content or is it because we searched for it.  Content is a source and can be tracked (or should be) this is why pagerank works: Authority.  However, as we give way to “search terms” as a source we are in danger of rumour, gossip and prejudice becoming fact based on an algorithm.

Algorithms can be gammed for benefit aka “Google Bombing” so the question becomes do people actually react to the instant search results and what is the level of influence.  

The next question is how does it become infectious and does an example of Google instant search need a higher level of crowd control….

Now does this occur because this is when it happens, or because you believe it should happen then and we did it then?  Does measurement confirm a belief that we all already had and acted on …..  what does the data really tell us?

Source KISSmetrics.

This is a picture of the world, as connected by Twitter created by Eric Fischer  @enf and shows people's virtual and physical networks It shows where people travel--and, what's more, who they communicate with all around the world. Thus, in one map, you can see where people's physical communities are, and their virtual ones as well.

There are a load more of this here with some explanation http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665780/infographic-of-the-day-mapping-the-worlds-tweet-networks

These are US facts....and the data is about discovery, recommendation, influence, programs, experience and who you share with in real time and on the back channel....

On SSRN: The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information

by Paul Schwartz University of California, Berkeley – School of Law, and Daniel Solove, George Washington University Law School

Abstract: Personally identifiable information (PII) is one of the most central concepts in information privacy regulation. The scope of privacy laws typically turns on whether PII is involved. The basic assumption behind the applicable laws is that if PII is not involved, then there can be no privacy harm. At the same time, there is no uniform definition of PII in information privacy law.

Moreover, computer science has shown that in many circumstances non-PII can be linked to individuals, and that de-identified data can be re-identified. PII and non-PII are thus not immutable categories, and there is a risk that information deemed non-PII at one time can be transformed into PII at a later juncture. Due to the malleable nature of what constitutes PII, some commentators have even suggested that PII be abandoned as the mechanism by which to define the boundaries of privacy law.

In this Article, we argue that although the current approaches to PII are flawed, the concept of PII should not be abandoned. We develop a new approach called “PII 2.0,” which accounts for PII’s malleability. Based upon a standard rather than a rule, PII 2.0 utilizes a continuum of risk of identification. PII 2.0 regulates information that relates to either an “identified” or “identifiable” individual, and it establishes different requirements for each category. To illustrate this theory, we use the example of regulating behavioral marketing to adults and children. We show how existing approaches to PII impede the effective regulation of behavioral marketing, and how PII 2.0 would resolve these problems.

full text of the article, The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information by Paul Schwartz, Daniel Solove :: SSRN.

A survey carried out by MyMemory  in Oct 2011 involved 1,781 Facebook users from all over the UK and suggests that the presence of alcohol is in 76% of British Facebook photos which may or may not determine a certain level of inebriation.  Further the study found that the UK's adult Facebook users were drunk in three out of every four images that they were tagged in. Of the users who were polled, only 12% of them don’t let anyone see their photos, while 58% allow their friends to look at their pictures. However, over a quarter say that their photos are viewable by anyone on Facebook. 8% went as far as saying that their photos might lead to “serious trouble at work”.

Another fact that came to light was that 93 per cent of UK Facebook users admitted to deleting tags on those images considered as compromising and "embarrassing."

In a separate study my MyMemory, it appears that ex-lovers aren’t always consigned to the past amongst Britons, and has revealed that over a third, 36%, of adults in relationships around the UK admit to keeping a ‘secret’ photo of an ex-lover; without the knowledge of their other half.