Web analytics need to be better understood, panel says

29 04 2010

Panelists discuss the future of web analytics

The panelists in the FutureWeb session on web analytics may have given the audience quite a surprise when most agreed that analytics is somewhat failing in today’s society.

Panelists included Nathaniel Lin, president for advanced analytics at Aspen Marketing Services, John Lovett, senior partner at strategy firm Web Analytics Demystified, Phil Mui, senior product manager for Google Analytics and Bob Page, VP, analytics platform at eBay. Michael Rappa, founder and director of the Institute for Advanced Analytics, moderated the panel.

“With the advent of much cheaper of storing data…everyone wants to keep everything because it’s possible,” Page said. “Not because it’s useful but because it’s possible.”

Page said businesses need to understand how to use analytics better.

“Most people think data itself is a byproduct of what we do,” he said… “There’s a disconnect between the data and the business value of the data.”

In turn, Mui said analytics need to be easier to use for businesses.

“When people hear the word analytics, they think of tools and technologies,” he said. “If you focus on the technologies, you’re looking at it from the wrong end…If only an IT person can use a tool (and marketers can’t)…then we are not putting the tool at the easiest access level where it can be used for influencing business outcome.”

The panelists agreed the rise of social media has also played a role in how web analytics is used.

“In many ways social media is new lipstick,” Page said…”It’s a new vehicle for having a two way conversation with customers.”

But the ways businesses utilize social media can be dangerous, Lovett said.

“Many organizations don’t have a strategy for social media.” he said. He described how business create Facebook and Twitter pages but don’t understand how to use the data they receive from those platforms.

“I think that web analytics, to a certain extent, needs to get easier for the masses,” Lovett said.

Lovett also said there is a problem with web analytics and standardization.

“To a large extent, I think web analytics has failed,” he said. “All the measures don’t mean a lot, there’s not standardization…You can’t get insight out of it.”

Page said a lot of it has to do with the dismissal of collaboration among people.

“I don’t think this is a technology problem,” Page said. “People don’t want to think, they want the answer.. For all the sharing that goes on in the analytics community, there’s not a lot of sharing.”

Lovett also said there is a lack of confidence when it comes to web analytics.

“If we want analytics to rise up to the sea level of an organization…there has to be a huge amount of confidence behind that data,” he said.

Web analytics is making progress though, Lin said.

“You can now slice and dice data,” he said… “If you can apply this data…and be creative…over time you can make it simpler.”

He said consumers need to start realizing the importance of data and it should not just be used to observe market trends. Otherwise, he said, the demand for data will grow in the coming years.

Page’s reaction?

“The world’s going to get worse,” he said. “Analytics is going to get worse before it gets better.”

Video and more written FutureWeb coverage:
FutureWeb YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Futureweb2010#p/u
Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38539612@N02/sets/72157623891937652/

Values Panel discusses end-to-end principle, safety, governance

29 04 2010

Core Values of the Web Chair Alejandro Pisanty and Danny Weitzner of the NTIA discuss the ways to identify and promote Web values.

The Core Values of the Web Panel, chaired by Alejandro Pisanty, was comprised of five experts from a spectrum of positions.

Scott Bradner, a Jon Postel Service Award winner at the Internet Society, spoke about the history of the Internet and the origin of the Internet’s core values. He explained that the end-to-end principles originated from the Internetadministrators’ decision to split TCP and IP into two separate protocols. The concept was to keep issues best handled by the end systems out of the Internet itself, allowing the ends to make their own decisions.

He also discussed the tendency of application developers to see their own creation as the most important, insisting that the Internet should be changed to make it more suited for a particular purpose. But Bradner explained that the Internet was not created for any one particular purpose.

“My biggest surprise [is that] it’s not just geeks talking to other geeks,” he said. “Mom surfs.”

He said the Internet’s value of end decision-making should be protected.

