[OPLINLIST] Follow-up on Lynda.com and LinkedIn
Nicholas Slone
sloneni at adamscolibrary.org
Wed Jun 12 14:41:38 EDT 2019
I would like to hopefully initiate a broader conversation about privacy
and library ethics, not just with library leadership, but the entire
public library community in Ohio. I'm having flashbacks of Mark
Zuckerberg testifying in front of Congress, when it was painfully
obvious that most legislators didn't have a clue what he was saying or
what types of questions could/should be asked. I know we have many
competent leaders in the library community, but also a vast wealth of
knowledge in our other co-workers, particularly those with a high degree
of tech skills. I also want to thank you, Don, for identifying this as a
major problem and spreading the word. My words below are *bolded. *
*Disclaimer #1: I've been using and loving Lynda.com. I've vastly
improved my knowledge of music theory and various software. **
*
*Disclaimer #2: I've been off of facebook for around 18 months, and I
feel like my brain has finally been returned to me. I believe strongly
that social media, in its current form, as well as the associated
behavioral algorithms, the contents of which are mostly hidden from
public view, are influencing us to be dumber, meaner, more likely to buy
useless stuff, waste our time, and compromise our true values.*
*Also, please correct me if you believe any of my comments are incorrect. *
*These companies, including LinkedIn, are virtually unregulated and
devoid of any meaningful set of ethics, other than pursuing growth and
profit. As public companies, most of their corporate charters contain
clauses which allow for the CEO to be sued, if they put anything above
the pursuit of profit. Most of the venture capitalists that have
supplied the startup funds for these companies are expecting a 100x
return on investment, and they've reached a breaking point where they
have to put up or shut up....monetize, monetize, monetize. Grow, grow,
grow. The easiest way to monetize these services is by selling the data
they collect from users. The data they collect from our patrons will be
much more lucrative to them than even the value of our contract. There
is currently a digital gold rush to get as much data as possible. In
other words, they're operating from a very different set of motivations
than public libraries. **
*
*I have some questions and comments about the material from the
transition link:*
"While for-profit companies which provide library information services
have, for years, been collecting and processing patron information (e.g.
OverDrive, Hoopla, Demco’s line of library software), and in some cases
linking to external social media accounts, never before has a social
media account been required for use of library-paid resources. OPLIN
staff raised our objections with Lynda/LinkedIn Learning representatives
when we were informed in December of plans for this new requirement."
*Restated, this points out that we're all already compromised, in some
way. We've invested heavily in companies that are exploiting our users.
This doesn't mean it's right or that we don't still need to watch these
companies closely. Remember the sunk cost fallacy. I know of at least
one attempt of Overdrive, which is now owned by a multi-national media
conglomerate called Rakuten, approached the Ohio Digital Library with a
proposal to integrate a service called "Viber," which is essentially
Rakuten's version of WhatsApp. They billed it as a book discussion
platform, which would be opt-in for patrons. Their privacy policy is
problematic, and it contains a clause that basically says the policy can
change if they're acquired by a third party. This plan was ultimately
rejected, as far as I know. Is this what just happened with LinkedIn and
Lynda?*
"No threat on OPLIN's part Is likely to alter LinkedIn's course..."
*Do they care about us renewing the contract at the end of the term?
Would collected protest/action and negative publicity by a majority of
Ohio librarians alter their course? Would pulling promotion of the
product or spreading information about avoiding LinkedIn and their
associated products make a difference? These are some of the options we
should be considering. I would love to hear what other library leaders
are considering/planning. After all, we're still the same group that
resisted National Security Letters from the FBI, right? Does anyone know
if ALA will be getting involved? *
"In subsequent discussion, the Committee determined that while requiring
a LinkedIn account was abhorrent, the value of the resource was such
that OPLIN should maintain the subscription, particularly as those
libraries which had previously provided Lynda.com could not, mid-year,
pick up this relatively expensive subscription for themselves. The OPLIN
Board of Trustees concurred."
