It seems as time progresses that elements of social media are being increasingly incorporated into all aspects of interaction on the internet. Virtually every page, video, image or comment can be 'liked' or voted up or down, etc. I believe that in five years' time, standard browsers will be integrated with search engines and social media brands to provide a user interface that allows access to the features of all three. When a user logs on, he will have a single page from which he can conduct business, social interaction, surfing, gaming, etc. all as part of an integrated system of access.
This would mean that any internet access would be accompanied by the capacity to run searches within the material as well as to related available material, and the ability to share or vote up/down the items or features you find useful. Likely these votes will be used to ascertain what pages and features to provide first in response to searches, and what to display first when accessing a site.
Furthermore, links between sites and features embedded upon them would make it easier to move freely through the data, blurring the edges that define a particular site from others.
The so-called 'symantic networking' we discussed in class might manifest partly in this way - using feedback from those employing the materials and features of the websites to determine preferences both for that individual and to suggest what may be useful to others conducting the same type of search. For instance if someone runs a search on a particular phrase and is unable to get an immediately useful response, their ongoing exploration, leading to ultimately finding what they are looking for, may be logged according to the links they choose and the feedback they provide. This would be used so that future users that run a similar search may be brought directly to those elements the first user found most helpful. Such searches may include the capacity to provide the browser with context, such as saying "I want this for a business report" or "I'm just curious to learn about this" in order to help the engine determine which filters to apply.
Because most materials will also be 'sharable', there will also be features associated with one's browser to allow replication and dissemination of virtually anything the user finds. This means that useful/interesting materials will continue to spread and multiply in much the way certain 'memes' spread on facebook now. Depending upon feedback, the interface could determine which sources and types of information recipients find most useful, and may filter future receipt of items to prioritize accordingly.
Because there is going to be so much data to manage, I think it is inevitable that we will develop a kind of online 'helper' programme - possibly an avatar that will sort and prioritize the materials that are being sent to us, as well as looking for related items to what we are expressing an interest in. Very possibly for instance one's avatar might prioritize e-mails, even responding to those that are flagged as requiring only an automated response, or gather likely sources of data when asked to do so (for example by a student with a project due - he might ask his 'helper' to collect relevant data and present it to him, so that his own role in the exercise would become more one of editing than of writing).
Regardless of whether it happens in quite this way, I believe it is inevitable that the voting, the sharing, the interaction and the duplication of data will continue to accelerate. We will need tools to deal with an overabundance of material. I think the best way to do so will involve abandoning the distinction between the various tools already used, and an amalgamation of some kind into a single tool that allows us to conduct all of these types of exercises using one interface.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Government Use of Social Media
Social Media is becoming a quick and easy way for citizens to get involved in government activities, and politicians are beginning to see not only the threats posed by the easy access to opinions and information, but the advantages as well.
There are a variety of ways that social media has proved a useful tool for politicians both in election races and in day-to-day governing.
- As traditional polling techniques encounter increasing difficulty in finding a responsive sample group, it becomes increasingly important to monitor 'trending' topics and points of view expressed on twitter and elsewhere. This also sidesteps the issue of whether a poll might be skewed to encourage particular results, as the responses are no longer limited to predetermined select choices, but the public can speak to any issue they choose and with whatever emphasis they feel appropriate. In short it allows the public to tell the politician what the issues are and how they feel about them rather than the other way around.
- It allows a relationship to be built between a governing office and the people, with back-and-forth, ongoing communication, so that the people know their leaders and the leaders know the people.
- It allows forums to be created where open discussion serves as a kind of permanent 'town hall meeting'. There have been initiatives to create crowdsourcing platforms that allow the public to engage in debate and problem-solving on behalf of the government.
- Politicians seeking office use social media to convey their message as widely as possible, with re-tweeting/sharing functions allowing ads to be spread virally. Because they are not advertising by commercial airtime, they are also able to distribute video ads at no cost and of any length. They can offer interested viewers access to anything from full-length debate videos to 15-second clips containing a 'sound bite'.
