It’s been the talk of the internet since the project was announced, and now the “Facebook movie”, a.k.a. “The Social Network” has finally been released in Australian cinemas.
I have to say when I first heard the film was being made I was skeptical. Yeah, like most people I use Facebook. But did I want to watch a movie about its creation? The big question was whether a two-hour film on the topic could be engaging. After all, I use my toothbrush every day but I wouldn’t go to a movie about the early days of Oral B.
The big thing this film has going for it and one of the things that ultimately swayed me was David Fincher in the director’s chair. And while I’ve heard mixed reports from other cinema goers on whether they liked it, I found “The Social Network” to be engaging, hip, thought-provoking and thoroughly satisfying.
“You’re going to go through life believing that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd, and I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that’s not true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.” – Erica Albright, Mark Zuckerberg’s ex-girlfriend
It is largely a dialogue-driven film, with the dialogue snappy, intense and real. The movie is nicely bookended with two fantastic pieces of linked dialogue. Quick camera work, angles and scene changes add to the urgency of the narrative while the music of Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails fame) gives the piece a dimension of youth and rebellion.
I was surprised at how much humour the film contained – several lines had the entire cinema erupting with laughter. But there’s also drama aplenty, a healthy serving of intensity, betrayal and longing. Jesse Eisenberg in a fantastic portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg (and while I’m at it, Justin Timberlake is excellent as Napster’s Sean Parker) spends the whole film searching for something, and while he ends up with an empire and a whole pile of money, one gets the sense that he still hasn’t found that something when the credits roll.
“You’re not an asshole, Mark. You’re just trying really hard to be.” – Marylin Delpy, Law office intern
As for the amount of truth in the film? It’s hard to know. Several things are fact. Zuckerberg was sued by Eduardo Saverin after reducing his stake in the company. He was also sued by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss who claimed he had stolen the idea for Facebook from them. And according to what I’ve read, Sean Parker did suggest dropping “the” from the site’s name.
As with any biographical piece when the subject isn’t involved in the production, naturally the makers had to take artistic license to fill the gaps around what they knew. Does it paint Zuckerberg in a bad light? Perhaps. He is certainly not portrayed as a hero, but nor in my view is he a classic villain. He is certainly flawed, and while not a protagonist in a classic sense, it is his film.
As with any cinema it is to be enjoyed for what it is, and if it inspires debate among audiences that’s great. No doubt they’ll continue discussing it for a while yet. … On Facebook.
Before Facebook took over the world, there was this little social media site called MySpace. It was uber-cool, attracting those who were hip, connected and expressive. It was arguably the first large-scale social network.
Trendy bands and celebrities all had a MySpace page, through which Gen Y was able to get that little bit closer to their idols. Above all though, it provided the first real way for people to connect with each other online, launching social media into the connected world’s consciousness.
Then Facebook came along, followed by Twitter and a host of other social networking tools and kick-started MySpace’s decline.
One area where it remained strong however, was in the music and entertainment arena, where it still provided a platform for artists to engage with fans in a dynamic environment. Then in July this year, Mashable reported that even this aspect of MySpace was losing ground.
MySpace’s reaction to this has been a complete rebrand and relaunch. Changes include a new logo, a focus on entertainment only, and the facility to share on Facebook and Twitter, the very sites that caused its decline.
The new site will hit Australian shores next month, with a mobile site and apps to follow for iPhone and Android thereafter. In the meantime, MySpace has released this video as a teaser:
Features of the new MySpace will include content hubs which combine programmed editorial with trending articles that feature news, videos and photos, a personalised content stream based on user preferences and providing recommendations and, seemingly inspired by Foursquare, badges that reward user activity.
Time will tell if these changes will save the once flourishing site. Positioning MySpace as a complement to rather than a competitor of Facebook is certainly a good start, and may well result in former users giving it a second look. However, don’t expect to see MySpace back on top any time soon.
And certainly don’t hold your breath for any movies to be made about its founders.
Today on Mashable there are two stories that anyone interested in journalism should read. I’ve harped on relentlessly in this blog about the implications of technology and the social media revolution on journalism. These two stories cover both bases.
Maintaining a perception of journalistic objectivity has been one of the key problems for news organisations on Twitter. You may recall this blog discussing Reuters bringing in new rules for its twitterers back in March. Now the Washington Post is the latest company to put its foot down.
