Category: Culture

Categories
Connecting Technology

Googled to death

For someone interested in this sort of thing–I am interested in this sort of thing, aren’t I?–I never did make a statement about Google’s Gmail.

Gmail is a centralized email system with virtually unlimited space to hold your messages, and with the ability to use Google’s search algorithms to research your email. Bells and whistles aside, that’s all it is. I have a Yahoo email account I maintain for emergencies–where’s the beef?

There was some discussion about privacy concerns because after all, Google does hold your messages, your data, and does search your email to post targeted ads. I agree with Tim O’Reilly on this issue in his writing The Fuss about Gmail and Privacy: Nine Reasons Why It’s Bogus. Some folks think that Big Brother will force Google to allow him to peek into our private emails. However, for the terrorists among you, I would suggest that you consider not using a centralized email system to exchange words about your plans to take over the world.

What Tim says about privacy and email is spot on: we’ve had centralized email systems like Gmail before, and email itself is notoriously easily compromised. Never assume privacy with email and if you want to say something in private, I suggest lunch in a quiet bistro somewhere.

However, I do disagree with O’Reilly’s overjoy about the benefits of Gmail. He envisions this great global social software network that would allow our email systems to link us to appropriate people based on need and someday we’ll move all our data to the Core and access it with our data ports that also double as tie clips, cellphones, and nose rings.

Yeah, and when that happens to the general populace and not just the Network junkies, pigs will fly on pretty, pretty dragonfly wings.

Do you really want who you know and who you like and who you trust mapped into some universal algorithm so that your system can tell Person B who knows you who knows Person A and then Person B pushes you to connect them up with Person A, when maybe you don’t necessarily agree with Person B about what all this knowing really means.

Do you really want to be that wired?

Even if I and most people could get over our repugnance with this type of overall encompassing and non-directed and pervasive/invasive social software network, this type of overall, all inclusive centralized core of data is anathema to those of us who believe in decentralized systems.

O’Reilly writes:

Storage of my critical data on one of the largest, most reliable data storage banks in the world. As Rich Skrenta made so clear in his recent weblog posting, Google is the shape of the future. Forget Moore’s Law and Metcalfe’s Law. Storage is getting cheaper faster than any other part of the technology infrastructure. I remember Bob Morris, head of IBM’s Storage Division and the Almaden Research Labs, telling me a couple of years ago, that before too long, storage would be cheap enough and small enough that someone who wanted to do so could film every moment of his life, and carry the record around in a pocket. Scary? Maybe. But the future is always scary to those who cling to the past. It is enormously exciting if you focus on the possibilities. Just think how much value Google and other online information providers have already brought to all of our lives – the ability to find facts, in moments, from a library larger than any of us could have imagined a decade ago.

Anybody who would store their critical data on a system in which they have no control, and one which is used by millions of people is, well, to put it kindly, caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment.

I guess I am old, and too set in my ways. Too many ghosts in the machine for my liking now, without opening the door to hordes more of them, just because somebody dangles a new pretty in front of my face, and I like the sparkle.

Besides, I am getting weary to death of Google. First it was Google buying Blogger, then Orkut, and then Gmail, and now its the IPO where we get to hear about how some very rich people are going to get even richer. It’s just a software company. It’s big machines with lots of data and some good developers and some interesting algorithms, some of which don’t always work as well as we would like. I agree with William Grosso: Anyone Else Bored by the 24 x 7 Google Watch?

(Well, that was good–I managed to fulfill my Google quota for an entire year with one posting. Good, economic writing, that.)

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

It’s about women, dear

I was so very pleased about the turnout for the Women’s march last Sunday. What impressive pictures there were! All those people, united in support of a woman’s right to control her own destiny.

I can’t really add much to the discussion on this March that hasn’t been ably said by Feministe, Body & Soul, and Ampersand. However, I was intrigued by the so-called guest-blog written by a former Clinton staff member, Bruce Reed, at Kevin Drum’s political magazine.

