[OPLINLIST] Follow-up on Lynda.com and LinkedIn

[Ed Liddle]

This is an interesting event that has impacted Ohio libraries. I appreciate reading the information and opinions about it.

It looks like microsoft's $26.2-billion acquisition of linked in in 2016 is working out really well for them. in 2018  there seemed to be a focus about data mining or integrating linked in to other microsoft products to improve microsoft offerings for their customers.
Here are some news stories about how well it has been working from Feb of 2018
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-linkedin-how-marriage-is-working-out/
https://redmondmag.com/articles/2018/02/26/microsoft-and-linkedin-no-news.aspx

In my opinion, It makes logical sense to be able to integrate linked in which my understanding is considered a "professional" social network highlighting its members' professional strengths, work experience, and allows businesses to find skilled people to hire they need to fulfill jobs. Lynda.com offers informal training to people needing to learn about new things or brush up their skill sets as needed. Lynda.com is more affordable than formal higher education, whether someone is degree seeking or not. This can be useful for professional growth and linked in is a platform where  members can list specific skills. From this perspective integrating linked in and lynda.com makes a lot of sense especially if they are ran by the same organization. There will be less reinventing the wheel when it comes to user authentication, tracking skill sets, etc. It will also I assume allow for a single sign on experience for both products, one less password to remember. I know the library staff at our library enjoy single sign-on when it comes to logging into the computers, ILS, and email accounts that Microsoft active directory provides.

It is my understanding Microsoft windows and their other products are used a lot by professionals here in Ohio. I have to wonder if there are any plans to tie everyone's consumer/home microsoft online accounts/Student office 365 accounts to linked in and lynda.com perhaps at a future date. I could see where this would be useful feature for job seekers to make it easier to market themselves. It also would make it easier for people that are employed to keep their professional experiences current in case they become job seekers. This would also take single sign-on to another level for home/consumers.

Microsoft offers a free version of office 365 that many libraries and institutions of higher education are using that includes a hosted version of exchange, the ability to use office 365 hosted apps like word, excel, sharepoint and some others. It also includes office 365 pro plus office suite that can be installed locally on a computer. This is tracked on a per user basis for activation. Each user can activate it on I think 5 computers. Each user can go into their account and deactivate the license on unused computers which frees it up to use on another device. Microsoft also makes software donations to tech soup that libraries can use too. I am unsure what the underlying costs actually are for these but we as a library community are greatful for it and use it. Perhaps the linked in and lynda.com integration is one of those underlying costs in the big scheme of things.

How deep could the rabbit hole go?
Will Ohio libraries collaborate together in protest and start voting with their publicly funded wallets, using alternatives to the operating systems and software that microsoft owns to avoid the integration with linked in, like using apple OSX, Linux, LibreOffice, Firefox, Scribus, google apps, etc? That will be up to the library directors and what is in the best interest of the communities their library serve.


-Ed Liddle



On 6/12/19 2:41 PM, Nicholas Slone via OPLINLIST wrote:

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<mailto: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 ***





_______________________________________________
OPLINLIST mailing list -- OPLINLIST at lists.oplin.org<mailto: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/20190613/d6b9e575/attachment.html>