Posts Tagged ‘ Twitter ’

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.

“The Onion” Calls a 9 Year-Old Girl a Cunt; Apparently This is Different from All Their Other Insincere Satire

I don’t watch the Oscars.

We can start with that for some needed context. I see maybe five new, in-theater movies a year if I’ve been ambitious; a ceremony rewarding people I don’t know for performances I didn’t see would be tedious even if it were well-run and entertaining. (Apparently it’s not? Wouldn’t know; didn’t watch it.)

But you can’t very well avoid the commentary. And apparently some pretty horrible things happened, what with songs about boobs and rape jokes and stuff? That is worth noting, reporting, and condemning! I am on board with that.

Flipping out about a tasteless joke in The Onion, a publication and website devoted to tasteless jokes, less so.

I guess they said this:

onion-tweet-quvenzhane-wallis-cunt

And the internet shat its collective britches, because nine years old etc., and The Onion had to run an apology, which they did a pretty adequate job of given that they had nothing to apologize for.

Now, there are limits to both good taste and satire, and even to tasteful satire. But let’s grasp the basic facts here: The Onion, and its Twitter feed, are inherently insincere. They do not believe what they are saying. That’s the basis of their humor.

You look at the recent Twitter feed from @TheOnion and you will see things like:

  • “Daniel Craig Takes Home Pretty Good Actor Award”
  • “Commentary By Daniel Day-Lewis | While I’m Glad I Won, I Personally Believe Abraham Lincoln Deserved To Die”
  • “Wow, chills. Adele’s lyrics “Let the sky fall / We will stand tall” really make you think, don’t they?”

And you know what? Those things did not happen! They are not true, and where statements of opinion are concerned, they are not sincerely-held beliefs.

The staff at The Onion does not think the lyrics to Skyfall are particularly deep. They also don’t think a 9 year-old girl is “a cunt.” Get over yourselves.

We could go on about the merits of the actual commentary behind the joke — the maligned tweet is a pretty good reduction to the absurd of Oscar coverage, which is horrible and backbiting and petty and most certainly filled with nasty words like “cunt” — but that would be beyond the point. This wasn’t a joke that needed defending. It was absurd satire from a website that deals in absurd satire.

It’s okay though. I’m not 100% on it, but I’m pretty sure the apology (emphasis below mine) was a parody anyway:

Dear Readers,

On behalf of The Onion, I offer my personal apology to Quvenzhané Wallis and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for the tweet that was circulated last night during the Oscars. It was crude and offensive—not to mention inconsistent with The Onion’s commitment to parody and satire, however biting.

No person should be subjected to such a senseless, humorless comment masquerading as satire.

The tweet was taken down within an hour of publication. We have instituted new and tighter Twitter procedures to ensure that this kind of mistake does not occur again.

In addition, we are taking immediate steps to discipline those individuals responsible.

Miss Wallis, you are young and talented and deserve better. All of us at The Onion are deeply sorry.

Sincerely,

Steve Hannah
CEO
The Onion

“Parody and satire, no matter how biting” is exactly what that tweet was, unless the author genuinely felt that Quvenzhané Wallis is/was a cunt. So…yeah. Maybe we should just file the apology under “insincere satire like every other goddamn thing The Onion prints” and move on with our lives.

Works for me.

The “Could You Run for Political Office?” Twitter Game

Twitter, according to infallible resource Wikipedia, was launched on July 15, 2006, and as near as I can tell debuted as a way for politically-affiliated people to embarrass themselves in 2009 with Meghan McCain’s boobs:

(Mind you, I have nothing against Meghan McCain’s boobs, and honestly think the only people embarrassing themselves were the ones who criticized the photo — she’s holding a book about Andy Warhol, for crying out loud; clearly this is a post-modern critique of the constructionalist role of celebrity as art, using social media as both medium and message, and the Huffington Post’s eagerness to carry the story [so that they could use a boob shot as the page's default image] is simply part of the installation.

Or that’s what my thesis will say, anyway.)

But, if I can rip your eyes away from Ms. McCain for a moment, Twitter has since firmly (heh, firm) established itself as the way to end your political career for discriminating B-list talk show personalities. Most recently the Romney campaign is taking flak for hiring Richard Grenell and his legacy of misogynist tweets, but many were there before him and many will be there after him.