Bill St. Arnaud, an information technology consultant and futurist who was formerly the chief research officer at CANARIE Inc., spoke about how the Internet should be further used to reduce its users’ carbon footprints. He said many processes can be moved online and reduce emissions through eliminating shipping and transportation costs.

At the same time, the servers that keep the Internet running currently use fossil fuels. He promoted initiatives to move all of the servers to renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydropower.

Parry Aftab is a consultant on cybercrime, Internet privacy, kids’ safety online and cyber-abuse issues who spoke about the importance of protecting people on the Internet without restricting their freedoms.

“Sometimes when people interview me, they seem to think there is a tension between being creative with technology and being safe,” she said. But she also said the answer is not “turning it off.”

“[The Internet] gives them the chance to use creativity so a little child in rural Alabama can write poetry that Maya Angelou can see,” she said.

She likened the Internet to driving a car, saying there should be precautions but those precautions should be limited. She said values should not be determined for the user; the user should be able to determine his or her own values from the Internet.

Nathaniel James, who currently works with the Mozilla Foundation and was a former leader of OneWebDay, talked about an effective way to determine and promote values of the Web. He is working with Mozilla to launch Drumbeat.org, which he describes as a sort of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts or Sierra Club for the Web.

The principal behind it was democratic, to “get outside of geek-friendly communities.” The experience is intended to combine values, the experience of building something and fun, a model that has been used all over the world.

Danny Weitzner, an associate administrator for policy at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, spoke about the viability of a governing body or a code of conduct for the Internet. He said that it will need to be a multi-stakeholder initiative open to governments, NGOs, corporations and individuals.

Although some people say it a code of conduct could not possibly predict all the issues the Internet will face, Weitzner said there should be some stability and a channel for the problems to be addressed quickly.

-by Rachel Cieri

Video and more written FutureWeb coverage:
FutureWeb YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Futureweb2010#p/u
Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38539612@N02/sets/72157623891937652/

The Future of Intellectual Property in the digital realm

29 04 2010

Jacqui Lipton discusses a point during the session on the Future of Intellectual Property and the Web.

As introduced by moderator Dave Levine, a professor at Elon Law and Stanford CIS, and the host of the radio show Hearsay Culture (which deals with issues similar those touched upon in the panel), the goal of this panel was to analyze how intellectual properties exist within the realm of cyberspace.

“As we all know, the challenge…in the IP space as it relates to the Internet is whether current law applies to the Internet,” he said, setting the stage for the discussion.

Panelists included…

* Jacqueline Lipton of Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law
* Ann Bartow of the University of South Carolina’s School of Law
* Ira Nathenson of the St. Thomas University School of Law
* Eric Fink of Elon University’s School of Law

Jacqueline Lipton

Lipton spoke about Internet domain names and trademarks, and she has a book on the same topic coming out in the next few weeks. The idea for the book arose from a series of articles written on the topic over the past few years. It struck her that trademark law did not fit well into the conflicts of domain names and cyber-squatting.

Eventually, cyber-squatting was put to an end and ICANN settled some of the domain name disputes. But since then, conflicts have been arising along the matter of copyrights in different countries coming against one another in the interest of having the same domain name, the utilization of names that are also copyrighted, religious phrases, etc. President Barack Obama, in fact, ran into these issues as obama.com had already been taken by a city in Japan with the same name.

UDRP and ACPA settle some disputes, but the fundamental question as to whether domain names exist within copyright law and are intellectual property still exists.

“Is the domain name system so different that we need to think of new ways to regulate it and new rules?” she asked.

Domain names are similar to real property in that there can only be a single person registered for a given domain name, as they are singularly existing entities. There is the argument that, given the power of search engines, domain names are no longer important. But still, there is a continuously exponential rise in the number of disputes brought before UDRP.

Currently, the notion of trademark dominates the ideology toward domain space, but there is still the question as to if there should be an exceptionalist route taken toward domain names.

