#140Twitter York Project

Just to let you know that as of this week there starts my most recent project: The #140Twitter York Project.

The idea is to explore microblog ususage on a 'micro' (relatively) scale and analyse the properties of business networks in the city of York on Twitter.

Data collection has started and seems quite appropriate, in the same week that Coca-Cola and Unilever are shifting marketing focus away from 'traditional campaigna' and towards a 'digital' and 'push' marketing strategy across various community platforms: Facebook, YouTube etc. Indeed, as Will Cooper notes, 'social media begins to dictate their marketing activity in 2010'.

So rather than the analysis of already established brands (I'm sure that Coke has more than enough £'s to sustain their own departments and keep marketing/research chiefs more than occupied) my research explores how independents within a localised area can seek to target consumers, create networks, sustain consumer interest, seek out buyer/sellers and ultimately take advantage of 'community' structuring through Twitter.

In short, the business and commercialised reaction to being on the edge of the Information Age, as my new friend Shourjo at BBC Leeds put it. More from this project soon...

Purely for the purposes of the Give

As regular readers to this blog and other sites about 'social media', those of us with such mediated lives hold that people simply 'get' such communications. No explantion is required, especially in answer to the question 'why use Twitter?' Other's who 'get' this evolution of the web, of social platforms, of technology are well tuned to the Information Age - shaped by networks, links and our connections with others.

Such an Age presents new social opportunities...

Purely for the delight of the connection and to take advantage of one such social opportunity is provided by one AndyWhitlock. This week is taken as a Week of Favours (now in colour), where Andy is offering seven days of favours - 11th to the 15th of January. One favour per day and anyone can ‘apply’ for one.

Here are the favours,

1. #favour1 – He’ll make/find you an image
2. #favour2 – He’ll blog something for you
3. #favour3 – He’ll look up something for you
4. #favour4 – He’ll tweet something for you
5. #favour5 – He’ll write something for you
   

To apply you need only TWEET @andywhitlock or comment on his blog post.

In the same week that I have been commissioned to write reportage on consumer-to-consumer behaviour comes Andy's very apt recreation of community spirit and vigour. Interesting, because you need have no direct tie to Andy and because in the spirit of other aspects of Web 2.0 his favours are Free.

Cyberspace 1990s was based on an inherent individualism - where making a connection (whether to another person, or even dialling to get onto the internet) were experienced as risky situations. Technology had to be negotiated, choices made, communications initiated, contact slooooooow. Somewhere admidst the Web 1.0 read write early hay day some resources conveyed a sense of 'community' (see Howard Rheingold and Barry Wellman for more). More rencently identities offer a reconnect as an adjunct to 'real' world connections, rather than 'fantasy' or 'play'. Increasingly Web 2.0 in its 'friend/lier' guise has reframed community again, which has not gone unnoticed by various social commentators, including,
Anderson’s (2009) The Longer Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand;
Gladwell’s (2006) Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking;
Howe’s (2009) Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business;
Leadbeater’s (2009) We-Think: Mass innovation, not mass production 2nd Edition;
Shirky’s (2009) Here Comes Everybody: How Change Happens When People Come Together
Surowiecki’s (2004) Wisdom of Crowds. All which, if you haven't, you should read.

We can debate individualism another time, but one aspect of Andy's generous offer strikes me, it is imperative that we are seen to make the ‘correct’ choice as we are presented with ever-increasing choices. Add to this more pressure, when making the ‘incorrect’ choice could lead to unforeseen consequences (or just a bad friend on Facebook). On the web, the range of resources that are the most popular tap into this shared notion of choice by community - Twitter, Facebook, Flickr etc. all play on the notion of community of people sharing experiences, moments, recommendations and updates about cups of tea.

There's something rather comforting about these mediations, especially as we have the ability to take these with us through increasingly mobile devices and handheld technology. Obscurity is no match for the web, to be turly mobile it seems we must lead from the charge wave our hands in the air and polish up our community spirit.

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.

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)...

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.

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'...

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.

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...

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...

Social media and differentiation: Obsessed much?

Modern society is now charged by social media in/action(s). The what you do, when you are doing it and how you say you're doing it.

Equally society has always been characterised by powerful social divisions - whether along the lines of technology ownership: 'you don't have an iPhone?!', gender: 'girl geeks don't code', class: 'MySpace for 'chavs', Facebook for BBC/Guardian middle classes', country/region: 'Bebo most popular in Ireland, Mixi in Japan', etc. Traditionally, far from being universal, social life is disrupted by forms of communication, patterns of consumerism, engagement and access. Precisely how these operate in daily life and relate to one another represents major issues. Phillip Nowark, of Social Media Unraveled.com, suggests a 'No Farting: A guide to Twitter Etiquette' - which links rather nicely to my own etiquette sensibilties I explore on properfacebooketiquette. Here it is the attention to social details that matter. For example, the perceptions of a time famine reflect the greater pressures on our (busy) lives with regard to work, play, friends, family and acquaintences.

