robertogreco + advertising   339

What It Takes to Put Your Phone Away | The New Yorker
"During the first few days of my Internet decluttering, I found myself compulsively checking my unchanged in-box and already-read text messages, and scanning the same headlines over and over—attempting, as if bewitched, to see new information there. I took my dog out for longer walks, initially trying to use them for some productive purpose: spying on neighbors, planning my week. Soon I acquiesced to a dull, pleasant blankness. One afternoon, I draped myself on my couch and felt an influx of mental silence that was both disturbing and hallucinatorily pleasurable. I didn’t want to learn how to fix or build anything, or start a book club. I wanted to experience myself as soft and loose and purposeless, three qualities that, in my adulthood, have always seemed economically risky.

“Nothing is harder to do than nothing,” Jenny Odell writes, in her new book, “How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy” (Melville House). Odell, a multidisciplinary artist who teaches at Stanford, is perhaps best known for a pamphlet called “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Watch,” which she put together while in residence at the Museum of Capitalism, in Oakland. Odell investigated the origins of a blandly stylish watch that was being offered for free (plus shipping) on Instagram, and found a mirrored fun house of digital storefronts that looked as though they had been generated by algorithm. The retailers advertised themselves as brands that had physical origins in glitzy Miami Beach or hip San Francisco but were, in fact, placeless nodes in a vast web of scammy global wholesalers, behind which a human presence could hardly be discerned.

Like Newport, Odell thinks that we should spend less time on the Internet. Unlike him, she wants readers to question the very idea of productivity. Life is “more than an instrument and therefore something that cannot be optimized,” she writes. To find the physical world sufficiently absorbing, to conceive of the self as something that “exceeds algorithmic description”—these are not only “ends in and of themselves, but inalienable rights belonging to anyone lucky enough to be alive.” Odell details, with earnest wonder, moments in her life when she was reoriented toward these values. After the 2016 election, she began feeding peanuts to two crows on her balcony, and found comfort in the fact that “these essentially wild animals recognized me, that I had some place in their universe.” She also developed a fascination, via Google Maps, with the creek behind her old kindergarten, and she went to see it with a friend. She followed the creek bed, which, she learned, runs beneath Cupertino’s shopping centers and Apple’s headquarters. The creek became a reminder that under the “streamlined world of products, results, experiences, reviews” there is a “giant rock whose other lifeforms operate according to an ancient, oozing, almost chthonic logic.”

Odell elegantly aligns the crisis in our natural world and the crisis in our minds: what has happened to the natural world is happening to us, she contends, and it’s happening on the same soon-to-be-irreparable scale. She sees “little difference between habitat restoration in the traditional sense and restoring habitats for human thought”; both are endangered by “the logic of capitalist productivity.” She believes that, by constantly disclosing our needs and desires to tech companies that sift through our selfhood in search of profit opportunities, we are neglecting, even losing, our mysterious, murky depths—the parts of us that don’t serve an ulterior purpose but exist merely to exist. The “best, most alive parts” of ourselves are being “paved over by a ruthless logic of use.”

“Digital Minimalism” and “How to Do Nothing” could both be categorized as highbrow how-to—an artist and a computer scientist, both of them in their thirties, wrestling with the same timely prompt. (At one point, Odell writes, she thought of her book as activism disguised as self-help.) Rather than a philosophy of technology use, Odell offers a philosophy of modern life, which she calls “manifest dismantling,” and which she intends as the opposite of Manifest Destiny. It involves rejecting the sort of progress that centers on isolated striving, and emphasizing, instead, caregiving, maintenance, and the interdependence of things. Odell grew up in the Bay Area, and her work is full of unabashed hippie moments that might provoke cynicism. But, for me—and, I suspect, for others who have come of age alongside the Internet and have coped with the pace and the precariousness of contemporary living with a mixture of ambient fatalism and flares of impetuous tenderness—she struck a hopeful nerve of possibility that I hadn’t felt in a long time.

Odell writes about the first electronic bulletin-board system, which was set up, in Berkeley, in 1972, as a “communal memory bank.” She contrasts it with Nextdoor, a notoriously paranoid neighborhood-based social platform that was recently valued at $1.5 billion, inferring that the profit motive had perverted what can be a healthy civic impulse. Newport, who does not have any social-media accounts of his own, generally treats social media’s current profit model as an unfortunate inevitability. Odell believes that there is another way. She cites, for example, the indie platform Mastodon, which is crowdfunded and decentralized. (It is made up of independently operated nodes, called “instances,” on which users can post short messages, or “toots.”) To make money from something—a forest, a sense of self—is often to destroy it. Odell brings up a famous redwood in Oakland called Old Survivor, which is estimated to be almost five hundred years old. Unlike all the other trees of its kind in the area, it was never cut down, because it was runty and twisted and situated on a rocky slope; it appeared unprofitable to loggers. The tree, she writes, is an image of “resistance-in-place,” of something that has escaped capitalist appropriation. As Odell sees it, the only way forward is to be like Old Survivor. We have to be able to do nothing—to merely bear witness, to stay in place, to create shelter for one another—to endure."



"My Newport-inspired Internet cleanse happened to coincide with a handful of other events that made me feel raw and unmanageable. It was the end of winter, with its sudden thaws and strange fluctuations—the type of weather where a day of sunshine feels like a stranger being kind to you when you cry. I had just finished writing a book that had involved going through a lot of my past. The hours per day that I had spent converting my experience into something of professional and financial value were now empty, and I was cognizant of how little time I had spent caring for the people and things around me. I began thinking about my selfhood as a meadow of wildflowers that had been paved over by the Internet. I started frantically buying houseplants.

I also found myself feeling more grateful for my phone than ever. I had become more conscious of why I use technology, and how it meets my needs, as Newport recommended. It’s not nothing that I can text my friends whenever I think about them, or get on Viber and talk to my grandmother in the Philippines, or sit on the B54 bus and distract myself from the standstill traffic by looking up the Fermi paradox and listening to any A Tribe Called Quest song that I want to hear. All these capacities still feel like the stuff of science fiction, and none of them involve Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. It occurred to me that two of the most straightforwardly beloved digital technologies—podcasts and group texts—push against the attention economy’s worst characteristics. Podcasts often demand sustained listening, across hours and weeks, to a few human voices. Group texts are effectively the last noncommercialized social spaces on many millennials’ phones.

On the first day of April, I took stock of my digital experiment. I had not become a different, better person. I had not acquired any high-value leisure activities. But I had felt a sort of persistent ache and wonder that pulled me back to a year that I spent in the Peace Corps, wandering in the dust at the foot of sky-high birch trees, terrified and thrilled at the sensation of being unknowable, mysterious to myself, unseen. I watered my plants, and I loosened my StayFocusd settings, back to forty-five daily minutes. I considered my Freedom parameters, which I had already learned to break, and let them be."
jiatolentino  2019  internet  attention  jennyodell  capitalism  work  busyness  resistance  socialmedia  instagram  twitter  facebook  infooverload  performance  web  online  nature  nextdoor  advertising  thoreau  philosophy  care  caring  maintenance  silence  happiness  anxiety  leisurearts  artleisure  commodification  technology  selfhood  identity  sms  texting  viber  podcasts  grouptexts  digitalminimalism  refusal  calnewport  mobile  phones  smartphones  screentime  ralphwaldoemerson  separatism  interdependence 
april 2019 by robertogreco
Exposing Fake Companies & Free Products on Instagram | Topic
"25.
Maybe this explains what’s so galling to people about the Folsom & Co. not-really-scam: It simply lays bare the categorical deception at the heart of all branding and retail. The different watch values are, in the strictest sense, speech acts: the watch is $29.99 because someone said it’s $29.99. It’s $29.99 because a certain person is wearing it on Instagram; it’s $29.99 because it’s photographed next to flannel and a Chemex. While “Bradley” of “Bradley’s men’s shop” may not be the most fleshed-out character, he – and the entire existence of Folsom & Co., Soficoastal, etc. – are examples of the now-household term, “brand storytelling.” And the internet makes it possible for anyone to tell any story, about anything, from anywhere.

26.
The fact that Folsom & Co. is not in San Francisco is of a piece with many “brand stories.” In “How Madewell Bought and Sold My Family’s History,” Dan Nosowitz recalls the process by which J. Crew acquired and subsequently mythologized Madewell, his great-grandfather’s workwear brand, after its last factory shut down in 2006. J. Crew now uses the brand for a line of high-end women’s clothing. Its marketing draws heavily on the age of the original Madewell, and J. Crew is fond of including “since 1937” under the logo. This is part of a larger effort to portray the Madewell brand in retrospect as a venerable, solid company known for craftsmanship and quality. But Nosowitz points out that the original Madewell was actually unconcerned with style or design, and often contracted out their clothing or imitated existing designs. Not only does old Madewell not live up to the story told by new Madewell, it was a completely different company that made unglamorous overalls for cheap. Nosowitz writes, “J.Crew’s Madewell is grasping to emulate some sepia-hued commitment to quality in the original company, some moral or ethical standard from better, more authentic times. But that’s not what motivated my great-grandfather at all — his motivation was profit, and quality was a means to an end.”"
jennyodell  capitalism  watches  marketing  advertising  2017 
april 2019 by robertogreco
Social media moderators should look to the oldest digital communities for tips about caring — Quartz
"Back when women only made up a tenth of the online population, Echo’s user base was 40% female. On its website, a banner read: “Echo has the highest population of women in cyberspace. And none of them will give you the time of day.” Stacy made Echo membership free for women for an entire year. She created private spaces on Echo where women could talk amongst themselves and report instances of harassment. She spoke to women’s groups about the internet, and she taught Unix courses out of her apartment so that a lack of technical knowledge would not limit new users to the experience of computer-mediated communication.

In short, Stacy achieved near gender parity on an almost entirely male-dominated internet because she cared enough to make it so.

For many in tech, caring means caring about: investing, without immediate promise of remuneration, in the pursuit of building something “insanely great,” as Steve Jobs once said. It means risking stability and sanity in order to change the world.

But what Stacy’s legacy represents is caring of another sort: not only caring about but caring for. It is this second type of caring that has been lost in our age of big social.

Moderators are a key part of this relationship. Stacy was a founder-moderator: a combination of tech support and sheriff who thought deeply about decisions affecting the lives of her users. She baked these values into the community: Every conversation on Echo was moderated by both a male and a female “host,” who were users who, in exchange for waived subscription fees, set the tone of discussion and watched for abuse.

In The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, an early book about online community, Howard Rheingold documents such hosts all over the early internet, from a French BBS whose paid “animateurs” were culled from its most active users to the hosts on Echo’s West Coast counterpart, The WELL. “Hosts are the people,” he wrote, who “welcome newcomers, introduce people to one another, clean up after the guests, provoke discussion, and break up fights if necessary.” Like any party host, it was their own home they safeguarded.

Today the role of moderators has changed. Rather than deputized members of our own community, they are a precarious workforce on the front lines of digital trauma. The raw feed of flagged Facebook content is unimaginable to the average user: a parade of violence, pornography, and hate speech. According to a recent Bloomberg article, YouTube moderators are encouraged to work only a few hours at a time, and have access to on-call psychiatry. Contract workers in India and the Philippines work far removed from the content they moderate, struggling to apply global guidelines to a multiplicity of cultural contexts.

No matter where you’re located, it’s not easy to be a moderator. The details of such practices are “routinely hidden from public view, siloed within companies and treated as trade secrets,” as Catherine Buni and Soraya Chemaly note in a 2016 study of moderation for The Verge. They’re one of Silicon Valley’s many hidden workforces: Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter thrive on the invisibility of such labor, which makes users feel safe enough to continue engaging—and sharing personal data—with the platform. To sell happy places online, we are outsourcing the unhappiness to other people.

How did we stop caring about the communities we created? This is partially a question of scale. With mass adoption comes the mass visibility of brutality, and the offshore workers and low-wage contract laborers who moderate the major social media platforms cycle out quickly, traumatized by visions of beheadings and sexual violence. But it’s also a design choice, engineered to make us care about social platforms by concealing from us those who care after them. Put simply, we have fractured care.

The major platforms’ solution to the problem of scale has been to employ contract workers to enforce moderation guidelines. But what if we took the opposite approach and treated scale itself as the issue? This raises new questions: What is the largest number of people a platform can adequately care for? Can that number really be in the billions? What is the ideal size for a community?

Perhaps big social was never the right outcome for this wild experiment we call the internet. Perhaps we’d be happier with constellations of smaller, regional, and interest-specific communities; communities whose stakeholders are the users themselves, and whose moderators and decision-makers aren’t rendered opaque through distance and centralized authority. Perhaps social life doesn’t scale. Perhaps the future looks very much like the past. More like Echo.

Instead of expanding forever outward, we could instead empower groups of people with the tools to build their own communities. We have a long history of regional Community Networks and FreeNets to learn from. A generation of young programmers and designers are already proposing alternatives to the most baked-in protocols and conventions of the web: the Beaker Browser, a model for a new decentralized, peer-to-peer web, built on a protocol called Dat, or the zero-noise, all-signal community of Are.na, a collaborative social platform for thinkers and creatives. Failing those, a home-brew world of BBS—Echo included—exists still, for those ready to brave millennial-proof windows of pure text.

* * *

There is nothing inevitable about the future of social media—or, indeed, the web itself. Like any human project, it’s only the culmination of choices, some made decades ago. The internet was built as a resource-sharing network for computer scientists; the web, as a way for nuclear physicists to compare notes. That either have evolved beyond these applications is entirely due to the creative adaptations of users. Being entrenched in the medium, they have always had a knack for developing social commons out of even the most opaque screen-based places.

The utopian idealism of the first generation online influenced a popular conception of the internet as a community technology. Our beleaguered social media platforms have grafted themselves onto this assumption, blinding us to their true natures: They are consumption engines, hybridizing community and commerce by selling communities to advertisers (and aspiring political regimes).

It would serve us to consider alternatives to such a limited vision of community life online. For original tech pioneers such as Stacy, success was never about a successful exit, but rather the sustained, long-term guardianship of a community of users. Now more than ever, they should be regarded as the greatest resource in the world."
communication  culture  bbs  2018  claireevans  gender  internet  online  web  history  moderation  care  caring  scale  scalability  small  slow  size  siliconvalley  socialmedia  community  communities  technology  groupsize  advertising  are.na 
june 2018 by robertogreco
The Ad-Free, User-Owned Future Of Social Media
"The recent revelation that Facebook allowed British firm Cambridge Analytica to harvest the data of 50 million users has led to a cultural reckoning and spelled serious trouble for the social media giant–and many of its peers. As the dust settles, the question remains: If you’re done with Facebook, what other options are there?

One alternative is Are.na. Designed by creatives for creatives, Are.na is a research platform that happens to have a social element; you can organize all kinds of “blocks” of content into themed channels, gathering ideas and inspiration slowly over time. Other users can connect your “blocks” to their ideas, creating a network of thematic links designed for collaboration and sharing.

But here’s the thing about Are.na: It has no ads, no likes, and no tracking algorithms, making it something of an anti-Facebook. And crucially, its business model is entirely different. Rather than relying on gathering user data and selling engagement to advertisers, Are.na is funded entirely by premium users who pay a monthly fee to use the platform. According to cofounder and CEO Charles Broskoski, that means that the Are.na team is focused on making a product truly designed for its 42,000 users instead of trying to serve both users and advertisers at the same time.

Of course, there’s a reason many internet giants, including Facebook and Google, rely on advertising and user data to generate revenue. Are.na’s alternative is a hard business model to make work. That’s why the platform launched a crowdfunding campaign that allows anyone to invest in Are.na on March 14. In the two weeks since, it has raised more than $100,000–double the team’s initial goal–from 326 individual investors who pitched in amounts ranging from $100 to $5,000.

The campaign kicked off just days before the Cambridge Analytica news broke, and Broskoski attributes at least some of its success to people looking for new models to support online. “It feels like a very opportune moment for alternative approaches to social media,” he says.

While the Are.na team has been overwhelmed by the response, they also say they aren’t terribly surprised by it. Some of Are.na’s most ardent users had already reached out about wanting to invest, so raising equity through the startup’s community felt like the right way to build a sustainable business model. So far, about 70% of the investments have come from Are.na members. Of the platform’s paying members, about 10% are investors.

Part of the reasoning behind opening up Are.na to individual investors is that it shows current users–and any potential new users–exactly what the company’s values are. “We’re trying to be transparent about how our business functions and how that’s good for a person,” Broskoski says. “It shows how we’re motivated. We’re trying to make a product that’s good enough for people who can afford it to pay for it.”

The money will help cover operating expenses, and Broskoski says the startup is on track to entirely cover these costs using the crowdfunded money and revenue from premium users by the end of the year. But the campaign is still going, with more than two months left. If they manage to raise $150,000, Are.na will be able to bring on another developer who can help it continue building out features for users. Right now, the team is focused on designing a version of Are.na for small teams to work together, which they hope to launch in the fall.

Anyone who buys an equity investment in Are.na receives convertible notes–an agreement that you’ve bought debt that will transform into equity when a qualifying financing round happens. In a more traditional startup, that might be through an acquisition, an IPO, or a share buyback. But Broskoski instead wants to issue dividends to the company’s investors as soon as Are.na becomes profitable. It’s not unheard of: Kickstarter pursued a similar model with its early investors.

“We love the idea of our community owning part of Are.na,” Broskoski says. “It matches up perfectly with our values and where we want to be in the future.”

Even in the last few months, the company has grown exponentially. When I last spoke to the team in January, they had 21,000 users. Just three months later, they have 42,000. The initial success of the company’s equity crowdfunding is a clear indicator: They’re onto something.

The timing could not have been better. Even before Cambridge Analytica, people were opting out of social media and looking for ways to digitally detox–citing the negative impact of Facebook and Twitter on users’ emotional lives and productivity. Even if you love using them, it can be difficult to swallow just how heavily these companies’ business models depend on mining your personal data. Though there are other alternative platforms, Are.na is one of the few making headway on a sustainable business model that puts users first.

“It’s more evidence to us that we’re doing something right and we’re reaching a type of person who wants something different on the internet,” Broskoski says. “I don’t necessarily think that Are.na is going to supplant Facebook, but this particular time is a good moment for people to think about what they want their online life to look like.”"
are.na  2018  charlesbroskoski  values  advertising  tracking  algorithms  facebook  cambridgeanalytica 
april 2018 by robertogreco
Baratunde on Twitter: "Ok. I made it through the indictment. Yes I was hoping to see Donald Trump Jr's stupid face in there proving he was knowingly wiring money to the Russians. Didn't get that. Instead found a more frightening reality: we got hacked big
"Ok. I made it through the indictment. Yes I was hoping to see Donald Trump Jr's stupid face in there proving he was knowingly wiring money to the Russians. Didn't get that. Instead found a more frightening reality: we got hacked bigtime. Based on known vulnerabilities.

We build a giant deception machine called marketing and advertising, and an adversary used it against us.

We build a giant influence machine called social media, and an adversary used it against us.

We left open, unreconciled divisions in our society, and an adversary used it against us.

We weakened our press such that all the phony conflict inspired by this information warfare campaign was reported in real-time with little to no vetting, and an adversary used it against us.

We allowed our democracy to become so corrupted by money and self-serving, power-hungry folks that we already didn't trust it, and an adversary used it against us.

If the election had turned out differently, would we even know half of what we do? We only got Robert Mueller because Trump is president but also bad at wielding his power.

And even though the Russians amplified divisions to be greater than they are, those divisions are real now. There is a basic level of trust we have to have in our environment to act appropriately, and that's severely broken.

On top of that, one-half of the political establishment (the republican half) is completely uninterested in acknowledging, investigating, or responding to this sophisticated act of information warfare. They've done NOTHING to prepare us for the next campaign.

The president still hasn't imposed the Russia sanctions that Congress passed overwhelmingly. And everybody's just acting like, "Meh. TRUMP WILL BE TRUMP! Undermining national security is just his THING ya know?"

And Facebook. Oh Facebook. So happy to monetize the destruction of our civil fabric. They made $7B in the 3rd quarter of 2016. Zuckerberg smugly said 99% of posts are "authentic." We cannot trust this company to do what's best for us. Not just FB btw.

This indictment isn't just about Trump. It's about us needing a better vision for how we do this whole "society" thing. What forms of power get held accountable. What voices we listen to. This is ultimately about reality and our collective agreement on what THAT is. /END"
baratundethurston  donaldtrump  2018  politics  russia  hacking  marketing  elections  facebook  civics  division  infowarfare  deception  advertising  socialmedia  republicans  democrats  power  corruption  news  media  medialiteracy  robertmueller  money 
february 2018 by robertogreco
André Staltz - The Web began dying in 2014, here's how
"The events and data above describe how three internet companies have acquired massive influence on the Web, but why does that imply the beginning of the Web’s death? To answer that, we need to reflect on what the Web is.

