The power of social media to Kill In The Name of...

After some rather lacklustre previous 'races of the Christmas Top Spot!' (Mr Blobby you belong in 1990s the-worst-of listings) it was nice to revel in the mounting workings of S.Cowell social media enterprise. XFactor: Slick in its production and promotion of 'that (nice) boy Joe' who sang about something to climb. Well he sang some other person's song about climbing. Everest this was not. Pulsing with Rage, 90s band Rage Against the Machine proved that with a little social media it's easy to be Killing In The Name - the name in this case being Mr Cowell, or so Christmas consumer's were led to believe.

Killing In The Name started life as the Facebook Group Rage Against the Machine for Christmas No.1 pushed by Jon Morter and Tracy Morter. The group SHOUTED! that we've had enough of a dull Christmas chart every year! Oh, yeah bring back the Spice Girls.

Impressive in numbers terms, the group has attracted more than 450,000 members (2 percent of the U.K. Facebook population) in the two weeks of its existence and it is UK's most trafficked and historic facebook group... Most Facebook Groups struggle to get past 5,ooo members.

Back to social media, Killing In The Name has become the first song to achieve the Christmas no.1 position through downloads only and has Achieved the biggest one-week download sales in UK chart history. Not bad for some quick fingered campaigning via Facebook.

BUT Cowell is not defeated. Killing In The Name could be a sneaky PR backfoot. Joe and the Rage are both held under Simon's Sony deal. So placed at no.1 and no.2 the man's making money. Ker-ching! It must be comforting that the man can hear this in Barbados.

So is this consumer POWER and from the people action, in action?!... Perhaps no. For Cowell this is win, win. For rest of us, proof that advertising works. As consumers we follow the leaders, whether they be the Joe's, or the Machine's of the world. As Coles points out for WalletPop, while there is much to be enjoyed about this victory - most notably the fact it raised £65,000 for housing charity Shelter - this is a far cry from consumer power in action.

To return briefly to the social media side of things, 'that (nice) boy Joe's' Official XFactor Facebook Fan Page has, as of this week, been taken down. This is well timed, as according to Henry, for the Huffington Post, McElderry was deluged with a slew of rub-it-in-your-face comments, "I've just read that British Airways are after cabin crew, Joe," mocks one 'fan', another recommends that, "the list of future employment options are.. Tescos, Burger King and now B.A."

Ouch. Wonder what Joe's Twitter feed says... 'I must not make crap Christmas songs'

Tweet2Eat.

Twitter is useful for many things. 'Watching' celebrities as they shun each other, throw an ego related tantrum and kiss n make up. Another Twitter use stems from my recent culinary captivation as led by the foodie's. One of my latest research projects is the tracking of everything to do with food and the cultivation of a 'modern' food culture in our age of social media.

Now with 'good' reason to recipe stalk Jamie Oliver et al., those I have found to be of more inspiration are the 'everyday' food bloggers who tweet and blog simply for the love of food. Where the celebrity chef culture can be exaggerated and overblown ('how to have the perfect Christmas' is only with @Delia and friends' *gag*), the food bloggers invite commentary from other cooks who, just like them, may not hold a professional position in the industry, but do, just like you, LOVE food.

Lacking what to cook/where to go tonight: A fail-safe technique is to follow @aforkful @FoodUrchin @thelarderlout @GingerGourmand @TheOrdinaryChef.

Also, FIND! @Twecipe - a service that allows you to tweet your ingredients and receive a recipe in return.

So whilst overeating is not recommended. One cannot indulge enough on the food talk of others. Good morning @porridgelady.

Time to rust. Freedom on the web.

Our freedoms as they (seemingly) are on the web: fluid, multi-dimensional, creative, and even (at times) considerate and assertive, have, I must warn you, only a limited lifespan. Justine Bateman states that we 'Need to put our foot down on net neutrality' - very much PRO the openness, this is under threat from the efforts of organisations such as ATT, Comcast, Time/Warner Cable, Verizon, Verizon Wireless, The NCTA who threaten to control all forms of media content. By control I mean for profit $/£s. Until when? Well 'when' the margins of profitability state that this isn't a good idea. So that'll be at the end of time.

Increasingly mediated, but always communicative what makes the web? NOT its version change to a '2.0', but its links, networks and openness - A veritable pool for innovation. The question is, should media commerciality innovate like the rest of us? OR is this freedom damaging the quality of information - social or otherwise?

Maybe there's room for both. Today in the UK, Johnston Press reveal a trial to charge for online content.

Other opportunities one could throw in to the mix include:

Maybe Fox's 24 could be 23hours long with a final 'paid for' hour.That bit we all skip forward to anyway and usually when Jack Bauer is either getting his vest top on or off for the upteenth time in 24hours.

The newspaper the Sun could publish with a free 'fully dressed' version. And then with an additional option of a 'less dressed' content version = less clothes more totty for £s.

email could work the same way. Free SPAM. But $/£s for the content that you really care about... That job interview reply etc.

Whatever the future, you can safely bet there will be a price tag for our freedoms.

Taking it all off. GPS my intimates

There is a preface to my remarks for this post. It is likely that you and I do not know each other very well and I would prefer we were face-to-face for the following - so I first knew your social particulars (gender/height/hair colour/relationship status and so on), and second, so I could better gauge your reaction to the following...

Dear reader, my passion and first love (and what will be my ever-enduring love) is technology. I am happy to inhabit a wonderfully (by my own estimations and 'creation') socially mediated world. I hold firm that technology is a creative and good thing. In the right ways it can be life changing. But lets not get too technologically deterministic here. What makes technology special is the how, why and when we choose to use it.

Which is why I am a bit abashed when it comes to the penetration of technological artifice into the bedroom. Today marks MEGA Monday! the busiest internet shopping day of the year. (hello Amazon & John Lewis you have my order/s). BUT, pause before you point and click as I build up to the BIG reveal...The Brazilian designer lingerie company LindeLucy lets its wearers be GPS tracked. Perfect for that spontaneous roll in the hay? Handy when your other half is stuck in traffic and wants to locate you? A chastity belt for our times? Watch and decide for yourself.

I wonder what the forrah would be if via uplink these smalls rated your intimate abilities too?...
Pick it up, ladies. Pick it up. All right. Ladies! That’s it. Let’s go. Live updating of your sexual exploits.

A visit to BBC Radio York re. social media. It's not PANTs

GOOD MORNING YORK! via BBC Radio York.

