TEDx trepidation

In the spirit of 'ideas worth spreading', I have been asked to present at TEDxManchester (with thanks to Ian Forrester @BBC Backstage).

x, because this represents an independently organised event. Albeit with a BBC edge.

This will be my first TED. This will also be the first time I have ever been asked to contribute without a good sense of who the other speakers are, what direction the day will take, or the connection to audience – in my mind the most important part of any conference, unconference or otherwise. Let alone the size of the event itself. This is self-organisation on a small-to-many-scale. And I am as yet unsure as to my role, or the expectations and development of sustained interest with the others whom I hope to encounter. My only regret is that I will have to rush back to York before the close of day for more presentations and various interviews from a North East based.

As technology is my thing it seems only natural that these form the main thrust of my talk. As the pace of everyday life accelerates with various social technologies, my key question is whether we have a better handle of ourselves and/or of others? Social platforms in particular are a central part of what Castells tied together as 'networked lives'. This is a central issue beyond the rise of a technological modernity, which has thrust us into social sensibility that is as rapid, in terms of updates and change, as it can be tumultuous.


To make sense of this type of social existence I suggest these are the signs of the times where the immediacy – the combination of at-once-connection to others and the ubiquitous nature of social media – emerge as core features, which are supposedly under, but never ever completely, our control.

My aim is to draw attention to the coming and arrival of social information in our lives. Thus, the anticipation of reciprocated connections inexorably change how we (should) think about social media, networks, sociability and behavioural practices. In short, such change has already and shall continue to revolutionise our social and cultural rules, rituals and values. But are we ready for that?...

And is TEDx ready for a 'social scientist'... social media analyst or otherwise.

Whatever happens on the day I'm excited to be meeting - such is the advantage of being a Speaker - Herb Kim a figure-head in technology circles and who has more than one 'idea worth spreading'.

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...

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)?

The smell of the Web

What would the Web smell like if it had a scent? Not exactly the a subject one ponders on a daily basis, but an intriguing idea none-the-less.

Indeed, behind the scenes most of the Web's hero's do little to project the fragrant and attractive aroma of cut grass and invigoration. Although Steve Job's Apple could be indication of potential fragrant muse in this direction. Imagine everytime you opened your ibook and the experience was met with not only a happy mac icon, but Apple fragrance.

Late in the 1990s it seemed a good idea to promote the concept of a smellivision. Farming Today was particuarly popular and represnted a potential heady mix of countrywide smells destined for city based homes. Until it was realised that this also meant the likes of Jeremy Kyle would become more obnoxious. Not only to eyes and ears, but also to the nose.

As a new interactive feature the Scratch and Sniff Web.0 could be the future. Instead of 'log in' we could have 'sniff in' - the recognition of a distinctive scent that allows open access to our personal content.

My fragrance would be 'fresh cut grass', when I smell freshly cut grass I get this air of clarity. It wakes me up and invigorates. And is a damn sight more exciting than typing in the same characters across numerous social media platforms as a passcode. Why not smell your way through the Web? Facebook access could be mediated by your perfume or cologne, Twitter a show-y scent, the kind that is reminiscent of those scenes from shopping malls as counter girls and guys ATTACK! wrists with the latest Brand Beckham gym sock distinction.

Hmmm… I'm not sure what YouTube would smell like - I fear for potential loo roll, or other tube based allusions. However, I would be encouraged to log onto a restaurant review site to stimulate appetite. Just maybe not MacDonald's...

Other notables are various web consumer opportunities, log onto Amazon for that fresh book smell, eBay for the aroma of old socks, Flickr to recreate days at the beach.

The next step is to replicate taste, a screen lick concept if you will.

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...

Getting the full snoop. What’s next?

Spending hours in front of my computer and constantly attached to my phone, my (rather inquisitive) mind has never before been so littered with various divergences, distractions and imaginary social instances.

These start innocently enough – looking at a friends Wall on Facebook, back-tracking their posts to other friends, then looking at their friends, taking a glimpse at tagged photos… And uh-oh is it the afternoon already?

At my defence I point to the possibilities offered by the capability of technology that afford such social rational. In diong so my argument is based on an awareness that not only are my friends doing the same , but also that they will also make their judgements and how you react and/or are aware of such activities reflects and affects your mood and, ultimately, your relationships.

Nevertheless, this particular social state is addictive. I am proud to state that I have never intruded where the boundaries of public decency and good grace of friendship respect would not allow. As such (thank goodness) I have never unearthered the unexpected: a previously unknown dependency on drugs, internet porn, gambling, or some other wayward and socially disapproved activity of those in my network(s). BUT I shall confess, that this type of social snooping has taken over parts of my everyday life and increasingly take up my creative energies, have infiltratrated my sleep and take over my time.

Now it is difficult to try and pry oneself away from such veillance. But should one?...

Putting these thoughts together I am already nose-deep into Sam Gosling’s psychological take on ‘other people’s stuff’. His notion of the Snoop celebrates what your ‘stuff’ says about you. In doing so, Gosling interprets from what people leave in their bathroom, to how they arrange their desk and order their bedroom to build up an interpretative picture of the inner self. Such elements of daily life are suggestive not only of elements of our character, but now sat alongside the constant streams of social information from SNSs can reveal our most personal qualities.