The original vision for the Web according to its creator, Tim Berners-Lee, was a space with multilateral publishing and consumption of information. It was a peer-to-peer vision with no dependency on a single party. Tim himself claims the Web is dying: the Web he wanted and the Web he got are no longer the same."



"GOOG, MSFT, FB, and AMZN are mimicking AAPL’s strategy of building brand loyalty around high-end devices. Through a process I call “Appleification”, they are (1) setting up walled gardens, (2) becoming hardware companies, and (3) marketing the design while designing for the market. It is a threat to AAPL itself, because they are behind the other giants when it comes to big data collection and its uses. While AAPL’s early and bold introduction of an App Store shook the Web as the dominant software distribution platform, it wasn’t enough to replace it. The next wave of walled gardens might look different: less noticeable, but nonetheless disruptive to the Web."



"There is a tendency at GOOG-FB-AMZN to bypass the Web which is motivated by user experience and efficient communication, not by an agenda to avoid browsers. In the knowledge internet and the commerce internet, being efficient to provide what users want is the goal. In the social internet, the goal is to provide an efficient channel for communication between people. This explains FB’s 10-year strategy with Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) as the next medium for social interactions through the internet. This strategy would also bypass the Web, proving how more natural social AR would be than social real-time texting in browsers. Already today, most people on the internet communicate with other people via a mobile app, not via a browser.

The common pattern among these three internet giants is to grow beyond browsers, creating new virtual contexts where data is created and shared. The Web may die like most other technologies do: simply by becoming less attractive than newer technologies. And like most obsolete technologies, they don’t suddenly disappear, neither do they disappear completely. You can still buy a Walkman and listen to a tape with it, but the technology has nevertheless lost its collective relevance. The Web’s death will come as a gradual decay of its necessity, not as a dramatic loss.

The Trinet

The internet will survive longer than the Web will. GOOG-FB-AMZN will still depend on submarine internet cables (the “Backbone”), because it is a technical success. That said, many aspects of the internet will lose their relevance, and the underlying infrastructure could be optimized only for GOOG traffic, FB traffic, and AMZN traffic. It wouldn’t conceptually be anymore a “network of networks”, but just a “network of three networks”, the Trinet, if you will. The concept of workplace network which gave birth to the internet infrastructure would migrate to a more abstract level: Facebook Groups, Google Hangouts, G Suite, and other competing services which can be acquired by a tech giant. Workplace networks are already today emulated in software as a service, not as traditional Local Area Networks. To improve user experience, the Trinet would be a technical evolution of the internet. These efforts are already happening today, at GOOG. In the long-term, supporting routing for the old internet and the old Web would be an overhead, so it could be beneficial to cut support for the diverse internet on the protocol and hardware level. Access to the old internet could be emulated on GOOG’s cloud accessed through the Trinet, much like how Windows 95 can be today emulated in your browser. ISPs would recognize the obsolescence of the internet and support the Trinet only, driven by market demand for optimal user experience from GOOG-FB-AMZN.

Perhaps a future with great user experience in AR, VR, hands-free commerce and knowledge sharing could evoke an optimistic perspective for what these tech giants are building. But 25 years of the Web has gotten us used to foundational freedoms that we take for granted. We forget how useful it has been to remain anonymous and control what we share, or how easy it was to start an internet startup with its own independent servers operating with the same rights GOOG servers have. On the Trinet, if you are permanently banned from GOOG or FB, you would have no alternative. You could even be restricted from creating a new account. As private businesses, GOOG, FB, and AMZN don’t need to guarantee you access to their networks. You do not have a legal right to an account in their servers, and as societies we aren’t demanding for these rights as vehemently as we could, to counter the strategies that tech giants are putting forward.

The Web and the internet have represented freedom: efficient and unsupervised exchange of information between people of all nations. In the Trinet, we will have even more vivid exchange of information between people, but we will sacrifice freedom. Many of us will wake up to the tragedy of this tradeoff only once it is reality."
andréstaltz  amazon  facebook  google  internet  web  online  walledgardens  marketing  advertising  2014  2017  seo  publishing  amp  apple 
november 2017 by robertogreco
Zeynep Tufekci: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads | TED Talk | TED.com
"We're building an artificial intelligence-powered dystopia, one click at a time, says techno-sociologist Zeynep Tufekci. In an eye-opening talk, she details how the same algorithms companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon use to get you to click on ads are also used to organize your access to political and social information. And the machines aren't even the real threat. What we need to understand is how the powerful might use AI to control us -- and what we can do in response."

[See also: "Machine intelligence makes human morals more important"
https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_machine_intelligence_makes_human_morals_more_important

"Machine intelligence is here, and we're already using it to make subjective decisions. But the complex way AI grows and improves makes it hard to understand and even harder to control. In this cautionary talk, techno-sociologist Zeynep Tufekci explains how intelligent machines can fail in ways that don't fit human error patterns -- and in ways we won't expect or be prepared for. "We cannot outsource our responsibilities to machines," she says. "We must hold on ever tighter to human values and human ethics.""]
zeyneptufekci  machinelearning  ai  artificialintelligence  youtube  facebook  google  amazon  ethics  computing  advertising  politics  behavior  technology  web  online  internet  susceptibility  dystopia  sociology  donaldtrump 
october 2017 by robertogreco
BURGER KING | Bullying Jr. - YouTube
"Scrawny. Short. Ugly. Fat. Weird. 30% of school kids worldwide are bullied each year and bullying is the #1 act of violence against young people in America today (Source: nobully.org). The BURGER KING® brand is known for putting the crown on everyone’s head and allowing people to have it their way. Bullying is the exact opposite of that. So the BURGER KING® brand is speaking up against bullying during National Bullying Prevention Month.

In the BURGER KING® brand Bullying Jr. experiment, more people stood up for a bullied WHOPPER JR.® than a bullied high school Jr. Visit NoBully.org to learn how you can take a stand against bullying."
bullying  classideas  advertising  burgerking  2017  violence  society  capitalism 
october 2017 by robertogreco
Tim Maughan on Twitter: "Zuckerberg translated: I created a thing that became incredibly powerful and complex, and I now have no control over it https://t.co/nIMEez6IT5"
"Zuckerberg translated: I created a thing that became incredibly powerful and complex, and I now have no control over it [screenshot]

been saying this for ages (as has Curtis and others) - this is now the way the world works.

We build systems so complex we don't understand them, and can't control. Instead we try and manage and reactively fire-fight small parts.

see also: all markets, supply chains, the media, algorithms, economies, day to day politics, policing, advertising..just take your pick.

How do you make sense of a system no single individual can comprehend? You lose agency and blame others. You dream up conspiracy theories.

Or you try to find one single answer or reason - and you argue violently for it - when the reality is its far too complex for that.

"It was her emails! The media! Racism! It was bernie! No, it was the russians!" It was all those things, plus x more levels of complexity.

This all sounds very 'we're fucked' and defeatist and, well, yeah. Maybe. Or maybe we can try and find ways to wrestle control back.

One thing these systems all have in common: their purpose is primarily to create and hoard capital. Maybe we should pivot away from that?

More relevant quotes re complexity, control, and automation from that Zuckerberg statement (which is here https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104052907253171 …) [two screenshots]"
timmaughan  elections  2017  2016  markzuckerberg  facebook  systems  complexity  agency  cv  control  systemsthinking  economics  algorithms  media  supplychains  advertising  politics  policing  lawenforcement 
september 2017 by robertogreco
things weren't better then, they just spent less time nostalgic for the past
"Have you seen Peter Gabriel’s Sledgehammer lately? It popped up when something else I was playing on Youtube ended and I can’t stop thinking about it. Now I want to send it to every VR guy who says something like, “well, actually it took fifty years of film before Citizen Kane..” Well, actually it took four years of MTV before they made this:

[image]

Why isn’t VR as good as music videos were in the 80s? This week people went wild over an AR recreation of A-ha's “Take on me.” It’s a technical achievement but not a creative one. A creative achievement would be to this moment what “Take on me” was in 1984. Something doesn’t need to be technically advanced to capture people’s imaginations as that video did, but I don’t see any entry points in the industry or attempts to nurture that kind of talent. 

VR/AR is ad-tech. Everything built in studios (except for experimental projects from independent artists) is advertising something. That empathy stuff? That's advertising for nonprofits. But mostly VR is advertising itself. While MTV was advertising musicians, the scale and creative freedom meant that it launched careers for people like Michel Gondry, Antoine Fuqua, David Fincher, Spike Jonze, Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, etc. A band from a town like Louisville or Tampa could get in touch with a local filmmaker and collaborate on a project and hope that 120 Minutes picks it up. There were entry points like that. And the audience was eager to see something experimental. But a VR audience is primed to have something like a rollercoaster experience, rather than an encounter with the unexpected. The same slimy shapeshifter entrepreneurs that could just as well build martech or chatbots went and colonized the VR space because they have a built in excuse that it took film "fifty years before Orson Wells." Imagine that. A blank check and a deadline in fifty years.

No one wants to get inside some sweaty uncomfortable headset unless they are going to be rewarded with something at least as good as music videos were in 1984. But who is ushering in talent rather than hype? VR is starting as an institutional and commercial monster rather than scaling into institutional power. It’s like if the art market came before art."
joannemcneil  2017  vr  ar  virtualreality  augmentedreality  mtv  musicvideos  art  advertising  michelgondry  spikejonze  antoinefuqua  davidflincher  jonathandayton  valeriefaris  experimentation  unexpected  surprise  creativity  artmarket 
july 2017 by robertogreco
Second Sight - The New Yorker
"Movement in the margins is not enough. Regularity becomes invisible. You switch up the moves, you introduce irregularity, in order to maintain visibility."



"The neurons in the visual system adapt to the stimulus, and redirect their attention."



"Years later, I lost faith. One form of binocular vision gave way to another. The world was now a series of interleaved apparitions. The thing was an image that could also bear an image. If one of the advantages of irreligion was an acceptance of others, that benefit was strangely echoed in the visual plane, which granted the things seen within the photographic rectangle a radical equality. This in part was why signs, pictures, ads, and murals came to mean so much: they were neither more nor less than the “real” elements by which they were framed. They were not to be excluded, nor were the spaces between things. “We see the world”: this simple statement becomes (Merleau-Ponty has also noted this) a tangled tree of meanings. Which world? See how? We who? Once absolute faith is no longer possible, perception moves forward on a case-by-case basis. The very contingency and brevity of vision become the long-sought miracle."



"The stage is set. Things seem to be prepared in advance for cameos, and even the sun is rigged like the expert lighting of a technician. The boundary between things and props is now dissolved, and the images of things have become things themselves."



"The body has to adjust to the environment, to the challenges in the environment. The body isn’t wrong, isn’t “disabled.” The environment itself—gravity, air, solidity or the lack of it, et cetera—is what is somehow wrong: ill-matched to the body’s abilities, inimical to its verticality, stability, or mobility."



"I rest at a concrete outcrop with a bunting of vintners’ blue nets, a blue the same color as the lake. It is as though something long awaited has come to fruition. A gust of wind sweeps in from across the lake. The curtain shifts, and suddenly everything can be seen. The scales fall from our eyes. The landscape opens. No longer are we alone: they are with us now, have been all along, all our living and all our dead."
tejucole  2017  margins  edges  attention  regularity  everyday  irregularity  visibility  invisibility  acceptance  belief  vision  photography  borders  liminalspaces  perception  brevity  ephemerality  adjustment  adaptability  disability  stability  mobility  verticality  body  bodies  contingency  sign  pictures  ads  images  advertising  between  betweenness  stimuli  liminality  ephemeral  disabilities 
june 2017 by robertogreco
Instagram Created a Monster: A No B.S. Guide to What's Really Going On
"Over the last few years Instagram became THE new way to advertise, and money got in the way, creating a toxic number game. Now getting our work seen without playing this game is becoming harder and harder. What once used to be about content and originality is now reduced to some meaningless algorithm dynamics, and whoever has the time and the cash to trick this system wins the game.

I’m sure many of you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and I’m sure even fewer of you know that some of us are using Instagram as a business tool to help us make a living.

I’m writing this with a heavy heart, as I know I’m a huge hypocrite. I’ve been playing the game for the last 6 moths, and it made me miserable. I tried to play it as ethically as possible, but when you are pushed into a corner and gasping for air, sometimes you have to set ethical aside if you want to survive. But surviving doesn’t mean living, and the artist in me is desperate to feel alive again.

I still care about doing things right. So I think it’s time to stop the bulls**t, come clean, and tell you exactly what’s happening. I owe you that, because if I get to live the life I live today, if I get to do what I love the most — traveling, writing and making art — it’s also thanks to my followers!

So here’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: a no bulls**t guide to what’s really going on!"



"Why Numbers Matter: Influencers and Advertising…

How It All Started…

How the Game is Played: Tricks to Get Followers and Engagement…
We Buy Followers, Likes, and Comments (I’m Not Guilty)…
We Follow/Unfollow, Like, and Comment on Random People (Partially Guilty)…
We Use Instagress and Co. (I’m Guilty)…
We Go to Instagram Spots (I’m Guilty)…
We Get Featured by Collective Accounts…
We Are Part of Comment Pods (I’m Guilty)…
The Best Kept Secret: The Instagram Mafia and Explorer Page (I’m Not Guilty)…"
instagram  algorithms  facebooks  2017  saramelotti  gamification  advertising  capitalism  latecapitalism  commerce  influence  popularity 
june 2017 by robertogreco
How Google Took Over the Classroom - The New York Times
"The tech giant is transforming public education with low-cost laptops and
free apps. But schools may be giving Google more than they are getting."



"Mr. Casap, the Google education evangelist, likes to recount Google’s emergence as an education powerhouse as a story of lucky coincidences. The first occurred in 2006 when the company hired him to develop new business at its office on the campus of Arizona State University in Tempe.

Mr. Casap quickly persuaded university officials to scrap their costly internal email service (an unusual move at the time) and replace it with a free version of the Gmail-and-Docs package that Google had been selling to companies. In one semester, the vast majority of the university’s approximately 65,000 students signed up.

And a new Google business was born.

Mr. Casap then invited university officials on a road show to share their success story with other schools. “It caused a firestorm,” Mr. Casap said. Northwestern University, the University of Southern California and many others followed.

This became Google’s education marketing playbook: Woo school officials with easy-to-use, money-saving services. Then enlist schools to market to other schools, holding up early adopters as forward thinkers among their peers.

The strategy proved so successful in higher education that Mr. Casap decided to try it with public schools.

As it happened, officials at the Oregon Department of Education were looking to help local schools cut their email costs, said Steve Nelson, a former department official. In 2010, the state officially made Google's education apps available to its school districts.

“That caused the same kind of cascade,” Mr. Casap said. School districts around the country began contacting him, and he referred them to Mr. Nelson, who related Oregon’s experience with Google’s apps.

By then, Google was developing a growth strategy aimed at teachers — the gatekeepers to the classroom — who could influence the administrators who make technology decisions. “The driving force tends to be the pedagogical side,” Mr. Bout, the Google education executive, said. “That is something we really embraced.”

Google set up dozens of online communities, called Google Educator Groups, where teachers could swap ideas for using its tech. It started training programs with names like Certified Innovator to credential teachers who wanted to establish their expertise in Google’s tools or teach their peers to use them.

Soon, teachers began to talk up Google on social media and in sessions at education technology conferences. And Google became a more visible exhibitor and sponsor at such events. Google also encouraged school districts that had adopted its tools to hold “leadership symposiums” where administrators could share their experiences with neighboring districts.

Although business practices like encouraging educators to spread the word to their peers have become commonplace among education technology firms, Google has successfully deployed these techniques on a such a large scale that some critics say the company has co-opted public school employees to gain market dominance.

“Companies are exploiting the education space for sales and public good will,” said Douglas A. Levin, the president of EdTech Strategies, a consulting firm. Parents and educators should be questioning Google’s pervasiveness in schools, he added, and examining “how those in the public sector are carrying the message of Google branding and marketing.”

Mr. Bout of Google disagreed, saying that the company’s outreach to educators was not a marketing exercise. Rather, he said, it was an effort to improve education by helping teachers learn directly from their peers how to most effectively use Google’s tools.

“We help to amplify the stories and voices of educators who have lessons learned,” he said, “because it can be challenging for educators to find ways to share with each other.”"
google  sfsh  education  apple  data  privacy  billfitzgerald  chicago  publicschools  technology  edtech  googleclassroom  googleapps  learning  schools  advertising  jaimecasap 
may 2017 by robertogreco
#Vanlife, the Bohemian Social-Media Movement - The New Yorker
"At a rest stop, a man in his fifties stepped out of a white S.U.V. and eyed the van hungrily. “I bet that can go anywhere,” he said. Smith, who seemed to have an infinite capacity for small talk, stood in the rain and chatted with him. King was fretful about the delay; sponsors were clamoring for posts. “We really need to create content,” she said. “And that’s hard to do in this concrete jungle.”"



"But, for all its twee escapism, vanlife is a trend born out of the recent recession. “We heard all these promises about what will happen after you go to college and get a degree,” Smith said. “We graduated at a time when all that turned out to be a bunch of bullshit.” The generation that’s fuelling the trend has significantly more student debt and lower rates of homeownership than previous cohorts. The rise of contract and temporary labor has further eroded young people’s financial stability. “I think there’s a sense of hopelessness in my generation, in terms of jobs,” Foster Huntington said. “And it’s cheap to live in a van.” And so, like staycations and minimalism, vanlife is an attempt to aestheticize and romanticize the precariousness of contemporary life. “It looks like they’re having fun,” Huntington said, of King and Smith. “But they’re working a lot.”"



"King and Smith have posted more than thirteen hundred photographs to their account. Scrolling through the feed in chronological order, you can see King, who shoots most of the photos, become better at composing and editing images, and at tailoring them to what the audience wants to see. In the early days, she took pictures of flowers and sunsets. “I’d never post something like that now,” she said, looking at a closeup of ripening blackberries, from four years ago. As I thumbed toward the top of the screen, I had the disconcerting sense of watching a life become a life-style brand."

[See also:

"The True Cost of Vanlife"
http://www.climbing.com/news/true-cost-vanlife/

"Want to Live That #VanLife? Here’s How to Get the Van"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-27/want-to-live-that-vanlife-here-s-how-to-get-the-van

https://www.instagram.com/wheresmyofficenow/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwjvU15-d1Y ]
vanlife  instagram  socialmedia  latecapitalism  advertising  culture  2017 
april 2017 by robertogreco
Build a Better Monster: Morality, Machine Learning, and Mass Surveillance
"technology and ethics aren't so easy to separate, and that if you want to know how a system works, it helps to follow the money."



"A question few are asking is whether the tools of mass surveillance and social control we spent the last decade building could have had anything to do with the debacle of the 2017 election, or whether destroying local journalism and making national journalism so dependent on our platforms was, in retrospect, a good idea.

We built the commercial internet by mastering techniques of persuasion and surveillance that we’ve extended to billions of people, including essentially the entire population of the Western democracies. But admitting that this tool of social control might be conducive to authoritarianism is not something we’re ready to face. After all, we're good people. We like freedom. How could we have built tools that subvert it?"



"The economic basis of the Internet is surveillance. Every interaction with a computing device leaves a data trail, and whole industries exist to consume this data. Unlike dystopian visions from the past, this surveillance is not just being conducted by governments or faceless corporations. Instead, it’s the work of a small number of sympathetic tech companies with likeable founders, whose real dream is to build robots and Mars rockets and do cool things that make the world better. Surveillance just pays the bills."



"These companies exemplify the centralized, feudal Internet of 2017. While the protocols that comprise the Internet remain open and free, in practice a few large American companies dominate every aspect of online life. Google controls search and email, AWS controls cloud hosting, Apple and Google have a duopoly in mobile phone operating systems. Facebook is the one social network.

There is more competition and variety among telecommunications providers and gas stations than there is among the Internet giants."



"Build a Better Monster
Idle Words · by Maciej Cegłowski
I came to the United States as a six year old kid from Eastern Europe. One of my earliest memories of that time was the Safeway supermarket, an astonishing display of American abundance.

It was hard to understand how there could be so much wealth in the world.

There was an entire aisle devoted to breakfast cereals, a food that didn't exist in Poland. It was like walking through a canyon where the walls were cartoon characters telling me to eat sugar.

