A company declines Echo Boomers [updated link] jobs because they discover a posts on Facebook from a decade ago that they find unacceptable.
Controversy swells about privacy collection programs that track everything existing on the internet.
People, especially members of Generation Y, pay thousands of dollars a year to agencies that promise to "wipe their slate clean from the internet" while HR directors spend millions trying to uncover those old data.
Welcome to the age where what we do never ceases to exist ... at least for now.
While I recognize how unpopular I will be for stating the following:
The internet is not as permanent as people think.
The above observation is actually good because humans inherently need to let go of the "wrong" for the "right" (learning basics 101)
Keeping other people's information is actually a violation of private property
Times change and so do people, so what a person does at 20 doesn't say anything about them at 40
Unpopular to say? Yes, I've had many people at events I speak at disagree with many of these points. However, these will age well over time.
Let's relate this to the next billion dollar idea.
What's missing in the marketplace is a temporary approach to managing data. Consider how a social media company could only keep data for one month, everything past one month ceases to exist. In some cases, we don't want to remember everything we ever did, nor do we want others to know either - and such an approach to data may eventually dominate the marketplace. I'll add here that this idea will exist whether we like it or not because people can always (1) remove what they've created (even if you keep it) and (2) stop contributing to something that keeps records. In fact, one point I should reflect over is how the internet may lead to a privacy backlash considering pendulum effects of people's behavior.
A temporary approach to information, or even an information exclusivity, hasn't arrived just yet as a popular platform or solution, but I expect that we'll see this in the long run in one form or another. Here's why:
1. Horror Stories
Millennials spread horror stories faster than other generations, and sometimes they use social media to do so. The amount of horror stories involving someone's past interfering with a job have risen, and it's beginning to call into question the existence of social media. Either companies evolve, or they cease to exist as their constituents abandon their product.
You can make money off backlashes, yes. But what is the long term effect?
The same applies to firing someone because they posted something to social media. How will that not eventually create a far worse backlash?
Notice how both a temporary approach to information or information exclusivity solves this.
Don't forget this if you're older: you probably don't have the same views that you do now that you did when you were a teen. Is it mature to measure someone by what they said 20 years ago?
2. Some Tech Companies May Be Damaging Their Reputations
All privacy matters aside in this debate, some major American companies denied involvement in something they were involved in, only to re-state their involvement later. Why? However, these acts could create significant distrust and it will only take a company (or companies) with a privacy approach to begin replacing them.
Read this story with caution.
Because I've worked in data, I've met other data professionals. One professional shared a story with a data audience about an interview she had where the interviewers admitted to reading people's private messages on the company's platform. In the interview, she asked the interviewers, "Do you think that's ethical?"
She felt disturbed to learn from that interview that the company didn't prevent employees from reading messages nor audit this behavior. (In my view, no employee should have access to private information of a customer. Read that again: no employee.)
Her point to our audience was that many companies create data solutions, but these data aren't private. People aren't thinking about this when they use them. She also made the case that companies should not be allowing their employees to have access to private details.
What I concluded from this story is that a "private" or "personal" message may not actually be that at all.
"I get why people feel anger at the person and I feel the same," one of my co-workers said. "But it's disturbing that some of these tech companies got involved." She's not the only one; many people who actually agree with the mob also feel disturbed by both the mob trying to cancel the person (a step too far in their mind) and the behavior of some companies.
Your rage at a person feels good and congratulations on cancelling them. But now that you've cancelled them, what happens? You've created an enemy. And if you keep cancelling people, you'll keep creating enemies. This is poor strategic thinking because at some point, there's more of "them" than "you" and now you're the one in the crosshairs.
3. Advertising Becomes More Effective
The worst advertising approach is assuming that no one ever grows. Fresh data without past data actually provides more accuracy to advertisers as to what consumers want because no assumptions exist. With past data comes past assumptions, and removing past data eliminates this obstacle.
Advertising works like how adults play soccer versus kids. Kids chase the ball whever it is. Adults stay in a position and play their position. Advertising that reacts to the marketplace erratically will do well in some seasons, but overall, I've seen it significantly underperform strategic advertising.
A good data principle: where do the data indicate the person/industry/world heading? In many cases, you can only answer this question by getting rid of data that's no longer relevant.
4. Meet Little Data - It's Cheaper
Businesses love to save money. How much work is required with smaller data sets versus large?
Storage and compute cost. Likewise, the wrong assumptions cost. Little data may be more precise and uses less resources. That's a win-win for businesses.
5. No One's Perfect
Since everyone has made a mistake (or will make a mistake), it's only a matter of time before everyone sees the benefit with such an approach to data, as well as realizing that the best place for memories are in one's own brain, not in the public eye. Any view of history will show pendulum swings, and currently, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of too much information.
Ironically, if you're an information professional, limiting data may be your saving grace. You never want to be a part of a bubble.
6. That's Not Your Community
What was the lesson of the Tower of Babel?
Whether you like it or not, people will have opinions that differ than yours. You may not like them. Maybe that means you don't belong in that group. If you can't live in a world where other people think and act differently than you, then you will enter a violent world. From the Soviet Union to Pol Pot's Cambodia, not being able to handle people who are different than you always ends badly.
Notice how temporary information or information exclusivity solves these problems. Not only do you not know everything about a person, people only share details with those they value. I expect that as the backlash toward these cancellations occur, the next billion dollar idea (or ideas) will address this problem.
(Never forget that Echo Boomers do not value their privacy. But be careful because iGenZ and other generations may value it much more, especially because of all the absurd cancellation stories that are happening.)