Ann Bartow

Bartow described a real-world counterfeiting case taking place in a California swap meet that, in a roundabout way, had implications for the extension of counterfeit law to cyberspace. There were organizations selling bootlegged copies of preexisting albums and videos, and the police determined that the swap meet would be the choke point to put an end to the counterfeit trade. But, the big problem is that at the meets it’s inherently difficult to check and see what material is indeed illegitimate. It is costly and an expense that no one particularly wants to take on.

Online, it’s exactly the same thing. eBay, in and of itself, is a glorified auction house upon which illegitimate goods can be placed without anyone checking their fidelity. As such, Tiffany v. eBay arose, with the plaintiff asserting that eBay was advertising its goods, some of which were counterfeit, offered at artificially low prices. eBay responded by saying that if alerted, it would take action and in many cases, did policing of its own.

Then, eBay determined that there is a portion of goods that are legitimate being traded, and a given amount that are counterfeit, but in the end, there was a large contingent of goods that neither eBay nor Tiffany could determine the legitimacy of, leaving both firms in an ambiguous position of what to do with indistinguishable goods.

The question of what to do with the sale of damaged goods arriving from factories and arising on eBay arose as well, but most importantly, the core of eBay’s business, the sale of used goods, popped up. Tiffany wished to scare eBay into taking all of its products, used, new and damaged off of its site and thereby forcing all possible customers to resort to obtaining new Tiffany products.

The choke point, in the real world and online, hit the auction houses and hosts, the idea of contributory infringement of copyright law. But the courts ruled that eBay was not liable for the sale of the goods, and its in the opinion of Bartow that courts should remain to do the same.

Ira Nathenson

Nathenson said that for creators of popular user-created content, the extent of their domain over content is, in many cases, made overly broad by courts and society.

Copyright in the US exists immediately after the content is made, and if the paperwork is filed quickly enough, the potential damages per work go up to $150,000 for each instance of the content, even if it’s something as small as a single song. Million-dollar charges against music downloads are common. Cease and desist letters allow copyright lawyers to bully common citizens into backing down from fair use that they may actually have in particular instances, and in doing so, lawyers are extending the effectiveness of their clients’ copyright claims.

The notice and take-down statue from the DMCA is called “the safety dance” by Nathenson, since it’s an intricate series of choreography in which Internet intermediaries, through the efforts of lawyers, can be removed from liability for copyright violations if they just remove the content from their sites.

The individuals who are posting the information are never contacted, as the power lies in the hands of those hosting it. This also, in turn, can effectively extend the duration of copyright holdings and limit fair use rights that may exist for the individuals who are being left in the lurch, the third-party in a two-person dance, as it were. Taking content down immediately, as opposed to looking over the legal implications, is made an incentive.

Stephanie Lenz, whose young son was recorded dancing to a short clip of Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy,” was hit with a lawsuit by Universal and Prince, but then, in a case that’s still being decided, filed a counter-suit debating that for all practical purposes, the short YouTube clip bears no negative weight against the original intellectual property. The language as to the law that exists, particularly in regard to take-down notices, is incredibly unclear and serves as an impediment to individual users to assert their rights of put-back.

“Downfall” is a German film which portrays Adolf Hitler during his descent into madness, which has become a common meme across the Internet. People cut new audio tracks for the film displaying Hitler becoming furious in reaction to various different pop culture icons such as Kanye West, “Avatar” and the iPad. It did not escape the take-down law.

The “Hitler meme” videos have become increasingly scarce as YouTube begins to take them down, as they’re able to track and log the videos, and even block the posting of the videos completely through their coding, serving as a chilling effect for future uses of the meme, even though some of the videos have been hosted for up to two years.

YouTube’s policy allows copyright owners to opt out of fair use as there’s no requirement for content to be viewed on an individual basis and judged as such. Instead, any similarities between the copyrighted material and the material hosted on YouTube can be identified independently, and swift retribution often follows after this identification. The copyright laws don’t just adhere to the materials being hosted and how they’re constructed, but to the way in which the laws are carried out as well.

