digitally numb

Social media for social good

My fundamental gripe with a lot of social media buzz these days is that most of the services that are all the rage are nothing more than entertainment and marketing channels. Here’s the basic trend — they all start out simple and stupid, but eventually the popular ones grow into real businesses and start monetizing the rich conversations and user profiles for advertising purposes. The users continue to get entertained and distracted by creating, sharing, commenting, liking, re-tweeting, checking-in, etc. for free and the services attract more ad dollars by waving the carrot of targeted ads. Assuming consumers understand the value exchange (and have adequate control), it’s usually a win-win situation and everyone goes home happy. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. I understand the tremendous economic value, but what about the social value of social media?

Some will argue that most social media platforms are like any other technology or service that can be used for purposes ranging from good, bad to absolutely pointless. Further, there are several real examples of good emerging from all this web 2.0 communication between individuals. Social media is having a positive impact on philanthropy and the nonprofit world and has also proved to be a crucial communication tool in times of political unrest and for disaster management. Further, social media obviously helps broaden our social circles and helps us strengthen existing relationships and establish new ones. I wholeheartedly agree that this could all be good for us in the long run.

So what am I complaining about? I’m not complaining actually, but trying to point out that all this good is really a side benefit of these services and not the core reason why people check their Facebook page every five minutes and tweet several times a day. It’s unfortunately pretty obvious that a lot of time spent using such services tends to be fairly pointless and driven largely by the need to be distracted and entertained. Again, that’s perfectly fine in terms of one’s selfish pursuit of happiness. Moreover, everyone else is doing it. But what if you could actually choose a better alternative a few times a day? What if you could actually be distracted (even entertained) by social media and do some good in the world while you’re at it? What if you could harness your free time to make a difference, instead of staring at your iPhone and desperately searching for something witty to say in 140 characters?

Luckily, you don’t have to wonder anymore. Here’s a great article that talks about the following 5 social apps that can save the world!

• The Extraordinaries 
• Causeworld 
• Frontline SMS 
• mGive
• Project Noah

The Value of Over-Sharing?

This New York Times article about the “too much information movement” will probably alarm a lot of people (at least those that don’t follow every new social media trend). But I have good news. Those that avoid these services have nothing to fear when it comes to their privacy (for the most part) and those that choose to participate are doing so because they truly believe the benefits outweigh the privacy risks. Over-sharing is not a new phenomenon, but what was missing was a medium to convey the information efficiently to potential receivers. One can argue that the Internet and social networking is leading people to become more comfortable with the idea of broadcasting their lives to friends, family and strangers (and that’s a bad thing). However, without users that are willing participate in this mass information sharing explosion, there would be no YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. Foursquare or Blippy. The question is, why do some people choose to willingly over-share, in spite of the obvious risks involved (limited control over how long such information is retained, who it is shared with and how it is accessed and used)? I think the answer is simple. The one’s that do so have to and need to, because they desperately want to be heard.

In this globalized world which is accelerating the flattening of social and cultural identity, the individual has to struggle to stand out in the crowd of civilization. Social media changes that (at least conceptually). The over-sharers can now be themselves and boast about their generic taste in music, their love for romance novels, their weekend bar-hopping adventures and any other minute piece of information about who they are and what it is that makes each one of them a unique individual. Who cares about people whining about the loss of privacy? They now have control over their personal identity and the way the are perceived by others in the world. They may not be that unique but it must feel good to be handed the control panel of your own personal broadcast channel — your own powerful personal PR machine.

As Freud put it in the book Civilizations and Its Discontents, every individual is driven by an instinctual need to experience pleasure and avoid pain. We collaborate with others to form civilizations because it helps this basic selfish drive. When we collaborate with others we have a greater chance of survival and ways to avoid pain caused by external factors (natural elements, other human beings, etc.).  However, the dependence created by civilization comes with its drawbacks. Civilization imposes limits on the individual in the interest of the common good. It imposes norms and laws that restrict the uninhibited individual pursuit of happiness. Therefore, although we rely on civilization to protect ourselves from the hostile world we live in; civilization itself causes displeasure because it restricts our individuality and our instincts. It’s a dilemma that even Freud didn’t have good answers too, but he did a great job of clearly articulating the problem.

