Archive for critical approach to online media

James Belvoir – get yourself a new agent :-)

If you’re going to fake testimonials, at least try to make them stand up to 10 seconds of Googling..

I really dislike Facebook and its advertisers.  Facebook ads are generally exploitative and very often fall apart with the slightest critical inspection.

Occasionally I click one just to remind myself just how much I dislike them.  This one made me chuckle this evening – featuring a ‘testimonial’ from a rather miserable-looking young male model.

A quick Google search shows no-one by that name, anywhere.  Either James Belvoir has a really rubbish agent or this is an example of yet another FB advertiser faking testimonials.

Call me old-fashioned, but I find the cynicism of a business that fakes testimonials to sell junk to youngsters struggling with hair loss revolting.

Pleaserobme.com: a great way to make a point about social media

www.pleaserobme.com demonstrates just how uncritical many social media users really are

Just came across this story on BBC website about a Dutch youngster who built a site that uses Twitter information about peoples’ locations to pintpoint empty homes.

The site’s makers say that they did it to make the point that anyone with half a brain can misuse the kind of personal information that people readily give for free every time they create content or sign up for a new ‘app’ in a social networking site. Continue Reading…

Alexa toolbar terms and conditions: are they mad or am I?

Would YOU sign up for these terms and conditions?

“Alexa’s toolbar service collects and stores information about the web pages you view, the data you enter in online forms and search fields, and, with versions 5.0 and higher, the products you purchase online while using the toolbar service.”

Actually, I haven’t quoted exactly.  The original is ALL IN UPPER CASE WHICH, WHILE MAKING IT MORE IMPORTANT, MAKES IT HARDER TO READ AND DIGEST (since we don’t usually read capital letters).

The T&Cs also go on to say that the information collected is personally identifiable.

Unless I am completely mistaken, if you click ‘Agree’ you are giving Alexa permission to record and use any information you put in any form online and permission to build a record of your online searching and buying decisions.

On this website we’ve already seen plenty of scams exploiting the willingness of ordinary people to sign forms on which the small print committing them to several years of absurdly expensive scam ’services’ is plainly visible.   God alone knows what we agree to on a daily basis in the ever-present ‘Terms and Conditions’ boxes we click without reading or so much as a second thought.

Is it that we are so greedy for the ‘pay-off’ that we have lost our critical faculties?  Is it that the way in which the data we give up in these transactions is used so subtly that we never make the connection between the privacy we signed away and the cold calls, the spam and the junk mail coming into our homes?

I suspect that one day a lot of us are going to really, really regret clicking all those ‘I Agree’ checkboxes.

Online reputation: all your traces in one lump

Why is online reputation so important? Because the web puts all the traces you leave together in one big pile for people to make a judgment about

Once apon a time, you went somewhere, did something in the real world. Whatever you did, you left traces.  Footprints, DNA, garbage, bits of paper, notes, recordings..  But whatever traces you left stayed where you left them.  The only way somebody else would find those traces would be if they took the same journey as you; if they literally ‘re-traced’ your steps.  That’s why Columbo was such fun. That’s why the TV ’serial killer’ was all the rage in the days before Google.

Your reputation was the same.  Because it was either ‘word-of-mouth’ or ‘old-fashioned-media’ it could be different in different places.  In this village you might be thought of as a scoundrel.  In that City, a respectable member of the community.  Unless you got into the broadcast media, the traces of your behaviour tended to stay where you left them – visible only to the people directly affected by them.

But things are different now – very different.

Google brings the traces of everything you’ve ever done online together into one big, steaming lump.  And very soon, Google will be adding everything you’re doing right now – every Tweet and every Facebook update – to the pile in real time.

What does that mean, Lt. Columbo? I’m glad you asked that question, Sir, I really am.

What it means is that people nowadays assess your reputation from the bigger picture they get when they look at that pile, not from any single thing in it.

Your online reputation – how someone perceives you – is the sum total of the following 3 risk factors:

  1. The things you choose to say about yourself (your websites, blogs, profiles etc)
  2. The traces you leave of yourself (your participation in any online discussions, activities etc)
  3. The things that other people choose to say about you (customers, critics, friends, enemies)

The real problem for most people is that they only really give their online reputation any thought when something significant happens in the 3rd risk area i.e. someone starts maligning them or their business on a blog or a forum.  My clients are invariably reeling from the shock of finding themselves under attack when they contact me.

Of course there is plenty we can do at that point to repair the damage and build a stronger reputation to limit the damage of any future attacks – and there’s nothing like being in a bit of discomfort to focus the mind on the issue.

Of course, the secret is to think about your online reputation before you come under attack.

So, to sum up: take notice of the fact that from here on in,  Google WILL bring together everything you do and say online for people to form an instant – and lasting – impression of you.

And start behaving accordingly ;-)

YouTube porn: Zip It, Flag It, Block It why don’t you?

