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.