Linda Buzzell for AlterNet explores the 'psychological impact' of our fast-paced and highly pressured world. Calling for us to Slow Down: How Our Fast-Paced World Is Making Us Sick. With the greater outlets for participation, the visibility of what we are doing, shown in real time - so as we are doing it - point to a greater intensity to be of-the-moment and constantly aware of others. Together, these characteristics are all candidates for what is a multi-casual explanation of frequent social anxities about the potential demise of known social etiquette.

So are we all obsessed? And not with the content of our underware.

Modes of social media expression have become a principal form of social distinction and require (new) social explanations. For example, do too many tweats in one day screams 'desperate' and 'annoying' to friends? And what are the consequences of syncing your Tweets with your Facebook updates?... Just some of the dilemmas that will be addressed by @tweetsuavities - a new Twitter feed that explores the way in which social issues are to be tweeted, or rather treated, with the benefits, pleasures and possible pitfalls one might expect to accure using Twitter as one element of social media.

One particular issue that interests me, is the (possible) substitution between our modes of encounter that emerge constantly through streams of social information. Take, for example, if a friend is 'missing' on Facebook, more than likely it will be revealed what 'they are doing' via Twitter, Flickr, their email etc. The reason for my interest, aside from usual sociological nosiness, is the succession of each socially mediated 'part' of a person which have different consequences for social relations/hips. the obligations and bonds associated with making sure our friends are sufficiently fed with our information (as communal discourse), against our familial ties and relationships (as a more domestic discourse) can differ widely in a social market of constant exchange and update.

In short, social media acts as a vehicle for our socialisation and additional social preferences. Our decisions are made about whether 'I like them' and so will subscribe to their feed(s), tweets etc.) Thus there is the reproduction of relationships as we hold them outside social media, which go on to influence how we might be encouraged to transform our relations in the future...

Where can you find out more? Well some of the above requires following @tweetsuavities, @mazphd and reading properfacebooketiquette...

Eye Spy: We ARE under scrutiny

'They've got your number' Charles Arthur reported in last weeks Media Guardian - where every call, email, poke, prod, comment and tweet is logged regarding a source and their contact. Whilst about the context of 'investigative journalism' the article is suggestive of the much more sinister side of checks and 'safeguards' considered an OK intrusion into private lives. Both yours and mine. 'Fine' for investigative journalists and their sources(?!), but (deep breath in)...

{start of rant/} I did not intend, nor do I expect that the collaborative connections I share with others be so exposed and under such 'civil' scrutiny.

So much so, now I MUST take action to protect both myself and others linked to me. This is not the same as an update to Facebook Privacy Settings, but one step away from a serious invasion into private lives.

Should it be fair, that those who are relative slow to catch-up, be left unprotected until the day comes when they have to say 'oh no! I didn't mean to disclose that?' {/end of rant}

And Breathe.

For the past week, press columnists, bloggers, commentators and everday conversations have foamed at the mouth with righteous fury against the behaviour of Damian McBride, Gordon Brown's now very fallen Doctor of Spin. On the one hand the current Government shows initiative for innovative use of technology (DowningStreet on Twitter) as a welcome addition to various communicative channels. Suddenly things seemed more 'open', 'friendly' and 'responsive'. However, following the careless leak of emails and intended blog posts that McBride intended to use for smear of the opposition this prompts an important question - why are there no similar checks and safeguards into the lives and actions of MPs?...

I detest that such activities come out of an assumed knowledge and obsession with social media. Too often I have overheard that a lack of formal acquaintance with technology means you know less than the next person who eats code for breakfast. Comparatively, one persons day-long Facebook use is anothers once-weekly update. And anothers 'new media' is still rooted in 'old media', which could be yet anothers 'social media'. NOW is the time to think about a shared language, understanding and implementation of rules and regulations to protect all. No matter what your 'social media' outlook or preference. Even if you like MySpace (*shudder*).

Will this come 'top down' from the Government? Unlikely. Government policy cannot even cope with safeguarding their own blogs. In all liklihood these are the individuals most likely to be caught 'doing something' 'badly behaved' on the likes of Facebook.

Perhaps it is time that we followed them, as much as they intend to follow us...

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.

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.

