Addicts of the Modern Age part 2: The Retweeting

A while ago, I wrote a blog about how I became addicted to the information age, and I resolved to make some changes. I have since shut down my Twitter updates and only occasionally check my Facebook page.

It’s a start.

However, I now feel compelled to defend Twitter and the instant-information age a little more. There are problems, as any new technology is wont to have. Inevitably, Twitter has seen its fair share of faux pas, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger posting a clip of him wielding a knife whilst discussing budget cuts, to a man potentially losing the job he had just obtained thanks to some indiscrete tweeting http://bit.ly/Q5MNo . Any sane person must also acknowledge the fact that Facebook and Twitter can be very invasive. We sometimes know too much about people and we tell others more than we should, occasionally for the worse; this is mostly down to the fact that the medium in which we communicate alters our sense of what is private.

However, making faux pas or sending out information we shouldn’t have has been around long before the age of the email and the internet. To err is human and, to paraphrase the NRA’s infamous slogan: “Twitter doesn’t fuck up – people fuck up.”

At any rate, I believe Twitter to be one of the most fascinating recent developments in information communication. In fact, you could say I am a little in love with it. Obviously not everyone shares that view, so if you are not a fan, cease and desist: you won’t much like the rest of this article.

Anyway, as is the case with most of my stories, it begins with, “So, I was getting plastered with my friends…”

So, I was looking forward to getting plastered with my friends, enjoying a nice evening of alcohol and board games (I’m middle class). The aim was to drink and be merry, or at least drink and eat some awesome chilli. I cannot remember how it began, but Twitter and its purpose came up.

Now, as mentioned before, I admit that I have some issues with Twitter (oh, blog-reading-people, how many times have I used it as a place to moan about my life, without thinking about who was reading it or whether they would care? Yes, I am aware you may be reading this thinking the same thing, but shut up, that’s why). However, I see it as a useful tool for everyday, modern life, and I was discussing this point of view.

One of my friends did not agree. Her main issue was: “I just don’t see the point of it!” I explained all the uses I got out of it: politics, comedy and, most recently, the events surrounding the Twitter Joke trial.

The Twitter Joke trial is something many of my friends and colleagues have not heard of. For those of you not yet familiar with the Twitter Joke trial, see here: http://tinyurl.com/36wb6bp It is, to me, a fascinating tale, detailing abuse of power by the CPS, who really should have known better. Was Paul Chambers a foolish man? Probably. Should the CPS have pursued the case when even the police, after investigation, dismissed the threat as ridiculous? I’ll go with a big “no” there.

Anyway, I used this as an example of a news story I would have been unaware of and explained it to my friend. The reply was, “But why do you need to know that?”

This, I’ll be honest, stumped me. I have very rarely asked the question, “Why do I need to know that?” To me, knowledge and facts are fascinating things and I love absorbing them. I want to know everything. I remember that my desire for reading when younger, for gathering new stories and information, was a slight cause of concern as I tore through books voraciously.

So, Twitter is a good surrogate for my information addiction. Why would I need to know all these things? To paraphrase some of my favourite characters, my beloved Tramalfadores from Slaughterhouse Five, “Why anything?”

But apart from giving me bits of news I find intriguing, what is the point of Twitter? Well, for one, it’s not just about finding new information;  Twitter can be the perfect place to expose information and trumpet freedom of speech. Take the case of the attempted silencing of The Guardian by the law firm Carter-Ruck. Using a super-injunction, Carter-Ruck (acting on behalf of their client, Trafigura, one of the world’s largest oil companies)  wanted to prevent The Guardian newspaper from reporting on any details of a question posed by Paul Farrelly MP in Parliament. You see, he had asked a question about the right to press freedom, as well as the dumping of toxic waste by Trafigura on the Ivory Coast. This sludge, by the way, caused a number of deaths.

Trafigura obviously did not want this little comment getting out. Unfortunately, a super-injunction was not something that would prevent Twitter getting a hold of the details. Soon, thousands of users had seen and spread the information. After the Twitter outbreak, Carter-Ruck and Trafigura gave up their attempts to gag The Guardian because it was just too late. Soon, Carter-Ruck became synonymous with heavy-handed tactics and cover-up scandals. The attempted silencing of a national newspaper by an oil company badly affected Trafigura’s reputation and meant they could not dodge the bad publicity for their actions. There is something deeply satisfying about watching the public hold a financially powerful company accountable.

