I don't care what Barbara Streisand says! People don't need Peeple

As I observe the goings on in the world thousands of ideas, opinions and prejudices swirl around in my head at any given moment.  Golden rule aside, in a flash my opinion of you can literally swing from love to hatred even if we've never spoken a word to each other. 

For instance, you may truly feel a deep, soul burning, hatred for the moron who cut across 3 lanes of rush hour traffic for seemingly no other reason than to further complicate your commute.  But as much as we may revel in those dark thoughts while caught up in the moment, a mile down the road most of us barely summon up the will to be apathetic.

Now imagine if you could form a complete profile of that person based on just that moment in time.

Which brings me to what I can only surmise is a product of the failure of the American public school system to teach anything worthwhile. 

Peeple...

I'm no great fan of social media.  It's just too subjective and frivolous a medium to be taken seriously.  That doesn't seem to stop misguided idealism from taking it to new heights of the ridiculous, however. 

Peeple is best described as an app that elevates the digital equivalent of a popularity contest to a pseudo-science self-worth metric.  Users can evaluate anyone they want so long as they have a relationship with the other person no matter how fleeting.

But that's not the real issue. 

Unlike match.com or Facebook, you don't get the choice to sign up for the abuse.  Instead anyone with a Smartphone and a Facebook account can snap an image and start evaluating you based on nothing more than personal opinion. 

The creators, Nicole McCullogh and Julia Cordray attempt to console us with the app's "integrity features" which among others includes being 21 years old, having an established Facebook account and affirming you actually know the person.  

Verification apparently comes from knowing the person's cell phone number.  A piece of data frequently found on social media and career sites without restriction. 

If you don't sign up for the service you can still end up being evaluated by it but only positive reviews will be allowed.  

Which seems fair if we're playing Devil's advocate but that would seem to invalidate the whole ratings system.  Why not limit ANY ratings to those that choose to BE rated by signing up?

I'm sure that part was for the lawyers.  The real intent is revealed in the discovery that Cordray originally wanted to just scrape names from Facebook but the Facebook API doesn't allow for that.  In other words, in her mind anyone with a Facebook account was fair game for the app.

We live in a very public world, that's a given.  What's disturbing is how many unreliable metrics can affect you in that world, especially online.  That an errant post on social media can cost someone a career or relationship would seem ridiculous were it not so frequently the case.

Even choosing not to participate in social media carries a stigma of its own.  As though being unwilling to participate in such juvenile antics is the mark of deviance and dangerous intent.  People have actually been dismissed from consideration for a job because of a lack of a social media presence. 

It's madness!

Who are we to judge anyway?  What happened to all that lofty idealism of valuing others based on the content of their character instead of the superficial. 

Should I be content to be evaluated like some unwitting head of cattle in an auction?  Is it OK to destroy someone in public simply because they weren't as nice as you'd have liked them to be or elevate them to a pedestal based on nothing more than a passing interest?

Peeple is described as Yelp for People.

To that I say this...

Rate your hotel room....fine

Rate your favorite restaurant ....fine

Rate your Uber driver....fine

Rate people...You've crossed the line!

The next step, another clue about TWIT's future

The house that Leo built may still stand but its foundation continues to erode.  An exodus of hosts,  ever increasing ads and unstable schedule all chip away at it.  Then there's the shameless self-promotion of swag but that much at least can be excused.

After all, what red-blooded tech geek wouldn't want a genuine, limited edition, TWIT branded T-shirt, Leo Bobble head or spoon cup.

Spoon cup?? 

Don't ask...

Hey, promotion is excusable even necessary, building a network around it, however,  is not.

Unless you're Home Shopping Network or QVC that is...

If you're not charging a subscription fee you're going to have ads unless you enjoy podcasting in a vacuum.  Somebody's got to pay the bills after all and a few seconds of sales pitch seem a fair trade for good content that's otherwise free.

Laporte has been adamant in the past that ads on TWIT would always be relevant to the network's tech focus.  Unfortunately, history has shown that assertion to ring increasingly hollow. 

Remember Ice.com?   They're an online jewelry retailer that had thousands of techies scratching their heads when they showed up as an advertiser on TWIT around Valentine's day 2011. From This Week in Tech to NFSW it was painful to watch hosts (including Laporte) try to make the topic of tennis bracelets  interesting to Iphone jail breakers.

Nobody would argue that Gazelle.com, lynda.com and proXPN didn't live up to Laporte's carefully curated advertising policy.  It was a mutually beneficial relationship that put willing eyes on relevant products. 

