Tag: mob justice

  • Mob bile

    Facebook recently launched Live Stream Box, which allows webmasters to stream relevant real time status updates on their site. Users can log in with Facebook Connect and post updates that will appear on facebook (their own profile as well as friends depending on their settings) as well as the site. It means that if say, I’m watching a live stream of any event on a particular site, which has this installed, I can use this to get my friends on FB to join the conversation. Two things struck me- one, it makes a whole new way of connecting friends around their topic of interest (context), and two, (a question), is this a step aimed at bettering twitter’s common lifestream and hashtag based way of aggregating conversations? (something that Facebook lacked so far)

    As all the services increase their focus on real time, I couldn’t help but think of the impact it has had on usage. Are the users on these services becoming increasingly trigger happy? TC had an article recently titled “Friendfeed, syphilis and the perfection of online mobs“, which talked about the service being the hotbed of mob justice enthusiasts.  (because of its ability to aggregate conversations in one place) Its a subject that I have discussed here earlier – once in the Hasbro-Scrabulous context, and then collating 3 separate incidents. I must say that we have moved on since then- to places closer to home – the latest being The Kiruba Incident involving Cleartrip (The Kiruba version) In many cases, the mob doesn’t even pause to check the facts or look at the issue objectively/rationally, before they react. With all kinds of people out there, I wonder how long it will be before someone decides to use more than just the keyboard, and look at real justice options. (Actually it has happened before)

    So, what would the effect of all this be on brands? Would they be able to keep up? Would they be able to deal with an angry mob? Real time is a reality, and it is would be more of a loss if brands decided not to use twitter. Its a different matter whether they choose to engage or are content with listening. There are quite a few tools out there which can help monitor the conversations, but what if the brands are not wired enough to respond effectively to the fires that happen? In this context, I read an interesting article on Adage, that talks about Slow Marketing. It talks about going back to the basics, and a need to focus on human, one-to-one connections.

    The responsibility is on both sides. In their eagerness to cash in on the new big thing and create buzz, brands (and agencies that advise brands) set expectations that may be way beyond what the organisation behind the brand can actually meet – in this context, perhaps turn around speed, and response to all communication directed at it. From the article, 

    Pick your battles: The social-media feeding frenzy puts a premium on responding to all conversation. You don’t need to respond to everything. Take a step back before diving in. In some cases, not engaging is the best form of engagement.

    The responsibility lies with users too. Long before there were brands on the real time platforms, there were people. And people used to help newbies learn the protocols of communicating in the network. If you were a user, you wouldn’t want to be in a place where people were only out to make fun or do harm to you. Maybe we should extend that courtesy to brands too, and allow some leeway, at least in terms of reaction time. In many cases, the person behind the handle will be just another enthusiast like you, with hardly any support from the organisation, and he would be trying to show to his bosses the value that these services can provide. All of us have favourite brands, which, if they use social media effectively, will end up being more useful to us. By making witchhunts a standard operating procedure, we might be doing more harm than we realise.

    There is an interesting discussion online, that talks about company websites and their return to favour, but more on that next week 😉

    until next time, see you later

  • ‘What are you doing’ needs an @ reply ? 🙂

    And every so often, we hear about how brands screw up on Facebook and Twitter, these days we even regularly hear how Facebook screws up on itself, and finally we heard about how Twitter ‘screwed up’ on Twitter. In case you missed it, the chronology can be read here.

    And in case you were too lazy to follow the link, Twitter suddenly yanked off an @replies option — a non-default setting to monitor a conversation between someone you follow and someone you don’t, which was only used by 3% of the Twitter universe. In an initial blog post Twitter addressed it from a product design perspective and as a ‘small settings change’. The response from users was whale disproportionate to the 3%, resulting in the trending of #fixreplies . Poor Twitter was actually doing just that, because the 3% users were straining the servers, since each time someone sent an @reply, Twitter had to scan people’s settings to figure out which tweet could appear in whose timeline. The fun part is that we anyway got to hear only half the conversation.

    Let me try to explain quickly A and B follow each other, B follows C, A does not. In the earlier system (where A was one of the 3% who had changed the default option to ‘see all @ replies’) A could see B’s @replies to C. With this change that Twitter made, A stopped seeing it. The ‘fun part’ I mentioned earlier was that A anyway couldn’t see C’s updates, or specifically C’s @replies to B. Anyway, the 3% considered this option as an aid to ‘serendipitous discovery‘ of new people. But I think the trending happened simply because Twitter didn’t tell anyone before they made the change. As one of the 3% (I think, since I clearly remember finding people based on the @replies of those i follow. Shefaly, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we started following each other thanks to our individual conversations with @dina) I think its a  mistake if the Twitter blog was updated without studying all the aspects, a bigger mistake if Twitter chose not to tell users the real reason.

