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.

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...