Twitter isn’t all just exposing scandal and news, however; it can also be a powerful tool for charities and campaigns.

Thanks to tweets and retweets containing links to the Red Cross website, Haiti’s earthquake disaster victims received massive amounts of charitable donations. The Red Cross received $35 million in donations in 48 hours, with the Red Cross saying Twitter had played a “substantial” part in achieving this. Wyclef Jean, through his tweets alone, raised $1 million for the earthquake victims through his followers and their retweets. A recent charity Twitter auction also raised money for Haiti in an innovative way by getting people to bid  for a tweet/retweet from celebrities such as Jessica Alba or Simon Pegg, or to have said celebrities follow them on Twitter. On the first day I checked the bids, amounts were already in the thousands of dollars.

I suppose my point is this: yes, there are many tweets containing irrelevant and useless information, but it also does a lot of good, too. It is easy to reject out of hand a piece of technology that many use simply to stay connected, or to post photos of their pets in amusing outfits. However,  when others dismiss why I use Twitter, I can point to things like the overturning of a super-injunction thanks to a Twitter campaign, or the raising of millions of dollars in only two days for earthquake victims. Then I can say, “There. That’s why.”

Different rules

When people write on the internet, I sometimes doubt that they realise the power of their words. Cardiff councillor John Dixon was recently pulled up for posting a tweet on his Twitter page: “I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”

Personally, I think that’s hilarious, but that’s because I agree with it. Scientologists did not and made a complaint, ensuring Mr Dixon was referred to an ethics committee. I started to wonder whether people in the public eye are aware of how much they reveal online (I’m not talking dodgy photos, I’m afraid) and, more importantly, what is considered appropriate for them. Should there be different rules for them and for us?

Writing online as a nobody has its benefits but, as someone who writes on a blog, it is difficult to know how much of yourself to give away. Once you get your words down, they are out there, available for judgement and comment. This can be a scary prospect, especially as a commenter’s anonymity makes for good protection. Message boards are an excellent indicator of how feedback can get out of hand. I was tempted, recently, to sign up to a teachers’ discussion forum until I noticed threads where grown adults (teachers, I should remind you, as well) were hurling insults at each other for petty grievances, ganging up against others and shouting down anything they didn’t agree with. Did I mention they were teachers? Actually, now I think about it, that might explain a lot.

However, writing a blog can be a useful process. It can act a means of practising and honing your skills as well as providing a way to express ideas. It can also become a source of income or a rallying point for important issues.

For others, it is the only way to cope with a situation. An amazing case in point is http://tarquinchronicles.wordpress.com/. If you haven’t already heard about Justine Barrett, I suggest you look her up. Her blog is about Tarquin, a tumour doctors recently discovered in her brain and how she is dealing with the diagnosis and forthcoming operations. If you take the time to read it, her writing is full of honesty, small tragedies and dark humour. A great example of the latter is Justine having to explain to a nurse that the nurse’s gesticulations towards an eye chart will not help her locate it, as she is now blind in her right eye.

Reading blogs like this make me realise how lucky we are to have such a tool in order to cope with the various shit life throws at us instead of simply keeping it all inside and “getting on with it”, a process few find productive in the end. Justine Barrett’s blog has provided her with many positive reactions and support; it provides the reader with a bit of inspiration in maintaining resolve and humour in the face of horrendous situations.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that there are different rules for those that already exist in the public eye. Today, for example, was one of those days when I had to ask, “What were you thinking?” Andrew Cohen, who appears as a contributing essayist on CBS News, wrote a column, published online last week, in which he thanks and extols the virtues of the love of his life, who was sadly getting married that day to someone else. In it, he praises how she put up with him and made him a better person. It can be found here: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/24/on-her-wedding-day-saying-the-things-left-unsaid/. Now, on paper, that sounds like a sweet thing, but this was dedicated to her. On her wedding day. It has to be questioned just how appropriate this is, especially if it is presented as a gift. As Cohen said: “The present I humbly send her today is this column; this public note, this irrevocable display of affection and support and gratitude; this worldly absolution from any guilt or sadness she felt between the time she said no to me and the time she said yes to him.”

