Lets focus on the problems
It seems to me that the Social media forum is consisting of only biased "happy" thoughts. promotion and no intention what-so-ever of considering /raising problems.
I would suggest less technology-push by the religious and more society perspective.
For instance:
- Commercial profiling of children
- Political profiling by commmerical entities
- Market distortion
- Security problems from concentration of unsecure data
- Geopolitical implications of citizens and companies made transparant to a few large players
- Filter bobles or ghettofication of opinion making
- Percepetion influencing through assiociation manipulation (individual spin)
- Fraud due to easy targetting
- Inside market knowledge
Etc.
Also where are the discussion of alternatives / nuancing?
- Peer - to - peer structures
- Empowerment vs. Surveillance, i.e. non-identification
Without problem understanding, we cannot make successfull strategy. On the contrary, we end up doing more of what caused the problems.
Group audience:
Comments
"- Filter bobles or
"- Filter bobles or ghettofication of opionion making"
Both a challenge and an opportunity. Communities bring forth in-group bias and polarization, the own community and group is being valued over other groups/communities and opinions are more and more towards a collectivist view than a personal one (tendency to move towards the extreme (group) opinions). Counter opinions are usually being devaluated.
The opportunity is that via this, more demonstrations etc could come alive (think of Occupy movement which is fueled by online) to truely let hear their voice to the outside world.
You would get the same
You would get the same positive effect with Empowered social networks - only better as more diversity would be expressed and "devils advocate" could be taken as an isolate role.
I always do so when debating political issues, because I see my political understanding and education as totally separate from my work. I need insight and enjoy getting than in debate with the best brains - they are just not on Facebook and would never go there.
"they are just not on
"they are just not on Facebook and would never go there" - require more nuance in order not to appear arrogant.
I am not saying that only stupid people are on Facebook. I am saying that in my non-scientifically validated experience, Facebook is is not the place where significant discussions or opinions are expressed.
Even if you at some point in time, e.g. at school was peer-pressured to create a profile on Facebook, concious people, I know of, are very selective what they put up for Facebook commercial reselling and getting even more so.
In my view, the best thing that could happen for Empowerment was Facebook getting floated at such an obscene pricing - they will kill themselves trying to live up to expectations.
Question is only if Europe will respond in time to realise that the european economy is the hunting ground for their growing desparation underminering european competitiveness.
Judging from Digital Agenda, the political system is some 5-10 years behind in their learning process. They are jumpin in at the top and thereby falling the longest at it rides to the bottom.
Seen it before - it is the defining characteristics of Central Command & Control only listening to the mob but unable to see the signals.
You use the "Occupy Movement" as a postive example? For what? I saw a mob with no coherent purpose expressing dis-content without knowing or agreeing on neither problem nor solution.
You think that Greek demonstrations are much better? you have a left party that promise to employ more people in the public sector if their get voted in - it is a voting bribe without reality as they have absolutely no way of financing their agenda. But they get a large number of emotional "no" which are in reality just frustations expresed in protest.
>> I am not saying that only
>> I am not saying that only stupid people are on Facebook. I am saying that in my non-scientifically validated experience, Facebook is is not the place where significant discussions or opinions are expressed.
There are many people that do some "scientific" research on this (for an example: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/results.html ), with even its new methods of "doing science" (cf. for instance computational social science).
Having said that this is still a very recent area of research, with many unanswered questions.
What I am worry is that we leave the floor only to the "self-proclaimed" expert, and the salesmen.
Note that I consider that salesmen can have a positive contribution (if we except the "snake oil" vendors), but that they should not set the tone. What is important is that we find some way to have the different stakeholders involved, for the common benefit of all.
>> You use the "Occupy Movement" as a postive example? For what?
>> You think that Greek demonstrations are much better?
Indeed some of the questions we should ask, and more generally, beyond the "smoke" are we really generating value for the society, and can we improve this?
Indeed, a key problem is that
Indeed, a key problem is that the lack of scientific knowledge and proliferation is leaving the floor to lobbyists and "self-proclaimed experts" (as you call them).
My concern is that this is exactly what is driving policies and have been doing so almost since the emergence of Internet as a disruption, we havent yet digested and adabted to.
Your example "computational social science" is in my view a fine example of not seeing the forrest for all the trees.
