With Jussi Parikka, Pau Waelder, Aymeric Mansoux and Mónica Bello. Recorded (VO EN/ES) in Barcelona the 24th of February 2012 as part of the I+C+i Our Life Online session at CCCB.

Internet is changing our way of understanding the public space. The Web has become a dominant structure that covers all aspects of contemporary society. The proliferation of virtual agents, designed to stimulate non-fortuitous reactions and meetings, reconfigures the profile of individuals in dynamics that are innovative but also invasive, and generates new forms of control. In this brand new context, identity and simulation become decisive themes of behaviour on the Web.

Mez Breeze creates code poetry and is a Futurist. She explores environments that involve online socializations or encounters. Such encounters involves the modification of online gaming environments such as World of Warcraft, EVE Online, and Second Life. Some other online encounters involve social networking and alternate gaming software such as Facebook, Passively Multimedia Online Game (PMOG), and Twitter. The texts or jargon produced during these encounters are what drove Mez to create her type of net poetry. She has won several awards including the “JavaArtist of the Year 2001”, the Newcastle Digital Poetry Prize and an Honorary Mention in the read_me 1.2 Software Art Award.

Social networks are often in the news, why do you think this is?
straight away i find myself side-tilt>head-turn-questioning the phrase “in the news”: r u reffing the old skool>1-way monothreaded>tradition “broadcast” sense of “news”? if yes, then soc[ial]_net[work]s r often reffed>dissected there via a combination of novelty factoids [including the obligatory derogatory slant on any comm platform that threatens the longevity of the older>”traditional” news dissemination strains] + intrigue as 2 how they will impact the future of communication patterns generally. + let’s not 4get the [jump on the trundling-in2-the-relevancy-distance]bandwagon factor.

In what way do they differ from older forms of communication on the Internet?
soc_nets offer engagement with[in] a constant>immediacy state: variables include application-skewed + momentarily-dependent S[tream]o[f]C[onsciousness]-like dispersal with recursively [in relation to standard_concentration lvls] disruptive twists. as i’ve asserted previously [2007]: “Web 2.0 is based on a collusive tapestry of adjoining social nodes. Social Networks such as MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, Orkut, Liveleak, YouTube, Twitter and Pownce aren’t prefaced on pre-set connotative connections maintained through historicized emotional depth or satisfied by biological drives. Friends aren’t friends as we have come to know them: there is no establishment of shared geophysical experiences, no cathartic or chronologically defined friendship markers evident. What’s important is [inter]action and the quantity of it – the residual volume of contact and the fact of shared connection minus a meatbody context. Identity is constructed in these friendship pathways via the idea of notations; of naming labels, of icon attribution, and of clustered info-snippets streamlined through an interface designed for momentary persona snapshots.”

Who is ultimately responsible for what happens to the data you upload to social networks?
that’s a doozy of a qs. intuitively i’m drawn 2 type “the user”, as it seems obvious users r the the ultimate end_node in a responsibility chain that stretches thru various skeins of corporatist red tapesville. wot’s problematic with this “users-should-b-exclusively-responsible-4-wot happens 2-their-data-post-uploading” is the the way T[erms] & C[ondition]s alter rapidly>inconsistently + often without substantial notification>transparency: u may own the data u upload 2 a particular platform>app 1 day + don’t the next.

Do you read Terms of Use or EULA’s and keep up to date about changes applied to them?
i attempt 2 + am a complete scanhead when it comes 2 absorbing specific EULA changes on a macro_lvl. 4eg, take W[orld]o[f]W[arcraft]’s constantly changing EULA during each patch/expansion: i’ll absorb notifications regarding changes via various trusted sources [forums>individuals>groups] + if it’s been flagged as dangerous>gutted beyond recognition, i’ll respond accordingly.

Do you think you’ve got a realistic idea about the quantity of information that is out there about you?
“realistic?” as in actual? i have a fairly comprehensive sense of the long_tailed leanings of my projected>creative>fragmented identity sets [+ that’s mostly due 2 fine_honed crafting of my public(ally accessible digital) profile(s) since the mid 90s]. i also have systems in place that allow a type of monitoring via “digital shearing” [think digital scraping but of an individualistic>deliberately projected identity mold]. i don’t however, have any “real” sense of just how much comprehensive data there is “out there” [think: darknets/deepwebbing>”black_app”ed (aggre)gated datasets] in regards 2 my geophysical details>existence [as i suspect most don’t].

How do you value your private information now? Do you think anything can happen that will make you value it differently in the future?
by private i’m inferring you’re reffing any information i haven’t been keen 2 make explicitly public? if so, then i *do* value certain limits on variables i’m keen 2 keep isolated from general public consumption + i do actively regulate them [as much as i am able]. anything’s possible in relation 2 revaluing my info’s_worth according 2 fluctuating definitions of personal>private>public: especially as i actively encourage traditional_personality> ID_divide blurriness [collapsing professional>hierarchical distinctions such as i practice in my @netwurker Twitter stream].

