That’s the title of my next book about the end of privacy and the benefits of publicness. I’m delighted to tell you that I’ve just agreed to write it for Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, my publisher for What Would Google Do? , working again with my brilliant editor there, Ben Loehnen. It will come out, muses willing, next year [fall 2011].
In Public Parts, I’ll argue, as I have here, that in our current privacy mania we are not talking enough about the value of publicness. If we default to private, we risk losing the value of the connections the internet brings: meeting people, collaborating with them, gathering the wisdom of our crowd, and holding the powerful to public account. Yes, I believe we have a right and need to protect our privacy — to control our information and identities — but I also want the conversation and our decisions to include consideration of the value of sharing and linking. I also want to protect what’s public as a public good; that includes our internet. We have plenty of privacy advocates. I want to be a publicness advocate.
This is a hot topic that’s going to get only hotter. This morning, I talked about publicness and “privacy in the time of Facebook” on public radio’s The Takeaway. Here’s the audio:
Also today friend Steven Johnson writes about “the value of oversharing” in Time:
We are discovering in this new realm that public exposure is not just a matter of egotism or idle voyeurism. This past year, several friends of mine have blogged their way through their battles with cancer. By taking their ordeal to the valley, they got valuable advice from strangers who posted comments and helped form an online support group — and an archive that could help future patients who happen upon it via cancer-related queries on Google. One of my friends — writer Jeff Jarvis, now happily in good health — talks about his experience as a lesson in the virtues of publicness. The Constitution may not contain an explicit reference to the right to privacy, but the notion that privacy is worth cherishing and protecting needs little justification. What Jarvis suggests is that the opposite condition needs its defenders: oversharing, in a strange way, can turn out to be a civic good.
I love this topic. I’ve learned a great deal about publicness since my life became an open blog and I’m learning more as I do my research — some fascinating stuff, which I’ll share with you here as I go. I’ll continue discussing the ideas here on the blog and will ask for your help … often.
(Some of you may remember that I was planning to write another book called Beta. Many of the ideas from that — about opening up processes — will be part of this book but I hope this one is bigger, about profound changes in society and the opportunities that come from them, a la WWGD?.)
: LATER: Here’s the extended, original version of Steven Johnson’s Time piece, before editors and scarcity got hold of it.
Also, in answer to some tweets, yes, my title is a bit of an homage to Howard Stern. It was after appearing on his show that I got the inspiration. His publicness itself is an inspiration for the book.
Great title
Can’t wait to read it.
Isn’t writing another dead tree book with old media company and a paywall exactly the same thing you rail against newspapers for doing?
Why not eat your own dog food, go the Cory Doctorow route and make your book creative commons and available for free via your website?
It will bee in Kindle format like WWGD and I get it 30 seconds after Jeff tweets about publishing.
I, for one, still love dead tree books, and can’t wait to read this one either
Under Cory’s model, you can still buy a dead tree version if you want.
This is forcing all the content behind a Barnes & Noble/Amazon pay wall.
Indeed this is true, Jeff. It is not talked about enough—being public in Social Media. Part of the reason for this, I think anyway is because of all the hucksters selling Social Media like it’s a Pet Rock, instead of utilizing the new marketing to sell “their version of the Pet Rock.”
There are so many ways that new marketing can be beneficial.
I blogged my way out of being miserable in a dead-end industry (magazine publishing) and into a solo endeavor doing what I love. Albeit, it isn’t playing my guitar for a living or blogging for a living, but it never would have happened had it not been for “public” discourse.
Look forward to reading your next book.
Very timely given all the chatter about Facebook and privacy. Saw you speak at Rotman during the WWGD book tour and enjoyed your talk. Hope you come back to Toronto for this book.
If only you could get Howard to write an intro — it would make the universe whole.
[...] Cross posted at Buzzmachine.com 681 [...]
I don’t think there is any inherent value in privacy. What would anyone gain if you didn’t publish your prostate cancer story?
Privacy is mostly about being able to lie (or not tell the whole truth) about yourself to other people. While I do agree that sometimes it’s beneficial to the person (being gay in a homophobic country is one example,) but generally speaking I would rather live in a tolerant society with no privacy, than in a secretive society of bigots.
