Social networking trends
Is your Facebook gay?
21/09/09 13:24
Now this is hilariously stupid. the Daily Telegraph,
often a respected newspaper in the UK, has published
a report based on scientific
findings (COUGH) that suggests you can tell
whether someone is gay by looking at their
Facebook 'friends'. Apparently,
the higher per centage of your followers are
gay, the more likely you are to be gay yourself.
So hold on, this research is now saying I can't associate with homosexual men without everybody jumping to scientifically-evidenced conclusions? I'm not persuaded by this. I haven't actually audited the male/female balance of my online contacts but I can assure you I'd remain male regardless of the outcome of any such check; I don't honestly think the sexuality of my contacts would have any bearing on my own either. Come to think of it, unless I've actually met them with a partner I don't think I actually know the sexuality of many of my contacts. I'm an unfriendly git like that, what can I tell you?
The other thing that bothers me about this new research is that it works only on gay men. Lesbians and bisexuals, sorry and all that, but apparently you're undetectable by your Facebook pals, it's only gay men who stand out. Which, to me, makes the whole exercise a little bit value-less.
In fact I'm straining my brain more than a little trying to work out why I'd need to know a contact's sexuality in the first place...
So hold on, this research is now saying I can't associate with homosexual men without everybody jumping to scientifically-evidenced conclusions? I'm not persuaded by this. I haven't actually audited the male/female balance of my online contacts but I can assure you I'd remain male regardless of the outcome of any such check; I don't honestly think the sexuality of my contacts would have any bearing on my own either. Come to think of it, unless I've actually met them with a partner I don't think I actually know the sexuality of many of my contacts. I'm an unfriendly git like that, what can I tell you?
The other thing that bothers me about this new research is that it works only on gay men. Lesbians and bisexuals, sorry and all that, but apparently you're undetectable by your Facebook pals, it's only gay men who stand out. Which, to me, makes the whole exercise a little bit value-less.
In fact I'm straining my brain more than a little trying to work out why I'd need to know a contact's sexuality in the first place...
0 Comments
News and blogging
31/07/09 15:03
There’s an excellent piece on the relationship
between traditional news reporting and blogging on
Mashable today. It makes a
great job of looking at the argument from many
sides.
Quite honestly, to read journalists talking about blogging you’d think it was a short-lived, evil thing that’s not going to last at all. Here’s Wired from a while ago, and there are many others. Mashable makes the excellent point that the newspapers have a vested interest in doing blogs down - established journalists (that would include me, then) are terrified for their jobs.
Well, yes and no, and up to a point. What’s frightening people a bit is change.
I’d like to take you back a few years to the early 1980s. I was at school, my father - still alive - was a proofreader on the Guardian newspaper. We lived in Tooting. It was a good life I thought at the time - still do. Dad, however, was concerned. He was having to learn about something called a word processor and it was causing him problems. He didn’t think he’d survive the technological change at the Guardian.
In fact he was really unlucky and thanks to a heart attack he literally didn’t survive. I’m confident he’d have made the adjustment and continued had things been different - but it was the change that was causing the issue, not the technology. He could see the change would come and couldn’t be - shouldn’t be - stopped.
It’s the same now, I suggest. The journalists and indeed bloggers who are going to best will be the ones who don’t buy into all this nonsense about the new or old technology somehow being the enemy. When TV started it was going to kill radio. It didn’t. When radio started it was going to kill the theatre. It didn’t. Now we have the Internet - blogging, Tweeting, whatever you want, and panic that it’s going to wipe out newspapers and magazines, and some newspapers and magazines hitting back by saying blogging’s not going to work. My bet is they both will, there will be some realignment of niches by all means but ten years from now both media will still be around.
You never know - the more open-minded practitioners might actually find they learn something from each other.
Quite honestly, to read journalists talking about blogging you’d think it was a short-lived, evil thing that’s not going to last at all. Here’s Wired from a while ago, and there are many others. Mashable makes the excellent point that the newspapers have a vested interest in doing blogs down - established journalists (that would include me, then) are terrified for their jobs.
Well, yes and no, and up to a point. What’s frightening people a bit is change.
I’d like to take you back a few years to the early 1980s. I was at school, my father - still alive - was a proofreader on the Guardian newspaper. We lived in Tooting. It was a good life I thought at the time - still do. Dad, however, was concerned. He was having to learn about something called a word processor and it was causing him problems. He didn’t think he’d survive the technological change at the Guardian.
In fact he was really unlucky and thanks to a heart attack he literally didn’t survive. I’m confident he’d have made the adjustment and continued had things been different - but it was the change that was causing the issue, not the technology. He could see the change would come and couldn’t be - shouldn’t be - stopped.