What does this have to do with over-sharing on the Internet? Think of over-sharing as a little win for the individual — a win against having to consume mass media and be another faceless and passive consumer. The Internet and social media gives you an instant audience to nourish your sense of self, to carve your own identity, to be heard (even if you have nothing important to say) and be in control of how the world at large perceives you. If over-sharing makes millions of people feel better about themselves, if it helps them be heard and form new social connections with like minded over-sharers, if it helps them achieve pleasure an avoid pain, why worry?  Why should anyone live unheard and unnoticed? Of course the providers of such services need to offer users with the ability to control the information sharing and not suffer data breaches. But why should we stop anyone from having a voice? Further, when over-sharing becomes the norm in society, many will chose to break away from the herd mentality and maintain their sense of self by curtailing their information sharing habits. It’s an endless cycle and we will do what we have to to meet our fundamental need for individuality. Because without a personal identity, what is the point of privacy? As the saying goes, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Admit it, you don’t want to be that tree.

Related Post: Managing the privacy impact of Internet microcelebrity culture

Managing the privacy impact of Internet microcelebrity culture

You’ve probably heard the news by now. The Internet (and social media specifically) is making us all attention-seeking wannabe celebrities, killing privacy and giving birth to an age of voyeurism. But how did it come to this?

We sowed the seeds that are leading us to this inevitable end thousands of years go — by developing visual and oral communications mediums such as signs, language and writing (the earliest mediums that provided humans with the means to communicate by storing and transmitting memory and speech outside our bodies). In ancient times, you had to be a king, saint or God to achieve celebrity status, but media and communication technologies, starting with print and later film, radio and TV changed everything by fueling the process of democratization of celebrity culture. Mass media distribution enabled celebrities to emerge amongst numerous sectors of society such as politics, science, academia, sports, etc. Then the Internet arrived and not only did it make the lives of existing celebrities more accessible to the masses, but it also turned passive consumers of media into active producers. Tools like blogging, podcasting, digital photo and video sharing handed out the keys to a new media universe for free and celebrity status became anyone’s for the taking.

In many ways, the allure of celebrity appeals to our basic human need to have a voice, connect with others, be recognized and influence the world around us. Further, the Internet created only one barrier to entry into this new participatory culture — our willingness to disclose our opinions, talents, interests, affiliations, whereabouts and other identifiable information about our private and social lives for the chance to be heard. As Marshall McLuhan accurately pointed out; “Publication is a self-invasion of privacy” and as Internet technologies for creating and transmitting media flourish, mobile devices become the primary communication tool and geo-location services; facial tagging and augmented reality technologies become ubiquitous, no one will truly be able to escape this phenomenon. The outcome will be a world in which everyone is recognized, well-known and observed by groups of people on a daily basis (either due to our direct actions or those of others).

The subsequent broadening of our social spheres and the associated loss of anonymity may lead to benefits such as honesty, transparency, collaboration and altruism, but it will not come without its negative consequences. We will all struggle to manage our reputation by not only curtailing certain thoughts and actions, but also by paying for reputation management services to help us enforce limits on what others say and share about us. Some will embrace the attention and even try to profit from it, thereby blurring the line between self-expression and commercial behavior. Disputes over intellectual property ownership of media created and collated by the new breed of consumers-turned-producers, as well as claims of deceptive and unfair advertising practices will inevitably follow. In addition, concerns over the mining of our disclosed opinions, talents, interests, affiliations and whereabouts for advertising purposes will not abate, as marketers struggle to combat the rising tide of attention scarcity and audience fragmentation.

Assessing the potential socioeconomic consequences of the democratization of celebrity culture is important, but we must not sidestep the core dilemma between the human need to be heard and our value for privacy. Although certain basic concepts of privacy are shared amongst individuals, cultures and nations, we cannot deny that the notions of privacy vary and continue to evolve as personal and social norms and attitudes change. Hence, we should work to ensure that all media and communication technologies that empower us to create and share also enable us to control the flow of information. This will help us choose our own desired levels of privacy, rather than having multiple confusing standards imposed upon us.

Ideally, we all need a simple volume knob for every piece of data we choose to share, where each level on the knob represents a different level of trust in our social sphere. For example Level 0 would represent the individual itself and every subsequent level could represent a customizable group that is lower in the individual’s trust hierarchy. The levels could range from family, close friends, extended relatives, casual acquaintances, colleagues, trusted brands, unknown followers and then everyone else. If new media and communication technologies allowed us to easily define and implement our own personal codes of privacy in this manner, it would go a long way in helping us prepare for some of the challenges that lie ahead.

