Private lives?

I'm a mere five weeks from completion of my doctorate thesis. Readers familiar with this blog will already have heard me wax lyrical about my research; the Seriously Social of social media. Basically an excuse to spend time surfing Facebook and other affiliated Web 2.0 resources. This week I've been taking notice of the Scientific American, whose special issue: 'Will Technology kill privacy?', does seem a little late in the day. Comparable with one of my favourite metaphor's involving a horse, stable, door and lack of bolting.

Unsurprisingly there is what I would classify as a very American take of privacy. Framed mostly by a paranoia about the 'invasion' into 'personal security', and then by the same token, 'THE right to bear witness' to personal data. Reminds one of the ''right' to bear arms' American constitution mantra. And I'm not really a fan of that one.

One of the most telling commentries, 'Reflections on Privacy 2.0', is from Esther Dyson (pictured left) an 'active author' and supporter of Web Start-Ups, who queries, 'What is society to do about people who can't or don't want to prove who they are?' What Ms Dyson's observation lacks is a critical framing of what I propose as the consequences of how a society should allow individuals to fully manage, and pay attention to their personal information.

There's a tension between what Dyson cites as an 'unquenchable curiosity', and at the same time the 'insistence on being left alone'. Most interesting is the timeline in the article, which charts the main events of 'Privacy in America'. Chief in 2004 being the launch of Facebook. Personally my social information, is as informative as it is pervasive (i.e. persistent across more than one social media resource, and convergent of sources, information and data; what you find on Facebook, matches 'me' on Twitter etc). What I find more alarming are than the mostly normative social practice of personal information broadcast, are the powers and instance of supposed sources of authority being careless with our personal data. I already know and trust myself to be able to manage what I post, where and when. I'm less confident about, for example, my bank and even the graduate schools office at the university. Both notorious for 'losing' information (where?!) and being careless with what I'm referring to as 'information worthiness'. Or in this case a lack of.

Yes we lead ever-increasing public lives, but at the same time we do take care to manage our information. We are not new to the concept of privacy or even social surveillance. Even George Orwell spotted this one, writing 1984 a while ago now. What is 'new' to the concept of privacy is the pervasiveness of the information, something that is missed by commentators and writers such as Dyson and American sociologist danah boyd. Although Ms boyd's paper 'Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?' is worth a poke about for the youth culture perspective.

What we write, post, tag etc today will persist. Even if deleted. For reasons beyond me Dyson uses the example of tattoo's as evidence of social taboo that is now mainstream, 'Now every second woman in my health-club locker room seems to have a tattoo'. Well yes. BUT does this mean that in the same way Dyson views SNSs and the attendant social media as a social taboo? Perhaps so. She ends the article with the subtitle, 'My data, Myself' and the question, is there a 'privacy from one's own desires?' Maybe not if you're broadcasting them on Twitter. But I'm fairly sure the 'psychic connection' add-on has not been free-streamed. Yet.

The issue of privacy is more about the level of personal disclosure, and responsibility by the individual to control the how, and by what means they present themselves. This is even more telling in the same week the sex offender 'check' scheme is launched, and Eastender's is gearing up for it's arguably most hardhitting storyline to date, as Bianca's Tony continues his grooming of her 15 year young step daughter Whitney.

My argument is that privacy should be focussed on the persistence and pervaisveness of social information. What are we going to in 50 years time when our Facebook Profile's and pictures are still retrievable? Will this be viewed as something amusing for our grandchildren to look at. Or a more sinister way for other third parties to capture Your data?... Let's hope we won't be looking back in anger.

Wired Douche Bag

Ok, so I am a little late in the day with this post in terms of timing, but last months (how retro2.0 of me) Wired Magazine had an article (and cover) led by Julia Allison.

I'm sorry, Who?

Oh you too. Well there could (finally) be a leading lady in technology and with enough kudos to be on the cover of Wired. Prestige indeed. In short, no is the answer that you are looking for. And lets stay with ‘looking’, because essentially that is all we should equate with Ms Allison. She is a brand, to be looked at. And a very clever one too. Let me explain, she has friends in all the right technology places including, Randi Zuckerberg (sister to Mark, of Facebook fame and fortune), Choire Sicha (former managing editor of Gawker), the ‘Virgin’ Richard Branson and of course leader of the pack Chris Anderson (Wired editor). As well as her own MySpace, Twitter feed, numerous websites, YouTube exposure etc.

