Tama Leaver dot Net

The Australian ran a couple of stories today about Australian politics finding another outlet in MySpace’s ‘Impact’ website (the Australian version).

In Nicola Berkovic’s ‘Kevin has more ‘friends’ than John’, she points out that Labor is doing much better in MySpace than the Liberal Party. As Berkovic notes:

Yesterday afternoon, the Opposition Leader had more than 800 friends, while the Prime Minister had a measly seven. And most of them were fellow Liberal MPs. However, it is also a risky strategy for politicians, who are used to their minders having some degree of control over their image and political message. [...]

Many of Mr Rudd’s MySpace friends are preoccupied with the issues that interest many young people: drinking, smoking and sex. [...] However, Mr Rudd said, provided that people did not post defamatory or profane comments on his site, he was relaxed about losing control over his image on the internet. “It’s just life in the fast lane,” the Opposition Leader said.

I’d say Kevin Rudd’s attitude is probably a sensible one (and its not like any of the politician on MySpace are actually likely to see their own profiles). That said, in ‘MPs cast cyber net in hunt for votes’, Cath Hart points out that:

The emergence of e-campaigning in Australia is set to mirror the trend in the US, where presidential candidates have embraced the internet - for fundraising and profile building - as the 2008 race moves into full swing. Speaking at the launch of MySpace’s new political channel, Impact, yesterday, Mr Rudd described the site as the “public meeting place for the 21st century”, where his goal is “to get 50per cent … plus one more friend than Mr Howard”. “It’s a good shot in the arm for Australian democracy to keep it alive into the next century.” [...]

But media and internet experts have warned Mr Rudd and the swag of other “e-MPs”, or online politicians, that social networking sites can be a double-edged sword. Internet networking expert Joanne Jacobs said the sites offered access to the “student market” of people under 24. “The trouble with these networking sites is that … they open the writer up to criticism. It also means you don’t have a moderating path to vet out unpopular comment,” she said.

Following Joanne Jacobs’ comments, I suspect the real test of Rudd’s take on social networking websites will come when he does something massively unpopular and has to deal with the backlash!

For today, thought, lets look at MySpace friends:

Labor leader Kevin Rudd, has 3382 friends;

Julia Gillard (Deputy Leader for Labor) has 687 friends.

In the middle, Bob Brown (leader of the Greens) has 173 friends, while Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett has 163 friends (although, already being Australia’s most web2.0-savvy politician, Bartlett already blogs extensively and has clearly stated that he only has time to treat MySpace as a re-posting space for his blog);

Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard only has 8 friends (and Peter Costello, oddly enough, isn’t one of them!). While the generation gap is clearly one factor, I strongly suspect that Howard’s camp simply aren’t checking friend requests (and thus Howard will probably never have more than 8 friends!). This is similar to what Jill mentions about politics in Norway, in that candidates are using online networks like MySpace or YouTube without having teams literate in how these websites actually work. (Another argument for the importance of digital literacies right there!)

Incidentally, the popularity of certain politicians doesn’t seem to be rubbing off on the youth arms of either major party: on MySpace the Young Liberals currently have 50 friends while Young Labor isn’t doing much better with 110 friends.

Returning to Australian Politics on Facebook discussed last week, Kevin Rudd is up to 1296 friends, while there still doesn’t appear to be a real John Howard. I’ll leave you to draw your on conclusions on that front!

(All friend counts and screenshots were taken between 3pm and 3.40pm Perth Time on 13 July 2007.)

Chuck tagged me a few days ago with the Eight Things meme; although I’m generally fairly anti-meme, I’ve been enjoying a bit of back and forth with Chuck in his blog and on del.icio.us, so figured I could add one more procrastination on a writing day.  Apparently, I have to start with rules … 

Rules:
1. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
2. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
3. People who are tagged write their own blog post about their eight things and include these rules.
4. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged and that they should read your blog.

Eight Facts about Me:

1. When I was in Primary School I won a Lego building competition; this is, without a doubt, my fondest memory of the first 7 years of education.

2. Apart from The Goonies, the film that rattled around my brain the most when I was a kid was called Explorers.  I was fascinated how three boys could essentially make a spacecraft out of everyday junk (and a little piece of alien technology).  In retrospect, this example of making something amazing from the bits and pieces others leave lying around resonates with some of the way I view the internet and participatory culture (and until I looked it up on IMDb to link to for this post, I hadn’t realised River Phoenix was one of the kids).