In a essay about the death of mainstream pop music, the Scottish artist and writer Nick Currie (a.k.a. Momus) wrote the words “In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen people”. This quote is not only an intelligent play on the famous Andy Warhol quote, “In the future everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes”, but is also an accurate reflection of current trends.  If the democratization of celebrity culture and the social media explosion are indeed redefining our notions of privacy, we need simple tools to help us balance our needs and values. The power to be heard should be accompanied by the power to control our voices; as we all become Internet microcelebrities, to a potential audience of millions, thousands, hundreds or even fifteen people.

The Problem with Talking Refrigerators

According to a new report published by scientists Adam Waytz from Harvard University and Nicholas Epley and John T. Cacioppo from University of Chicago, humans have no difficulty identifying other humans in a biological sense, but from a psychological standpoint, things are a lot more complicated. Their report analyzes the psychology of anthropomorphism, which is basically our tendency to attribute human characteristics or behavior to non-human things. We express this tendency in a variety of ways, ranging from dressing up pets as people, attaching names to natural phenomenon, inanimate objects such as Roombas or for that matter, human-like gods.

According to the research carried out by Waytz and his colleagues, thinking of a non-human entity in human ways helps us not only feel more in control and connected to our environment, but also renders non-human objects and phenomenon worthy of moral care and consideration.

In other recent news, McKinsey recently released a report about “new sensor-driven business models” that the Internet of Things will bring. According to the report, we will soon see the emergence of Internet-enabled objects ranging from shoes to refrigerators that layer web services, which will help us interact with these objects. This will be made possible by technologies such as RFID tags and sensors, resulting in numerous new technological and social advances.

These two recent reports made me realize that it’s possible we’re at the precipice of a new wave of anthropomorphic computer interface design. We already spend so much time interacting with computing devices that are connected to the Internet, but imagine if objects all around us were also networked and interactive. In such a world, anthropomorphic human-computer interaction design may actually make things simpler and more intuitive for us. The use of anthropomorphic agents in human-computer interaction is fairly common, but has yielded varied results. On the plus side, they have the potential to trigger an emotional response from users, improve interactivity, engagement and thereby promote broad based adoption of computer technology. However, human-like agents can also be incredibly annoying (I’m thinking of Clippy, the Microsoft Office Assistant).

Unfortunately, annoyance is not the biggest potential problem with human-like computer agents. As the research conducted by Waytz and co. has pointed out; imparting human-like qualities on inanimate objects illicit subconscious and psychological responses in humans. Although their research touches upon some of the positive psychological drivers for anthropomorphism, it does not delve into the responses that are evoked by actual human-like interfaces such as robots that simulate human appearance, expressions and gestures, or human-like interfaces in cars, websites, software programs and mobile devices. If anthropomorphism helps us interact and control inanimate objects with ease, what negative impacts can such human-like interfaces or objects have on us? This paper provides some very interesting insight into some of the privacy implications of anthropomorphic human-computer interaction design techniques. However, privacy will not be the only concern and such interfaces could have an impact on a range of human values from individuality, respect, empathy and trust to informed consent, authority and security. I really don’t mean to be a buzz-kill, but I think the “Internet of Things” could use some principles of value sensitive design. If we don’t identify, understand and anticipate the ethical and value concerns that are bound to arise from the deployment of networked objects that exhibit human-like behavior, we risk facing an avalanche of problems later.

So anyone out there working on building a smart, human-like refrigerator – I hope you’re paying attention.

Social media, privacy and morality – will the Internet make us better or worse?

A lot has been written and said about some of the negative impacts of social media that range from privacy concerns to harming children’s brains. These concerns may be valid (I have mine too), but the voluntary loss of privacy that comes with being active on Facebook, Twitter or Foursquare may have some unintended benefits. As blasphemous as this may sound, if you’re really looking for a silver lining here, there is one to be found.

Firstly, no one can deny that the primary driver behind social media participation is still largely our own selfish need to be heard and connected. Aren’t we all just self-promoting narcissists trying to build our corporate or personal brands and the only ‘social’ aspect we care about is the attention we’re getting from others? This is probably true, but the success of social media itself seems to contradict this assumption and is evidence that we all are not only satisfying our selfish needs, but are also providing some value to each others lives. If our primary motivations are purely selfish in nature, how is this even possible?

