GAS: Pay-Per-Click=Green Donations

Green Any Site – GAS – is a website that is using the power of Pay-Per-Click advertising to benefit the environment.

What a great idea – “recycle” some of those advertising dollars back to the environment! We are so bombarded online with annoying ads constantly reminding us to buy-buy-buy. The reason they are there is to fund the web site you are visiting. “Real Estate” – just posting the ad on the site – turns some revenue, but the big bucks are in click-through, and bigger bucks if you make a purchase as a result of a click-through.

This is due to sales affiliations. Online retailers will pay a percentage of the price of the item purchased using a click-through link. For instance, if I was enrolled in Amazon’s affiliate program, I could write this blog all about the greatest invention ever (sliced bread, right?) and provide a link to purchase it on Amazon. If you click the link and buy it immediately, I get a portion of that sale. I don’t get a portion of any of the other items you add to your cart.

GAS takes this concept a step further. They provide a little “bookmarklet.” Before adding anything to your “cart” when you shop online, click the GAS bookmarklet. This sends the notice that you clicked-through GAS to make that purchase. Keep clicking the bookmarklet as you add stuff to your cart, and when you make the purchase, a portion of the sale is paid to GAS. GAS then donates 100% of the profits to the organization that registered users have voted for. This month, that company is Conservation International.

How much money are we talking about? This varies with each online retailer’s affiliate program. For Amazon.com, see the Referral-Fee Rates below:

I see two big questions here – first, is this fair to the “little guys”? Shouldn’t advertising revenue go to the site that you actually linked-through to purchase? Second, is this fair to the “big guys”? Will the Amazon’s of the world shut down GAS as soon as it gets popular? It seems likely that they’ll notice the link added to every item in a person’s shopping cart pretty quickly.

I think I’ll “green” my purchases whenever I go directly to the shopping site (which is most of the time), but not when I legitimately click through from another site. I’ll use it as long as it’s around – probably not for long!

The Digital Age: Does Anyone Care About Privacy Anymore?

John Palfrey, author of "Born Digital" was interviewed about privacy concerns on “The Digital Age.” His research shows that the “Digital Natives” of the Millennial Generation are often not concerned about internet privacy – until it is too late.

He uses the analogy of getting a tattoo to describe the content that people put on the internet. Like a tattoo, people post content online in a moment when they have passion for it, without realizing that this is something they may not be able to get rid of later in life, even in they want to. Sort of a cyber-tattoo.

For instance, it is very simple for someone to take a picture with a Blackberry and instantly post the photo to their Facebook page. Once done, this picture may be picked up by any of their “friends” and posted elsewhere, perhaps distributed virally. One big difference, though, is that “friends” can’t force someone to get a real tattoo, but they can post content about someone else online, which may lead to a cyber-tattoo.

The reason this can happen so easily can be described with another analogy – it’s like people picking their noses in their cars. People perceive greater privacy online than they necessarily have. They perceive a certain level of privacy when posting online. They imagine an audience of a small group of friends. However, those friends have other friends, and friend-groups change and grow over time, so content becomes visible to more people than the user originally imagines.

It is not just young people who over-share online. The greatest risk-group are adults who use online dating sites. They share large amounts of very personal information about themselves on these sites.

On one side of the debate over online privacy are those who say – who cares? Maybe we just no longer prize privacy like we used to, and maybe it doesn’t really matter. Or, maybe it does matter and it is better to be more open and less private. Some who are anti-privacy regulations feel that sharing information fuels innovation.

However, others are very concerned about massive information sharing, and information storing. While they may be harmless in unconnected bits of data, many companies are now tying our information back together – linking our online and offline behaviors. When these bits are connected, they can show a large amount of information about us.

We know that companies want this information so that they can market to us well. However, other companies may use the information against us. For instance, insurance companies could raise our rates and credit companies could lower our scores based on assumptions made from our cyber-profiles. Check out this blog from choklatsoda - A New Type of Profiling

There is also the issue of true criminals. By allowing them to hold information about us, we are forced to “trust” these companies who are aggregating information about our lives. However, there are no regulations that they need to protect this information.

Who “owns” the information about us? Who should protect it?