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.

Over-exposure

Friend’s of mine always travel with their camera. Extended lenses, polishing cloths and all. That’s a bit too 'camera geek' for me, but I’m aware that I do have an array of image capture devices on me at all times: From my 5mega-pix camera on my N95 to my newly acquired Panosonic camcorda (which for the geeky amongst you DOES ‘talk’ to my imac and mac book successfully, but only as I’ve the latest version of Leopard running).

You could say that such technology has become so well integrated it has morphed as an (expected) extension of various limbs. Attending events (I was at a wedding over the w/e), out and about, and even on nights out, there is always the means and expectation to ‘capture the moment’. The range of techniques employed is intesteing to watch and to take a part in.

Over the w/e wedding guests happily snapped away alongside the professional photographer and all with promises to upload to Flickr, some even had 'specially made' Flickr cards courtesy of Moo (and yes i was one of them!). The other hot topic for conversation was who was going to be tagged on Facebook. So visible were the range of camera’s and phones pointing, focussing and taking shots that by the end of the day potential subjects barely noticed the click and the flash.

The incorporation of the perfect shot and publication on Web 2.0 and SNSs means that images are re-contextualised; tagged, possibly photo-shopped and set out to networked others. In other words individuals are starting to show to others what they have been up to through the various lenses that they carry.

Commentators have called this the ‘information age’, the scale of which represents a new level of social inclusion as snapshots are commonly treated as effective capture of ‘goings on’. It is worth bearing in mind that these also involve the creation of new forms of content, action and opportunity for interaction in a new social world. We all comment on our friends images, and they in turn comment back.

Gone is the anonymity of ‘what I did at the w/e’, in favour of the ‘look at me, look at me!’ social tagging and content sharing of an over-exposure. Or is it?...

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