It’s the same now, I suggest. The journalists and indeed bloggers who are going to best will be the ones who don’t buy into all this nonsense about the new or old technology somehow being the enemy. When TV started it was going to kill radio. It didn’t. When radio started it was going to kill the theatre. It didn’t. Now we have the Internet - blogging, Tweeting, whatever you want, and panic that it’s going to wipe out newspapers and magazines, and some newspapers and magazines hitting back by saying blogging’s not going to work. My bet is they both will, there will be some realignment of niches by all means but ten years from now both media will still be around.
You never know - the more open-minded practitioners might actually find they learn something from each other.
Promotion v spam
01/07/09 08:21
I’ve been accused of spamming on Twitter.
No, no, it’s no use defending me, it’s probably right. There was this competition from the people at Moonfruit in which you retweet a message of theirs and you might, just might, win a Macbook laptop. Now, I’m never one to pass up a chance to win something worth hundreds, particularly when I’ve just bought one the previous day (I could wipe out the spend completely, think about it) - so of course I entered.
And immediately someone on Twitter retweeted it. Fair enough, it’s an open contest. But then someone said either I or the Moonfruit people were spamming everybody.
It’s certainly the case that I was repeating what someone else said, to people who didn’t necessarily want to see it. It’s equally true that other people might want to enter the thing and possibly win. (In fact it’s possible that the complainer will win, which would be a bit ironic).
I don’t know about this one. One retweet and one complaint probably cancel each other out. But it’ll be interesting to see whether this sort of promotion (from someone who often adds value to the Twitter community, I should add) will be popular in a year’s time.
No, no, it’s no use defending me, it’s probably right. There was this competition from the people at Moonfruit in which you retweet a message of theirs and you might, just might, win a Macbook laptop. Now, I’m never one to pass up a chance to win something worth hundreds, particularly when I’ve just bought one the previous day (I could wipe out the spend completely, think about it) - so of course I entered.
And immediately someone on Twitter retweeted it. Fair enough, it’s an open contest. But then someone said either I or the Moonfruit people were spamming everybody.
It’s certainly the case that I was repeating what someone else said, to people who didn’t necessarily want to see it. It’s equally true that other people might want to enter the thing and possibly win. (In fact it’s possible that the complainer will win, which would be a bit ironic).
I don’t know about this one. One retweet and one complaint probably cancel each other out. But it’ll be interesting to see whether this sort of promotion (from someone who often adds value to the Twitter community, I should add) will be popular in a year’s time.
Habitat's major failure
24/06/09 13:41
Only time for a quickie today - but I had to draw
everyone’s attention to this idiocy from
Habitat in which the company uses Twitter to gain customers.
Nothing wrong with that in principle, but Habitat decided the best way of doing this was by pretending it was Tweeting about the Iranian elections. The full story is here.
Someone somewhere thought this was a good idea.
Nothing wrong with that in principle, but Habitat decided the best way of doing this was by pretending it was Tweeting about the Iranian elections. The full story is here.
Someone somewhere thought this was a good idea.
Twitter and Facebook: privacy still applies
22/06/09 10:11
So, an employer has asked job candidates to hand over
their passwords for Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and just about anything
else of which they might be a member as a matter
of course. You don’t believe me? Have a
look here.
This is of course appalling. You should no more have to hand over your social network details to someone who employs you than you should hand over the password to your online bank. You are allowed a private life.
Of course, the employer in turn is allowed to ensure that you don’t bring them into disrepute, and if you do so then you may expect to lose your job. But then, every contract of employment I’ve ever seen already takes that into account. I’m not aware of any need for new rules for the new media.
I’d be very interested, as well as somewhat disturbed, to hear from anyone who’s been asked anything similar.
This is of course appalling. You should no more have to hand over your social network details to someone who employs you than you should hand over the password to your online bank. You are allowed a private life.
Of course, the employer in turn is allowed to ensure that you don’t bring them into disrepute, and if you do so then you may expect to lose your job. But then, every contract of employment I’ve ever seen already takes that into account. I’m not aware of any need for new rules for the new media.
I’d be very interested, as well as somewhat disturbed, to hear from anyone who’s been asked anything similar.
Teacher is a Twit
18/06/09 15:08
A teacher has started using Twitter in the classroom
as a teaching aid. The kids get to use Twitter, they
use trending to help them track what’s being
talked about, it’s all good stuff. A blog entry
telling you all about it is here.
I have a feeling I should approve. They’re finding Twitter has its limitations (hint: nobody has ever said it offers more than 140 characters, deep articles this isn’t) but that’s not my issue. No, for me the problem is far simpler: it hasn’t been around long enough to prove it has staying power.
What? An inveterate Tweeter like me, unconvinced about Twitter’s longevity? Well, frankly yes. I use it. It gets me work. It’s brilliant. Facebook does a similar job but if I’m honest nothing suits my individual needs as well as Twitter. But I wasn’t using it so much a year ago and I have no idea whether I’ll be using it as much a year from now. This stuff changes. Five years ago I’d have been praising FriendsReunited as defining the social web, and I think we can all agree that medium’s time has pretty much gone.