Every time we went to the supermarket, my mom would give me a quarter to play Pac Man. As a good socialist kid, I thought the goal of the game was to help Pac Man, who was stranded in a maze and needed to find his friends, who were looking for him.

My games didn't last very long.

The correct way to play Pac Man, of course, is to consume as much as possible while running from the ghosts that relentlessly pursue you. This was a valuable early lesson in what it means to be an American.

It also taught me that technology and ethics aren't so easy to separate, and that if you want to know how a system works, it helps to follow the money.

Today the technology that ran that arcade game permeates every aspect of our lives. We’re here at an emerging technology conference to celebrate it, and find out what exciting things will come next. But like the tail follows the dog, ethical concerns about how technology affects who we are as human beings, and how we live together in society, follow us into this golden future. No matter how fast we run, we can’t shake them.

This year especially there’s an uncomfortable feeling in the tech industry that we did something wrong, that in following our credo of “move fast and break things”, some of what we knocked down were the load-bearing walls of our democracy.

Worried CEOs are roving the landscape, peering into the churches and diners of red America. Steve Case, the AOL founder, roams the land trying to get people to found more startups. Mark Zuckerberg is traveling America having beautifully photographed conversations.

We’re all trying to understand why people can’t just get along. The emerging consensus in Silicon Valley is that polarization is a baffling phenomenon, but we can fight it with better fact-checking, with more empathy, and (at least in Facebook's case) with advanced algorithms to try and guide conversations between opposing camps in a more productive direction.

A question few are asking is whether the tools of mass surveillance and social control we spent the last decade building could have had anything to do with the debacle of the 2017 election, or whether destroying local journalism and making national journalism so dependent on our platforms was, in retrospect, a good idea.

We built the commercial internet by mastering techniques of persuasion and surveillance that we’ve extended to billions of people, including essentially the entire population of the Western democracies. But admitting that this tool of social control might be conducive to authoritarianism is not something we’re ready to face. After all, we're good people. We like freedom. How could we have built tools that subvert it?

As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

I contend that there are structural reasons to worry about the role of the tech industry in American political life, and that we have only a brief window of time in which to fix this.

Surveillance Capitalism

The economic basis of the Internet is surveillance. Every interaction with a computing device leaves a data trail, and whole industries exist to consume this data. Unlike dystopian visions from the past, this surveillance is not just being conducted by governments or faceless corporations. Instead, it’s the work of a small number of sympathetic tech companies with likeable founders, whose real dream is to build robots and Mars rockets and do cool things that make the world better. Surveillance just pays the bills.

It is a striking fact that mass surveillance has been driven almost entirely by private industry. While the Snowden revelations in 2012 made people anxious about government monitoring, that anxiety never seemed to carry over to the much more intrusive surveillance being conducted by the commercial Internet. Anyone who owns a smartphone carries a tracking device that knows (with great accuracy) where you’ve been, who you last spoke to and when, contains potentially decades-long archives of your private communications, a list of your closest contacts, your personal photos, and other very intimate information.

Internet providers collect (and can sell) your aggregated browsing data to anyone they want. A wave of connected devices for the home is competing to bring internet surveillance into the most private spaces. Enormous ingenuity goes into tracking people across multiple devices, and circumventing any attempts to hide from the tracking.

With the exception of China (which has its own ecology), the information these sites collect on users is stored permanently and with almost no legal controls by a small set of companies headquartered in the United States.

Two companies in particular dominate the world of online advertising and publishing, the economic engines of the surveillance economy.

Google, valued at $560 billion, is the world’s de facto email server, and occupies a dominant position in almost every area of online life. It’s unremarkable for a user to connect to the Internet on a Google phone using Google hardware, talking to Google servers via a Google browser, while blocking ads served over a Google ad network on sites that track visitors with Google analytics. This combination of search history, analytics and ad tracking gives the company unrivaled visibility into users’ browsing history. Through initiatives like AMP (advanced mobile pages), the company is attempting to extend its reach so that it becomes a proxy server for much of online publishing.

Facebook, valued at $400 billion, has close to two billion users and is aggressively seeking its next billion. It is the world’s largest photo storage service, and owns the world’s largest messaging service, WhatsApp. For many communities, Facebook is the tool of choice for political outreach and organizing, event planning, fundraising and communication. It is the primary source of news for a sizable fraction of Americans, and through its feed algorithm (which determines who sees what) has an unparalleled degree of editorial control over what that news looks like.

Together, these companies control some 65% of the online ad market, which in 2015 was estimated at $60B. Of that, half went to Google and $8B to Facebook. Facebook, the smaller player, is more aggressive in the move to new ad and content formats, particularly video and virtual reality.

These companies exemplify the centralized, feudal Internet of 2017. While the protocols that comprise the Internet remain open and free, in practice a few large American companies dominate every aspect of online life. Google controls search and email, AWS controls cloud hosting, Apple and Google have a duopoly in mobile phone operating systems. Facebook is the one social network.

There is more competition and variety among telecommunications providers and gas stations than there is among the Internet giants.

Data Hunger

The one thing these companies share is an insatiable appetite for data. They want to know where their users are, what they’re viewing, where their eyes are on the page, who they’re with, what they’re discussing, their purchasing habits, major life events (like moving or pregnancy), and anything else they can discover.

There are two interlocking motives for this data hunger: to target online advertising, and to train machine learning algorithms.

Advertising

Everyone is familiar with online advertising. Ads are served indirectly, based on real-time auctions … [more]
advertising  facebook  google  internet  politics  technology  apple  labor  work  machinelearning  security  democracy  california  taxes  engagement 
april 2017 by robertogreco
HEWN, No. 195
"Some have argued that we simply need better “media literacy,” but as danah boyd writes, we need “a cultural change about how we make sense of information, whom we trust, and how we understand our own role in grappling with information.” “Media literacy” as currently practiced and taught, she contends, might be part of the problem.

boyd argues elsewhere that we’re witnessing “the democratization of manipulation.” But that’s always been the goal of marketing and advertising. Edward Bernays and such.

What is striking to me is how much technology journalism – and that’s ed-tech journalism too, let’s be frank – is itself “fake news.” It’s marketing. It’s manipulation. No, it’s not inevitable that robots are going to take all our jobs, or that AI will raise our children, or that everything in our homes will be Internet-connected. This is industry PR, promoting a certain ideology and a certain future, posing as “news.”

No wonder there’s so much bullshit on Facebook. Facebook itself is part of that larger bullshit industry known as Silicon Valley."
audreywatters  medialiteracy  danahboyd  2017  fakenews  advertising  pr  siliconvalley  edtech  technology  technosolutionism  facebook  propaganda  manipulation  marketing  ideology  jelanicobb  misinformation  disinformation  information  crapdetection 
january 2017 by robertogreco
Reebok 25,915 Days - YouTube
"http://Reebok.com/CountYourDays The average human lifespan is 71 years. That’s 25,915 days. 25,915 opportunities to make the most of our time, honoring the body you’ve been given through a commitment to physicality. So what are you waiting for? The clock, and your days, are ticking. Calculate yours at http://Reebok.com/CountYourDays. "
reebok  advertising  classideas  time  life  lifespan  math  mathematics  medialiteracy  2016  sfsh 
january 2017 by robertogreco
Corporations are taking advantage of our underfunded public schools
"There are a lot of problems with McTeacher Nights, teachers and advocates for reduced commercialism in school argue. The Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood conducted research last year on how much money is actually raised on these nights and found that they typically only provide $1 to $2 per student. In return, McDonald’s gets free labor from teachers, free advertising, and introduces a product to children in the hope of creating brand loyalty.

“What are we saying to educators? Are we not telling our educators to put in eight hours a day and then asking them to work a shift at McDonalds? For paltry field trip money?” said Cecily Myart-Cruz, NEA vice president of United Teachers, Los Angeles, who added that teachers shouldn’t be promoting unhealthy food. “It’s another way to privatize education. Education is already privatizing and this is just another way to do it.”

These events also help its public image. McDonald’s looks like a great corporate citizen, despite the fact that it could simply donate money to schools in amounts that would dwarf what schools receive from participating in McTeacher’s Nights."
schools  publischools  labor  economics  funding  money  politics  policy  privatization  corporatization  uber  mcdonalds  verizon  advertising  nestle  pepsico  generalmills  bumblebeefoods  cocacola  togethercounts 
october 2016 by robertogreco
The Secret Lives of Tumblr Teens | New Republic
"In the dark ages—the 1980s, ’90s, or even the early 2000s—kids had to wait for nerd camp to be among their own kind. Wong told me if he’s up at 4 a.m. after a bad day, he can go online and talk to his Australian friends; Tumblr users know their audience is active in multiple time zones. Powerful users send a joke ricocheting around the globe.

“Tumblr culture has developed over the past five years as the smart weird kid in school connected with all the other smart weird kids from all the other schools all over the world,” said Strle. This brand of Tumblr humor often focuses on what I think of as micro-humiliations, tiny moments of social awkwardness that can feel absolutely crushing for a teenager figuring out how to be a person in the world. Anonymous kids with witty user names like Larsvontired or Baracknobama post incisive one-liners confessing their most vulnerable moments of social mortification. Sometimes those one-liners spread across continents, tweaked by thousands of other teens who add their own jokes as they reblog the original. The very best tweaks spread further, reblogged again and again, reappearing periodically in the feed, disconnected from time. Some posts get more than a million notes—imagine a joke whispered in biology class getting a laugh from a city the size of San Francisco.

“Increasingly, the lingua franca is absurdist dada,” explained Strle, usually rendered in the uncapitalized and unpunctuated casualness of instant messages.

A decade of trend pieces has deemed millennials to be narcissists, but Tumblr humor for this generation is self-deprecating and anti-aspirational: “how do fourteen year olds get pregnant, I can’t even get a high five from a guy,” “how many eye contact until date,” “i just said hi to someone and they didn’t hear me i’m never trying that again.” There is more self-loathing than self-love (“*looks in a mirror* you again”) as well as pleas for clemency from social prison (“you like attention? how dare you. how dare anyone like being loved”). Being a social outcast can make you a better social observer of the gap between our real selves and our public image:
two types of chats

group chat: lol look at this meme you pieces of shit

private chat: i don’t know anymore. im hoping that someday i’ll just know what to do. sorry for complaining and thanks for always listening to me

When this post appeared in my feed, I sent it to several friends who use a group chat at work: “How do they know?” A friend in media with a Twitter following in the tens of thousands responded: “That teen observation is PENETRATING.” We spent several minutes analyzing the joke. “People think other people are impressed by voicey cynicism in the public square,” he added. “But in private we’re all really nice and anxious”—the essential divide between Twitter users and Tumblr users."




"Two months after the termination of the Tumblr teens, Fast Company ran a puff piece on Dennis Hegstad and his empire. “He’s not just tweeting for fun; he’s tweeting for big money—and he’s winning,” the magazine wrote. “In Hegstad’s model, clients are charged a fee for services that include affiliate marketing, lead generation, and content distribution. In other words, getting the goods in front of the right kind of eyeballs. Campaigns run as high as six figures.” By then, many of Exposely’s sources of revenue had disappeared. A remaining campaign peddled sunglasses whose lenses supposedly worked like an Instagram filter.

Lilley and Greenfield said Hegstad had promised them equity in Exposely, and Hegstad confirmed they’d discussed both equity and becoming partners, but the company’s future was uncertain. Exposely still exists, and Hegstad is listed as the founder on its web site, but the day I talked to him the site was down—its security certificate had expired. Hegstad agreed Exposely was the apparent reason several blogs were terminated and that users associated with the site were still at risk. “A lot of the Tumblr bloggers who were using Exposely a year ago that haven’t used it in almost a year have lost their blogs.” "
tumblr  culture  teens  youth  online  web  socialmedia  2016  elspethreeve  spam  internet  exposely  exposure  attention  advertising  adsense  so-relatable  money  yahoo  relatability 
february 2016 by robertogreco
Things You Can’t Talk About in a Coca-Cola Ad - The Atlantic
"User-generated content has always been terrorist media. Given a little freedom even the simplest of tools becomes weaponized subversion. In 2006, an interview with a virtual real-estate magnate inside Second Life was interrupted by dozens of flying penises enterprising users had fashioned in-world. In 2012, a McDonald’s hashtag campaign inviting customers to tell their “#McDStories” got repurposed for critiques of the company’s food quality and healthfulness. A similar thing happened to the New York Police Department in 2014, when their #myNYPD hashtag was quickly overtaken by images of apparent police violence."



"But the Internet is no place for talk of “intended purpose,” either. The Internet is a giant cat that chews up intended purpose and makes videos of itself hacking them up again. The output of GIF the Feeling not only risks correlating the Coke brand and messaging with undesirable associations, it almost demands such an outcome. Attempting to subvert the gizmo (sorry, Coke!) is among its most appealing uses. And even if the Profanity API successfully clobbers some irreverent efforts, savvy users will always find workarounds. They can take a screenshot of the supposed failure and use that as their social-media content. Or use typographical work-arounds like Joseph’s."



"The coolest brands are the ones who accept and embrace the inability to control messages online—even as they make every effort to exert that control—in order to hunt the Internet wilderness for secret converts."
advertising  branding  marketing  campaign  coca-cola  ianbogost  web  internet  online  user-generated  content  media  2016  language  control 
january 2016 by robertogreco
The Website Obesity Crisis
"Let me start by saying that beautiful websites come in all sizes and page weights. I love big websites packed with images. I love high-resolution video. I love sprawling Javascript experiments or well-designed web apps.

This talk isn't about any of those. It's about mostly-text sites that, for unfathomable reasons, are growing bigger with every passing year.

While I'll be using examples to keep the talk from getting too abstract, I’m not here to shame anyone, except some companies (Medium) that should know better and are intentionally breaking the web.

The Crisis

What do I mean by a website obesity crisis?

Here’s an article on GigaOm from 2012 titled "The Growing Epidemic of Page Bloat". It warns that the average web page is over a megabyte in size.

The article itself is 1.8 megabytes long."


Here's an almost identical article from the same website two years later, called “The Overweight Web". This article warns that average page size is approaching 2 megabytes.

That article is 3 megabytes long.

If present trends continue, there is the real chance that articles warning about page bloat could exceed 5 megabytes in size by 2020.

The problem with picking any particular size as a threshold is that it encourages us to define deviancy down. Today’s egregiously bloated site becomes tomorrow’s typical page, and next year’s elegantly slim design.

I would like to anchor the discussion in something more timeless.

To repeat a suggestion I made on Twitter, I contend that text-based websites should not exceed in size the major works of Russian literature.

This is a generous yardstick. I could have picked French literature, full of slim little books, but I intentionally went with Russian novels and their reputation for ponderousness.

In Goncharov's Oblomov, for example, the title character spends the first hundred pages just getting out of bed.

If you open that tweet in a browser, you'll see the page is 900 KB big.
That's almost 100 KB more than the full text of The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov’s funny and enigmatic novel about the Devil visiting Moscow with his retinue (complete with a giant cat!) during the Great Purge of 1937, intercut with an odd vision of the life of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ, and the devoted but unreliable apostle Matthew.

For a single tweet.

Or consider this 400-word-long Medium article on bloat, which includes the sentence:

"Teams that don’t understand who they’re building for, and why, are prone to make bloated products."

The Medium team has somehow made this nugget of thought require 1.2 megabytes.

That's longer than Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky’s psychological thriller about an impoverished student who fills his head with thoughts of Napoleon and talks himself into murdering an elderly money lender.
Racked by guilt, so rattled by his crime that he even forgets to grab the money, Raskolnikov finds himself pursued in a cat-and-mouse game by a clever prosecutor and finds redemption in the unlikely love of a saintly prostitute.

Dostoevski wrote this all by hand, by candlelight, with a goddamned feather."



"Everyone admits there’s a problem. These pages are bad enough on a laptop (my fan spun for the entire three weeks I was preparing this talk), but they are hell on mobile devices. So publishers are taking action.

In May 2015, Facebook introduced ‘Instant Articles’, a special format for news stories designed to appear within the Facebook site, and to load nearly instantly.

Facebook made the announcement on a 6.8 megabyte webpage dominated by a giant headshot of some dude. He doesn’t even work for Facebook, he’s just the National Geographic photo editor.

Further down the page, you'll find a 41 megabyte video, the only way to find out more about the project. In the video, this editor rhapsodizes about exciting misfeatures of the new instant format like tilt-to-pan images, which means if you don't hold your phone steady, the photos will drift around like a Ken Burns documentary.

Facebook has also launched internet.org, an effort to expand Internet access. The stirring homepage includes stories of people from across the developing world, and what getting Internet access has meant for them.
You know what’s coming next. When I left the internet.org homepage open in Chrome over lunch, I came back to find it had transferred over a quarter gigabyte of data.

Surely, you'll say, there's no way the globe in the background of a page about providing universal web access could be a giant video file?

But I am here to tell you, oh yes it is. They load a huge movie just so the globe can spin.

This is Facebook's message to the world: "The internet is slow. Sit and spin."

And it's not like bad connectivity is a problem unique to the Third World! I've traveled enough here in Australia to know that in rural places in Tasmania and Queensland, vendors treat WiFi like hundred-year-old brandy.

You're welcome to buy as much of it as you want, but it costs a fortune and comes in tiny portions. And after the third or fourth purchase, people start to look at you funny.

Even in well-connected places like Sydney, we've all had the experience of having a poor connection, and almost no battery, while waiting for some huge production of a site to load so we can extract a morsel of information like a restaurant address.

The designers of pointless wank like that Facebook page deserve the ultimate penalty.
They should be forced to use the Apple hockey puck mouse for the remainder of their professional lives. [shouts of horror from the audience]

Google has rolled out a competitor to Instant Articles, which it calls Accelerated Mobile Pages. AMP is a special subset of HTML designed to be fast on mobile devices.

Why not just serve regular HTML without stuffing it full of useless crap? The question is left unanswered.

The AMP project is ostentatiously open source, and all kinds of publishers have signed on. Out of an abundance of love for the mobile web, Google has volunteered to run the infrastructure, especially the user tracking parts of it.

Jeremy Keith pointed out to me that the page describing AMP is technically infinite in size. If you open it in Chrome, it will keep downloading the same 3.4 megabyte carousel video forever.
If you open it in Safari, where the carousel is broken, the page still manages to fill 4 megabytes.

These comically huge homepages for projects designed to make the web faster are the equivalent of watching a fitness video where the presenter is just standing there, eating pizza and cookies.

The world's greatest tech companies can't even make these tiny text sites, describing their flagship projects to reduce page bloat, lightweight and fast on mobile.

I can't think of a more complete admission of defeat."



"The other vision is of the web as Call of Duty—an exquisitely produced, kind-of-but-not-really-participatory guided experience with breathtaking effects and lots of opportunities to make in-game purchases.

Creating this kind of Web requires a large team of specialists. No one person can understand the whole pipeline, nor is anyone expected to. Even if someone could master all the technologies in play, the production costs would be prohibitive.

The user experience in this kind of Web is that of being carried along, with the illusion of agency, within fairly strict limits. There's an obvious path you're supposed to follow, and disincentives to keep you straying from it. As a bonus, the game encodes a whole problematic political agenda. The only way to reject it is not to play.

Despite the lavish production values, there's a strange sameness to everything. You're always in the same brown war zone.

With great effort and skill, you might be able make minor modifications to this game world. But most people will end up playing exactly the way the publishers intend. It's passive entertainment with occasional button-mashing.

Everything we do to make it harder to create a website or edit a web page, and harder to learn to code by viewing source, promotes that consumerist vision of the web.

Pretending that one needs a team of professionals to put simple articles online will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Overcomplicating the web means lifting up the ladder that used to make it possible for people to teach themselves and surprise everyone with unexpected new ideas

Here's the hortatory part of the talk:

Let’s preserve the web as the hypertext medium it is, the only thing of its kind in the world, and not turn it into another medium for consumption, like we have so many examples of already.

Let’s commit to the idea that as computers get faster, and as networks get faster, the web should also get faster.

Let’s not allow the panicked dinosaurs of online publishing to trample us as they stampede away from the meteor. Instead, let's hide in our holes and watch nature take its beautiful course.

Most importantly, let’s break the back of the online surveillance establishment that threatens not just our livelihood, but our liberty. Not only here in Australia, but in America, Europe, the UK—in every free country where the idea of permanent, total surveillance sounded like bad science fiction even ten years ago.

The way to keep giant companies from sterilizing the Internet is to make their sites irrelevant. If all the cool stuff happens elsewhere, people will follow. We did this with AOL and Prodigy, and we can do it again.