So do Ms Allison do? Well she is highly skilled, and can ‘bounce’ and ‘giggle’ in all the right places, with just the right amount of accompanying spandex and glittery eye makeup to hold interest and, according to Anderson, ‘captivate’ her audience.

‘What a woman’. ‘What a role model for Girl Geeks, and technology equality’, I hear you cry!

Oh sorry wrong sort of crying there, *sob*. Pass me the Kleenex.

It’s not that I don’t rate Ms Allison, there is clearly much to admire (aside from the spandex) from a woman that has so brilliantly (and dedicatedly) branded herself as a technology superstar. From her beginnings as a lustful med-student-pursuer, ‘I realised I had a thing for doctors’ she simpers, to official I.T. Gal, and self-nominated (with pride), ‘douche bag’ across her Twitter stream, MySpace page (and no doubt Facebook), as well as her personal website, xojulia.com. As with her previous sites, juliaallison.com, itsmejulia.com, and juliajuliajulia.com together these provide the commentary to every moment of her spandex-ualised life.

Well snap my knicker elastic.

So it seems that my own affiliations with Girl Geekdom, can now be laid to rest, as we have resolution. Nay, a new Girl Geek figure-head in the form of Ms MeatSpace.

Could this be the solution to the promotion of Girl Geeks? Answers in lipstick and with a pout only please.

Another version of this blog is posted at Girl Geekdom

Having the last word on the latest cool thing.

Today's Observer Magazine from the Dear Mariella column has a 'modern day' dilemma about being reaquainted with an ex, an 'incredibly sexy man', now that both parties are married. Mariella's approach is one of quiet scoffing 'call me anti-social (...) but Facebook and its fellow sites offer teenagers a virtual social circle, and disassatisfied adults the chance to sit alone in a cloud of nostaglia'. Hmm, written like a true non-Facebook user. I was pleased that some are still disconnected in terms of digitial social networks. Even Granny Ivy Bean at 102 as the worlds oldest Facebook user has got to gripes with the Poke.

This is not to pooh-poo anyone who does not use Facebook, or any other SNS. Each to their own. This is a mere commentary as to the lag and revine between the perception of SNS users, and the reality. Recently SNSs have been responsible for spiraling society out of control, the source of, knife crime, identity theft, coronies as people spend time surfing, rather than real surfing. Such are the Facebook forays. But what is the reality?

the American SNS commentator/sociologist danah boyd has long described SNSs as a place for 'yoof to hang out', and 'why youth heart MySpace'. This is only part of their story. As you read this, Facebook and its affiliated sites are being increasingly occupied by the highest proportaion of new users, who are older demographic and most likely to be women. Not only a hang out for yoof, but essential networks for career development (in the UK Facebook is more popular than Linkedin), and is used by professionals for friend and work based contacts.

Mariella's article does show one important observation to note, and that is that we are still coming to terms with the who is using, let alone how to use such forms of technology.

The easiest (laziest) and media led take is that these sites are detrimental to everyday social life. Instead there are a range of complex social processes invovled that are only just beginning to be emergent. Who would have foresaw 102 years young granny Ivy Facing off on SNSs.

Despite Mariella's title of the column, the Last Word', this is not the last that we will be hearing, thinking and writing about SNSs. There's a loooooooong way to go yet as they continue to stand as the 'latest cool thing'.

FATbook

It seems that nothing is good for you these days. If it's not enough that we are a 'nation of fatties', we also lack motivation and will power, and thus have binged on social networking too. The day after Facebook was named as the 'world's number one social networking site', is the day the world's number one is also responsible for the obesity epidemic, as 'Facebook 'makes you fat''

Too much time surfing online and not enough will power to go the gym? Yes that will be FATbook's fault. Makes you wonder whether the metaphorical Poke could actually be a latent form of exercise action.

The image that springs to mind is the 'fat guy being poked with a stick'.

So FATbook’s caused an epidemic. But weren’t the fatties F.A.T. before Facebook?

This level of reportage is ridiculous, but what else does one expect from the summer time, lazy British tabloid press. The story will be straight from the 'fatty demographic’ who surf too much and don't get to the gym anyway. Buy an iphone and poke FATbook on the move I say.

