a brave new world

This week, a UK university announced a research task force to predict the next big thing online, that is, in terms of social media. This is all being done in the name of dandelions. And ethics, of course, but that’s part of catching dandelions.

The two-year project is called the Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications (ETICA). Researchers will be tasked with identifying the new communications technologies – like Twitter – that are likely to emerge in the next 10-15 years and examine some of the ethical implications that can arise.

For example, email gave rise to spamming, e-commerce and internet banking brought about phishing, and SMS and phone cams opened up the door to “sexting.” While the internet has made it easy for us to adopt new communications tools quickly, we seldom think of the ethical downsides. Like the teenage girls possibly facing jail time and being labeled sex offenders for taking nude photos of themselves and texting them to their lovers. Apparently this is not only unethical, it's also a serious crime. Though I'm still struggling to understand exactly what makes it so horrible. If the photo has only been shared between two consenting lovers, where is the crime? Perhaps it lies in its potential. But, potential has never been a crime.

My classmate Hayley is right – the rapid spread of technology is outdating the law, and it’s at the point where the law is no longer in control. Prosecutors feel that they have to apply the most serious offenses possible, probably because it’s the only way for them to feel they’re still in charge. But, is it right? A harsh punishment for a cybercrime like “sexting” – for which no law can be applied – is a symbol of society’s insecurity. It’s a brave new world vs the savages. And the savages seem to be winning.

So, I wonder about this ethical task force. While on one hand identifying and understanding how a problem can form can lead to it not forming at all, the flip side is it might just be a way for prosecutors to regain control – to be prepared to apply different degrees of the law to actions that don’t really merit prosecution. And that’s actually what the main objective is. According to the story, ETICA will devise a method to grade and rank the ethical issues. “They will then focus on the top five issues they consider to have the highest priority and will make recommendations to policy makers based on their findings, as well as investigating governance models to see which are most likely to successfully address the ethical issues identified in the project.”

Unfortunately, I think that unless our own ideals and beliefs evolve as quickly as our technology, we won’t really find a way outside the ethical circle. Our old rules crafted generations ago don’t apply anymore, but our society is too afraid to let go of what it has always known. What society doesn’t realize is that we’re already in the middle of a revolution. I'm optimistic - it might take some time, but I don't believe fear will win this battle.

Ok, one last thought. Aside from it being extremely hard, if not impossible, to predict future ethical drawbacks, imagine if you really could predict that next big thing. What would stop one of these researchers from partnering with Google or some venture capitalists and try to make the next big thing happen? Because I’m sure the next big thing would pay much better than the research job, despite it being interesting, albeit rather challenging. Now that I think about it, I’m not so sure this ethics team will last those two-years after all.

twoogle

Is Google really in talks to acquire Twitter? Maybe, but news in the blogosphere is that CEO Evan Williams wouldn't sell Twitter even for $1 billion. Hmm. I sense a dandelion. 

Official word from Twitter is: "Our goal is to build a profitable, independent company and we're just getting started." So maybe they've cracked the revenue issue and are about to roll out their solid business plan in the form of strategic partnerships (think ExecTweets). According to Kara Swisher of D: All Things Digital, an imminent deal is inaccurate and pure speculation. While it would make sense for Google to acquire Twitter there is "nada" going on - just some talks and maybe a partnership, but that's about it. 

However, she does go on to say that this could change anytime. "Google or anyone else could plunk down more than $1 billion in cash, and I cannot imagine Twitter's investors would or could resist. Nor should they." So what's the real story? And what nascent company wouldn't bite at $1 billion? Not that I'm saying Google or Microsoft would even pay that much. But...

I don't want to start any dandelions of my own, but my guess is that there is a deal in the making and it's befitting that it would be with Google. Why? Because Twitter CEOs, serial entrepreneurs Evan Williams and Biz Stone have a history with Google - they created and sold Blogger to Google in 2003 -  and Twitter's real time feed could be the future of search, which is at the heart of Google's business.

we're related?