And we're LIVE: A positive or a negative comment from someone, somewhere on the web can be critical to how debate develops, brand reputation and, as we saw recently with @stephenfry on Twitter, personal ego.

Today (as in this date Wednesday, 25th November) on BBC York I put some social media tools to the test. Well at least in so far as you can with a self-confessed ‘technophobe’ DJ and ‘older generation' listening demographic. But, really all Maude from York wants is to stay in touch – how else will she know when little grandson Johnny has taken over the world? This is true for all generations. And even technophobe DJ's - hello, Andy Tomlinson, thanks for keeping my mic warm.

So, it is with real delight when I am introduced to the ‘newbies’ or ‘virgin’ social media users. One core message that resonates when confronted with Twitter et al. are the claims made by the newbies that they ‘don’t’ get it’ (whatever the 'it' may be – as in IT or otherwise). What they are missing out on is accompaniment of (another) tool for the simple pleasure of communication. To go return, briefly, to Maude and her grandson, in essence the pleasure take from the how we choose to stay in touch. Such social media influence can often mean the difference between communications success or a communications failure. Because whether we are aware of it or not we all have influence.


This is NOT a popularity contest.


Consider the example set by small business such as Elizabeth Wells Lingerie, right ‘here’ in York. BEFORE I had even arrived this morning at BBC Radio York Sarah (owner of said establishment), had twittered her way through the mornings arrivals including tit(literally)bits and ‘stylish pants’ for men.

OK, so perhaps not a before breakfast topic suitable for the less fruity of Maude's friends, but certainly an influential pull in terms of business awareness and, yes, sociability. I mention sociability as @Elizabethwells and myself ‘met’ over Twitter, where we discovered a mutual residence in York and appreciation of mojitos. This is unlikely to have occurred if we had kept quiet and without a tweet from either of us re.pants etc.


Ultimately, this is finding your niche and what you as an individual is comfortable with. Finding the blogs or Twitter users who are quotes ‘highly influential’, is about understanding how such connections influence choice, steer networks and lead to linkages to others. Maude et al. are unlikely to care about this side of social media 'stuff' and 'things'. But they will be happy to 'see’ what Johnny is up to and update status with ‘making tea’ for the upteenth time that day.


In short, the individual use of social media provide invaluable clues as to who you are, as much as what you are doing. Whether as Maude, Johnny, DY, @Elizabethwells or me (@mazphd)...

No more lies please. We're not fake online.

A recent ruling in the United States makes it illegal to lie about your identity on the interweb.

The case: The suicide of Megan Meier, a 16-year old girl (no, a child) who, after falling out with her best friend was approached by that friends mother Lori Drew on the SNSs MySpace. Ms Drew was posing as a 16-year old boy under the name 'Josh Evans' and sought to pursue the 16-year with a barrage of communication. Eventually earning her trust and her friendship.

How exactly will this order play out?...
Daily, we face a constant barrage of real and unreal connections across the web. Some spaces such as SecondLife even encourage the use of multiple identities and play. Others choose to live out what they uphold as very real lives and lifestyles.

The 'real' is dependent not only on context, but the ideals (and manipulations) on the part of the individual. Real profiles on SNSs such as MySpace, Facebook and friends require time to solidify within networks of connections, in order to gel and become stronger. Perhaps what really lies at the heart of the above case is not whether the identity created by Ms Drew to taunt Megan was real or fake, but the fact that it was real to Megan.Which , in this instance, meant that the accumulated actions had very real consequences. The abuse of trust that is at the centre of the case reveals a heartless, if not very disturbed adult deliberately preying on a vulnerable and exposed child.

iPhones, MySpace, friending, Google - how odd these concepts were only a short time ago? Now they are commonplace. In fact, to be 'off' or not present on at least one web platform stands out as unusual and even anti-social. In five years from now the treatment of fake profiles might become commonplace too, when users (young and old) are used to the new social parameters of such technology. What this case represents is a lack in the provision of care, trust and knowledge of the individuals that we invest time and emotional attachment to through our Status Updates, Tweets, etc. To say nothing of the longer-term effects of the broadcast of (too much?) personal information to our known and unknown others.

The case represents not just what makes us who we are, or at least who we say we are. Here, there are a lot of answers. Certainly one possible answer is to 'ban' all those who pretend to be our friends, who pretend to be 'someone' when they are really a no-one trying to be an everyone. However, it is inevitable that those who want will find ways around this.

In a way, this is a form of social control, but meant on the best possible of terms - to safeguard 'real' people's interests. Perhaps in time we will be savvy enough to safeguard our own interests and not be left vulnerable or exposed to those who intend malice. I am hoping that the likes of Ms Drew are the exception 'out there'. After all, what social media offer, to be connected, to enjoy meeting, socialising etc. with others is precisely why so many of us signed up to Facebook et al. in the first place.

Un/Happy Slapping: A call for communications decency

Are you familiar with America's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? If you're not here's a précis; it expressly protects the web-based platforms from any defamation of liability that may be related to any data/updates/social information etc. that are posted to their sites. So if you, or someone else, uploads something to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. it is NOT the provider's issues. But yours.

Yes, primarily a United States led legal ramification, but with significant consequences for all...

Think of it. We all (I am sure) have experienced a potentially awkward situation. Traditionally we have been relatively free to live down these mortification's in the now of the moment and within a specific context - whether workplace, pub, street, supermarket etc. BUT with the advent of the constant streams of publicly broadcast social information we may (inadvertently) share our moments (whatever we are doing) with everyone.

This does not just relate to potentially embarrassing episodic moments, but also to mundane activities, professional events, and so on and so forth. My point is that with the nowness of innovative technology (e.g. instant video uploads to YouTube) the (to)day has come when we have to be prepared to be socially aware at all times. Whether welcomed or not. And this is not just on a personal level, but shared across the globe simultaneously with unknown as well as known others. Who may, or may not, be your friends.

Rather than have debate on whether such uploads are an infringement into individual privacy, I (like socially mediated others) am mindful that we live in a of-the-moment world of nowness where everyone via the social web can be a potential distributor of content. Ironic when you consider that whatever one uploads you effectively give up all ownership to it. To follow this path of thought, perhaps current legislation needs updating. Certainly current measures offer no remedy for those who find invasions into what they are doing, when, where and with whom as, at best, an intrusion and, at worse, a personal and unacceptable impingement.

Covered in the press by incidence such as Happy Slapping
(described by Wikipedia as 'a fad' in which typically 'young people' choose to assault a victim while recording the assault for instant upload to YouTube or other filesharing sites), in the same week there is a report on Cyber Bullying which describes an increased anxiety caused by negative social situations due to the immediacy of increasingly social technologies.