It seems that policy has been increasingly under assault, however,  as the network moves away from its traditional fan base.  Take a look at the newest members of the TWIT advertiser parade for proof...

ZipRecruiter, an online job posting service.  Great for stuffing job seeker's spam email boxes...

NatureBox, which for only $20 a month gets you into the fruit and nut club. 

Personal Capital, which might as well be Charles Schwab or any other investment firm with an online presence (meaning everybody)

Prosper, which is peer to peer lending or in other words the online equivalent to a hard money lender (otherwise known as a loan shark)

To be fair, it's just a few minutes annoyance out of otherwise good content except that what constitutes good content is also coming into question.

I'm not talking about Ham Nation or Floss Weekly.  Their relevant albeit narrow fan base is in sync with TWIT's original vision.

But what about a show about marketing?  

Advertisers are bad enough but a show about advertising?  

Never!

Except...

Coming soon to an Itunes playlist near you is TWIT's newest podcast...

Marketing Mavericks...

The pitch is this...

" Marketing Mavericks covers the intersection of marketing and tech. Each week, Tonya Hall interviews top marketing professionals to discuss case studies, communication strategies, and brand insights on social media, trends, and analytics."

Read that again, especially the part about interviewing "top marketing professionals."   Overflowing spam folders, popup ads and pre-rolls on Youtube videos all lead back to them.  The very antithesis of the TWIT mantra now finds a loving embrace.

One could hope that the TWIT chat rooms would rail against such an assault on their sensibilities but ever present (and at times draconian) moderators would quickly dismiss detractors.

So much for feedback driven content...

If there were any justice in the world such programming would find a short lifespan on the network but don't count on it.

It's far more likely that as TWIT content becomes a more advertiser friendly shade of beige, shows like Marketing Mavericks will become the norm.   Expand your audience and expand your reach.  The content becomes diluted but fortunes will rise.

At least that's the hope...

TWIT still has some good content but it's increasingly becoming more like a Netflix subscription.  That  contradicts  Laporte's stated wish for more live viewership of TWIT.   Fans of specific shows  are migrating to downloads over live broadcasts while devotees of former hosts leave the network entirely. 

Numbers don't lie and while TWIT stalwarts like This Week in Tech and Security now remain in the top 10 Tech podcasts on ITunes, new shows like The revamped Tech News Today and Tech News 2Nite are nowhere to be found.

All this kind of flies in the face of the new 24/7 news mantra doesn't it?  

Not to worry, everybody just accepts irrelevant content as a fact of life these days...

After all, look how well it's worked for Facebook!  Except that  even Facebook has seen a decline in new eyeballs as its focus on ad revenue has increasingly invaded the privacy of its user base.  When the novelty wore off they began to trade on their users instead of their users content.   A strategy that's led them to a  bizarre move to Virtual Reality.

That's left onlookers scratching their heads...hmm...sound familiar?

Facebook is all about the money and its reputation not to mention its fortunes have increasingly suffered because of it. 

There's a lesson in there somewhere...

Facebook buys Oculus VR, not as left-field as you think

Originally published on Kupeesh!

By now you've heard the big news...

Facebook has bought Oculus VR, the company at the forefront of virtual reality products aimed at the consumer and de facto mascot for the power of crowd sourcing.

The real question is, what does VR have to do with social media?  Does Mark Zuckerberg expect us all to start running around with VR headsets poking fingers at the empty air screaming "Like!" and "Friend!"

Zuckerberg has an answer...

"... we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home."

Zuckerberg the futurist or maybe it's more like Zuckerberg coming to the realization that Facebook as a service is losing relevance. 

Enter Facebook, the brand.  Remember the failed HTC First?  It was the short-lived Smartphone that forced users into the Facebook ecosystem whether they wanted it or not.  It was the first indication that the Facebook bandwagon was losing a wheel.

As early as October of last year the company warned advertisers that "organic reach" will eventually be inconsequential.  "Organic reach," by the way,  is the number of Facebook page views that don't come from your "Fans" or "Friends" but rather from sources like search engines and shared links outside of the service.

That means advertisers have to work harder to attract eyeballs as veteran users become increasingly jaded against ads they have no interest in.  Not good news for a free service that depends on ad revenue.

There's little doubt that many of Zuckerberg's visions will come to pass but whether they're all Facebook properties remains to be seen.  It's far more likely that this move is meant to elevate Facebook the brand above Facebook the service. 

