More than wethink: Networks of Mutuality

It was at the highly robust thought and talk Innovative Media for the Digital Economy Springboard Event (imde09), with a sequence of seven-minute quick fire sessions and led by a prestigious keynote - my favourite Web (we)thinking commentator - Charles Leadbetter that got my grey matter buzzing last week.

My fear, that I would only be partially satisfied by discussions from Leadbetter, wanting instead to seek answers and deliberations via direct audience questioning, were dissipated by his latitude for thinking about media.

Most affecting was the notion of a ‘Mutual Media’, an update from wethink's 'power of mass creativity', to describe the convergence of the ‘social', ‘productive’ and ‘communicative’ aspects of the Web as they appear today.

This was explained through the a-day-in-the-life of Charles’s 8-year old son, Ned, who is seeking to enjoy, talk and do with versions of ‘old’, ‘new’ and ‘industry’/‘corporate’ media. This involves the dipping into everything as aspects of all media: books, The Simpson’s, Disney’s web community Penguin Club, drawing (with pen, paper and animation applications) and Garage Band. From Ned we have a representation of how we all seek to enjoy, talk and do across numerous platforms and technologies.

The thing is, we (on the Web), and as part of the ‘wethink’ culture take such aspects for granted. Foreground by the various ease with which we take the opportunities to dip into and out of various forms of media. Perhaps our task is to simply write an email, inevitably this gets caught up, somewhere along the way, by updating Facebook; checking Twitter; posting to a blog.

Charles’s ‘doesn’t blog’, and he claims he’s 'not wired for daily updates and blogging’. Well wired or not, the notion of Mutual Media is suggestive of what Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Network's and the American Technologist David Weinberger have already hinted at – how we are all small pieces, only loosely joined together.

I composed the below diagram to explain such relationships. Rather than Charles's description of Mutual Media, I perceive of these as networks of mutuality.
Why networks and not media? Because networks best captures the constructive and proactive shape of connections we as individuals choose to share with others. Taken as a sequence of connections, it is these relations (rather than the media itself) from which individuals expect/anticipate a level of reciprocity and mutuality.

Whilst we may (as Charles pointed out) still be feeling around for the suitable language to describe such development, where we are all in agreement is how the Web is changing relationships, communication, and ultimately our society...

The Future is Pizza

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent consultation into ‘illegal databases’ has revealed – what ‘we’ all know to be true; that personal information records frequently overstep the line when it comes to social ethics and the protection of individual privacy. In short we have a data State. Or rather our State is based on our data; which includes the archiving and retrieval of our personal data.

Other news to hit today is that ‘7% of MPs’ are now ‘on Twitter’. Does this mean that ‘they’ (the Mediated Member’s of Parliament (MMP’s) few) have added themselves to the ranks of the socially mediated many? Or that this is simply scope for shameless self-promotion and a new task for their PA to include into daily updates? But do not forget to be included on WeFollow - the Twitter's new directory for user's (find me as 'mazphd'; 'academic', 'writer' and 'web2.0')

Back to the JRF Reportage which recommeds that ‘A quarter of all government databases are illegal and should be scrapped or redesigned’ – one in particular that stands out for critism is the NHS databases. A ‘health’ care system that cannot be trusted to hold potentially sensitive information or to update consistently for reliable patient records. So aside from being costly; frequently such systems can be criticised for being an ‘ethical and administrative disaster’. But where does the responsibility lie? With ‘them’ as the recorders and holders of our data, or with us? The Data Protection Act is there to safeguard our rights, ‘subject to request access’, to gain information that is held about us on Government databases.

Socially we are being data sorted. Our data is pervasive and increasingly personal. However, the appropriate measures and societal implications are all too easily overlooked - even if we are keen to volunteer information for public directories such as Twitter's WeFollow; Facebook etc.

And so are we to hit a mediated epidemic? We are not so far from the (fun?) scenario of the spoof scenario of the Future of Pizza Ordering – a situation that has unforeseen social consequences…

By dialing for delivery the clip shows how individual's will be subject to data-veillance;

‘you don’t want to order that, linking to your health records indicates that your waistline is already over the optimum health ratio’ Advises the voice on the end of the line.

