Posts Tagged ‘ facebook ’

The Boston Marathon Bombings: Tragedy as Social Media Meme

Broadly speaking I think “slacktivism” — the Facebook posting and tweeting of graphics and articles supporting political or ideological causes — probably has a net positive effect.

Boston-Marathon-logo-2015-1024x1024It’s dumb, lazy, and intellectually shallow, but it does at least raise awareness among people who only seek dumb, lazy, and intellectually shallow news. As astonishing as it is to think, there probably are people that genuinely didn’t know about (as a random example) the 2012 NDAA bill until they saw pictures on Facebook with generically-threatening riot police and angry red text. And it’s better to get information to those people in a crappy medium than not at all.

That assumes, of coure, that the images (which I like to call “graphucks“) are disseminating accurate information, which they often aren’t. And the vulnerability of low-information, social-media-using people to false or highly misleading factoids is a major problem. But all that said, at the end of the day it’s more people thinking about things than we would otherwise have, even if they’re not very good at it, so: net positive.

When nationally-televised disasters strike, however, the desire to be seen as doing something on Facebook or Twitter turns the whole thing into a massive cluster-fuck of self-aggrandizement.

Telling the world that your heart is with Boston (or wherever) is about you. It’s a way to let your friends know how caring and empathetic you are.

The bombings yesterday were a real tragedy. I in no way want to diminish or question that. It is terrible when people do things like this, and when other people suffer because of it. That is a thing you can legitimately be upset about, and if it makes you do some deep thinking so much the better.

But saying “oh my god, I’m so shocked” or “positive thoughts to all in Boston” or whatever on your social media feed is just being part of the meme. And it’s a stupid meme that ignores how often this sort of thing is happening all over the world, including and especially in countries where we paid to make it the norm.

Iraq was ripped by a series of bombings yesterday — many hours before the Boston Maraton bombings — killing more than 30 people. Needless to say, most peoples hearts were not with Nasariyah, or with Tuz Khurmatu, or with Baghdad, at least not as far as their Facebook feeds would lead you to believe.

The one set of bombings does not make the other less of a tragedy. It’s not like we shouldn’t be sad about Boston, just because it’s worse in Baghdad. No one should play one-upsmanship with grief.

But if you’re wringing your hands on Facebook about one bombing and staying silent about another, it suggests either that you’re ignorant or that you’re making an active judgement call about which human deaths are more tragic, neither of which speaks well of you.

And as far as the uplifting idea that, even when someone does something terrible, there are so many more good people ready to help, I think a friend of mine said it best:

The only reason we can think that the good guys outnumber the bad is that we’re being attacked by terrorists. The people we’re attacking have no such illusions.

It’s nice to live in a country where security, first response teams, and emergency medical aid are provided by well-funded and at least theoretically benevolent agencies of our own democratically elected government, but that ain’t exactly the universal state of the human condition.

So please — share news articles and live feeds as they update with new information. Direct people to groups and charities helping on the ground, if you know of one that needs support. But stop telling the world how concerned and saddened you are by these acts of evil.

Because odds are you’re not, until you see them on everyone else’s Facebook page.

Targeted Advertising is Getting a Little Creepy

For the most part I find Google’s attempts at “targeted” advertising endearingly clumsy. Like, yes, okay, you saw that I bought three sets of sheets at Overstock.com, which stalkery and all, but that is how data works these days and I did get there by Googling “cheap sheets” or something like that. So it’s pretty legit.

But knowing that, why would Google’s advertising bots fill my sidebars incessantly with ads for sheets? I just bought three sets. Google knows I just bought three sets. Based on what Google knows of my purchasing habits, sheets are the absolute last product in the world I’m likely to need more of.

There’s a lot of closing the barn door after the horse in their current model, I guess is what I’m saying.

But things took a creepy turn a week or so ago, when one of my girlfriends visited over her birthday weekend. Like the clever thing she is, she shipped her present-to-herself, a lovely pair of red Frye boots, to my address so that they’d arrive on her birthday.