Make sure you're connected

Much of my research, and now my daily life is centred around forms of contact across of social media. Social media, is that Web 2.0? Well, Web 2.0 was a nice generic, commercialised label, but I think that its more appropriate to refer to the action of social software, rather than a ‘version change’ of the web.

So social media, is like web 2.0 and refers to our use of media that means we are always on and always connected. Which brings me to an interesting issue, raised by the popular press this week. What happens when our Profiles remain in place after death?

I’m reminded of the case of Sophie Lancaster, a young woman (just) who was beaten to death for ‘being a goth’, and her boyfriend that was left for dead during the attack. Such was the brutality of the circumstances of Sophie’s death that her MySpace page is now a home for messages of support, condolence and now heads a campaign for, Stamp Out Prejudice, Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere (S.O.P.H.I.E).

For the Profile’s of those who have not died in such dramatic and heartrending circumstances, these stay in place. As David Lee reports in today’s The Guardian newspaper at a family’s request a Profile can be removed. Interesting to note is the language that Lee uses, he queries ‘what will become of our online lives’. One of the main appeals of social media is that these transgress the online and offline. We are not living in a ‘cyberspace’ anymore. The social acts that take place across social media bear as much weight as those that occur in-person.

So what do we make of social acts that occur on a Profile when a user is not there anymore? Culturally, in the United Kingdom we tend to pussy-foot around death. So it is easy to see how such Profiles quickly become shrines and hold a certain revere in the eyes of friends. Perhaps this is a new form of public mourning, and a way to be able to visualise an out-pouring of grief.

At this moment, we all appear confident with our new found penache and love of social networking in daily life. Another SNS, Respectance breaks this mold, and is a 'memorial community for the dead'. The site allows users to create an online tribute for a lost loved one. Included is a written description, and invitation for others to share their memories. You can also submit photos and videos to remember your lost friend or relative by. So it seems social networking will live on. Even the loss of a user will stay alive and can be cultivated by family and friends.

Perhaps in the future there will be a way to prepare a Profile for when your time is up. An automatic update that you can put in place, much like a last will and testament. Or is that too creepy?


In the long-term we may be ‘absent’, or ‘gone’, but we will always be connected. And we will remain connected. Even after the ultimate disconnection, death.

Is Green the new Black for the Tech World?

Well no. Not if you watch this weeks BBC2’s Dragon’s Den. Up to slay a Dragon, was Peter Hopton of ‘Very PC’, who had valued his company at no less than £5million, and wanted a £250,000 for a 5% stake of his company.

Ok so aside from the Fairly Tale figures, the U.S.P. of Very PC was, its accolades of awards (you can count three displayed in the Den), and its ethos of a greener less ‘mean’ PC technology. Hopton, ran through Very PC’s green credentials saying ‘(…) we make them energy saving’.

Basically, Very PC takes the off-the-shelf PC consumerables and remodels PCs at lower energy saving versions. Which begged Peter Jones's Dragon question, how is this a patented business model, and what’s to stop You or I going out and doing the same? But back to the greener issue at stack, by relying on generic PC parts, Very PC PC’s seem to be no more recyclable or efficient than any other computer out there...

Greener technology is the way to go, hey who doesn’t love the environment? But when ‘greener’ is tacked onto Brand development (£5 million?! Gasped/scoffed Dragon Peter Jones, 'Maybe if you’re IBM'), rather than a proper business model or product, Very PC seems to hold a lot less environmental kudos. Which is a shame, as I’d quite like to champion a British based PC company. Especially one that’s green.

Of Course Dragon Jones will be kicking himself now, what with Very PC's brand potential shooting sky high after the companies sparring in the Den. Still £5million might still be a strech.

So 'Green' or 'mean'? You decide. Hmm that sounds like another 'Reality' Tv show to me.

Taking a stab at Facebook

There are various popular press ‘buzz words’ that are bound to gain attention. Charlie Brookers article in The Guardian a couple of weeks ago ‘Online POKER marketing could spell the NAKED end of VIAGRA journalism as we LOHAN know it’. Ooo sensationalist. And that is exactly his point.

