Wednesday, November 9, 2011

An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg


Dear Mark Zuckerberg:


What’s up, bro?  Just kidding; trying to keep things light.  I’m not exactly writing you about games or privacy settings… well, not really, but it’s a close call.  I’m writing you about electronic/cyber warfare on your network.   

Not to be cliché, but we leave in a postmodern world.  In that world, time and space collapse.  The effects of our innovations and actions in a world of exponentially increasing interconnections (as you well know) are often spatially and chronologically disparate from their causal roots.  You, for instance, likely didn’t expect to have a Hollywood movie produced about your experimentation in college…. Word choice, I know; but that is what the creation of theFacebook was to you at the time, right?


You personally listed “openness, breaking things, revolutions…” and a couple others (“information flow, minimalism, making things, eliminating desire for all that really doesn’t matter”) as interests on your own profile. Now I’m not making an accusation of complicity or ignorance, but I do want to bring to your attention that the early part of that list just so happens to be a big part of what the CIA does.  They leak selective facts, break up old regimes, and instigate revolutions.  I am not going to use this space to decry their mission or ethics.  I have a political science background.  I am speaking purely in descriptive (as opposed to normative) discourse here.  I hope to remain ambiguous as to those former distinctions—at least in this letter.  But I want to suggest an improvement to Facebook, not by task, but by goal.


Either by fate, design, or sheer luck, your service has become the chosen social network of the world, and as such connects the masses across continents (BTW: thanks for inventing the medium where I found Die Antwoord).  As your first major investor and board member (also creator of PayPal), Pete Thiel told David Kirpatrick:


The most important investment theme for the first half of the twenty-first century will be the question of how globalization happens… If globalization doesn’t happen, then there is no future for the world.  The way it doesn’t happen is that you have escalating conflicts and wars, and given where the technology is today, it blows up the world.  There’s no way to invest in a world where globalization fails.

The same article that features this quote also references the Un Milion de Voces Contra las FARC.  The group started on January 4th, 2008 by Oscar A. Morales (whose background is in “civil engineering”), now a “Visiting fellow in Human Freedom at George W. Bush Presidential Center.”  Major Craic C. Collucci of the U.S. Army wrote an article entitled Shaping Colombia’s Stability through Strategic Communication: Evaluating U.S. Effectiveness in May of 2009.  The report focuses on one key issue:

 In essence, strategic communication shapes the environment so that the FARC‘s isolation is a longterm [sic] consequence. U.S. efforts must empower the Colombians to achieve this end, and effective strategic communication is a requirement for success.

 The Arab Spring (the collection of revolutionary anti-fascist movements that took place this year across North Africa and the Middle East) adds more examples, that are suspicious to me simply because so many of the (now deposed or embattled) dictators were the unwanted allies, both economic and military, of the West.   I want to believe (with the idealism of Mulder from X-Files) that these movements were truly ‘by the people, for the people.’  But we know from the wealth of data the world has (for the first time) finally been given to us by WikiLeaks, that media coverage and the framing of world events is not always what it seems.


Again, this is not an accusation, just wanted to point out some disturbing ideas.  The experimental First Earth Battalion (of Men Who Stare at Goats fame) lists a particular strategy of note in their handbook, under the section “high commanding.”  “The Conspiracy of the Sparkling Eyes” involves two phases: first, get a group of operatives to call local DJ’s and manipulate social constructions of reality to a desired effect (in this case, with the reports of people’s eyes sparkling, which increases “intensity of eye contact” in the population).  In Phase II, the operatives “call back two weeks later in greater intervals and report” that they have finally found a way to tell which members of the population had them first—“they can be spotted because they’re the ones who automatically hug you upon greeting… etc… etc.”