I think it has a lot to do with morality and moral intuitions. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt put it so well, “just as our tongues guide us to good foods and away from bad foods, our minds guide us to good people, away from bad people”*. In other words, it may be possible that the reason we thrive (in spite of ourselves) in these new social environments is because we tend to adopt moralistic behaviors that curtail our selfish motivations. I’m no psychologist, but with the exception of a few celebrities, long term social media popularity and success is not only dependent on being interesting and engaging, but also on following some basic moral principles such as not harming others and treating people with respect. In some ways, the more moral you are in your social media behavior, the more likely that you will be heard, appreciated and recognized in today’s crowded social media landscape. Let’s take Twitter as an example — it’s a service that seems to have an unwritten moral code ingrained in concepts like Retweets and the Follow Friday hashtag. It’s these simple manifestations of reciprocal altruism in social media that has in a small way, helped services like Twitter grow at such exponential rates.

Coming back to the issue of privacy, as we make the conscious choice to share more, we as a society are likely to grow more comfortable with blurring the boundaries between our public and private lives. Consequently, we will cope by growing more conscious about how the thoughts we share and actions we perform, whether offline or online may be stored and broadcasted for consumption by others. Managing our own personal brand and reputation will become critical. This combined with the fact that we will form new emotional attachments and connections online, may end up bringing about out a lot of good in us. When you know you’re being watched by people that trust you, aren’t you more likely to be more honest, transparent and respectful? Further, the broadening of our social spheres will be a great incentive for us to collaborate, cooperate and display altruistic behavior with more people than ever before. How can that be a bad thing?

I’m not implying that privacy becomes a non-issue because we will all behave nicely to save face. There’s still a lot of work to be done around establishing the right balance that meets individual notions of privacy. However, I’m just hoping our moral compass continues to play an important role in guiding us through this challenging journey.

Curiosity killed the Internet cat — malware, scams, tragedies and YOU

We can’t help it — We just have to know.  And that’s no longer enough because in this age where everything that happens anywhere almost never escapes a digital camera, we also have to see it all.  When tragedy strikes, we’re no longer just curious onlookers feeding our morbid curiosity, but we’re all armed with cameras in our pockets and powerful phones that will help us broadcast it to a million other equally curious eyes. It’s human nature and it’s fascinating how Internet criminals seem to understand it and thrive on its predictability.

The recent killing of a Sea World trainer led to a flurry of searches for videos of the incident, which promptly led to malware and viruses. This isn’t the first time that the formula of equal parts tragedy and human curiosity yielded guaranteed results for criminals seeking to spread viruses and other threats. It happened a few weeks ago with interest in the video of Nodar Kumaritashvili’s fatal luge accident at the 2010 Winter Olympics, the Haiti Earthquake, Erin Andrews peephole videos and Michael Jackson’s death. The list goes on. It’s beginning to happen again as people look for pictures or videos of the destruction caused by the earthquake that hit Chile today. 

What this really tells us is that the people behind Internet attacks, viruses and malware are savvy marketers and astute observers of human nature. Tragedies aren’t their only trick; they have mastered the art of recognizing every curious human flaw ranging from narcissism (the “”This you????” Twitter fishing attacks) to greed (the “make money posting links on Google” scam ads). It’s almost as if the scammers sit with a poster of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in front of them & monitor trending Internet topics and search terms. It’s that simple — find the right topic and target the right need. The curious Internet users will make the rest happen. What an air-tight business model!

We are easy targets because we thirst for instantaneous access to information and for quick solutions to vexing problems that plague us. Further, because of the high speed mobile Internet/multitasking/information overload society we live in, we tend to make decisions on what links to click on and where to share our information within fractions of a second. You don’t need to be stupid to be fooled — you just need to be distracted. Have you ever paused and thought about what the simple act of clicking a link or sharing information is really saying about you? The next time curiosity seems to be getting the better of you, ask yourself “Do I really need to know and see his?”, “How is watching a video of someone being killed or humiliated adding value to my life?”, “Do I really need whiter teeth, a flatter stomach, or a chance to make money from home?” Maybe you do, but if it sounds to be good to be true, it probably is. If you still choose to proceed, and get burned, unfortunately that may be the only way you were meant to learn a lesson in Internet safety.