So, do these situations point to a need for a rethink of individual visibility across various platforms and/or the ways in which we behave and have expectations of others?...

As a footnote, I think the best advice is to remember that whenever 'on' the web you are effectively out and in public - as much as you would be in the street. In one way this makes us 'fair game'. In another it strikes me such social visibility can only ever be unfair.

Social Media cloaking

Overheard. Friend no.1,

'I never joined Facebook cos I actually want to see my friends'

So claimed a non-Facebook friend. This all began one evening in the pub as another friend (Friend no.2) was berating his 'inaction' re. a Friend Request she had sent him.

Which sparked the following...

As social technologies continue to arrive cloaked in rhetoric's of openness, of trust - all the main components for friendship. We appear, in effect, in control of 'our' Web. The very construct of O'Reilly's 'Web 2.0' fosters sharing & caring; participation & reciprocation. Together these obscure how never before have we volunteered up so much personal information.

Thus, as we move from finding what's on the 'web of information' to a series of networks as a 'web of people' (Social Web) the output of all of this social participation is boundless and can be arranged as seemingly comprehensible information dossiers on individuals (everything pulled together from social network profile/s, photos, location, status updates, searches and so on and so forth.).

At the heart of this pulling of social and 'out there' data lies a loss of control over personal information. Take for example MIT's Project Gaydar - set to 'spot' your sexual preference by the social ties on Facebook with various checks accumulated from tagged 'shares', quizes etc. all making very personally identifiable information available (AND quantifiable £s as it is sold on) to third parties.

Amidst such complicit social action/s, one starts to wonder if Friend no.1 has a point. Not because being on the web and/or joining Facebook means that you see less of friends, but rather there are very real social risks that arise from the 'giving away' such personal aspects of yourself.
All rather disconcerting. Until Friend no.2 countered with,

'Well we're all being CCTV surveilled right now! (in the pub) and everywhere else anyway, so what's a few clicks between friends'

And so the above, I find, is more or less exactly how people have decided that it is OK to volunteer up so many aspects of themselves. This is because such social participation has been gradual. Slowly our personal offerings lend themselves to a radical shift in one direction of increasing social exposure - a by-product of wanting to be a constant part of what's going on and open as a link to others.

Besides, as Friend no.1 and no.2 manage to agree before closing time,

'...We are programmed to receive.
You can checkout any time you like,
But you can never leave!'

This may have had more to do with the Eagles on the juke box, rather than any real profound thought as to the social state of surveillance and the web though...

Why costume parties are more fun in-person

The sociologist Erving Goffman once noted that any social encounter is to be understood by the 'functioning of the 'membrane' that encloses it,' (1961: pp.79).

Over the weekend I had to cancel my attendance at a get together with friends - a Halloween costume party. From all details the event was a happy and silly occasion - pineapples were strewn on the floor. Men were dressed as flamingos. What's not to love. So, how do I know such fun was had? Because Facebook, Twitter etc. tells me so. I have had no 'real' contact with those friends who donned silly wigs and so forth and did go along, but according to the various snippets of news from Status Updates, feeds and so forth, I 'know' that things were a resounding and fun filled success. If left a bit disturbing after a PVC 'incident'.

But how does this relate to Goffman and his 'functioning' social 'membrane''? Goffman was writing about Fun in Games. Excluded from the fun, my attachment to the functioning membrane of the encounter was made more permeable by my being able to have an absent presence.

So, rather than being 'cut off' from the sociability that give particular events - such as the party above - weight, these can be shared out amongst those who were there, as well as those who were not, but should have been, in attendance. This meant I bought the costume, I dressed up, I wasn't there, but to all intents and purposes I can share and 'live out' some of the happenings. Just not the chaffing of the PVC.

Thus with social media, we remain at all times - should we choose - connected to the various occasions and friends of our social lives. In doing so, we seek to dispel the myth of the socially disconnected and those more tortured sets of individuals who are in effect 'cut off' from one another. Here then, a new set of rules apply. These lay down the types of behavior and influence that can be given to the allocation of socially realised encounters. Hence, if an individual is absent from one occasion they can - in effect - remain 'spontaneously' involved. In this way technology provides a sustainable social platform from which to perpetuate the stability of selective relationships as we choose to move either closer, or further away from whatever social interludes and/or people that take our fancy.

Our goal is to be at ease with one another, as they may be stabilised on the one hand and then become unbalanced on another. Indeed, as any user of Facebook, Twitter etc. should know, any inaccurately maneuvered interaction immediately pokes through the thin membrane of our social reality. So when the likes of Lily Allen et al. rant on Twitter, we are amused, but also this is displaced within our social sphere. We have no personal claim or connection to that person. But we are curious and want to ride out the distractions of others...

Where does this leave us then? In short attend that party. The PVC incidence is more funny in-situ.

A tweet-indisecration. And a little more celebrity exposure

When I was of younger years youth I enjoyed much of the innocence of school days. I also shared with others a similar rite of passage which meant I experienced what one may describe as 'bullying' or at least mild level of verbal debasement of the 'he said'; 'she said' variety.

Older, when I was at secondary school there again name calling etc. played to the very same type of social taunting, 'slag', 'tart', 'geek', 'goth'...

And today, the same situation - albeit via Twitter, has arisen again!

In case you have missed what commenced as a tweet-indesecration exchange this kicked off when @stephenfry (the 'most popular' man on Twitter) announced over the weekend that he was leaving Twitter, after @brumplum declared,
There’s nothing like publicly broadcasting criticism - the social media equivalent of starting a rumour in the school playground - to prise out of celebrity an off the cuff eruption. Enter Fry's chum @alandavies1. In defense of Fry he tweeted over and over and over. The overall tone was matched by Davies initial retaliation,

'Anyone has a pop at your mates you stick up for them. Twittr needs to be more like Essex. If you wouldn't say it to their face then do shut up.'

And so we have a social responsibility to 'stick up' for our friends. But, my Goodness! When did Twitter become such a playground for nonfeasance? At a turning point when celebrity culture has become preachy, unfunny and with tweets starting to reflect a new critical mass of ego-centric interest is it time to send in some new clowns?

Both Davies and Fry had open profiles (Fry's is now - temporarily? - closed) so it's easy to Follow such displays of discordance. Being Twitter a defence may be that it's seemingly easy to take something back. To 'un-tweet' and hit 'delete'. What is surprising is how two of the most famous presences had been so easily overwhelmed and, in the course of others tweet outrage, wrong footed.

