Profiting off another ‘lonely girl'

This week Monday’s MediaGuardian interviewed Joanna Shields the new commercial ‘driver’ of SNS Bebo – a woman now set to launch her own Social Networking-‘angst’ phenomenon. In the wake (quite literally in light of recent events) of lonelygirl15’s death on the SNS YouTube Shields, along with lonelygirls15 creators, is set to help to launch ‘Kate Modern’; the days, life and times of a fictional struggling arts student.

In The Guardian interview Shields outlines the marketability of such a ‘resource’ for SNS. As part of Bebo this is seen as a ‘natural’ and, moreover, profitable, extension of the ‘lifestyle media’ that Web 2.0 users are already a part of.

This is where there has been a shift in the algorithm of Web 2.0 content that has reflected user demands and behaviours. It seems ironic that precisely what has made SNS like Facebook so popular and a ‘premium’ when compared to other sites like MySpace is that they are ‘real’ people sustaining, managing and making connections to other ‘real’ people. In this context I am surprised that there is demand for such fictitious life-style and life-course accounts. Shields astutely points out that there has been a shift from Web 1.0’s more information-based searches, to a Web 2.0 connected life-style, which sees people (in particular young people) living out their lives online.

In part I agree with Shields. Lives are indeed being lived out through Sherry Turkle’s screen. These lives however are closely connected to their ‘offline’ counterparts, as individuals interact through the screen and then back out again.

So my question is this with lonelygirl15 and Modern Kate, what kind of ‘lives’ are these?

danah boyd the American doctorate student whose research is about social networking has (like myself) focussed on the ‘technosocial’ constructs that ‘real’ individuals are creating and the ways that they interact with one another on such sites.

Which returns me to my own question, not only ‘what kind of lives are these’, but what type of users are interested in them?

boyd's most recent publication ‘Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace’ has considered the possible class divides across the most popular SNS’s that reflect ‘real’ divides offline. Blog lives like Kate Modern represent a convergence of the ubiquitous social media that Web 2.0 has to offer, one that is mixed with a milieu of episodic and voyeuristic media representations.

For Shields’s Kate’s life merges the community engagement of social networking together with audience interaction that smacks of commercialability where the likes of Kate ‘can interact with you’. This returns us to the ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ lives that were the earliest domains of Web 1.0 – and where, to hark back to that classic cartoon, in cyberspace you were never sure if you really were interacting with a dog or not.

In the context of YouTube, MySpace and Bebo it seems there is demand for serialised and fictional ‘friends’. Perhaps boyd’s consideration of the American class divide on social networks should be reframed, or extended, in terms of a generational context that could shed some light on the kinds of users that Kate Modern appeals to.

In light of my own research, rather simplistically, a generational breakdown would look something like;
MySpace: the domain of school students and early teens – free to ‘hang out’ away from parental scrutiny.
Bebo: a forum for ‘cool’ college 6th form students, late teens and ‘young people’ keen to define themselves as more sophisticated than their MySpace younger brothers and sisters.
Facebook: the most savvy of them all. Originally the domain only of University students and post-grads with a ‘.ac.uk’ address. Since opening its digital doors to non-university users, their parents/extended family/friends and those in commercial organisations have clambered to join – (want proof, just see how many from the BBC you can spot!)

The generational context of SNS leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, as the realisation strikes that it the pre-Facebook generations that are likely to be subjected to the most rigorous of marketing strategies and commercial manipulations. At its commencement Lonelygirl15 did not offer the caveat that its character was entirely fictional. In contrast, Kate Modern makes no pretence that her lives and loves promise to provide a fictional storyboard for her audience to enjoy.

Again there seems an irony here in the context of a SNS, where user lives are about their ‘real’ networks, or at least as real as the email address provided to connect such networks

Perhaps there is no issue here at all, the merger of lives, ‘real’, ‘fictitious’ or otherwise simply reflect the melting pot of digital content. This simply means that users need to be savvy about the ‘whom’ they are conversing with. But only if it matters that the ‘they’ are not a canine friend. Otherwise as Andrew Keen has speculated the ‘cult of the amateur’, or ‘fictional’ looks set to continue to form an integral part of our technosocial lives.

A Body of Networks

Where we are beginning to get used to be being channeled as part of networks of differing quality and ‘attachment’, and to the degradation of our own culture on Web 2.0 (see Andrew Keen) – it seems we are about to become part of an immersed, techno-ambient and fashion conscious world.