The Model Social Media user

It was so much simpler back in the cyberspace day. We knew where the offline and the online lie of the land was placed and happily ‘logged-in’ to take part in flame wars and avoid ‘reality’. Back then, there were no Facebook’s cancer risks, no Twitter’s to cause injury to our mental capacity and wither our brains, no stumbling around in the dark on Flickr only to reveal in the cold light of day ‘opps I didn’t mean to upload that’, too late I’m sacked, you're humiliated. In these darker social media times it is getting increasingly difficult to really understand where the You as 'yourself' ends and your alter-ego social Profile(s) begins.

So you must make your own crazy-pathed line into the web abyss. Update the Tweats, friend the likes of Wossy, descend on every Facebook invite wielding your social profile like a light sabre whilst declaring 'get out of my way', 'I am here ! I am here!' 'Notice me, recognise me!'.

You love to update on the go. Even more you love the gizmo’s and gadgets that sit happily alongside as you chat with friends in bars, whilst at the same time ‘quickly’ updating to Facebook just to let the rest of the world know where, when and what you are. Your parents use of email may leave you tutting and rolling your eyes, but your Tweat talent is as much beyond their years as the lack of theirs is beyond yours. In the social end, it’s the least that your parents can do to friend you on Facebook. After all you share the same surname, you all once shared the same address, it would be rude not the share the same social network. It’s just like moving back home all over again...

How old? Your use of social media has the answer.

I have, for some considerable time, dispatched from my lingua franca (language for convenience) the term ‘cyberspace’. Marilyn style gasps aside, my argument is there is a considerable divide between the manifestation of a 1990s cyberspaces and today’s array of ‘social media’. Used not only by the 'cool kids', 'geeks', 'dorks' or 'nerds' this observation is apparent through technologies ubiquitous and taken-for-granted everyday use, emphasised by the numerous (web-based) social presence(s) that we connect.

So much so, that the construct of separate worlds disconnected / divided from each other by an online Vs offline, or real Vs virtual simply does not compute. Indeed, to recognise that the use of social media is becoming ever-more common place is to acknowledge (albeit grudgingly) that we share at least one friend in common – either the self-pronounced ‘Wossy’ - Jonathon Ross, or the more straight forward, self-proclaimed ‘dork’ stephenfry – Stephen Fry. Here it is likely that both you and I can count ourselves as increasingly ‘one’, amongst the many. To add to the burgeoning social crowd, the house wives favourite ‘Schofe’ - Phillip Schofield, after he admitted posting live to Twitter during updates on This Morning, now has a ‘cool’ 74, 310 ‘followers’ flocking to his tweats. To say that 'everyone' is now connected would be an over-statement, but your everyday use of social media, their related networks and ‘friends’ does say a lot about your generation.

Under 15: You’ve been born with the metaphorical social media spoon in your mouth. Not that that’s ever stopped you from Tweating. Most likely your parent’s have spent longer referring to the text-only based edition of their parenting manual than the likelihood of your having had to refer to any type of handbook to ‘connect’, ‘link’, ‘unite’ and ‘get on’ with others. Once out of the womb you had already at least ten friends on Facebook. None of whom are your parents.

15 – 20: Too cool for MySpace and Bebo – that’s for the ‘sib’s’. You YouTube for entertainment, point, click and post directly to Flickr with the push of one button. You live by an expected continuous stream of social information that is supported by your steady and faithful connection to peers. Your parents may have ‘friended’ you on Facebook, but you have them on ‘Limited Profile’. You’re too cool for Twitter. That’s for the ‘old’ folk.

20 – 25: The original ‘Digital Generation’. You were fed on MTV and dabbled with email when there was still dial-up. You were amongst the first on MySpace, but quickly ditched ‘that space’ for Facebook. Now your Facebook is ‘LinkedIn’ with your LinkedIn's and Tweats. Smug? Maybe. Your friends know you because ‘we used to go to school together, like years ago’ and because they’re the only one’s who read your blog(s). You might be friends with Wossy, but only in an ironic way.

25 – 30: Cyberspace chatrooms and forums are within close memory. You still remember your first Avatar and 'username'. Now signed up to the latest social media you don’t give a damn how many friends you have on what networks. These (of course) all sync seamlessly to your iPhone. Sweet. You've only sent one '@' Tweat to stephenfry, but didn't expect a reply.

30 – 40: Facebook is FriendsReunited without the fee. You ‘remember’ those school friends, but really signed up to social networks to ‘spy’/reacquaint yourself with exes and those ‘bitches’ from school. Wossy was your first Twitter friend. Schofe will be your last - most likely through the link on this blog.

40 – 50: That nice Mr Schofield is on Twitter. I don’t understand what that is, but I will follow him wherever he may be…

50 – 65: What’s all this Twittering? Bird watching was never so popular in my day. We have a computer, but only for email – one shared account that has more Spam than messages from the family. Lots of ‘Friend Requests’ from someone vaguely familiar on something called Facebook. What’s wrong with a nicebook instead? There's bafflement when the mobile phone rings. Especially as this is indication that it's still in charge.

