Posts Tagged ‘communication’

Sexting highlights society’s issues with privacy and shame

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

Listening to NPR’s All Things Considered just now, I heard a story on sexting — teens sending photos of each other naked via text messages — that got me to thinking “what exactly is the big deal?” I don’t ask that question to minimize the phenomenon, but to analyze it for the social taboos that are being broken here.

Shame

I recently finished reading The Cluetrain Manifesto, and its message about people finding their voice on the Internet and how this might change issues of privacy had me listening in a certain way. One of my favorite questions one of the authors of Cluetrain asks is, “What would privacy be like if it weren’t connected to shame?”

Indeed, none of this “sexting” would be an issue if it weren’t for shame– shame that teens may or may not feel about their developing bodies, shame that adults may or may not feel looking at photos of teen bodies, and all the nebulous shame that society places upon the naked human body.

Self-expression

What if these kids aren’t ashamed of their bodies? What if, as the authors of Cluetrain assert, people gravitate toward the Internet to satisfy the age-old human desire for self-expression? Maybe these kids are just using these media to express themselves, to say, “Look at me. I exist. I’m unique. Yet I’m a lot like you.” Aren’t adults heaping shame upon these kids by charging them with felony child pornography? What’s the big deal if kids want to show each other their naked bodies? “It may lead to teen pregnancy!” Yes, it may. So may having sex without a condom and/or birth control medication. But I seriously doubt that “sexting” is bringing about a rise in teen pregnancy.

Privacy

So, what is the issue? Well, privacy is a big part of it, and it goes along with distribution. To whom are they distributing the nude photographs? Maybe to a few friends, maybe just to one. But if that one friend distributes it to others until it becomes distributed exponentially like viral Internet media, whom do we blame for the distribution? Do we blame the first sender who “should have known better” than to send anyone a nude photograph of themselves knowing that it might end up in the wrong hands? Or do we blame the subsequent distributors? What if the exact chain of distribution could be traced? Do we blame each and every one? Where does this distribution cross the line from acceptable to unacceptable? When does the private become public?

Intentionality

I faced some of these questions when I took an artistic nude photograph of myself that I wanted to share. Why did I want to share it? Well, because I liked the way I looked and I liked the way I took the photo. Was my intent to titillate? No. Was it pornography? Well, not to me. My penis wasn’t even visible, for whatever that’s worth. I questioned myself when I published the photo to my Flickr account. Should I mark it Public or Private? Should I mark it Private: Friends Only or Private: Friends & Family Only? If I marked it for Family & Friends Only, would my family and friends feel I singled them out for the viewing of this nude photo? I didn’t want that. So I used Flickr’s SafeSearch filters to flag the photo “Moderate” (“may be considered offensive by some people”). That way, only those people who have their SafeSearch browsing settings on “Moderate” (“You’re OK seeing the odd ‘artistic nude’ here or there, but that’s the limit”) will see the photo, be the friends or strangers.

Irreducibility

Socially, it seems acceptable to display yourself nude in an artistic venue as long as you’re not personally flashing people. And I’m all about filtering my content so that people see only what they’re comfortable with seeing (when it comes to nudity, that is). Yet, I am not so naïve as to think that just because I published a photo on Flickr with SafeSearch filters means that no one else will ever see it. I know that a photo on Flickr can be taken out of Flickr, indeed, taken out of context. I have to laugh at what Brian Shaler said in his Twitter bio: “Take me out of context.” (He’s since changed his bio, but that’s what it said last time I looked.) So, yes, people may take me out of context. But I am okay with that because, as one young nude man so eloquently said in an avant-garde play I once saw, “I am irreducible. My nakedness does not diminish me.”

Self-esteem

What if we lived in a world in which a person’s nakedness did not diminish them? What if it didn’t matter if teenage girls took photos of themselves in the shower and the whole world saw it? I know we don’t live in that world, but I can imagine it. I think as long as no one is forcing these kids to be photographed naked, it’s not pornography. So what if these kids are playing Doctor on their cell phones? Maybe we should spend less of our energy trying to control their use of our technology and more energy on fostering an “irreducible” self-esteem in children of all ages.

Geeks vs. Early Adopters on Twitter (and elsewhere)

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

In the month-or-so that I’ve been on Twitter, I’ve gotten the impression that a lot of people on it are geeks, a lot of them are early adopters, and a few are “regular folks.” And I wonder if some of the angst I’m feeling is that I’m more of an early adopter than a geek.

I define geeks as the people who create the latest technology and early adopters as the first people to use it. I have read geeks’ writings and conversed with them on the Internet, such when I participated in the newsgroup comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html in 1996. I learned HTML and CSS by reading, asking questions, and eventually answering questions. I became one of a handful of people in the world to publish a web page in HTML using CSS in August 1996. Yet I didn’t become a professional Web developer. I didn’t become a recognized “expert” in the field (unless you count being interviewed by Wired in 1998). Why? Because I’m not a geek. I don’t take well to sitting for hours in front of a computer screen hacking code. I don’t know any of the languages it takes to write CSS that can render properly in any web browser; i.e. I can’t use JavaScript to insert “browser-sniffing” code that delivers CSS written for each browser’s idiosyncratic (read “faulty” or “noncompliant”) way of rendering CSS… But I digress.

My point is: I’m not a geek; I’m an early adopter. And it causes me angst, because I’m a lot more geeky than most people, yet I’m not geeky enough for the geeks. It’s sort of like my IQ: my intelligence is above average, but I’m not a genius. I’m smarter than most people and not as smart as the geniuses I admire.