*So, is this another way of saying that money trumps values? Are we all
selling out our patrons, now? Quick experiment, if you're interested:
see if you can find a teenager that knows what "sellout" means. And,
again, if anyone's interested in the definition of the sunk cost fallacy: *
*https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sunk-cost-fallacy*
"LinkedIn has, in fact, been praised for its compliance with the
European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the
plain-language clarity of its data privacy policies, and the tools
LinkedIn provides its users for control over their personal information.
Of course, effective usage of these tools requires a degree of
information literacy that novice users have not developed. And without
access to a working LinkedIn Learning for Libraries platform, no one has
been able to begin developing guides to help librarians help their
patrons."
*It's not just that novice users haven't developed this level of
information literacy. Virtually no one has. I have a LinkeIn account
from years ago, so I logged in. It's true that if you dig into the
settings, you have some control of what you share. But, typically, and
displayed prominently on the dashboard, there are messages and banners
and interfaces encouraging you to share more, telling the user that
their profile is "incomplete," and that by giving up more information,
the service will be so much better and improve their lives. The European
law still doesn't go far enough, because it only covers "personally
identifiable information." But, they don't need your name to push their
products and influence your behavior. Some of the most lucrative
sections of this new digital economy are comprised of "anonymized data,"
which is another way of saying "everything about you, besides your
name/specific address," without your opt-in permission. Again, though,
they will make it extremely attractive to opt-in and more painful to
avoid opting in. **And they and their partners can target you, without
knowing your name, based on the other attributes you supply.
*
*Then, there's this from the FAQ:*
"Will all the stats and information I currently have at Lynda Admin
transfer over to LinkedIn Learning?
Not all of it. After the change, libraries will no longer have
access to some user learning activity (such as certificates earned)
or personally identifiable information (such as email addresses).
You will have access to basic use metrics: number of users, number
of videos, etc. OPLIN has collected these basic usage statistics for
all libraries since July 2019. If you want more detailed information
or a longer history of stats, please visit the Lynda Reports
Dashboard <https://www.lynda.com/ReportsDashboard> and download the
reports you need."
*If I'm not mistaken, this means that LinkedIn will automatically have
MORE data about our patrons than WE do. If we select another product at
the end of this contract, this would make it much more difficult to
contact our Lynda users to notify them of the alternative. This also
might mean we won't be able to see the most popular certificates our
patrons are pursuing, so that we can use this info in selecting an
alternative. While we're in this period of uncertainty, I would
recommend getting a list of your patrons using the service, so that you
can communicate with them on short notice. Will LinkedIn be using these
email addresses to promote Premium subscriptions? Will they use it to
maintain the user base, in the event we cancel the contract? *
__
"I have concerns about the privacy of patron information that is to be
shared with LinkedIn.
Online privacy is important, and it is good for librarians to inform
themselves and to help educate their patrons. In part, LinkedIn is
moving the Lynda.com information within the LinkedIn environment to
strengthen protections around user data, and to provide Lynda users
with better tools for managing how their information may and may not
be used."
