I occasionally put up stuff which shows the next thing that kids are into online. The last one was The Annoying Orange.
The Duck Song was brought to my attention today by one of my kids who knows all the words. It’s the phenomena of social media via youtube and that viral thing that happens when something takes off. And our kids are in the vanguard.
In the last few months it’s been Smosh. They’re a couple of teenage boys who made a series of inane video clips from their bedrooms which went viral.
Now The Duck Song is the latest thing. Written by a bloke called Bryant Oden, it’s an animated silly song which has had 17.5 million views since about March.
And there’s no agenda. Other than to say that the duck seems very annoying and obscure.
Wouldn’t it be good for some Kiwis to invent the next thing
I think about this quite a lot. The rise of social media such as facebook, twitter and blogs and what it means to have more people communicating with each and building new online communities. Mostly it’s a good thing.
Many politicians, such as myself, are increasingly using social media to communicate, test ideas and have conversations with people across a broad range of backgrounds, interests and political attitudes.
I find it interesting, exciting, thought provoking and a bit of an outlet for my own views, but also as a way of just building new friendships and adding to my knowledge.
But it can also be dangerous. And it’s this that I want to explore your views on.
What happens when, in the cut and thrust of election campaigning, all the stops get pulled out and the political trolls use anything that a politician (or aspiring politican) has said on social media (potentially) taken out of context to discredit them.
The US mid term elections has again put this issue in the spotlight. I came across this piece today via Twitter:
…today’s generation of future leaders has grown up in an era when letting one’s guard down for one’s Facebook friends to see is an afterthought.
Ms. Ball, a Democrat, was stunned when she found out that six-year-old party pictures were circulating online. In them, she was wearing a Santa cap and provocative lacy hosiery while holding and putting her mouth around a sex toy. The story went viral, getting attention from news media outlets as varied as Gawker and National Public Radio.
“I think I was the No. 3 most-Googled term in the whole world over some stupid gag I played when I was 22 years old,” Ms. Ball said in a phone interview on Wednesday, the day after she lost her election.
While her opponent already had a comfortable advantage in the Republican-leaning district by the time the pictures came out, Ms. Ball’s experience raises the question of whether American culture will ever evolve to the point where voters tolerate pictures of future leaders in various states of inebriation and undress.
Ms. Ball, a certified public accountant, has used the experience as an opportunity to warn of a potential chilling effect on tomorrow’s leaders. Candidates, she argued, should not be shamed out of a race because of mistakes made in their youth. “I had a whole lot of people who were older than me saying they were feeling grateful that Facebook and digital cameras weren’t around when they were growing up,” she said. “I am not the only person with stupid photos out there, and I would hate to have some young man or young woman think, ‘I can’t run for office because I did something stupid at a party however long ago.’
This may not be the best example. The description of her behaviour didn’t sound that sensible. Let alone having her photo taken. But people do silly things in context. And is it our business? Social media makes those events more visible. And when the media spotlight comes on there can be a shock horror reaction by the public.
We’ve certainly seen that in the US. Will we see it here?
Because politicians are held accountable to a different set of behaviours? Or because the mere fact you are a politician, or standing to become one makes your behaviour suspect? I’m interested in your views.
And as a postscript: This movie has recently been released in the States and NZ. The Social Network is the story of facebook. I had a bit of a look tonight but I’m not sure you can legally purchase it online yet. You’d think you’d be able to! Maybe someone can help me with that. If you can’t then I think it’s a travesty and it’s the movie studio’s own fault if they’re not across what people are doing in the real world.
Chris Keall writes today in NBR: (I’ve just updated this link as Chris has been adding to it during the day. There’s now heaps of journos on Twitter)
New Zealander tech personalities, media celebs and politicians are taking to social network Twitter in ever-greater numbers. Who’s got the most followers in this most blunt of popularity contests?
What follows is an unscientific sample across several categories (make allowances, of course, for the fact that the follower numbers are a moving target.