Negative jibes took on a critical mass as @brumplum was RT'd 'poked' and prodded into submission. We are now outside of the schools playgrounds. Tellingly, however, it seems that it is easy to forget that we share a persistence of presence in the form of publicly displayed profiles and the associated exchanges.

My hope is that Fry does not remain 'closed' from Twitter. That Davies defence of his friend is taken as just that - an acknowledgement of support, rather than a public call for Twitter baiting. Somehow things quickly escalated into a grand tweet-scale of unpleasantness. Certainly not (from a read of his blog) @brumplum's intention.

From the ballyhoo that has ensued I am reminded that there exist the same social risks that we all intentionally enter into when we broadcast anything across public settings. Twitter, Facebook etc. give only a frontispiece to what is going on.

imnotobsessed.com reveals celebrity culture. The tweet hate campaign waged between Lindsey Lohan and Samantha Ronson seems incapable of tuning out of our public feeds...

'@samantharonson doesn't respond 2me b/c her family will cut her off if she contacts me...They control the one I love&im incapable of making any sort of difference.'

Twitter and other modes may seep into ‘real life’, but it will be interesting to see if, like Lohan and friends, we continue with such open displays of hostility. Or turn, about-face, like Fry and chums...

To tweet the truth...

At present, I am working on a series of projects that work on the reaction/s of real time updates inserted into daily life. The interest is how others react and may interact with such social noise as part of their surroundings. Working from the premise, where once we had only one outlet for the truth, today we are all potential passersby of numerous (previously untold) truth/s that are brought to light by the visualisation of updates.

And so now we place what is 'old' into 'new' contexts. Over in Amercia our favourite I'm-not-fat-I-don't-want-to-be-thin persona Oprah posted her first tweet in April. Subsequent Twitter traffic increased expodentially. Up by 43-percent. Proof that Daytime Diva's have real appeal to housewives everywhere. Unsurprisingly, despite Oprah's original enthusiasm her traffic has now t(w)eetered off. Probably because they can't afford the 'someone paid by her' to continue to tweet on her behalf.

Over in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, long time fan of confining and forceful levels of media 'censorship' continues to seek the denial of the basic human right to free speech. His domestic and corporate foreign policy shares much with China's Jong-Il’s technological censorship. Say no to Google etc. Rather than turn to state-owned media outlets as a strategic action one can gain insights into potential goings on tweeted from those on the ground - with access to the right technology.

One to Follow is British Red Cross aid worker Ina Bluemel, from Zimbabwe. As part of efforts to combat the ongoing cholera outbreak in the country, she has started ‘tweeting’ to the British Red Cross twitter page. Helping to educate both those at home and those at a distance about the dangers of cholera and ongoing crisis in Zimbabwe.

It might be too much (and too technologically deterministic) to say that Twitter is changing the form, style and meaning of 'worthy' and 'dependable content' - determined by situation and place.

For the most part tweets are as an impulse to potential readers and other tweeters. Then the timing and placement of said tweets is very important. Pages like the British Red Cross publish small-scale incidence and actions as they come to life. Key is observation. From the anticipated what is going on with works to how people respond and react. And then how 'we' may modify such updates.

In the constantly changing ebb and flow of real time social views we are, in effect, testing each others perceptions and potential reactions. You can tell much about someone who Follows only Oprah; compared to another who displays an element of uncontrolled Following accumulations (I count myself closest to this make up).

Much has been made of the ways in which people present themselves during social interaction. Depending on one's personal preferences (and networks, one can assume) the presentation of actions and their accompanying reactions are managed with careful negotiation.

It's going to be a story of real time break-outs… And it's already started...

Come fly with me and lets tweet away

Don't you just hate it when you can't access your social information. Damn it! if it isn't your right to be able to send emails, tweets etc. whenever you choose. So yes! to those MPs during PMs Question Time who are tweeting their replies. Perhaps there should be a live Twitter feed above the main house...

No more though are such exclusions felt then in flight - one of those increasingly rare moments when one is required to turn to Off every electronic device for fear of falling from the sky/terrorism take over risk.

Ahoy then to Lufhansa MySkyStatus. Whilst you are in the air, MSS sends altitude, location, departure and arrival updates automatically to your personal Facebook and Twitter pages. Travel is now 'fun' or at least swift for those friends with enough attention to follow your movements. Even if the most likely tweet shall be 'BA strike action. Flight delayed'...

In its own Spacebook

So beautiful.
What better for the design/er SNS Facebook, than a sleek designed office space for its worker bees.



Clearly there is reference to contemporary minimalism and sleek architecture. Overall I find that the design is inspiring - with clean cut shapes, accents of colour and natural light. By letting the outside in there is a creative space, that is as harmonious in its composition, as it is best suited to encourage socialising. And dare I add social networking.
It seems inconsequential what the offices of Facebook should look like. But the design emits such a tonal and snug feel as to encourage the rest of Facebook to feel the same.Although, at present it does look a little empty. Can I work here?...

When the task is to hate.

You will recall how Barack Obama our first 'social media President' won the election. Making You the public aware of his political stance and his more personal identity. Part of the campaign was given voice and visualised moments through various social technology platforms. A first for politics. Certainly effective. And likely to be repeated.

Obama and his campaigners sort to cultivate a presence that could be seen and heard, and amass support. In the same manner Nick Griffin leader - I use such teminology in 'name' only, rather than to indicate a leading or inspirational figure-head (yes I'm Left) - as a less advanced political type is pitching for the same opportunity to voice his views on BBC's Question Time tonight.

I am not against Griffin's participation on Question Time. I am more concerned by his parties presence on SNSs like Facebook. But does this make me a hypocrite? I'm saying: Yes, to Question Time. No, to SNS Time?

Let me explain, here lies the distinction. It is likely, but by no means absolute, that those under the voting age will choose not to participate in the viewing of Griffin's (dross) dialogue. More likely in bed, on the wii, on Facebook, MSN etc. ... SNSs like Facebook, however, offer a different political ploy/ground. Children (above the age of 12years) are allowed and openly encouraged to have a presence on such sites. The same children who do not have the right to vote or to voice political opinion.