*When these tech startups, and even Apple, use language like "strengthen
protections around user data" and "better tools for managing how their
information may and may not be used," while simultaneously pushing a
change that will require or encourage us to provide more information,
it's important to read between the lines. In reality, this means more
opportunities for each user to elect to share. If there are 25 toggles
for different sharing options, it increases the possibility that many of
those will be toggled "on" without the user having any real knowledge of
the implications. *
*My final question is this: what section of our contract with
Lynda/LinkedIn gives them the justification for imposing this
requirement on the library community? I think we should all see the
exact language, since we routinely negotiate contracts with private
entities. Who knows, maybe Sirsi-Dynix will soon require us all to have
Instagrams, in order to use our library catalog. The longer our
partnerships endure, the harder it will be to break away, if we don't
adequately plan for alternatives. We've seen facebook's strategy of
introducing distasteful changes in small increments, in order to limit
backlash, and it's reasonable to assume others will employ the same
strategy. What's our plan for keeping them as honest as possible? An
open source and/or nonprofit alternative to as many of these services as
possible would be wonderful, as well as pressuring legislators for more
regulation. *
*_Suggested Podcast Episodes_*
*"Why Should We Care About Privacy?" - Crazy/Genius by The Atlantic*
*https://pca.st/z49Q*
*"What Happened in Vegas" - Your Undivided Attention by The Center for
Humane Technology*
*https://pca.st/u0MD**
*
*_Suggested Books_*
*The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff*
*Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff*
*Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus by Douglas Rushkoff
*
*Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport*
*And the website for Center for Humane Technology, which is mostly
comprised of former tech insiders and CEOs...with extremely guilty
consciences:*
*https://humanetech.com/*
Sincerely,
Nicholas Slone
Executive Director
Adams County Public Library
On 6/8/2019 10:12 AM, Don Yarman via OPLINLIST wrote:
> There is a growing chorus of concern over Lynda.com becoming LinkedIn
> Learning, and the new requirement for library users to have LinkedIn
> accounts to continue using the resource. (Please see the announcement
> at https://oplin.ohio.gov/lynda-transition.) That is good—it is the
> duty of librarians to safeguard the information lives of their
> patrons. While for-profit companies which provide library information
> services have, for years, been collecting and processing patron
> information (e.g. OverDrive, Hoopla, Demco’s line of library
> software), and in some cases linking to external social media
> accounts, never before has a social media account been required for
> use of library-paid resources. OPLIN staff raised our objections with
> Lynda/LinkedIn Learning representatives when we were informed in
> December of plans for this new requirement.
>
> It was not until the end of March that the company delivered a
> presentation about LinkedIn Learning for Libraries. OPLIN’s Content
> Advisory Committee <https://oplin.ohio.gov/CAC> attended this webinar,
> and offered LinkedIn staff their suggestions and their frank opinions.
> In subsequent discussion, the Committee determined that while
> requiring a LinkedIn account was abhorrent, the value of the resource
> was such that OPLIN should maintain the subscription, particularly as
> those libraries which had previously provided Lynda.com could not,
> mid-year, pick up this relatively expensive subscription for
> themselves. The OPLIN Board of Trustees concurred.
>
> OPLIN and its peer organizations across North America continue to
> press LinkedIn for changes that will align more closely with library
> ethics concerning patron data. It is important to note two things:
>
> 1. LinkedIn’s practices are not illegal. State laws governing library
> patron information address only the disclosure, by libraries, of
> /library records/; they do not cover the personal information that
> users of library services themselves provide to library vendors.
> 2. No threat on OPLIN’s part to end our agreement is likely to alter
> LinkedIn’s course for the future of Lynda content access. (It is
> rather more likely that LinkedIn would take legal action to hold
> OPLIN to its original agreement to maintain the subscription
> through June 2021.)
>
> LinkedIn has, in fact, been praised for its compliance with the
> European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the
> plain-language clarity of its data privacy policies, and the tools
> LinkedIn provides its users for control over their personal
> information. Of course, effective usage of these tools requires a
> degree of information literacy that novice users have not developed.
> And without access to a working LinkedIn Learning for Libraries
> platform, no one has been able to begin developing guides to help
> librarians help their patrons.
>
> OPLIN’s services are funded directly from public library money, and we
> strive to align those services with guidance we receive from the
> public library community. The guidance we have received so far
> indicates that library decision-makers are disturbed by this change,
> but saw a greater value in having OPLIN continue to provide statewide
> access to the content.
>
> Don Yarman
> Director, Ohio Public Library Information Network
> 2323 W Fifth Ave Suite 130, Columbus OH 43204
> don at oplin.ohio.gov <mailto:don at oplin.ohio.gov> | 614.728.5250
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPLINLIST mailing list -- OPLINLIST at lists.oplin.org
> http://lists.oplin.org/mailman/listinfo/oplinlist
>
> *** OPLIN now offers a Tier III-rated data center for libraries to use. Find out more: https://www.oplin.ohio.gov/co-location-service ***
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/oplinlist/attachments/20190612/be5bd573/attachment.html>
More information about the OPLINLIST
mailing list