Brenda Wallace from Coffee Geek wrote this piece of software tracking NZ’s pollies on twitter. For those of you who think we’re twits (me especially) you may be right, but it’s a rapidly moving communication channel that is transforming the media and political dynamic.
There are now a bunch of academics who are doing research on the use of social media in the political sphere. I know of several in both NZ and Australia. The use of twitter in the House (parliament) is now a common occurrence in many jurisdictions. It’s providing insight from the politicians themselves of what happens on the floor of the House (and outside). Smart journos are watching and interacting.
When today I tweeted that I had found myself agreeing with Roger Douglas in the Commerce Select Committee (which I described as a weird moment) I had the following response via Twitter.
HeatherRoyMP It can be disconcerting when you agree with an MP from another party @clarecurranmp – sometimes I find myself agreeing with Trevor Mallard!
Didn’t get to keep it – more is the pity because I think they are getting close to being the best tool for using around the building – once we get our IT support sorted.
Less obtrusive.
One of my mates is doing a photography course and did the photo. It is good fun to play with it – zooming in and out. And someone else in his class took about a hundred shorts of my thigh as I waited on my bike at Upper willis St lights – wide angle lense.
The ongoing discussion about the quality and timeliness of reporting the Christchurch earthquake in our conventional and new media has raised lots of issues. I have posted about it here, here , here and here.
I want to keep that discussion going because it’s important. Relevant to a wider discussion about the future shape of our media. And there is an important role for government in this.
There’s been arguments between media outlets about who was first to report the earthquake, who has done it better and who has won the ratings war. There’s been criticism of celebrity journalism (if you can call it journalism); of the media stars turning up in the rubble getting down amongst the “peeps”.
Peter Dunne gave these celebrity journos a whack in parliament last week and I think he was right.
All rather tacky really.
There’s been a lot of talk about the role of twitter, facebook and blogs. The immediacy factor of those mediums and the rise of the citizen journalist (and photographer). I heard the story of the guy in Chch who took some photos uploading them to twitter for his son which were then picked up by CNN which then essentially locked out other media outlests from accessing them (without the permission of the original photographer)
And the role of media websites such as Stuff and NZ Herald which have done a reasonable job of updating content, telling real stories and providing some analysis.
Radio and TV have done their best with their current resources and mindsets.
A few observations since…
I think mainstream conventional media knows it has to change but needs to do it faster. Many news outlets are now using twitter to release stories and to follow news sources. But they’re taking a while to get the hang of it.
NBR’s Chris Keall would be one of the better journos I know using twitter. He lives on it, draws much of his material from it and release news stories constantly via twitter. He then engages in discussion abotu them and draws on that discussion and reaction to produce new stories. Cool (@ChrisKeall). He’s not the only one.
TV3’s Patrick Gower has released some big stories via twitter. Clever (@patrickgowernz)
There is an emerging role that social media is playing which is transforming regular media. It’s the immediacy and real time nature of it that’s important. And there’s a actual discussion occuring as well an interaction between people that doesn’t happen with regular media.
However, the accuracy and analysis can leave a bit to be desired and that’s where conventional media by real journalists (those that are left) is important. This piece, admittedly written late last year, talks about these issues and is worth a read. It talks about content, promptness and analysis and how you can’t generally have all three at once in one medium.
Mike O’Donnell wrote this opinion piece in the DomPost yesterday on the web presence around the Chch earthquake. I agree with most of what he says, except perhaps that he didn’t emphasise enough the vital role social media played in people contacting and supporting each other.
But he did say this, which is important:
…the complete absence of an attempt by any of the authorities to harness the huge conversation empowered by the web to create an online community.
Tim Berners-Lee gave the internet a public face when he invented the world wide web in 1990. What made it special was the ability for people to connect, share, question, laugh and cry, in plain sight. That’s why most of the world’s most popular websites – Facebook, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo – are effectively online communities where people hang out, share and help each other out.
On the day of the earthquake, the people of Christchurch had thousands of different experiences, suggestions and concerns. It was an opportunity crying out for a central online repository or chatroom where there voices could be heard, conversations had, questions asked and responded to. But no such mechanism existed.