Eric Fink

Fink most recently has worked to see how legal systems pertain to virtual worlds such as Second Life. Second Life has inherent tools in place for any user to be able to create original content, though much of this content may be built using copyrighted material. Fink’s own house in Second Life utilizes a wallpaper that is a copyrighted, his virtual tractor has a Ford logo attached to it, and the question is just how such applications of user-created and preexisting copyrighted content play out. Counterfeit goods can be found even on Second Life, with Nike sneakers, for example, being sold for actual money, in virtual form, without any ties to the firm in question.

Fink said that for some time during the VR world’s infancy such violations were ignored, but firms have increasingly jumped onto Second Life (and subsequently jumped off for a lack of profits) and tried to sell their own materials which do adhere to their real-world copyrights. In these virtual worlds though, there’s a feeling that such legal questions don’t even come to the mind of the common user, who sees a clear distinction between real-world goods and virtual materials constructed by individuals. A large amount of goods produced are made to be free, and the underlying code for items that are both sold for real-world dollars and for free eventually was released through less-than-noble means, leading to the counterfeiting of mostly counterfeited goods.

This, in turn, led to an avatar-led strike to try and create more demand within the community for paid content, joining together in a guild that didn’t try to seek solutions through legal means. The point was to try to bring together all of their resources to bring about better promotion and encourage LindenLabs, the firm owning Second Life, to police the virtual world in the same way that Tiffany wanted eBay to police its own domain.

The terms of service do, after all, say that Second Life users retain the rights to all content that they create on their own, despite it being hosted on their own servers, something which isn’t particularly common in virtual worlds. But, in turn, LindenLabs said it wasn’t their role to police violations of these rights, at least initially. As public opinion within Second Life turned against this stance though, a degree of policing did occur in an attempt to stop the copying of code. It was extended to third-party browsers used to access Second Life services.

“Most people who have their formal legal rights infringed upon do nothing about it,” Fink said.

Most likely, the response of individuals who have their rights violated is to utilize non-legal social methods to bring about their own degree of justice, seeking to create a culture which has norms that do not tolerate the action which violated the rights of the individual in the first place.

-by Morgan Little

Video and more written FutureWeb coverage:
FutureWeb YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Futureweb2010#p/u
Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38539612@N02/sets/72157623891937652/

Future of Entrepreneurship Panel discusses “platinum age”

29 04 2010

The Future of Entrepreneurship panel started by taking a look at the NASDAQ from the 1970s to today, noting that the stock market continued to steadily climb through the late 1990s after Microsoft was founded in 1975. The “golden age” then fell apart.

But the future of the stock market that one panelist is calling the “platinum age,” could be bright. Moderated by Tom Miller, technology entrepreneurs David Gardner, Scot Wingo, Chris Evans, Aaron Houghton and Bill Weiss discussed strategies for budding Web entrepreneurs and the changes the could be coming in the next few years.

“The reason software is so attractive [to entrepreneurs is that] if you have an idea in your mind, with programming skills and a few people, you can make it,” North Carolina State University Entrepreneur Chris Evans said.

The panel agreed that no one can completely predict the future, but there is a “visible future,” based upon the idea of basing predictions off of persistent sociological trends, which can, to a degree, be foreseen.

“What might the future look like with what you know about how people act?” is the question Promar Group CEO and Co-founder Bill Weiss advised budding entrepreneurs to ask. “There are certain logical connections. If you pay attention to the future, users want to be part of it.”

Gardner brought up Bill Gates’ point that people tend to overestimate technology’s impact in its first five years and underestimate its impact in the long term, an idea for entrepreneurs to keep in mind. The app store could become an example of this because, as Channel Advisor President, CEO and Founder Scot Wingo said, “You don’t need a chief marketing officer (CMO), you only need an icon and an app store.”

The app store, the panel explained, provides and infrastructure with unlimited possibilities of which budding firms should take advantage.

“The iPhone has trained users to pay a buck or two every now and then,” Evans said. “It’s easy and it builds a pattern people are used to.”

Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Amazon and cloud computing all provide the same sort of built-in system that makes entrepreneurship enormously faster and cost-effective. Cloud computing, for instance, has made it unnecessary for a company to purchase servers. Twitter, for example, utilizes servers that are owned by Amazon, eliminating the risk of underutilized inventory and making it so that firms only have to allocate for the amount of infrastructure they need.

iContact Corporation Co-founder Aaron Houghton even mentioned a friend who started a business, created a logo, launched a website and sent out a press release all within a week, and she made $120,000 of revenue in the first year without ever speaking to a lawyer or web designer on an initial investment of less than $900.

“The efficiency that’s been created out there is extremely high,” he said.

This efficiency on the Web allows business to crowdsource for talent, a trend that is becoming increasingly popular. Larger firms like Microsoft see a cap on staff creativity, due to the limited number of employees working at a firm at one time, but companies like Linux, Facebook and even the Travel Channel utilize their audiences, albeit with incentives, to work out the kinks in their coding, or create new applications to add value to their products.

And the panel predicts the standard of quality will be increasingly determined by the users.

“Look for something that’s stupid and fix it, and you’ll have six business plans a week,” Gardner said.

In terms of technology, Houghton said that the future of businesses on the Web will be in packaging the content in ways that are inherently convenient to the user. Small changes like these are what have led to many of the revolutionary businesses that currently dominate the web.

“It’s not so much the future of the Web as the future from the Web,” Weiss said. “The web doesn’t create a new outcome. It allows you to catalyze these latent behaviors.”

-by Rachel Cieri

Video and more written FutureWeb coverage:
FutureWeb YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Futureweb2010#p/u
Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38539612@N02/sets/72157623891937652/

Panelists discuss the future of social networks on the Web

29 04 2010

During the second day of FutureWeb2010, Fred Stutzman, founder of ClaimID, moderated the panel on the future of the Web and social networks. Panelists included CHRIS DIBONA of Google, DAVE RECORDON of Facebook, HENRY COPELAND of Blogads, ZEYNEP TUFEKCI of UMBC and WAYNE SUTTON, networks consultant.

Panelists gave personal responses to the following issues:

“The future of social networks as we know is growth … it’s increasingly part of our everyday life,” Stutzman said. “How can we share … and how do social networks remain useful spaces?”

“Social status management  is at the heart of social groups,” Tufekci said.

She gave the example of how apes pick bugs off of one another.

“It shows who they’re friends with; it’s an-all day display of who you’re friends with.”

Tufekci warned that the Internet allows for privacy invasion.

“We need to keep track of our social environments very exclusively,” she said. “There are serious implications from moving society to a medium like this. Usually space confines who sees you. On the Internet the space collapses.”

What about the infrastructure of social media?

Recordon explained that something as simple as photos on Facebook has changed the way people look at their own lives.

“You can look at what you do with your friends visually,” he said. “We didn’t have that in generations before.”

How do we make sense of the mess? How do we find things that are relevant?

Copeland agreed that social media is, in fact, creating a mess.

“We’re now doubling the amount of consumable social information,” he said. “The amount of crap that’s piling is higher and higher and higher.”

But Copeland said these networks do allow people to become more individualized.

“It’s the idea of individual authorship,” he said. “The individual creates something.”

What about the concept of friends on social networks?

Tufekci described how, through her research, she has found that fewer people have close friends as a result of the social networking on the Internet.

“We have lost the fundamental mechanism through which we acquire close friends,” she said. “The Internet places the burden of finding friends on you.”

Tufekci said this is because individuals are no longer in the same physical area as others. Instead, they are connecting and corresponding online.

“I’m not saying the Internet is causing people not to have friends … but there are people who are left out of sociality because of the Internet,” she said. “It’s creating new advantages and disadvantages of who is creating friends or not.”

Sutton said to combat this, filters need to be set up among who we choose as friends on social networks.

“In reality, we actually live in a bubble,” he said.