(When did the blogger Kevin Drum become the official pundit and magazine author Kevin Drum? You guys – you really crack me up, sometimes.)

In his rather brief post, Reed focused on the fact that there wasn’t much religious representation at the March:

After sharing the Mall with a million choice supporters yesterday, I don’t see how anyone could say that our side lacks religious fervor. People made pilgrimages from thousands of miles to stand up for their convictions, flocking to the capital of compassionate conservatism to demand more compassion from their leaders.

At the same time, I couldn’t help noticing that the one thing we seem to have no religious fervor for is religion.

His words have been met with a veritable avalanche of photo evidence of religious representation, as well as discussions about religion and political affiliation, accompanied by Democratic assurances of, “I’m Dem and I do so believe in God”.

This somewhat harkens back to my previous writing on the Political Christ, and a topic I think we’ll be seeing a lot of this year. However, for now, I was amused at Reed’s take on the March. Rather than focus on women’s issues in this Women’s march, let’s focus on religion and the Democratic party, instead.

Isn’t that just like a guy? If you can’t be an expert, change the topic.

Categories
Connecting Social Media Standards

How far is too far

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Making the rounds in the advertising world is an interesting technique, termed viral marketing: making use of social software techniques learned from spammers, virus makers, and other experts of this nature. With viral marketing, rather than a formal ad campaign, with purchased space in newspapers and time on TV, you create ads or content that is notorious enough to generate a lot of Internet activity, seed them via email or through online groups, and just allow what comes naturally. The recent subservient chicken is based on viral marketing…and so is a new ‘ad campaign’ if you want to call it this, for Ford.

A few weeks ago, links to an online ad for a new car were sent out via email. The ad is part of an ‘evil twin’ concept: Ford is trying to market the car, the SportsKa, as the supposed evil twin of its popular Ka model.

The ad opens showing the car in a driveway, when a ginger cat starts walking past it. The sun roof pops open, and the cat, curious, jumps up on the car and sticks its head through the opening. At this point, the sun roof starts to close on the cat’s head. The cat struggles madly before its head is decapitated. Through the window you can see the head fall into the car, and the lifeless body falls down the windshield and off the car to the back.

I’ve been told that this is computer enhanced, and supposedly no cat was harmed in the making of this ad. I hope so. I sincerely hope so. Unfortunately, it was real enough when I first saw it to have upset me quite deeply. Warning people “not to click this if you like cats” cannot prepare you for this. Especially when you assume that a major car manufacturer like Ford has limits.

Evidentally, there are no limits.

After watching the ad, I started looking around for reactions. If the purpose of this viral marketing campaign was to generate notice in the car, one can say the ad has been successful. But whether it will earn the company customers is hard to say because reaction has been strongly divided.

A considerable number of people believe this ad to be humorous, and that those who are disturbed by it lack a sense of humor, and are taking it too literally. There’s this from a weblogger:

I haven’t had a free moment to blog lately, but this is just too good. You’ve gotta see this. This is MY kind of car commercial.

Surprise. UK’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty doesn’t like it.

By the way, have I ever told you? I love animals; they’re delicious.

However, appreciation is not universal, and Ford has said that the release of this ad was a ‘mistake’ – the one targeted for their viral marketing campaign featured a pigeon being killed, instead:

It was, they say, intended as a “viral marketing” tactic – designed to be sent via the internet from one individual to another – although this idea was subsequently rejected by Ford on taste grounds. A clip costing several thousand pounds and showing a pigeon being catapulted to its death by a bonnet springing open was approved and released last September. However, the rejected advertisement began circulating on the internet last week, at first because of an apparent mistake, and then spurred by black-humoured web users who passed it around.

…black-humoured web users who passed it around. I hesitated to participate in this little viral marketing exercise, except that this ad goes back to a conversation we had about censorship and Howard Stern. At that time, we asked: how far is too far?

According to an Australian ad agent:

“I reckon the line of acceptability has probably been pushed quite considerably by viral advertising because the whole point is to be notorious,” he says.

How far is too far. A month ago, I would have thought decapitating a cat to sell a car would have been too far.