This was done using her credit card, her e-mail, her logins, and basically all of her info except the “ship to,” which was my physical address paired with her name. My name and contact info didn’t enter into it.

So at that point it is a little creepy when ads for Frye boots from third-party retailers start popping up on my Facebook feed:

 

frye-boots-facebook-adI can see the chain of events here — Google has my billing address tied to my name and e-mail address and so on, so it doesn’t need my real name to connect the shipping address my girlfriend used to “Geoffrey Cubbage,” and that data gets constantly sold to Facebook, which uses it to target ads for their clients. I’m not really floored that it happened, or confused as to how they pulled it off.

But it’s still pretty impressive, and so was the quick turnaround between me mentioning “the Mazda” (my first car) in a text to a friend, and then seeing pop-up ads for Mazda’s new line on my iPhone apps the very next day.

Who knows. Maybe some day the robot brains will even grasp the notion that most people don’t need new places to buy the products they literally just bought. Work on that, Google.

Red Equal Signs Don’t Change Laws — But That Doesn’t Make Them Bad

All right, everyone. Simmer down.

I know we are all so smart and so jaded, and we can’t be fooled by, like, superficial gestures and shit, man, but making fun of the red equal sign meme isn’t pointing out that the emperor has no clothes — it’s criticizing the cut of his jacket.

For every action there is an equal and opposite whining on the intertubes, and just as my Facebook feed yesterday was cluttered with red equal signs, so today it is cluttered with complaints about the equal sign, some of them well-thought and carefully written and others not:

before-we-make-a-ruling

So yeah. Changing your Facebook profile photo, not gonna affect the Supreme Court decision that we won’t be getting until June anyway. And if you pointed that out to people who did change their profile, waiting proudly for their recognition of your brilliance and wit, you probably got the reaction you deserved (or maybe you have very patient friends).

I’m no great fan of what passes for “activism” on social media. I’ve thumped my head, privately and in writing, about the stupidity of it plenty of times.

But this time around it wasn’t really about changing minds on the bench of the Supreme Court. It was about making it painfully obvious to everyone that uses Facebook, through the sheer weight of obnoxious equal-sign graphics on their feed, that support for marriage equality is the norm now. The default position is “well yeah, duh.”

red-equal-sign-hrcAnd that’s something social media is actually surprisingly good at! Facebook is, if nothing else, an effective sample of the lowest common denominator’s tastes.

So yes, your friends who changed their profile picture weren’t having any effect on the Supreme Court. And yes, there’s all sorts of complicated baggage associated with the idea of marriage at all, and with the Human Rights Campaign that originated the equal-sign graphic, all of which people can and should work on unpacking in thoughtful and open ways.

But you know what? It’s still a good thing that the basis of the conversation has changed, and that enough people are willing to make some small gesture of support — even if it’s not well-thought support, or even if that’s all they’ll ever do — that it became obnoxious to people who are more deeply involved in the equality movement.

Support for marriage equality is mainstream now. That’s a good thing, and let’s all resist the temptation to tell people how we supported it before it was cool, or how we’re for this, like, kind of obscure equality that you probably haven’t heard of.

Facebook Claims Right to Sell Your Instagram Photos; Continues Aggressive Strategy of Becoming Destested

facebook-instagramBack in April I described 2012 as “The Year of the Forced Upgrade” and made the not-particularly-revolutionary claim that end users were no longer the target market of social media sites like Facebook, but rather part of a product it was selling to other corporations. About a month later I predicted a fast and ugly slide in quality for Facebook after founder Mark Zuckerberg finished playing with his start-up and handed it off to Wall Street types.

Facebook-owned Instagram seems set to cheerfully confirm those predictions this week, with a new intellectual property policy that effectively gives the company unlimited right to use or sell anything you post via Instagram. As CNET noted yesterday,

Under the new policy, Facebook claims the perpetual right to license all public Instagram photos to companies or any other organization, including for advertising purposes, which would effectively transform the Web site into the world’s largest stock photo agency.

