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.

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.

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...