3. When I was twelve years old I joined Perth’s Doctor Who fan club, The West Lodge, which was my first proper immersion into fandom; I attend the local science-fiction convention in the following year (Swancon 14) but found the whole thing rather intimidating and didn’t get back to Swancon until  seven years later when Neil Gaiman visited Perth as GoH in 1996.

4. I have re-read all six of Frank Herbert’s Dune books as a series at least twenty times since I was 14; I’ve been relatively unimpressed by the prequel novels in the past few years.

5. My sister and I both have PhDs and are the first members of our family to ever attend university at all.  My sister is eighteen months younger, started her thesis a year after I did, but we both were officially given our PhDs at the same graduation ceremony.

6. Emily and I currently live less than 14 metres from Subiaco Oval, which is where Australian Rules Football attracts 40-45,000 people most weekends.  Despite AFL being Australia’s national winter sport, I’ve never been to a Football game.

7. Until last Saturday I had never test-driven a car, having bought my only owned vehicle to date from my parents.  On Saturday I test-drove a Prius which Emily and I are seriously considering buying despite the fact it will take us several years to pay it off.

8. In the proposal for my PhD thesis in 2000, the final chapter was supposed to look at the use of computer-generated imagery and special effects in nature documentaries as a case study of artificial culture where natural and technological meaning merged together.  (It never got written because after that proposal both September 11 2001 and the Spider-Man films happened, and I used the latter to interrogate the cultural impact of the former.)

You’re It! I now tag the following people (hoping at least a few will play along): Jill Walker Rettberg (just getting used to writing that double barrel surname!), Christy Dena, David Silver, Nancy Baym (because fandom has a meme for a heart!), Mia Consalvo (who can sadly not follow the meme and call it ‘cheating‘), Jean Burgess, Kate Raynes-Goldie and Kevin Lim (who lives for these sort of connections!).

Over the past month I’ve suddenly seen Facebook grow from an oddity to something on which the majority of my university-based friends appear.  Since I spent some of yesterday pondering the oddities of US politics and digital culture, I thought I’d spend a little of today looking at Australian politics.  For those of you not in the know, Australia has what amounts to a two-party political system, divided between Liberal (close to Republican/Tory parties) and Labor (close to the Democrat/UK Labor parties); the Liberal party is led by John Howard, who is our current Prime Minister, while the Labor party, after many years of leadership ambiguity, is led by Kevin Rudd. 

Unlike the US (and a lesser extent the UK), mainstream press and politics in Australia really hasn’t embraced either the blogosphere or social networking as a means of promotion or gaining support (and Australian politicians can’t and don’t fund-raise in the explicit way US politicians do).  That said, younger voters are clearly looking for some sort of connection with the political sphere, even if its not done through the same rhetoric of civil participation that comes through the US education and advocacy systems.  So, that said, is either Australia’s Prime Minster or his Labor rival on Facebook?  The answer, initially, appears yes to both, although after some scrutiny, the answer changes to yes for Rudd and no for John Howard - there are, in fact, three Howards, but all are fake.

Of the three Howards, two are obvious fakes, while one is more subtle, but still not authentic.  Since this is a fun moment to think about digital literacy, I’ve taken screenshots of the three Howard profiles and circled in red the most obvious indicators that these aren’t authentic pages. 

John Howard #1 …

John Howard #2 …

and John Howard #3 …

In contrast, Kevin Rudd’s Facebook page is rather dull, but clearly authentic.  (I’ve just made a friend request, so if there’s anything exciting in friends-only land, I’ll write a little more.)  It is worth noting that comments which cast John Howard as a sexual or ‘hot’ figure are unambiguously meant to be satirical, in contrast to the clips from the US mentioned yesterday which, while playful, aren’t necessarily ironic (although they might be, especially Hott4Hill).

In a fit of silliness, I find myself using the LOL CATS builder for terrible, terrible, theorist humour …

Henry Jenkins…

Jean Baudrillard …

Where did this insanity come from? I blame Jean (Burgess, not Baudrillard!). (More here.)

Update: Henry Jenkins linked to the LOL Theorist mashups of himself!