In a memo to staff, managing editor Raju Narisetti said:
“Once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor–and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It’s something we don’t do.”
Mashable’s Vadim Lavrusik in his analysis rightly argues that the Washington Post doesn’t get social media. In an era where journalism is becoming increasingly about engaging with readers and encouraging a debate, Narisetti has put a clear roadblock between his organisation and the future. Yes, the Post needs to monitor and regulate how Twitter is used, but to put a blanket ban on this kind of interaction is not the solution.
Now here’s an interesting one. Technology is widely credited with causing the decline in the newspaper industry, but here is a suggestion it will also be its saviour.
The article explores the popularity of the iPad and subsequent rise of apps for consuming newspapers. It suggests that the tablet revolution may be helping publishers tap into new digital markets. With this uptake new revenue models are being created that may just make publishing viable again.
It does point out that there is a way to go – newspapers are still not designing apps that take full advantage of the iPad’s capabilities. These comments about the Sydney Morning Herald iPad app seem to bolster this view.
I think it’s great that newspaper publishers may have found a way to stay viable (as it helps my chances of making a living!) but I think there is no doubt that if they expect consumers to pay, publishers will have to produce a product that’s worth the money.
We’ve all received those emails, be it a poorly-English worded “Hello, my friend. How are you recently. I write tell you of big electrical bargains, reliable company” or the infamous “I write because you have good reputation. I wish to use your bank account to transfer $1,000,000 and you get give $10,000 for assistance”. Let’s face it, email spam is annoying and for the poor souls that fall for it, dangerous.
But what about Twitter spam?
I had never been spammed on Twitter before, so it never even occurred to me that such a thing existed. In hindsight I guess it was too good to be true. For yesterday morning when I logged in to the world’s favourite microblogging service, there it was:
Spam was already becoming an increasing problem on Twitter in mid-2009, according to this article from TechCrunch. Then in June this year itnews.com.au reported on a malicious spam attack, involving tweets containing a link to a website that self-installs rogue software on the user’s computer.
This video talks about what constitute Twitter spam:
Twitter itself is well-aware of the spam problem and says it is working hard to fight it. The service has strict rules to try prevent spammers. This graph, sourced from Twitter, shows the amount of spam as a percentage in the 12 months to February 2010 (although with the exponential increase in Twitter users, the actual number of spammers may have increased even if the percentage has decreased):
Computerworld questions whether Twitter is doing enough, and has itself demonstrated that identifying spammers can be done. The problem however is you find and block one spammer, then another takes its place.
The other battleground against spam is through third party clients. TweetDeck, for example has introduced a spam button which deletes the message, blocks the user and reports them to Twitter. Hootsuite also allows a spammer to be reported, but popular mobile client Echofon appears to be yet to follow suit.
Time will tell of the effectiveness of these measures – in the meantime, it looks like this annoyance will be with us for the foreseeable future.
It seems that we had barely begun to declare the print media’s demise, now all of a sudden there are some that say the World Wide Web is treading the same path.
In a Wired.com report entitled “The Web is Dead. Long live the Internet“, authors Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff argue that the uptake of mobile apps means that fewer people are using their web browsers. Increasingly, they are checking their emails, getting their news, using social media and being entertained entirely through specialised applications. In short, they are using the internet but not the web.
But does this spell doom? No one can doubt that the smartphone/tablet revolution hasn’t had an effect. But is it a bit premature to declare the web dead? After all, corporate workers spend their days in front of computer screens where the web is a click away. Travellers continue to frequent internet cafes. And there’s still plenty of people out there who can’t use web apps from their old-school mobile handsets.
To try and answer this question, I decided to go out and ask a few people how they access the internet. Here’s what they said:
People are one half of the equation. Organisations who rely on their web presence aren’t going to give up without a fight either. Twitter has recently overhauled its web portal to combat the growing use of third-party clients. As Peter Cashmore wrote for CNN, the intent of the redesign was “to make Twitter.com a compelling Web destination”. Meanwhile, Facebook’s constant redesigning of its web portal suggests Zuckerberg and Co still place much importance on it.
All this leads me to think that it’s a little premature to be reading the World Wide Web its last rites. After all, chances are you’re reading this right now on a web browser.