It’s an opportunity crying out for utilisation, and one that I hope the core agencies are considering.
And for those of you who are interested; here’s a list of NZ media who are on twitter (with their twitter addresses). Helpfully compiled by Bill Bennett, a freelance writer from Auckland (amongst other things). Hope you don’t mind me sharing Bill.
Now he has apparently gone another step – pulled Cameron Slater’s media accreditation for the National Party conference this weekend.
I don’t like much of Cameron Slater’s work. The arachnephobic blowhole is sometimes a good case for the reintroduction of criminal libel.
But banning him for telling the truth about Key’s mate the party president and caucus attempts to engineer his re-election is not the good old liberal national party of Ralph Hanan and John Marshall and won’t be that way when Simon Power is the leader.
Update – now The Nation is being pressured to stop Slater appearing.
And btw what has happened to Kiwiblog’s defence of Whaleoil. Interesting values that lets the penguin blog on lunch but not stand up for his mate when the boss puts the boot in.
Update II Slater has now confirmed see below:-
Boy have I upset some people. perhaps I have hit too close to the bone.
Today has been full of hurly-burly, lies and bullshit.
I applied to go to National’s conference as Media. I used the same accreditation that has seen me registered as media for two Daivd Tua fights and a number of other functions. It was rejected, I then registered as an observer member, which I am entitled to do.
When I was asked to go on The Nation again this weekend I called the new General Manager to enquire as to the broadband facilities that were available for the media. I was then told that I wasn’t media and therefore any facilities that were provided to the media were off-limits for me. I told him that I was appearing on The Nation, blogging from the conference and they could be helpful or not, and pointed out that not wasn’t going to be a good look for anyone, but I didn’t care about my look so it was up to him. The ban was re-iterated to me.
I think my views on emoticons are well known. I can’t stand them.
Today, I’m launching a brave attack on lol.
I realise I won’t be supported and may be castigated. But my plea is for a world where people can not only freely express their views (as long as they’re not offensive and personal attacks) but also can do it in a way that shows individual expression.
I am a collectivist about actions. But I believe in individual expression. I wish we could exercise it more when communicating via txt, email, facebook, twitter and blogs.
So I say beyond lol… use your words
PS: Facebook and Twitter responses don’t seem to be working in my favour so far.
Labour announced yesterday that we are trying something new. A new way of developing policy. Out in the open, and involving you.
We are developing a policy on open and transparent government. This is how you can participate.
Stage 1. Participate in the first round of discussion
This is a brainstorming phase. We want to hear all your ideas, suggestions, and the issues you think are important regards open and transparent government. At this stage any contribution is welcome and valid, no matter how left field. Blog posts, links to news articles and reports or research, commentary on what’s happening in other countries, your half thought through or fully structured thoughts, anything is welcome.
It would be great if you could use the OpenLabourNZ tag whenever you write about the issue. This will make it easier for us to find and aggregate your input.
To participate you can:
Comment on this Red Alert post
Write your own blog post, use the tag OpenLabourNZ, and link to this post
Post a message on twitter using the #OpenLabourNZ hashtag
Post a message on your Facebook page and make sure you let me know
Labour will host a public event in about four/five weeks (date to be announced) which you can attend in person, or through remote access. We hope to stream it live and to have several prominent speakers on open, transparent government. This is an opportunity to take part in a live discussion on the main issues raised during the first round of discussions and to hear other people’s views.
Stage 3. Comment on the draft policy on the wiki
After the public event, a draft policy paper will be put together by an independent writer who will be tasked with drawing together all the major themes and issues raised during Stages 1 and 2. The draft paper will be placed on a wiki for editing by anyone who wants to participate, over a defined period. It will then be finalised, and presented to Labour as a major piece of input into our policy development process.
Please participate in good faith. If you have any questions, just post them on this blog or email me directly.
Thought this might be interesting. China’s top 3 social networking sites.