Surely, then following this line of argument then all politicians and political associations should be banned from Facebook?... And here lies the sticking point. SNSs are public venues; for friends, increasingly for Push PR, marketing and advertising and now for politicians. And you're not considered 'political enough' or 'down with' your supporters if you do not have a Twitter feed. Thus, there is one formulation that does equate. BNP stands for intolerance and discrimination against others. So yes they have a right to an equal voice in a political setting. But not in public spaces when they deny the same rights to others.

In short, it is perfectly useless to discriminate in the same manner as Griffin and his 'mates'. But I would add straight away that anyone/party that denies an equal footing to others should not be allowed to push their politics and presence in an open and public way on SNSs.

On Facebook, In 2007, a quick search for 'BNP' returned with 98 groups. Today, there are over 500. The second largest group being supportive of the BNP holds a disturbing accumulation of site users. Although the Group Admin's claim that 'This is the discussion group for those who can think for themselves'. Change 'think' to 'hate' and you have an idea of the general tone of postings and hoody-pictured members.

SNSs are public. And are also public with users who are underage in terms of political voting rights. There is no need for the BNP to hold such a public face. If they want to 'campaign' in such a manner there are 'secret groups' that they can set up.

The real irony is that the BNP, like many of us, enjoy the freedom that such social platforms provide. The very freedom that they seek to take away from others. So let them have a soapbox, but only across forums specifically set up for politcal discussion that can equalise the relationship between prejudice and fruitful debate.

Not full of hate, Obama remains my public 'Friend' on Facebook.

Wearing separates: The stripper & the hacker

If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle. ~ Rita Mae Brown

Last year the FastCompany nominated (a mere) 'TOP eleven' women as the 'most influential in Web 2.0'. Immediately causing outcry about the chosen and the not chosen. In the UK, it is estimated of the near 460,000 strong IT workforce those who are 'ICT Professionals', less than 15% are women.

The technology industry has a history of overlooking or missing out altogether the female counterpart to the traditional male Geek. Nowhere was this distinction more sharply drawn than in the visibility of the girls at the Yahoo! hosted TwOpenHack09 yesterday.

Still today (that's a long time in digital circles) the event is continuing to cause controversy.

I thought that we were a long time from the days when the sight of a 'mere' woman at a commercially led (thanks Yahoo!) and 'professionally' run event would send in the lap dancers. Once in the States at an afterparty for one of the tech industries now most recognised companies (they shall remain anon) they sent in the fat-ogram. Another example of the perspex ceiling designed to be tread only by those in sensible flat shoes. Whilst there continues minimal opportunity for highheeled marks to be scratched into that ceiling, this IS happening.

It is not clear exactly how many female workers are 'in IT'. Certainly not enough. And not enough at the highest levels. But then the same could be said of Banking. I am, however, struck by the irony of the TwOpenHack09 event. Once led to believe that hacking as a subtext was to break through various walls, fire and otherwise, to infiltrate - and from a leftist ideal - reveal possible exploitation and conspiracy, as a young girl I was highly influenced by this most romanticised image of the hacker subculture. In my eyes this was a level playing field where it was talent that mattered not that if you were 'too delicate' to play on the pitch. So thanks to Yahoo! and TwOpenHack09 for bringing home the ultimate levelling message that what you wear, or rather take off, your booty matters. This separates the stripper from the hacker afterall. Women know your place!

Before I get too locked into just a M/F debate, as my handsome friend Ian Forrester will remind me, overall you have to wonder how much things have changed in Tech land. Following Ian's post 'Are you a self-described geek' as faaaaar back in time as 2005, there are cultural and race dimensions too. And the issues are worldwide.

Worldwide or not, closer to home and over in Leeds tonight is a gathering of some of the potential leaders of the tech industry. Leeds Girl Geeks we salute you. Especially with your booty's covered.

And, yes I am struck by the irony of using an image entitled 'sexy robot'. This is as a deliberate device all you commentators.

So what happens next?

As part of my most recent of 'fact-finding' missions I am working in collaboration with a host of geo-intellectuals. Our objective is the first draft of a project about the impact of coastal change. Based in Scotland, the coastal buzz is about; ecology; climate change; environmental functions and management.

In short things are about to climate and social technology friendly. Lets call this the SCOAST Project.

Based on a unique research concept, SCOAST seeks to set new rules and standards for the observation, recording and research analysis of the Scottish coastline. The intention is to promote a harmony between the natural surrounding of the Scottish coastline and wetland area as habitation and human development seek mutual standing.

Today marks the launch of Stage One: A symposium held in York exploring novel approaches and opportunities for governance and networks around environmental conditions of one coastline and wetland area.

So far my view holds that 'we' (you, the reader, me, the author, everyone else, not reading this) can be accused of being mostly laissez-faire, socially naive and cut off from discussions about environmental risk and measures for future investment.

You might #followfriday, #climatechange, #etc. but where is the action really? Certainly not in the bottom of a weekly recycle bin collection.

Today, in York, the approach is to take a community, bottom up involvement with a particular coastal zone - ecosystem and track it... information sharing, images, sound, #, blog, feedback, comments, tweets...

So given there will be considerable back and forth, not least from various research councils, academic agendas and perspectives, my role is to fine tune the opportunity for public involvement via social technology. The pivot: Coastal Progress. Ideally this all encompassing approach will encourage integration with what will be a main site with information portals about the surrounding rocky coastline and turquoise waters, as these become part of a unified, interrelated social information composition.

One could argue that opening up to such input is already riddled with potential pitfalls.These may incur an inaccurate portrayal of what is going on both in the physical place of the coastal region and then in the related social technology spaces...

Well turn on my tractor with the manure - I pooh, pooh such criticisms. Rather the aim of SCOAST is dedicated to a progressive perspective on climate and coastal change.

It IS only early days - the project has only just been launched and this is our first meet-up.

Thus, this is the blog post that will launch a thousand more. So I am not a geographer, environmentalist or ecosystem specialist. This did not stop two other guys who lack climate credentials writing a book - SuperFreakonomics - with an entire chapter about climate science.

More reports from the SCOAST-precipice soon...

Encounters: The new rules

Why it pays to be nice and not caught kissing fish

Encounters are everywhere. So much so, the dilemma often lies in the when, where and how to disconnect. Being a social scientist and etiquette being my ‘thing’ I like to fall back on the assumption that if you treat other’s as you would be done by, then this is shows ‘good form’ for all elements of social life.

Social life is full of obligations – that email you’re supposed to be replying to right now, that conference call scheduled for tomorrow. Thus, by mediating our encounters to the nth degree this can exhibit an almost neurotic orderliness as commitments are fulfilled and expectations realised. Or not.