In the last couple of hours I’ve been forwarded the noisy foray of commentary on ‘the shank’, the not-so-super superpoke on Facebook. If you don’t know ‘shank’ is the street slang to stab someone. The word on the press street that include, The Telegraph, Sky and Channel 4 shouts are that Facebook is responsible for knife crime. Well masked by the story are the complaints by Facebook users from months ago about the shank poke. One of the discussion board topics ‘Campaign to remove the Shank poke’ had already gained momentum. Although, reading some of the discussion comments this was with surprisingly muted support as this became conflated with freedom of expression discussion rather than 'good' taste.

Attempts in the press to lay blame at Facebook’s door are over the top. These mask many of the generational contexts of socialisation, particularly in terms of youth crime. The circumstances of a knife-crime ‘culture’ and value orientations lack the consistent definition and careful consideration of potential causalities. This means the relevant constructs of ‘good taste’ become entangled with different social effects, opinions and assessments from parents, politicians and the young people themselves. An attitude of ‘our generation’ versus ‘their generation’. Something that was bought out by Rowena Davis's article in The Guardian, How can our politicians understand blade culture?

'Young people' are just as shocked and concerned about knife crime. Some are even in the unhappy contingent of knowing the victims. There is suport to challenge this trend. Already there have been organised demonstrations and yes even Facebook groups such as the: ‘Stop our young people killing each other’.

In short, knife crime is a serious issue, but it’s not Facebook’s fault.

Trying to be 'seriously social'

Off the back of Channel 4's 2Gether 08 event last week my minds been occupied thinking about the whole propriety around social networking and networks.

The innovation of software over hardware on Web 2.0 makes available (to the connected up masses) a whole range of essential social tools. This is of contrast to the 'go out and buy', or (Bill) gated Microsoft approach. Although, as PhilRamble makes the point at WordPress, that MS is innovative in the O/S world, but is given little credit for this. Well be that as it may, MS still put at their fore marketing promotion before a more 'caring' and 'sharing' and sociable.

Networks have potential as transformative and powerful systems of knowledge. A concern that was overlooked at 2Gether was the risks for those who are outside of such links. At the margins of communication and knowledge, one has to query whether 'such individuals' are 'missing out', or are instead blissfully ignorant of the participatory and compulsive activity across Web 2.0?

Clearly not everyone can be connected to everyone else all the time. Though there is the potential for this of course, but even Facebook puts a limit at 5,000 friends. Moreover, that many wallposts on your birthday could get annoying, even for the most network savvy/addicted amongst us.

No the goal of networks should be to strike that happy medium between 'enough connections to make life interesting', but 'not so many that my enhanced communications fall by the wayside'. In short identify and cultivate key network nodes, and dump the chumps.

Could a series of new networked systems of based on your personal information where content is drawn from associated relationships between contacts, pages, interests etc. represent the next stage of the social networking evolution?

One of my favourite blog posts that I return to time and again is Steve Spalding's 'how to define Web 3.0?' As current trends show, we are increasingly navigating by the seat of our networks. Such directions in the world of a Web 3.0 will Spalding speculates be conducted by personal taste, (distate?) and even personality. Seeking entertainment and information are already fast becoming ways to show and acknowledge social validation. At 2Gether despite all the networking, the creativity of the day, sculptured sessions and outbreaks, but nothing said 'validation' and 'i'm here' like a network statement of exchanged details, and newly acquired Facebook friends.

SO, where once the goal of networks was fairly abstract, as simplistic as Zuckerberg's ambition to be able to 'connect to one another'. Relationships have transgressed such one-to-one definitions. Instead we make use of increasingly complex patterns of associations that are drawn and re-drawn as we become 'friends', 'business' 'family' or even just a 'node' in a long chain of links.

Now it seems is the time to take advantage of a counter-network stratification, and just enjoy being able to be seriously social. Or even not so seriously.

At your fingertips. Let do this 2Gether.

Such is the connected up and accelerated presence of the Geek Chic world it is always interesting when one pauses. And can take stock of the consequences of overly excessive (so the media would have us believe) forms of communication. Recently, following such criticism (‘blogging and Facebook, isn’t that just the biggest waste of time?’) I had tried to explain how such an ‘excessive’ focus and attention to social detail was in fact an essential life skill (and style) for the grown up world of the web. And so it is with delight that I'm in attendance of the Channel 4 led 2Gether Festival this week that provides opportunity to take a look at how digital technologies are changing our world. For better or for worse?