For this to happen, it's vital that the web stay participatory. That means not just making sites small enough so the whole world can visit them, but small enough so that people can learn to build their own, by example.

I don't care about bloat because it's inefficient. I care about it because it makes the web inaccessible.

Keeping the Web simple keeps it awesome."
pagebloat  webdesign  maciejceglowski  2015  webdev  participatory  openweb  internet  web  online  minecraft  accessibility  efficiency  aesthetics  cloud  cloudcomputing  amazonwebservices  backend  paypal  google  docker  websites  wired  theverge  medium  javascript  advertising  ads  acceleratedmobilepages  mobile  html  facebook  freebasics  jeremykeith  timkadlec  internet.org  facebookinstantarticles  maciejcegłowski 
january 2016 by robertogreco
Brand relevance and revenue in the age of Snapchat » Nieman Journalism Lab
“Surviving and thriving in a distributed platform world in 2016 will be important, but simply view it as an opportunity to extend and grow your brand and your revenue. By viewing it this way, your website won’t necessarily die — it will simply have more platforms leading back to it with readers who really, truly want to be there.”



"In 2015, we saw the rise of publishers’ content being consumed on platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, Periscope, Apple News, Apple TV…and the list goes on. We also saw many publishers reach a confident stride on these platforms, building teams charged with churning out original content in new, native formats, such as vertical video for Snapchat Discover or tiltable images for Facebook Instant Articles.

In 2016, this trend of content creation for distributed platforms will continue, even on platforms that haven’t even launched yet (including ugh, yeah, virtual reality platforms 😓), as well as extending into platforms that have existed for years (TV, podcasts, email).

But while publishers will continue to gain confidence in content-generation in this new distributed platform world, in 2016 they’ll have to face the big gaping hole of revenue generation on these platforms — which until now has been an afterthought.

While advertising on-platform remains a steady chunk of publishers’ revenue, the increase of readers consuming content not on publishers’ websites will necessitate some serious brainstorming on how to make money on those other platforms. When advertising revenue is based on pageviews, clicks, and engagement metrics, as it currently is, how will advertising formats and metrics evolve on these platforms?

These are real challenges we’ll have to face, but there does exist a silver lining: These platforms are wonderful opportunities to invent exciting, new advertising formats and revenue streams in partnership with platforms, as well as extend and grow our brands and audiences.

New advertising formats won’t come from platforms but from publishers

Advertising and revenue has largely been an afterthought on these platforms. Platforms like Facebook Instant Articles and Google AMP are focused on delivering better page performance, molding content into their respective native formats, and of course, generating more revenue for themselves by getting eyeballs onto their platform and keeping them there.

With this in mind, pushing the platforms to innovate their revenue products is important. Some platforms like Facebook Instant Articles are indeed bowing to publishers’ feedback and slowly making their formats more flexible. But is this enough, and should we really rely on these platforms, which have differing incentives, to push boundaries in advertising?

I predict that many publishers will begin to recognize the need to innovate and push new advertising formats from within, rather than relying on other platforms to do it for them. They will begin to push advertising both on their websites as well as other platforms. If the adblocking hullabaloo earlier this year signaled anything, it was that the ad tech industry is slow to change and has some serious problems on the brink of a tidal wave of change. Readers are tired of poorly performing ads, and publishers are too. Do you have an internal revenue products team thinking about these problems? Are they working closely with your editorial, product, and sales teams? I think in 2016 we will begin to see publishers playing catchup in the ad-tech space by taking matters into their own hands. (Disclaimer: I work on the revenue team at Vox Media.)

Brands will have trouble staying identifiable and relevant in the world of distributed platforms

There’s another side of this coin, though. It’s not all doom and gloom — although platforms tend to treat advertising as an afterthought, they do offer an incredibly exciting opportunity to build your brand and grow your audience. But that means your brand must remain relevant and identifiable across all platforms and formats. If you build a strong brand, readers and users on other platforms will want to engage with you and your content, no matter what the context, platform, or format.

What does having a strong and relevant brand even mean? In my mind, a “strong brand” is one that is immediately recognizable and identifiable. This comes through in design elements such as colors, typography, motion, and more. This can also come through in the nature of your content — are you known for explainers? Investigative content? Stunning photography? One trend I’ve noticed, particularly on Snapchat, is that many publishers are afraid to embrace their brand and are instead, allowing the platform to dictate it. Just because everyone else is posting gifs of cats shooting lasers out of their eyes, doesn’t mean it’s right for your brand.

“Brand relevance” on the other hand, is a term coined by marketer David Aaker and is defined by a brand that has “carved out a new category for itself for which other competitors are irrelevant.” For instance, if you’re the only publisher focused on a niche audience, like millennial moms, you have strong brand relevance.

[Snapchat screenshots]

This is a winning combination; a distinguishable brand across multiple platforms that speaks directly to a desirable, niche audience will create meaningful exposure to new audiences as well as a pathway for more engaged and loyal readers. And this engagement and loyalty ultimately translates into dollars should you choose to explore other revenue streams such as, say, an events business, a television show, or yes, even a paywall for exclusive insider content.

Surviving and thriving in a distributed platform world in 2016 will be important, but simply view it as an opportunity to extend and grow your brand and your revenue. By viewing it this way, your website won’t necessarily die — it will simply have more platforms leading back to it with readers who really, truly want to be there. And that kind of loyalty is worth a whole lot of money."
2015  journalism  alisharamos  snapchat  pltforms  socialmedia  facebook  snapchatdiscover  applenews  periscope  faceookinstantarticles  brands  branding  advertising  distributed  fragmentation  publishing  googleamp 
december 2015 by robertogreco
Art + tech (13 Oct., 2015, at Interconnected)
"There's something about art + tech which is niggling at me. The process I'm interested in is when a technology organisation commissions or supports art as a way to understand itself.

I don't quite understand this itch or why I've got it, so I've spent a day looking at examples."
mattwebb  art  design  technology  1951  belllabs  1960s  1990s  lilianschwartz  rachelduckhouse  kitchens  amtrak  randcorporation  1971  andywarhol  advertising  marketing  davidchoe  eames  eamesoffice  2011  1968  electricobjects  eo1  brendandawes  mailchimp 
october 2015 by robertogreco
Time to stand - All this
Thirty years ago, in the “1984” Macintosh commercial directed by Ridley Scott, a young woman smashed the big screen her fellow citizens were forced to watch and obey. You imagine them standing up and rebelling afterwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSnW-ygU5g

Today, in the “Up” Apple Watch commercial seemingly directed by Stanley Milgram, a young woman docilely stands when a little screen strapped to her wrist tells her to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GtyB3cees ]
apple  2015  docility  screens  power  control  1984  via:ayjay  ridleyscott  capitalism  consumerism  obedience  stanleymilgram  advertising  revolution  acceptance 
may 2015 by robertogreco
Which Students Get to Have Privacy? — The Message — Medium
"As a youth advocate and privacy activist, I’m generally in favor of student privacy. But my panties also get in a bunch when I listen to how people imagine the work of student privacy. As is common in Congress as election cycles unfold, student privacy has a “save the children” narrative. And this forces me to want to know more about the threat models we’re talking about. What are we saving the children *from*?

Threat Models
There are four external threats that I think are interesting to consider. These are the dangers that students face if their data leaves the education context.

#1: The Stranger Danger Threat Model. It doesn’t matter how much data we have to challenge prominent fears, the possibly of creepy child predators lurking around school children still overwhelms any conversation about students, including their data.

#2: The Marketing Threat Model. From COPPA to the Markey/Hatch bill, there’s a lot of concern about how student data will be used by companies to advertise products to students or otherwise fuel commercial data collection that drives advertising ecosystems.

#3: The Consumer Finance Threat Model. In a post-housing bubble market, the new subprime lending schemes are all about enabling student debt, especially since students can’t declare bankruptcy when they default on their obscene loans. There is concern about how student data will be used to fuel the student debt ecosystem.

#4: The Criminal Justice Threat Model. Law enforcement has long been interested in student performance, but this data is increasingly desirable in a world of policing that is trying to assess risk. There are reasons to believe that student data will fuel the new policing architectures.

The first threat model is artificial (see: “It’s Complicated”), but it propels people to act and create laws that will not do a darn thing to address abuse of children. The other three threat models are real, but these threats are spread differently over the population. In the world of student privacy, #2 gets far more attention than #3 and #4. In fact, almost every bill creates carve-outs for “safety” or otherwise allows access to data if there’s concern about a risk to the child, other children, or the school. In other words, if police need it. And, of course, all of these laws allow parents and guardians to get access to student data with no consideration of the consequences for students who are under state supervision. So, really, #4 isn’t even in the cultural imagination because, as with nearly everything involving our criminal justice system, we don’t believe that “those people” deserve privacy.

The reason that I get grouchy is that I hate how the risks that we’re concerned about are shaped by the fears of privileged parents, not the risks of those who are already under constant surveillance, those who are economically disadvantaged, and those who are in the school-prison pipeline. #2-#4 are all real threat models with genuine risks, but we consistently take #2 far more seriously than #3 or #4, and privileged folks are more concerned with #1.

What would it take to actually consider the privacy rights of the most marginalized students?

The threats that poor youth face? That youth of color face? And the trade-offs they make in a hypersurveilled world? What would it take to get people to care about how we keep building out infrastructure and backdoors to track low-status youth in new ways? It saddens me that the conversation is constructed as being about student privacy, but it’s really about who has the right to monitor which youth. And, as always, we allow certain actors to continue asserting power over youth."
internet  safety  privacy  inequality  policing  lawenforcement  education  policy  coppa  surveillance  data  ferpa  law  legal  markets  criminaljustice  advertising 
may 2015 by robertogreco
Notes on the Surrender at Menlo Park - The Awl
"8. These stories, for now, only exist in the Facebook iOS app. If you share them on Twitter from within the app—which is an option—you will be sharing a link to web versions of these stories. As I understand it, publishers have basically been given an API for Instant, which they can use to more-or-less automatically export their stories to Facebook. Follow this through:

– Publishers want to publish directly to Facebook because it gives them greater access to Facebook’s users
– This belief in greater access is predicated on the idea that native Facebook stories will share better than linked ones
– If this is the case, and if all stories are co-published on Facebook, the result is that the near-entirety of a publisher’s Facebook mobile is hosted and monetized through Facebook (for some partners this is clearly the intention; for others, maybe not)

Facebook owns an enormous share of mobile traffic overall, meaning that any publication’s mobile web referrals were already composed largely of people coming from Facebook. With wider adoption, Instant would effectively remove Facebook from the mobile referrer pool, and mobile web traffic would plummet—for adopters, totally; for everyone else, more than they might expect. If enough partners use Instant, and if there is enough good Instant content to read, users will begin to regard linked-out stories as weird slow garbage that should Not Be Clicked.

9. Basically: Instant allows publishers to hand over nearly all of their mobile business to Facebook.

10. The Facebook app converts any link to a story with an Instant version to an Instant embed. I posted a link to the Times launch story—the web version—on Facebook. Viewed on mobile, this link was replaced with the Instant story. Makes sense! Remove the inferior version when possible. Death to links!"



"13. Some future controversies we can look forward to: differences spotted in web versions and Facebook versions of articles; publications exceeding vaguely defined standards for, say, violent content; image rights issues (the DMCA never imagined this scenario in its wildest nightmares). Haha, sex stuff. Have you SEEN Facebook’s “community standards?” Facebook is very prudish, historically! Many, many discussions about the ideological opacity of T H E A L G O R I T H M. Idk, some other stuff. It will be crazy-making for all kinds of people. Lots of tweets. Can’t wait!

14. Now that we can see Instant in action,**** we can more clearly see what constitutes a publication on a Facebook-centric internet. A Facebook publication is… a brand? A “vertical?” It doesn’t own its distribution, it doesn’t meaningfully control its sources of revenue. It has no “design” outside of its individual articles. It is composed entirely of its content, as represented to Facebook users by Facebook. A lot of institutional advantages sort of evaporate. What is the difference, from the outside, between a large publication and a small one? One with a hundred reporters and one with ten? One with bureaus all around the world and one with a single office? One with strong institutional politics and one without? These distinctions are to be expressed through Facebook, which means through the News Feed, which means… not very coherently at all. An internet intermediated by Facebook is one in which publications are constantly struggling to stay on the right side of a thin line: are they justifying their own existence on Facebook’s new terms, or are they just weird middlemen introducing inefficiency into a system in which they are very obviously guests? This is slightly worse than a channel relationship. Partners are not guaranteed any more space, or traffic, than they can earn within Facebook’s own structure. They are essentially Facebook users with special publishing tools, legacies, momentum, and an immediate need to make money. Or are publications…. celebrities? No. I mean yes, sorry! Definitely! Congratulations!"



"234875627839452. Or maybe this is all just a short detour for Facebook. The history of software and web platforms is instructive here: Platforms grow by incorporating the labor of users and partners; they tend, over time, to regard the presence of the partners as an inefficiency. Twitter asks developers to make a bunch of apps using its data, so people make a bunch of mobile apps, then Twitter notices that these apps are actually very important to Twitter, and so Twitter buys one of the apps and takes steps to expel all the other apps, rendering the job of “Twitter app developer” more or less obsolete. In this formulation, publishers are app developers: They are working not only for their own benefit but, in addition, to find ways to increase Facebook’s share of user attention and satisfaction. If they find ways to succeed, through the practice of journalism or some other sort of content production, Facebook will take note. Perhaps Facebook will then devise a way to compensate reporters, or content creators, directly, rather than through the publications they work for. Maybe they’ll just buy a publication! Or many publications. If Instant is a success then, like everything at a functioning technology company that wants to make money, it will be iterated.

45862170348957103946872039568270. This is unspooling into a more general complaint, but whatever. There is toxic mindset that permeates discussions not just about Facebook but about most accelerating, inevitable-seeming tech companies. It conflates criticism with denial and nostalgia. Why do people complain about Uber so much? Is it loyalty to yellow cabs and their corrupt nonsense industry? Or is it a recognition that, as soon as a company reaches its level of importance and future inevitability, it should be treated as important. A word of caution about Facebook is not a wish to return to some non-existent ideal time. Print media was broken, TV was broken, commercial and public radio were broken, local media was broken, web media was very broken. Understanding this—or even just assuming it to be true!—is understanding that it is imperative to seek out the manner in which your media is broken, and the pressures that keep it that way. Worrying about the details of the coming future is merely taking that future seriously. People who insist otherwise? They have their reasons.

19. Oh, right: So what happens when Facebook goes away? Are today’s publishers, by then, just portable content generators ready to be passed to the next platform? Or have they been replaced by something else entirely? There is apparently only one way to find out!"
johnherrman  publishing  facebook  facebookinstant  journalism  2015  unspooling  twitter  walledgardens  archives  data  advertising  analytics  theatlantic  nytimes  buzzfeed  nationalgeographic  nbcnews  snapchat  snapchatdiscover  web  internet  online 
may 2015 by robertogreco
Do Not Track: revolutionary mashup documentary about Web privacy - Boing Boing
"Brett "Remix Manifesto" Gaylor tells the story of his new project: a revolutionary "mashup documentary" about privacy and the Web."

[This article refers to:
https://donottrack-doc.com/en/episode/1
https://donottrack-doc.com/en/episode/2
https://donottrack-doc.com/en/episode/3
https://donottrack-doc.com/en/episode/4 ]

"I make documentaries about the Internet. My last one, Rip! A Remix Manifesto, was made during the copyright wars of the early 2000s. We followed Girl Talk, Larry Lessig, Gilberto Gil, Cory and others as the Free Culture movement was born. I believed then that copyright was the Internet's defining issue. I was wrong.

In the time since I made Rip, we’ve seen surveillance from both corporate and state actors reach deeper into our lives. Advertising, and the tracking that goes with it, have become the dominant business model of the web. With the Snowden revelations, we've seen that this business model has given the NSA and other state agencies access to the intimate details of our online lives, our location, our reading lists, and our friends.

So with my colleagues at Upian in Paris, the National Film Board of Canada, AJ+, Radio-Canada, RTS, Arte and Bayersicher Rundfunk, I decided to make a documentary series about this. The trouble is, privacy is a difficult issue for most people. They either quickly pull out the "nothing to hide" argument, or they give the shruggie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. We wanted to find a way to make this personal for people, so we decided to use the viewer's own data to create each episode.

When you open Episode One, the narrator you hear will depend on your location. You'll likely see me if you link from Boing Boing -- I'm the English narrator on desktop. But if you connect on mobile, you'll meet Francesca Fiorentini from AJ+. In Quebec, you'll meet Sandra Rodriguez. In France, it'll be journalist Vincent Glad. The tone is conversational. You'll meet someone who speaks your own language discussing their online sharing addiction.

Once you've met us, we'll say different things to you. If it's raining where you are, we'll know it, because we've plugged into a weather API. This API will communicate with Giphy's API and present different GIFs. It's all edited together like a movie, but a movie that is created on the spot, just for you.

To go further, we ask you to tell us a bit more about you. If you tell us where you go for your news, we've partnered with the service disconnect.me to show you the third party trackers that advertisers and analytics folks place on your computer to follow you around the Web.

In Episode Two, we then take this data to create personalized ads within the program - while we talk to Ethan Zuckerman and Julia Angwin about how advertising came to dominate the Web. We'll ask you how much you would be willing to pay for a version of Facebook or Google that didn't have ads, and compare that with how much they make from you.

In Episode Three, we created a a corporation called Illuminus that practices "future present risk detection". If you log in with your Facebook profile, the corporation uses an API developed at the University of Cambridge, "Apply Magic Sauce," to determine which one of the "Big Five Personality Traits" applies to you. We discover how lenders are dipping their toes into making risk assessments based on your social media activity.

We varied our style in Episode Four and made a privacy cartoon. Journalist Zineb Dryef spent months researching what information she discloses on her mobile phone, and then Darren Pasemko animated what she learned. We meet Kate Crawford, Julia Angwin, as well as Harlo Holmes and Nathan Freitas from the Guardian project. It’s an episode told in four parts, and you can watch the first part in the video below.

If you watch the rest of this episode on donottrack-doc.com, it will be geo-located and interactive.

Our next episode, available May 26th, is produced by the National Film Board of Canada's digital studio, who have a well deserved reputation for creating beautiful interfaces for new types of documentaries. In this episode, we'll explore big data - by making correlations as you watch, you'll determine the outcome, while you meet danah boyd, Cory Doctorow, Alicia Garza and Kate Crawford.

We’re still catching our breath while we produce the final two episodes. One thing we know - we want these to be personal. As we learned in our first episodes, people understand the issues around privacy and surveillance when we let them explore their own data. Depending on how you behaved during the series, we want these final episodes to adapt. We’ll be exploring how the filter bubble shapes your view of the world in our 6th episode, and how our actions can shape the future in our 7th. What these episodes look like is up to you."
brettgaylor  film  interactive  interactivefilm  mashups  documentary  towatch  privacy  web  online  internet  2015  nfbc  nfb  katecrawford  corydoctoow  aliciagarza  danahboyd  location  zinebdryef  darrenpasemko  harloholmes  nathanfreitas  juliaangwin  ethanzuckerman  advertising  tracking  francescafiorentini  sandrarodriguez  giphy  api  trackers  cookies 
may 2015 by robertogreco
Shape of the Web
"The Web is a living ecosystem that exists in a delicate balance and we all have a role to play in shaping — and ensuring — its future.

At Mozilla, we believe that the more you know about the Web, the easier it is for you to make more informed choices and be a more empowered digital citizen.

That’s why we created this site: to show you where the Web stands today, the issues that impact it and what you can do to get involved."
mozilla  web  internet  online  maps  mapping  accessibility  advertising  adtracking  adoption  affordability  civility  power  data  dataportability  identity  digital  censorship  government  policy  surveillance  content  netneutrality  opensource  security  privacy  patents  software 
may 2015 by robertogreco
Sony Gave An Octopus At A New Zealand Aquarium A Camera; Trains It To Photograph Tourists - DIY Photography
"Octopuses are pretty wondrous animals with all those legs and insanely astute critical thinking skills. It’s actually not surprising at all an animal trainer working at Kelly Tarlton’s Sea Life Aquarium in New Zealand, was able to train an octopus to take photos. In fact, it only took “Rambo” the octopus three attempts to understand how the process works.

Now, Rambo charges a cool $2 for a visitor to her tank to sit for a portrait taken by the octographer. The small donation goes directly to the aquarium to help offset expenses. But, if you’re looking to have Rambo take your photo, be sure to check her hours first, as the aquarium says she on a light work schedule.