I did a Keynote on IFIPTM'08 on the topic as I see social scientist focussing at lot on "all the data" but due to complexities failling to connect the dots.
As a simple example - show me the social scientist in social media that also incorporate e.g. the macroeconomic cost of huge numbers of europeans vasting hours at work on "social chitchat" through an endless stram of triggers to steal attention or the economic concept of "Fruntrunning", ie. how to profit from a position of superior market knowledge.
What we do see is Hurrah - "Europe is No 1 on Facebook" and "A key part of our strategy proposal is for businesses to capture the opportunity to engage with the largest population on Facebook, develop a better customer experience, be closer to the market and gain from incremental business."
Who's interests is speaking? The providers and promoters of the "socially promiscous" approach to social media driven or scientific society as in promoting democracy and market?
From a Strategist perspective, Europe is selling is out onb all fundamentals and being "happy" about it. The alarms are all over the place. But not even when the Alarm signals "shout" does anyone react accordingly:
See e.g. Commerce on Amazon Fruntrunning where SMEs in order to access markets have to give Amazon full insight through the control of check-out.
http://daa.ec.europa.eu/content/de-facto-trustmark-amazon-or-ebay-fair
or this on Google Frontrunning which is even worse
http://www.googleopoly.net/FTC-Google%20Antitrust%20Primer.pdf
You cannot solve this through regulatory "consent", social abstract "trust" or economically the "price of personal data" - it is lip service adressing symptoms actually worsening the situation instead of root cause analysis considering ways to solve the serious problems.
I see a process that has hardly begun to ask the critical questions before jumping to conclusions.
How can we even begin to imagine a world where citizens and companies are made transparant to a few super-powerfull players can evolving in the interest of citizens?
And here the "paranoid" data retention and unsecure payments become primary problems because it is dictating a society without security (data or other).
Europe has, in my view for almost two decades, been commiting economic suicide, but even Digital Agenda is not even beginning to ask the hard questions.
I guess we are just learning.
I guess we are just learning.
What appear important is that the different voices, and in particular the "devils advocate", can express, so that they contribute to the transformation of our vision of the world, and not the perpetuation of old beliefs.
Concerning Facebook and Twitter, let's not exaggerate or underestimate its value. It is very useful for facilitating the circulation of ideas, which is already useful.
>> they are just not on Facebook and would never go there.
I know very bright brains that are on Twitter.
I do not know who are the "best brains" you are referring to? People on their ivory tower?
This really remind me in the mid nineties all these "brains" that despised Internet. And I believe you will find this kind of behavior in all the history of innovation. And they all have very convincing reasons to support their argumentations and the current common beliefs (that later become obsolete).
Again, do understand me. I am not pretending that Facebook will substitute to the old modes of debate. Just that the space of debate will most likely evolve and that online social networking may have a role. What will be exactly this role, and how will it be important? This is something that is part of the reflection that we are having here.
I am not questioning the
I am not questioning the value of social network - but I am rasing alarms over commercialisation of social processes and the impact on both economics, security and "managing perceptions".
Especially when this is based on citizens and companies made transparant due to near-total lack of infrastructure security.
The problem is not "fear of internet", but that the idea of internet has been replaced by the bureaucratic and commercial dystopia of a central mainframe replacing internet - the "Secure Internet 2" - which we are alreay getting through e.g. eIdentification, IPv6, remote-controlled Internet of Things (e.g. Apple and "trusted computing") and unsecure cloud.
Everyone understanding internet, understand this fundamental problem and threat to society - see e.g.
http://www.worldofends.com/
The unpleasant reality is that EU have made security ileagal and are leading this spiral to the death through a destablishing digital infrastructure allowing the operators the power to control and profit from dis-empowered citizens & companies.
No "consent" or "privacy settings" is ever going to clean-up the mess.
Was that all? The rest is
Was that all? The rest is correct, but just ignored?
There is a danger that
There is a danger that businesses using social media for advertising will just turn people off. Already I stop following people who tweet too often because I don't want to drown in too much trivial, useless information.
I also worry that, even in a
I also worry that, even in a forum like this, the usefulness of contributions may be measured by quantity rather than quality. Just because people have a lot to say doesn't necessarily mean they are worth hearing!