You’re also locked in as of January 16 — if you have an account at that time, anything on it is fair game, and likely will be forever, even if you later delete the content or your account. All your Instagram photos can, at that point, be used for anything Instagram wants, including selling them to third-party companies for their use. You, obviously, do not see a dime, or even a byline.

I pointed out last month that the Facebook copyright hoaxes were based on an absurd premise — what are you posting on Facebook that you’d want to copyright anyway? But pictures you took yourself have at least a little more artistic gravitas than cat GIFs, and I’m a little surprised that the company is so openly making a grab to fully monetize that particular asset.

Let’s all be clear on the legality and ethics here — Facebook and Instagram can write whatever policy they please, and as long as you’re storing your data on their servers, you’ve agreed to whatever terms they set forth for the use of that data. There’s nothing wrong with this particular move.

It’s just eminently dislikeable, much like all the other recent changes in Facebook.

No, You Can’t Copyright Your Facebook Posts. Why Would You Want To?

One of the more interesting cultural quirks the internet has brought out in us: people seem much more concerned about their right to privacy in public spaces than they ever were about the real world.

Maybe it’s that your public online behavior happens, from your point of view, in “private.” You can post to Facebook from a coffee shop, or these days from a gathering of a million people if you have your smart phone with you (and can get a signal in all that crowd), but most of us are doing it from the comfort of home. We’re posting cat pictures and news stories we didn’t check the date of in our pajamas, or maybe in a reinforced bunker as we clutch a shotgun and eat a can of beans. Who knows.

Here’s the reality: the privacy you may expect for anything you post to Facebook is the privacy defined in their Terms and Conditions, which you didn’t read. Things that will not change that include posting a status update like this one:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws. By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

This is meaningless. Someone probably made it up as a joke just to see how far it would get (which, judging by my news feed the last few days, is pretty damn far). It does not change Facebook’s Terms and Conditions, which you agreed to, and it does not “copyright” anything you’ve posted on the website.

(Also, seriously, “the Rome Statute”? I realize most of us are not lawyers, myself included, but we should all still probably know that the “Rome Statute” is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. Given that re-posting your cat GIFs without permission is neither genocide nor a war crime, though in some cases it could be considered a crime against humanity, the ICC is unlikely to be interested, and its mention maybe should have tipped you off. While we’re at it, it’s the “Berne Convention,” not the “Berner Convention.”)

More to the point, though, why would you care if someone stole your Facebook content? Is anyone writing a novel via Facebook updates or something? It could be a cool art project, I guess, but I’d go ahead and suggest that in a case like that the inevitable “theft” is, in fact, part of the medium, and complaining about it would be like whining that your pastel drawing is prone to smudging.

For most of us, at risk are re-posts of other people’s content, photos with captions on them, and perhaps some personal pictures.

Vastly more effective than posting bold declarations of your copyright would be to simply not post anything you don’t want the public to have access to. Why were you doing that on a public networking site in the first place?

If you have something worth stealing on Facebook, you’re doing Facebook wrong.

The Elephant in the Internet: Facebook is Getting Kinda Bad at Facebook

SocialFixer had a reasonable plea today: could Facebook please just go back to displaying everyone’s updates in the order they were posted?

Most of you have probably noticed by now that your Facebook news feed, by default, presents the “Top Stories” — posts and pages that Facebook thinks are most relevant to you. Of course, you can pay Facebook to “promote” your own posts, giving them a higher priority in that algorithm, so what you’re actually getting is a mixture of things that lots of people have commented on and things that people have paid money to put there.

You can switch the “Top Stories” method to “Most Recent” manually, which doesn’t get rid of the promoted posts but does keep them from completely drowning out other things; Facebook, however, will randomly switch you back to “Top Stories” from time to time. No one’s been able to figure out what triggers the reset, as far as I can tell. You just have to sort of keep an eye on it whenever you log in.

Matt Kruse’s post at SocialFixer hits the problem spot-on:

Seriously, Facebook, please listen to your users. Give us the option to see an unfiltered, chronological news feed, and allow us to make it our default – on the web and on mobile. You can put ads in our feed, on our sidebar, and still allow promoted posts to those who stick with the default filtered view. Fine. But don’t take away our content, or you become less and less useful to us.

