Recently in Le Web Category
Three more words, but this time for 2010 (and quite rude) from Christopher Sacca of Lowercase Capital:
Douchebags
"I'm optimistic about the demise of the douchebag", says . There are millions of them online, and they disrupt online conversations. In the early days they seized controls of the web. The real time web brings us authenticated identity systems - so we're verified against a real community: the real web! (Especially with location information). And we'll get more collaborative action from that.
Porn
I wish I could say I've never seen a man getting excited about graphics before, but I have. I work in publishing. But actually, he's talking about data - and all the platforms are offering more and more data. And that is eventually going to enrich the services we provide.
Lube
Amazon and iTunes have made it so easy to purchase things and they've removed so much friction from it that people develop "habits". Web services need to remove that friction. Posterous allows you to just e-mail stuff to them without any account creation. They provide value first, and then you can encourage them to sign up.
Great presentation from Kevin Marks about the words that help to define the understanding of the way the web is changing things. Some negative, some positive and some neutral.
Rather than information being pushed to us through a decisive act like sending an e-mail, we receive it in a flow of activity from following people. We need to learn to live (adapt?) to the flow.
Faces
We expect the personal, and the personalised. A large part of our brain is about faces.
Phatic
"If there's someone you have a model of in your head, someone you know, you do care about what they had for lunch, that they're in Paris." You can follow someone without them agreeing it it first.
Semi-overlapping publics
There are many public - everyone on the web sees a different world (a point danah made earlier). When we follow people we collect a peer group to interpret and make sense of the world. And then they become filters.
Small world Networks.
It's easy for information to flow through them, because there are both short range and long-range links.
Out-groups
People decide that other people don't belong. It's analogous to countries.
Tummeling
People who connect - the "life and soul of the party".
Phatic
"If there's someone you have a model of in your head, someone you know, you do care about what they had for lunch, that they're in Paris." You can follow someone without them agreeing it it first.
Semi-overlapping publics
There are many public - everyone on the web sees a different world (a point danah made earlier). When we follow people we collect a peer group to interpret and make sense of the world. And then they become filters.
Small world Networks.
It's easy for information to flow through them, because there are both short range and long-range links.
Out-groups
People decide that other people don't belong. It's analogous to countries.
Tummeling
People who connect - the "life and soul of the party".
I'm not au fait enough with French culture to blog Nathalie Kosciusko Morizet's speech well. (See what I did there? :-) ) However, I liked the photo, so here it is...
I'll link a good post when I find one. (All I'm finding now is shoe obsession...)
There seems to be a pleasing trend against social media idealism and towards the hard reality faced by people doing this stuff day-in, day-out. As Brian Solis put it during the real time marketing panel: "We all have to report to people who don't give a shit about authenticity."
He got a round of applause for his trouble.
"Breaking the fourth wall is when we start to engage," he said. "And I want them looking at me through that wall, because I don't want them looking at my ass."
Steve Rubel took up the theme with a regular message from his boss: "No more airy-fairy - the days of airy-fairy are over."
So, what have they been replaced with? "What does getting real mean? Business case. What is the business case we're trying to solve? What is the business value? The more we can link what we are doing to the pan and not the puff and sizzle and lard, the more successful we'll be."
Interestingly, it was Matthias Luefkens of the World Economic Forum who tried to drag this back to the airy-fairy: "ROI is Return on Involvement. Get out there and get involved." Uh, yes. But how? And how do you justify it?
Rubel came back on this "Return on time; return on attention is the most important thing. Our customers' attention is not being talked about enough, and that's disrespectful."
And Richard Binhammer of Dell was keen to point out that you didn't have to involve the top level people day-to-day: "It's not always the CEO people want to connect with. In our business, it's often the engineers."
His argument was that a significant engineer spending an hour or so on social media allows him to reach enough people that it would take hours of conference visits and conference visits to match - and there's a huge cost benefit inherent on that.
Solis, though, pointed out that in man companies there is one person paid to do this, and some are earning in the $100,000 range (if there are any jobs with that level of pay on offer, my e-mail address is on the contact page ;-) ). If it's costing the firm, say, $25 per tweet, can you justify the business case for that?
And now, possibly our most high-profile speaker, Queen Rania of Jordan. Genuine royalty, rather than the metaphorical tech royalty...
It's interesting that Queen Rania finds that social media allows her more human relationships with people, dispelling the air of slight deference people take on automatically when around her.
Michael Jackson's death wiped Iran from the Twitter tending list. Did his demise change the course of the Green Revolution? No. It's more complex than that - but it illustrates how fleeting social activism can be on social network.
BUT real time is the new prime time - it's a place for news, information. collaboration and organisation.
Number of kids out of school worldwide? 15 times the population of Paris.
In the end, this talk is a call for us to move our activism in social media beyond a hashtag and a sense of self-satisfaction. And that's a message I can buy into.
She's encouraging us to to devote "1 Day for 1 Goal" - to use our social media outlets to talk about the child education issue for one day. You might have other causes you support. But I think she has a point. The hashtag campaigning has shown that people have a hunger to do more to deal with problems. It's time to stop being so idealistic and be a little more pragmatic about how social media can change things - as danah's talk so ably illustrated.
[Once again, Steph has more notes]
Your experience of the social web is not the same as everyone else's. Your experience of the web is shaped by the people you chose to follow, and those who choose to follow others will have vastly different experiences.
So, danah, as a sociologist, actively strives to looks at environments beyond her own.
She gives the example of a student who applied to an Ivy League in the US, who submitted a great application, but his MySpace page was that of a typical gang member. He is trying to survive where he is, but aspiring to be elsewhere - and the admissions tutor struggled to accept that dichotomy and assumed he was lying.
Another example: a father who say his daughter's social network profile, and on it was a quiz. That quiz gave you the answer to "what drug are you?". His daughter was cocaine - but instead of blowing up, he opened a conversation about it with her.
Jane Jacob's idea of "eyes on the street" - community watchfulness. Ideas of privacy as a safety construct in a public space?
"As I wonder the web looking at what's going on, I see kids calling out, begging for help".
Some parents believe that the internet has created a new level of bullying - but it hasn't. It's just made more visible by the internet. This is a call to action - how do we make sense of it?
People have a crisis moment when technology makes visible things they are not comfortable with (for good or ill - one example was triggered racism around Black Entertainment awards).
The illegal has existing methods for getting rid of it. It's those things where people need help we need to think about. How do we get social services involved.
"We need to embrace and deal with the visibility... Think about what you can see now that you could never see before and what you can do about it."
I walked into the session after a meeting with some Six Apart folks to find her working carefully around some Murdoch and paywall-related questions. Google respects copyrights, she said carefully, and think it would be a shame is Murdoch pulled his content from the index. She didn't answer the question about paying publishers to index their content, but carefully redirected the discussion towards their other content monetisation strategies.
Where her appearances do become interesting is when she talks about the rationalisation behind new products. For example, real time search. Mayer was using Twitter for ski and snow updates, using Twitter search, because official sources don't give true reports of snow depth. Ordinary people have no reason to lie about it.
"If you combine real time and social search, you can actually search the web your way. The perfect search engine would be credentialled as you, crawl the web as you, and show you that content. That's a long way away."