Which brings us to today’s game!

- -

The “Could You Run for Political Office?” Twitter Game

1) Pull up Twitter and view your own account (public posts only)

2) Scroll through the last six months or 1000 tweets, whichever comes first (even tabloid journalists get bored eventually, so anything before that is probably safe)

3) Score any posts, links, and retweets that could potentially become cable news fodder as follows:

  • 1 point for linking to hateful or scandalous third-party content with no comment
  • 2 points for linking to hateful/scandalous third-party content with an approving comment
  • 2 points for re-tweeting someone else’s hateful/scandalous tweet
  • 5 points for posting your own original hateful/scandalous tweet
  • 10 points for inappropriate videos/images of yourself
  • +5 points for anything honest-to-god shocking rather than just cable-news-shocking (racial slurs, admitting or alluding to serious crimes, etc.)
  • Multiply all the above by the amount of re-tweets they garnered

Thus, a hateful comment that you wrote (in reply to someone else’s link, perhaps) but that never got re-tweeted earns you 5 points total, while re-tweeting something awful from your favorite radio shock-jock that then gets retweeted by twelve of your followers earns 24 points.

Only score for retweets from your account (in other words, if you retweet something hateful from a third party, don’t score people who retweeted directly from the source or from someone else’s account)

Obviously, you do not need to score scandalous content that you were condemning in your tweet. Use half-points judiciously if you’re not sure something quite counts as scandalous (though in general, if you have to ask, it’s probably bad enough that a cable host with an axe to grind could use it).

Rate yourself:

0 – 10 points: You can clean that up in no time. Why are you even on Twitter?

11 – 100 points: You need to make your feed private and let your staff comb it before you announce, but you should be fine.

101 – 500 points: Your campaign has cause for concern. Delete your feed and lay low for a good long while before coming anywhere near the press. Let the staff make a new one for you eventually, and let them manage all the content.

501 – 1000 points: You should not be allowed anywhere near a political campaign. Even if you get rid of the tweets no PR consultant worth his/her salary will believe that you haven’t left other disasters-to-be floating around the internet somewhere. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

1000+ points: Typical GOP House freshman.

- -

And that’s the game. Give it a try and let us know how you did in the comments!

For my part, it’s mostly just links to MA101 dragging me down — take those out and I’ve only got 21 points in the last six months. If we count the links that shoots up to 61, still totally manageable but getting into dangerous territory if anyone starts retweeting the wrong links.

So…is your Twitter campaign-ready?

You Are What You Tweet

Remember when this was a “writing blog”?

Yeah, me neither. But that was the idea, way back in the day when MA101 was the biggest writing obligation I really had.

Actually landing some writing jobs, and some other jobs, has changed that a bit, and someone recently commented on a slightly more “political” flavor lately. It was hard to tell if this was supposed to be a good thing or not, and I didn’t press for clarification. But I did think I could blog about it, and let that be a warning to anyone who has conversations with me ever.

"Ok, go ahead -- you had what, exactly, for lunch today?"

MA101 is not a “politics” blog by any stretch of the imagination. But “you are what you tweet” — if you spend your day swimming around in social media for a particular cause, it’s going to end up having an influence on the store of casual knowledge that you rely on for cocktail conversation, blog fodder, etc.

I've been wanting to use that "you are what you tweet" line for weeks now.

Hence the slight uptick in what I’d call “social commentary” rather than politics. MA101 is, after all, supposedly all about “the critical — highly critical — study of human culture and behavior.” Politicians do occasional behave in a manner that invites criticism.

But I’ve always tried to keep it non-partisan and purely on the side of general, applicable-to-all-humans mockery. That won’t be changing in the foreseeable future. If you do start seeing a particular political bias showing through, feel free to point it out to me — I’m all about fair and balanced reporting here.

(Hey, that’d make a good slogan, now that I say it. I’d use it, but some inconsequential and irrelevant cable network has probably already leaped on it, huh?)

So okay, there might be a little bias. You are what you tweet. But if you stick around and leave me good comments maybe together we can keep me mostly in line.

I might even write about writing again some day. Stay tuned!

