#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.

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'

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.

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.

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)?

ZeroCool

It’s funny how the days quickly roll by as lives are streamed by the various portals of socially charged information. Hello to Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, Dopplr…

It doesn’t seem over ten years since our alleged entry into the ethereal arena of cyberspace. And my, didn’t we take it all so seriously ‘back then’.

Over the weekend I re-watched Hacker’s. Director’s Iain Softley’s, 1995, vision of a New York situated cyberpunk culture. Lot’s of smoking, lots of inline - should that be online? ‘waaaaaaay cool dude!’ - skates and 'a 28.8 bps [sic] modem!’. And with Angelina Jolie.

Friends are made, lost along the way, re-made and the movie ends with Angelina getting wet in a pool with not-a-lot-a-on as a result of the games, territorial fights of fancy and the ultimate battle with a ‘big bad wolf’ corporation as led by the hacking community and culture.

So, today, why so 1990s?

One line in the film stands out, when a friend of the ‘PhantonPhreak’s’ asserts, ‘you’re nobody unless you have a handle’ – an individuals self-nominated ‘cyber’ name, the equivalent of what we would use as a username.

Today, it could equally be argued that ‘you’re nobody if you use anything but your real name’. An interesting turn of events. Where once the anonymous identity reigned supreme, now you’re only ‘insanely great’ if your friends can recognise you and be there to track your every movement. To this extent, the Hacker's suggestive nod to George Orwell’s 1984 Big Brother ‘I’m watching you’ is suitably fitting.

Today this would be 'we're watching you'... Add to this observation, today the main protagonist ZeroCool would be zero cool, dismissed as a fake persona and consequently receive no friends on Facebook.

There’s been a steady change to the inclusion (intrusion?) of the arrays of technology, applications and resources that supplement our daily social highlights, lowlights and reveal the lowlifes. Perhaps we should all get used to suffering a new malady of data retention.

From today all ISPs will be ‘legally obliged’ to store all details of your internet content and telephony for 12 months. Whilst not the BigBrother central database of communications information – there are longer term outcomes that will affect our civil liberties. One example is how last month Facebook both defended its right to impose, and had users obliged to support, the sites new terms of service. For Zuckerberg this was promoted on the Facebook blog as an opportunity, 'On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information’ – in short, ‘we have your data and we’re not afraid to use it’. Faced with heavy criticism, the threat of legal action and rebel against Facebook by users (the Facebook group, People Against the New Terms of Service, grew to nearly 150,000 members) the company reinstated the old terms of service and with a new Facebook (trust us) group: The Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (with less than 100,000 members).

One day such events will tempt us to look back and recall not only ‘oh what a funny place that little cyber world was’, but to lament ‘oh how we used to be at liberty’… Now that was a funny old world which was far from ZeroCool.

Some questions to keep in mind: What is privacy? How are we surveilled across networks? What values do should we hold important for personal data? How can governments, corporations, and individuals make information safe?...

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.

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.