  • When I tell my Tivo to record episodes of Modern Family, it doesn’t pick out the ones it thinks I will like best and only record them, does it?
  • When I subscribe to a magazine, the publisher doesn’t deliver only the issues that it thinks I will be most interested, does it?
  • The Post Office doesn’t filter my mail, in order to protect me from drowning in all the catalogs, magazines, and junk mail that I’ve requested, does it? No. It delivers everything I’ve asked for.

Why, Facebook, can’t you just be like everyone else and let me see what I’ve said I want to see?! Why must you think you know what I want better than I do? Why?

At stake here is what made Facebook popular in the first place. It aggregated all your friends’ and family’s random-ass thoughts and let you browse them at your leisure. This was something novel, entertaining, and accessible, and it catapulted Mark Zuckerberg into the top thirty richest people alive.

But now, as I’ve pointed out here on the blog before, Facebook is more and more in the hands of people who aren’t thinking creatively about user experience. They’re thinking about ad revenue.

Problem is, Facebook isn’t popular because it’s a great place to advertise a business. It’s a great place to advertise a business because it’s popular.

And the further it gets from that original model of “everything all of your friends have posted, in the order they posted it,” the less popular it’s going to become. As Matt Kruse said, “you become less and less useful to us.” And eventually, something better will come along.

If You’re Mad at the Navy for Hurting Dolphins, You’ve Forgotten What the Armed Forces Get Paid To Do

Y’all have seen this one on Facebook, right? Comes with an online petition so you can get your name on MoveOn.org’s spam list:

Apparently the United States Navy has some kind of sonar system underwater that messes with dolphins. So people are getting their activist on, and clicking “share” on one of those graphuck things on Facebook. Maybe even clicking through to sign an online petition. Shit just got real up in here. Because dolphins.

I’m wondering if anyone is pausing in their Facebook-indignation (never to be confused with the real thing) and contemplating the actual purpose of our military, which is to kill people.

That’s pretty much their thing. That’s what we pay ‘em for. They kill people. Pretty much every day! We are having a really good day as a country when we aren’t killing someone or other, with your tax dollars.

So color me a little surprised that y’all want to rag on the Navy for messing with dolphins.

Is it sad? Sure. Could we work on maybe not doing it? That would be great. But if you’re gonna get up in the military’s face about barbarism, dolphins can get in line behind the actual human beings.

Priorities, people. Even if it’s just some bullshit on Facebook, priorities. We do a lot of messed-up things as a country, and this is waaaaaay down the list.

Get aware, or at least be less aggressively and publicly unaware, because after all the tragedies great and small that our armed forces have been party to it’s damned embarrassing to have you rending your clothes over a bunch of dolphins.

Glad we had this little chat.

Facebook’s “Like” – I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

Remember when you could “poke” people on Facebook?

Yeah, me either; I was a late and reluctant adapter. But you can Google “old Facebook” and remind yourself that things used to look way different if you want to:

I’m not honestly sure when “liking” things came into the formula. Like I said, late adapter.

But it’s there now, and very likely to stay, more because of the plug-in for other pages than for its usefulness on Facebook itself. People like liking. Put the button at the bottom of your webpage and it is going to get clicked. Everyone who clicks it suddenly starts posting all your business’s updates on their Wall Timeline, for free, so you can see the appeal on the marketing side.

All well and good. On our actual Facebook pages it’s a little weirder, though. I mean, how often have you found yourself “liking” something that you don’t actually like, at all? This sort of thing:

Clearly I don’t like that students aren’t getting to vote. That is not what clicking “like” means.

But that unfortunately means that we’ve complicated the meaning of “like” a lot, at least in the context of Facebook. “I like” now means some vague combination of being grateful that something was pointed out to you, finding it interesting, and wanting to let a friend know that you are paying attention to what they’re spending their time sharing with you.

Quite a mouthful for one little word.