Whilst it is nothing new that supposedly ‘inanimate’ objects interact with us, just take a trot round Tesco and their video screens, the handheld price scanners and checkers at Waitrose, and even in York where I reside ‘helpful’ tourist information totems will start to ‘talk’ to you just as you walk past (yes thank you I do know that I am indeed on Parliament Street for the 9th time that day). What IS new will be how these WILL start to interact with us. We will become surrounded by technology that wants to think for us, that is a part of our homes, cars, appliances and even bodies.

What next a smart moisturiser that knows to increase the SPF when the sun’s out? Not such a stupid idea.

These observations have been prompted by the recent BBC news item about ‘Smart Fabrics’. Amongst the show-cased collection is the solar panelled bikini that allows its wearers to charge mobiles, MP3 players etc. Shame about the lack of actual swimming possibilities, but who cares when your strutting your battery charged, and MP3 plugged-in self by the poolside right?

So forget about those drab and static local area networks – this is about your body of networks.

Some of the fabric innovations are of a ‘smarter’ profile. One such garment are the eco-conscious accessories that charge themselves by day (as a handbag, fan, purse etc) and become a unique and stylish light by night with which to adorn yourself, or your home.

So it seems a new vision of fashion, functionality and aesthetics is taking place. And it is easy to envisage how for example MPS players, cameras and mobile phones will converge, and even become integrated into clothing; open to new levels of wear and tear.

Imagine for example, where that pesky MP3 takes up room in your handbag/causes unsightly bulges in your Levis, these devices will be integrated into the fabric. Picture it; its not an iPod, but an iBag, nay iGarment – how do you like them Apples?

However, as much as the future of technology permits an even more personalised integration of ‘man and machine’, this does raise some interesting questions in terms of ethics, surveillance, privacy and identity. Does this mean that I will be able to access others favourite playlists and contact information by wearing the same jeans? or will our own genes provide the key for boundaries between interfaces? and ultimately do we want this level of ‘cyborg’ mechanics attached to our organic selves.

Well we may be a longer way off from that level of techno-human integration. In the meantime I shall be coveting the latest iBag from Apple and hoping they do a Chloe version that can sort my emails. Nifty, not thrifty technology!

Web 2.0: Finally, a setting for social theory!

Web 2.0 just got theoretical ! or at least that is the idea.

Being hosted at the University of York 5th and 6th of September is The Social Science of Web 2.0 event - that intends to bring social theory and some serious social discussion to the Web 2.0 frontier.

One of the Key Notes is Andrew Keen whose recent book 'Cult of the Amateur' regards Web 2.0 interconnectedness as a detriment to social knowledge and user (or rather society) intelligence. But then isn't that what they said when ICT's first came into the home and placed users online for the first time?... Well no doubt he shall prove a very worthy Key Noter, and alongside George Ritzer, Charles Leadbeater, Scott Lash and Bernie Hogan this promises to be a very entertaining and thought provoking event.

Moreover I am looking forward to dispelling Keen's concerns that Web 2.0 is at the cost of our culture and is instead a milieu of activity and creativity - ok so not all of it 'quality', but there are some real gems out there!

So if you have an interest in Networks, Online Communities, Privacy, Identity , Trust, Community Media and Democracy this event should appeal to you too!

The Web 2.0 super subway; its stations and deviations

Following recent trips to Tokyo, I have come across this;

A wonderful map of how things are Now: i.e. Web 2.0 and geeky!

The map is rather cleverly based on the Japanese subway system, so it’s a little Japanese orientated, but there are still some really interesting synergies that are going on here in terms of how Web 2.0 platforms are being used and are now opening up and dependent on Web users.

The maps key sites reflect how data is now being aggregated into usable chunks of information and tagged for relevance with the emphasis upon speed, location and dissemination of searches. Represented as main stations, see how popular the likes of Flickr, Facebook, Yahoo! and Google are - need I go on!

Trust me this is really interesting! it shows how the main sites that were being used to ‘index’ the web en masse is now related to how Web 2.0 users are search for and consume information Before order of relevance was a specified, instead now tagging and item shares are orientating web searches and interactions.

Users can now describe and communicate information that is more relevant, up to date and ‘in vogue’ – taking into account changes, latest trends etc as and when they occur. Something that is more in line with how people really think and search.

To return to the Web 2.0 subway weight is given to those sites that are based on communities, interactions and file-shares. Here on Web 2.0 the user is Queen, as the Geek Chic reigns supreme. Information, items, even people become more searchable, taggable and relevant to what you are interested in. Kind of makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn’t it.

Now where’s the magic in that?!

Harry potter fans; cue your midnight queuing and fervent reading over the weekend – But wait!, as here too lies what could be another unmasked script…

Rumours are that the latest (and ‘greatest’?!) from Ms Rowling has been leaked through the screen already.