This past Wednesday, the "We're Related" team - a highly popular Facebook application - sent 19 million Facebook users the following message:

"Barack Obama (Washington, DC) has confirmed you as his fourth cousin once removed on We're Related."

To see the how they were related, the lucky cousin followed a link to a landing page that showed him Obama's family tree and how he was connected. 

I have to admit, even though it was clearly an April Fool's joke, I was kind of jealous that I wasn't one of the lucky cousins. Then again, perhaps that would have been weird and slightly incestuous considering I find the man totally sexy. 

Anyway, the joke drew thousands of hits on the "We're Related" application page as traffic to the site increased more than five fold. "Our traffic has skyrocketed to five times our normal traffic. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are visiting the application per hour. Plus, we have become a trending topic on Twitter," said Jason McGowan, chief social officer of Familylink.com which developed the "We're Related" application. Apparently, reactions had ranged from total excitement to anger (?) to warnings about fraud and viruses. 

I do love that thousands of people fell for this - I probably would have too.

P.S. Thanks to Migs for sending this dandelion.

ghost tweeters

Twitter may be limited to only 140 characters, but that hasn't stopped some celebs from hiring their own ghost tweeters. Props to Shaq and Lance for staying real, but 50 cent, Kanye and Britney? Not real(ly).

I have to admit that I've never understood the allure of Twitter. I guess you can argue that the phenomenon provides an interesting study in cultural anthropology. In any case, it's a great way for someone famous (or somewhat famous) to keep the dialogue with friends and fans. And for fans, there's something pleasant about the faint connection with that celeb you think you know. Which is why the idea of having a ghost tweeter just strikes all the wrong chords. 

That Twitter has become a powerful marketing tool for brands, I totally understand. What brand doesn't want another means for speaking directly, intimately and openly to their consumers? So while Joseph Nejman, former Britney consultant, can cry hypocrisy when he argues -- "It's O.K. to tweet for a brand, but not O.K. for a celebrity. But the truth is, they are a brand." -- I'm just not buying it.

The point of social media is to have "real" conversations. This includes both companies as brands and celebrities. It is O.K. for people employed by a company to tweet on behalf of their brand (as long as they disclose their affiliation, of course) -- after all, companies are rarely about just one individual. But, the celebrity brand is all about the individual. So while some celebs might want to cower behind fake tweets, it might help to know that only real tweets by a real person ultimately make for a real brand. 

a-twitter about premium access

Despite the fact that Twitter doesn't actually make any money, there has been a lot of (every day) fuss over it lately. Even the company has acknowledged that they're not quite sure how to generate revenue, which doesn't bode well for the future of Twitter at all.

Back in January, Silicon Alley Insider hosted "Create Twitter's Revenue Model" contest and received some pretty compelling entries. But I have to say that none was more entertaining than the fabulous little dandelion that had Tweeters all a-twitter today.

Brian Briggs of BBspot - a tweeter himself - writes that Twitter co-founder Evan Williams announced a new business plan around premium access accounts. Premium access looks something like this:

• Sparrow ($5/month) – Users get 145 character limit, 5 extra random followers.
• Dove ($15/month) – Users get 160 character limit, 25 extra random followers, 1 random celebrity follower, auto-spell check, "Fail Whale" T-shirt.
• Owl ($50/month) – Users get 250 character limit, 100 extra random followers, 2 random celebrity followers, 30 minutes on recommended list, auto-spell check, "Fail Whale" hoodie.
• Eagle ($250/month) – Users get 500 character limit, 1000 extra random followers, 3 celebrity followers of their choice, 5 hours on recommended list each month, Twitter Concierge for Tweeting while user is asleep or busy (and more), auto-spell check, "Fail Whale" tuxedo, custom "Fail Whale" page when service is down.

Nevermind that this seems highly unlikely, it still had people thinking that the plan "could really change things." If only.