And these are students. They’re very much at an early stage of their career - and they’re learning today’s technology, but a technology that might be subsumed by something entirely different within months. I hope it works for them; I hope they’re focusing more on the skills needed to manipulate social media than the individual medium itself (although the students can probably tell the tutor a bit about that). I just can’t quite see any long term application for this.
I have a feeling I should approve. They’re finding Twitter has its limitations (hint: nobody has ever said it offers more than 140 characters, deep articles this isn’t) but that’s not my issue. No, for me the problem is far simpler: it hasn’t been around long enough to prove it has staying power.
What? An inveterate Tweeter like me, unconvinced about Twitter’s longevity? Well, frankly yes. I use it. It gets me work. It’s brilliant. Facebook does a similar job but if I’m honest nothing suits my individual needs as well as Twitter. But I wasn’t using it so much a year ago and I have no idea whether I’ll be using it as much a year from now. This stuff changes. Five years ago I’d have been praising FriendsReunited as defining the social web, and I think we can all agree that medium’s time has pretty much gone.
And these are students. They’re very much at an early stage of their career - and they’re learning today’s technology, but a technology that might be subsumed by something entirely different within months. I hope it works for them; I hope they’re focusing more on the skills needed to manipulate social media than the individual medium itself (although the students can probably tell the tutor a bit about that). I just can’t quite see any long term application for this.
Twitter: hyped?
09/06/09 08:56
Twitter is overhyped. It’s overcooked, the BBC
is reporting on a Harvard
document that says the average Twitter
member tweets only once, it’s all about
broadcasting and not a massive conversation.
I’m not so sure.
I’m not disputing Harvard’s findings for a moment. If Harvard says only ten per cent of people really stretch the system and a whole lot of people just turn up and have a look out of curiosity and go away again, I’m sure that’s right.
Then again, I wonder how many unattended websites are out there, which never update themselves and which don’t add anything new - ever. My guess is ‘plenty’. You can add to that ‘how many people really used their mobile phones during the first three years in which the technology was available’ - oh, and email during the first couple of years. It’s all part of the same thing. New technology attracts the curious as well as the serious.
My best guess is that the report is factually accurate, which is its sole aim - but the conclusions at which it hints are wrong. Twitter is a new thing and has yet to find its niche; this isn’t some sort of sign of failure or stalling. Give it, and other social media, another five years or so and then we’ll see where it’s bedding down permanently.
I’m not so sure.
I’m not disputing Harvard’s findings for a moment. If Harvard says only ten per cent of people really stretch the system and a whole lot of people just turn up and have a look out of curiosity and go away again, I’m sure that’s right.
Then again, I wonder how many unattended websites are out there, which never update themselves and which don’t add anything new - ever. My guess is ‘plenty’. You can add to that ‘how many people really used their mobile phones during the first three years in which the technology was available’ - oh, and email during the first couple of years. It’s all part of the same thing. New technology attracts the curious as well as the serious.
My best guess is that the report is factually accurate, which is its sole aim - but the conclusions at which it hints are wrong. Twitter is a new thing and has yet to find its niche; this isn’t some sort of sign of failure or stalling. Give it, and other social media, another five years or so and then we’ll see where it’s bedding down permanently.
Digital Britain Debate
11/05/09 18:13
An excellent extract from a debate on Digital Britain
here - the explanations are all in the video.
CCJacquismith
28/04/09 17:30
The UK Government may just have finally flipped. It
is considering setting up a private company to run
some sort of super-database that will track all of
everybody’s emails. No, I mean all of them.
The civil liberty implications are one thing. The logistics are another. It’s now 5.34pm UK time and I got back from my meetings today at about 12.30, had a sandwich, chatted to my wife and sauntered into the home office at about 1.15.
Since that time I have sent 26 mails. Averaging that out, that’s going to mount up to about 40-50 a day when I’m around full time. Add Tweets, Facebook updates, blog entries and you’re going to be pushing 60-70.
Multiply that by the 35 million or so working people in the UK and you have a recipe for chaos.
There’s a movement to point out the error of this idea. You can become involved by clicking this link to ccJacquismith and reading about a day on which everyone who agrees will copy the Government on everything they send, to illustrate the point. I urge you to have a look.
The civil liberty implications are one thing. The logistics are another. It’s now 5.34pm UK time and I got back from my meetings today at about 12.30, had a sandwich, chatted to my wife and sauntered into the home office at about 1.15.
Since that time I have sent 26 mails. Averaging that out, that’s going to mount up to about 40-50 a day when I’m around full time. Add Tweets, Facebook updates, blog entries and you’re going to be pushing 60-70.
Multiply that by the 35 million or so working people in the UK and you have a recipe for chaos.
There’s a movement to point out the error of this idea. You can become involved by clicking this link to ccJacquismith and reading about a day on which everyone who agrees will copy the Government on everything they send, to illustrate the point. I urge you to have a look.