- As we saw in class, governments can use the internet and social media to encourage citizens to access information that is updated regularly, and to receive notification of new developments. This bypasses the press and allows government information releases to be direct-to-the-public, hence avoiding editorial bias.
Of course, transparency - an inevitable by-product of social media use, also brings concerns and risks for the government and politicians.
- Guidelines must be created and adhered to by government offices outlining acceptable practices in the use of social media, both for reasons of prudence and of law.
- Politicians' reputations can be ruined by an embarrassing moment or piece of information that spreads virally just as easily as they can be assisted by one.
- It is the nature of government to seek control, and any effort to control, 'spin' or censor information is made more difficult by the ready access and shared information in the social-media relationship. In effect it makes government 'more honest'.
I think the government, and those in political office, understand the importance of keeping up to date with social media. They are aware of public image and communications issues, and hire experts to advise them on how to craft and control those images and messages, just as they always have done with respect to the media. If there is a failing, I think it is in that the politicians themselves are not generally expert, but rely instead upon 'kingmakers' to tell them what to say and how to say it. When the message is crafted by a third party, there may be dishonesty and confusion regardless of how 'transparent' or quick the communication is. Social media is still 'media' - which can be manipulated to create a persona or a falsehood in the same way it is possible to do this when there are newspapers and tv advertisements. The lack of a 'fourth estate' editorial presence to oversee, filter and interpret messages for the public means that the people need to be that much more wary of what they are being told and shown, and to be more active in finding out for themselves what is not being revealed.
In short, although the tools are new, I believe the game has not significantly changed. It's faster, more complicated, but no less fraught with problems as well as offering advantages for all parties involved.
There are a variety of ways that social media has proved a useful tool for politicians both in election races and in day-to-day governing.
- As traditional polling techniques encounter increasing difficulty in finding a responsive sample group, it becomes increasingly important to monitor 'trending' topics and points of view expressed on twitter and elsewhere. This also sidesteps the issue of whether a poll might be skewed to encourage particular results, as the responses are no longer limited to predetermined select choices, but the public can speak to any issue they choose and with whatever emphasis they feel appropriate. In short it allows the public to tell the politician what the issues are and how they feel about them rather than the other way around.
- It allows a relationship to be built between a governing office and the people, with back-and-forth, ongoing communication, so that the people know their leaders and the leaders know the people.
- It allows forums to be created where open discussion serves as a kind of permanent 'town hall meeting'. There have been initiatives to create crowdsourcing platforms that allow the public to engage in debate and problem-solving on behalf of the government.
- Politicians seeking office use social media to convey their message as widely as possible, with re-tweeting/sharing functions allowing ads to be spread virally. Because they are not advertising by commercial airtime, they are also able to distribute video ads at no cost and of any length. They can offer interested viewers access to anything from full-length debate videos to 15-second clips containing a 'sound bite'.
- As we saw in class, governments can use the internet and social media to encourage citizens to access information that is updated regularly, and to receive notification of new developments. This bypasses the press and allows government information releases to be direct-to-the-public, hence avoiding editorial bias.
Of course, transparency - an inevitable by-product of social media use, also brings concerns and risks for the government and politicians.
- Guidelines must be created and adhered to by government offices outlining acceptable practices in the use of social media, both for reasons of prudence and of law.
- Politicians' reputations can be ruined by an embarrassing moment or piece of information that spreads virally just as easily as they can be assisted by one.
- It is the nature of government to seek control, and any effort to control, 'spin' or censor information is made more difficult by the ready access and shared information in the social-media relationship. In effect it makes government 'more honest'.