One of the major sources of confusion is ignorance over the functionality of blogging lifestyle and a connected social immersion. Misplaced concerns about the lack of quality contact and content in the context of social networking still lacks a clear and workable theorisation. I’ll be speaking on the Thursday and hope to engage with not only the ‘problems’ of such lifestyle, but to offer some solutions too.

The transformations of our culture, social structure and personal identity is as much about the disputed distinction between ‘quality’ face-to-face encounters compared to the ‘poorer’ mediated contact on SNSs and the rest of Web 2.0, as a lack of understanding about how to use such social tools.

So lets define this as a social speeding up of encounters. Communication is of the moment and for the moment. Missed that wall post? To respond two days later you’re either too late, or labelled as ‘neglectful’ of friends and ‘careless’ with messages. The speeding up and compression of actions puts an increased pressure on time. Unlike networks and social networking resources rather than being available in abundance time holds everyone accountable making contact scarce and if we are not careful a more harassed state.

Meanwhile time shifting aside on Thursday I’m going to enjoy the opportunity to meet and greet some of the best in other networks and create possibilities for change.

Google's obscene machine

The judgement of good taste and social values is something that is usually left up to the individual who is considered to have their own set of ‘good taste’ preferences and can be trusted to know right from wrong.

In the states this might be all about to change. Matt Richtel reporting for the New York Times: 'What's obscene? Google could have the answer', outlines how in the trial of a pornographic web operator jurors have been given insight into most Google’d search terms of the residence of Pansacola. Here they are more likely to Google ‘orgy’ than make searches for tamer and less politically incorrect terms. I had to contain my amusement when ‘watermelon’ was given as the yardstick contrast to ‘orgy’, although perhaps the fruitier connotation is lost on our American counter-parts.

Amusement aside, this case has serious implications for the rest of us in the Google world. Privacy is an obvious area for debate especially in terms of the storing and observing of individual data. Only this week councils in the UK have been reprimanded for using surveillance technologies for ‘minor’ deviant activities such as dog fouling and littering, accused of being; 'intrusive, ineffective and expensive'. The prospect of having measurements and judgements against Google searches can be viewed as invasive. However, it is worth while keeping in mind that the very appeal of Google that is THE ubiquitous search engine is in itself significant and perhaps mean that the site should (rather unsurprisingly) carry the expected insidious inspection of all our actions.

For the record this does not leave me feeling entirely comfortable with how my data is recorded, the loss of control in terms of the where, when and to whom such records are disclosed should be highlighted and are an important topic for public consideration. Of course in the Pansacola community case, it is hard to argue anything against privacy considerations when Internet porn and misappropriate web surfing is involved.

All we can do for now is Google and watch this space…

How many links does it take to?...

Web 2.0 can appear as a disjointed and unstructured milieu of links that lets users celebrate the various freedoms afforded information shares, tract backs, commentary, participation and contribution. In effect the user is always social. Always creating, updating and modifying links. Turow and Tsui speculate that we are now ‘hyper-linked’ and its always nice to insert the word hyper to make something appear de rigeur, of the moment and with the added sense of urgency. You are not linked, unless you are hyperlinked!

The integration between articles and social tools is a telling one, and the situation for where would disagree about the looseness of Web 2.0. We are at liberty to participate and to decline participation; however our very openness means that links are valued for their level of trust and content of truth.

Previously (version Web 1.0) this had led to assumptions that there is little integration of more static offline links to sinuous online connections. This was a world with outside and inside doors that had locks and bolts. The power of Web 2.0 is its social composition. The newer concept of digital social networking reveals how most connections are user led and have an important social aspect to them. From the point of view of those of us who are hyperlinked, the most interesting aspects are the creation and recreation of ourselves, likes and connections across digital technologies. Our expectations tap into Surowiecki's Wisdom of Crowds versus Keen’s Cult of the Amateaur.

John Battelle describes the underlying structure as a ‘database of intentions’. And he is right. How we search, navigate content providers and contribute means links become more valued and we, ourselves, valuable.

And lets face it, no-one wants just one friend on Facebook.

Over-exposure

Friend’s of mine always travel with their camera. Extended lenses, polishing cloths and all. That’s a bit too 'camera geek' for me, but I’m aware that I do have an array of image capture devices on me at all times: From my 5mega-pix camera on my N95 to my newly acquired Panosonic camcorda (which for the geeky amongst you DOES ‘talk’ to my imac and mac book successfully, but only as I’ve the latest version of Leopard running).