A Tale of Two Twitters

I spent at least five minutes trying to decide whether I liked “tale of two twitters” or ‘tale of two twittees” better, because that’s just the sort of writer I am (terrible).  But that choice to go with a cutsey title rather than something very literal and keyword-loaded like “Managing Your Twitter Feed When You Have Both Professional and Creative Networking Responsibilities” gets us right to the heart of today’s issue, and how’s that for a segue?

I used to think "segue" was a type of fondue. No idea why.

Twitter feeds are, increasingly, a very self-defining medium.  Five years ago your biggest public-persona worry was what turned up when someone Googled you, three years ago it was that plus what the public could see on your Facebook page; now it’s those plus Twitter and all the other micro-blogging-hyper-feeding-this-that-and-the-other-thing social networks you use.  Someone who wants to know more about Geoffrey Cubbage is going to take a look at my Twitter feed.  It’s a given.

Most people (Congressman Wiener excepted, obviously) know this.  So you get an interesting mix of approaches to Twitter.  Or more specifically I get an interesting mix, because about half the people I’m following are fellow writers and artists, while the other half are a mix of politicians local and national and the journalists who cover them.

I have a theory — and it is just a theory — that you can determine how “professional” someone’s Twitter usage is based on the percentage of their characters used that are contained in links rather than written text.

By “professional” I mean used explicitly for career purposes, not necessarily to sell something directly but at least to communicate about The Job rather than The Personal Life.

Another useful measure with slightly less exacting numbers might simply be the ratio link-containing tweets to non-link-containing tweets — high link usage seems, in my experience, to point toward professional usage, directing people to your website or Facebook page, articles about you, etc.

So I’ll be tracking this for the next few weeks and I’ll let you all know what I discover.  But for now, you might take a look back at your own Twitter feed and see how much of it is your own original content and how much is links to external content.  Be interesting to think about why your ratio is where it is!

Randomness, On Twitter and In Writing

In the last 24 hours I’ve used Twitter to mock Anne McCaffrey’s legacy*, imagine the murder of a porpoise, and send pictures of my sex toys to a young woman who I’ve never met face to face.  Somewhere in there I also gave straight-faced advice on the proper and improper uses of Twitter.

I try not to let these sorts of glaring hypocrisies bother me.

They give people something to talk about, if nothing else.  Call them conversation-starters.  They lack the sort of tangible, career-related impact that, say, linking to my blog or a piece I’ve written brings, but frankly a feed full of nothing but those is about as interesting as earwax.

Actually, earwax is kinda interesting some time.  Mine always gets thick and black when I’m sick with a ‘flu or throat bug or whatever.  Why would it even do that?

Anyway.

The point is that this isn’t actually about Twitter.  It’s about writing in general, and the value of the absurd insertion.  People like it when you surprise them.  Not in the sense of dramatic plot twist surprise, just in the sense of someone saying something completely unexpected.

Don’t be afraid to do this.  It doesn’t have to be in dialogue.  Your narrative voice can spend a sentence noticing something completely absurd and only barely related to the subject and hand, and remarking on it.  Our brains do that all the time:  “Huh, look at that big guy on the subway car.  I bet he could really mess me up.  Jeez he looks angry.  I wonder what’s for dinner?”

Let a little of that shine through sometimes.  I think it adds spice.

Just don’t tweet any naughty pictures of yourself to strange women.

Especially not with a face like that. Jesus, Anthony, what were you THINKING?

*Before you get indignant, it was only the playful suggestion that they could build her a tomb out of her own books without having to use a single title more than once.  The woman did write.

Twitter: “Social Media,” not “Pyramid Marketing Scheme for Your eBook”

Soapbox time.  Just a teeny-tiny bit.  Bear with me.

I am, of course, on the Twitter.  There’s even a helpful little widget in the upper right corner of this blog that shows my latest post, or at least the first few words of it — you can click on the link there if you want to read more of my random,  less-than-140-character thoughts.

So it’s safe to say that I do the networking thing a bit.  I follow other writers on Twitter, if they post something I like I re-tweet it (just to keep that ol’ karma good), and yes — I tweet links to my blog posts, most of the time.