Take a look:

[Ad on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI9tP3mZfxM ]
“When we first tried to get her to take a photo, it only took three attempts for her to understand the process. That’s faster than a dog. Actually it’s faster than a human in some instances.” Mark Vette, traine

In front her tank, there’s a backdrop where visitors can pose for their photos. It appears these children on a school trip to the aquarium thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

The camera, a Sony DSC-TX30, was secured into a custom made housing to mount onto Rambo’s tank. The campaign was sponsored by Sony to help show how durable their camera is and to raise awareness of octopuses high level of intelligence."

[via: https://twitter.com/justinpickard/status/586755425720082432 ]
animals  octopus  cephalopods  2015  sony  advertising  technology  photography  cameras 
april 2015 by robertogreco
Time Borrowed - The Awl
"A Facebook that treats native posts without favor will still inherently favor them because they are closer in form to the things that Facebook users share the most—and any link that would be widely shared on Facebook would be more widely shared if it weren’t a link to a website. Publishers early to accept Facebook’s proposition will enjoy an additional, larger advantage: For a short and glorious time, they alone will reap enormous the benefits of this heightened context. Their presence in News Feed will seem slightly easier and more natural than the presence of their competitors, whose manipulative headlines—which have been carefully optimized to convince you to leave Facebook to go to another site—will read an awful lot like spam. By serving as shining examples to those on the outside, they will create additional pressure to come in, given the opportunity. Publishers who join later will enjoy a perpetually diminishing advantage, gaining access to an audience pursued by ever more publishers instead of a few. Eventually, publications that once competed with each other for Facebook’s audience from the outside will find themselves doing the same from the inside, using Facebook’s platform not just to reach their audiences but to turn those audiences into revenue.

How exactly this will go remains to be seen. But Facebook has been pushing native video for months. It has been wildly successful—the raw numbers achieved by Facebook videos are enormous. My feed is now filled with auto-playing Facebook videos."



"Years of free referral traffic from Facebook have posed the question: When will Facebook want to keep this traffic for itself? Supposing years of future success—and putting out of mind that another law of platforms is eventual death—partner journalism poses its own version of this question: If Facebook knows what works, why outsource it?

The publishing industry is gloomy and threatened and increasingly claustrophobic. Most publishers, even the ones who claim otherwise, are not tech companies in any meaningful way (though one might ask, “How would you describe a company that designs, produces, and distributes branded content for advertisers for enormous fees?”), so any access to the world of tech is an intoxicating prospect. It’s a cynical oversimplification to say that news organizations and apps exist for the same reason—to gather human attention—but their revenue models suggest that this is at least their shared business model. Facebook—that is, News Feed—is succeeding on a different scale than any publication can dream of. That it is willing to share some of this time and attention is understandably very exciting.

So Facebook offers to let publishers into News Feed. It offers, probably, a great CMS—better than most publishing companies could come up with on their own. It offers a revenue sharing plan that offers at least partial participation in Facebook’s sector of the attention business. It offers ways to target stories like never before. And so the publishers feel like they’ve made it. That they have crossed over, at least a little, from a dying industry to a booming one."



"Facebook has been trying to find the next Facebook for years now. In 2013, before it purchased WhatsApp and fitness tracking company Moves, it purchased a company called Onavo. Onavo, which offered a free app that reduces data usage, was ostensibly valuable to Facebook’s international Internet.org project. But it had also built an enormously valuable app analytics service. With a rare and nearly complete view of its users’ internet activity, Onavo was able to see which apps were succeeding before anyone else but Apple and Google—it was, I was told in early 2014, the only outside firm that knew exactly how big Snapchat was. This analytics service—once widely used by venture capitalists and tech companies—was shut down shortly after purchase.

There is a helpful symmetry here, if you’ll grant it. Online publishers, with more readers than ever, are looking desperately for the next thing; Facebook, with more people using its core product than ever, is doing the same. The difference, of course, is that publishers’ next thing already belongs to someone else. Their future belongs to Facebook’s past."
facebook  journalism  publishing  2015  johnherrman  advertising  video  cms  onavo  snapchat  whatsapp  contentwars  instagram  news  newsfeed  media  content 
march 2015 by robertogreco
The Next Internet Is TV - The Awl
"Websites are unnecessary vestiges of a time before there were better ways to find things to look at on your computer or your phone."



"In this future, what publications will have done individually is adapt to survive; what they will have helped do together is take the grand weird promises of writing and reporting and film and art on the internet and consolidated them into a set of business interests that most closely resemble the TV industry. Which sounds extremely lucrative! TV makes a lot of money, and there’s a lot of excellent TV. But TV is also a byzantine nightmare of conflict and compromise and trash and waste and legacy. The prospect of Facebook, for example, as a primary host for news organizations, not just an outsized source of traffic, is depressing even if you like Facebook. A new generation of artists and creative people ceding the still-fresh dream of direct compensation and independence to mediated advertising arrangements with accidentally enormous middlemen apps that have no special interest in publishing beyond value extraction through advertising is the early internet utopian’s worst-case scenario."
future  internet  media  television  tv  2015  johnherrman  hosting  journalism  content  snapchat  facebook  channels  buzzfeed  vox  youtube  video  delivery  syndication  advertising  ads  fusion  espn  cnn 
march 2015 by robertogreco
Too Much Magic, Too Little Social Friction: Why Objects Shouldn’t Be Enchanted | The Los Angeles Review of Books
"The more we’re inclined to see technology as wizardry, the less disposed we are to demystifying the illusions that obscure why some people get to enjoy hocus pocus at other people’s expense.

Magical Consumerism

Advertisers also use magic to deceive consumers into believing that products pave the path to the good life. Rose is so excited about what motivational fitness products like Nike + can do that he characterizes them as belonging to a magical lineage that includes the mythical “Hermes’s sandals” and cinematic “Dorothy’s slippers.” I felt like I was reading a script for a commercial when I got to the part where he praises them for “promising to transport us to a place of our dreams.”

Let’s be honest. That’s a promise that can’t ever be delivered. In fact, it’s a lie that moves along the perpetually running hedonic treadmill. Rose’s seamless discursive shift from technology theory to marketplace vocabulary thus serves as a good reminder that when it comes to commercialized goods, it’s dangerous to refer to them using language that breaks down too many of the barriers separating constraint-filled reality from practically unobtainable, constraint-removing fiction."



"The problem with both examples is that they are guided by the assumption that good relationships can be fashioned using technology to minimize misunderstandings and to maximize predictive awareness. While this is true up to a point, the devices Rose discusses eliminate so much important human interaction that they hardly seem like desirable means for achieving worthy ends."
magic  technology  attention  devices  emotions  2015  objects  enchantment  davidrose  evanselinger  advertising  capitalism  consumerism  materialism 
march 2015 by robertogreco
Hacked dog, a car that snoops on you and a fridge full of adverts: the perils of the internet of things | Technology | The Guardian
"In the not so distant future, every object in your life will be online and talking to one another. It’ll transform the way we live and work - but will the benefits outweigh the dangers?"



"For all the untold benefits of the IoT, its potential downsides are colossal. Adding 50bn new objects to the global information grid by 2020 means that each of these devices, for good or ill, will be able to potentially interact with the other 50bn connected objects on earth. The result will be 2.5 sextillion potential networked object-to-object interactions – a network so vast and complex it can scarcely be understood or modelled. The IoT will be a global network of unintended consequences and black swan events, ones that will do things nobody ever planned. In this world, it is impossible to know the consequences of connecting your home’s networked blender to the same information grid as an ambulance in Tokyo, a bridge in Sydney, or a Detroit auto manufacturer’s production line.

The vast levels of cyber crime we currently face make it abundantly clear we cannot even adequately protect the standard desktops and laptops we presently have online, let alone the hundreds of millions of mobile phones and tablets we are adding annually. In what vision of the future, then, is it conceivable that we will be able to protect the next 50bn things, from pets to pacemakers to self-driving cars? The obvious reality is that we cannot.

Our technological threat surface area is growing exponentially and we have no idea how to defend it effectively. The internet of things will become nothing more than the Internet of things to be hacked."
via:anne  iot  internetofthings  2015  connectivity  marcgoodman  security  susceptibility  advertising  surveillance  rfid 
march 2015 by robertogreco
Matt Jones: Jumping to the End -- Practical Design Fiction on Vimeo
[Matt says (http://magicalnihilism.com/2015/03/06/my-ixd15-conference-talk-jumping-to-the-end/ ):

"This talk summarizes a lot of the approaches that we used in the studio at BERG, and some of those that have carried on in my work with the gang at Google Creative Lab in NYC.

Unfortunately, I can’t show a lot of that work in public, so many of the examples are from BERG days…

Many thanks to Catherine Nygaard and Ben Fullerton for inviting me (and especially to Catherine for putting up with me clowning around behind here while she was introducing me…)"]

[At ~35:00:
“[(Copy)Writers] are the fastest designers in the world. They are amazing… They are just amazing at that kind of boiling down of incredibly abstract concepts into tiny packages of cognition, language. Working with writers has been my favorite thing of the last two years.”
mattjones  berg  berglondon  google  googlecreativelab  interactiondesign  scifi  sciencefiction  designfiction  futurism  speculativefiction  julianbleecker  howwework  1970s  comics  marvel  marvelcomics  2001aspaceodyssey  fiction  speculation  technology  history  umbertoeco  design  wernerherzog  dansaffer  storytelling  stories  microinteractions  signaturemoments  worldbuilding  stanleykubrick  details  grain  grammars  computervision  ai  artificialintelligence  ui  personofinterest  culture  popculture  surveillance  networks  productdesign  canon  communication  johnthackara  macroscopes  howethink  thinking  context  patternsensing  systemsthinking  systems  mattrolandson  objects  buckminsterfuller  normanfoster  brianarthur  advertising  experiencedesign  ux  copywriting  writing  film  filmmaking  prototyping  posters  video  howwewrite  cognition  language  ara  openstudioproject  transdisciplinary  crossdisciplinary  interdisciplinary  sketching  time  change  seams  seamlessness 
march 2015 by robertogreco
The first thing I do when I wake up and get the children dressed—which, my God. Getting the… — Ford’s Sensorium — Medium
"The first thing I do when I wake up and get the children dressed—which, my God. Getting the children dressed. We picked out clothes last night so we can avoid the freakout that comes in the morning, the tears and sobbing over the wrong pants (mostly my daughter). But still, you have to pull them out of their beds. While they are halfway out of the bed they cry out for their lovies and their morning milk and sometimes, because I don’t want them to crawl back under the blankets, I will turn them upside down like I’m a crane operator and lower them back down to the mattress so that they can pull these things out of the bed; then we have the snuggle, which sounds nice but they you say “okay we need to get dressed” and they scream “no, snuggle! Snuggle!” To avoid getting dressed. The snuggle is a scam, man. The jammies get unzipped and there are tears. You end up with a lot of toddler bits and butts smushed against your leg and sort of sigh and put on the Captain America underpants, or the Hello Kitty underpants, because every freaking thing needs a brand on it, it’s not just that “gender norms” start early but that a whole suite of cultural normativity is jammed into their little brains way, way before any of their emotional bits are fully wired into their brains, it’s like the culture is setting up highways of thought so that their thoughts can follow predefined routes, and among those thoughts are that you cover a vulva with Hello Kitty and you cover a penis with Captain America. Why buy these things, you ask? Seriously go to Target at Atlantic Center which always looks like a human tornado has ravaged it, and ask for toddler underpants and see what you can get. Should I buy hand-woven $90 artisanal toddler underpants in order to hide my children from the giant gender-brand axis of infiltration? See these two handmade artisanal middle fingers? Besides, it’s coming for them anyway. That rapturous desire when you see some shitty toy truck crest a mud hill on TV, they’ll experience that. We’ll get through it. But wait, the mother of someone we know saw that my son was wearing pink pants and a pink shirt and purple boots one day and said, “I will pray for him,” because magical Jesus intervention will somehow protect him from becoming a big flaming toddler homo in his Captain America underpants. She’s from a culture that I guess hates homosexuality even more than most cultures do? I mean was that a micro-aggression when this parent of of a person (whom we, as stereotypical white liberals, pay to provide child care) said she’d pray to Jesus so my boy doesn’t grow up to put his ween into a hairy man’s chumbox? I mean there’s the war we’re all fighting and then there’s the facts on the ground. I mean allies are thirsty. Anyway if the nice lady says the mean thing again, I will say, “I have absolutely no worries about that, I love his pink pants, and I think he looks great,” which is the truth, and enough. The kids are pretty. I don’t care at all if my kids are gay, I care a lot though that they will come home in 2029 and be like I’m in a polyamorous marriage with this virtual octopus collective from the Warcraft Moon. I don’t want to have to attend a 3-D wedding with a bunch of virtual sea creatures who’ve had virtual tentacle sensors nano-branded into their nucleus accumbens so that they have spontaneous orgasms whenever another virtual octopus sends them an email. I mean, I will attend, and I will give away my child at the virtual altar, I’m old-fashioned. I’m doing the best I can which, all along, people tell you will be enough but of course that is complete bullshit, the best you can turns out to be years late and 100 lbs overweight. So now the underpants are on. All that is left is the pants, the shirt, the two socks, the hooded undercoat, the Uniqlo Keith Haring-branded jacket (lady, you think pink pants are scary), the blue snowsuit, the purple boots, the two mittens, the ritual of preparing breakfast and putting it into a plastic bag to be eaten on arrival at daycare, the ritual of hugging and kissing goodbye (my wife takes them 3/5 of the days), and so, finally, okay, there are two things I am assuming here which is that (1) any sort of intelligence or consciousness I personally can add to the situation of their childhood must be worked into the context of the rituals of waking, eating, playing, laughing, walking, and sleeping; and that (2) as the cultural pressures of gender and race and religion and branding seek to establish their beachheads inside the brains of my kids—that it is also possible (this is my working hypothesis) to create small confident spaces that they can access inside of their minds, building up an immune system that fights against viral culture, creating a system based not on the acquisition of power or the ascension to heaven but the fact that love is effective. You can reject a lot of insane bullshit and bad ideas simply because they are incompatible with love. If you remember to. Who remembers to? Who can even say “love” with a straight face? Lace up your jerkin, Sir Loser, when you speak of love. Could you rebrand it as something cool? Could you re-brand an emotion? Could Apple release Love? How do you help people remember?"
paulford  children  kids  parenting  2015  love  religion  advertising  capitalism  resistance  emotions  culture  life  living 
march 2015 by robertogreco
454 W 23rd St New York, NY 10011—2157
"Anonymous asked: do you want to be famous?

In 1928 the architect Mies van der Rohe was commissioned to design a pavilion representing Weimar Germany at the 1929 International Exhibition in Barcelona. The building ended up becoming justly famous as the most eloquent definition of what was later gathered into Modernism. This definition would be something like, ‘Not only doing way more with way less, but becoming so good at it that you could thread a way out of the bewilderment and perversity which gnaw at modern lives of otherwise unparalleled bounty and convenience.’

The pavillion was designed to be doorless and mostly made of glass. In almost every way a building could be optimistic for the century it wanted to predict, this one was. The evidence for class oppression that great houses bear, like backstairs and basement kitchens are gone. Blank walls on which evidence of wealth could be displayed have been replaced by windows. Reality is the thing that transparent walls force your attention to confront. The pavillion even does away with the convention of a ‘front’ or a ‘back.’ Without a face on which to project how we want to be seen, duplicity becomes more difficult than simply being honest. The building hopes that without anything to hide behind, the very ideas of secrecy and guile will become too cumbersome to survive.

But in the very temple of delight. There was one place in the pavillion that showed a terrible shadow on the 20th century. Beyond the main room there was a reflecting pool. In the middle of the pool stood a statue of a nude woman. This choice to place a statue at a remove from anyone who would look at it is as elegant a definition as anything else in the building, but what is being defined is hideous. The fact that a statue has been taken out of the round and put in a position that allows only one point of view is an example of something our era has done on an industrial scale—the reduction of volumes to images. A statue by definition fills a volume, but limiting our perspective makes it flat. An image.

The act of reducing the freedom to see from whichever perspective suits you, down to only one, is as old as the allegory of the cave, where statues were reduced to their shadows. But the pavillion predicts that this process will come to dominate everything the statue represents: Art, diversion, beauty, and eventually, people themselves. All of us will buy, favor, love and appreciate from across an impassable distance. We will be segregated from everything we admire and from everything we want, because images are all we are presented with and flatness cannot be embraced.

Over and above every other example of this process is fame. If we are tricked by advertising into buying a phantom, wanting to be famous is wanting to become the phantom. It’s a desire that mistakes isolation for rarity, loneliness for exceptionality, and distance for height. The popular desire for fame is the crowning achievement of a hundred year campaign to iron out any aspect of being alive that calls for a complex and irreducible expression of humanity.

So no."
2012  via:robinsloan  game  humanity  complexity  freedom  reality  advertising  miesvanderrohe  modernism  duplicity  honesty  images  imagery  perspective  pointofview  power  control  flatness  art  diversion  beauty  distance  phantoms 
february 2015 by robertogreco
'American Psycho' property promo pulled after Twitterstorm | Art and design | The Guardian
"The developer Redrow has deleted its latest aspirational video of a suave city boy looking down from his luxury penthouse after a web backlash. But it does show the psychotic nature of the housing market in London today"



"The whole thing is beyond parody; as if JG Ballard had been put in charge of the opening titles to the Apprentice. It portrays a world of hyper-luxurious emptiness and alienation, achieved by a relentless ambition to be the best and defeat everyone and everything else in the process. “It is a totally clear expression of the psychotic nature of housing in London at the moment,” says architect Sam Jacob, who made a mash-up parody of the video, cutting Patrick Bateman’s narcissistic monologues from the film American Psycho over the Redrow footage, producing an eerily accurate match.

“It plunges us back into the ultimate yuppie fantasy – the fact that the individual only exists in relation to the brands that they own, the things that they’ve bought. That property and housing is just about individual success, investment, money, achievement.”



"“It’s all part of the same narrative,” says Jacob. “The separation of the individual from collectivity, the fact that you rise above the city, the idea that the city is a kind of beast that is there to be beaten or to beat you. That of course means you’re separated from society and the things that really make a city exciting.”"

[See also:
http://russelldavies.typepad.com/planning/2015/01/how-long-before-property-ads-are-as-insane-as-perfume-ads.html
http://hautepop.tumblr.com/post/107130105697/violence-glass-steel
http://piercepenniless.tumblr.com/post/107101499087/violence-glass-steel ]

[via: http://notes.husk.org/post/107243158244/redrow-london-video
http://notes.husk.org/post/107242854169/not-quite-right
http://notes.husk.org/post/107242718439/redrow-property-london ]
housing  markets  capitalism  london  uk  advertising  promotion  success  money  property  society  individualism  collectivity  collectivism  cities  inequality 
january 2015 by robertogreco
Video: Generation Like | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video
[Somehow forgot to bookmark this back in February.]

"Thanks to social media, teens are able to directly interact with their culture -- celebrities, movies, brands -- in ways never before possible. But is that real empowerment? Or do marketers hold the upper hand? In "Generation Like," Douglas Rushkoff explores how the teen quest for identity has migrated to the web -- and exposes the game of cat-and-mouse that corporations are playing with them."

[See also:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/media/generation-like/transcript-57/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmgXxB9QiA
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/generation-like-the-kids-sell-out-but-dont-know-what-1524517417 ]
generationlike  2014  media  online  web  youth  teens  likes  liking  labor  advertising  facebook  douglasrushkoff  tyleroakley  alissaquart  oliverluckett  kurtwagner  markandrejevic  allisonarling-giorgi  danahboyd  popculutre  society  consumerism  work  celebrity  microcelebrities  youtube  marketing  identity  sellingout  merchantsofcool  presentationofself  exploitation  digital  onlinemedia  socialmedia  socialnetworking  profiles  socialnetworks  tumblr  twitter  hungergames  empowerment  fandom 
october 2014 by robertogreco
Television Commercial for Communism | The Propeller Group
"Television Commercial for Communism
2011

Imagine for a brief moment, that the world’s last five remaining communist countries decided to unite forces and hire the world’s top advertising agencies to re-brand and create a resurgence in the ideologies of Communism? Television Commercial for Communism [TVCC] embarks to re-position our relationship to current global economics and socio-politics by getting the world’s leading advertising companies to pitch their most radical ideas to re-brand Communism. How will capitalism’s most influential by-product, the advertising machine, process its former political opponent in a post Cold War context, still saturated with Cold War idiosyncrasies?