You could say that such technology has become so well integrated it has morphed as an (expected) extension of various limbs. Attending events (I was at a wedding over the w/e), out and about, and even on nights out, there is always the means and expectation to ‘capture the moment’. The range of techniques employed is intesteing to watch and to take a part in.

Over the w/e wedding guests happily snapped away alongside the professional photographer and all with promises to upload to Flickr, some even had 'specially made' Flickr cards courtesy of Moo (and yes i was one of them!). The other hot topic for conversation was who was going to be tagged on Facebook. So visible were the range of camera’s and phones pointing, focussing and taking shots that by the end of the day potential subjects barely noticed the click and the flash.

The incorporation of the perfect shot and publication on Web 2.0 and SNSs means that images are re-contextualised; tagged, possibly photo-shopped and set out to networked others. In other words individuals are starting to show to others what they have been up to through the various lenses that they carry.

Commentators have called this the ‘information age’, the scale of which represents a new level of social inclusion as snapshots are commonly treated as effective capture of ‘goings on’. It is worth bearing in mind that these also involve the creation of new forms of content, action and opportunity for interaction in a new social world. We all comment on our friends images, and they in turn comment back.

Gone is the anonymity of ‘what I did at the w/e’, in favour of the ‘look at me, look at me!’ social tagging and content sharing of an over-exposure. Or is it?...

Google wants our health

In the 1990s we celebrated the free-reign of a cyberspace. With a freedom to create a ‘new’ persona that stayed online and traversed the technology only world. Today and in the era of Web 2.0 this approach has been replaced by the necessary replication of the ‘real’ person across various digital arenas; from SNSs, blogs, webpages amongst a whole host of other shared content. Now who we say we are has meaning and must reflect a true and trusted identity.

Trust, is an important issue. The latest from the Google giants is the launch of a freely contributed to (typically Google) Google Health platform. As the Dr health of data, with your Google account information about your personal health can be:

• Stored in one place; with notes from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies
• Used to keep medical practitioners up to date with your health status
• Provide you with health information about healthy issues

And so we’ve reached a point of convergence: From focus on the material hardware of machines and technology to accentuation of software sorted content and information data. In view of this the repositories of information that Google, Facebook, YouTube etc hold, represent a new data materialism that means matter matters. The storage of personal data has become invisible, we choose to volunteer and to contribute snap-shots about ourselves that are stored, seen and processed by others. Consequently we are mostly unaware of what goes on in the ‘big black box’ of the web in terms of our data. The re-configuration of channels of identity information operate as an invisible system of secretiveness, silently running in the background.

Put simply; after Google we do not know what our information does, nor where it is.

But does any of this matter?

We select the types of data and information to share, and invest a level of trust to the sites and people to whom we give access. This means that we can’t just expect information to stay static, it moves and shifts as sites update and other users sift through data. The structures are self-concealing; put a new album on Flickr and where does it go?... And who is looking at it?

Perhaps we are better off unaware of the what and where our data goes and to have faith in the user-friendliness of our social software. Ultimately our data may not be strictly our own, but we have a measure of control with how we contribute and recreate ourselves across the web. And whether Google Health is the new Dr for our healthy needs.

Another version of this post was published at GirlGeekdom

Determining the next step up from Web 2.0

There has been much debate about the social meanings and use of new technologies in the territory of Web 2.0. In an social environment where users have supposed unlimited access to content and uploads, data assumes immense worth and is of the highest social importance. The symbolic associations for users in terms of cultivating a pervasive and ever-present presence have been reworked for content that spans SNSs, blogs, IM as well as the ‘You’ contacted via mobile phone. Thus social presence has become a meaningful commodity that is vilified by the participation across Web 2.0 and have been most noticeable on SNSs.

In this context, identity is being treated as a product in its own right that can be traded and used as a currency in order to have purchase on others. This in turn may mean that there are possible sources for conflict as individuals choose to act (or not to act) upon the social prompts from others. Web 2.0 is then a part of more complex sets of relations that are layered by networks of contact and visible social presence.