But, where is the social structure upon which we can all rely? Presumably, we learn a good deal about the various nuances of how to handle encounters, by experiencing such interactions as they crop up in daily life. Face-to-face the ‘whatever’ that happens through social exchanges is, for the most part, kept in check by knowing both what you and I are doing at the same time. When this is mediated through various technologies, social platforms and ‘geeky’ trails’, other methods recommend themselves, however.

A characteristic of face-to-face encounters is that they occur in the immediate presence of one another. In this instant parties are usually uninterrupted from other social persistence. Increasingly social technologies make possible the same type of exchanges. Take Twitter. Real time. All the time. Here the order pertains because of what is bought to the table – or rather Twitter’s – and, thus, this is accepted as ‘normal’ for the interaction order. This is why you can’t tweet more than 140 characters.

But there are degrees of difference. Not better, nor worse, but certainly different in conventions and in protocols. For example, generationally those of my father’s age (dad you’re still young at heart and in looks – Mr Clooney has nothing on you!) tend to be more conservative. Not socially in terms of the number of friends (although this can be a truism on Facebook) but conservative as in a small ‘c’ for cautious.

This can be frustrating for many those of us who have grown up as the popularised GenX, who are confident with an array of technology gadgets and belong to more than one SNS at one time. Pervasive, yes. But this does not necessarily make us careless. In contrast to others we appear as the go-getters, what my father would observe as the ‘risk-takers’ and ‘makers’. Risk takers, because it is likely that you, like myself, hold people in your network that you may not even have ‘met’ – but share friends, work colleagues etc in common, so they make for a valuable contact. Risk makers as you actively seek choose to live daily life through various broadcast channels; to see ‘what everyone else is up to’; to ‘keep in touch’; and establish and retain your own of social presence.

Ultimately this is about getting used to living a constantly connected, pervasive and (potentially) minutely examined lifestyle. ‘Easy’, or rather second nature for technology enthusiasts. But this represents a lifestyle that is harder to understand and infiltrate for those who are at a distance from such platforms and devices.

What we all share in common, however, is the process of creativity, embracement of change and a sharpening of the resolution of our present experiences – as it occurs in the NOW. Rather than ever being ‘offline’ or ‘unreal’, by allowing the momentum of the flux and flows of social information to rise in a cacophony of noise around us takes us from sheer being into becoming. And by ‘becoming’ I mean becoming more networked and more adept to share constant updates and information with others. In short, ‘geek it good’ and avoid kissing fishes.

New/s rules for more Twitter exposure

Broken hearts. Mundane cups of tea. The Twitterverse has it all. And depending on who you are following some can more salacious and entertaining than others. Up the Tweetdebate - known for its condensed form of short messaging or microblogging as tweets, Twitter lets users update in 140 characters their succinct social status 'fact/s'.

No longer. You may have noticed - you can hardly miss amid the blaze of updates - longer tweets. Tweets that go beyond the 140 character brief. Enter, Twerbose which allows for 'all-can-type' updates. Utilised by the likes of the Lohan sisters it must be easy to use and thus has secured, already, popularity with the yoff. Take heed though, as such tweet extensions allow for longer replies and talking heads. And not necessarily of the polite and liked type.

Take Frances Bean Cobain's (@Gofackadawg) rant at mini Lohan...

This is my open letter to Ali Lohan.
Your not entitled to anything...

Unlikely to spark the next Lohan meltdown such extended tweet coverage does rather retract from the original delight and skill of the 140 character composition, not to say composure - both words and socially. As a continually Twitteriffic, nay social media, directed lifestyle this represents the fast work of fingers and thumbs able to update about everything to everyone.

Perhaps there should be a masterclass in Twitteretiquette? A new moral code highlighting the when it is appropriate to tweet, our expectations of others and how they should respond.

Following a w/e full of 'you must respond NOW' constant tweet demands from a certain difficult and cantankerous person (they are a drama queen), I was reminded of a few pet peeves in the social situating via such brief characters. Indeed, upon my i've dropped everything and have relinquished to your demands by near instantanous reply. They (that cantankerous person) then choose not to respond. In short they failed in their duty to keep to the communication rules in our treatment of others.

How rude.

Time for blood to befall their bootstraps. Or perhaps they could just read the following...

Here's a top 10 list of things that I insist upon to for tweetsuavity.

1. One does not resort to anniversay based demands or expectations. These are the refuge of the insecure and unimaginative. Facebook already tells me it's is your birthday.

2. Always be aware of Followers. This means that you will endeavour to be creative with updates. Above all, respond in kind to @replies. Unless you're Hilary Clinton, then you get your PTA (personal twitter assistant) to manage these for you.

3. Broadcast is a core element of the tweet. Keep in mind then that these act as an open invitation for commentary about potential holes, mistruths and demands which exist as part of every update.

4. Always respond to notified errors, however insignificant these may appear to be.

5. Encourage civility. And, if work related, always uphold professionalism.

6. It is within your rights to refuse Followers. Call this social standards. If one faction is a PR SPAM promoting tweeter you have every right to block. It is not about the number of people as Followers, but the quality of updates and your connection. This means that you may not want any Lohan following.

7. Never copy and paste a tweet without a 'retweet' RT tag. This is akin to theft. You will be found. You know who you are.

8. Embrace the tinyurl, photos, video and additional appi's in every way possible.

9. Remember, unless you double check your privacy settings, your personal tweet archives are freely available. This means that those intent on making mountains out of molehills could cite your words back to you, whether you intended them to be read in that way or not.

10. Work with Twitter newbies. You know the one's with less than three followers. You were one too once.

(opps one more)

11. Try not to use Twitter for professional only relationships. This is reserved for those persons you have not met irl, or if you are not friends with their friends. As an enquiry that requires more than 140 characters of content should be mediated by other forms. NOT a string of tweets.

...And finally, never make lists of 10.

Tweeting may lead you to being the talk of the town, but only ever until the next update. And the tweets never reveal what you really think do they?... Unless they're directed at a certain cantankerous nitwit...

My Buzz Paparazzi

Make it. Tag it. Share it. Are we becoming our own version of paprazzi malice?
Twitpics - emphasis on the Twit part - can be revealing. Not only from the social curiosity of 'what I am doing' details (ooo salicious), but for the Followers who are keen to see, not only where we are, but how we are. This is the danger of camera phones and Twitter mobile applications people.