> generally speaking I would rather live in a tolerant society with no privacy, than in a secretive society of bigots.
And I’d rather ride a unicorn. Guess who’s more likely to get his wish?
Universally tolerant societies don’t exist. Real societies just vary wrt what they tolerate and how they deal with what they don’t tolerate.
Yes, but I think there is a correlation between openness and tolerance, and I think both should be our goals.
Here is an example, of why privacy is still important. When Facebook made everyone’s friends list open info it put my friends in danger. I am a public servant who responds to public requests for info. In some cases individuals request information which does not exist and won’t accept that answer. I am legally required to maintain contact with them no matter how often they write. Some of these people are unstable yet technically savvy. I view it as a part of my job to deal with their harassment, but when that expands into harassing my friends I have a problem. I understand Facebook may have changed this since I deleted my account, but I can’t trust them to not change it again. I don’t have control, so I can’t feel as if my friends are safe. If you want to be out in the public go ahead, but don’t go forcing your standard onto everyone as their conditions may not accommodate it so well.
I think you have written very well about an extremely hot topic with a twist – with so many people, myself included, recently talking at length about privacy – it is interesting to open up discussion about ‘being public’. While I appreciate and recommend a clear understanding of all privacy options I agree that being public is what opens up debate, great conversation and – most of all, transparency among those we choose to connect with.
While privacy is extremely important on varying levels (depending on age, confidentiality issues, for example – we don’t want our children sharing too much about who, what, when and where), how can we encourage conversation or be genuine if we hide everything we do, say, like, recommend (etc).
An excellent debate and I look forward to your book. And love the title “Public Parts”.
Jeff – While you’re putting together your ideas for this new book, I humbly offer up the neologism, “publicy”, once again to you.
http://blog.ericreasons.com/2010/01/publicy-neologism-up-for-grabs.html
Best of luck on the new book. I’ll be pre-ordering it as soon as it’s available.
Eric,
Love you. Hate that word.
Thanks, man. I’m flattered!
New axiom: If Jarvis hates it, and Keen likes it, you’ve done something very very wrong.
Woo howdy, I can’t wait until this here public-ness is finally forced upon us plebeians by pearl-clutching lily-white pseudo-academics.
I blogged my way out of being miserable in a dead-end industry magazine publishing and into a solo endeavor doing what I love.
[...] » Worried about the privacy disclosures on Facebook’s and MySpace? (NYSE: NWS) Buzzmachine’s Jeff Jarvis is following up What Would Google (NSDQ: GOOG) Do? with a nuanced view on the “current privacy mania.” [Buzzmachine] [...]
Yes, let Jeff be your Zelda Rubinstein.
Jeff,
Just read What Would Google Do? and look fwd to your next. I am a grade eight teacher and just started blogging. I wrote about your book and what it means for education. If you have time you could read it and tell me if I represented what you said well. I would also be interested in knowing your thoughts on education. Not to mention, my students would be very impressed with the power of blogging in PLN’s.
[...] Public Parts « BuzzMachine “in our current privacy mania we are not talking enough about the value of “publicness“. If we default to private, we risk losing the value of the connections the internet brings“ Please leave a comment below and, if you enjoyed the post, share it on your fav platform… Thanks…Related posts:Stop, Think, Like, Check Facebook Page Yeah – I know – Facebook has made us all become ‘Likers‘ (I know… [...]
[...] Announcement of Jeff Jarvi’s Next Book “Public Parts.“ Among other things, Jeff is a key digital media veteran with a successful blog called BuzzMachine. This week he announced his next book about the end of privacy and the benefits of publicness. Yes, the name is a plug to Howard Stern. [...]
Jeff
Your sense of humour is priceless
nice point about the unicorn… so the real issue is one of society in general, worldwide – and not about privacy. Seems the issue is do we want and can we sustain an environment that does not send out death squads if you make fun of a some holy figure or has bosses snubbing your application because of those infamous facebook-pics of you boozing up while he takes in the white lady in his cabinet on a regular basis…..
Jeff – just a thought..
I think the title of the book is clever if you know what it’s about, but if you don’t it might get left on the bookshop shelf.
Big fan of yours on twig.
I just caught the news about the book on the last TWiG, congrats Jeff. I shall purchase it from B&N on my Nook when it comes out.
