Digital Media @ Griffth

The 3,000 Russian-connected ads that Facebook agreed to turn over to Congress is only one of several scandals surrounding the social media behemoth in the last weeks. Additionally, users were outraged to discover that the platform was suppressing posts from Rohingya activists in Myanmar and, along with Twitter and Google, allowing advertisers to use bigoted language in ad targeting. But while the public demands better of the platforms, the sheer scale of their operations raises difficult questions about the enforcement of universal definitions of hate speech. And when Facebook does impose its ethical standards, is it exercising monopolistic control over internet dialogue? Brooke talks with technology writer, commentator and entrepreneur Paul Ford about the difficulty of defining ethics in the digital age.

Yesterday Twitter announced it was shutting down its much-beloved but apparently not very profitable 6-second video looping service, Vine.

I really liked Vine, it was a very innovative space that seemed to confirm the maxim that constraints breed creativity. The brevity of the format is what made most of the best Vines work.

Twitter is in trouble, clearly. Yesterday also came with the announcement that it was cutting 8% of its global workforce in attempt to become profitable. They were courting investors up until very recently, but many suggest that their inability to tackle the rampant abuse problem on their platform has put off would be buyers.

The iconic German director Werner Herzog has made some ground breaking documentaries, covering topics ranging from Alaskan bears, to prehistoric cave paintings to the perils of texting while driving.

In his latest “Lo and Behold: The Reveries of the Connected World” he looks at the Internet; tracking it from its birth, to its effect on our world, both good and bad, and beyond: to its potential in future.

When I first heard of this project I was fascinated; interested to see what a man like Herzog would make of the topic. I wondered if it would be an anti-technological polemic. I’d gotten the impression that he was in some way a Luddite. I was mistaken. The film is quite even handed; offering 10 ‘chapters’ which take on different aspects of how our connected world has effected us. In one sequence he juxtaposes quite sharply the positive (how connected gamers helped scientists solve a problem involving molecules) to the negative (trolling).

Over the 10 chapters the film touches on many different, some times connected, some times disparate ideas. Some will be familiar to those interested in the topic, others offer unique perspectives on the effect of the Internet. The film only loses its way once when it strays too far from the subject matter when it talks of interplanetary travel (My friend suggested this was simply a ploy to lure Elon Musk onto camera)

There are some breath-taking moments (I really want to see more robots playing football), some terrifying (the sequence on how easy it is for the Internet to go away in a hearbeat) and some touching. I found it surprising how little time he offered on a topic like trolling (which could be a film in itself) but he had shown us enough.

Dusting off the blog for another semester of Web Authoring. Here I’ll be mostly sharing links (with some thoughts) on various issues about the web and technology and how they effect our lives.

I’ve been using computers for most of my life; from as long as I can remember we had one in the house, starting with an old Sinclair ZX80. My first real exposure however was with the Amstrad 6128k. I did my first programming on it (using BASIC).

It wasn’t until we got a Windows PC (via an Amiga 1200 on the way) that I was first exposed to the internet. It’s funny to me: my nephews and nieces cannot concieve of people using computers without the internet - but I used them for a good 12 or so years ‘disconnected’. I was definitely enthralled by the net and its possibilities, especially its potential for linking people together with like-minded interests. Back then there was no social media, just the old self-coded HTML hobby pages on Geocities. Here you could find just about anything at a button press.

I’m currently listening to an album streaming over the internet, back then a single mp3 song could take an hour to download. Last night I watched television via my web-browser. Back then, a 30 second 320x240 pixel low res video could take 10 minutes to queue up.

So, earlier today Twitter made a very controversial change when they changed the beloved “Fav” represented by a star...into a “Like”.....which is a heart.

Like many, I immediately took a dislike [ : ) ] to this. For me, the generally ambigious nature of the star made it an all-purpose utility. Like many others it doubled not only as a way to ‘Favourite’ something, but also to book mark, for later reading.

By explicitly making it a “heart” it’s meaning changed somewhat. In their announcement of it, Twitter confirmed they want it to be a multi-purpose action, indicating it can be used to convey liking, laughing, commiserating, compassion etc.

The heart, in contrast, is a universal symbol that resonates across languages, cultures, and time zones. The heart is more expressive, enabling you to convey a range of emotions and easily connect with people. 

The “like” has always had it’s problems. The typical example is someone who posts a sad or distressing story. By using the classic Facebook “Thumbs up”, you can come across as callous or even saying you liked the event. Facebook responded to this by introducing an expanded range of likes, called “reactions”. And Twitter’s response is to use the heart as universal reaction.

As I said, I’m not a fan. I feel weird favouriting some things now. But like most social network changes, we’ll probably have forgotten by next week.

Timely, after our conversation in class, the publisher of Europe’s best-selling tabloid will begin blocking people who use ad-blockers from their site.