Book bandits have scanned copies of the US edition onto various sites (and no I am not providing links that would only spoil things more!). Reports are that the quality is not up to much, but nothing that a brief play on Photoshop will not be able to reveal.

Potter’s popularity is highlighting one of the most recent and important debates on Web 2.0; that of ownership, copy right and the role of the promotion spoiler – hmm almost sounds like the title of another potential book...

When the ultimate in self-promo peculiarity Prince launched his CD ‘free’ with the Mail on (last) Sunday this seemed to leave a bad taste in my mouth (not to mention ringing in my ears). Some how it just seemed ‘wrong’ to follow such shameless self over-endorsement when the very essence of pleasure is that of coming across a book, or album all by yourself (yes despite the marketing ploys) and that sense of chase and uncovering of something new. I dislike things being thrust upon me in a shambolic fashion and hope those pilfering Potter ‘fans’ do not ruin it all for the rest of us. As for Prince he shall remained filed under ‘R’ in my CD collection, for Rubbish, Rescue me and (do not) Resurrect.

Neighbours everybody needs good neighbours

Following on from my previous blog post ‘Identity on parade: come ShowYourself!’, the latest from the gizmo guys on Facebook have created an innovative application See Your Neighbours (or ‘neighbors’ as it originates from that side of the pond!). See Your Neighbours automatically displays your nearest (and potentially dearest) physically located top 50 members on Facebook. Creator Nathan Blecharczyk of the Harvard network informs the Facebook group that ‘See Your Neighbours’ is designed to show;

‘… you a directory listing of other Facebook users in your vicinity sorted by distance. It facilitates meeting others in your apartment building or neighbourhood who you might not otherwise get to meet.’

This has synergies with the ‘new’ experience of community that is being created by social networking sites such as Facebook where it seems that the value of shared experiences has replaced previous ‘traditional’ community or neighbourhood forms that were based on locality.

As social networks become more about locating people See Your Neighbours could help to reframe the mobile and digitally connected society that contextualise current Web 2.0 interactions. The next version of social relations (a Web 3.0 ?) may well represent a return to physical context and resurgence of neighbourhoods that are based upon a shared sense of place and geographic residence.

I am yet to be convinced at how much there is a real demand for this kind of application. Privacy already remains a priority and source of contention on Facebook, not only between individuals, but now in relation to the admittance of 3rd party users that exercise the ‘right’, and are permitted, to access your personal information.

As purely a search application nothing shows up on your profile so you can enjoy seeing your neighbours before they see you. Users can also re-configure their own privacy settings to allow what other Facebook members are permitted to see once they have been located.

One note, I would recommend that Nathan change the group picture – currently a rather ‘groovy’ man that would not look out of place on the front of a ‘It’s nice to knit’ catalogue; that amount of polyester and cardigan related smirk does nothing to dissipate the potential uneasiness of discovering someone who could be living next-door.

It will be interesting to see how physical locality and place may be an essential element for a new set of forthcoming community relations, and of course those cup of tea possibilities. Of course with only 876 users at the time of writing community pickings do seem rather slim, especially if you are based in the UK. My nearest and dearest are a mere ‘community; pop over for a cup of sugar’ 60miles away. But it’s still friendlier than sending a ‘free’ gift or poking, but for the time being you may have a long way to walk…

Perhaps this is what is really meant by living in the utopic rural idyll...

Identity on parade: come ShowYourself!

Its been 24 hours in web 2.0 world and that’s a long time...

And *puff* Oh look another social networking site, another profile to create, another set of passwords, profile tags, user names etc to remember. YUK!

There is on Web 2.0 an ever-increasing array of user platforms, sites, forums etc. that seem to slowly erode away one’s digital identity as profiles attempt to span the social space stratosphere. It is more than easy to get lost, or worse never found ‘out there’. With this in mind creative genius’s have come up with a new piece of techno wizardgery in the guise of a widget called ShowYourself. Basically (after a quick play around) it combines all your profiles that span across the web into one rather fetching widget that you can place on your blog, website, even social network profile to show ‘where’ you may be and in what form. Handy, if a bit fiddly to begin with, suddenly though you can expose yourself on multiple fronts.

Which brings me rather nicely onto my next query, does one want to indicate the multiple possibilities of your identity and where you can be hunted down? One of the reasons that I have numerous accounts in different places is that they are designed for different networks; I would rather my more formal Linkedin contacts did not know, or try to seek out, my more personal Flickr account etc. The complexity here appears to lie with, not only possible identity profiling options, but rather an disquietness about identity management and possible over-disclosure of the self.

In terms of the new widget in its favour it does let one select exactly which profiles to display so you can custom-tailor your possible web exposure.