Another contributor took umbrage with this and Lizzie Skurnick posted a reply to his column: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/26/how-not-to-congratulate-your-ex-on-her-wedding-day/. In it, she points out that only congratulating your ex on how she did things that made you better as opposed to, say, mentioning some details about her, gave the impression that Cohen’s open letter was somewhat self-serving. She mentioned many other problems with his column, but I shall let you read that for yourself.

It poses a tricky question – how personal should you get? If people write blogs or columns to get things off their chests, this is a healthy thing to do. It can be entertaining and helpful, as well as perhaps reaching out and touching the lives of readers. The Chronicles of Tarquin is obviously a great example of this.

Andrew Cohen’s column is the perfect example of what should not be done. For one, it’s a column, not a blog post. This usually means national or even mild awareness of who you are, so you threaten exposing yourself, removing even more of what little privacy you still have. In this day and age of media intrusion, it seems odd for a public figure to willingly hand another piece of himself to the world. However, expressing thoughts and feelings is not a taboo. Columnists rail against their hates and proclaim their passions, daily, online and in print. That’s their job.

Unfortunately, I take the view that a person with a very public profile spilling out feelings of unrequited love is stepping a little over the line, especially when it’s essentially the online equivalent of running into a church and saying, “I object!” That is too much information to come from a public figure, even when he may have meant well. “Meaning well” is not protection from the power of your words. I’m sure Kanye meant well when he stuck up for Beyonce, but I bet he did not envisage having to grovel for forgiveness on the Jay Leno show whilst Leno asked Kanye what his late mother would think of such behaviour.

I also wonder how the love of his life would feel reading it. Would she take comfort in Cohen listing how she improved his life, or would she take offence that he was a) congratulating her on being a woman who does not focus on her career and b) granting her permission to be happy?

We can gain so much from being ourselves online. In it, we can find a freedom that can spill over into our real lives. We can discuss problems and find solace; we can share and communicate faster and better than ever before.

However, I’m still not certain if people in the public eye can afford to take such a risk when it comes to what they can divulge. If a celebrity is battling with a problem or trying to raise awareness, his or her revealing their true feelings on a blog or column can be a very positive thing. Those in the public eye have many things to consider, however. Though I agree with Mr Dixon’s sentiments about Scientology, what if he had been talking about Christianity, Judaism or Islam? It would have been a matter of resignation. It seems naïve of Mr Dixon to forget that, as a public figure, people are waiting for you to slip up and make a scandal out of it.

Most importantly, however, if a public figure is online to tell an old love and the world that she should feel free to move on with her life and thanks for everything, perhaps a toaster would be a better choice of present than a column on a heavily viewed newspaper site.

Addicts of the Modern Age

After reading Ian’s recent post about Foursquare, I was forced to confront some troubling realisations that I’ve been having lately. No one likes realisations – they’re Inspiration’s inbred cousin, sat in the corner of the room as people try to ignore them and enjoy Eastenders instead.

Anway, a few years ago, I was sat down in an afternoon class, being taught how to be a teacher, whilst I stabbed pens into my hand to remain awake after an excessively carbohydrate-laden lunch. It was a very good class, I might add, and it was my own fault for feeling sleepy: I had eaten more chips that afternoon than can safely be imagined without feeling a little bit ill.

Anyway, I remember perking up when the teacher started talking about digital immigrants and digital natives. This is the idea that new technology is something adults struggle to learn and use whilst, to students, it is simply innate: they grow up with it and so do not see it as new or scary.

Someone asked how old digital immigrants were.  ”Over 25″ was the answer. I was as pleased as punch at that, being the lithe and svelte 23/24 year old that I was at the time (I was never lithe or svetle; I have never been even mildly fluid). My pride at being a digital native was well-founded after it was  later  discovered during class discussion that I was the only person who knew what a blog was short for, or even what it was, or had one.

Up to a few days ago, I was under the impression that I still was a digital native. However, it appears I have evolved into something else.