Then again – having said that, as I sit in front of my computer writing this – I did just check my email on my mobile.
September 23, 2010 | Categories: Internet, Media, Networking | Tags: Facebook, Internet, Smartphones, Social Media, Tablets, Twitter, Web 2.0, Web browser, Wired.com, World Wide Web | Leave A Comment »
To make it more fun, I’ve introduced three rules:
- I must include tweets from people - not just news sites
- I must include tweets from the politicians who are on Twitter where possible
- I cannot use the same tweeter twice.
Election set for Sat Aug 21 12:05 PM Jul 17th
This election is about giving a great people a better government. The Coalition will end the waste, stop the taxes and stop the boats. 6:35 PM Jul 17th
According to Wayne Swan, Labor can’t stop the leaks. If you can’t govern yourself, how can you govern the country? 10:49 AM Jul 29th
So PM says she’s going to cut the PR and be the “real Julia”. Let me guess, a PR hack advised her to say that? 10:25 AM Aug 2nd
A new opinion poll gives Labor an election-winning lead – but it’s close 5:57 AM Aug 18th
GetUp members and vollies are EVERYWHERE today as #ausvotes! 10:22 AM Aug 21st
Poms split their vote across 3 parties to get hung parlt. Ha! we can do it with 2 parties and a few indies! 12:17 AM Aug 22nd
ALP, Libs to negotiate with Independents to win office after Saturday’s election 8:37 AM Aug 23rd
Together with Bob Brown & Christine Milne, just signed agt with the PM to support a Gillard govt. Real movement on climate. More to come. 11:50 AM Sep 1st
3 independents don’t agree with each other but have put forward a “7 point wishlist” how will this be stable? 7:40 PM Aug 25th
Both Katter and Windsor have now criticised Abbott for refusing to put Coalition policies in to Treasury for costing. 10:41 PM Aug 25th
A confidential Treasury analysis has revealed an $800 million hole in the Coalition budget costings 12:11 AM Aug 10th
IND Wilkie reflects his constituency & backs Labor. 3 Amigos should reflect theirs & support LNP! 8:04 PM Aug 28th
Bob Katter throws his support behind the Coalition, but indicates it’s not unconditional support 2:10 PM Sep 7th
Tony Windsor chose to support Labor because of the issues of broadband and climate change. Onya Tony!! 3:09 PM Sep 7th
Do we have to wait another 17 days for Oakeshott to finish talking? 3:29 PM Sep 7th
OFFICIAL: Oakeshott and Windsor back Gillard. Labor survives election 76-74. Coalition defeated. 3:31 PM Sep 7th
Done – in 18 tweets!
September 13, 2010 | Categories: Internet, Media, Networking, News, Politics | Tags: democracy, Election, Internet, journalism, media, news, Politics, Social Media, Twitter, Web 2.0 | Leave A Comment »
The other day I was flipping through the Daily Telegraph when I came across the headline “Chaos as Amazon dries up”.
My first thought was “Wow, is Amazon.com in some kind of financial trouble?” Reading on, my folly was exposed as I realised the article was about that other great Amazon, the river in South America. That I immediately thought along tech lines got me thinking about the extent to which the internet, Web 2.0 and social media have influenced our language.
Terms that didn’t exist or were little-known just a few short years ago are now part of our day-to-day dialogue. Phrases like “I googled it”, “read my blog”, “send a tweet” and “I’ll IM you later” are now common.
Instant messaging too has spawned a language all its own. This clip explains some of the lingo that the tech generation have embraced as second nature (You’ll have to click through to YouTube as the video has had embed disabled):
But it’s not just the messaging folk that have all the fun. Here are some other terms associated with Web 2.0 and social media doing the rounds:
Avatar: The visual (oftentimes cartoonish) representation of a person in a virtual world or virtual chat room.
Blog: Short for “weblog”, it is a series of articles usually written in a slightly informal tone. You’re reading one right now.
Blogosphere: This refers to all blogs across the Internet regardless of whether they are an individual blog or part of a blog network.
Enterprise 2.0: The process of taking Web 2.0 tools and ideas and introducing them to the workplace.
Mashup: A recent trend, it is the ‘opening up’ of websites whereby they allow other websites access to their information, allowing information from multiple websites to be combined for creative effect.