Recordon disagreed with Tufekci and said because of social networks, the Internet has gone along with globalization and allowed more individuals to spread out among the globe and maintain contact.

“Previously you were around people in an area and developed a lot of close friendships,” Recordon said. “The Internet allows me to keep in touch with more of these people (friends).”

Who social networks reach

“Internet is changing the accordance out there and who can use them,” Tufekci said. “It’s more homogeneous to race and class.”

Copeland agreed that social networks appeal to different subsets of people.

“People can now find a peer group,” he said. “I think you have a giant profusion of niches.”

How will technology bring us together?

Sutton said one of the main ways social networks can bring people together is for important causes. He described how people utilized social networks to raise both awareness and money for the earthquake in Haiti. The only challenge, he said, is how that information will be filtered.

Sutton said he also believed one day, every individual will have their own social network platform.

“These have become our social commons,” Tufekci said. “I think there are opportunities to create or participate…”

Participation in social networks

“People need to take responsibility for their actions online,” DiBona said.

He also said parents influence how their children utilize social networks.

To Tufekci, there is an inherent need to share information with others.

“It’s a deep meaning to share with people,” she said. “It’s an itch and these tools are letting people scratch it, sometimes very deep.”

What’s the next best thing after Facebook and Twitter?

“We don’t need anything next, but there will be some awesome next things,” DiBona said. “Facebook and Google will always be around.”

“I don’t think one particular platform will be the next big thing,” Sutton said. “I think an aggregation of filtered platforms will be the next big thing.”

Sutton said these platforms will be individualized to allow people to create and say what they want.

-By Laura Smith

Video and more written FutureWeb coverage:
FutureWeb YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Futureweb2010#p/u
Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38539612@N02/sets/72157623891937652/

danah boyd: privacy, publicity and ‘Big Data’

29 04 2010

Social networks researcher danah boyd, who has collaborated with Microsoft and Harvard’s Berkman Center, kicked off day two of FutureWeb with her WWW2010 keynote address. boyd focused her talk on “Big Data” and its implications in the world of Web 2.0, namely privacy and publicity consequences.

danah boyd delivers the WWW2010 keynote address, speaking about Big Data, privacy and publicity. (Photo: Dan Rickershauser)

“Data is the digital air in which we breathe and countless efforts are being put into trying to make sense of the data swirling around,” boyd said. “When we talk about privacy and publicity in a digital age, we can’t avoid talking about data.”

boyd described Big Data as the kind of information that marketers, researchers and businessmen and women use to track and analyze public behavior. She named social media tools, such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, as core hosts of data.

We’ve entered an age where data is cheap, but making sense of it is not, boyd said. People must become actively engaged in the data in order to accurately and efficiently analyze human behavior online.

boyd cites four key issues to understand when working with Big Data:

  1. Bigger Data are Not Always Better Data
  2. Not All Data are Created Equal
  3. What and Why are Different Questions
  4. Be Careful of Your Interpretations

“Nobody loves Big Data better than marketers,” she said. “And nobody misinterprets Big Data better than marketers.”

One limitation to Big Data, boyd warned, is that it can only reveal certain things. Making assumptions about interpretations of that data is dangerous. boyd said such misinterpretations are “beautifully displayed when people try to implement findings into systems.”

Related to the problem of data misconceptions is the question of ethics. She cited privacy and publicity as two key issues that come into play. The biases and misinterpretations that are present in the analysis and use of Big Data are fundamentally affecting people’s lives, boyd said.

“Just because data is accessible doesn’t mean that using it is ethical,” boyd said. “It terrifies me when those who are passionate about Big Data espouse the right to collect, aggregate and analyze anything that they can get their hands on.”

Unintended consequences of our actions, including invasion of privacy, are why ethics matter. boyd said people begin to feel privacy violations as soon as their expectations are shattered in the physical environment.

She also spoke about the psychological consequences people suffer from who experience an invasion of privacy.