Here the convergence of personal data is overlaid with Government databases that volunteers information in a way that is designed for ‘our own social good’. Whilst the clip satirises the consumer from a pizza-hungry-perspective, it is suggestive of the more sinister side of data-veillance. One where ‘evidence getting’ is perceived as an acceptable and approved social act.

Until the Government and other organisations get it ‘right’; we are more than a consumer; a ‘pro-sumer’ or mere web participant. We are already in the records of data projects and organisations and this has long-term implications headed by unknown social objectives. Perhaps it is time we started recorded them?...

The perils of being LifeAware

You cannot, no rather it is difficult to, ‘tell’ someone about the why’s and where-for’s of Facebook; Twitter etc. Stuck-on-a-train it appears as a normal characteristic to disguise / ease the boredom of the situation through series of quick text message perusal; Facebook and Twitter updates and exchanges. An imperative social practice, if only to avoid ‘checking-in’ with the more ‘formal’ work-based email.

‘What you got there then love’ my carriage companion opposite queried?
Well what 'I had ‘there’' were an assortment of what I view as essential devices required for ‘on-the-move communication. These consisted my GI Android mobile phone; Toshiba notebook and iPod. Along with the requisite chargers, covers and carriers this meant that I occupied most (all) of the table ‘shared’ with my friend, who had begun to lay claim to his own territory via an ever-more insistent rustling of his Financial Times.
‘I do question my sanity sometimes’ I replied ‘but things so quickly become out-of-date and even a little socially strange if you’re disconnected for too long’.
As an afterthought I added, helpfully, that ‘The delay of going through a tunnel is too long’.

I’ve had similar conversations before. Many times. Usually with companions who, relaxed after work, make remarks about the impact of technology that is peppered along the lines of being ‘over-worked’; ‘constantly immersed’ and the aptly (if ironically phrased), in possession of ‘communication blinkers’ to describe the nose-to-eye holding of a mobile device. It is only when you take the gaze of the outsider looking in when – being lifeaware, as I call it – such truths are exposed.

What follows is usally a short diary-esque version of daily events, up until the pertinent point when conversation is (most appropriately) interrupted by a friend’s Tweet or update to Flickr. In such situation it is probably not the best time to check-in with such activities, but as a case-study in note, You (ok, I) find myself suitably skilled in the increasingly popular art of the social multitask. This requires both a mental and physical balancing act of various gadgets, with the ability to switch between the to-the-face and not-to-face (mediated) conversations.

Man-on-the-Train would like me to switch off the various apparatus I have with me. I suspect, not because I’ve now fully encroached on his part of the table, but because he looks affected by my joking observation of possessing a questionable sanity. Perhaps he’s taken this too literally and is worried that my tools are mere disguise for some kind of medicalised condition. A condition that relies heavily on moments when it appears as if I’m staring into space doing nothing with sudden interruptions of out-loud laughter as I observe when friend’s ‘do something’. This is contrasted with instances of frantic typing as I flit between the ebbs and flows of information – mobile to laptop; laptop to mobile; iPod plugged in. For the observer I appreciate that this can get a bit intense.

Like Tanya Gold, Going Back in Time, in last weeks Guardian, I too have experienced the deliberately disconnected and gone cold turkey social media style. Not even a text. I managed this for a week. Most of which was taken up with flu, so I was asleep. This still counts, and is proof that I could survive such a task.

With the experiment now behind me, it is a rule that I follow such disconnection for all weekend’s – no email, no Tweets, no Facebook, no sms - Friday afternoon to Monday morning. Most recently such social seclusion has been met on a Friday afternoon with ever-earlier and increasing delight. Hahaha! I have the power to disconnect! No more work for me sings my inner voice. There are, however, frequent slip-ups. I have experienced the ‘where are you?!’ accusory messages that accumulate on a Monday morning. Man-on-a-Train has in his eyes a similar accusation, one that is framed by his ‘what do you think you’re doing?’ stare. Perhaps it’s time to implement a similar rule on all public trainsport. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ALLOWED. There’s very limited or reliable wireless and too many tunnels anyway.