The 4400 has taken to viral marketing dramatically in order to build the word before the upcoming fourth season of the TV show.  According to AdWeek:

To promote the new season of The 4400 on USA Network, Campfire has created a wide-ranging interactive world consisting of 80 videos that run from 30 seconds to five minutes and six Web sites. [...] The 4400 follows 4,400 people who are abducted, taken away and then returned to planet Earth. After their return, many of them discover they have superpowers. As the fourth season begins on June 17, the plot follows the development of a drug called Promicin: it gives the users superpowers, if it doesn’t kill them. Three different factions emerge around the drug: pro, anti- and neutral.

On YouTube, for example, one of the show’s stars, Billy Campbell, appears in character as Jordan Collier, advocating Promicin and the decrying the government’s attempts to ban the drug.  Here’s Jordan Collier dispatch #3:

Elsewhere on the net, we can find the Promicin Power website, which argues that Promicin is the key to world peace and a sustainable relationship with nature.  Here’s one example that looks like it could be have been a United Colours of Bennetton advertisement in a past life:

At the other extreme, there’s also Promicin Terror which sees the drug as the biggest threat to the US since Al Qaeda.  Clearly building on the famous ‘Daisy‘ political ad of the 60s (which was recycled in the US debates about the War with Iraq), this is an example  of a clip campaigning to ban the drug:

I quite enjoyed the last season of The 4400 and am heartened to see the show’s producers so actively embracing the potential of video-sharing and online word-of-mouth.  The clips are a little over-produced, but given the state of a lot of TV advertising today, I’m sure they could easily be mistaken for the ‘real thing’.

I was playing with Google Trends and their comparison function and noticed that you can now limit searches to regions (ie just Australia, for example). I was playing around looking at the comparative popularity of ‘blog’ versus ‘wiki’ and found something interesting: cumulatively, global searchers are still typing in ‘blog’ more, but in Australia, ‘wiki’ is a more popular term, and has been since the third quarter of 2006. Since there’s no scale on Google Trends, I’ve no numbers attached to these trends, but the results are interesting nevertheless.

Australia is looking for wikis…

While the world is looking for blogs…

[Click either image to expand.]

I’ve no idea why wikis are more popular in Australia … perhaps something to do with Wikipedia? I note in the News trends (the smaller bottom graph), blogs are still mentioned a lot more in the mainstream media. I wonder what it is about wikis and Aussies?

I woke this morning to the news that 33 people were dead at Virginia Tech university in the US due to a gunman’s “shooting rampage” . Apart from the tragedy itself one line which struck me as odd in initial report I was reading from the BBC (and I struck, literally, hundreds more when I started working through the posts in the eight hours since I last looked at the aggregated news in Google Reader) was this:

Eyewitnesses said some students jumped from classroom windows to escape the gunfire, which triggered panic on campus.

Some of those locked down inside the university buildings were using the internet to try to glean information about what was happening and many e-mailed the BBC News website. [Emphasis added.]

Why would Virginia Tech students turn to the BBC for information on a real-time event happening around them in the United States? While the BBC was certainly a focal point in the aftermath of the 2005 London Bombings, this line struck me as just odd (and uncharacteristically self-important for the usually quite staid BBC). Looking a little further around the BBC website, I found this story from Virginia Tech student Nikolas Macko which describes the experience of staying inside one of the classrooms while gunshots could be heard nearby. The BBC was certainly quick off the mark with this story, so I guess if students didn’t find anything on the BBC, perhaps they sent their stories in by email or the other means the BBC has set up to highlight reports from everyday folk.

Reading further, Dan Gillmor of Citizen Media points out that most of the news stories on US television feature a cameraphone video taken by a VT student in which gunshots can be clearly heard, but not seen (the video is, of course, now available on YouTube, found via NewTeeVee).

A number of mainstream media outlets have also turned to blogs to find eyewitness and VT student testimonials. One blogger, ntcoolfool aka Bryce Carter, had mainstream media producers requesting help finding cameraphone videos after he posted a videoclip of police cars heading to the scene of the massacre. There was also a request from someone at the Boston Herald for Carter’s thoughts on social software, given that the paper was “wondering if online communication is the best way to stay in touch during a crisis“.

One of the things that stood out to me when reading some of the blog posts from Virginia Tech students, including Carter’s, was how people reacted when their blogged personal thoughts suddenly became mainstream media soundbites. For example, Carter later posted this:

As this blog has received international attention, I find myself wondering what the world has come to. The media watch dogs, no offense, have jumped on this story and on me for, as one anonymous user said, ‘exploit my emotions’. At this time I do not believe this is so, because to put it simply: I’m willing to share my experience. This is nothing special. I don’t deserve any credit. I went to class as any other student would. I just happened to be on the other side of campus when the shots were fired later in the day. But isn’t that just it? What is remarkable about this story is that this is the story of an average student at this great school. Stories of horror, bloodshed, and death are soon to come from the victims of this horrible catastrophe and the limelight will shine onwards, for that is what the public thirsts for.