Podcast: The distribution of audio and video “shows” across the Internet, such as a video blog or an Internet radio show.
Tweet: An individual message or status update on social networking service Twitter.
Viral: The digital version of grassroots, ‘viral’ refers the process of an article, video or podcast becoming popular by being passed from person to person or rising to the top of popularity lists on social media websites.
Webcast: An audio/visual broadcast that takes place over the web. How is this different from podcast?
Having trouble keeping up? You might have something in common with this guy.
But how often do the cross-benchers in the House of Representatives tweet? I decided to find the the four independents and Greens MP on Twitter to see how they’ve embraced the service.
The Greens Adam Bandt is definitely the biggest Twitterer of the bunch. His following has grown by an average of 46 people per day and now stands at 3,525. He follows 1,112 people, among them ABC journalist Annabel Crabb and independent online news source Crikey. He also tweets fairly regularly, with 25 Tweets in the last week. Bandt seems to be “with it” in Twitter terms, his tweets a mixture of informational, conversational and light-hearted humour. In one he even says “Welcome to Twitter’s ‘Fake Adam Bandt’. My only request: please be funny!” (Note: I searched and could not find the fake one).
Rob Oakeshott definitely knows his way around Twitter, but one would guess he’s spent so much time being wooed by Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott that this has left him with no time in the day in which to tweet. He’s picked up an average of 145 new followers per day this week to currently sit at 1,267. He follows 949 people, including yours truly as of 10:44 this morning. His last tweet however was on August 18. It looks like at the start of the election campaign in late July he was quite the tweeter, but by the second week of August had largely lost interest. A tweet from 28 July says “Thanks for the oranges Tony!”. I assume he does not mean Abbott.
Bob Katter gave up on his Twitter account before it began. His solitary tweet from 28 May says “Getting on Twiter to connect with the real Australians – country Australians” but ol’ Bob has been quiet since. This may explain why only two people per day are joining his following – which currently stands at 729 people. In return he follows an interesting if short list of just 17 people which includes Tony Abbott, Godwin Grech, Laurie Oakes and Bill Gates.
Tony Windsor, Andrew Wilkie and WA Nationals MP Tony Crook are not on Twitter.
The 12am Thursday morning electoral advertising blackout has been a part of Australia’s electoral process at least ever since I was a voter. Indeed the Australian Electoral Commission website states:
Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a ‘blackout’ from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a “cooling off” period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.
This blackout is now challenged, however, due to the rise of Social Media. Services like Twitter and YouTube are allowing the political parties to continue campaigning right up until election day.
Just two hours ago, the Liberal Party’s official Twitter feed tweeted “Watch our new online video “Do you really know Julia Gillard?”.” The link goes to the following YouTube clip below. It’s not on TV, so it doesn’t break the blackout, but it may as well be – it’s a television advertisement in every sense.
Labor’s Twitter feed, meanwhile spruiks blog posts by the hour.
What are the repercussions? Clearly the media blackout laws were conceived in a time when Television, Radio and Print were the only media people had access to. With the development of the internet and more recently, Web 2.0, this has all changed. The uptake of Twitter and its embracing by politicians, and the popularity of social networking sites like Facebook and YouTube have rendered the laws obsolete.
With Australia going to the polls tomorrow, it is obviously too late to change the laws for this election, but “Moving forward”, if the media blackout is to continue achieving the same goals it set out to do back in 1992 it will need to be revised with a view to including social media under what it terms “electronic media”.
Time for a bit of humour! For those who use location-based social networking service Foursquare (or if you know someone who does), there’s a few sure signs that a 12-step program might be in your or that person’s future.
Without further ado, you know you’re addicted to Foursquare when:
- You make extra stops on the way home just to check in
- You check in to your house when you get home at night AND when you get up the next day
- Every one of your friend’s houses is on Foursquare… even though not all your friends are
- You check Foursquare to see where your friends are instead of just calling them
- You get excited when you meet someone new who’s on Foursquare. Genuinely.
- You check in at every train station on the way home for the points
- You check Foursquare for restaurant suggestions before you check the SMH Good Food Guide/Zagat
- You go through locations reading tips when you’re bored.
- You go through locations adding tips when you’re bored.
- You start collecting badges that you’d rather not be awarded (e.g. a MALE friend of mine who scored the “Housewife” badge!)
