Yesterday I posted about how government 2.0 may be vulnerable to changes in social media platforms and to the fate of many of the tools that make online social networks work.
One of these tools, made increasingly important by the success of Twitter and other microblogging platforms, is URL shorteners. These are web sites that convert very long web addresses into more compact ones.
Although their are mostly used on microblogs, which allow only a very limited number of characters, their use is rapidly expanding in other areas. The most recent one I’ve found is the PDF report on the “State of the eUnion” (a moderately interesting collection of papers on Government 2.0), where the reference list at the end of one article is a long list of shortened URLs.
I have used a few of these shorteners, as I write tweets about my new blog posts or about other stuff I want to share with people. Doing so, I’ve realized how much information you can get about who access the URLs you’ve shortened. These sort of statistics are very useful to understand who is visiting your blog, where they come from, and so forth. But they also raise the issue of whether and how such information may be used by URL shortening sites themselves, as it constitutes a goldmine to understand behaviors and to uncover emerging patterns.
Now, as I suggested in my previous post, if a URL shortening service goes out of business, my posts would no longer be reachable, nor would the articles referred in the book mentioned above. As we build knowledge based on shortened hyperlinks, we are making ourselves (and our collective knowledge) vulnerable to few weak links of the chain. Also, some people may grow uncomfortable with the idea of few organizations being at the junctions of our information society fabric, fearing that they may leverage such information in ways that ultimate constitute a threat to privacy or even democracy.
As a consequence, some will call for government action. I already received a comment to my earlier post praising the initiatives of certain governments – such as the US one – to provide a shortening service (so far available only to government employees).
But do we want government to be at those critical junctions? Are we prepared to give government the discretionary power of analyzing what matters to us, how we link to each other, how we retweet and hence rate our respective views, in return for some greater security that those junctions will be maintained over time? And, if it is not up to government to play this role, should URL shorteners be owned by communities, open-sourced and crowdsourced, so that each of us owns a piece of that fabric?
This is yet another example of how – despite the many articles, documents and plans – we really know very little about how “society 2.0” will evolve, what risks will emerge and what the most appropriate role for government will be.
View Free, Relevant Gartner Research
Gartner's research helps you cut through the complexity and deliver the knowledge you need to make the right decisions quickly, and with confidence.Read Free Gartner Research
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.