To the new blog

This is the blog I have loved and posted to throughout my Ph.D research. Now complete, in 2009 for more recent musings related to social media there is a fresh 'new' blog - thesocialmediathinker.

A perfect divergence with a morning coffee.

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.