Web 3.0 is collecting you.

Is web 3.0 the gathering of data? Marcus Michaels writes "Klout: Passing Trend or Web 3.0?"

The way I see it is that Klout confidently fits into the category of Web 3.0 as a solid vision base of future technologies. If you’re going to embrace it, do so with an open mind. If not, know it’s there, and it’s watching you with more judgement than HAL 9000.

I don't know about you, while the 'gamification' of using Klout-score brag rights to gain perks such as crap Spotify invites, it's also rather easy to game Klout itself. For a while there I was very influential about unicorns, a running joke that never got old. But as Klout tweaks and adds other networks, it matures and instead of looking like some random numbers pulled out of a hat, it looks like it's starting to know what it is actually measuring.

My hobby is to try and get Adland's Klout Score higher than Dabitch's, and vice versa when the situation is reversed. I'm easily amused.

If web 3.0 is the collecting of social network data into a hub, making a fingerprint of you all over the web, how comfortable are you with that idea? Despite Google understanding nyms in their post "freedom to be who you want", they insist and I quote from here, you use your legal name - which may or may not be the name you are known as:

He replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they’re going to build future products that leverage that information

I'm sure there are small digital shops of sorts that are scripting their way around with interconnected elaborate Facebook, Twitter, G+profiles that can have great Klout scores right now, as neither Facebook nor G+ reacts to a common name like "Maria Smith". We know there are Bimbots out there befriending the best of them on social networks already, the next logical step is of course to flesh these bots out to look real in a web 3.0 collected data-set. The US Government have fake people software, and the Anonymous leaked HBGary files revealed internal discussions of how one person could use the software to create an army of fake profiles, allowing a few people to appear as very many people. With well chosen "normal" names, the anglo-saxon definition of "normal", they'll never be spotted. Meanwhile, real people with real lives are fighting the nymwar to keep using the names they are known as rather than their wallet name on G+.

In Sweden there's a law on the books that - if interpreted strictly - prevents databases with information of citizens from being linked together. For the legal nerds out there I reccomend the Swedish uppsats asking the Q "Är samkörningslagen ett hinder". Short answer is: it's complicated. Oh how facebooky of it. Someone else go ahead and figure out if Klout and G+ breaks Swedish law, wouldn't that be a hoot?src="adland.tv/ho-your-friend-facebook-bimbots-are-befriending-best-them">Bimbots out there befriending the best of them on social networks already, the next logical step is of course to flesh these bots out to look real in a web 3.0 collected data-set. The US Government have fake people software, and the Anonymous leaked HBGary files revealed internal discussions of how one person could use the software to create an army of fake profiles, allowing a few people to appear as very many people. With well chosen "normal" names, the anglo-saxon definition of "normal", they'll never be spotted. Meanwhile, real people with real lives are fighting the nymwar to keep using the names they are known as rather than their wallet name on G+.

In Sweden there's a law on the books that - if interpreted strictly - prevents databases with information of citizens from being linked together. For the legal nerds out there I reccomend the Swedish uppsats asking the Q "Är samkörningslagen ett hinder". Short answer is: it's complicated. Oh how facebooky of it. Someone else go ahead and figure out if Klout and G+ breaks Swedish law, wouldn't that be a hoot?