It strikes me that such perceptions fall into three categories.

1. The ‘fair game’ category: Where going through others social information is completely acceptable. Such feeds are broadcast as direct elements of your SNS newsfeed and make it permissible (and pleasing) to check out the related image uploads, wall posts etc.
2. The ‘sneaky game’ category: For those occasions when you have been following the fair game state of play, but find yourself clicking through to target specific information and/or people in other networks - including those whom you may not know. But this is not considered ‘a big deal’ since you share a friend in common right?… ummm…
3. Finally the red alert, red alert, red alert! ‘devious game’ category: Devious because you have had to employ time and thought into hacking into a private account. The main dividing line being the completely illegal and totally shameful set of actions that you now employ to turn a snoop into a potential scoop. I am pleased to say I have never ever (nor would I) do this and so can happily dismiss this level of snoopage!

But why do we follow such actions? A good friend of mine has justified her ‘devious game’ and red alert! actions as they took place during an 'uncontrollable set of circumstances' that conspired during a break up. Upon receiving a ‘mysterious text’, which contained the message: ‘do you know where ***** is tonight?’ Quite naturally she wanted to uncover some answers…

Following the sneaky game play I have uncovered some elements of my own social snippets about friends, boyfriends and acquaintances - mostly when aided by a (vain) curiousity to know what exes of past boyfriends have been like, what groups someone belongs to, the kinds of images they upload and their friends tag etc. and then interpreting what this says about them...

However, there comes (before) the red alert! point when I (and so should you) feel the need to stop! and I recognise that enough is enough is enough. Crossing over to the dark side you run risk of invading (whether intentionally or not) into the lives of others and also making yourself look less than trustworthy and dishonest in the process.

In actuality the opportunity to snoop is a magnificent social divergence. Even so the clicking through of that tagged photo can quickly lead to a red alert situation! The result? Our actions have to be contextualised in measured proportions - so only snoop as far as you would want your friends to in your life…

Unexpected Encounter. Friends Reunited. Or ‘I’ll spit in your handbag’.

Even though personal convention and social *wisdom* suggests the opposite, I will share the most recent outcome of an incidental (re)meeting in the street of an old friend. The Smack the Pony’s sketch – Friends Reunited - is an excellent portrayal of the potential social awkwardness of this situation…

H: Lucy!

L: Hannah! Hello,

H: Great to see you! Well I had your number but everything just got burned!

L: Oh great to see you. Lets change numbers.

H: Write on my hand. Here’s a pen.

L: Bus ticket! Oh no that’s broken. Damn it.

H: Lippy, lippy, lipstick on the paper.

L: Really got to rush rush rush,

H: No I can’t read that at all.

L: What to do?

H: I could scratch my number on your glasses.

L: I must go.

H: Spit in my bag.

L: Err no.

H: I could likck your back, and then you roll on the ground it adheres.

L: Quick! A tattoo.

H: There’s no time.

L: Must go.

H: Numbers. We can remember numbers…

L: No I’m never going to remember that. Really got to go.

H: What to do?

L: Meet here in a year. Same time and place.

H: Or even sooner.

L: I can’t. married to a rock star.

H: Wow.

L: Bye.

How difficult is it for us to reconnect and to accept an invitation from someone else? We feel under pressure to communicate, connect and reconnect. Then we find instead that ‘life just gets in the way’ – and so we are left with the option to either ‘spit in your handbag’ and walk away with mention of a rock star husband. OR, to really reconnect and then to take the time and effort to follow this up from the ‘hi’ in the street.

Someone I know recently went looking for lost school friends (he was bored in bed with flu and had just discovered Facebook). The result of his social daliance were that most 'friends' would accept his invitation, but did little to follow up this reintroduction. My explanation was that I was not surprised. Particularly when he explained how he was motivated by Lemsip combined with a flu fever. I too would probably be reluctant to follow up a friendship ‘hint’ had I received such a request myself.

Hi I have flu, long time no see! How are you doing?

There are a few reasons for this reaction. First, we live life through and with those we know, and who know us best. Had we wanted to reconnect with old school friends, by now, we probably would have already done it. (Apologies to those old school friends I have not got back in touch with and who may be reading this!). At the heart of this is the idea that there is no such thing as the ‘pure’ friendship/relationship – there is always a reciprocity that is expected and attached to such actions. Hence a message/invitation etc. is always sent with the (implicit) expectation that we will give something in return and in order to make it worth our while to offer up our attention. Second, there is a sense that we attach different kind of meaning to seemingly random and out of the blue incidents - Whether the bumping into an old friend in the street, or the unexpected friend request on Facebook - One member of the party may take this very seriously, the other does not know, understand, nor care to receive it.

These social negotiations are tangled up in need for personal protectiveness and prevention of risk.An assessment that quickly changes from 'what to do' or 'how to respond' to such requests. This is weighed up against the personal effort it will take on our part and demands such actions will make on our personal time.

These observations may seem negative, but they are mainly about asserting our expectations and opportunities around everyday interactions. In this way perhaps we should not be so hard on ourselves if we want to assert we are married to a rock star and would rather walk away than 'spit in your handbag'. Personally, the more I research and pursue my own connections, the more social etiquette matters. Here self-reflection is key for establishing the shared rules for acceptable behaviour and to avoid handbags at dawn.