PROJECT OVERVIEW

This video installation work has 2 components, a synchronized 5 channel video installation projection and a single channel video presented on an LED monitor. It is a collaboration with TBWA \ Viet Nam. TBWA [tbwa.com] is the advertising team behind Apple’s “Think Different” campaign as well as the award-winning advertising campaigns for Nissan and Adidas.

The first component is a synchronized 5 channel video installation that documents the creative team at TBWA \ Viet Nam in their process of brainstorming, discussing and presenting their pitch as they develop a media campaign to promote and gain positive “brand identity” for Communism.

As the brainstorming sessions are the meat of the advertising process, every round-table discussion is documented with 5 cameras shooting simultaneously into the ‘round-table’ setup. These synchronized video channels are then projected outwards in a pentagonal configuration inside the exhibition space; rendering a complex viewing experience, turning a round-table advertising brainstorming session shot from the outside-in into an inside-out panoramic view of how advertising processes it’s Cold War antithesis.

The agency’s animatic, a video mock-up of the actual commercial that utilizes storyboard images, music, and voice over to help clients visualize the final commercial, is displayed on a large LED monitor as the second component of the installation.

The project’s ultimate ambition is to work with more of the world’s top advertising agencies and realize a series of compelling television commercials and advertising campaigns. The campaign will launch featuring cinema, TV, print, out-of-home installations, digital elements and more. All of the media will be made available as free downloads via an official website and made available on social media sites such as facebook, youtube and vimeo.

THE FINAL CONCEPT & ANIMATIC

In this first iteration of the TVCC project, the creative team at TBWA\VIETNAM decides on a final concept that combines the look-and-feel of handmade paper animation with a voice over of a pledge for the new communism. The animation depicts a young girl character who traverses a world that’s portrayed using layers of paper, and as she interacts with the various sorts of people in this environment, they exchange smiles with her. The only things in color are the symbolic smiles exchanged. The smiles, the new “currency” of Communism are then brought together to form the new flag of Communism.

Visit the Television Commercial for Communism website: http://www.everyoneisequal.com "
communism  advertising  art  2011 
october 2014 by robertogreco
Ello | quinn
"Ello needs to make money, and that means Ello eventually needs to charge someone. So who can it charge? The only way to make the massive returns VCs like is to charge companies or governments. These are the only thing in our society rich enough to consistently feed the VC mouths. (this is why I strongly recommend against taking VC money -- it's much like adopting 15 children at once, it limits your options.) The only thing a social network can sell to companies are its users. It could work, to have Ello sponsored by X corporation for a given day or week or whatever, but in this business environment part of X corporation's demand for its money is going to be user data. So there you're back to tracking your users like everyone else. Ello could charge databrokers and governments for their user data too, but that also drives them towards being Facebook, Twitter, etc.

That leave Ello to charge their users. This is a fine business model and the one that has supported more things for most of human history. I like this model, I even pay for online services now, though not many -- not many are worth it, and they usually track me anyway. Asking users to pay allows Ello to do something no other online company is doing right now -- optimize Ello for users. This is a great advantage for Ello, because it would mean they could actually listen to users and give them an experience that would, given enough time, be so much better than the massive social networks that people would love joining Ello.

But of course this is a problem too... most users can't pay. Some people like to complain, say that we deserve to be surveiled because no one is willing to pay for anything. This is a ridiculous statement, people all over the world are paying for things every day of their lives. But until we do something about the distribution of the world's wealth, the vast majority of people, even those with internet access, will find that paying a high enough amount for it to be worthwhile for Ello to collect it will cause a real decline in their quality of life.

obligatory graph:

hmm, I can't get obligatory graph to load. I less than three you, betas. ;) Anyway.

The only people that can pay Ello right now are in that top wealth quintile, and then probably the top 2/3rds of it at best. But social networks are like languages -- they are only worthwhile when they are broadly adopted. This makes an incredibly compelling case for user tracking and adverts, since success as a broad network makes the most sense by giving network access away and then selling the people to companies. This is a hard model to escape, to be honest, and it always has been. Companies and governments are essentially colonizing the internet, extracting, monetizing, and controlling the humans therein just like they did during the colonial period, only with less physical violences. Facebook is essentially John Company.

There are only two ways I can see that Ello can escape getting crushed by the contemporary versions of John Company (which did a huge amount of crushing in its day). One is to beat them at their own game and become the next John Company/Facebook/etc, which means becoming better at colonial extraction on users -- most likely in the growth arena -- actual former colony nations. If they don't have the stomach for this kind of evil, and and I deeply hope they don't, the other way is to make far less money. To be, compared to the big VC funded players, a small business with hopeful growth over the course of decades, not quarters.

This is going to mean working out something no one has been able to yet -- differential pricing on the net. The best system of payment they could have, with a magic wand and a fairy godmother etc interceding would be to extract something like $.25 a day from users in the top billion, maybe $.05 a day from the next billion, and possibly nothing or money losing from users in the last 3 billion. The problem is that people hate differential pricing, see it as unfair, when they can see it. They can't see income inequality all the time in their houses and neighborhoods and work places, so that doesn't bother them. They can't see massive surveillance and manipulation, so that doesn't bother them. But dear god, when they see a price list with differential pricing, people go purple with rage. So that's a problem.

Nowadays there's a lot you can do with geolocating IPs, and showing people variable content based on where they are. This could mean that Ello could price based on that, and for now, I believe that's their best option. But no VC will ever accept that, and chances are if Ello has or ever will take VC, they are already dead and just don't know it yet. Their chances of beating Facebook are next to none, especially as they would have to betray everything they've said they were about, and there is no other model that could feed the VC mouth.

Introducing variable pricing, pricing on features, and multiple payment systems over time could let Ello developers make a comfortable living. But at no time in the near future would it make them .com millionaires. To make Ello compelling and free of surveillance and extraction means making a service many can use and doesn't cost too much. Eventually, wide enough adoption to be meaningful to the world means opening it up and making it a protocol other people can build businesses on that don't provide much or any revenue for Ello. It means striving to enter that most dreaded of economic states -- becoming a commodity.

Making social networking a common commodity could remake the world, like the world wide web, or vaccination did. But like the world wide web and vaccination, they aren't ever going to let Paul Budnitz become Cornelius Vanderbilt or Mark Zuckerberg. He'd have to settle for the hope that a lifetime of hard work and enough money to live could let him be Tim Berners-lee or Jonas Salk.

So, Ello, what do you want?"

[See also: http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/2014/09/hello-ello.html ]
ello  quinnnorton  2014  jonassalk  markzuckerberg  corneliusvanderbilt  vc  venturecapital  business  monetization  funding  advertising  privacy  socialmedia  variablepricing  pricing 
september 2014 by robertogreco
Shoshan Zuboff on “Big Data” as Surveillance Capitalism
"VII. HOW TO CONSTRUCT A FUTURE THAT WE CAN CALL HOME

Why is it that the declaration of surveillance capitalism has met so little resistance? Searle’s reasoning is a good guide. Agreement? Yes, there were and are plenty of people who think surveillance capitalism is a reasonable business model. (We’ll have to leave why they think so to another discussion.) Authority? Yes. The tech leaders have been imbued with the authority of expertise and idolized as entrepreneurs. Persuasion? Absolutely. All the neoliberal buzzwords of entrepreneurialism, creative destruction, disruption, etc. persuaded many that these developments were right and necessary. A quid pro quo? Yes, powerfully so. The new free services of search and connection were exactly what we needed and have become essential to social participation. When Facebook went down last month, a lot of Americans called 911 (emergency services).

Was there any use of force or other means to foreclose alternatives? No military force was needed. Instead, as the new logic became the dominant business model for online companies and start-ups, it spawned millions of related institutionalized facts— ancillary and intermediary business services, professional specializations, new language, IPOs, tons of cash, network effects, unprecedented concentrations of information power. All these limit our sense that there can be any alternative. And finally, how about a lack of understanding? This is the most salient reason of all. Most people did not and could not appreciate the extent to which the new “facts” depended upon surveillance. This colossal asymmetry of understanding helps explain why Edward Snowden was necessary. Somebody had to be Ed Snowden

What kind of resistance has been offered and why has it failed to stop the spread of surveillance capitalism? Here I depart from Searle in order to introduce two distinct varieties of declaration that I think can help us understand more about how the future unfolds. I suggest that the kind of resistance that has been offered so far takes the form of what I call the “counter-declaration.” A counter-declaration is defensive. It addresses the institutional facts asserted by the declaration. The process of countering seeks to impose constraints or achieve compromise, but it does not annihilate the contested fact. In addressing those facts, it invariably increases their power. Negotiation inevitably legitimates the other. This is why many governments refuse to negotiate with terrorists. As Searle noted, even talking about something or referring to it increases its reality by treating it as a thing that is already real. It’s a classic quick-sand situation in that the more you fight it, the more it sucks you in.

What are examples of counter-declarations? Google and other Internet companies have been the targets of many privacy-related lawsuits. Some of these efforts have imposed real constraints, such as prohibiting Google Street View cars to extract personal data from computers inside homes, or the class action that resulted in Facebook’s suspension of its invasive “Beacon” program. Legal actions like these can limit certain practices for a time, but they do not topple the institutionalized facts of surveillance capitalism in the target or other companies. Encryption is another counter-declaration. When we encrypt, we acknowledge the reality of the thing we are trying to evade. Rather than undoing that reality, encryption ignites an arms race with the very thing it disputes. Privacy tools like “opt out” or “do not track” are another example. When I click on “do not track,” what I am really saying is “do not track me.” My choice does not stop the company from tracking everyone else.

I want to be clear that I am not critical of counter-declarations. They are necessary and vital. We need more of them. But the point I do want to make is that counter-declarations alone will not stop this train. They run a race that they can never win. They may lead to a balance of power, but they will not in and of themselves construct an alternative to surveillance capitalism.

What will enable us to move forward in a new way? As I see it, we will have to move on to a new kind of declaration that I am calling a “synthetic declaration.” By this I mean a declaration that synthesizes the opposing facts of declaration and counter-declaration. It arises from— and draws to it —new and deeper wellsprings of collective intentionality. It asserts an original vision. If the counter-declaration is check, the synthetic declaration is checkmate.

Does information capitalism have to be based on surveillance. No. But surveillance capitalism has emerged as a leading version of information capitalism. We need new synthetic declarations to define and support other variants of information capitalism that participate in the social order, value people, and reflect democratic principles. New synthetic declarations can provide the framework for a new kind of double movement appropriate to our time.

Are there examples? There are glimmers. The past year brought us Ed Snowden, who asserted a new reality at great personal sacrifice by claiming this to be a world in which the information he provided should be shared information. Wikileaks has also operated in this spirit. The EU Court’s decision on the right to be forgotten points in the direction of a synthetic declaration by establishing new facts for the online world. (In my view, it also faltered, perhaps inadvertently, by also establishing new facts that grant Google inappropriate new powers.

Mathias Doepfner’s open letter to Google chairperson Eric Schmidt, published in FAZ last spring, called for a synthetic declaration in the form of a unique European narrative of the digital, one that is not subjugated to the institutional facts asserted by the Internet giants.

Indeed, I think it can be said that the German people are now drawing on their unique historical experience to produce their own synthetic declaration that insists on a different kind of digital future. Note that The Economist just published an article titled “Googlephobia in Germany.” The aim of such language is to suggest that it’s neurotic and therefore irrational to oppose Google’s practices. It’s a classic counter-declaration that reveals the powerful effect of Germany’s new thinking. The real fear is that Germany might produce a synthetic declaration that opens a space for alternative forms of information capitalism to flourish.

I am mindful of a long list of demands that were damned as “neurotic” and unreasonable in America a century ago, as the contest over 20th century capitalism accelerated: labor unions, a living wage, business regulation, racial equality, womens’ right to vote, a high school education…. For anyone who thinks Germany’s concerns are “phobic,” one need only recall the revelations less than a year ago that the NSA was spying on Joaquin Almunia, the EU official who presides over the Google antitrust case. Or the recently published emails that provide fresh glimpses of the collaborative relationship between the NSA and Google. And should we mention that Google’s chairperson, Schmidt, also sits on the board of the Economist Group?

Our world sorely needs more —and more comprehensive—synthetic declarations that point us in a wholly new direction. We need new facts that assert the primacy of humanity, the dignity of the person, the bonds of democratic community strengthened by individual empowerment and knowledge, and the well being of our planet. This does not mean that we should construct utopias. Rather, it means that we should draw upon the authentic promise of the digital— the promise that we grasped before Ed Snowden entered history.

In the shadow and gloom of today’s institutional facts, it has become fashionable to mourn the passing of the democratic era. I say that democracy is the best our species has created so far, and woe to us if we abandon it now. The real road to serfdom is to be persuaded that the declarations of democracy we have inherited are no longer relevant to a digital future. These have been inscribed in our souls, and if we leave them behind— we abandon the best part of ourselves. If you doubt me, try living without them, as I have done. That is the real wasteland, and we should fear it."
soshanazuboff  via:steelemaley  2014  bigdata  declarations  internet  web  online  edwardsnowden  joaquinalmunia  hannaharendt  hamesburnham  frankschirrmacher  germany  europe  advertising  capitalism  surveillancecapitalism  surveillance  privacy  democracy  counterdeclarations  feedom  courage  law  legal  dataexhaust  data  datamining  google 
september 2014 by robertogreco
The Internet's Original Sin - The Atlantic
"Once we’ve assumed that advertising is the default model to support the Internet, the next step is obvious: We need more data so we can make our targeted ads appear to be more effective. Cegłowski explains, “We’re addicted to ‘big data’ not because it’s effective now, but because we need it to tell better stories.” So we build businesses that promise investors that advertising will be more invasive, ubiquitous, and targeted and that we will collect more data about our users and their behavior.

* * *

I have come to believe that advertising is the original sin of the web. The fallen state of our Internet is a direct, if unintentional, consequence of choosing advertising as the default model to support online content and services. Through successive rounds of innovation and investor storytime, we’ve trained Internet users to expect that everything they say and do online will be aggregated into profiles (which they cannot review, challenge, or change) that shape both what ads and what content they see. Outrage over experimental manipulation of these profiles by social networks and dating companies has led to heated debates amongst the technologically savvy, but hasn’t shrunk the user bases of these services, as users now accept that this sort of manipulation is an integral part of the online experience."



"There is no single “right answer” to the question of how we pay for the tool that lets us share knowledge, opinions, ideas, and photos of cute cats. Whether we embrace micropayments, membership, crowdfunding, or any other model, there are bound to be unintended consequences.

But 20 years in to the ad-supported web, we can see that our current model is bad, broken, and corrosive. It’s time to start paying for privacy, to support services we love, and to abandon those that are free, but sell us—the users and our attention—as the product."
advertising  internet  web  2014  privacy  ethanzuckerman  pinboard  reddit  facebook  instagram 
september 2014 by robertogreco
Always #LikeAGirl - YouTube
"Using #LikeAGirl as an insult is a hard knock against any adolescent girl. And since the rest of puberty's really no picnic either, it's easy to see what a huge impact it can have on a girl's self-confidence.

We're kicking off an epic battle to make sure that girls everywhere keep their confidence throughout puberty and beyond, and making a start by showing them that doing it #LikeAGirl is an awesome thing.

"In my work as a documentarian, I have witnessed the confidence crisis among girls and the negative impact of stereotypes first-hand," said Lauren Greenfield, filmmaker and director of the #LikeAGirl video. "When the words 'like a girl' are used to mean something bad, it is profoundly disempowering. I am proud to partner with Always to shed light on how this simple phrase can have a significant and long-lasting impact on girls and women. I am excited to be a part of the movement to redefine 'like a girl' into a positive affirmation."

So tell us... what do YOU do #LikeAGirl?"
gender  girls  advertising  language  2014  likeagirl 
june 2014 by robertogreco
Making Games in a Fucked Up World – G4C 2014 | Molleindustria
"And yet here we are now, academia, disruptors from the education industry, DARPA creeps, venture philantrophists, noprofit bureocrats, technocrats, game fundamentalists…

We are working for all kinds of change. Therefore we cannot really talk about change.

We use euphemisms like social good, values, and other progressive terms that don’t offend or scare anyone (especially funders and sponsors).
But we can only really talk about games. It’s the only common denominator.

We are discussing games as general purpose instruments.
And in doing so we are putting the means ahead of the ends.

Here’s my first proposition:

If we can't talk about the change we want to see, we can't choose our tools according to tactical considerations and strategic goals.

The Nazis embraced radio because, in Germany, at that point in time it was an extremely centralized infrastructure. Perfectly consistent with the kind of change they wanted to create.

The discourse around serious and transformative games has been stuck in a sort of delusional loop for several years now.

Of course at this point we established that games can be expressive and representational media. They aren’t mere vectors for messages to be dumped into players’ brain.

They are objects we can think with – like moving images, or texts.

They are interfaces between people.
They are conversations that can happen via body language and verbal language, through the clash of conflicting desires, through the dance between chance and skill, through computation and storytelling…

Even single player games are conversations.
I often say that single player computer games are a type of multiplayer games. The designers can be seen as players as well. They are an extreme form of asynchronous, asymmetrical game if you will.
You play with the authors.

Games are multitude.

BUT for serious and transformative games this is not enough.
It’s not enough to be just a cultural form among the others.
Serious games want to transcend this symbolic and relational dimension and be the very embodiment of *actual* change.

This is the delusional loop I’m talking about.

One of the starting points of this narrative was this talk from 2007:
Making a new kind of serious game: Games that are designed as functions with an end result that is a measurable difference in the present state of reality.
— Jane McGonigal Erasing the Delta – Games that Accomplish a Specific Task, Games Developer Conference 2007

The delta is the gap between representation and actual change.
And here the keyword is measurement.

The presumption is that social change can be measured in the same way you can measure the calories burned by playing an exercise game.

This obsession with quantification pervades contemporary society.

It’s the basis of the gamification ideology.
And the basis of contemporary capitalism. Late capitalism is less about producing and selling stuff and more about reifying the immaterial sphere (culture, language, relationships, ambitions).

If you can measure something, you can rationalize it, you can optimize it, you can sell it.

If you are in the no profit industrial complex you can get more funding if you demonstrate a measurable impact.

Except the measurement of complex social phenomena is always reductionist and problematic.

We use the Gross Domestic Product to measure the success of a nation disregarding many other indicators.

By using standardized tests to assess the quality of learning we turned our schools into bootcamps for standardized tests.

Here’s another simple proposition:

If you can measure it then that’s not the change I want to see.

It’s a provocation of course, I’m fine with games accomplishing very specific tasks.

The problem is that by focusing on measurable goals we narrow our action.
We favor individual change, versus systemic and long term change.
We target burning calories without addressing food politics and food justice.
We try to impose prepackaged behavior protocols rather than facilitating critical thought.

And I’ll go even further:

If your game or technology really works (in this direct and reductionist way) it freaks me out.

If you actually figure out methods to control people’s behavior.
You can bet they will be adopted by governments and advertisers in no time.
You are working for them."



"But one thing I can tell for sure: the act of making games about social issues, has always been a profound transformative experience for me.

I came to the conclusion that there is a greater liberation potential in designing games rather than playing games.

I argue that next step of games for impact doesn’t lie in some technological advancement but rather, in helping people to engage with the practice of game design.

Game design, especially when socially engaged, involves a lot of research and synthesis. What are the actors and the forces governing this system?
What are the internal relationships?
What are the limits of the player’s agency?
This conceptual (and not just technical) tools is what we practitioners can share.

Designing game has a couple of terrific extra outcomes:

First: by designing games you acquire the tools to demystify all games. To play critically.

Second: by democratizing game design you don’t have to look for big funders.

Games are expensive to make but also not. I’ve never spent more than 100 dollars on my games.

There are plenty of digital tools. And non professionals have been making and adapting games (even games for change) since forever.
As Zach Gage said yesterday, every child is a game designer.

Third: by just facilitating the creation of games you don’t incur into typical fallacies of the white savior industrial complex. Like the mis-representation and objectification of others.

This makes me think about another keyword in this industry: empathy.
If you want to convince privileged people to donate you have to make them feel bad.

But empathy is almost inevitably patronizing, it presumes helpless subject who can’t speak for themselves. And privileged subjects i.e. “us” that are somehow separated from them.

Pppression is fractal.

Most of us (the 99% of us), are both oppressed and part of a system of oppression.

Anyway, here’s my last proposition:

WORK TO MAKE YOURSELF OBSOLETE

Which is probably a terrible idea if you want to be a professional in the social change industry.