I am reminded, as soon as I reason with such thoughts, that Ryan Air is just one Airline in danger of infringing on one of the few moments it is ‘allowable’ to be disconnected and unresponsive. In-flight it is taken as a social given that you cannot/should not able to be gotten hold of. There are, however, talks of imposing on such sacred space with mobiles allowed and web access when up in the air. Suddenly 23hours to Australia seems an extended opportunity to Post, Poke and Update intensively as never before.

Back on the train I close my laptop, switch my mobile to ‘silent’ and remove my iPod appendage.

It turns out that Man-on-a-Train was not so disturbed after all, but had decided I looked a more interesting and intriguing insight for his journey than his FT. I should be flattered, but with over two hours of a from London King Cross to York to go, and with all tunnels now behind us, I can’t but help feeling a little insecure to missing out on the instances of others lives as and when they happen.

A quick pinch and I’m reminded that I might have been busy (doing nothing), but taking the opportunity to converse with a stranger is a unique and potentially stimulating moment.

And so conversation flows for the full two hours. He is a 'Financial Director' of a well known monetary institution who takes time to offer tactics and opinion on the current financial situation (don't buy a house; we're all f*ck*d). When I get up to leave at York he shakes my hand and presses into it his business card. By the time I'm at home ten minutes later and I’ve logged into Facebook he has already sent a Friend Request ''hi' from your train friend'. And so it seems he was hiding another (and all too familiar side of himself). In possession of two laptops, a Blackberry, iTouch and iPhone hidden beneath his FT.

What do you know, he is more lifeaware than myself.

Never sitting

The pace of life has accelerated. We are (as my favourite Radio4 panel game ‘Just A Minute’ suggests) without hesitation, deviation or repetition. Actually scrub that last description, there’s a LOT of repetition. This is the rise of the information-centric social society, a shift into the various social settings that are rapid, tumultuous and defined by the networks we share with others. Best described by the immediacy and tracks of social information. An immediacy that is at once(!) shared, broadcast and public. Take as a form of social sorting, socialities are always ‘in flow’, circulating and never arrive at a fixed point of destination. Increasingly actions are moved through ‘inbox’, to trash, to archived folders; only then to be replicated, modified, forwarded and /or re-read in the free flow and movement of the dance of social steps. It is our task and concern to always be current a situating that is constantly re/addressed by the proximity to, and/or relevance of, others.

It is to be said that such observations are not unique to our ‘information-centric’ social state, but are a part of the natural cultural turn of society as we up the social tempo and seek to stratify our influence. Prominence is given to the significance of social actions in determining the to and the fro of activities. The reading of a Status Update can be passed as mere comment, but can also be ‘shared’, ‘posted’, ‘replied to’ and ‘bookmarked’ under the scrutiny of others. Hence the increase in the supply and re/sources of information represent not only a cultural effect, but has social significance where a failure to act is swiftly translated into a failure to be a part of things/the network/a friendship. Irksome and irritating ‘those’ individuals produce a constant disorder of the connection loops and compression of sociability that flits between the optimistic ‘here and now’ contact, all too easily overshadowed by the pessimistic missed, dismissed or ignored as a ‘neither here nor there’. The swiftness with which every factor must be grasped and determined represents the extreme departure of information, heard as an uproar of the specifics of social lives which we come to our attention in dazzling detail. Essential to the social situation is our willingness to be a part of (and take delight at) increasingly complex structures. Delight? Well how else could one explain Facebook’s popularity.

This structure remains open, not only in terms of what we reveal about ourselves to others, but describes the open-ended advancement of information as the context for our experiences. Should we take comfort in this new state, or feel forced into a state of constant anxiety where we must remain vigilant and be socially agile. Is this to keep up with what is going on?, or a messy measure to retain equilibrium and social order?

And when will I get time to pause, reflect and sit down again?...

Social codes get personal

Fresh from the WARC conference in London it is clear that social research – that’s research that’s not only about and based on the 'social', but research that is primarily about you and therefore assumed to apply to me too – is increasingly personal.