This is the first of several pieces written by Richard MacManus on ReadWriteWeb about leading social media sites in China, as well as the censorship issues the country has.
Hat tip: Richard MacManus (who is a Kiwi). An interesting chap. You should read about him. He has 1,047,329 followers on Twitter
Further to my Rupert and the genie post the other day, about how Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp is said to have dropped the ball on social media, the BBC is taking a different tack.
BBC news journalists have been told to use social media as a primary source of information by Peter Horrocks, the new director of BBC Global News who took over last week. He said it was important for editorial staff to make better use of social media and become more collaborative in producing stories.
The Guardian, which is obviously taking a keen interest in the relationship between mainstream and social media, goes on to say that the BBC is doing its best to adapt to the changing technology and the way that people interact with media.
Following the creation of a social media editor post in October, this marks another fundamental change in the Beep’s attitude towards social media.
My point is that no matter what the organisation, the ability to understand the reality of changing human behaviours and methods of communication is critical to any business model. Adapt or die? And then there’s innovation and good ideas.
The Guardian writes that Rupert Murdoch of News Corp doesn’t get social media. He thinks, understandably (for him), that you just find the way to control it.
What’s interesting, is that it’s the people who use it who drive change. Not the big corporations.
Facebook will discover that too. Because something else will come along soon and the people will move on.
And then there’s the Murdoch business model for online content. Charging for it. Wonder how well that’ll go?
I’ve just discovered this group has been established on facebook. What’s interesting is that it’s been set up to pressure the Facebook administration into removing FB Groups that incite Racism & Hate of any kind. Consumer pressure. Wonder if it’ll have an effect.
The blurb states that such FB groups have been allowed to grow unchecked. The threat is that people will leave if these groups are allowed to persist. I haven’t come across any myself.
But I think it’s interesting, especially in light of Hillary Clinton’s speech on internet freedom delivered last Friday morning where she said:
Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world…
…all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together.
This report from the UK says that MPs online are mainly using the technology to inform rather than really engage with constituents (people).
Key findings from the research are:
- 92% of MPs use email
- 83% of MPs have a personal website
- 23% of MPs use social networking
- 11% of MPs blog
Would be interested to see a similar one done here. And some discussion around what we could be doing better. As I’ve already said Labour can and should be using the technology of social media to communicate better with people. Though you can’t beat face to face communication.
Update: And because I’m interested in these things I recommend a read of this piece in the Weekend Herald on the growing use of social media by NZ companies and what that means.
Technology (esp mobile phones and the internet via social networks) can influence and drive political change, but they are a medium not an end.
If political parties behave like marketing companies and treat voters as shoppers, and their policies as slickly packaged products they’ll fail.
The overlooked lesson of Obama’s campaign is that it treated voters as citizens with active roles in a democratic society rather than passive consumers swayed by party marketing.
On 9 January, the guy who started Facebook did a public U turn on the site’s privacy policy which has created an online storm.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public, not private as it was for years until the company changed dramatically in December. He says the age of privacy is over.
How private should the online information about us be? Whether we post it ourselves, or whether someone posts it about us.
Social networking sites like Facebook and the subscribers to those sites are confronting this issue. Read this open letter to the Huffington Post to give you an idea. Google it to read more.
The privacy of our information is a huge issue. Data privacy is key policy ground for governments around the world. There are shifting meanings for what is public and private. But I would contend there is still very much a need and desire by people to keep control of information about themselves. Which seems to me, to be the important principle.
Not sure what right Facebook’s founder has to make a decision on behalf of 350 million subscribers that they don’t care about privacy.
This is important stuff for policy makers and legislators as well as companies.
I thought I’d share a few of the things I talked about at the Labour Party Summer School this weekend.
It might seem strange us talking publicly about who we should be communicating with better and how we might try to do that. But if we don’t we’re fools, I reckon.
I suppose the main point to make is that Labour, like all political parties, must understand that it needs a better relationship with the voters of the future (Gen Y and the millenials) and why social media is such an important tool for doing that.