I won’t claim to be a social media expert, but that mix of your own personal thoughts, helpful links for other people, and a bit of tactful self-promotion is basically the goal.  Twitter is a social media tool, and the important word there is tool; we all know everyone’s going to be doing a bit of work on their own behalf with the tool.

I'll let you all pick your own tool (and associated verb) for this metaphor.

But here is what Twitter is not:  it is not a pyramid marketing scheme wherein you buy ten shares and then get ten of your friends to buy ten shares or else a terrible curse befalls you and you get hit by a truck.  Or at least it shouldn’t be.

(It occurs to me that the chain-letter, pyramid-marketing scam with hints of dire misfortune to those who break the chain might be a little too dated for my audience.  If you never got one of those letters in the ol’ snail-mail please just take my word for it that they existed, and were obnoxious.)

If you are going to use Twitter to promote your own writing — and by all means do so — do it on the merits of the product.  Shout to the heavens that your book is the best thing ever put down on paper, or, as is often the case,  not actually put down on paper but still downloadable for a modest fee.

Because the fact of the matter is that asking someone to buy a book “and retweet to all your friends so that the author hits Kindle’s top 100 list!” isn’t promoting the work.  It’s asking for charity.  And your work either deserves better than that or is so crappy that you shouldn’t be pushing it on us at all, so have a little faith in yourself and assume the former.

Talking about sales goals and stat rankings isn’t talking about your book.  It’s talking about your business and personal finances, which has always been and still remains a tasteless subject for public discourse.

There are lots of good ways to promote yourself without begging.  I’ve seen some very imaginative tweets from people who read this blog, and it always warms my heart.  So consider this your challenge for the day:  how are you going to sell your book, in 140 characters or less, without begging people to push the work on all their friends in the name of your financial gain?

Dignity is the hot new internet meme.

The Topless Men Post, or, A Word about Avatars

WARNING:  POST CONTAINS SHIRTLESS MEN!  DO NOT SCROLL DOWN IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY TOPLESS MEN!

Not that it’s a post about shirtless men, or even about how many times I can cram the traffic-increasing phrase “shirtless men” into a single (shirtless men!) post, but I thought I should titillate warn readers up front.  If you scroll down (or have a really huge monitor) you are going to see naked manflesh.

SPOILER:  It’s not gonna be that exciting.

Anyway.  Internet presence, blogging, generating exposure (hur hur hur), all that good stuff. If it’s something you’re working on, go ahead and do yourself a favor:  find a single image of yourself that you like and stick with it.

If you have one little picture by your name everywhere you go, people will be able to quickly figure out that, for example, @GeoffreyCubbage on Twitter is probably the same guy as cubbageg on WordPress, and as far as exposure (hur hur hur) goes, that’s a good thing.

Unfortunately, it’s only an ideal strategy for people who’ve recently had one of those perfect-hair, sitting-in-front-of-a-marbled-gray-screen photos taken lately.  For my part, I’m pretty broke and only know photographers who do things like scan raw meat and frame giant prints of the image so that O Best Beloved can hang them right above the table where do you mind I’m trying to eat my pork chop here.  It took quite a bit of rummaging through other friends’ Facebook pages to find something even vaguely presentable for my most professional web functions:

And unfortunately, the shot’s mostly a lie.  I don’t wear glasses, for one thing (we were going to a costume party), and we trimmed out the part where I’m clutching a glass of brandy like it was the last love of my life (I didn’t really want to go to the party, either).  I use it for my articles on Google Knol and a few other internet things, but I find the whole thing a little off-putting, and the end result is most people know me instead as the blurry purple guy in an ancient cell phone photo from the days when a camera in your phone was intensely high-tech.

Yeah, that guy.

I personally think the shot’s an accidental masterpiece, but the unfortunate reality is that I’m both unrecognizable and shirtless, making it a really lousy image to tie my internet persona to.  Such is life, and I suppose it could have been worse — we could have gone with something that actually expresses the reality of my life and personality in a tangible way.

Don't ask.

The sad conclusion here is that I’ll likely be the blurry purple guy for a long time yet.  What about other bloggers, writers, or just plain ol’ anybody with an active internet presence?  Does your photo look like you?  Does it represent you even though it doesn’t look like you?  Would you like an extreme close-up of scanned raw meat?  Drop me a comment…!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 777 other followers