Much like Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility in 2011 it's less about owning a space than creating a halo effect around the brand.    In Google's case, they didn't need to dominate the Android device market to dictate what it looked like.  Mission accomplished and now Motorola Mobility is on its way to Lenovo sans a few patents safely kept in Google's breast pocket.

We're entering what could be called the "Post-services" era.  It's more about the halo around a brand than the products themselves.  History is on Zuckerberg's side.  Nobody thinks of Google as just a search engine anymore and Zuckerberg is betting that Facebook can evolve beyond social media. 

Much to the dismay (or the delight) of IP attorneys everywhere we may soon view online Icons like Facebook, Google and Twitter the same way we look at Ford, Chevy and Toyota.   You'll be picking brand not product.

But fear not social media addicts.  Facebook the service will always remain a place to jeopardize future job prospects by posting embarrassing videos of yourself.

Social Media is a lie

Social Media is a lie

There, I said it and you know damned well that it's true.  Popular culture has adopted the premise of social media being the new normal.  That's what people mean when they overuse the term "ubiquitous" by the way.

We're told to carefully curate our Facebook pages and polish our LinkedIn profiles to ensure that we're giving the "right" impression to any drive-by onlookers who may take a passing interest.  I mean we wouldn't want to send the wrong message would we?

Prospective employers love social media.  It's a quick and dirty way to get the goods on candidates without ever having to meet them.  In other words your social media persona might as well be another copy of your resume, dating profile and background report all in one neat multimedia package.

So best be sure it's showing you in your best light...Which defeats the purpose.

Knowing that almost everyone engaged in social media is either lying or too naive to realize the ramifications of that video from your last trip to Vegas means none of it has value.

The only people who are honest are the ones with nothing to lose which is exactly .000000001%.  Good luck finding that needle in the haystack and when you do try not to be disappointed when you find out those people aren't that interesting.

Social media is less about connecting than providing a mechanism for personal advertisement.  Which means it's about as useful as a commercial for a feminine hygiene product. 

Social media is just an outgrowth of a society built on lies.  We choose political candidates based on which one's empty promises we're most aligned with.  We associate with people that otherwise would never get the  time of day if we think they can be of use to us.  We go along with the popular groupthink for fear of repercussion should we speak our own minds.

Keep social media in the context of a public facing mask and you'll stay out of trouble.  Ignore the starry eyed optimists proclaiming how connected the world is because of it.  It's not, if you live in Nebraska the chances that you actually care about anything going on in Uzbekistan are negligible.  So long as there's that strong "media" component in social media (meaning it's fake) it's nothing more than personal marketing of a false image.

In short, keeping it real does not include being a social media maven.  Reality has nothing to do with it at all.

Your Anonymity is showing

There is no anonymity, at least not on the Internet.  Or at least that's how Google and Facebook want it.  It's likely that just like me you have multiple Google accounts and now the parent company of anything that matters on the Internet wants to you to come clean.

Log into YouTube and you're constantly prodded to use your real name on your YouTube channel.  Want to log in using your channel alias?  Forget it, they want the email address you used to sign up with.  Just like Facebook, Google Plus doesn't allow aliases either.  In fact they want more information than I provided the bank to finance my car. 

Want to start a Facebook page for your business?  Be prepared to provide everything short of your articles of incorporation and 5 years of tax returns to do it. 

Contingent on using any of these services is the requirement to reveal more information about yourself than anyone should be comfortable with.  Thing is, for most, it's no big deal.  For the generations that came after mine it's nothing to "Broadcast Yourself" for all the world to see.  As some have found, to their own peril when that party video posted to your Facebook page gets in front of a potential employer.

It's gotten so easy to lay ourselves bare (in some cases literally) that many don't even think about the consequences of our cavalier attitude toward online privacy.   That is, until something happens that makes you regret clicking "I Agree" to the 10000 word terms of service.

It's not simply a question of privacy, for the most part that's gone if you leave your house.  It's a question of giving away the power of your own predestination.  I have no doubt that being a private investigator is no longer as lucrative as it once was.  What used to take them weeks is offered up freely under the guise of being "social"

Just ask the unfaithful spouse who found out just how much power they'd given away when their Facebook exploits were admitted as evidence in the legal proceedings that followed.

You may feel that it's a good thing that it's harder for those with something to hide to retreat behind anonymity.  Well Mr. Public Parts, we all have something to hide even if we haven't broken any laws.  Nobody should demand we reveal it just to be online.