Jeff,
Heard you talking about “a public” vs. “the public”, but would a better metaphor be, “Private”, “Invited” and “Public”.
The outside of my home is public, anyone can drive by and see it.
Some people I invite in and they can see the common areas of the house, and if they are really good friends can stop by anytime.
My bedroom is private, and even if I invite you into my house it doesn’t mean you get to go there.
I should have the same level of control online for all my information.
Tom
[...] markante Sprüche durch. Das gehört bei ihm schließlich zum Geschäft. Auf sein neues Buch „Public Parts“ über das Ende der Privatsphäre und die Vorteile von Öffentlichkeit sind wir sehr [...]
[...] about news and media and new media, but he’s also written about his battle with cancer. In this post he writes about the value of sharing information: Yes, I believe we have a right and need to [...]
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned PatientsLikeMe, a social network that does exactly what Jeff Jarvis espouses. PatientsLikeMe have an “openness philosophy”:
“we believe sharing your healthcare experiences and outcomes is good. Why? Because when patients share real-world data, collaboration on a global scale becomes possible. New treatments become possible. Most importantly, change becomes possible”.
http://www.patientslikeme.com/
The only slight difference is that users can share their experiences under a pseudonym, which allows both openness and anonymity.
[...] seriously: the debate about what Jarvis calls “the end of privacy and the benefits of publicness” in the Age of Always Connect is too [...]
[...] It’s the second half of that that interests me most since I’m writing a book about that. [...]
[...] It’s the second half of that that interests me most since I’m writing a book about that. [...]
[...] create the means for citizens to take over some tasks of government. Recently — for my book, Public Parts — I interviewed Beth Noveck, head of Obama’s open-government initiative, and she raised [...]
[...] research for Public Parts, I’ve been reading Jay Rosen’s doctoral dissertation about the creation of publics and [...]
[...] as Facebook & Foursquare: As research for Public Parts, I’ve been reading Jay Rosen’s doctoral dissertation about the creation of publics and [...]
Great stuff, Jeff. Would love to have you on RISE and help promote the book when you are ready to rumble.
[...] asuman algunas de las tareas del gobierno. Recientemente (con motivo de mi próximo libro, Public Parts), entrevisté a Beth Noveck, encargada de la iniciativa de Obama de open-government, y me dio otro [...]
[...] unsecreted life is not worth living. But what happens to our secret life in the era of publicy and Public Parts? Hive mind and tribal display turn our privacy garments inside out: we wear our inner lining to the [...]
[...] note well that in my book, I will also spend considerable time talking about another part of German history, [...]
[...] where Jürgen Habermas is credited with defining the concept of the public sphere, though in my book I’ll argue that Habermas corrupted an earlier concept ofmaking publics – plural. The internet [...]
[...] en Alemania, en donde Jürgen Habermas definió el concepto de la esfera pública, aunque en mi libro defiendo que Habermas distorsionó un concepto anterior, el de hacer públicos (en plural). [...]
[...] of “What Would Google Do”, and who is currently writing a book about privacy titled “Private Parts” which was entertaining and uncomfortable at the same [...]
[...] that’s one reason why Jarvis is hard at work on his second book. And I don’t know about you, but personally, I have my chisel in hand, and am off to find a nice [...]
[...] reworking an early but foundational section of my book, Public Parts, arguing the benefits of publicness, a list I presented at the PII conference in Seattle a few [...]
[...] *cough* friends. I’ve met Zuckerberg four or five times, most lately interviewing him for Public Parts. I don’t know him. Maybe nobody does. But I can testify at least that he has charm. He does [...]
[...] of The Social Network I’ve met Zuckerberg four or five times, most lately interviewing him for Public Parts. I don’t know him. Maybe nobody does. But I can testify at least that he has charm. He does [...]
[...] this story really brings out is a timeless ethic of privacy (which is how I am framing the topic in Public Parts): Privacy is the responsibility of the person who receives information about someone. Once you know [...]
[...] this story really brings out is a timeless ethic of privacy (which is how I am framing the topic in Public Parts): Privacy is the responsibility of the person who receives information about someone. Once you know [...]