5 real problems in an augmented world

Augmented (hyper)Reality: Domestic Robocop from Keiichi Matsuda on Vimeo.

It’s finally here — our view of the real world need not be limited by what our naked eye can see. Gadgets and terminals are not the be-all and the end-all in our quest for more information, real time access to data and most importantly, a reliable secondary storage mechanism for our memories. Why miss out on the physical world if you want to be immersed in and enjoy the benefits of digital media? Why not just augment the physical world with it? Yes, it’s the new buzz word, but Augmented Reality is here (and here to stay). The potential for this technology is undoubtedly endless, but what we’ve seen so far has mostly ranged from gimmicky and cute to somewhat useful. Nothing groundbreaking so far — no mass adoption of wearable technology or any of the entertainment possibilities. However, it’s just a matter of time when some of these implementations become part of our daily lives. If you hate how people are constantly distracted by their iPhones and Blackberry’s, brace yourself, because it’s about to get much worse.

Augmented Reality, just like any other technology will have some incredibly beneficial uses and some absolutely useless ones. However, all forms of Augmented Reality will likely be accompanied by some risks. Here are just five potential problems we can expect in the years ahead:

1. Profiling: The use of facial recognition technology, combined with geo-location and augmented data will lead to a seamless integration of our online and offline lives. As a result of these developments, a person walking around in the physical world will no longer just be a person, but will be their physical self along with a digital profile and other information that either the person itself or others make available online. Imagine walking into a social gathering and getting ignored by a bunch of people because you have self-identified yourself with a political or religious affiliation that they don’t particularly care for. Or worse — imagine being singled out for additional security screening at the airport because of it.

2. Unauthorized Augmented Advertising: Advertisers and tech companies are drooling over the possibilities of monetizing objects & spaces in the physical world by augmenting digital ads onto them in real-time. Think of the physical and intellectual property rights implications if the technologies that drive augmented advertising do not come with inbuilt controls — controls that would prevent advertisers from augmenting their marketing messages on building surfaces and other physical objects (including private or public property or other trademarked or copyrighted material) without adequate permission.

3. Augmented Behavioral Targeting: Ad targeting based on real world behavior using a combination of geo-location data & publicly self-disclosed information via social media services is just around the corner. For example, let’s assume you live in Los Angeles, travel a lot and have been checking into the local airport via services like Gowalla, Brightkite or Foursquare every time you leave town. Let’s also assume you have been checking out websites selling home security systems lately. Thanks to your online activities and your eagerness to share, you get served an ad that states “Given your busy travel schedule & the rising crime rate in LA, don’t you think it’s high time you installed a home security system?” (Actually this example may not be that bad considering sites like Please Rob Me have emerged). It does raise questions though. Who would have to provide privacy notice and choice in this scenario and how would you control what information is collected and how it is used for advertising that blurs the boundaries between your physical and virtual worlds?

4. Physical danger: Augmented Reality, like any mobile media technology presents some real physical safety issues. If you think mobile phones are currently a distraction while driving a car, think of an augmented windshield feeding you driving directions, along with more data about your surroundings than you may need. Or imagine crossing a busy street in an unfamiliar neighborhood, while simultaneously using an Augmented Reality interface to look for that hot new restaurant, checking out what people are tweeting about it and being bombarded with ads through it all.

5. Spam: Yes — where there is a marketing opportunity, there will be spam, deceptive advertising techniques and social engineering tricks to dupe gullible consumers into paying for things they don’t really need. If you think too many legitimate Internet companies (that are sensitive to your privacy concerns)  are harvesting all the data you publicly share on the Internet, there are even more scammers out there doing the very same thing. Be ready to be tricked and duped by too good to be true augmented offers in the real world — offers that will lure you in ways that unsolicited email from online pharmacies or belly-fat banner ads only wish they could.

The above list is by no means an exhaustive one. The dangers (much like the benefits) are far too many to be cataloged in one blog post. However, the sooner we start preparing for some of these problems, the more we increase our chances of arriving at timely solutions. There are a lot of smart people out there working incredibly hard on building the exciting future of augmented reality. Let’s hope there are also a few that are working at least half as hard on solving some of its incidental problems.