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 Today and in the era of Web 2.0 this approach has been replaced by the necessary replication of the ‘real’ person across various digital arenas; from SNSs, blogs, webpages amongst a whole host of other shared content.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