[...] is an issue of publicness. These are public visions now obscured. This is why I am writing a book about protecting the public, from assaults such as this. I can’t write it fast [...]
[...] is an issue of publicness. These are public visions now obscured. This is why I am writing a book about protecting the public, from assaults such as this. I can’t write it fast [...]
[...] exploit these young people by interviewing them — rather than lecturing them — for my book on publicness and privacy. I came away greatly heartened about the wisdom and savvy of the NYC [...]
[...] to exploit these young people by interviewing them — rather than lecturing them — for my book on publicness and privacy. I came away greatly heartened about the wisdom and savvy of the NYC [...]
[...] you, one of the joys of writing this book is that I’ve had cause to start reading books again. I’ll confess I’d fallen off [...]
[...] spend time on this topic in my next book, Public Parts (when I can concentrate on writing it — that is, when I’m not blogging and tweeting as [...]
[...] spend time on this topic in my next book, Public Parts (when I can concentrate on writing it — that is, when I’m not blogging and tweeting as I am [...]
[...] What I’m really saying is that as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other private players come to be the law of the land on the internet, they need to start acting like public players with Constitutions and Bills of Rights and the means of enforcement and adjudication with due process. I’ll be exploring this notion in Public Parts. [...]
[...] What I’m really saying is that as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other private players come to be the law of the land on the internet, they need to start acting like public players with Constitutions and Bills of Rights and the means of enforcement and adjudication with due process. I’ll be exploring this notion in Public Parts. [...]
[...] another note, the article by Jeff Jarvis pointed me towards his new project Public Parts which talks about how the focus on privacy has led to us over looking the public role of media.) [...]
[...] The alternative is to lower the threshold: decrease what needs to be secret or increase our tolerance of what can be public (Jeff Jarvis’s latest project). [...]
[...] researching my book on the benefits of publicnness (to be published as Public Parts in the U.S. and Das Deutsche Paraoxon in Germany), I have found that new technology often leads to [...]
[...] Privacy: Oh, crap. I’d argue about this one but it would take time away from writing a book on the topic. I talked to new-Newsweek head Tina Brown about the topic [...]
[...] Privacy: Oh, crap. I’d argue about this one but it would take time away from writing a book on the topic. I talked to new-Newsweek head Tina Brown about the topic [...]
[...] something he believes in so strongly that he’s in the process of writing a book to be titled Public Parts, which will focus on the benefits of [...]
[...] Privacy: Oh, crap. I’d argue about this one but it would take time away from writing a book on the topic. I talked to new-Newsweek head Tina Brown about the topic [...]
[...] This is an issue of publicness. These are public visions now obscured. This is why I am writing a book about protecting the public, from assaults such as this. I can’t write it fast [...]
[...] as if their example wasn’t inspirational enough – I mean, would anyone who’s not Jeff Jarvis go this public? – they’re raising money for charity as they shed the pounds. [...]
[...] Jeff Jarvis – Public Parts [...]
[...] editing the manuscript for Public Parts now and so I’ll be throwing out some thoughts from the book to get your thoughts in return. [...]
Stoked.
[...] very soon you will see the walls continue to come down. (Read Jeff Jarvis) One of the proliferations of that wall is mobile marketing. Here are some interesting stats on [...]
[...] was honored to have been able to call Eisenstein to interview her for my book, Public Parts. Her perspective on the change wrought through Gutenberg was incredibly helpful to my effort to [...]
[...] was honored to have been able to call Eisenstein to interview her for my book, Public Parts. Her perspective on the change wrought through Gutenberg was incredibly helpful to my effort to [...]
[...] was honored to have been able to call Eisenstein to interview her for my book, Public Parts. Her perspective on the change wrought through Gutenberg was incredibly helpful to my effort to [...]
[...] was honored to have been able to call Eisenstein to interview her for my book, Public Parts. Her perspective on the change wrought through Gutenberg was incredibly helpful to my effort to [...]
[...] for the freedom to connect and recognizes the internet as a public space (as I will argue it is in Public Parts). The right to connect is first on my list of principles for our net society. I’m also [...]
[...] the draft of my book Public Parts—which I’m furiously editing now—I had not gone after privacy’s [...]