Categories
Connecting Weblogging

Linguistic correction on backchanneling

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Unmute was kind enough to point out the fact that the term “backchannel” is already a word used by linguists to designate the signals listeners give to a speaker to reaffirm that they’re still listening, and still engaged.

According to unmute:

What I find striking, from a language perspective, is that the linguistic term “backchanneling” is semantically antithetical to the phenomenon that has been so fervently discussed on her site.

In linguistics, to backchannel is to respond to a speaker with nonverbal or semiverbal responses (such as nodding or grunting “uh huh”, respectively), establishing a rapport between speaker and listener and encouraging the speaker to continue talking.

I have a secret passion for linguistics, though I haven’t studied it since College. I was impressed with this posting and intrigued enough to explore further. I followed the link unmute provided but also searched on backchannel + linguistic and found extensive research on this topic.

For instance, one of the problems that occurs when non-Japanese communicate with Japanese, regardless of the language used (English or Japanese), is that we don’t provide the Japanese version of backchannel signals, called aizuchi. Not doing so, or misunderstanding the Japanese use of aizuchi can lead to confusion:

For a foreigner, aizuchi, can cause confusion when he/she is speaking. The speaker may misconstrue the expressions by his/her Japanese audience as a sign of agreement where none is intended. Ironically, a lack of aizuchi by a foreigner can lead a Japanese speaker to feel that he/she is not being understood.

This reminded me of a very interesting conversation that occured at Joi Ito’s weblog, when he made the statement:

A lot of people ask me about Japanese customs. They learn the formal way to hand business cards, they bow deeply when they meet Japanese and they call me “Ito-san.” Stop that. It’s silly.

(I don’t use the honorific Ito-san because we’re communicating within an English environment – it would have felt inappropriate. )

Not everyone agrees with Joi, but I think his next paragraph is the real key to what he is saying, and directly reflects back on aizuchi:

Rather than trying to act Japanese, I suggest that people visiting Japan be sensitive and aware of the nuances in the interactions. It is more about timing, loudness, space and smiles than it is about how your hold your business card or calling people “Ito-san.” When in doubt, shut up and listen. When smiled at, smile back. If you’re freaking someone out, back off instead of continuing your interrogation.

How I read Joi’s statements is that rather than memorize overt phrases and movements, a better aid to communication is to stay alert for, and pay attention to, subtle cues in the conversation. Such as aizuchi.

Since it is unlikely I will ever visit Japan, I don’t have any interest in learning the language, but I found this linguistic concept to be extremely interesting, and plan on pursuing it further.

Categories
Connecting

Backchannels

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Some discussion recently about the new backchannels that are appearing at technical conferences. If you’re not familiar with the term, in this case it means that the people in the room are communicating with each other on an IRC channel while the presentation or talk is happening.

Liz Lawley started an invitation only one at a conference she attended, and others such as Clay Shirky, David Weinberger (whose permalinks are broken), and Sam Ruby have all chimed in, favorably, on the concept.

I have been talking in comments about this, but wasn’t going to post until Mark Pilgrim came out with his two cents:

I can not be any clearer: I wholeheartedly support this. Despite hysterical objections from the usual suspects, I have seen the benefits of the backchannel firsthand. At ApacheCon last fall, Ken Coar announced during the initial keynote that there were IRC channels set up for the conference (one for each presentation room, and a main one for the conference in general). When I presented, I went so far as to put the address of the IRC channel on my first slide, to remind people where they could talk about me behind my back for the next 45 minutes. A friend in the audience forwarded me a copy of the channel transcript afterwards, and I discovered that several of the best questions came out of discussion in the backchannel.

I’m not going to repeat what others have said in support of this, you can read this yourself. But I am going to repeat what I said in comments.

No matter how well intentioned, an unauthorized backchannel at a conference is going to elicite reactions from the audience not synchronized with the presentation, and this is going to cause confusion and disruption. Someone quietly online reading their email, or browing the internet, is unlikely to react in such a way to disrupt the atmosphere of the room.

