There’s a bit of a delicious irony that I found out about Rachel Hills’ op/ed in The Age about social networking sites because I’m her friend on Facebook. Anyway, go and read it - it’s a fine piece and it’s refreshing to see something about new media in the MSM that doesn’t recite all the usual cliches. Maybe that’s partly a function of having someone who’s actually a user of social media write about it?
Elsewhere: An interesting take on Facebook from the always interesting apophenia.
PS: LP has a Facebook presence.
Two things of note:
1:) Amazing!: a piece on 2.0 in Australia’s MSM that doesn’t mention Kevin Rudd. His e-campaigning efforts seem to have dropped the e-penny for the “Pro” scribbler cabal. In fairness, I should mention Joe Hildebrand’s pisstake: “In my experience there are only two types of columnists who write about Facebook: Washed up hacks who have run out of ideas and …”
2:) Rachel’s piece gives currency to the meme sin qua non of 21C social science, “googleable”. That ever-fascinating facility Wordspy suggests the earliest citation for it is in a newsgroup ( 2.0 is new? yeh, right ) post of 2001 musing the still, (perhaps even-more-so), pertinent question “How much does “Googleability” correlate with cultural literacy?”, except I’d replace “correlate with” with “substitute for”.- on the internet, everyone can be an instant expert.
Aside, from same source: “(In US) Googleability is now a primary baby-naming requirement which means that parents want names for their children which will work well for web searches: an unusual name that might figure among the first top 10 search results”.
and then there’s this…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/aug/13/internet
FaceBook source code has been leaked so hackers may use this information to extract people’s information without their knowledge or permission.
Interesting article. This, however, is serious bollocks…
Especially if you are a political blogger…unless you want to end up being pilloried and slandered on sites like Tim B’liar and Slanderyou…or even fired from your job!
These days it is only the very unstable and insecure who adopt false identities online.
That struck me as nonsense too - written by someone who I’d guess doesn’t have children and doesn’t work in the mainstream.
Tim Blair slanders people? That’s a new one. I think you overexaggerate to make your case, Chav. There is a large amount of slander and needless abuse online (it’s not as bad as actual physical abuse, at least). Most of the political bloggers I can think of offhand I know by name. It’s easy to see through a lot of the vilification and abuse that arises from blogging - one reason being there are so many armchair pundits out there willing to comment on a blog, point out mistakes and failures, and criticise, if need be.
I’ll read that article a bit later.
I think in the context, Rachel is talking about social networking sites not blogs. Both Facebook and LinkedIn are designed to work best for people who use their real life identities as they’re tied to university and professional experience respectively - and have as one of their main purposes either maintaining or reviving networks first formed offline.
Chav:
TimT:
That’s not exactly what was said, was it? It’s hard to deny that commenters on both sites wander into slander territory very regularly.
I’d much prefer this discussion to focus on social networking sites - the topic of Rachel’s article, after all - rather than get diverted into a discussion of other blogs. She’s actually making some interesting and relatively novel points, whereas the “Blair commenters are mean” and “Landeryou slanders people” discussions have surely been done to death.
Fair enough Mark - my apologies.
Mark,you should be magnanimous toward tig tog. Tig tog has been almost immediately submissive.
Tig tog: good girl!
There’s no need to describe this interaction in those terms, paul, which strike me as being rather condescending. Similarly, there’s no need for apologies from tigtog or anyone else. I’d just prefer it if people took the time to read the whole article rather than focussing on one bit that may be relevant to political bloggers. If I’d wanted to highlight that aspect in the post, I would have.
Fair enough Mark- my apologies.
I was more interested in Chav’s argument that anonymity/pseudonyms on the internet are still a necessary protection in the context of the online environment - and how references to timblair.net were used to back this up. My comment was a little poorly worded, anyway, and I take your point Mark: it may have been wiser to leave that out altogether.
Rachel’s argument here would seem to be pertinent:
And for now, in a culture fixated on drawing out the most inconsequential, out-of-context remarks and information and holding them up as if they indicate some greater truth about the person who made them, it pays to be careful about what you put out for public consumption.
Former Liberal candidate for the seat of Maribyrnong Hamish Jones would do well to reflect on this! His comments of course were not so inconsequential, but they are now being held up ‘as if they indicate some greater truth about the person who made them’, when in fact I’m sure harsher things are said behind doors by politicians of every stripe, all the time.
His comments of course were not so inconsequential, but they are now being held up ‘as if they indicate some greater truth about the person who made them’, when in fact I’m sure harsher things are said behind doors by politicians of every stripe, all the time.
I’m thinking of working up a post on this… I think people miss the point. Whether it’s on Facebook, blogs or whatever, how you come across is how you come across; the difference is now that your written output is more accessible, like conversation, able to be “overheard”.
To point to any one of Jones’ trivial outbursts and say that it is, indeed, too trivial to deny him a career as an MP is only telling half the story. The fact is that we take a person in totality. Amanda Marcotte may get sweary, but in fact, we know she is a thoughtful person who works through various complex issues in a civil and intelligent manner. Jones, on the other hand, comes across as a very, very callow undergraduate, so we know he is just too undercooked to be a good MP. Not necessarily a bad person - just not right for the job, like someone who fails to impress in a job interview.
Very well put, Helen.
I’ll cut Hamish some slack because he’s young and has obviously spent way too much time in the Young Libs, but he has revealed himself to be who is at this point in his life.
I’d be interested to see such a post, Helen, and I do see where you’re coming from.
Mark,
Do you accept friends on facebook who seem to (or actually do) spend more time disagreeing with you than agreeing with you?
.
On the “real name” debate - in my case I have used a real name for a long time, even though I have children and work in the mainstream. I do this because I feel I always should be able to stand behind what I say - but as a result I always have to be fairly moderate. The result is that I rarely get banned or moderated, but I have to keep it reasonably bland.
Sometimes I would like a sock-puppet alter-ego, but I feel that puppet would get banned fairly quickly.
If my friends always agreed with me, life would be boring, Andrew. I’ve always had friends with different opinions and different politics from mine.
Same for me, Mark - but a LP facebook friend may not be the same as a friend off the net. Just ask JWH and some other pollies with mySpace / facebook presences.
Nevertheless - I will join as I enjoy LP, even if we disagree.
I should say that if I only had friends that always agreed with me I would be down to my teddy bear - and even he is a bit socialist at times.
Yes, Andrew, but there’s more of a connection between us than there is between Kevin07 and his Facebook friends - we chat to each other! I see Facebook friends as sort of like concentric circles - the ones in the middle are real life friends, but the ones on the ring are still people that I’ve had some sort of contact with - if only because they read what I write. And in many instances, I’m interested in getting to know them better.
Facebook already has two fake Paul Keatings the “Wayne Swan” that’s on it doesn’t seem remotely authentic when you read his actual profile.
As a right of reply to Chav, we have not “Slandered” anyone. Rather, its called setting nthe record very straight!
As an aside, we also have a facebook profile. Cheers
And if I’m right, it’s not a very ethical one as it purports to be Landeryou’s. If you think his activities are objectionable, it seems to me you do your argument no good if you respond in kind.