I want to conclude by mentioning an initiative I’ve been helping to coordinate in the last two years.
It’s not a solution but a small contribution and a possible alternative model. It’s a series of workshops called Imagining better futures through play."
videogames  games  gaming  gamification  systemsthinking  longterm  systems  behavior  2014  paolopedercini  control  measurement  systemicchange  advertising  centralization  change  changemaking  seriousgames  gamedesign  design  quantification  capitalism  gdp  janemcgonigal  zachgage  classideas  children  making  empathy  paulofreire  oppression  saviorcomplex  privilege  edg  srg 
april 2014 by robertogreco
18. Webstock 2014 Talk Notes and References - postarchitectural
[Direct link to video: https://vimeo.com/91957759 ]
[See also: http://www.webstock.org.nz/talks/the-future-happens-so-much/ ]

"I was honored to be invited to Webstock 2014 to speak, and decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about startups and growth in general.

I prepared for this talk by collecting links, notes, and references in a flat text file, like I did for Eyeo and Visualized. These references are vaguely sorted into the structure of the talk. Roughly, I tried to talk about the future happening all around us, the startup ecosystem and the pressures for growth that got us there, and the dangerous sides of it both at an individual and a corporate level. I ended by talking about ways for us as a community to intervene in these systems of growth.

The framework of finding places to intervene comes from Leverage Points by Donella Meadows, and I was trying to apply the idea of 'monstrous thoughts' from Just Asking by David Foster Wallace. And though what I was trying to get across is much better said and felt through books like Seeing like a State, Debt, or Arctic Dreams, here's what was in my head."
shahwang  2014  webstock  donellameadows  jamescscott  seeinglikeastate  davidgraeber  debt  economics  barrylopez  trevorpaglen  google  technology  prism  robotics  robots  surveillance  systemsthinking  growth  finance  venturecapital  maciejceglowski  millsbaker  mandybrown  danhon  advertising  meritocracy  democracy  snapchat  capitalism  infrastructure  internet  web  future  irrationalexuberance  github  geopffmanaugh  corproratism  shareholders  oligopoly  oligarchy  fredscharmen  kenmcleod  ianbanks  eleanorsaitta  quinnorton  adamgreenfield  marshallbrain  politics  edwardsnowden  davidsimon  georgepacker  nicolefenton  power  responsibility  davidfosterwallace  christinaxu  money  adamcurtis  dmytrikleiner  charlieloyd  wealth  risk  sarahkendxior  markjacobson  anildash  rebeccasolnit  russellbrand  louisck  caseygollan  alexpayne  judsontrue  jamesdarling  jenlowe  wilsonminer  kierkegaard  readinglist  startups  kiev  systems  control  data  resistance  obligation  care  cynicism  snark  change  changetheory  neoliberalism  intervention  leveragepoints  engagement  nonprofit  changemaki 
april 2014 by robertogreco
Who Really Owns The Internet? - The Awl
"Can we solve the issues that you talk about without radically reorganizing the economy?

No. (Laughs) Which I think is why I’ve been so active. I’ve been thinking about this in connection with all these writers who are coming up who found each other through Occupy, and why all of us were willing to participate in that uprising despite all the problems and the occasional ridiculousness of it.

But the economy can be revolutionized or the economy can be reformed, and I don’t discount the latter option. That level of social change happens in unpredictable ways. It’s actually harder to think of a revolutionary event that has had a positive outcome, whereas there have been lots of reforms and lots of things that people have done on the edges that have had powerful consequences. Would I like to see an economic revolution? Definitely. But I think there are a lot of ways to insert a kind of friction into the system that can be beneficial.

This book is about economics, and the amazing, probably very American ability to not talk about economics—particularly with technology, which is supposed to be this magical realm, so pure and disruptive and unpredictable that it transcends economic conditions and constraints. The basic idea is that that’s not the case.

To a lot of people this is self-evident, but I was surprised at how outside the mainstream conversation that insight was. When money is brought up, there’s this incredible romanticism, like the Yochai Benkler quote about being motivated by things other than money. But we’re talking about platforms that go to Goldman Sachs to handle their IPOs. Money is here. Wake up!"



"When I defend institutions in this book, I knew I might provoke my more radical friends. The position that everything is corrupt—journalism is corrupt, educational institutions are corrupt, publishers are corrupt—sounds great. And on some level it’s true. They’ve disappointed us. But we need more and better—more robust, more accountable—institutions. So I tried to move out of the position of just criticizing those arrangements and enumerating all their flaws and all the ways they’ve failed us. What happens when we’ve burned all these institutions to the ground and it’s just us and Google?"



"Do you have advice for what people—people like me—who write or produce other work for the Internet can do about this situation?

I’m encouraged by all these little magazines that have started in the last few years. Building institutions, even if they’re small, is a very powerful thing, so that we’re less isolated. When you’re isolated, you’re forced into the logic of building our own brand. If you build something together, you’re more able to focus on endeavors that don’t immediately feed into that. That’s what an institution can buy you—the space to focus on other things.

What would help creators more than anything else in this country are things that would help other workers: Real public health care, real social provisions. Artists are people like everybody else; we need the same things as our barista.

I quote John Lennon: "You think you’re so clever and classless and free. One thing we need is an end to artist exceptionalism. When we can see our connection to other precarious people in the economy, that’s when interesting things could happen. When we justify our position with our own specialness…"
2014  astrataylor  internet  economics  occupywallstreet  ows  ip  intellectualproperty  universalbasicincome  marxism  miyatokumitsu  precarity  davidburrgerrard  interviews  small  institutions  scale  art  artists  markets  capitalism  automation  utopia  andrewblum  vancepackard  plannedobsolescence  libertarianism  edwardsnowden  freedom  socialmedia  libraries  advertising  benkunkel  publicbroadcasting  quotas  propaganda  technology  web  online  jessemyerson  utopianism  labor  work  artlabor  strickdebt  ubi 
april 2014 by robertogreco
Marc Andreessen’s Crude and Nuanced Tech Cynicism — Weird Future — Medium
"On Saturday night, serial-tweet-lover Marc Andreessen started a list.

1/Degrees of tech cynicism from crude to nuanced?
https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/447604341591908352

Andreessen ought to know tech cynicism — he’s been around for awhile. Indeed as co-author of Mosaic, the first widely used web browser, his career more or less spans the life of the web as we know it.

2/That can’t possibly work.
https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/447604381764960256

Today, Andreessen is a venture capitalist. He’s half of the name of Andreessen Horowitz, a firm whose holdings represent a range of successful tech start-ups. They put money into Skype, Facebook, Twitter, AirBnB, and Instagram. They also put money into Groupon and Zynga, but you can win ‘em all (actually, since both companies IPO’d, their stocks falling to 1/3 of peak valuation doesn’t really matter to Andreessen Horowitz — the exit is the win).

In short, Andreessen has seen some shit.

Embedded tweets take up too much space, so I’m gonna go ahead and paste in the rest of his list by hand.

3/Normal people will use it, but it’s trivial. 4/It will never replace [legacy]. 5/It will replace [legacy], which is why the world is going to hell. 6/Yes, fine, but just wait until [big company] does it. 7/Yes, fine, but just wait until [hypothetical better version that doesn’t actually exist] does it. 8/I can’t believe how much money those kids made from that. 9/It’s a clear and obvious bubble. 10/Whatever, innovation is dead.

That’s it. That’s the list.

Marc Andreessen thinks “Whatever, innovation is dead” is the most nuanced form of tech cynicism available.

You know, it happens. Andreessen is a busy man, what with all the innovation and disruption he’s got to fund and then exit from. When your days are that packed, it can be easy to lose sight of the bigger picture. If you have to spend all your time immersed in the promise of tech, your cynic muscles can atrophy and even the crudest cynicism might seem nuanced.

But we can do better. Here are a some additions.

11/ Normal people will use it, and then they’ll stop because it is a fad.

12/ It is as vulnerable to the logic of disruption as [legacy].

13/ It will prioritize speed of implementation over security, offering users’ personal data to hackers, advertisers, and spies on a silver platter.

14/ It will succeed long enough for a successful exit, then crash and burn, enriching VCs but doing little to improve the world as a whole.

15/ Although it preaches revolution, it will end up reproducing and empowering the structures of injustice that dominate today.

16/ It will intensify the growing concentration of wealth and power that appears to be endemic to economies which take advantage of network effects.

17/ Because it is being implemented in a country where food and healthcare are treated as luxuries rather than basic human rights, its success will multiply the misery in the world as it lays waste to [legacy].

18/ It is being created and sold to a tiny cadre of wealthy inter-connected players who are so convinced of their own intelligence that it doesn’t occur to them to ask around and find out the needs of other people.

19/ It will be powered by ads.

20/ It will do nothing to slow the headlong rush of global civilization into any number of catastrophes which would in turn render it irrelevant.

21/ It preys on and amplifies human weakness.

22/ It will have unintended consequences.

23/ It will do nothing to mitigate the chaos it leaves in its wake."

[Also

24/ It will re-enable scams that regulation had previously tamped down in [legacy].
https://twitter.com/doingitwrong/status/447812538638794752

25/ Its successful ubiquity will force users to contort their selves so they can slot into an ill-considered early design decision.
https://twitter.com/doingitwrong/status/447813472580300800 ]
timmaly  technology  marcandreessen  cynicism  technosolutionism  criticism  2014  internet  web  civilization  inequality  power  advertising  money  vc  venturecapital  legacy  unintendedconsequences  fads  wealth  economics  innovation  disruption 
march 2014 by robertogreco
The Agony of Perfectionism - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic
"The fortress of classic economics was built on the slushy marsh of rational consumer theory. The once-popular belief that we all possess every relevant piece of information to make choices about buying fridges, TVs, or whatever, has since given way to a less commendable, but more accurate, description of buyers, which is that we basically have no freaking clue what we're doing most of the time. Prices, marketing, discounts, even the layout of store and shelves: They're all hazards strewn about the obstacle course of decision-making, tripping us up, blocking our path, and nudging us toward choices that are anything but rational.

Today, rather than consider consumers to be a monolith of reason, some economists and psychologists prefer to think of us as falling into two mood groups: maximizers and satisficers. Maximizers are perfectionists. They want the best of everything, and they want to know they have the best of everything. Satisficers are realists. They want what's good enough, and they're happy to have it.

The trouble with perfectionists is that, by wanting the best, they aspire to be perfectly rational consumers in a world where we all agree that's impossible. It's a recipe for dissatisfaction, way too much work, and even depression.

In "Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice," published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, researchers found that maximizers are more likely to be have regret and depression and less likely to report being happy, optimistic, or have high self-esteem.

To be a maximizer requires an "impossible" and "exhaustive search of the possibilities," that invariably ends with regret when the person realizes, after the purchase, that there might have been a better choice. This regret actually "[reduces] the satisfaction derived from one’s choice." The paradox of caring too much about having the perfect version of everything is that you wind up feel dissatisfied with all of it.

A new paper published in the Journal of Consumer Research further illuminates the onerous woe of perfectionism. Maximizers apply for more jobs, attend more job interviews, spend more time worrying about their social status, and wind up less happy, less optimistic, "and more depressed and regretful" than everybody else.

In a battery of tests designed to prime subjects to act like maximizers and satisficers, the researchers validated just about every stereotype about perfectionists: They work harder, search more deeply, and perform better in their jobs, but the emotional byproducts of their accomplishments are regret and dissatisfaction. (You might say that hard-earned success in life is wasted on the people least likely to appreciate it.)

Both papers concluded that the Internet is a briar patch of misery for maximizers. Not only does it allow them to more easily compare their lot to the sepia-toned success stories of their peers on Facebook and Instagram, but also it makes comparison shopping hell. From the first paper's discussion section:
The proliferation of options [online] raises people’s standards for determining what counts as a success, [from] breakfast cereals to automobiles to colleges to careers. Second, failure to meet those standards in a domain containing multiple options encourages one to treat failures as the result of personal shortcomings rather than situational limitations, thus encouraging a causal attribution for failure that we might call “depressogenic.” [ed: had to look that one up.]

In short: The Internet doesn't have to make you miserable. But if you insist on comparing your choices and your life to every available alternative accessible through a Google search, it will.

For consumers, this means embracing the limitations of classical economics. We don't know everything. We don't have everything. And that's okay. Pretending otherwise is, in fact, anything but rational."

[See also: http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bschwar1/maximizing.pdf ]
choice  choices  paradoxofchoice  perfectionists  satisficers  economics  rationality  reason  2014  unhappiness  happiness  depression  jobhunting  perfectionism  optimism  regret  worry  anxiety  possibilities  satisfaction  caring  self-esteem  realism  derekthompson  advertising  internet  infooverload  information  comparison 
march 2014 by robertogreco
Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? - Edward Jay Epstein - (1982)
"The idea was to create prestigious "role models" for the poorer middle-class wage-earners. The advertising agency explained, in its 1948 strategy paper, "We spread the word of diamonds worn by stars of screen and stage, by wives and daughters of political leaders, by any woman who can make the grocer's wife and the mechanic's sweetheart say 'I wish I had what she has.'"

[...] sentiments were born out of necessity: older American women received a ring of miniature diamonds because of the needs of a South African corporation to accommodate the Soviet Union.

[!!!] The element of surprise, even if it is feigned, plays the same role of accommodating dissonance in accepting a diamond gift as it does in prime sexual seductions: it permits the woman to pretend that she has not actively participated in the decision. She thus retains both her innocence—and the diamond.

[...] as long as the general public never sees the price of diamonds fall, it will not become nervous and begin selling its diamonds. If this huge inventory should ever reach the market, even De Beers and all the Oppenheimer resources could not prevent the price of diamonds from plummeting [...]

[...] The "keystone," or markup, on a diamond and its setting may range from 100 to 200 percent, depending on the policy of the store; if it bought diamonds back from customers, it would have to buy them back at wholesale prices. Most jewelers would prefer not to make a customer an offer that might be deemed insulting and also might undercut the widely held notion that diamonds go up in value [...]

The firm perhaps most frequently recommended by New York jewelry shops is Empire Diamonds Corporation, which is situated on the sixty-sixth floor of the Empire State Building, in midtown Manhattan. Empire's reception room, which resembles a doctor's office, is usually crowded with elderly women who sit nervously in plastic chairs waiting for their names to be called. One by one, they are ushered into a small examining room"
finance  fashion  myth  hollywood  class  advertising  consumer  marriage  gender  WWII  africa  israel  diamonds  via:Taryn 
january 2014 by robertogreco
▶ Pro Infirmis «Because who is perfect?» - YouTube
"Disabled mannequins will be eliciting astonished looks from passers-by on Zurich's Bahnhofstrasse today. Between the perfect mannequins, there will be figures with scoliosis or brittle bone disease modelling the latest fashions. One will have shortened limbs; the other a malformed spine. The campaign has been devised for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities by Pro Infirmis, an organisation for the disabled. Entitled "Because who is perfect? Get closer.", it is designed to provoke reflection on the acceptance of people with disabilities. Director Alain Gsponer has captured the campaign as a short film."
disability  advertising  mannequins  2013  zurich  proinfirmis  bodies  humans  disabilities  body 
december 2013 by robertogreco
Report Paints Grim Picture of Arts, Culture Economy After Recession
"Pretty much every sector of the economy was battered during the great recession, but the artistic and creative community suffered more than most. And, at least as of two years ago, there was little sign of recovery.

That distressing news is contained in a report released this morning by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the National Endowment for the Arts. It finds that, for 2011, “the value added from arts and cultural production accounted for nearly 3.2 percent, or $504 billion,” of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a common gauge of economic activity.

That figure was in the 3.5 to 3.7 percent range in the first half of the 2000s. It dipped to 3.2 percent in 2009, and has been stuck there ever since.

That still represents a significant slice of the overall economy. In 2011, two million Americans were employed in the arts and culture category, including 310,000 in the motion-picture industry, and 100,000 each for museums and the performing arts.

But employment levels in this sector took a real dive in 2009—much greater than the economy as a whole—and had yet to fully recover as of 2011. Employment in cultural production (as broadly defined by the federal government) declined roughly one percent from 2010 to 2011—a much smaller figure than the previous few years, but still on the negative side of the ledger.

The total gross output of “arts and cultural goods and services” in 2011 was just under $916 billion. The advertising industry generated the biggest slice of that total: nearly $200 billion. Arts education, including fine arts schools and college and university fine arts and performing arts departments, placed second, at just under $104 billion.

Close behind were cable television production and distribution ($100 billion); motion pictures and video ($83 billion); independent artists and the performing arts ($49 billion); and book, newspaper, and magazine publishing ($41 billion).

In case you were wondering, the advertising-industry figure is limited to the creative side. To put it in Mad Men terms, Don Draper and Peggy Olson’s salaries are included; Pete Campbell’s is not.

So NEA senior deputy chairman Joan Shigekawa is correct to note that, beyond its "contributions of ideas and creativity to the nation's economy," the output of artists, writers, and other creative types is economically significant in itself. But its impact is significantly smaller than it was in 2000 or 2005. Even if there has been an upturn in the past two years, it will likely have a long way to go to reach its pre-recession levels."

[Also posted here: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/08/how_the_recession_killed_culture_partner/ ]
economics  culture  art  arts  advertising  nea  greatrecession  us  2013 
december 2013 by robertogreco
Cloudy With a Chance of Beer - Alexis C. Madrigal - The Atlantic
"The Weather Company’s Vikram Somaya talks about why marketers are clamoring for weather data."
vikramsomaya  alexismadrigal  local  hyperlocal  advertising  2013  weather  data 
november 2013 by robertogreco
Unmanned Systems DC Metro Ads - a set on Flickr
"The Unmanned Systems ads are located at the Capitol South metro stop in Washington D.C. The ads feature silhouettes of Northrop Grumman’s unmanned systems, including Global Hawk and Fire Scout. Inside each silhouette is an image, a visual example of the system’s capabilities accompanied by simple text describing capabilities and accomplishments."

[via: http://notes.husk.org/post/66701702029/global-hawk-advert ]
drones  droneproject  northropgrumman  advertising 
november 2013 by robertogreco
This Recycling Bin Is Stalking You - Siraj Datoo - The Atlantic Cities
"Recycling bins in London are monitoring the phones of passers-by, so advertisers can target messages at people whom the bins recognize.

Renew, the startup behind the scheme, installed 100 recycling bins with digital screens around London before the 2012 Olympics. Advertisers can buy space on the internet-connected bins, and the city gets 5 percent of the airtime to display public information. More recently, though, Renew outfitted a dozen of the bins with gadgets that track smartphones.
 
The idea is to bring internet tracking cookies to the real world. The bins record a unique identification number, known as a MAC address, for any nearby phones and other devices that have Wi-Fi turned on. That allows Renew to identify if the person walking by is the same one from yesterday, even her specific route down the street and how fast she is walking.

Here, an image from Renew’s marketing materials makes it plain:"

[Update 12 August 2013: "City of London halts recycling bins tracking phones of passers-by" http://qz.com/114174/city-of-london-halts-recycling-bins-tracking-phones-of-passers-by/ and "London's Shutting Down Those Creepy, Phone-Tracking "Smart" Trash Cans" http://gizmodo.com/londons-shutting-down-those-creepy-phone-tracking-sm-1107706580 ]
advertising  media  privacy  surveillance  tracking  2013  cookies  london  uk 
august 2013 by robertogreco
russell davies: 7 things I learned at wieden and kennedy (portland edition)
"As I venture further out into the world, away from the 10-year comfort zone (discomfort zone?) of w+k and Nike I realise that so many of my assumptions about the way that brands and communications and people work were formed there. And that many of these assumptions are horrifying and original to many of the people I bump into. So I thought I'd list some here. These are not anything that anyone tried to persuade me of, they're not 'the wieden way', they're conclusions I've drawn, assumptions I've made. So don't blame them if I'm an idiot. (If you want to explore some of what Dan actually thinks you could try this little speech w+k london found on a hard drive.)

1. Hire advertising people, you get advertising

As Dan will admit (claim?), when they started they found it very hard to hire conventional advertising talent. No-one would move to Portland. So they got people who'd failed elsewhere or kids straight out of school. These people didn't know how to make advertising. Or not in the way it was supposed to be made. They worked out for themselves how to communicate, seduce, persuade, engage, how to make a stunning piece of film or a compelling couple of pages but if often didn't look much like advertising. Even now, thousands of years later, when some of the habits have ossified and they really, clearly, do know how to make advertising there's an inclination to push it further, to not make advertising. I think this a lesson for everyone who wants to be the w+k of the future; hire just advertising people, you'll get just advertising.