- You turn on international data roaming and pay a fortune so you can check in on vacation
- You time your check ins so that you don’t do more than three in 15 minutes
- When you read that you knew what it meant
- You get upset when there’s no 3G reception and you can’t check in
- You get upset when Foursquare says you’re too far and withholds points
- You get really excited when you become mayor of a venue
- You do a victory dance when you become mayor of a venue
- You get upset when you’re ousted as mayor of a venue
- You make it a point to win back that mayorship
- You start Twitter stalking the guy who stole that mayorship
A throng of tweeters, facebookers and bloggers gathered in Sydney last Wednesday to celebrate the first international “Social Media Day”.
The brainchild of online social media bible Mashable, over 600 meetings were held worldwide with Sydney’s time zone making the gathering at the Ivy Ballroom one of the first.
Participants sipped bubbly as they mingled and exchanged ideas and contact details.
Internationally acclaimed blogger and public speaker Euan Semple (Twitter: @Euan) was the keynote speaker.
Euan was one of the first to introduce social media tools into a large organisation when he worked for the BBC ten years ago and has since worked with Nokia, the World Bank and NATO.
He told the gathering the biggest challenge was trying to “demystify” social media.
“What we’re talking about is globally distributed near-instant person-to-person conversations,” he said.
“[It’s] nothing geeky, nothing about business, [it’s] just about people being able to connect.”
Giving an example of the power of social media, Euan described how his presence as speaker had come about from a Twitter conversation with Sydney event organiser Laurel Papworth.
Prior to the event I spoke to Laurel (Twitter: @SilkCharm), who was last year heralded by Marketing Magazine as being the “Head of Industry” for social media for Australia.
She told me the event represented the birth of a new industry.
“From shaky legs a few years ago [social media] is clearly making its mark on the world in a way that very few people foresaw,” she said.
“We’re heading towards the top of a curve at the moment where in about 10 years … it will be so much a part of our life.”
Laurel said the purpose of the event was to bring people together.
“With social networking online there’s an interest in meeting offline,” she said.
“There was a study done a few years ago by the World Internet Project … they showed that 20.3 per cent of people who meet online want to meet offline.
“So I’m looking forward to it because it means there’ll be a bunch of people that I only know from their Twitter handles and their Facebook avatars and now there’s a chance for me to meet them in person.”
In the spirit of social media’s participatory nature, anyone in attendance was welcome to brave the podium and address the gathering following the keynote speech.
Yours truly took up the opportunity, commenting on the implications the rise of social media is having on traditional journalism channels.
Photos by Kurt Neurauter (Twitter: @kneu_photo)
You will have read in this blog last July about the implications that social media tool Twitter has on traditional news mediums. Now, one of the world’s largest news wire services, Reuters, is taking those implications very seriously:
Reuters are attempting to answer a lot of questions about how social media and Twitter in particular affect news coverage. Included in their new rules is a requirement that their journalists do not break news over Twitter before doing so over the wire, as well as several rules aimed at counteracting perceptions of individual bias.
Requiring their journalists to break news over the wire first is a business decision, and a fair one. For a journalist to break a story by other means and not for who they work for would be akin to an Apple employee selling a palate of iPads before the product’s release date.
Of more interest is the requirement that Reuters employees do not post anything that may indicate personal bias on Facebook, as well as the requirement that they maintain separate business and personal Twitter accounts.
This is because social media has allowed us to know so much more about the people who provide services to us, the public. In days gone by, a byline was merely a name in news reporting (Opinion was obviously another story). Now, with access to journalists via social media we can find out their likes and dislikes, partner’s names, see pictures of their pets, you get the idea…
Clearly then, Reuters is right not to want their journalists’ views broadcast across the social mediasphere. Reporting is meant to be subjective and impartial – and whether it conforms to this regularly or not – clearly knowing a journalist’s personal stance on an issue will affect how we see their reporting of it.
One thing that does puzzle me though is Reuters frowning upon their journalists following certain sources on Twitter. As a journalist, I find Twitter an extremely useful source for story ideas. The key however is to follow sources with a wide variety of opinions, which is why (to give an example) politically I follow Liberal, Labor, Greens and Independents.
It will be interesting to see if the other major wire services including Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, or AAP in Australia take heed and look at instituting similar rules.