Standing room only

Bernard Salt and Rebecca Huntley were guests at the last Social Media Club earlier this month. They presented their research on how Gen x and Gen y represent themselves online. Two themes emerged in the research: superficiality and authenticity.

The research found that Gen y are not, as some might think, uncritical of their use of social media. Gen y is aware of the dangers and pitfalls of broadcasting one’s life to the network – be it inappropriate photos being viewed by the boss, or superficial relationships being had at the expense of more meaningful connections.

The research focus was on attitudes towards social media and how people build and view representation of self in this space. The view that behaviour online is nothing new was echoed by Bernard Salt.

New technology amplifies instinctive human behaviour

Salt harked back to examples where the novel and conspicuous use of technology eventuated in a correcting force of some kind. Talking loudly on your mobile phone in a restaurant in the early 90s soon became uncool.

Behavioural corrections

He sees social media as a new vehicle for public preening. The old tribal head dress has been replaced by:

1. Un-tagging unflattering photos
2. Altering photos
3. Filtering friends by looks
4. Deriving status by broadcasting a cool location
5. Deriving status by the number of friends you have
6. Acting in a way to elicit feedback and validation

Salt predicts that these ego driven vanities will be calibrated: “That fight is yet to play out. We are still intoxicated by the technology. We will see a movement towards authenticity.”

The talks by Huntley and Salt were short – I wish I could have heard more about the detail of the research and the findings. But this is Social Media Club, not a sociology class. Tip brought it all home with commercial examples. Tip described people’s engagement with brands in social media as another way people build their identity and there were examples of what can only be described as conspicuous window shopping.

Superficiality and narcissism are rewarded

The brands you like define you

Social shopping? I prefer to call it conspicuous window shopping

Tip’s talk departed from the topic somewhat but, it was interesting to think about the juxtaposition of business and our social space. Advertising is seeking and managing relationships in a more direct, transparent medium where users ultimately have control. If there is to be a backlash against superficiality toward an authenticity it will be interesting to see the shape of the behavioural correction of commercial interests in our social lives.

Opening the night

I will admit, when the evening began with everyone in the room passing the mike and giving their elevator pitch, I was worried. There were over 60 women in the room and, one by one, they shared their name, job, employ—in many cases their own small business—and their twitter handle. I feared it would take all night but in a few minutes it was over. I found the exercise creepy; there was something evangelical about it, but I succumbed and came to realise that this spirit of promotion and openness was at the heart of the event.

The MC introduced the night saying this was a forum created for women to build confidence and share knowledge. There are no gurus here, she said, you can ask any question. As if there were an imminent threat, she declared this place is safe.

Kate Curruthers was the special guest. Her presentation on private and public boundaries online was about negotiating the terrain of social media from a personal and business perspective. Her central thesis for the night was that nothing is new. There are real world parallels to all online behaviour.

No human behaviour happens online that does not already happen offline

Kate Curruthers spoke of the changing attitudes towards privacy over time and how social networking has taken everyone back to the village. Now, like before, everyone knows each other’s business. Curruthers spoke of how the web quickens and amplifies communication and of the risks of social media engagement:

• reputation—and the lack of control of others content about you
• job risks—personal and professional boundaries blurring
• personal safety—what information you should disclose publically; and the sometime vitriolic nature of dialogue online.

Her advice to those in the room, wanting to engage with and use social media was don’t do online, what you wouldn’t do offline.

Kate Curruthers slide deck - risking reputation

Carruthers also spoke of the benefits of always being connected: convenience, friendship, guidance and business benefits. The new digital divide, she said, was not whether or not you have a computer but how connected you are willing to be.  Her most pressing piece of advice for the night was around the use of social media in the workplace. She warned that one should not question a young person’s right to be always connected. An audience member recommended that all businesses have a social media policy (and referred the audience to Telstra’s social media employee guidelines). Kate agreed and added that you cannot discipline employees for misuse of social media if you do not have rules in place.

Kate Curruthers slide deck - why are we participating in networks?

At this point the talk opened up into a forum where problems, anecdotes and advice were shared. This was the most interesting aspect to the night. The event delivered on its promise of being a safe place where people can ask anything. Questions were answered by guest speaker and by audience members alike. This made me see the whole point of the introductions at the start of the event. Everyone had a sense of what each other did, be that PR professional, journalist, accountant, business coach, stylist or small business owner—and knowing the people in the room made everyone comfortable to talk.

Audience snippet from social media women

Social Media Women sits somewhere between a digital industry get together and a business networking function. Many did learn a lot of new information. I learnt about the questions, fears and apprehension some people have of social media, no doubt thanks to the thought provoking presentation by Kate Curruthers.  I’ve been to a lot of industry events. The diversity in the audience and the range of discussion about using social media made this night the most authentic and refreshing forum I’ve attended for a while.

What was most interesting to me, was the discussion and difference of opinion on whether social media spaces like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are publishing or conversation. Damien Damjanovski was a conversationalist; Sam North was of the opinion that as soon as you put something online you are publishing, and by entering the public domain you are availing yourself to be quoted, scrutinised, sued for defamation and have your Facebook photos printed in the Sydney morning Herald. Renai LeMay from Delimiter was a journalist trying to toe the publishing and ethics line. While he would freely quote a public figure’s tweet in an article he would only use an image found online if it was published under creative commons. He added that a journalist should go to the primary source of material they are using to verify its accuracy if nothing else. So at this point in the night the debate became one based on the premise that if we are putting ourselves out there publicly how can this content be used and how do we feel about that use (and vulnerability).

I side with the publishing angle myself and by that I mean that posting something online is a form of publication by its inherent distribution. Having said (and contradicting) that, I feel it is completely inappropriate for a newspaper to obtain a photograph from a social network because that photograph is from an entirely different context to the story. Who is the publisher? This was not explored in tonight’s discussion at the event but it did get me thinking. Part of the reason why the likes of Facebook and Tumblr claim copyright on your material is so that they can have the right to distribute your material which is what they are doing when you post content to them. While I think it is wrong of newspapers to delve into Facebook for pictures to illustrate their stories I think that the users of these platforms should take issue with Facebook as much as they may take issue with the journalist and the newspaper. Surely it is Facebook’s responsibility to protect its copyright as a means to protect its users. What should users expect of the social networks they participate in?

I could go on but I think the debate will continue at the next Digital Citizens event.

N.B. The hashtag for this event was #digicitz. The title of this post is paraphrased from a tweet on that stream.

I just listened to episode one of The Flickerman on Radio National. It is the story of Cornelius Zane-Grey’s search for his missing girlfriend Lucinda. Someone is posting photos of her on Flickr!

This story is being played out on Flickr, Vimeo, on The Pool, in blogs, Google Maps, Facebook, there is even an iPhone app. All this social media may make you cringe except this paranoid mystery is just too good.

Listen in and help Cornelius find Lucinda by checking out http://www.theflickerman.com/. The links to the photos on Flickr are provided with each episode.