And then when you throw the corporate pages into it things get even more ambiguous. Do 16.6 million people actually like Walmart? Enjoy going to the store, approve of its business practices, etc.?

God I hope not. But there they are all the same on Facebook. And in this case “like” mostly just means “will put up with hosting their ads on my Facebook page in exchange for the occasional deal that I find useful.” Not much to do with personal fondness at all.

(And don’t get me wrong, I realize there are some people out there who genuinely find going to Walmart and puttering around enjoyable. But I hope — pray — that they are the minority of those 16.6 million.)

So I do not think that word means what we think it does, anymore. Or it won’t for much longer if we keep on “liking” things on Facebook.

Inconceivable, no?

Psyche! It’s just a graphic. Did you try to click it?

An Important Social Media Rule for Birthdays

Here’s how it is:

If you have not spoken to or contacted a friend for the entire year since you last posted a “Happy Birthday” message on his/her Facebook page, you should not bother doing it again this year.

Any other contacts count, even small ones — comments on other Facebook postings, text messages, whatever. I will also allow exceptions for old friends that you only reconnected with this year and haven’t had a chance to send birthday wishes to. That can be a nice ice breakery kind of way to renew old acquaintances.

But if you’ve had 24/7 social media access to one another for over a year now and you still haven’t thought of anything to say to one another, you’re not actually that great friends. The birthday boy/girl will not feel offended that you forgot to post on their wall. (Sorry, “timeline.”)

It’s tempting to add a “Mandatory Capitalization Corollary” as a minimum giving-a-shit standard, but let’s keep it simple today, shall we?

In other news, I apparently am getting grumpy in my old age. That, or it’s almost 10 AM on my birthday and I still haven’t had a drink — either way, I think I know a solution, and I will just go have a try at that.

See you on Monday!

 

MA101′s Guide to Necroing News Articles

Did you all see this one from Wonkette floating around Facebook the other day, about a Tea Party sale in Kentucky hawking “Yup, I’m a Racist” T-shirts for the 4th of July? (Also “Everything I Need to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11.”) I know I saw it on a couple different people’s feeds, crossing several unrelated social circles, so it’s out there.

It’s also almost a year old.

Now, some confusion might be forgivable, sinceWonkette posts the current date at the top of their site in large black type, and lists the post-date of their articles in smaller gray type further down.

But this is not a particularly unique event. People do this all the time. It’s extra-hilarious when they do it with an old Onion article that’s become relevant in the current news cycle, committing two “even people on the Internet think you’re an idiot” fouls in one go (and extra-extra hilarious when it’s a U. S. Congressman doing it, but we already covered that story).

In somewhat old-fashioned internet parlance, “necroing” is the act of posting in a bulletin board thread that’s been idle for a long period (usually anything over a month old qualifies) so that it rises back to the top of the first page despite lack of interest. It is frowned upon and most message boards these days will give you some kind of ban or warning if you do it.

Necroing news stories on social media sites should be met with the same public opprobrium. People smarter than you are already doing it on purpose during political campaigns, posting ancient good news about their candidate (Milwaukee mayor and gubernatorial recall challenger Tom Barrett’s heroic intervention in a mugging at the 2009 Wisconsin State Fair is suddenly popular again this week, for example) and waiting for Facebook to spread it around as good news. Old smears, of course, can get treated the same way.

So what does all this mean to you? It means you need to check the date on a news story before reposting it. And if you do, obey the Rules of Necroing, set forth arbitrarily here and now by me:

  • Never necro unknowingly! Check all dates before posting.
  • General-interest articles on subjects that do not change rapidly (geological science, say) can be necroed safely.
  • Time-specific subjects like political campaigns shall have a necroing window of no more than one month. After that, shut up.
  • Thou shalt not suffer a necro to live. Let people know if they’re posting old stories.
  • If you must necro, make it clear why the information is still relevant to whatever you’re talking about.
  • Always state clearly that a necroed article is old news.

Got it? Good.

Now get you to the comments, but no pointing out that I linked to three different necroed articles in this post. That was for demonstration purposes only.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 785 other followers