Specifically this has been the dominant story of Generation-i (the cohort of young people born in the 1980s and raised with technology). Within this tale of burgeoning social networks and omnipresence online the interactions are distinct from previous ‘cyber space’ identities. Assumptions and expectations are based around emphasis on the ‘here’ and ‘now’ where interactions are valued for their ‘liveness’ and true to life social recognition. The social tools that are in use carry social weight compared to previous static settings of email address and chatroom user names. In Web 2.0 land interactions are fluid and can be ‘tied down’ only in so far as they can be gotten hold of via constantly modified social presence. The next step up from this has been debated by Mike Harvey's article The Future of Social Networking in The Times where social information is beamed to others via mobile devices. Like something out of Spielberg's 2002 Minority Report information would be received as you and your device cross the thresholds of shops, restaurants and even parties. Although with a nod to Cruise’s lack of on screen charisma these scenarios seem too fantastic and far off from having any real consequence any time soon.

Also we'd all look a little silly in those gloves.

How do you choose to sit on Web 2.0?

As a blogger, writer, consultant and all round Geek Chic I spend a lot my time in front of various screens. And so it has occurred to me that how we choose to sit, stand and lounge become moments of stasis in order to access and participate with our favourite Web 2.0 content. Much of the traditional geek setting has been the image of the nerd at a desk, sitting in close proximity to other nerds at other desks. The slash, dot, slash, dot battery hen likeness as roomful of programmers physically meld into their chairs. Such longer periods of stasis are physically involving and laborious!

And so the story goes that there has been about a 'freeing up' and overcoming of boundaries such as spatial and temporal confines. By foregrounding the ways in which we have and can gain access to Web 2.0, places such supposed freedoms into a completely new context. Instead we remain bound to and reliant upon some form of technological device, as well as (at least for a moment) a point of stasis. Which is ironic when you consider how the Internet has traditionally been viewed as separate from the flesh fleshy self. Certainly there are already lifestyles and professions that require that the individual must be in one place for a set period of time, but none that are also without the organic richness of embodied contact, skin, touch, smell…

And so an active and empowered digital technology user I’m wondering if there is room for a new kind of interface that offers a new kind of interactivity? The taken for granted processes to produce and reproduce; text, images and even voice content online serve as recognition that as users we have moved beyond passive consumers to empowered producers. Nevertheless at present we continue with the same sum of technological engagement: Screen + You = physically demanding. Perhaps time for a new seated position.

Another version of this post is published by Maz Hardey @ Girl Geekdom blog

That nasty little Facebook habit

The future social habits of Facebookers

Living, playing hey even ‘making out’ (both in the American 'pashing' overtone to the more British undertone of finding your own way) on SNSs has had unexpected consequences and influences in social life. More specifically it has been possible to see how the politics of social contact have changed as social networking went from connecting to Facebook friends, to peers, family and anyone.

Some of the implications of the use of such social resources hold particular opportunities between what can vary as proactive and defensive types of social engagement. Perhaps then we are entering a world that is informed by our social presence that affords new forms of social exclusion in the changing scape of Internet spaces.

Take for example any vague notions of attachment that you used to have to your email account. You didn’t have any? No neither did I. But pause for a moment. Reflect on the attachment and value that you hold of your Facebook account. Imagine if over night you were denied entry to all your connections and networks. Scary stuff. Perhaps more debilitating than losing a mobile phone and sim, or forgetting the password to an email account Facebook represents in a very emotive way not only the points of contact to others, but the ‘keep sakes’ and trails of communication as they have emerged from just one poke or wall post. These (sometimes very personal) precious instances hold an important place for You. Popular commentary in the media has debated that Facebook is ‘bad for the health of friendships’ as they damage the time spent together. More damaging would be the loss of such a resource and ability to instantly (and intuitively) connect, communicate and converse with one another. It used to be the case that one would ‘log on’, ‘enter’, ‘exit’ and interact only ‘within’ the gated walls of anyone SNS. In today’s Technology Guardian Kate Bevan speculates as to whether Friends Connect by Google that allows users to link all '(...) their stuff’ back to social networking profiles will be the downfall of Facebook. Clearly she hasn’t played around enough with Facebook’s Share amongst other applications that already congregate the latest moves and shakes of users.

The consequences for shared interactive flows of communication? Instead of being more ‘fragmented’ and ‘alone’ connections will be seduced by the sophisticated levels of immersion and convergence of all networking sites and user identities. Increasingly flows will overlap. This might sound repetitive, but it is worth drawing distinction between the more hungry side of Web 2.0 that will evolve into Web 3.0. A space from which one is never disconnected, and can think and feel enough to foresee for you what you will be interested in. Most importantly a Web 3.0 will continue to share what your friends are up to, live, as it happens in real time. Ultimately then things become more compact. More real. More about You.

