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.