65+: Twit? Certainly not. How rude. I’m at home you can call and verbally abuse me here.

And where do I fit? Follow mazphd and find out...

You'll be playing one tune and I'll be listening to another. How social media will change your life...

Things have settled down nicely since the wakeful nights and ever-early mornings of Ph.D writing and social media research. Going forward the priority seems to be acknowledgement of how best to detach from such tracts of social information, whilst at the same maintaining a more general idea of how friends are ‘getting on’ – and as such, such information it turns out is still accumulated via Facebook. Which begs the questions; why can’t one just pick up the telephone and find out? Or is that too intrusive for the socially savvy and technologically inclined? Does voice-to-voice belong to the by-gone era of the kind of social energy that never seemed to falter and got us through Web 1.0, the mobile phone, telephone, radio, telegraph, letter and all other communication before?

As it turns out anyone can (and does, all too readily, in my experience) dispense advice on such matters. Take the facebooketiquette.blogspot.com deigned to not only propose advice, but to offer a friendly banter on the latest trials and tribulations from the more digital of the community. Good advice (that you can put into practice and actually works) is out of sync with many of the candidates and accolades of social technology. One cannot imagine sitting down to a user guide for Facebook and starting from Step One of the manual and following through. That was one for the ‘The Dummies Guide To Social Networking’.

A question that arose last week; ‘Actually what is Twitter?’ prompted new discussions.
Uttered not by my father or one of his generation, but someone whom I would rate as a ‘master’ if not leading guru of Web 2.0 and the future versions too. The confession that followed, ‘Well yes I do have a Twitter account, but I don’t know what to do with it’ was left hanging with a marked silence.

Amongst the (not-so-famous) five discussing the various merits of social technology we all came with a background of blogging and almost routinised (daily) acknowledgement about the merits of social tools and enthusiasm that centred on Facebook, Twitter etc. The confession that it was possible that ‘we’ as the ‘experts’ did not know what one of these were ‘for’ highlighted an interesting dynamic. On the one hand here was acknowledgement of a sequence of information and social strategies to bridge the gap(s) between lists of friends and acquaintances. On the other it was necessary that such tools be also mitigated by the self-discipline and management of methods to allow direct attendance to contacts and disguise the awkward truth where some of the details of such utilisation were largely being ‘worked out’ on the fly or simply ignored altogether. The revelation amongst our party was that ‘Yeah, I’m on Twitter, but I’m not on Twitter’. Hence this was a ‘cool’ way to be seen and at the same time highlighted a level of engagement that got around the ‘inconvenience’ of having to describe what it was you were doing on there, or why you where doing it.

Perhaps what is required is a type of social media transitional ‘self-help’ guidance. For years psychoanalysts have directed the various schools of thought relating to everyday life and social interactions. So why not the same type of analysis for social media and its integration into daily routines?

Making a measured ‘success’ of such examinations could be tricky. Specific techniques would have to take into variance the social attachment to various media as well as the level of competence by the individual when using a particular ‘system’ to stay in touch. For example, this week I was sent a notification via my LinkedIn Account that my Profile was ‘under scrutiny’ and had ‘restrictions’ as a result that people had indicated that ‘this person is not known to me’ in my potential ‘network’. Fine, but it this was the result of LinkedIn’s own ‘spamming’ from the accumulated email addresses attached to my account that had led to such notifications from others. Likely that some would only have been in contact once, or perhaps never as a result of various user-groups and meet-up lists it was hardly surprising some had opted for the ‘Mariann Hardey is unknown to me and my network’ selection. In this scenario, less a case for the psychoanalytics of my actions and more the necessary accountability of the ‘little black box’ and automated workings of the LinkedIn site. The LinkedIn and Facebook networks do not make their millions (estimated or otherwise) because of a tentative call for other to ‘network’. These sites work precisely because they emphasise the pro-active elements of building personal connections with other – whether you are aware of a trawl through your Gmail address book or not it seems.

And so to networking and the requirements for social media success. If such accomplishments could only be reduced to one infallible system we would all be doing the same thing in the same way *yawn* and thus inevitably ignoring the more intriguing elements of ‘linked in’ technology.

‘Yes,’ as I confessed to the group, ‘Twitter was an initial mystery to me too. You can consider it as ‘not very technical’, but then that is its charm’.

Hence the only remedy and most effective psycholoanlytic direction is to continually test the social media water and go from there. Even if that reveals that you (and others) don’t really know what they’re doing or even what such tools are for.