New York, ever the city ahead of the game, has banned mobile phones from its Top Private Members Clubs (boo no fun, now where can we get pictures of Loopy Lohan?!) You leave your coat and gadgets at the door. Gossip Girl territory this is NOT. Unless you're James Bond and have hidden on your person something descrete intended to broadcast the indescrete.

Staying in Turkey a couple of weeks ago slicing through Kalkan harbour was yacht 'A' - owned by Andrey Melnichenko, the 36-year-old Russian billionaire industrialist. Aside from the imposing presence there exists a 'no photo (we're rich) please' forcefield. And not to be outdone another Russian billionaire Roman Ambramovich has installed an anti-paparazzi “shield”. Both are likely to have other 'lasers' too, to slice at a distance any paps caught snooping at the bow.

In sum, social media is for the sharing of personal information, yours and mine, with known friends and other friends of friends - who might be friends in the future. Or not. This level of social sharing promotes individuals as social savvy, successful and open. Unless your Jordan, then you just look needy, tacky and should probably stop tweeting it all up anyway. And keep your clothes on.

Alongside all these information shares, there should be concerns about privacy and surveillance. If you are not concerned yet, you should be. What problems exist now - such as the dilemmas about not being able to find friends, to disconnect and regrets over sharing too much - are only going to be further accentuated in the future. Are we ready for this? And what are the social and legal consequences? Will we always be seen to be part of 'fluffy' and nice communities? Or do things have the possibility to become as malicious as they are pervasive?

Hoping to answer some of these questions, is a workshop about Privacy and Security on Social Networks in Belgium next month. I intend to go - fireworks and all (its on November 5th). I shall report back from the frontline - paparazzi style for readers here. Watch this post...

The Click Have Eyes

We live in the most surveilled part of Europe. Filmed an average of 300 times when we choose to leave our homes. Feel sorry then for the people of Stratford-upon-Avon as the amount of footage is about to increase. Tony Morgan, James Woodward and David Steele have launched Internet Eyes. The site gives opportunity for those behind the eyes to reap the rewards against crime. No, not 'Them', but You. In the same week when football fans were forced to pay-per-view for a match online, at the same time viewers could choose to watch streamed CCTV footage and if you 'spot a crime' - it's a GOAL!

Alongside the Government plans for ID cards it appears that we are to live as part of increasingly 'inclusive' series of surveillance recordings as we literally zoom in and out of view. The forthcoming nationwide launch of Internet Eyes could be a profitable business. It represents the taking of a virtual journey to uncover criminal incidences just click away. For viewers this means they feel warm and fluffy having uncovered criminal situation/s (Poirot has nothing on these CCTV viewing couch surfing detectives).

Some key points
1. Should such surveillance not be in the hands of professionals and not the public
2. This can only ever work as a 'gesture' in the fight against criminal activity. And I doubt that we'll be allowed to view the CCTV footage inside bank boardrooms.
3. Internet Eyes could represent the next round for reality tv. A pay-per-view which would accumulate as a cash prize for those Spotter's of the crims. There could even be T-shirts.

So there you have it, a business proposition that profits on 'rising crime rate', social surveillance, a bit of public fear and status given to the 'eyes of good' to bring crime rates down and, in principle, convictions up.

Convinced? You could buy the T-Shirt, pay-per-view and find out.

A more exciting and unique use of CCTV has been muscially ascribed by The Get Out Clause. Watch and enjoy viewers. Best of all, no crime.

TEDx Stating the obvious?

Isaac Newton told us that when an apple fell from a tree it invariably headed towards the ground. Noam Chomsky told us we only make sense of the words of another person because we share a knowledge of the basic grammatical structure of language. Such things might seem obvious – especially when presented in a necessarily brief manner to an audience that does not share a common disciplinary background.

I am a social scientist and this means that, in common with others in my discipline, I seek to understand the social world that we all share. We do this through theoretically informed empirical research. So yes - for some people parts or all of my presentation at the recent TEDx might be dismissed as 'trivial', 'uninteresting' or 'boring'. Such critics have every right to hold and broadcast their opinions. However, in so doing they are closing their minds to the possibility of understanding or as Max Weber (another social scientist – but rather more venerable and long dead) put it ‘verstehen’ - by which (broadly) he meant to indicate that human interaction and society is so complex that it may be best understood through detailed description and interpretation. Even if this is 'just to' state the obvious.

It might be maintained that we ‘just get on with’ our interactions across SNSs and so forth. My talk was not of a ‘how to’ kind - as clearly for the audience at these events - Blogs, Twitter, Facebook and so forth are a part of everyday life. Like other social scientists (for example, Erving Goffman and more recently Anthony Giddens to name two) my concern is to ‘get under’ the everyday, the often mundane and taken-for-granted.

Does this matter in our web 2.0 world? Yes - because as social life embraces or (according to some) moves ‘online’ (an old fashioned label to some, including myself) this brings with it all the good and bad aspects of human behaviour. Indeed this shift may enhance or exaggerate and accelerate some forms of behaviour - we have all read reports of ‘cyber’ bullying, relationships damage through SNSs ‘affairs’ and so forth. More pragmatically, an understanding of how and why people move across social media will help in the design of better and sustainable resources. However, the study of such things is still in its infancy and conventional academic work struggles to keep up with the fast pace of change in social media and accompanying research.Thus, the media that you are immersed in and take-for-granted is strange, risky, fast, ephemeral and trivial to most of my academic and commercial colleagues.

My first TEDx proved to be an interesting experience - I’d like to thank my critics for their considered thoughts – I don’t (yet) have a complete answer (but then I’m not as well established, prominent or well-rewarded as the ‘great men’ mentioned above or the other participants at TEDx) - but your responses will feed into my research and the work on my book, ‘Encounters With. Social life in the network society’, in which I am exploring the issues raised in my talk as well as many others in appropriate depth.

For other hot issues on the day and social media noise about TEDxman you might also want to check out the only other female speaker; Sarah Hartley - @foodiesarah

As well as the other attendees and participants,
Louise Bolotin - @louisebolotin

Ian Aspin - @IanAspin

Kim - @Global5ocialite

Ian Forrester - @cubicgarden

And of course the photos - where one shows me uncannily smiley :-D

Saving the world by design

DURING my now long/er book writing-days, I am now taking time out between chapters and chai tea and am in development of one or two brave ideas with the Environment Department at the University of York. The latest endeavour is to take a lead with social media for a project that will record, track and follow data and information about a specific geographical area of ecological interest.

