MrGareth’s Missives

After the heddy themes of last week: peace, love and harmony - this week's Philosophy and Social Media course took on a slightly more distopian and cynical approach to this new world - at least for the most part.  Beginning with the German Philosopher Martin Heidegger, Dr Tim Rayner proposed that - based on Heidegger's theory of "enframing" - the Social Media industry is exploiting "prosumers" as a resource from which to make money.

"Enframing" is the Metaphysical view of reality as a field of resources that can be slotted into production systems.  Facebook takes the culture of sharing endemic in the activities of Social Media - and derived from the ideals the 60s counter culture revolution as we learnt last week - and cynically monitises it.  Much of the lecture in fact looked at the reality behind what Mark Zuckerberg likes to call "frictionless sharing", how Facebook Connect is in fact a genius strategy to glean as much personal data about your web usership, likes, hobbies and interests under the guise of identity convenience.  This data is the by-product of the resource which can then be sold to advertisers.  There is nothing radically new about this view; only more drill-down in the science of it.  Not surprisingly the class became quite vocal as their suspicions became alarmingly confirmed.

The position is beautifully summed up by this quite from "Prosumers of the world unite":

"Facebook's profit model is built upon an ownership of its user's labour, specifically, the intimate detail of our lives and self-presentations. This is an example a larger trend of “prosumption,” that is, the simultaneous role of being a producer of what one consumes.  [Prosumption] generally, and especially on Web 2.0, is the mechanism by which we become unpaid workers, producing valuable information for the benefit of businesses. This is the almost endlessly efficient business model of Web 2.0 capitalism."

Posing the question "How do Facebook make money?" - consensus is that Facebook has its eye on becoming the default guarantor of Identity, thereby beautifully positioning itself to become a payments company.

The narative then moved to the question of reputation.  To operate in this new economy, your reputation is based on the idea that - as Dr Rayner put it - you got to give to get back.  This is almost the theory of "pay it forward", the idea of reciprical worth.  If you do have nothing to contribute then you will derive nothing from it.  You get what you put in.  I personally think this is the very essence of Social Media.  Those who derive no value from Twitter are generally contributing nothing to it.  

Social Media connects trustworthy strangers and taps the benefit of that connection - note the way eBay farms the need for strangers to trade in a trusted environemnt where the integrity of the transaction is ensured.  Not insured, but ensured.  

The concerns of the class then moved from the fear of the cynical exploitation of Facebook to the obligatory regime that had now established itself - if you are not on Facebook you are no one.  As if to confirm this, Dr Rayner then focussed on TrustCloud - a new Beta service designed to establish a benchmark standard in Social Trust - kind of like Klout but on Trust instead of Influence.  

As always, my mind wandered to what I can take from the learnings in terms of consultancy to clients.  This very much supports my feeling that many people are very quickly becoming in danger of being left behind by an economy that defines influence, trust and profile in a new way. You might be CEO of a major organisation, but without a Social profile and without some form of Online credentials will you lose out to younger executives who have these assets in spades? How does a business person fork-lift their use of social media to score well in these new standard services like Klout, LinkedIn and TrustCloud?  

While the digital divide usually refers to those bereft of digital devices; pretty soon it could refer to those bereft of digital credibility.  Ironically, these could be among the most privileged and wealthy citizens rather than the most disadvantaged.

Anyway, enjoy Dr Rayner's slides - it is a very thought-provoking narative that emerged from its distopian perspective to finally ask: if Social Media rewards the spirit of sharing with a digital standard of currency, how is that a bad thing?

I've been Watching Ken Burns' "the west" lately, if you don't know it it's a very sad in-detail look at the grim realities of the wild west in the nineteenth century through the voices of those who were there.  Primarily it is the detail of man's cruelty to man: native American Indians, African americans, the chinese labourers, Mexicans and Mormons.  All got a brutal dose of the wrong end of humanity as the European settlers of the new world spread westward across the north American continent with voracious appetite for land, riches and glory.

Which ever way you look at it the conquest of the west is a miserable tale of what competitive-man can be like faced with abundant opportunity.  Most importantly, what is most depressing is the failure to seek it in a sustainable  fashion or with any sense of moderation.  Furthermore, the speed which many will resort to acts of theft, betrayal or will renege on a promise waterboards any faith in human nature with each sordid anecdote.

It led me to think of what an amazing new opportunity such a great piece of virgin, mineral rich and accessible new land afforded the people of that time.  Then I wondered whether that could ever happen again. 

Then i went to see "the social network" and of curse remembered all the analogies everyone made between the West and the dot com boom of the late nineties.  Particularly the Land and Gold Rushes but also the building of the continental railroad and the rapid proliferation of new towns and cities all across the western plains and down the west coast.  (This analogy was particularly echoed by the famous bumper sticker "f@&$ you...and the dot com you rode in on!").

Certainly one comment that made this seem all the more poignant was one made by an Indian chief writing as the final collapse of his people' future seemed nigh.  I cannot quote  exactly from memory but it is to the tune of, "we thought there was enough here for us all to share.  We were wrong.  They wanted it all."

Spoiler warning. 

This in my mind mirrored a key plot in the Facebook movie.  Mark Zuckerberg ultimately ended up accruing an incredible $25 billion in less than seven years with his little idea, (which he argueably pinched off the Winklevoss).  Yet along the way he cheated, he lied and most astoundingly he stole whole swathes of company assets that has been promised to his hitherto best friend, co-founder and CFO.  The sheer audacity is as breathtaking as it is disappointing.  But the tune was very familiar for me and if you look at the ways the Indians were betrayed over the black hills or the way the Chinese were treated, you'll see what I mean.  Greed outweighs all conscience.

However, while scorned and disapproved of, like the crimes of the wild west, zuckerberg's greed is accepted and excused in the name of good enterprise and entrepreneurship.  In  one vivid scene in the film, Zuckerberg is discussing one of his many law suits for ill deeds  with his lawyer, who urges him to settle: "it's just a speeding ticket." she says.

Now...what shall I do next, update my status or watch "blazing saddles"?