I think the government, and those in political office, understand the importance of keeping up to date with social media. They are aware of public image and communications issues, and hire experts to advise them on how to craft and control those images and messages, just as they always have done with respect to the media. If there is a failing, I think it is in that the politicians themselves are not generally expert, but rely instead upon 'kingmakers' to tell them what to say and how to say it. When the message is crafted by a third party, there may be dishonesty and confusion regardless of how 'transparent' or quick the communication is. Social media is still 'media' - which can be manipulated to create a persona or a falsehood in the same way it is possible to do this when there are newspapers and tv advertisements. The lack of a 'fourth estate' editorial presence to oversee, filter and interpret messages for the public means that the people need to be that much more wary of what they are being told and shown, and to be more active in finding out for themselves what is not being revealed.
In short, although the tools are new, I believe the game has not significantly changed. It's faster, more complicated, but no less fraught with problems as well as offering advantages for all parties involved.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Don Tapscott's "Four Principles"
According to the TED web site, "Don Tapscott can see the future coming ... and works to identify the new concepts we need to understand in a world transformed by the Internet." These are his 'four principles for an open world'. He introduces the notion that technology, and specifically the internet, are providing the impetus for movement towards 'openness', and he sees this concept as an umbrella under which the 'four principles' are corollaries. He names them as "Collaboration", "Transparency", "Sharing", and "Empowerment".
Collaboration:
He speaks about the "GoldCorp Challenge", in which competing submissions were offered prize money of half a million dollars (or 0.00015% commission on the 3.4 billion dollar payoff) for their work. Those who did not win the prize received no compensation. This, Tapscott offers as an ideal model for future transactions, what he terms a 'new means of production'. He sees a future in which rather than employing a regular staff, companies offer payment as awards going to the most innovative and useful bidders, who surrender their rights to the ideas and work they offer upon entering the 'contest'. This appears obviously to be nothing more than companies getting work performed for free, and only having to reward work that yields them profit. Makes perfect sense for the company. For those doing the work, not so much. In addition to forcing those looking for work to perform unpaid services in hopes they may be the one of many to see a paycheque, this model eliminates those without the financial resources to sustain the effort without pay, thus widening the gap between rich and poor and contributing to the elimination of the middle class.
Is it true that this model is likely to spread? Sure. Is it true that the internet is making it possible to create a 'location' for specialists in a field with different approaches, and those outside their field but with expertise that may be relevant, to share ideas? Absolutely. What isn't clear is why this model is a good one for those performing the work. It seems to necessitate an adjustment on their part. Very likely in order to survive the vassitudes of the market they will need to form collectives and pool resources in order to achieve financial stability. In effect, this means that companies that used to do work themselves will now outsource to other companies that now do the work they used to do. Instead of one organization, you have multiple organizations, most of which will not be successful in winning any given bid. In short, you have greater instability in the market as a whole. I do see this shift toward what Tapscott terms "Collaboration" as inevitable. I do not see it as essentially desireable.
Transparency:
He then talks about the need for governments, businesses and other institutions to become more 'transparent'. I think this is sort of his 'motherhood' claim, made in the safe knowledge that it is uncontroversial. In fact, businesses are already required to share information not only with stakeholders, but in the case of corporations, with anyone who requests it. Government as well readily shares information not restricted due to privacy issues or matters of national security.
While I agree with Tapscott that this kind of transparency - the willingness to allow the public to see how your organization is operated - is a good thing, I don't see the inevitability of the trend toward this kind of 'openness'. Right now there are historical issues that have drawn public attention to these matters, but there's nothing to say the interest will be maintained - especially given that it is not lack of access to information that stimies the public, but it's lack of the ability to interpret that information for lack of specialty knowledge and skills.
Sharing:
This 'concept' is really more than one. Tapscott collects together the notions of sharing scientific data (already common practice among scientists), and the abandonment of intellectual property rights. He suggests that those in possession of rights in the form of patents and such ought to instead 'share' their work.