How do you feel about trading your personal information for online services?
depends entirely on the lvl of data mining>divulgence involved: i’m happy 2 hand ova base personality facts>aspects that [in a holistic sense] make data_scrapers info_salivate + who then create pointless baselines via which 2 pitch useless consumer crap my way [i’ve cultivated fairly resistent ad_blindess + have various mechanism that block content of that nature]. in terms of personal information: i think there’s enormous change in_the_futuroidal_wings regarding wot’s ultimately considered personal + wot’s not [cf the latest furor over leaky Facebook info].

What do you think the information gathered is used for?
anything from: Your Facebook ‘friend’ may be a federal agent +
Police serve intervention order through Facebook 2 Twitter mood predicts the stock market?

Have you ever been in a situation where sharing information online made you uncomfortable? If so, can you describe the situation?
signing up 2 as yet verified early-adopter-type services [+ the associated info_disclosure required] is always a tad hairy: my way of dealing with this is 2 make sure my gatekeeper account/details act as a [marginally] suitable screen. other situs include how Google implemented Buzz [ie that followers could b algorithmically/social-graphed-derived + automagically added without permission] + the Streetview debacle/associated privacy cockups. also, anything Apple does/produces [DRM any1? – such a closed-2-the-hilt ethically unsound business mentality + treating users/developers as unitary cash cows].

What is the worst case scenario, and what impact would that have on an individual?
Forced ARTificial Scarcity as opposed 2 Social Tesseracting.

Nowadays, most of the “reading” of what is written online is done by machines. Does this impact your idea of what is anonymity and privacy?
wot impacts>[in]forms my ideas on anonymity>privacy is more centred on insidious corporate+[in tandem]government influence + rapid>rampant censorship/dictatorial intervention?

Can a game raise issues such as online privacy? And if so, what would you like to see in such a game?
given the geolocative gamification trend [think: Foursquare or Gowalla], i’d say it can indeed effect privacy issues. + there r such games [@ least 4 kids] such as The First Adventure of the Three Cyberpigs.

Plutonian Striptease is a series of interviews with experts, owners, users, fans and haters of social media, to map the different views on this topic, outside the existing discussions surrounding privacy.

Rob van Kranenburg lives in Ghent. He is in constant and full wonder about life in general and the human condition in particular.

Social networks are often in the news, why do you think this is?
It says more about the news now. It is clear that the idea of mass media itself is now adding to the core of problems; its hierarchical notion of gaining more attention or more ‘hits’ is fueling imbalances in the world.

In what way do they differ from older forms of communication on the Internet?
Simple people like me, with no money, no heritage, no support, felt relevant by the ability to publish anything they want on he internet. This is sanity to me. The social networks work like a bit of a tribe where old friends find you, you can quickly see where someone is.

Who is ultimately responsible for what happens to the data you upload to social networks?
Me. I sometimes hesitate to Twitter or facebook or blog an idea, mostly when I am angered and angry and realize every moment that anything I put out there is there to stay.

Do you read Terms of Use or EULA’s and keep up to date about changes applied to them?
No.

Do you think you’ve got a realistic idea about the quantity of information that is out there about you?
Yes.

How do you value your private information now? Do you think anything can happen that will make you value it differently in the future?
I find it difficult to assert what is private at any moment. This changes over time. Strangely I believe I have more agency, which may not be true. The moment people assert their authority over me on account of formal reasons I walk away. If I can no longer walk, I have to go in hiding or fight.

How do you feel about trading your personal information for online services?
A trade off if I get my book, my networks, my data, my texts, my friends.

What do you think the information gathered is used for?
Making me a better offer. I’m not so worried about commercial parties; they want me happy, alive and rich so I can buy. They have no interest in putting me down. I may worry more about government databases but these are not as efficient so as to really worry. So I act in total transparancy and would not mind being tracked, traced and keylogged as it would only reveal my need to create more balance.

Have you ever been in a situation where sharing information online made you uncomfortable? If so, can you describe the situation?
Only because my friends started to reveal data that I knew they would regret later, and I deleted that immediately.

What is the worst case scenario, and what impact would that have on an individual?
In general in particular political contexts: death and worse if you are being forced to betray family and friends. For me in my luxurious situation the banality of my everyday life is all that is at stake.

Nowadays, most of the “reading” of what is written online is done by machines. Does this impact your idea of what is anonymity and privacy?
It makes me wonder even more about why we as a community and as activitists, theorists are so lured into this narcissism of being worried about our mundane simple and rather boring lives? How many individuals have really changed the course of history or have really been deemed ‘dangerous’ by those in power? The case in Holland about databases and abuse in the thirties dealt with simple markers – jewish, non jewish, gypsy; non gyspsy and these qualities can be ascertained from everywhere. They were not concerned with individual authorship or ideas.

Can a game raise issues such as online privacy? And if so, what would you like to see in such a game?
That the end would compel you to get out into the street and organize within local communities for better and simpler relationships between the neighbourhood, you and the world at large. For this you have to share and go out and make friends and take risks.