What happens, for example,  when an author can no longer write under a pen name?  What about the  corporate whistle blower exposed by a change in some online service's privacy policy?  Should they have to sacrifice a career because an entire industry can now blackball them for it?

If you're Jeff Jarvis I suppose everything's a Public Part so it shouldn't matter what gets revealed.  In the real world where people can't afford to have their every action judged it becomes a problem.  I'm not in favor of the merging of private and public and stay off of services like Facebook and increasingly Google because of it.

Now, I may be running contrary to the Internet punditry proclaiming the glories of the new social construct that's arisen out of our constant connectivity in what I'm about to say. 

In short, I think it's Bull. 

I'd rather not be sitting in a job interview at 40 years of age having to explain something stupid I did in my teens to a potential employer.  It'd be nice if the world was populated only by the open minded with no personal agendas but that's just not how it works.  Experience has taught me the better parts of human nature rarely come into play in a job interview.

Think about the now common practice of job applicants having to submit to a credit check at the application stage.  I usually give them the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" response in which I agree to allow the check only if I can have the same information from every member of the executive staff and the board. 

People usually just think I'm being a wiseacre and look at me as though I should be wearing a straightjacket when they find out I'm being serious.  Funny, I feel the same about them.

I think more people need to do that, actually.  In fact, I suggest it be the basis of a new movement.  A friend of mine is fond of saying corporations will keep pushing the boundaries until someone pushes back.  This can be where it starts.  After all, nobody has any right to know how timely I pay my debts unless they're loaning me money or I'm in charge of the keys to the bank vault.

It's exactly because of how the world works that we need to retain control of our own personas.  Making your new job contingent on a good credit score is just one symptom of the problem.

Look at it this way.  Do I really want to find out that my trusted mechanic of decades is a cross dresser on the weekends? 

Now I can care less if he is or not but some people might which could have consequences to his livelihood. 

The reality is that it's not critical information to know if he's just fixing my car.  If you think it is you're just being nosy and bigoted.    

That's what I mean by public and private.  I don't want to know any more about you than I need to know and what I need to know has limits. 

Say my mechanic is going to get married soon, I'd fully expect his potential bride (or groom) may want to know about such things but I don't.  If he's installing a supercharger on my Mustang, I could care less about his fashion adventures.

He shouldn't be required to expose that information and I shouldn't have the opportunity to pass any judgment on anything not directly related to him fixing my car.

That also means he should have the freedom to indulge in a private online existence apart from his public one.   Being online shouldn't have to mean that you abdicate your right to withhold information people don't need to know about you. 

In fact, knowing too much about a person can lead to even more discrimination simply because it becomes easier to apply our own personal biases based on irrelevant information.   Even if what we find has nothing to do with why we were interested in the first place the damage is done and our world grows a little colder.

We're all so concerned about safety these days and it's sure to come up whenever someone's abdicating the requirement to vomit up even more private information.  

Someone will always bring up the child molester, terrorist or bank robber that might have been stopped if we just had more information about them earlier.  Perhaps so but is it worth the whole of humanity living under a microscope to prevent it?  At what point does civilized society fall victim to Orwell's "thoughtcrime" ?

 The question you have to ask is if everyone's going to eventually be required to lay themselves bare online then who's qualified to sit in ultimate judgment of your actions?  You're tried, convicted and sentenced before you even realize you've done something wrong.

That sounds a bit "Minority Report" to me.

"Not Advertiser Friendly"

Stroll through YouTube for awhile and you're bound to be offended by something.  I've been told I'm guilty of it myself as evidenced by the three videos YouTube has most recently deemed "Not Advertiser Friendly."  As opposed to YouTube itself which is by and large "Not Partner Friendly."

Special Offers

Personally I'd like to see a viable alternative to YouTube as they've only become increasingly Draconian since the Google acquisition. 

Do these videos offend? That depends on your point of view.  Do I advocate hate speech or present vile or disgusting content?  Not as far as I'm concerned but your mileage may vary.  I know I'm not the most attractive guy but I do keep my clothes on at least. 

Worse, if you're falsely accused of a copyright violation (I've won 2 of those BTW) YouTube will deny you compensation but has no compunction to place ads for their own benefit. 

If the content is deemed questionable how can they justify drawing revenue from it when you cannot?  It's corporatism at its worst. 

It seems the rule of the Internet is that if it's convenient it's going to cost you something.  In most cases it's free speech in others it's your privacy.  See Facebook and Twitter for other examples.