Twitter seems to be a place where geeks and early adopters collide. Or maybe collude. Ha ha. I guess you have to be a little geeky to spend any real time on Twitter; you have to be interested in being on a computer or mobile device for a longer period of time than the average person. You have to be interested in taking a couple of minutes out of your life every once in a while to tell people what you’re doing and thinking. You have to be interested in how people use new media to communicate with each other. But you don’t necessarily understand why so many people write “FAIL!” or “WIN!” And you might feel intimidated or confused by the way people tell “in” jokes. At least I do…

It’s late at night now, and I’ve stayed up late because this is bothering me a lot. Without going into too many details, I had an experience today of being told that something I found extremely offensive was merely a reference to a source of humor for Internet geeks for over a decade now (I don’t endorse the site, but if you’re curious, it’s timecube.com). Some geeks thought it was funny to place a link to that site in the guise of a “Terms of Use” hyperlink at the bottom of every page of a website I stumbled upon the other day. For them, it was a big joke. For me, it wasn’t.

This experience made me think about the interesting mix of geeks and early adopters on Twitter at this moment in time. (Of course, there are also a huge number of “Social Media / Social Marketing / SEO Experts” on Twitter too, but don’t get me started.) It got me to thinking about who’s talking to whom. I’m currently reading The Cluetrain Manifesto in book form (it got too hard to read on my T-Mobile G1 with Google), and it talks a lot about how markets are conversations– conversations among consumers, conversations among corporations, and conversations between corporations and consumers. Basically, the book says that both consumer markets and corporations are composed of people and people need to speak with each other in a human voice. (At least that’s what I’ve gathered so far; I’m up to Chapter 3.)

So, where is the human voice on Twitter? Some would say it’s everywhere, but I find too often that the voices I “hear” on Twitter are not speaking to me. Too often, they’re trying to sell me something. Too often, the “tweets” I read have nothing to do with me. They’re either over my head or about things I don’t have enough context to understand. (This is especially a problem with @replies. I read a blog recently that said – and I paraphrase – “if you don’t understand them, either follow the people they’re replying to, unfollow them, or stop complaining.” I’ve searched for 10 minutes to find this blog, but it’s almost midnight and I can’t find it. Sorry. Leave a comment if you know the URL.)

Even the marketing strategy people say you should figure out who your market is, who you’re targeting. Are you targeting other geeks? Then continue to speak geek. But if you’re targeting regular people, then you might want to be less arcane. Take it from this early adopter, we’re smart, but not “brainy.” We’re cool, but not cliquish. And if Twitter keeps expanding, which I think it will, there aren’t going to be as many of us “early adopters” and then you’ll really need to stop speaking geek and start speaking human.

This is not a monologue; it’s a conversation. What do you think? Please leave a comment. I would like to hear your perspective on these social and marketplace issues, whether you’re a geek, an early adopter, or (to quote The Cluetrain Manifesto), “Joe Six Pack.”

Twitter: Too much about too little

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

I’ve tried to like Twitter. Really, I have. And I haven’t given up on it entirely. But it just seems like too much about too little. My long-suffering not-as-technophilic-as-I-am husband took a look at the Twitter home page on my desktop the other day and said it looked like the stupidest bunch of nonsense he’d ever seen. And I can’t entirely disagree with him! It isn’t that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with Twitter; it’s just that I don’t like the current implementation of it. In this review of my two week’s time on Twitter so far, I’ll tell you what I didn’t like about my experience in Twitterville and what I would like to get out of it in the future.

For starters, I was disappointed to find that hardly anyone I know or care about following is actually on Twitter at this time. This experience was in sharp contrast to my entrée into the Facebook world, which was like showing up at a party where you expect to see the one person who invited you and instead you end up seeing almost everyone you’ve ever known. The lack of friends I know on Twitter was the first disappointment. Then there’s the fact that some of my friends who have Twitter accounts don’t even check them regularly enough to have update them or reciprocate my follow by following me.

Then there are the people on Twitter that I did know and have enjoyed “socializing” with on Flickr. It was like a bubbly drink going flat. It’s fun to look at people’s photos on Flickr, comment on them, and have them comment on mine. There’s a lot of mutual admiration and wittiness that goes on in Flickr comments. But now, on Twitter, suddenly I’m hearing about their every cappuccino and reading @replies like, “@janedoe I know, right?” and “@simone Mais oui!” These tweets mean absolutely nothing to me and are of no entertainment value whatsoever.

Then there’s the redundancy of the Twitter home page. It simply lists the most recent tweets (140 character updates sent from mobile phones or Internet devices either mobile or stationary) posted by people you follow in chronological order. This means that if some little bird you know (I won’t name names) is chirping like a bird in heat about every little thing — mostly @replies that make no sense to anyone but the @recipient — then what you get is a Twitter homepage full of a slew of meaningless tweets from one very chirpy friend. Now, does that mean there’s anything wrong with the way your friend is using Twitter? Well, yes and no. Yes, because I think it would make much more sense if they limited these private replies to “direct messages” (Twitter’s form of private 1:1 messages from one Twitter user to another). I mean why bore everyone on Twitter with short answers to questions they haven’t heard? “@barbie I’m like, so totally sure!” But no, it’s not all their fault; it’s also the fault of the Twitter UI. I mean, imagine if you logged onto Flickr and it was only a slew of images posted by all of your contacts in chronological order? I know with some people’s photostreams (you know the ones who upload every image they shoot, even if they all look the same?), my Flickr experience would be awful if that’s what I saw when I logged in. Why doesn’t Twitter do a little bit more to help its members organize their Twitter experience? It would be nice if, for example, your Twitter homepage could be configured to show only the most recent tweet from each of your contacts, allowing you to click on a control to view more if you’re interested.

I have some other ideas that I think would make Twitter more useful. (more…)