Image: uwadmnweb

Theory of Facebook

Remember when you first discovered Facebook and SNSs and thought that you were the original one, just having a laugh and catching up with friends? Au contraire, you were (and now are) part of a whole cultural shift in social dynamics about how people meet, greet, stay in touch and interact on a daily basis.

SNSs have become more than just a way to indicate a 'high-school esque' popularity. Instead, they have emerged as significant collaborative social spaces that contain more important social connections and subtle cues for presentation and interaction. This could be viewed as a 'hyper' set of dimensions and intimacies. Hyper, because they are fast occuring and reflect the excessively active aspects of the social dynamics. But I would contend that they are more immersive and seductive than a hyper set of behaviours. Yes things occur in the fast lane of life, but these have real life (and real time) consequences.

What used to be part of an 'always on' mobile phone culture has evolved as a continuous social presence. You may log out of Facebook, but you're still there. Or at least your profile page is. Still there, interacting away on your behalf until when you next log in.

And that time that you accepted an even invitation or became a 'fan' you thought you were acting out of self interest? No, not at all: More likely you were proving you credentials as a socially compatible and active individual, or broadcasting your interest and friendship activity to others in your network.

And so we have new compulsion to act, reciprocate, communicate and keep our networked Friends close to hand.

From a sociological take this has consequences for not only how sociability is enacted, but the types of socially networked individuals that are 'out there'.

So here's my take on some key aspects of Facebook (and other SNSs) that together form a Facebook theory if you will:

Cheerleader
Typically over-buff in profile image, more photos than friends (both totalling over 1000s though!). Limited information about 'education' and 'work'. Other than looking pretty. Less interested in what their Facebook friends are doing and more compelled by the latest wallpost from another buff body.

Friend-farmers
User whose more natural territory is MySpace. Still at school the aim is to achieve friend status target of the alloted 5000.

Exposed
The type of person who is always online, always has updated their status update in the last ten seconds, always the first to accept invitations. Their life is there in all its glory, and only obscured by periods of cache time outs, broadband malfunction or lack of wireless. Of course then they are surfing via their iphone.

Poke battles
This is similar with how we behaved when we were back at school and in the playground. So when you had a crush on someone ignoring them and pulling their hair were prime indicators you thought they were cute! The poke is a bit like a signal that says ''hi' i'm here', but can also stand in for 'i think you're really cute, but can't think of a wall post/message etc to captivate your attention'.

Fan status
Being a fan used to mean paying homage to a particular band, singer, artist, author etc. in general you would have posters on your wall (real bedroom wall, not metaphorical Facebook one). On Facebook to 'become a fan' is to symbolise a part of our tastes, our likes as much as our dislikes. E.g. a fan of Gordan Brown is unlikely to think fondly of Boris Johnson.

Social networking is born
SNSs happened when they did for specific reasons: Individuals want to stay in touch, they like to stay in touch and enjoy sharing connections with others. Chat rooms were risky unknown situations, instead Facebook offers real friends opportunity to act like friends when they are not together too. This is a strange situation, as if friends are real, they will hold a connection whether on Facebook or not, but then people are always looking for reassurance about relationships and look for new (fun) ways to keep up to date with one another.

Profile performance
All profile pages have a level of staged performance about them. With images carefully selected and put in place and extra information and applications added to make pages look more interesting. Although all are staged, some are more staged than others with overall sense of the theatrical with too many 'which character are you' and 'rated or slated' profiles. This gives off the idea that the identity is all about being attached to other Facebook resources rather than the connections and friends in networks.

All together now
There's a level of emotionality at the heart of any connection; whether friend, acquaintence, family or peer. On Facebook there's a feeling of togetherness, put in place by accepted friend invitation and shared network membership. This is a ritualised part of daily social life already in place at school, college, university and workplaces. On Facebook rejecting a friend request carries as much social weight offline as it does on the site. So too the highs and lows of being together on a SNS can be comparable to the complex sets of connections with others away from these networks.

Another version of this blog appeared on blog pages : ProperFacebookEtiquette
Image: Mark Ainley.com