YouTube isn't leading, its following.  Their grand new idea appears to be to emulate old media with all its bias and pandering to advertisers.  Instead of pleasing advertisers perhaps advertisers need to learn to go where the eyeballs are most engaged.

The bulk of content on the service would safely fit onto a third tier cable channel that runs infomercials  between reruns of Cops all day.  Most of those fail within a couple of years so unless it's a money laundering operation it's not a viable business model.  In that light how can YouTube defend "Advertiser Friendly" denials of monetization?

Too bad, it could be so much more but YouTube chooses the path of a coward and dies 1000 deaths every day with each new upload of a "Jackass" wannabe.

See how I get myself into trouble below...

Cheers!

 

                         

Yes, you're a troll

I suppose it's the depiction of a mythical being living under rocks and bearing ill will to all passersby that's made it such a popular term in Internet circles.  In the context of a chat room or forum it's easier to hurl barbs at an opposing viewpoint with that image in mind.

We all have an opinion and the right to express it, usually.

But for all the declarations of a free and open Internet the reality is that democracy is not universally embraced.  Chat rooms and forums have "moderators" whose job it is to keep the discourse civil.  Of course it's usually a volunteer position manned by something less than a degreed psychologist.  Personal biases, immaturity and abuse of power come into play and suddenly the free exchange of ideas becomes a study in censorship. 

If you're on the wrong side of the discussion expect to earn the label of the under bridge set.  The funny  thing is that the childhood retort of "takes one to know one" comes into play here.

Unless you're the type whose only purpose in life is to be disruptive it's likely you've been unfairly branded. With chat rooms less a democracy and more a fascist state there's not much you can do but find a more like minded group.

Keep in mind that "troll" is just a word tossed about as freely as words like "friend" or "gay" which bear little resemblance to their original meanings.  There was a time, for example, when calling someone "friend" meant more than a checkbox on Facebook and "gay" had nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

Words co-opted for more of a lyrical convenience than anything else. 

Since most people throw "troll" at even the hint of a contrary opinion it's almost amusing when you realize that they're guilty of their own charge.  If an Internet forum is ruled more by fascism than free speech then attacking anyone with an opposing viewpoint to the group is in fact being trolled. In effect, practicing what they preach or denounce depending on your point of view. 

There are still those whose only purpose is to disrupt and they're closer to the original spirit of the word.  Though, there's a host of other derogatory terms with less ambiguity that are a better fit for that crowd.

 So it seems it really does "take one to know one"  Use the term too freely and you're guilty of the charge you level. 

Best to not use it at all.

Facebook the Homewrecker?

Article first published as Facebook the Home Wrecker? on Technorati.
Note: This is the original edit.

The popular media has found a new scapegoat for our personal failings and of course it has something to do with the Internet. 

Depending on whose study you're reading,  divorce statistics now show that either  1 in 5 or 1 in 3 cite  the popular social networking site Facebook as the cause. 

How can a website break up a marriage?  According to the studies unfaithful spouses often pursue extramarital relationships via Facebook with relative ease and little consequence.  Reconnecting with an old flame or just fudging marital status to flirt with other users is as simple as a mouse click.

And why not blame Facebook?  If the medium didn't exist none of these failed marriages would have happened, right?  Just as it's ridiculous to blame the lamp that you dropped on your foot for your throbbing big toe so it is with blaming Facebook for your divorce.

 General statistics still show divorce rates hovering in the 50% range which means  a large group of people made the wrong decision at some point with or without Facebook's help .  Blaming the catalyst (aka: Facebook) is nothing less than abdication of personal responsibility. 

The media loves headlines like this and buries the details on page 3.  After all infidelity is boring but add in the Internet and suddenly it's breaking news.   If you're married and pursuing extramarital relationships on Facebook, it's likely you'd be pursuing them without it.

It seems that many enter marriage with little more care than considering the purchase of an automobile.  I'll demonstrate with a equivalency comparison...

price = earning potential

styling = looks

performance = use your imagination...

cargo capacity = wants kids

safety = not an axe murderer

resale = alimony

With such a short list it's no surprise so many marriages fail.  Is it really such a revelation that an unfaithful spouse is caught flirting on Facebook if your entire relationship is based on such limited information? 

Divorce is a very mechanical process; full of formulae, legal claims and plenty of  personal liability to go around.  Intangibles like communication, shared interests and mutual respect can't be quantified by a cold algorithm.  It follows then, that blaming a website for the failure of your relationship exists in the realm of pure fallacy.  Facebook is a means not a cause.