For those that are interested, I will write a more complete narrative of my experiences of today later, once the media frenzy has died down and I have a minute to better reflect. As of the time I am writing this I have done a radio interview with BBC and talked with a reporter from the LA Times. CBC Newsworld, the Boston Herald, Current TV, and MTV have asked for interviews and further information. As I said I intend to share my experiences with everyone, but I want to reinstate that I am just an average student and I don’t want to be made into something I am not.

Furthermore, upon looking at a few of the posts made on this blog, I want to declare that I am OFFENDED that people are allowing this to become a political debate. People are dead. My friends could be dead. Forget bickering about trivia. Now is not the time or the place. It is the media’s job to report to the public these stories. Take it as you wish. I’m not the media. I’m just me.

A few minutes ago I walked in the hallway of the dorm frustrated with the constant contacts of media coming in every minute. In my arrogance and limited perspective I walked into a friends room while in discussion and yelled out “I hate livejournal!”, which, concerning the current emotions of campus, was not the best thing to do. Understandably, they kicked me out. [Link Via Washington Post Blog Roundup]

Carter, I have to say, seems to be handling his edge of the media spotlight rather well. His comments really emphasise that despite the ideals of citizen journalism, many forms of social software tend to allow ordinary folks to become more like eyewitnesses who are harassed into sharing their perspectives with the mainstream press, far more so than being intentional ‘reporters’ in their own right. That said, Carter’s commentary on the process itself will, I guess, have much more prominence in the aftermath of these tragic shootings. I suspect I might end up talking about Carter’s livejournal experience in a lecture in the near future, when trying to get students to ponder the difference between the initial and intended use of social software and online presence, versus what these textual (another other) online artifacts might, at some point, be used for.

Xeni Jardin’s post about the shootings at Boing Boing has lots of relevant links to citizen-produced commentary (much intentionally so), links and blogs and is a solid starting point if you’re looking to see how reportage about the VT Shootings — both mainstream and otherwise — has grown across the world wide web.

Finally, though, I wanted to share a screenshot posted to the Flickr Virginia Tech Shooting pool. This image is far from graphic, but really hit home because it’s the sort of notice which looks so banal, but says so much. The screenshot is from the Virginia Tech website and reads “Campus Advisory: Gunman on Campus; Classes Canceled“:

This left me wondering, if such a tragic event happened at my university, how would we react? I guess, at some level, that’s the thought that runs through most people’s minds and what makes these shootings feel so visceral to so many people - sympathy, of course, but empathy, too.

As everyone from the New York Times onward has noted, in the wake of the threats against Kathy Sierra Tim O’Reilly proposed a Blogging Code of Conduct and has now written the first (draft) version of this code. While I’m heartened that so much well-intentioned conversation has surged through the blogosphere, I fear that a trying to write rules of all blogs and bloggers is a fairly silly and self-defeating thing to do. One of the models being mentioned all over the place is the BlogHer Community Guidelines; I think that these are great guidelines for a particular online community and suggest that, really, it’s not just the model but the width of applicability that matters; communities should always be able to assert their own guidelines, but the blogosphere, despite the collective noun, is at best an awful lot of communities and individuals, often with vastly different aims and intentions.

In educational contexts, for example, the process of discussing guidelines in classes from K-12 through to university is a useful one both for the issues raised, and the shared guidelines which emerge. Similarly, most communities or vague collectives have rules of some sort, but these rules differ. Some bloggers have a notice about conduct on their blog (by commenters); I think this level of transparency is great. (It’s also something I’ve always meant to do for this blog, but I fear I might not get around to until I actually have to deal with deleting someone’s comments and I’ve not had to do that to anyone other than Mr Spam as yet.)

I think Jeff Jarvis sums up a lot of the angst I’m feeling at reading about O’Reilly’s Code:

So O’Reilly only set us up to be called nasty, unmannered, and thus uncivilized hooligans. Except for Tim, of course. He’s the nice one. Me, I feel like the goth kid with premature tattoos skulking down the hall.

But the problems are far more fundamental and dangerous than that. And just gratingly twinkie, too.