Let me set out my credentials. I text,  Facebook, Twitter and use nouns as verbs  like crazy. I have my mobile phone set to receive updates so every now and again I can read what my friends are up to. I surf the internet from my phone, scrolling through links to Twitpics or news stories, hash-tagging ironically as I go #obviously. I have four different email addresses and use one purely as a spam shield (i.e. if I think typing in my email address to a website competition will result in spam for penis enlargement ads – which websites, you ask? – I use that one). I listen to music digitally and only use CDs as a last resort. I am up to date on trending memes and know what DRATW is all about and also know that, by this time next week, no one will have a fucking clue what DRATW is. I read webcomics instead of newspaper ones and, for comments on the gaming industry and game reviews, I sit back and enjoy some bitching from the legendary online reviewer, Yahtzee. I very rarely watch television – I access iPlayers and On Demand internet sites through my PS3 instead.

In summary, I am your average, plugged in, technology-aware young adult. These things are an everyday part of life.

Oddly, I used to be a technophobe. For example,  Sat Navs were and are still beyond me. This is how my last excursion with a Sat Nav went: Do I come off at this exit, or that one? Where’s the car gone? WHERE’S THE FUCKING CAR GONE?! Hang on, why is it recalculating?! No, I don’t want to go to Basildon High Street – I’m meant to be at Basildon Hospital! Right, I’m turning you off and on again, you fucker. Pin code, ok…no, oh no no no, don’t lock me out, you, you…BASTARD!

Hardly unusual to see people threatening to throw Sat Navs out of their car on the A12, I hear you say. That is very true and, apart from the map machines of Satan, I’ve adapted well to most of the technological features of daily life. However, I’m beginning to get a bit…overwhelmed – unable to cope, in fact. For one, my phone is a constant link to the world and this bombardment of information can be a bit too absorbing. Whereas before, I could leave a message and expect someone to get back to me after work, I’m now wondering why they haven’t responded to my emails, Facebook pokes, tweets or two page texts. Because, ultimately, I really need to know right this very minute if this particular red dress would suit me (I’ll send an attachment later).

I started to notice a problem when I would check my phone every half hour for my Twitter and Facebook page, or just to idly browse for news and emails. Perhaps that’s just the nature of having nothing else to do, or the nature of my brain not being bothered to actually engage with the world around it.

Then the other day I left my mobile phone at home and the internet fluctuated on and off at work. I cannot begin to tell you the crushing anxiety I felt. Who might have called me? Am I missing an important text? What news am I missing out on? How will I find the resources I need without the web? Oh God, what if my manager’s sent me an important email?

I’d just like to pause here a moment to point out some things: my manager works in an office across the very narrow corridor from my office. It’s maybe 25 steps, maximum. Hardly an epic journey to make in order to ease my concern; we are not talking Lord of the Rings, here.

Secondly, I managed to get the resources for my class sorted without having to print things from the internet. Did they work, you ask? I wish I could take a photo of their bewildered and despairing faces for you, I really do. Let’s just say that my shouting, “She’s got a stomach tumour!” at the TV during the “What happens next? You decide!” BT advert was not the worst thing I’ve done this week.

Lastly, no one had texted me when I finally got home to my phone. The only messages on there were Twitter updates. Oh, and Orange had texted me to ask if I wanted a credit card because God knows increased credit card debt is the key to our financial recovery.

I think there’s a difference between being a digital native and being an information addict. I believe I have become the latter. I’m certainly not a tech geek, that’s for sure. I just spent 45 minutes trying to work out how to put an image on my comments and was met by a barrage of computer code so complicated it nearly blinded me. I have still not managed to load an image, only giving up when I started to weep softly.

What really concerns me is how little I think about the information I absorb, these days, or how I cope without it. Maybe it’s the fact I now skim and scan much more than I used to in order to cram in as much information as possible. The easy access to these fact snippets encourages a person to dip in and out of important issues without really contemplating what’s just been found out. Analysis is, to a great extent, thrown out of the window and is instead replaced with knee-jerk reactions. If anyone wants a good example of not thinking things through properly, look at the Raoul Moat fan group on Facebook. I doubt very much that the creator of the group really took the time to examine the possible reactions or consequences, or how it would affect the families of the injured police officer and the murdered boyfriend. Then again, she may just be a very stupid person.

In any case, there is no substitute for this addiction to “must know NOW”- there is no methadrone equivalent for instant access information. The only solution is to gradually wean myself off it, like I did with cigarettes. Apart from the occasional slip, I’ve done quite well against cigarettes; everyone knows cigarettes smoked at parties don’t count, anyway.