This is a complicated issue and although there are advantages to be seen in the notion of information being shared to maximize its potential usefulness, those advantages are specific to those who again did not do the work. "Openness", it seems, means offering the product of your efforts to the global community without recompense. Furthermore, it is important to note that the motivation he offers for abandoning these rights is a strictly pragmatic one - that of pointing at the music industry and essentially saying "If people can steal from you, they will. So you ought to just give them your stuff and avoid the unpleasantness of forcing them to point a weapon at you."
Because he's clumping totally unrelated ideas into this category it is difficult to assess. Suffice to say I do not see either the inevitability nor the advantage in it.
Empowerment:
He talks about the so-called "Arab Spring" and how internet resources have allowed the spontaneous creation of agencies that perform useful functions - giving the people effectively the ability to perform services ordinarily associated with government. This transfers 'power' to the masses and grants what he terms 'freedom'.
I wont get into the complicated issues this raises. I feel he is making a kind of semantic play to redefine commonly used terms to mean what they never did. What I will comment on is the fact that this trend is certainly happening. As he says, "the toothpaste is out of the tube". Humanity is becoming more like a swarm of bees and less like a pack or herd animal. We are sharing information faster than we can process it, and organizing almost before we have any clear mandate.
There are pros and cons to this, but it is happening and will continue to happen.
My Conclusions:
It strikes me that what Tapscott does in the 'sharing' portion of his speech, he does throughout in a more broad sense, which is to group together dispirate ideas and present them as though they had some kind of inherent and irrevocable connection.
Because Collaboration, Transparency, Sharing, and Empowerment are facilitated by the internet, he suggests, they are all manifestations of the same thing - Openness. However, I don't see that this is the case. The internet facilitates lots of things, some of which could be lumped in as examples of 'openness' which are not so desireable as he paints these. Online, people are often openly hostile or bigoted. They share illicit or illegal materials along with the ideas and offers. "Openness", he tells us, "denotes opportunity and possibilities". He offers several common phrases beginning with "open". He omits "open sore", "open wound", "open season". The truth is that the internet, which he calls a 'machine' that he claims we are all programming 'on an astronomical scale' (whatever that means), is simply serving as a platform for doing things we have always done. It's more efficient and faster than older models, but not fundamentally new or essentially different in the way he proposes.
Is the internet making the world a 'smaller place'? Yes. Are there new opportunities and exciting areas of growth and progress? Yes. But I don't see how a demand for corporate transparency relates to a new model for production, or to the elimination of personal rights for the supposed betterment of the collective. I don't see that the concepts he has married must be so, and cannot be sundered. I don't see that most of them are inevitable or irreversable trends, nor even that all of them ought to be. It seems to me that he has merely taken several unrelated things that have happened online and ascribed them to a concept and four principles where he could as easily have found counter-examples or entirely different concepts and principles to label them with.
He says we have to start thinking differently, but I'm not sure I see how his thinking here is new. It seems like he's just framing some very familiar political ideas in a new way, with a theory that isn't especially strong. His masterwork is a structure built on the notion that technology drives ideas, philosophies, and practices. In reality it usually is the other way around.
Douglas Adams said an interesting thing once. He said that when we first invented desktop computers, everyone rushed to figure out what they were for. We supposed, he says, that they were really fast, powerful calculators. Once we had the opportunity to use them, we discovered in fact that they were really fast, powerful typewriters. The moral is that although the potential of the technology is great, innovation does not stem from it, and it is human nature to simply use new technology to do the same old things.
Collaboration:
He speaks about the "GoldCorp Challenge", in which competing submissions were offered prize money of half a million dollars (or 0.00015% commission on the 3.4 billion dollar payoff) for their work. Those who did not win the prize received no compensation. This, Tapscott offers as an ideal model for future transactions, what he terms a 'new means of production'. He sees a future in which rather than employing a regular staff, companies offer payment as awards going to the most innovative and useful bidders, who surrender their rights to the ideas and work they offer upon entering the 'contest'. This appears obviously to be nothing more than companies getting work performed for free, and only having to reward work that yields them profit. Makes perfect sense for the company. For those doing the work, not so much. In addition to forcing those looking for work to perform unpaid services in hopes they may be the one of many to see a paycheque, this model eliminates those without the financial resources to sustain the effort without pay, thus widening the gap between rich and poor and contributing to the elimination of the middle class.