As Al Jazeera begins pointedly asking “How much of a threat does electronic warfare pose to governments and individuals around the world”, DARPA already has the power to manipulate search algorithms to bury unwanted data (Total Information Awareness).  It’s not quite censorship, but it’s not quite liberty.  SocialBots are stealing your user’s data.  Let me repeat that, SocialBots are stealing your user’s data.  With the recent phone-hacking scandal at News of the World, it has crossed my mind that potentially Murdock owned Myspace.com never changed the “glitch” that allowed page customization for more than freedom of choice—it also allowed malignant code injection in a simplified version of the SocialBots that now attack your network.


My request is simple—provide capital to WikiLeaks in exchange for some of their encryption software and expertise.  If you really love breaking things, break ties with the American Empire, before they ever hold your site back.  I left Myspace and will not move to Google+ for security reasons.  If you really love revolutions, then revolutionize the meaning of privacy and transparency at the same time—then watch the real party get started.  I won’t flatter you, but you’re too smart to have never thought about this.  So let’s get this right.  Before it all goes wrong.


Sincerely,

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

@LocalMedia: In Wichita and on Twitter

To start off with, this is not, by any means, an academic analysis.  I've spent maybe a week or so watching these feeds: @kwch12 @KSNNews @KNSSRadio @KakeNews @KansasDotCom (the Wichita Eagle) @KMUW (local NPR affiliate) @KPTS (our local PBS affiliate) @NakedCityBlog (a local magazine).  I also watched out for posts by journalists and staff from these organizations, as well: @KWCH_KimW (reporter, Kim Wilhelm), @Hnytka12 (weekend anchor and reporter, Denise Hnytka), @KWCH_JBarret (general manager at KWCH), @Stewart_matthew (storm chaser and producer at KNSS).  But just because I wouldn't turn in this analysis to a professor of quantitative or qualitative research methods, doesn't mean I didn't discover a good deal.

First off, organizational feeds are not sufficient for local media.  KWCH seems to try the hardest for the tweetosphere media segment, with varied results.  Their domination of this "local media" feed, as I named it, cut both ways.  Yes, they are at the top of my feed constantly.  Unfortunately, the amount of tweets they produce per day is obscene!  I will end up un-following the organization.  What's really sad is that they also have the most news-team members with individual accounts that advertise where they work!  It seems this could be avoided.  On a more positive note, KWCH is the most focused on user engagement, asking citizen journalists to discuss stories with their tweets and also posting user content, in their "shot of the day" tweet.  But sometimes in hopes of getting me to look at their content, I get directed to interesting but non-local news ("Pizza rivalry ends in arson..." is a good example, as it was from Lakeside, FL).  But sadly, the amount of time I've spent on KWCH here isn't some critique; it's because they are doing the best job of tying social media to traditional media via twitter, despite all these issues.

In the next paragraph, I will give coverage to all of the other organization's feeds, proportionate to the amount of content that was there compared to KWCH-12... as you can guess, they aren't keeping up with channel 12.  KSN focuses it's lens more locally, but has far less posts.  Same goes for KAKE, with the exception that the one story that totally drew me in (Islamic Center damaged in fire, potential arson/hate crime) had a fair amount of quality issues.  NPR is literally NPR on Twitter--anyone who actually listens to NPR, like me, knows what I mean: interesting stuff if I'm just driving and don't feel like playing sing-along with the Alpine.  But unfortunately, even though NPR has one of the oldest organizational histories referencing the Internet of all the media organizations viewed, I;m not in my car.  So stories like "How soda caps are killing birds," just don't engage me from my desk as a blog post like they do in the radio--blame distractions and my generation, if you will.  Kansas.com could have used a few more posts in their feed--they are barely present on Twitter as an organization.

Essentially, anyone that wants to run a newspaper and can put together a decent headline and use hyperlinks to any significant effect can forgo a million dollar printing press or telecommunications satellite and reach the same quantity of people.  The question here is, can those organizations that have already sunk money in that technology adapt?  Some will, some won't--evolution has a sneaky way of working its way into economics and journalism like that.  But one thing's for sure--when storm season hits, I'll be paying a lot more attention to the Twitter feeds operated by organizations with Doppler Radar then individuals with something witty to say!  That social role is secure... for now.