Brave New World

Imagine sitting on your computer, uncovering personal photos, videos, and secrets of other people… tempting?

Well, spokeo.com promotes itself by guaranteeing exactly this.

The Web does not only let emerge new words, as it seems it also gives people ideas for new businesses.
Through a comment of one of my former posts (Does Facebook reflect my reputation?) I became aware of a webpage that offers a detailed “research” on your friends, nearly in real time. It provides the possibility to follow your friends on all of their Internet activities. The user of spokeo.com is asked to provide his Email password, which is used by the server to compare the address book of this particular email address. Those addresses again are used to check out the Internet activities of the friends. The friends, however, will never find out that they were spied on – if friends is still the right expression here.

To learn more about spokeo.com watch this.

To be honest, I find this idea quiet mental and I kind of see some ethical problems here.

First of all, why would someone need to spy on his friends? That would show that this person would have lost any real social contact and the ability to communicate. Besides the fact that status updates and photos in several kinds of social media already reveal a lot about someone. But these updates are made conciously and with the purpose to be seen rather than being spied out secretly.

Additional, wouldn’t this undermine the open and democratic character of Web 2.0?

I guess it just shows again: despite the tempting freedom Web 2.0 seems to offer, it has to be taken with caution. Because the less you expose about yourself, the less can be found.

And when someone really wants to know more about you – there is still something called face-to-face communication…

In March 2009 the Guardian reported about the draft for a new curriculum for primary school. It intends that pupils should be taught on how to use social media tools like Twitter and Weblogs as well as how to use Wikipedia as an information source. The worst on this proposal is that it is not an additional subject rather than a replacement for traditional lessons. It is thought to put less emphasise on science, history and geography.

That does not sound good to me to be honest: although a huge part of our communication might be transferred to the Internet, I do not really see a reason in not knowing where we come from and how the society and the world we live in developed to what it is now.

Would it not be important to have knowledge about other parts of the earth, other cultures and how history unifies and separates countries? Especially regarding the Web, where communication happens all over the world easily and where lots of different culture can be unified in communication.

As a research revealed, one in six children spend more than three hours a day in the Internet and a quarter of five-years old have Internet access in their rooms.

This shows that social media has become a naturally part of our lives, as well for young people. They will use these tools anyway, but they will possibly not teach themselves about history. When teaching them something about the Web, I think it would be much more important to make them sensitive for the risks the Web holds for them. And maybe on how to communicate outside the Web…

On March 28th 2009 at 8.30 the whole globe was mobilised to switch off the lights for an hour. Earth Hour, what the campaign is called takes place every year since the first time in 2007 in Sydney. The campaign is set up by the World Wide Fund for Nature WWF to raise awareness of the environmental issue of global warming.

As a main communication tool to gather all the people and to organise some kind of grassroot activism served several social media. An Earth Hour group was created in Facebook which has 900,131 members, Youtube videos were distributed (amateur as well as professional ones), Twitter was used to distribute the message and several blogs were posted about the campaign.

Using Clay Shirkey words: “It takes a village…”

For this kind of cause the use of social media seems the best way to engage people, especially when taking into account that the campaign took place all over the world. To quote Clay Shirkey again: “A story can go from local to global in a heart beat”. A group of people can be mobilised very quickly for the right kind of cause.

Another advantage of the use of new media in this case is that people were encouraged to tweet or blog about it and upload pictures and videos about their experiences during the actual event. Therefore the basis for the next campaign was already set.

George Marshall regards this campaign as the most mislead one of its kind. He calls it a small, simple act, which is easy to publicise. What is wrong with that?

Well, it might not reduce emission significantly but it raised awareness, especially when important places like the Eiffel Tower in Paris switch off their lights or Coca Cola agreed to switch off their billboard at time square for an hour.

It might be a small and simple act, but through an easy worldwide distribution of the message the main aim of the campaign was reached: creating awareness. And it is an event which not only gathers lots of people but it has promotion opportunities for organisations as well.

This will raise awareness on the one hand for Earth Hour itself and its cause and on the other hand serve as an incentive for the organisation to take part. Again Clay Shirkey: “Without plausible promise, all technology in the world would be nothing more than all the technology in the world”. 

As it is said in the Earth Hour group in Facebook: it’s about joining together and creating a vital conversation about the future of the planet – it’s as simple as a flick of the switch. And nothing more…

Clay Shirkey (2008) Here comes everybody. The power of organizing without orgnaizations London: Penguin Books Ltd.

I just had a discussion with some friends on to what extent potential employers would check out our Facebook profiles or other social media networks we joined before employing us or inviting us for an interview. We weren’t quiet sure to what extent we should “pimp” our profiles before applying for jobs.

As a recent research conducted by talent management consultancy DDI shows, 25% of 1,910 potential employers world – wide and 12% in the UK check out profiles and photos of candidates to get an idea of their personality. At least half of the 25% said they used this information to actual decide whether to invite to an interview or not.

On the one hand I think it’s a good thing to make a selection before actually inviting the people to the interview.

But on the other hand don’t the employers might miss some good potential when judging the person by photos and social network profiles? Lets say there are some pictures showing the applicant having fun on a party, although this person has really good grades and experiences than that just shows some flexibility and organisational skills and the ability to have a balance between private life and profession without letting influence one the other.

And isn’t it all about promoting ones personality in networks anyway? So most of the information on Facebook might just be true to a certain extent, especially when “pimping” the profile. And honestly, if the profile would look too perfect – that can’t be real either…