OK, perhaps I was a bit critical in my recent post about oversharing on Twitter and obviously not everyone who positions himself as an online curator is as bad as I pointed out. In fact, isn't everyone who retweets interesting stuff and posts links carrying out some form of curation?
(In that case, that makes nearly everyone on Twitter an online curator of content in some way).
The altruism of online sharing is a concept I'm looking to further explore as I try to understand more about its impact and viral nature. To me it is still a mystery why are certain things far more "sharable" than others and the idea that there is a magical viral formula that brands can tap into this to try to reach their influencers and customers is not something that rests easily with me.
I sometimes find sharing hard work. It is not all the time that I remember to pass-on what I find... perhaps because I'm too busy trying to absorb what I have learnt.
However, when I do share things and this gets passed around the Internet... there is a certain amount of pleasure I get from knowing that I have also helped someone on their knowledge journey.
Perhaps its this joy we need to preserve and increase (and perhaps its why the top online curators seem to enjoy what they do so much).
Showing posts with label viral. Show all posts
Showing posts with label viral. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Making sense of Wikileaks and what it means for Government
Two very different men spent much of December in prison. What links these two is not just their incarceration (by Chinese and the UK courts) but because they have, in their own way, been accused of challenging the power of the state.
Liu Xiaobo is the spokesperson for political reforms in China, a campaigner for human rights including the freedom of speech and of the press. He recently won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his long and non-violent struggle despite being held as a political prisoner in the People’s Republic.
Julian Assange is the figurehead for Wikileaks, a website that has recently released more than 250,000 diplomatic cables (internal emails) that have embarrassed and angered the US Government. He spent much of December pacing around a small stone room in Wandsworth prison.
Both men are heads of movements that some say subvert the very fabric that is needed to hold governments and society together. Others say these men stand as the standard-bearers of the one thing Governments can no longer hold onto... information.
Viruses such as colds (or something nastier) are usually spread by humans coming into contact or near contact with other humans. Typically the bigger the population, the more and faster the virus is spread.
Information can therefore be seen as having the same properties as a virus, a pretty virulent one! It used to just utilise humans as hosts, but with each successive technology from books onwards it can infect more people, more efficiently and more effectively. Once man could write down and copy information, it could be given to others, and now with the Internet and the social media technologies that sit upon it, information can be spread globally, instantly.
The speed and scale of information transference now creates big problems for those organisations who want to restrict it, typically Governments. Huge amounts of data can now be copied onto media the size of a fingernail or transferred at megabit speed. Secrets that would previously be accessed by a handful of individuals are no longer secret for very long if that system can allow the replication of the information virus (e.g. by having it collected to the Internet or by allowing any form of electronic copying from it). For example: The recently leaked cables of Wikileaks were apparently taken off a computer that allowed compact discs to be updated, which meant a single disgruntled American security operative could copy the information to his Lady Gaga CD!
So what do Governments do about this? Well, I think they have three options;
1. Continue to do what they have been doing so far (ongoing treatment). This means they do nothing drastic and carry on trying to lock down access and copying ability of computers that have access to secret information. However, given the viral nature of information, this will no-doubt mean there will be further breaches in the future. Just like trying to prevent the common cold, this situation becomes futile and acceptance of the situation results in regular infection. It’s also likely that reoccurrence of the situation will result in the eroding of trust in Western Governments and those they work with.
2. Be heavy-handed about data breaches (quarantine). Although Julian Assange’s stint in prison is not as a direct result of his Wikileaks activity (he’s accused of sexual offences in Sweden), only a few would doubt that there aren’t forces at work behind the scenes to try and get him to a court in the USA for ‘Cablegate’. However, it is possible for America and others to adopt a more zero-tolerance approach to those who compromise their information security boundaries. After all, it has had a stricter approach to terrorism (Guantanamo Bay anyone?) than it does for other crimes (the courts, right to legal counsel, etc.). However, adopting more Chinese-type approaches has huge potential human rights consequences and is definitely not the activity of a modern and progressive Government.
3. Understand and adapt (look for a cure). This is not the 1900’s, it’s the Information Age. Wikileaks may have caused an example to have been made of Mr Assange (especially if he does get carted-off to the USA to face trial), but also gives the ideal opportunity for self-reflection about the storage, treatment and classification of what exactly should be considered secret in a digital world.
The openness and transparency of the ‘modern always-connected’ organisation is a reality that companies and brands have had to accept in recent times. Is it not the time for our Governments to do the same?
Hopefully, before evryone goes Gaga!
Liu Xiaobo is the spokesperson for political reforms in China, a campaigner for human rights including the freedom of speech and of the press. He recently won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his long and non-violent struggle despite being held as a political prisoner in the People’s Republic.
Julian Assange is the figurehead for Wikileaks, a website that has recently released more than 250,000 diplomatic cables (internal emails) that have embarrassed and angered the US Government. He spent much of December pacing around a small stone room in Wandsworth prison.
Both men are heads of movements that some say subvert the very fabric that is needed to hold governments and society together. Others say these men stand as the standard-bearers of the one thing Governments can no longer hold onto... information.
Viruses such as colds (or something nastier) are usually spread by humans coming into contact or near contact with other humans. Typically the bigger the population, the more and faster the virus is spread.
Information can therefore be seen as having the same properties as a virus, a pretty virulent one! It used to just utilise humans as hosts, but with each successive technology from books onwards it can infect more people, more efficiently and more effectively. Once man could write down and copy information, it could be given to others, and now with the Internet and the social media technologies that sit upon it, information can be spread globally, instantly.