So, I have decided to make a stand. I will turn off my Twitter and Facebook updates. I will start leaving my phone at home unless I really, really need it. I will stop wanting a shiny iPad just because it’s shiny. I will try to absorb information in a more meaningful and evenly spaced out way. Starting from next week.

Probably. Maybe. Well, maybe just one more article from BBC News…

Please stalk me

First there was Compuserve and Altvasita – sites for neatly categorising the Web’s early emerging content; then came the dominant force of Google. Some time later, “Web 2.0″ arrived – facilitating interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. In essence Web 2.0 constitutes anything from Blogger.com, to Flickr and its definition also extends to the more recent advent of social networking in the form of services like Facebook, Twitter and Bebo.

It is this form of Web collaboration that has taken the world by storm in recent years. Putting sharp perspective on just how much things have grown, the Metro newspaper reported yesterday that Facebook is subscribed to by nearly half of the UK population. The interest is forever high and forever growing. Users share millions of pieces of personal information in the form of text, video and audio, and whilst the visibility of user information that flows through Facebook’s pages can be restricted through a variety of (complicated) privacy settings that even the likes of Bill Gates would struggle to comprehend, users of the site are increasingly opting instead to open the doors on their personal lives; sometimes knowingly, but more often than not without in fact realising they’re doing so.

More recently, a new contender has stepped into the social networking ring: Foursquare.com. Foursquare is a “geo-location” service. It aims to connect users through geographical data; this not only includes physical global positioning, but information users provide on anything they find at any given location, be that a restaurant review or details of what dodgy alley ways to avoid after dark. The result is obviously a rich tapestry of information which subscribed members can make certain use of. You want to know where Uncle Jonny is today? Simple, jump onto Foursquare and there he is, sitting outside Hyde Park Corner tube station. Daddy’s late home from work and you want to know why? Log on to Foursquare to spot him at his secretary’s house again. The power of this application is undoubtedly phenomenal. Being able to track and be trackable wherever you are in the world has its obvious advantages and with the site recently hitting the milestone of 2 million members, it’s quite clear that people are more than willing to divulge their whereabouts to the world wide web. But at what cost?

The Guardian newspaper today took us on a stalker’s journey (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/23/foursquare). Using Foursquare, one of their reporters was able to quickly track and meet with a lady by the name of Louise within a matter of minutes. The ease at which the information was acquired and then made use of is quite an eye opener and a big warning to those of us keen enough to share with the world our wearabouts to maybe take a second thought or three before doing so.

I’d like to ask the question though – is all this personal information over-share really so bad?

I remember reading a year or so ago, that the days of privacy are dead and, if we want to get by in this world, then we must embrace the openness. I was reading an article at the time which voiced the concerns of residents of a local community on what they deemed as the unfair and over the top use of video surveillance technology. They were fed up, they said, with being watched.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, I read, people are installing cameras in their home for the sheer fun of it. The “enjoyment” of being watched is something more or less pioneered by the likes of programs like Big Brother and it is a reality that people are fond of the idea. Some people have gone so far as to claim that within fifty years we will all be enjoying the delights of being constantly filmed at home.

Sound crazy? Well we’re not that far from it already, when you think about it. How many of us get a kick out of telling the world what we had for breakfast this morning? Answer: a lot of us. So imagine the world watching what we have for breakfast instead. It’s really not that inconceivable, is it?

But back to my question: is all of this openness and invasion of privacy so bad? I think the answer to this is it is of course both good and bad. Good in the sense that we have a more open, transparent existence, bad in the sense that you may well be three clicks away from finding out I’m at the local sex shop. The pros and cons are clear.

But it is also inevitable. As people continue to jump on board with things like Twitter, things like Facebook, things like Foursquare, they go one of two ways: they either love it and stick around, or hate it, leave but never completely forget. The idea is planted and the appeal of the thing is eventually replaced by necessity. “You don’t have a Facebook? Are you mad, how can you possibly keep up to date with people!” It has become the norm to have these tools at our disposal and to fully embrace them without fear of ridicule.

Something like Foursquare pushes this to a new level. At first the idea seems ridiculous, overly invasive with no concern for privacy. Exactly right. But on the other hand, forget all that, embrace it and pretty soon you won’t be able to live without its benefits. And you think you won’t? Just give it a year or two.