Is it true that this model is likely to spread? Sure. Is it true that the internet is making it possible to create a 'location' for specialists in a field with different approaches, and those outside their field but with expertise that may be relevant, to share ideas? Absolutely. What isn't clear is why this model is a good one for those performing the work. It seems to necessitate an adjustment on their part. Very likely in order to survive the vassitudes of the market they will need to form collectives and pool resources in order to achieve financial stability. In effect, this means that companies that used to do work themselves will now outsource to other companies that now do the work they used to do. Instead of one organization, you have multiple organizations, most of which will not be successful in winning any given bid. In short, you have greater instability in the market as a whole. I do see this shift toward what Tapscott terms "Collaboration" as inevitable. I do not see it as essentially desireable.
Transparency:
He then talks about the need for governments, businesses and other institutions to become more 'transparent'. I think this is sort of his 'motherhood' claim, made in the safe knowledge that it is uncontroversial. In fact, businesses are already required to share information not only with stakeholders, but in the case of corporations, with anyone who requests it. Government as well readily shares information not restricted due to privacy issues or matters of national security.
While I agree with Tapscott that this kind of transparency - the willingness to allow the public to see how your organization is operated - is a good thing, I don't see the inevitability of the trend toward this kind of 'openness'. Right now there are historical issues that have drawn public attention to these matters, but there's nothing to say the interest will be maintained - especially given that it is not lack of access to information that stimies the public, but it's lack of the ability to interpret that information for lack of specialty knowledge and skills.
Sharing:
This 'concept' is really more than one. Tapscott collects together the notions of sharing scientific data (already common practice among scientists), and the abandonment of intellectual property rights. He suggests that those in possession of rights in the form of patents and such ought to instead 'share' their work.
This is a complicated issue and although there are advantages to be seen in the notion of information being shared to maximize its potential usefulness, those advantages are specific to those who again did not do the work. "Openness", it seems, means offering the product of your efforts to the global community without recompense. Furthermore, it is important to note that the motivation he offers for abandoning these rights is a strictly pragmatic one - that of pointing at the music industry and essentially saying "If people can steal from you, they will. So you ought to just give them your stuff and avoid the unpleasantness of forcing them to point a weapon at you."
Because he's clumping totally unrelated ideas into this category it is difficult to assess. Suffice to say I do not see either the inevitability nor the advantage in it.
Empowerment:
He talks about the so-called "Arab Spring" and how internet resources have allowed the spontaneous creation of agencies that perform useful functions - giving the people effectively the ability to perform services ordinarily associated with government. This transfers 'power' to the masses and grants what he terms 'freedom'.
I wont get into the complicated issues this raises. I feel he is making a kind of semantic play to redefine commonly used terms to mean what they never did. What I will comment on is the fact that this trend is certainly happening. As he says, "the toothpaste is out of the tube". Humanity is becoming more like a swarm of bees and less like a pack or herd animal. We are sharing information faster than we can process it, and organizing almost before we have any clear mandate.
There are pros and cons to this, but it is happening and will continue to happen.
My Conclusions:
It strikes me that what Tapscott does in the 'sharing' portion of his speech, he does throughout in a more broad sense, which is to group together dispirate ideas and present them as though they had some kind of inherent and irrevocable connection.
Because Collaboration, Transparency, Sharing, and Empowerment are facilitated by the internet, he suggests, they are all manifestations of the same thing - Openness. However, I don't see that this is the case. The internet facilitates lots of things, some of which could be lumped in as examples of 'openness' which are not so desireable as he paints these. Online, people are often openly hostile or bigoted. They share illicit or illegal materials along with the ideas and offers. "Openness", he tells us, "denotes opportunity and possibilities". He offers several common phrases beginning with "open". He omits "open sore", "open wound", "open season". The truth is that the internet, which he calls a 'machine' that he claims we are all programming 'on an astronomical scale' (whatever that means), is simply serving as a platform for doing things we have always done. It's more efficient and faster than older models, but not fundamentally new or essentially different in the way he proposes.
