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.