The relationship must be genuine and we should be making an effort to understand more the issues that really concern and matter to this generation in the digital age. Issues such as privacy, safety, censorship, ownership of information (piracy and copyright) creativity, quality of information. I’ll have more to say about this.
Here’s a few interesting facts.
Gen Y were born between 1976 and 1991
Currently there’s around 900,000 in NZ
This year they will outnumber the baby boomers
It is estimated that 96% of Gen Y use social media (world wide)
The emerging generations are the largest ever.
Combined X&Y = 70% global population
In Australia 57% population
Indonesia 67%
Pakistan 75%
Iraq 80%
Gen Y = 2.1 billion worldwide
In NZ, facebook use is at 1 million (25% population)
150% growth in the last year
Global Nielsen report (March 09) says social networking has overtaken email as most popular way to communicate
In NZ 79.6% pop uses the internet
Amongst Maori, internet useage higher than non-Maori esp for social networking
Every day, we are exposed to 1600 marketing messages. Most are filtered out
This You Tube clip called the Social Media Revolution is really interesting. We’re doing a lot of thinking about this. We take it seriously and want to be credible.
Red Alert is part of our attempt to develop a more genuine relationship with people online. Many Labour MPs have facebook pages and are starting to use them more regularly. A few are on Twitter. But it’s not enough. We’re got a few more ideas for direct engagement with a broad audience via a mixture of face to face and online means.
The younger audience is obviously critical, but all age groups are online and using social media.
It’s the time of year to be contemplative. Colin James’ piece in the Press yesterday invoked us to remember the conundrum of Christmas, the darkness and the beauty of humankind, and invited us to promote the good of humans and not to trade in the bad.
Optimism, I hope, is my nature. In that spirit, here’s two other pieces to contemplate. I hope you’ll read them.
They are each about the emerging power of social media and how it is being used (and could be used) as a force for change by groups of people who feel oppressed. Disturbingly, how it can also be (and already is) used as a means to oppress and restrain.
Both pieces are about the balance of power between citizens and the state and how technology is fueling social movements. Both are published in Prospect Magazine.
1. How dictators watch us on the web by Evgeny Morozov. A disturbing account which argues that while the internet is meant to help activists, enable democratic protest and weaken the grip of authoritarian regimes, it doesn’t—in fact, the web is a boon for bullies.
2. The net advantage: Media guru Clay Shirky responds to criticisms in Evgeny Morozov’s piece on why dictators benefit from the web. Despite pitfalls, he says, the internet remains a positive force for democracy.
The points I’d like to make are: I believe that people who work together will inevitably find a way to make change. Even if they are at the vanguard of a movement that takes a long time to be effective. That those with power will try to fight back and use any means to do so. But ultimately change cannot be held back when enough people want it.
That direct engagement between governments and people are crucial. That people want to know they are listened to and that making government (the state) too distanced from the population results in fracture and disharmony.
And that we, in New Zealand, are very fortunate to live in such a stable democracy. But we too have a lot to learn. We can learn from these struggles and choose to promote the good.
This is not a political post. But at last I know I’m not alone in detesting emoticons. You know, those little smiley, growly, silly faces that so many people use when they’re commenting on Red Alert.
The NZ Herald has a story about this. Emoticons as a modern menace? I’m not sure I’d go that far. But they do drive me crazy. What’s wrong with using the English language to convey your feelings. In an individual way. Like saying Yay! or Grrrr! Much more evocative than or
Poor Spud cops it from me sometimes when he uses them in my posts. I know his hands shake because he’s told me. I want to make it clear. They’re not banned. I just can’t stand them.
Don’t know what that makes me. The only one I’ve ever liked is a flower that grows and disappears and then returns. I’ve used it on Skype but I can’t make it work in this format.
These are the voices of Labour MPs on issues that we care about - and we'd like to hear what you think too. What you’ll read are the individual opinions of MPs. We won’t always agree with each other and sometimes our opinions may change.
or 