“Making content publicly accessible is not equal to being asked for it to be distributed, aggregated or otherwise scaled,” she said. “Paparazzi make celebrities’ lives a living hell. When we argue for the right to publicize any data that isn’t publicly accessible, we are arguing that everyone deserves the right to be stalked like a celebrity.”

In the context of social networks, she said people are sharing “personally identifiable information,” but are usually just concerned about “personally embarrassing information.”

The questions that arise from open access controls are challenging. Just because we can publicize content, should we? Just because we can aggregate and redistribute data, should we?

The answers to these questions still remain unclear, boyd said.

She spoke specifically about Facebook’s history with privacy issues, beginning with its initial reputation as a trusted, closed system with boundaries. Over the years, developments such as the News feed, Beacon and changing privacy settings have “left many users clueless and confused.” Still, boyd says people are slowly learning how to manipulate the technology to control their privacy.

“Privacy will always be a process that people are navigating,” boyd said. “Big Data is made out of people. We have to develop systems and do analysis that balance the complex ways in which people are negotiating these systems.  You are shaping the future, and I challenge you to build the future you want to inhabit.”

-by Ashley Dischinger

Video and more written FutureWeb coverage:
FutureWeb YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Futureweb2010#p/u
Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38539612@N02/sets/72157623891937652/


29 04 2010
lee rainie tim berners-lee danny weitzner

Danny Weitzner, Tim Berners-Lee and Lee Rainie at FutureWeb.

The second day of the FutureWeb conference at WWW2010 in Raleigh features the following schedule – JOIN US…

TWEET from FUTUREWEB! Please use the hashtag #fw2010

FOLLOW FutureWeb events on TWITTER! http://twitter.com/futureweb2010

READ BLOGPOSTS from FutureWeb!  https://futureweb2010blog.wordpress.com/

FutureWeb daily VIDEO/WRITTEN COVERAGE!  http://bit.ly/imaginingtheinternet

SEE VIDEO on FutureWeb’s YouTube channel!



FutureWeb attendees are  invited to attend the WWW2010 KEYNOTE BY DANAH BOYD, social networks researcher with Microsoft and Harvard’s Berkman Center.

10-10:30 – Coffee break

10:30-12 – Concurrent sessions in two rooms:

ROOM 304 – THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS (organized by FRED STUTZMAN, founder of ClaimID, panelists include CHRIS DIBONA of Google, DAVE RECORDON of Facebook, HENRY COPELAND of Blogads, ZEYNEP TUFEKCI of UMBC and WAYNE SUTTON, networks consultant).


12-1:30 – Lunch on your own

1:30-3 – Concurrent sessions in three rooms:

ROOM 402 – A SPECIAL SESSION in which LEE RAINIE interviews DANAH BOYD about the future of the Web.

ROOM 304 – THE FUTURE OF WEB ANALYTICS (organized by MICHAEL RAPPA, analytics expert and a local co-chair of the WWW2010 conference; panelists include PHIL MUI of Google Analytics, BOB PAGE of eBay, JOHN LOVETT of Web Analytics Demystified and NATHANIEL LIN of Aspen Marketing Services).


3-3:30 – Coffee break

3:30-5 – Concurrent sessions in three rooms:


BALLROOM A – THE FUTURE OF INTERACTIVE DESIGN AND THE WEB (organized by DAVID BURNEY of New Kind and featuring CHRIS GRAMS of New Kind, independent collaborator STEVEN KEITHBECKY MINERVINO of McKinney and KEITH MESSICK of Get Satisfaction).

ROOM 402 – THE FUTURE OF THE MEDIA AND THE WEB (organized by PAUL JONES, leader of ibiblio.org and a local co-chair of the WWW2010 conference; panelists include DOC SEARLS, DAN CONOVER, MICHAEL CLEMENTE, PENNY ABERNATHY, SAM MATHENY).

5-6:30 in ROOM 402 – SPECIAL SESSION:

DOC SEARLS discusses the Future of the Web in an interview session led by Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project.