    Twitter then blogged once more emphasising that the technical aspects, more than the product design flaws, were the chief reason for removing this option. And later, gave a consolation gift which now means that A could now see those updates of B, which does not begin with @C. eg.  wondering what @C is smoking. To me, that solves the problem, because its just a format change in a way. And who knows, maybe users will take more initiative in helping connect people now – a human touch to serendipity. Or more power to ‘recommended users’. Meanwhile, there are at least five of us who can have the pun fests we enjoy, because (only) we all follow a particular id we created only for this. So I’m sure users will figure their lives out without the option. 🙂

    Like Twitter, I too learned a few lessons from this entire exercise. That it is important to be transparent and communicate your complete perspectives, especially if you exist largely because of the community’s efforts. There might be disagreements, but its better to make your stand and reasons clear before the event. That it’s very easy for users to lose the perspective that Twitter is a free service that was never meant to be scaled so much, and a lot of what they’re doing now could be to ensure they can scale up. I’m quite glad that even unbridled mobs have  limits of ‘justice’ they can get. That it’s still an ecosystem about which very few (if any) people have a  clear long term objective about – on one side we complain about noise, and when Twitter removes an option that in many ways added to the noise, we complain about that too. That hashtags are increasingly becoming an end to themselves than a means. That it’s the real time issues that matter – most users wouldn’t know that its quite a difficult task (if not impossible) to get their first tweet, after they cross tweet # 3200.  Another example of how Twitter is so many different things to different people.

    until next time, “And I will cut you off from the peoples..”

  • Crowd Control by the crowd

    Its rightly said that however thinly you slice the bread, there will always be two sides. Sometimes the very features that makes me love the social web – sharing and transparency, are not treated with the respect they deserve. Or, to be more specific, the crowd is not able to react maturely when someone is being transparent, or sharing something innocuous, or just doing his job. I remembering touching upon mob justice in the case of the Hasbro vs Scrabulous issue too.

    Since then there have been several instances of what Jason Calacanis might describe as the ‘madness of the mobs‘. From Hotmail users fighting against the new design, virtual protests and self immolations on Second Life against a steep purchase and maintenance fee increase, to relatively harmless breast beating on Twitter and Facebook, there has been a lot of action happening all around.

    A few recent incidents have made me look at the otherwise wonderful features of the social web in a negative light again. Rex Hammock recently wrote about a Dilbert strip in which its creator Scott Adams did a bit of ‘in house’ product placing – for DilbertFiles.com, an online sharing and file storage service that was the result of a deal between Adams and Sendyourfiles.com, which Adams had explained on his blog. In fact he also points out that

    As the number of traditional newspapers continues to shrink, this is the sort of thing that will help keep Dilbert free online.

    But several readers took exception calling it a ‘shameless plug’ and ‘unethical’. Thankfully there were many in the crowd who were objective enough to see it as ‘lame but not ethical’, and several others who found it interesting, and a great way of promoting the service. I, for one, thought it was some neat ‘brand integration’. The debate is now over, i guess, and Scott Adams made some candid, cool closing remarks on the issue. You can read them here.

    The other incident that caught my attention was the case of James Andrews (@keyinfluencer on Twitter). Here are the details. In short, this is what happened. James Andrews, from a company called Ketchum, in Atlanta flew to Memphis to visit FedEx, one of his agency’s biggest clients, to talk to their corporate communication team about social media. Being a regular Twitter user, he tweeted on landing

    “True confession but I’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say, ‘I would die if I had to live here.’”

    Instead of the lil argument that would’ve happened on Twitter over this, it became a classic ‘tempest in a tea cup’, when a person from the Fedex Corporate Communication Group took this up and sent a mail to Andrews. And thus it became a story of the agency guy (Andrews) talking ill of his client’s city. (the entire mail can be read in the link I shared earlier) All the poor man did was give a personal opinion about the place he landed in. That is a crime in social media, according to a few social media storm troopers. Suddenly, there are statements to be made, the agency has to apologise on behalf of Andrews. I say, FedEx, thats #FAIL. Kudos to Funkidivagirl for defending her husband so eloquently, and putting things in perspective.

    Both the situations made me think of expectations. Scott Adams is perhaps thinking of greater good (keeping the online strip free) when he makes a deal like this. He even explains the reasons on his blog. He doesn’t have to. And the crowd, or at least a part of it, loses it. James Andrews tweets personal views about a nameless place  (Fed Ex’ reaction ensures everyone knows about Memphis now) and his agency and work are judged based on that!! We’re supposed to be careful of what we tweet.

    The last and most recent incident is the worst, because unlike the other two, this one’s effect was real and physical!! And at the receiving end was none other than Tech Crunch’s Michael Arrington. As he was leaving a conference, someone walked up to him and spat on his face. The pain in his words are unmistakable as he relates the incident. It doesn’t matter whether you agree, disagree, love or despise TechCrunch or Arrington, but their contribution to the web and startups transcends that, and cannot be denied. If this has to do with what he writes about as part of his job, this is a despicable reaction. I, for one, would really want to know what provoked such an act.

    We expect transparency, honesty and sharing in the social web.  But are we always ready to handle it maturely when its given to us? Yes, brands and people have a responsibility towards us, but shouldn’t that be reciprocated by us too? By having unreasonable expectations from brands and people, especially in a scenario where the rules of engagement are only beginning to be formed, are we forcing these entities to stop sharing and stop being transparent? As RWW correctly notes,

    Whether you believe in monitoring yourself online or not, don’t forget the point of the social Web: to get to know other like minded people, share resources, have fun, and leave the place a little nicer than you found it.

    Let’s have some of this spirit back, and show some maturity not only when we share or tweet or try to engage an audience as a brand/PR person, but also as a reader, when we consume this content. After all we are human, and I like to think that with web 2.0, we’re on our way to making this cold machine driven entity called internet , human. Lets not make the reverse happen.

    until next time, you have the right to remain silent, sometimes the duty too..

    PS. but you should comment 😉