People uploading porn to YouTube? What, honestly, did you expect?

I wish people would stop getting on all shocked and horrified to find porn on YouTube pretending to be videos of kiddies’ favourite artists.

Does that mean I think it’s right, or good or healthy?  Of course not.

What it means is I wish people would wake up and understand that there IS no way to control the internet and its content (short of being China).  That means our precious kiddies have, do and will be accidentally, occasionally and often deliberately watching porn.  Of the hardest, nastiest kind.

The problem we have in society today is that it’s too unpleasant to even look at truth of that sentence long enough to digest what it really implies (far less the actual material out there that our kids are watching).

Yes, mums and dads.  Hardcore, abusive, nasty, dirty, depraved, degrading and soul destroying stuff that our under 10s are finding every day on YouTube – even before this ‘newsworthy’ attack.  I watched that nice child psychologist, Professor Tanya Byron, on BBC Breakfast tv a couple of months ago talking about going into schools to teach children a new ‘Green Cross Code’ for internet safety; Zip It, Flag It, Block It.  It’s utter nonsense.

Why?  Because Government and well-meaning professionals seem to have no idea about the scale or true nature of this problem.  Don’t believe me?  Then ask yourself this: what’s the first thing an internet-savvy person would do after creating an ‘internet safety campaign’ aimed at kids?  That’s right – grab that keyphrase.  But if you Google ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It‘ you’ll see that Prof Byron has failed to do that.

What does this mean? Well, for starters it suggests that the people behind this initiative don’t really understand how the world of search and online marketing works.  That, in turn, makes me question how they can possibly have an realistic grasp of the scale or the nature of the problem.

And on a practical level, it delivers children, parents and educators searching for ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It’ to commentators like me, newspapers and other indirect sources.  And if I can get on to the first page of Google (and I could have got higher on P1 if I’d put the phrase ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It’ at the start of my post title and repeated in the headers but I chose not to) you can see how easy it is for a pornographer to hi-jack this search phrase to put his/her wares in front of kids. That’s a real world demonstration of how easy it is.

I don’t mean to be unsupportive, Tanya. I respect your intentions and in principle we should try to equip our children to deal with what they find online.  But until we’re honest about the world we’ve created online, about how much unhealthy stuff we – and they – are already consuming and until we are able to have a more enlightened debate about why it’s unhealthy in the first place, I really don’t think it will make much difference.

Like drug and alcohol use, the situation is worse so long as we’re in denial about what’s really going on – even if it’s only because we really don’t know.  Personally, I think the growing effect of the consumption of online content is more damaging than anyone is prepared to admit or is willing to discuss openly.

Remember, there’s no point reaching for solutions until we’ve learned to be honest about the problem.

Monster Tuna picture? Nope. Just a bit of photoShop, Tokyo style

Someone caught the worlds’ biggest tuna – and forgot to take a picture? Huh?

Can you believe it?

I saw this news item on BBC website and immediately clicked, expecting (not unreasonably) to see a monster tuna.  All I got was some stock photography of a tuna processing plant.  I went to Google but couldn’t find any pictures, anywhere.  Just more text reports and fishery shots – like this.  What??  A story without a picture?  What’s that worth?  Like, er, nothing?  According to the BBC, their fish weighed ‘nearly four times as much as the average Japanese man’ so, in the absence of any real pictures, I thought I’d help out with my mock-up.

The whole thing smells fishy to me.  I mean, you wouldn’t believe your mate if he came back from fishing with a story about the 232kg fish that got away, would you?

So imagine my surprise to Google this – a 268kg tuna, pictured next to a small kid.  Hang on BBC – that’s 36kg bigger than your ‘record breaking’, invisible, monster.

I know which story I believe.

The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz. Amazon and Audible should reclassify it as fiction

Slavomir Rawicz’s ‘The Long Walk: The true story of a trek to freedom’ was anything but, it seems.

So why do Audible and Amazon still sell it as non-fiction?

I just finished listening to this book, via my ‘2 titles a month’ account with www.audible.co.uk.  I have to say, I quite enjoyed it (heroic second world war Russian gulag escape romp) up to a point.  The point being the party’s encounter with a pair of 8 foot tall Yetis.  Hmm, I thought.  I bought this thinking (not unreasonably, given the title and the marketing puff) it was a ‘true’ story.
Picture 1
Wrong.  The tiniest bit of online research demonstrates quite clearly that it’s credentials are, to put it midly, shaky.  No corroborating evidence; no trace of the others in the party, no historical records except those which contradict the story entirely.  Ah.

Ok, so I wasted £10.  But at least I got a chance to review it on Audible (let’s see if they publish my comment!).

The process of research was interesting.  Why? Because it took only a couple of minutes to surface the controversy over this book – a debate that’s nearly 60 years old.  The first clear indication was, of course, good old Wikipedia.   The second was the huge number of reviews on Amazon.com.  Note the number of reviewers who found it inspiring (and want to believe in it).  Note also the clarity of the critics’ arguments.  You can see that some of the critical reviews come from as early (in internet terms) as 2002.