Amongst business the customer behaviour that carries ‘online’ is seen to reflect personal activities and consumer decisions that are as applicable to ‘offline’ lives. One word that has increasingly gained traction amongst marketing commerce is the richness of ‘community’. It would be easy to forgive businesses for ‘not getting’ social media such as Facebook and Twitter. But big names are beginning to come around to the social significance (and influence) of such tools (e.g. Richard Branson's Virgin Group on Facebook). A popular response is to raise a debeliberately branded identity – whether as a Facebook group for ‘brand fans’ or image ‘campaign’ on Flickr. These share in common an optimistic and positive sense of a ‘community’ situation.

During Web 1.0 cyberspace, ‘community’ was the idenfication with a loci of 'users' who may or (more likely) may not know the ‘real’ you. This period (the 1990s – early 2000s) was the domain of usernames and celebration of a virtual reality. Today, the social media landscape has changed and offers something with an altogether different and more real emphasis. In this next version of the web as a ‘Web 2.0’, one could argue that what goes on ‘online’ is intended to concur with the same person(a) and preferences ‘offline’. Here we have hit a social convergence. This means the implications of identifying yourself as part of a particular Group, SNS or Network can be as provocative as inducing a newsgroup flame war back in the cyberspace days. The main point, is that such actions reveal specific aspects of the ourselves and whether we are prepared for it or not can be clamed by others as particular social identifiers.

This raises significant issues about whether social media tools encourage actions outside of conventional social practices and regulations. One particularly disquietening issue is that of social surveillance and rights to privacy. Just two weeks ago after Mark Zuckerberg issued what could be construed as his second ‘public apology’ on Facebook, this time motivated by desire to update the sites Terms and Conditions, represented a move into the broadcast age of social information, and raised questions about how to apply formal codes conduct with regard to the ownership and sharing of personal data. Zuckerberg argued that users had an opportunity to reply in the Facebook blog comments. An opportunity that one could view as more visible than other forms of social media content and feedback (?!)…. Or perhaps not, within 24hours Zuckerberg had re-posted concern about 'Governing the Facebook Service in an Open and Transparent Way' to the sites Terms and Condition page.

Whilst this discussion does (I am relieved to say) continue to ‘rage’ on the Facebook blog, further issues arise about whether social media data should apply only to one particular site, or whether there should be a code that can be put into practice and holds recognition across all platforms and applications.

Presently we are without formal codes of practice, at times we stumble ‘blindly in the dark’ to self-regulate our own information - how many of us really acknowledge such possibilities and for example, use that Privacy tab (top right of the Facebook page). Two bedrock principles for safeguarding social information is i) self-awareness and ii) the fortification of the data that is constantly sent out – whether intended or not. This is important, as once something is published and broadcast across social media it has staying power. This is real ‘stickability’ of social content, the effects of which we are yet to fully appreciate. Even by ‘deleting’ that Wall post, or unflattering picture this is no protection against data retrieval at a later date. All our information can (and in all liklihood will) be retrieved. It is not just Google who has your history. Potentially so does ‘everyone’ else.

The proccess of enjoying social media is carried out in public, increasingly the technology is in real-time and with real friends. And this reality is interactive. Information is shared and responded through communication. Thus, there is not an ‘end’ of the process.

The difficulty is that individuals have a different awareness and set of social standards when it comes to what they share and with whom. This distinction is important. Years from now the MySpacer’s of yester-year will have to contend and be prepared to defend not only their music tastes, but what they shared with their friends and why.

However, such frequent updates does not necessarily equate to a lowering of social standards or indeed ethics. The identification here is that individuals may increasingly be sharing more information, but they are also doing this with very different sense of what is private, public or even suitable for content. Social transparency sums up this taken-for-granted link to external sources for interaction. For example, where there is a widely accepted use of Facebook (what do you mean you’re not on Facebook?!) there is also assumed disclosure of personal information, interests and affiliations.

For many, the use of social media is intended as a personal act of expression, where the standard in terms of social value are far from irrelevant, but can easily become misplaced when it comes to personal privacy. Are formal standards required to help shift awareness from a latent ‘which of my friends can see what’ to overt ‘it’s really important that I protect my data and private information’ concern?

Thus far we have only our own personal ethical views for guidance. Perhaps our Facebook actions, Twitter tweats, images on Flickr should all be subject to professional codes of social practice... At this point, one can only join in the games and find out the rules later.