As for whispering and note taking at conferences, I�ve rarely seen that. The only this occurs, usually, is at interactive panels, or in larger presentation rooms. Never in the intimate presentation rooms that most presentations are given in.

Within an intimate presentation environment, a backchannel can�t help but be disruptive, unless, it was specifically designed to be part of the environment.

An unauthorized, invite only, �friends� only, backchannel in the midst of a presentation given by a person not aware this was happening strikes me as rude, and disruptive.

There has to be boundaries to social software � the use of software does not make rude behavior suddenly less so.

At Sam’s I wrote:

No matter how it’s packaged, I cannot conceive of any circumstances where it would be anything but rude to start a backchannel primarily focusing on snarky comments about the presentation currently underway.

To be honest, to start a backchannel at all, unless it is, like you say, specifically built into the presentation.

A presenter has an obligation to do the best they can on the material and try to focus it on the audience as a whole. This won’t please everyone, which is why most presenters understand when a person gets up and leaves. Particularly good speakers will know to read their audience to determine if they should spead up or slow down, or crack a joke.

However, the audience also has a responsibility to at least make a pretense of paying attention – or leave.

If I were in a room with several people participating in a backchannel, indulging in laughter on occasion inappropriate to what the presenter is saying, I would be mortified. I would probably just end my presentation, and I would leave.

Are we all ADD children that can’t sit still for ten minutes and actually listen? How much is lost of what’s being said because people are only listening with half their attention?

I’m sorry and if you want to strike this out Sam, please do – but that’s the rudest fucking thing I’ve heard of since I started weblogging, no matter whose ’social norms’ this is supposedly a part of.

And to think it’s being applauded. We have lost the grace of being human with each other. All it is now is screens and bits, IM and IRC and weblogs and absolutely disregarding the people at the heart of all this.

I regret now that I used the term “fucking rude” when ‘rude’ would have done as well.

Social software was developed to enable people to establish better communication via the Internet. It was never designed, or the intention of the design was never to replace courtesy, yet I am seeing this ‘backchannel’ behavior used, more and more, as an excuse to malign, ridicule, and disrupt.

If a backchannel is created as part of a session, then by all means, use it, and use it constructively. But if a channel doesn’t exist, it is rude to create one. If a speaker is boring, it is better to just get up and quietly leave.

Paying attention to a speaker isn’t submitting to authority, or giving up your rights as a participant. It is acknowledging that they spent a considerable amount of time to put the presentation together, and you are supposedly there, because they have something to say.

The thought that a group of people can’t sit still and listen for 45 minutes to one person, without having to break out their computers and start their chitchat with each other is not an effective demonstration of the benefits of social software.

If you can’t sit for 45 minutes to pay attention to a speaker, why go to the conference? If you’re only interested in chatter with other people, why attend the sessions?

I have presented at several conferences in the past, before all of this social software innovation, and from the reactions of the audience and the feedback I’ve received, I have had no problems with keeping the attention of those who attended. Additionally, I had no problems generating participation between me and the audience and between the audience members.

Would I allow something like a backchannel? No. I could not see spending a considerable amount of time carefully crafting a presentation, and then spend my money to attend a conference just to be half-listened to by a group of people who are resistent to unplugging for a brief period of time. Unless, the backchannel was part of the discussion, I wouldn’t have one.

If I were part of a panel? Then yes, I would definitely encourage the use of an official backchannel, but not an unofficial one, though there would be little we could do to stop it. As long as the unofficial backchannel members don’t disrupt, if they want to be critical or snarky of the speaker while the person is still speaking, that’s their choice. And if they have questions or concerns, I would assume they would use the official backchannel. I still think the behavior is rude, but hopefully not disruptive in these circumstances.

As for criticism of a speaker while the talk is still going on, sorry, but I don’t understand how anyone with any empathy could support this. Can you imagine how it would feel to be up on stage and have comments like ‘Wow, this is sure boring’ appear in large letters, right in front of you?

Courtesy does not change just because we’re separated from each other by a wire.
.