The speed and scale of information transference now creates big problems for those organisations who want to restrict it, typically Governments. Huge amounts of data can now be copied onto media the size of a fingernail or transferred at megabit speed. Secrets that would previously be accessed by a handful of individuals are no longer secret for very long if that system can allow the replication of the information virus (e.g. by having it collected to the Internet or by allowing any form of electronic copying from it). For example: The recently leaked cables of Wikileaks were apparently taken off a computer that allowed compact discs to be updated, which meant a single disgruntled American security operative could copy the information to his Lady Gaga CD!
So what do Governments do about this? Well, I think they have three options;
1. Continue to do what they have been doing so far (ongoing treatment). This means they do nothing drastic and carry on trying to lock down access and copying ability of computers that have access to secret information. However, given the viral nature of information, this will no-doubt mean there will be further breaches in the future. Just like trying to prevent the common cold, this situation becomes futile and acceptance of the situation results in regular infection. It’s also likely that reoccurrence of the situation will result in the eroding of trust in Western Governments and those they work with.
2. Be heavy-handed about data breaches (quarantine). Although Julian Assange’s stint in prison is not as a direct result of his Wikileaks activity (he’s accused of sexual offences in Sweden), only a few would doubt that there aren’t forces at work behind the scenes to try and get him to a court in the USA for ‘Cablegate’. However, it is possible for America and others to adopt a more zero-tolerance approach to those who compromise their information security boundaries. After all, it has had a stricter approach to terrorism (Guantanamo Bay anyone?) than it does for other crimes (the courts, right to legal counsel, etc.). However, adopting more Chinese-type approaches has huge potential human rights consequences and is definitely not the activity of a modern and progressive Government.
3. Understand and adapt (look for a cure). This is not the 1900’s, it’s the Information Age. Wikileaks may have caused an example to have been made of Mr Assange (especially if he does get carted-off to the USA to face trial), but also gives the ideal opportunity for self-reflection about the storage, treatment and classification of what exactly should be considered secret in a digital world.
The openness and transparency of the ‘modern always-connected’ organisation is a reality that companies and brands have had to accept in recent times. Is it not the time for our Governments to do the same?
Hopefully, before evryone goes Gaga!
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Viral feedback
I've read and re-read the article 'The Age of Viral Feedback' by Umair Haque at Harvard Business.
Here he asks how companies are feeding the system to generate the correct feedback in today's modern connected world.
My thoughts are that a lot of companies still haven't learnt to listen yet, let alone deal with the feedback. What do I mean by this? Well a lot of them are still living by the 20th Century method of communication (e.g. focus on the message and ignore the feedback, hoping that the signal-to-noise ration you can generate is greater than those who are complaining).
But this works less and less in a world where news isn't just around until people eat their chips*, it now stays out in the public domain far longer! Today (negative & positve) feedback can have a greater and longer-lasting effect of the brand and finances of an organisation than ever before. Blogs stay written, reviews link to products for their lifetime and customer support forums keep the postings of their members far longer than the problem persists.
So, has feedback (or links from feedback) become the longer lasting currency of the new economy?
*This is a reference to when people used to eat their fish & chips off of newspaper, before they started printing them with water-soluble inks. However, I'm sure the inks back then used toxic substances, but it doesn't seem to have done anyone any harm right?
Here he asks how companies are feeding the system to generate the correct feedback in today's modern connected world.
So here's a fundamental question every decision-maker should ask: what are you feeding feedback with? The same old toxic industrial era junk? Or stuff that makes people, communities, and society better? Are you feeding viral effects with stuff that enriches, or stuff that impoverishes?
My thoughts are that a lot of companies still haven't learnt to listen yet, let alone deal with the feedback. What do I mean by this? Well a lot of them are still living by the 20th Century method of communication (e.g. focus on the message and ignore the feedback, hoping that the signal-to-noise ration you can generate is greater than those who are complaining).
But this works less and less in a world where news isn't just around until people eat their chips*, it now stays out in the public domain far longer! Today (negative & positve) feedback can have a greater and longer-lasting effect of the brand and finances of an organisation than ever before. Blogs stay written, reviews link to products for their lifetime and customer support forums keep the postings of their members far longer than the problem persists.
So, has feedback (or links from feedback) become the longer lasting currency of the new economy?
*This is a reference to when people used to eat their fish & chips off of newspaper, before they started printing them with water-soluble inks. However, I'm sure the inks back then used toxic substances, but it doesn't seem to have done anyone any harm right?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
T-Mobile and the buzz
Those who are not from these shores ("what shores?" I hear you ask, "a pint please" is my reply), will not have seen the flash-mob-dancers of the T-Mobile TV advert that is costing the mobile telco a fortune right now.
If you haven't seen it (or if T-Mobile haven't already copied the format to another country), take a look here:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ3d3KigPQM
So? What makes this campaign so interesting? Well its getting a lot of very positive mentions online, e.g. on Twitter:
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=t-mobile+advert
There's even a YouTube tutorial video of how to do the dance:
If you haven't seen it (or if T-Mobile haven't already copied the format to another country), take a look here:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ3d3KigPQM
So? What makes this campaign so interesting? Well its getting a lot of very positive mentions online, e.g. on Twitter:
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=t-mobile+advert
There's even a YouTube tutorial video of how to do the dance:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)