[...] a breeze of my book Public Parts—which I’m furiously modifying now—I had not left after privacy’s regulatory/industrial [...]
[...] the draft of my book Public Parts — which I’m furiously editing now — I had not gone after privacy’s [...]
[...] privacy regulators and between catastrophists and triumphalists is about his motives. I write in Public Parts: If, as the movie paints him, he acts out of his own cynical goals—getting attention, getting [...]
[...] Take the Great Distractor of the age: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. The real debate over him in The Social Network http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/09/28/the-antisocial-movie/ and among privacy regulators and between catastrophists and triumphalists is about his motives. I write in Public Parts http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/20/public-parts/: [...]
[...] I need help choosing a subtitle for Public Parts, my book. You all were helpful with What Would Google Do? (which I initially wanted to call WWGD?, [...]
[...] privacy regulators and between catastrophists and triumphalists is about his motives. I write in Public Parts: If, as the movie paints him, he acts out of his own cynical goals–getting attention, getting [...]
Love the discussion and the ideas not much more to say.
[...] where they are at any given time (using Foursquare and the likes), to what they’re eating, to how their bodily functions are doing. People in this category are often seen as oversharing by some of their [...]
[...] where they are at any given time (using Foursquare and the likes), to what they’re eating, to how their bodily functions are doing. People in this category are often seen as oversharing by some of their [...]
[...] where they are at any given time (using Foursquare and the likes), to what they’re eating, to how their bodily functions are doing. People in this category are often seen as oversharing by some of their [...]
[...] where they are at any given time (using Foursquare and the likes), to what they’re eating, to how their bodily functions are doing. People in this category are often seen as oversharing by some of their [...]
[...] him, his viewpoint was far from unanimous. Jeff Jarvis, for example, a journalism professor and author of an upcoming book on privacy called “Public Parts,” said that he didn’t want other people in his social graph to be exporting his email and other [...]
[...] him, his viewpoint was far from unanimous. Jeff Jarvis, for example, a journalism professor and author of an upcoming book on privacy called “Public Parts,” said that he didn’t want other people in his social graph to be exporting his email and other [...]
[...] him, his viewpoint was far from unanimous. Jeff Jarvis, for example, a journalism professor and author of an upcoming book on privacy called “Public Parts,” said that he didn’t want other people in his social graph to be exporting his email and other [...]
[...] him, his viewpoint was far from unanimous. Jeff Jarvis, for example, a journalism professor and author of an upcoming book on privacy called “Public Parts,” said that he didn’t want other people in his social graph to be exporting his email and other [...]
[...] information. Unless of course you want a 100% public life like Jeff Jarvis who is writing a book, Public Parts, about it. I think the vision of being totally open, and that everybody in the whole world should [...]
[...] and private matter little as a distinction of interaction. Who urged anyone to go public with their private parts? Even if you consider the distinction futile (or démodé), why do you have to make an ideology out [...]
[...] pour le respect de la vie privée, la valeur du partage a été laissée de côté. “Si on est avant tout privé, on risque de perdre la valeur des connexion qu’Internet nous appo…“, écrivait-il en mai 2010 sur son blog, alors qu’il présentait son projet. Un débat [...]
[...] Plexauthor Steven Levy who has had the rare pleasure of infiltrating the notorious Google campus, Jeff Jarvis advocate of “publicness” and author of What Would Google Do? and Public Parts, and last but [...]
[...] writer Jeff Jarvis decided to tell the world about his prostate cancer he didn’t spare the gory details: he [...]
[...] do hope at some point to read public parts – it is very timely. We have to ask however, just how far does the market want to reach? [...]
Just finished listening to Public Parts from Audible.com. Very well read, great book Jeff, very provocative.
[...] privacy regulators and between catastrophists and triumphalists is about his motives. I write in Public parts:"If, as the movie paints him, he acts out of his own cynical goals – getting attention, getting [...]
[...] (@jeffjarvis) on Twitter, and am looking forward to reading his new book, Public Parts. Jarvis, as he wrote on his blog, argues that in our current privacy mania we are not talking enough about the value of publicness. [...]
[...] Jarvis – Public Parts [my [...]
[...] Jeff Jarvis – Public Parts. [...]
[...] http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/20/public-parts/ [...]
Come to the light….