All of which makes the Guardian’s 2004 obituary for Slavomir Rawicz seem mildy amusing – and makes the journalist involved look faintly ridiculous.  Alright, so in 2004 Wikipedia wasn’t up to much (started in 2001) but c’mon? You’re a journalist for God’s sake.

If you’ve arrived here after reading the book (which is more likely) all I can say is ‘Yep, you’re right.  It was too good to be true’ and ‘Come on, Audible and Amazon, you need to put a virtual sticker on the front of this one’ or else people will be asking for their money back.

“Truth” said someone a little while back “is information about which there is no serious dispute”.

“Using Facebook is like eating 100 Oreos” – a spontaneous audio review

nomnom1An in-the-moment review of Facebook captured on iPhone in the office

People in the office know I’m a bit of a social media critic.  Still, imagine my surprise when one of my colleagues (an avid Facebook user) suddenly launched into an appraisal of her use of Facebook – and why it made her feel so bad about herself.

Thanks to the miracle of iPhone’s Voice Memo app and a bit of editing in Audacity and balancing the output in The Levelator, I bring you this critical review of Facebook.

I love the bit at the end about the Oreos.  Nicely put.  Not that I’ve ever eaten 100 Oreos at a sitting…yet. :-)

Even Twitter will die….

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Twitter WILL pass away

It will.  One day in the not too distant future, we will look back and cringe.  One day, Twitter will be history.

Personally, I’ve suddenly lost interest in Twitter and I’m at that ‘I think I might just de-activate’ stage’.  One more foot firmly OFF the social media bandwagon.

So what’s the matter with Twitter?  Well, nothing, really.  What’s wrong is me.  I’m just bored with the same people talking the same stuff every day.  No offense, everyone, but I’ve had it up to here with the endless chatter about social media.  And that includes me, by the way.  I’m fed up reading Tweets from people whose lives consist of lurching from one drink after another (do they really have no idea they have a problem?) and I’m tired of the whole undercurrent of small businesses looking to Twitter as a kind of Holy Grail of how to make money.

And the problem with Twitter is that if you’re bored with reading (or writing) the same stuff every day, it seems that there are only two real options open to you: either follow more people or get off the bus.  Since I don’t want to do more of something that doesn’t interest me any longer, I guess the only option is to get off.

And that’s ok because as I get older, I find I like solitude, peace and stillness more and real life as opposed to life experienced through piddly little screens.  And I also have less and less important or grandiose to say and less of an urge to say it these days.  I’m less concerned with how popular I am  or how many followers I’ve got.  I’m not sure I can even be bothered to blog any more or worry about a website.

Eckhart Tolle says that things aren’t a problem until we start seeking ourselves in them.  A work colleague of mine in London the other day spontaneously announced she had suddenly woken up and realised how much she hated the person she had become since using Facebook: vain, egotistical and self-obsessed.  Hungry and addicted.

I think I’ve reached a point where NOT doing things is becoming much more attractive than doing them.  Like NOT having to upgrade;  NOT talking about ’social media’ all the time; NOT Tweeting; NOT needing the latest laptop or the newest phone; NOT chasing top Google spots; NOT worrying about followers, subscribers and hits or how to monetise traffic.

Ahhh. Can you imagine it?

Student debt poll

The TimesOnline’s ’student debt’ poll: annoying for all kinds of reasons

beerandsmoke2“Would you pay an extra penny on income tax to subsidise students?” asks the TimesOnline in this worst-of-all-kinds-of-survey.

Why is this so annoying?

Firstly, because the question is pretty meaningless.  If you don’t think so, then take it seriously for a moment and try to answer it yourself.  Yes?  No?  It depends…?

It’s annoying because the issues of student debt and the way that education is funded are far more complex than this dumbed-down, ‘web-friendly’ question implies.

Secondly, because I’m not prepared to talk about subsidising education until we talk that other big student expense that never gets talked about: alcohol and drugs.

But guess what?  When did you last hear ANYONE honestly account for the part that alcohol and drugs played in their ‘£15,000′ overdraft?  Funny isn’t it?  They don’t, ever.  It’s always ‘tuition fees, books, rent, food’.

Booo!  Party-pooper!

In case you think I’m being fuddy duddy, I’ve been there and done it myself.  First as a student at university (where I spend a healthy amount on drink and drugs) and secondly as a university lecturer (where – like most, if not all of my colleagues – I also spent a healthy amount on drink and drugs).

So it’s not about a moral highground.  It’s about honesty.  In answer to your question, TimesOnline: ‘No.  I’m not prepared to subsibise ongoing cultural denial about the trouble our education system and our students are in with alcohol and substance abuse.’

Now, which box should I tick?