Is the internet making the world a 'smaller place'? Yes. Are there new opportunities and exciting areas of growth and progress? Yes. But I don't see how a demand for corporate transparency relates to a new model for production, or to the elimination of personal rights for the supposed betterment of the collective. I don't see that the concepts he has married must be so, and cannot be sundered. I don't see that most of them are inevitable or irreversable trends, nor even that all of them ought to be. It seems to me that he has merely taken several unrelated things that have happened online and ascribed them to a concept and four principles where he could as easily have found counter-examples or entirely different concepts and principles to label them with.
He says we have to start thinking differently, but I'm not sure I see how his thinking here is new. It seems like he's just framing some very familiar political ideas in a new way, with a theory that isn't especially strong. His masterwork is a structure built on the notion that technology drives ideas, philosophies, and practices. In reality it usually is the other way around.
Douglas Adams said an interesting thing once. He said that when we first invented desktop computers, everyone rushed to figure out what they were for. We supposed, he says, that they were really fast, powerful calculators. Once we had the opportunity to use them, we discovered in fact that they were really fast, powerful typewriters. The moral is that although the potential of the technology is great, innovation does not stem from it, and it is human nature to simply use new technology to do the same old things.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Social Media vs Telephone
"Is the day coming when social media is as common as the telephone?"
I believe it already is.
Although 'social media' is a new term, what it refers to has existed in various forms throughout history. A social medium is simply a venue through which people communicate and interact - a platform or forum that exists to allow and accommodate such activity. The telephone IS a form of social media, a network that allows users to connect and exchange spoken communication, and therefor ideas and information. The postal service* is another, as is the 'town hall meeting'.
What is now referred to collectively as 'social media' is only the set of new technological platforms that we use to perform the same functions previously performed by such media as the telephone and the post; albeit more efficiently. So, I would say that since the telephone is only one medium of that broader class of 'social media', it is clear that 'social media' cannot be less common than one medium which it subsumes.
Moreover, the telephone as such is becoming obsolete as a viable medium for social interaction. Already, most users of mobile telephones use them more often for texting or internet access than to make telephone calls. The name 'cell phone' is therefor a misnomer, as in actuality the telephone function is only one of many, and not the one used most of those available. So it becomes a problem of semantics. If one considers the mobile computing devices called 'cell phones' to be 'telephone', then it remains dominant as a means of accessing social media. However, if you more properly consider them simply as computing devices, there is no justification for believing that the 'telephone' isn't already diminishing in contrast to other forms of communication/interaction. In short, 'telephony', in the strictest sense of remote sound communication, is already a minority method.
Where telephone still has a dominant place is in business, as a means of communicating more than for interaction. But even there, we see Skype conference calls and e-mail exchanges overshadowing telephone calls as preferred modes of interaction. When customers visit company web sites, it is common for customer service to be offered via an Instant Messaging interface in preference to phone calls to a customer service representative. It is easy to imagine that soon the telephone itself may be eliminated, with quick video+sound communications via computer or mobile device replacing it for occasions when an immediate, back-and-forth communication is desired.
William Bell
* Interesting fact: The inventor of the postal box later regretted his invention, and campaigned against the widespread use of the service. He believed that it encouraged corruption of young ladies, who had previously been able to communicate with suitors only through their parents, but who could now anonymously drop a love-letter in the mail or even use it to arrange illicit rendezvous. We see this concern reflected today with adults lamenting the ability of teens to use their phones to take and spread risque photos, access pornography, interact with possible sexual predators unbeknownst their parents & etc.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)