The key focus will be on the participatory nature of the digital content. Something we have seen already with regard to building specific 'web communities' (circa 1990s community spaces, newsforums etc.), but this time around usergenerated content will be a part of the creative tools to generate ‘noise’ and sustain connections. This is with the additional aim of a collaborative working approach and future publications too from an academic side of things.

So far, so innovative and full of potential with a capital 'P'. We might not save the world with our datavaillence, but there will amble opportunity for participation and a creativity in ways that academia in particular is still getting used to. Might see some whales too.

TEDx trepidation

In the spirit of 'ideas worth spreading', I have been asked to present at TEDxManchester (with thanks to Ian Forrester @BBC Backstage).

x, because this represents an independently organised event. Albeit with a BBC edge.

This will be my first TED. This will also be the first time I have ever been asked to contribute without a good sense of who the other speakers are, what direction the day will take, or the connection to audience – in my mind the most important part of any conference, unconference or otherwise. Let alone the size of the event itself. This is self-organisation on a small-to-many-scale. And I am as yet unsure as to my role, or the expectations and development of sustained interest with the others whom I hope to encounter. My only regret is that I will have to rush back to York before the close of day for more presentations and various interviews from a North East based.

As technology is my thing it seems only natural that these form the main thrust of my talk. As the pace of everyday life accelerates with various social technologies, my key question is whether we have a better handle of ourselves and/or of others? Social platforms in particular are a central part of what Castells tied together as 'networked lives'. This is a central issue beyond the rise of a technological modernity, which has thrust us into social sensibility that is as rapid, in terms of updates and change, as it can be tumultuous.


To make sense of this type of social existence I suggest these are the signs of the times where the immediacy – the combination of at-once-connection to others and the ubiquitous nature of social media – emerge as core features, which are supposedly under, but never ever completely, our control.

My aim is to draw attention to the coming and arrival of social information in our lives. Thus, the anticipation of reciprocated connections inexorably change how we (should) think about social media, networks, sociability and behavioural practices. In short, such change has already and shall continue to revolutionise our social and cultural rules, rituals and values. But are we ready for that?...

And is TEDx ready for a 'social scientist'... social media analyst or otherwise.

Whatever happens on the day I'm excited to be meeting - such is the advantage of being a Speaker - Herb Kim a figure-head in technology circles and who has more than one 'idea worth spreading'.

Arnie's problems with Eraser, as I Total Recall

Where is my en mass delete?! Surely I cannot be the only one - such is the surmountable volume of messages etc. via daily social media ramblings - who builds up a bulky backlog of read and sent messages that should, nay must be deleted.

Such en mass delete is no problem on my gmail. And I quite enjoy the 'delete all' of my SPAM box. But where is this option for Facebook; for Twitter?! Should I stop tweeting?..

So far I have found that Twitter only allows us to delete as message by, slow point and click, message. This is taking forever. I, like you, have better things to do than go through on a one-by-one basis and take out the wheat from the chaff.

I hear web rumours of software that allows you to delete messages en mass. From my American friends they rate DM Whacker. But does this allow message filters too I cheekily asked. 'Yes' was the reply! Happy days!

Which led me to discover this little gem. Did you know that by deleting your sent message, you also delete the same message from the recipients inbox. It's like it never happened! So if you regret that quick 'hello' to a particular Twitter friend you can now, in effect, go back in time via a delete and pretend (to yourself) that 'that' never happened. Handy. But does this work in real life too? Surely Arnie had similar problems in Eraser... And as I (total) recall that didn't end so happy...

Macabre presence. Being Gordon Brown's (only) Fan.

'Bored at lunch' reveals that Gordon Brown has 973 Facebook Fans. And he is in good company, as new list that mixes Web 2.0 social media and Government highlights the 'Top 10 agencies with the most Facebook fans.' The Top Three, in descending order, congratulations to the White House (327, 592 fans at 23:04pm GMT, 16th September), followed by the Marine Corps and Army. Americanism bias aside, what's the fig big?

Let us return to the Brown. BBC Two’s Daily Politics have given Brown a Fantasy Facebook. Not a page unbound with high profile friends, instead revealed are Brown's likes and dislikes - as you or I may appear.The 'Profile' comes across as quite charming actually. One mere point, click and Google away on labour.org and Labour Vision lets you ‘send to Facebook’, Gordon Brown: You have to grow not cut your way out of a recession – one can only assume to promote Labour ‘success’ or as an indication to Facebook friends how bored you were on your lunch break, which leaves it up to them how seriously to take your friendly Facebook Share.

But what exactly is going on here? What are the likes of Government policy and party members doing roaming across social media platforms demanding 'fans' and tweeting to Followers? Is this all part of a new political t/ask force? A novel means of Government innovation? Representation of Civil Service modernisation? Well that’s not really Brown on the Facebook Fan Page. So what’s being done with all those ‘Fan’ comments, Wall posts and Discussion suggestions? Perhaps evidence of a new political Think Tank. I have not Googled/Facebook yet, but I’m sure David Cameron is in on the social media act.

The wider issue here links to social presence and surveillance. The overt stratregy may to sustain party interest, but isn’t this a little grey with covert tendencies as such pages stand somewhere between satirical irony and another aggregated data depot. Perhaps the thinking goes something like, ‘oh, I see that such and such is a Fan of Brown, yes that gives him credibility I will vote for him in the next election.’ Rather than, ‘I see such and such is a Fan of Brown, where do I ‘de-friend’?...’

Novel and engaging? Or annoying and vague? Perhaps this depends on not only the whom and what the social media noise is about, but the WHERE and WHO has published the information. FYI Gordon’s Facebook Fan Page has not been self created. Can we assume then that his endorser is a Fan, a friend, family, or just Spam?...

Personally I do not have a Facebook Fan Page (In much the same vain, I do not have a Wikipedia entry. Yet. I would prefer ‘another’ to create and nominate my namesake instead. Then look forward to various ‘facts’ running amok for their inaccuracy across the Web. Hint, hint dear reader). By deploying social media are political agencies seeking new validity with the common man? Are they anticipating immediate involvement from a ‘positive’ association with a brand development across such platforms? What happens to the information and who is reading/recording the postings to such pages?

Certainly not Brown. Surely not the Labour Party. Maybe this is a new opportunity for the next smear campaign between the political parties. Rather than email, they can really lay criticisms at each others door with a awkward Wall post or repeated Poke. Such mediation should safeguard political presence, could be part of a Government 2.0 strategy or simply evidence of Digital Britain innovation.

Maybe Gordon will be my BBFF (Best, Best, Facebook Friend)?