This effort misses the point of the internet, blogs, and even of civilized behavior. They treat the blogosphere as if it were a school library where someone — they’ll do us the favor — can maintain order and control. They treat it as a medium for media. But as Doc Searls has taught me, it’s not. It’s a place. And when I moved into the place that is my town, I didn’t put up a badge on my fence saying that I’d be a good neighbor (and thus anyone without that badge is, de facto, a bad neighbor). I didn’t have to pledge to act civilized. I just do. And if I don’t, you can judge me accordingly. Are there rules and laws? Yes, the same ones that exist in worlds physical or virtual: If I libel or defame you on the streetcorner or in a paper or on a screen, the recourse is the same. But I don’t put up another badge on my fence saying I won’t libel you. I just don’t. That’s how the world works. Why should this new world work any differently? Why should it operate with more controls and more controllers?

Also, Tristan Louis has a thoughtful “Blogger’s Code of Conduct: a Dissection” which makes a very strong case against O’Reilly’s Code, pointing out many of the semantic, interpretive and legal difficulties such a code throws up for bloggers (and commenters) everywhere (Via SmartMobs).

It’s no shock that Dave Winer has blasted O’Reilly’s Code, but it is telling to have Robert Scoble stating he wouldn’t be able to follow the proposed Code despite the fact that his wife was also one of the people targeted by the same pillocks who threatened Sierra.

I’m all for thinking about how communities work (online and, indeed, offline) and for individuals and individual communities to be able to - within reason - set rules for their own digital turf. I just think the turf of the blogosphere en masse is so different and so wide that no single set of rules will let the grass grow properly or productively everywhere.

In light of the recent tragic chatroom/webcam suicide, I wondered what an article “Ghosts of blogging haunt net cemetery” might have to say about the role of blogs after a blogger’s life. Alas, this has to be one of the worst, ignorant, mainstream-media puff pieces in a long time:

In the latest entry on her personal weblog, Lindsay Lohan, the hard-partying Hollywood actress, was in characteristically bubbly form. “Hey guys, I’m soooo sooo sorry I haven’t written in a while!!” she wrote. She was heading off to New York for two days of photo-shoots, then to Toronto in Canada for a week of filming, then back to Los Angeles again. The entry ended: “I just wanted to check in, I’ll try and write more … xx LL.” It has been a long wait for any Lohan fans who may be hoping for an update. That entry was posted on October 15, 2003.

Lohan’s blog has since taken its place in the internet’s fastest-growing graveyard - of an estimated 200 million blogs that have been started, then abandoned.

The extraordinary failure rate of online diaries and claims that interest in blogging will soon begin a precipitous slide are sparking an intriguing debate about the future of self-expression on the internet and whether blogs, once seen as revolutionary, are destined to become a footnote in the history of computing.

To the embarrassment of millions of internet users - from Hollywood celebrities such as Lohan, Melanie Griffith and Barbra Streisand to countless ordinary parents, workers and would-be poets - the evidence of failed diary-keeping cannot be easily erased from search engines that continue to provide links to blogs that have lain dormant for years.

This article clearly commits many of the most juvenile mistakes about writing regarding blogs — no, not all blogs are online diaries; no, celebrities who blog are no more typical of bloggers than they are of people — but even a journalist who has never read a blog should feel a little silly making the leap to describing the ‘extraordinary failure rate’ of blogs. Or are blogs, unlike regular diaries, or pretty much any other form of narrative or writing - the only form which is supposed to be endless? Blogs have been around for a long time and, like most other things, many blogs have had their natural lifespan, dictated by the purpose for which they were originally constructed. Some blogs are used in education - and thus often have a lifespan of a semester or two; some are issue-driven and may end when that issue is resolved; indeed some are diaries, but like hardcopy diaries, they tend to get left behind after a few years.

All of those gripes aside, the article did make two good points: firstly, that the exponential rise of blogging has to slow soon (because exponential means, quite literally, that there would have to be more blogs than people within a few years at recent growth rates); and secondly that citizens of a digital culture may be shifting their focus to other platforms like YouTube and MySpace. That’s not really an argument about the death of blogging, though - it’s more testimony to the maturing of the world of social software in that many more options available for those many networks of interest and friendship which life online can facilitate.

Of course, I wonder why no one writes about how many MySpace profiles are abandoned? (Far be it from me to points out that the same folk that own MySpace own The Australian).

I guess one has to ask The Australian, if blogs are on the decline, why does your blog section keep growing?