2. The key to creative genius; work harder

I know it's boring but this became so incredibly clear to me. The most exciting, inspirational, talented thinkers and doers just work harder than everyone else. Often they also work more effectively, so it doesn't necessarily look like hard work, but basically they put in more hours, pay more attention and care more than the regular folk.

3. You can't divorce the medium from the message

W+K never gave up on its own media people. Media thinkers and media doers were always integral. And often the smartest people in the place. This led to innovative and informed thinking about not just what we'd say and how we'd say it, but also where we'd say it. So w+k didn't get stuck in that trap of shoveling creativity into a pre-bought schedule. We didn't fill 30 second boxes with stuff. You've got to have media people in the building, it makes life better.

4. Do good work, the money will follow

When I moved from Portland to London I was one of only two people in the London office who'd also worked in Portland. And I think the rest of London management couldn't quite believe Dan when he'd say this to them. They wanted to believe it, but they'd grown up in big London agencies where the bottom line is all. There's not a lot to say about this, it's just true.

5. Hold everyone to the same standard

I moved to Portland to work on Microsoft. It was clear in about 5 minutes that we were the pariah half of the agency. Everyone was either Nike or Microsoft. It was like high school. Jocks and geeks. They did fantastic work every 5 minutes, won all kinds of awards, got to meet celebrity athletes. We struggled to get any decent work through, won nothing, attended three day product briefings on Exchange Server.

And we all knew it would have been so easy to just roll over, give Microsoft exactly what they wanted (which was obvious and do-able) and rake in gobbets of cash. We could have funded a dozen pro-bono accounts which would have made us feel better and won us some awards and life would have been almost sweet. Except we weren't allowed. Peer and management pressure made it clear that everyone was held to the same standard, however hard our client and our task we were expected to do extraordinary and thrilling work. This seemed divisive and wrong at the time but looking back I realise it was genius. Because if you have multiple standards you have multiple agencies. If you treat some clients as creative opportunities and some as cash cows that's just what you'll get. And sooner or later the cash cows will leave the field. Everyone's seem what it's like to be the Account Director on the regional retail account that'll never do good work. It sucks. And it sucks even more when you have to sit and present your work to all the guys who work on the cool accounts. Kudos to Dan, he always expected us to make the work better. And, sometimes, before we got fired, we did some pretty decent work.

6. You can tell from the work if people enjoyed making it

This seems more true to me every time I walk in another agency. The places that are miserable make lack-lustre work (is it chicken or is it egg?). The places with energy make energetic, fulsome, toothsome work, bursting with ideas. If the process is depressing, the work will be flat, if the process has life, the work will connect.

7. Brands that influence culture sell more

This feeling was always in the air. People were trying to build popular culture not piggy-back on it, trying to create new culture, not just repeat old ones. About the worst thing you could say about an idea was that it had 'borrowed interest'. And it was palpably clear that this instinct led to more effective, more profitable brands. So I remember writing 'brands that influence culture sell more' in a creds deck and getting the highly prized Wieden nod of approval. That was a good moment. (Or at least I think I remember writing that, it seems to have turned up in other places too, so maybe I heard it somewhere first, perhaps through some sort of strange wormhole into the future.)"
advertising  business  culture  design  planning  russelldavies  2006  work  making  standards  creativity  brands  branding  influence 
july 2013 by robertogreco
Manipulation and Design | UX Magazine
"Most design is manipulative. Physical affordances manipulate people to hold or push or pull things. The urgency of alerts manipulates us to take action. Colors shift our mood or direct our attention. This is interaction design 101, applying basic principles of cognitive psychology to our work in order to leverage mapping, visibility, physical and logical constraints, labels, and feedback. Interaction design is largely about removing cognitive friction or producing a happy path—in order to manipulate someone into realizing a goal. That type of manipulation is typically called “helping,” and it is often, actually, helpful.

Pelle Ehn describes this as, ideally, an emancipatory practice—one that identifies with oppressed groups and supports their transcendence in action and reflection. It would be a stretch to describe online learners or startup founders as oppressed, yet the larger point is that of design as rooted in a historical context of empowerment.

Participatory design places a heavy check on manipulation by including the people who will use or live with the design in the process of its creation. An empathetic approach means feeling what someone else must feel, truly finding a way to live their pain or wants or needs or desires, and many designers embrace this approach. Design frequently serves people who otherwise cannot serve themselves. But if that’s true, then there exists a dynamic of disproportionate power influence. Design is biased and cannot be apolitical.

I fear there are practitioners who are competent or even extraordinary craftsman, but have learned no real ethic, no guiding set of axioms in which to ground their work. I don’t mean that designers are lacking morals, or are even bad people. I mean that many practitioners seem to have no consistent set of values that they automatically fall to when doing their jobs."
design  jonkolko  ux  manipulation  viktopapanek  advertising  behavior  feedback  2013  ethics  designethics  misdirection  values 
july 2013 by robertogreco
The tyranny of digital advertising — I.M.H.O. — Medium
"Let's be clear: big businesses have grown up around the availability and theory of mass media and buying attention. Any big client older than15 years old will have grown up with the reassuring ability of tv and print advertising to reach mass audiences. Those were methods of advertising predicated on guaranteed access to peoples’ attention through interruptions in mass media.

And thus the marketing and business plans and briefs for those companies assume that you market your product or service by delivering a message to a stupendously large number of people in a short amount of time.

The Product is the Service is the Marketing

At roughly the same time as my two year anniversary in advertising land, Russell Davies recently wrote up a storm explaining what the UK’s Government Digital Service does and what GOV.UK is for.

Simply, their job is to save money by making the digital provision of government services so good that the public prefers to use them.

One of the points that Russell makes in his post is that, in their case, the product is the service is the marketing: the product (a government service) is the service (the delivery and usage of that service) is the marketing (the clear communication to the target audience of the benefits of that service). The tying together of those three different items - product, service, marketing, and how GDS have achieved that aim, has implications as to why good integrated (and so digital) advertising is so difficult to achieve."



"Anything but display advertising
But then there's the whole other, other side to interactive advertising that isn't confined to formats defined by media agencies and associations. And I might be biased, but they seem way more interesting than display advertising.

Here's some examples:"



"There is a shift at the heart of this. There are new brands out there - Kickstarter, Etsy and Amazon come to mind - that got big and profitable without conventional advertising. They’re also brands built in a world reliant upon the network. They do not need advertising, at least, they don’t need advertising the way your mother’s fast moving consumer goods company needed it. Their products are services, and the way their services behave are their own marketing. Google’s own Dear Sophie and Parisian Love adverts are critically acclaimed examples of advertising letting products and services speak for themselves.

So what does an advertising agency do for them?"
danhon  advertising  digital  2013  experience  russelldavies  marketing  service  product  gov.uk  kickstarter  etsy  amazon  nike  nikefuelband  fuelband  ilovebees  jay-zdecoded  arg  oldspice  attention  chrysler  television  tv  wieden+kennedy 
july 2013 by robertogreco
potlatch: Santander 2013
"It is one of the most unsettling pieces of film that I've ever seen, reducing advertising to a set of blank and bland facts, to be recited out of the mouths of an apparently arbitrary collection of sports stars. What are the celebrities doing in other people's houses? Have they broken in illegally? Or are we to suppose that they are ghostly apparitions? The atmosphere of the ad is one of oppressive silence, like that of a family that has lost a member but refused to ever discuss it. It's difficult to know what is stranger: the fact that Jenson Button is standing behind someone's fridge door, dressed in his racing gear, or the fact that he is sharing tips on gas bills, or the strange resignation to all of this on the part of the man using the fridge. Jessica Ennis is represented as a sort of track-suit-clad bag lady, who bothers people in the street with unwanted - and almost certainly false - information. The ordinary people, trying to go about their days in peace and privacy, exude a sad resignation that capitalism now drops (real? hallucinatory?) celebrities into their bathrooms and kitchens, to talk at them uninvited. If they could speak, what would they say? Their faces project fear and anxiety, as if they are now are trapped. Mostly they just want to be left the hell alone, to live, walk and paint; but this is the wish that sport, finance and above all advertising clearly will not grant. Is this a warning of some kind?"
advertising  capitalism  celebrities  privacy  2013  resignation  anxiety  fear  sponsorship  endorsement 
march 2013 by robertogreco
Podcast « You Are Not So Smart
"Episode Five | Selling Out | Andrew Potter
Episode Four | The Self | Bruce Hood
Episode Three | Confabulation | V.S. Ramachandran
Episode Two | Illusion of Knowledge | Christopher Chabris
Episode One | Attention | Daniel Simons"
keepingupwiththejoneses  freerange  local  natural  organic  andrewpotter  poiticsofcool  oneupmanship  statusseeking  nonconformism  hipsters  hipsterism  conspicuousconsumption  status  kurtcobain  art  advertising  consumption  christopherchabris  guiltypleasures  danielsimons  vsramachandran  society  modernity  brucehood  confabulation  knowledge  attention  authenticity  authentic  culture  counterculture  2012  via:zakgreene  sellingout  psychology  from delicious
january 2013 by robertogreco
Why Vimeo Is the Web Video Platform to Watch (in Full-Screen HD!) - Kasia Cieplak-Mayr von Baldegg - The Atlantic
" Even as the web video space gets more crowded, Vimeo continues to be the destination for content creators and viewers looking for cutting-edge videos, beautiful playback, and a remarkably positive community. A world away from cat virals, Vimeo is winning by nurturing the next generation of filmmakers (well, videomakers) and promoting their most innovative work. Their festival last week provided a fascinating look at how they're doing it."
curation  community  advertising  creativity  faketv  kasiacieplak-mayrvonbaldegg  2012  vimeo  youtube  video  from delicious
january 2013 by robertogreco
Golan_Levin_ETA_2012
"Hello, I’m Golan Levin. Today I’d like to talk about getting better results from your informatics researchdivision. You know: -- all those people that you employ in your R&D; department? The ones working on the development of new algorithms for computer vision, computational design, cultural informatics. And new artistic applications of these technologies. To judge from your some of your recentadvertising campaigns, you must’ve hired a bunch of PhD’s, huh?

YOU ARE TROLLINGPSFKWMMNACREATIVEAPPLICATIONSAND WE BOTH KNOW IT
NO YOU DIDN’T.

For those of you who saw Evan Roth’s talk at E.T.A. last year [2011] -- my talk today issimilar. And the reason for this, is that certain problems have not only persisted, but, inways, gotten worse.

NEW-MEDIA ARTISTSARE THE UNPAIDR&D; DEPARTMENTOF AD AGENCIES

… AND THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE

IN THE FUTUREYOUR AGENCIES WILL FAILUNLESS YOU FIND WAYSTO PARTNER WITHARTISTS…"
dishonesty  inequity  adagencies  partnerships  evanroth  culturalinformatics  informatics  r&d;  credit  thievery  ads  2012  golanlevin  attribution  newmediaart  newmedia  opensource  advertising  from delicious
october 2012 by robertogreco
ChristianLindholm.com: Dinner of a lifetime
"We also touched on the future of advertising and graphic design. They seemed to all note that advertising needs to be close to the product and that advertising should be a bridge from the product to the consumer. With Internet this bridge is shorter or even non existent. They clearly acknowledged that that will change everything, but a challenge for the next generation to grapple with.

Lessons learned:

1. Once you discover a life-work passion pursue it relentlessly.
2. Raw talent can be compensated by hard work and persistence.
3. Get yourself into places where you can learn."
howwelearn  learningplaces  placesoflearning  openstudioproject  lcproject  surroundyourselfwithgoodpeople  workethic  hardwork  talent  persistence  passion  2012  christianlindholm  via:preoccupations  education  advertising  learning 
september 2012 by robertogreco
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

related tags

3d  1960s  1970s  1990s  2001aspaceodyssey  abstraction  abundance  acceleratedmobilepages  acceptance  accessibility  action  activism  ad  adagencies  adamcurtis  adamgreenfield  adaptability  adaptation  adblocking  adbusters  addedvalue  addons  adjustment  administration  adolescence  adoption  ads  adsense  adtracking  advergames  advertising  advice  aesthetics  affordability  afrasiab  africa  agencies  agency  aggregation  agriculture  ai  aircraft  airlines  airplanes  alexismadrigal  alexleavitt  alexpayne  alfredhitchcock  algorithms  aliciagarza  alisharamos  alissaquart  allanchochinov  allisonarling-giorgi  alted  alternative  altgdp  amazon  amazonwebservices  ambientintimacy  america  amnestyinternational  amp  amtrak  analysis  analytics  anarchism  anarcho-monarchism  anarchy  andrewblum  andrewpotter  android  andréstaltz  andywarhol  anildash  animals  animation  annotation  anti-advertising  anticommons  antoinefuqua  anxiety  aol  api  app.net  apple  applenews  applewatch  applications  apps  ar  ara  arabspring  architecture  archives  are.na  arg  argentina  art  artificialintelligence  artists  artlabor  artleisure  artmarket  arts  ashleynelson-hornstein  aspirationalselves  astrataylor  astronomy  astrophysics  attention  attentioneconomy  attribution  auden  audio  audreywatters  augmentedreality  australia  authentic  authenticity  authority  automation  avatars  awareness  aworldwithouttext  babies  backend  banking  banksy  barackobama  baratundethurston  barrylopez  baseball  basketball  bbs  beacon  beauty  behavior  belief  beliefs  bellhooks  belllabs  bencerveny  benetton  benkunkel  benshahn  berg  berglondon  between  betweenness  bias  biases  bigbrother  bigdata  bigidea  bikeoptions  bikes  biking  billboards  billbuxton  billfitzgerald  biology  bladerunner  blogging  blogosphere  blogs  bodies  body  boingboing  bookfuturism  books  borders  boredom  borges  boundary-crossing  boys  brain  brainstorming  branch  brand  branding  brands  brasil  brazil  brendandawes  brentsimmons  brettgaylor  brevity  brianarthur  broadacre  broadband  browser  browsers  browsing  brucehood  brucesterling  bubbles  buckminsterfuller  buenosaires  bullshit  bullying  bumblebeefoods  burgerking  business  businessmodel  businessmodels  busyness  buzzfeed  buzzwords  byzantium  caetanoveloso  calendars  california  calnewport  cambridgeanalytica  cameras  campaign  canon  capitalism  carbonoffsets  care  careers  caring  cars  cartoons  casestudy  caseygollan  catholicism  cbc  cc  celebration  celebrities  celebrity  censorship  centralization  cephalopods  ceramics  change  changeagents  changemaking  changetheory  channels  chaos  charities  charity  charlesbroskoski  charleseames  charlieloyd  chat  chemistry  chicago  childhood  children  choice  choices  chrismullen  christianlindholm  christianmarclay  christinaxu  christopheralexander  christopherchabris  chrome  chrysler  circulation  cities  citroën  city  civics  civility  civilization  claendars  claireevans  clarestrand  class  classideas  clayshirky  clever  climate  climatechange  clivethompson  clothing  cloud  cloudcomputing  clubpenguin  clutter  cms  cnn  coca-cola  cocacola  coding  cognition  coke  coldwar  collaboration  collaborative  collapse  collecting  collective  collectivism  collectivity  colleges  colonialism  colonialmind  comfortzone  comics  commentary  commenting  comments  commerce  commercialism  commodification  commons  communication  communism  communities  community  comparison  competition  competitiveness  complexity  compuserve  computation  computers  computervision  computing  concepts  confabulation  conflict  connectivity  consent  consequences  conservation  conservatism  conspicuousconsumption  constraints  consumer  consumerculture  consumerism  consumers  consumption  content  contentcreation  contentwars  context  contingency  control  conventions  convergence  conversation  conviviality  cookies  cooking  cool  coppa  copy  copypaste  copyright  copywriting  core77  coritakent  corneliusvanderbilt  corporations  corporatism  corporatization  corproratism  corruption  corydoctoow  costs  counterculture  counterdeclarations  courage  coyote  craft  craignewmark  craigslist  crapdetection  creation  creative  creativecommons  creativetechnologists  creativetechnology  creativity  credit  criminaljustice  crisis  criticalthinking  criticism  critics  critique  crossdisciplinary  crossmedia  crosspollination  crowds  crowdsourcing  culturalinformatics  culture  culturecreation  cultureoffear  curation  curiosity  currency  curriculum  customization  cv  cyberbullying  cynicism  cyrilkornbluth  danahboyd  danhon  danieljoseph  danielsimons  dansaffer  danwieden  daringfireball  darkages  darrenpasemko  data  databubble  dataexhaust  datamining  dataportability  davidburrgerrard  davidbyrne  davidcameron  davidchoe  davidflincher  davidfosterwallace  davidgraeber  davidkennedy  davidlee  davidrose  davidsimon  davis  deadmediabeat  debt  deception  decisionmaking  decisions  declarations  decline  decontextualization  definitions  del.icio.us  delivery  democracy  democrats  demographics  depression  derekpowazek  derekthompson  deschooling  design  designethics  designfiction  designthinking  desktop  details  development  devices  dharma  dialog  dialogue  diamonds  dickbriel  diet  digital  digitalmedia  digitalminimalism  digitalnatives  digitalpollution  digitalstorytelling  disabilities  disability  discipline  discovery  discussion  dishonesty  disinformation  displays  disruption  disruptive  distance  distraction  distributed  diversion  diversity  division  diy  dmytrikleiner  docility  docker  docsearls  documentary  doing  donaldtrump  donellameadows  dopplr  douglasrushkoff  dove  downsyndrome  drawing  dreams  dresses  droneproject  drones  droste  drugs  ds  duplicity  dystopia  e-learning  ea  eames  eamesoffice  ebooks  echochambers  ecology  economics  edg  edges  edtech  education  edwardsnowden  edwinland  effects  efficiency  egalitarianism  ego  eleanorsaitta  elections  electricobjects  electronics  elements  elipariser  ello  elspethreeve  email  emmagoldman  emotions  empathy  empowerment  enchantment  endorsement  energy  engagement  engineering  english  entertainment  enthusiasm  entrepreneurship  entropy  environment  environmentalism  eo1  ephemeral  ephemerality  eris  españa  espn  estherdyson  ethanzuckerman  ethics  ethnography  etiquette  etsy  europe  evanroth  evanselinger  events  everyday  evil  evolution  ewanmcintosh  exchange  exclusivity  exhibits  expectations  experience  experiencedesign  experimentation  exploitation  exploitationware  exposely  exposure  extensions  extrinsicmotivation  fabrica  facebook  facebookinstant  facebookinstantarticles  facebooks  faceookinstantarticles  faces  facts  fads  failure  faith  fakenews  faketv  fallacies  fandom  fantasy  farming  fascism  fashion  fear  fearmongering  feedback  feedom  feelings  femininity  ferpa  fiction  fieldtrips  filetype:mov  filetype:pdf  film  filmmaking  filterbubble  finance  finland  firefox  flash  flatness  flickr  flipboard  floatymedia  flocking  floodwatch  flow  focus  fonts  food  football  forgetting  foursquare  fragmentation  francescafiorentini  frankchimero  frankschirrmacher  frederikpohl  fredscharmen  free  freebasics  freedom  freelanceteaching  freelancing  freemarkets  freerange  freshness  fuelband  fulfillment  fun  funding  fusion  future  futurism  gabezicherman  gadgets  galleries  gallery  game  gamechanging  gamechaning  gamedesign  games  gamification  gaming  gdp  ge  gender  generalelectric  generalists  generalmills  generationlike  generations  generator  genius  geolocation  geopffmanaugh  georgepacker  geotagging  german  germany  giphy  girls  github  glass  global  globalization  globalwarming  glossary  glowingrectangles  glvo  gm  golanlevin  google  google+  googleamp  googleapps  googleclassroom  googlecreativelab  goolgle  gov.uk  government  gps  gpsart  graffiti  grain  grammars  grammercypark  grantmccracken  graphic  graphicdesign  graphics  greatrecession  green  greenwashing  groups  groupsize  grouptexts  growth  guiltypleasures  guitarhero  guydebord  habbo  habbohotel  hacking  haida  half-truths  hamesburnham  handhelds  hannaharendt  happiness  hardwork  harloholmes  health  helmets  helmutnewton  helsinki  henrydreyfuss  henryjenkins  herd  hierarchy  highschool  hildegardofbingen  hillaryclinton  hippies  hipsterism  hipsters  history  hollywood  homeschool  honesty  hope  hopefulness  hosting  housing  howethink  howto  howwelearn  howweteach  howwework  howwewrite  html  html5  huffingtonpost  hughmacleod  human  humanities  humanitiy  humanity  humans  humor  hungergames  hyperlocal  hypertext  ianbanks  ianbogost  iceland  iconography  icons  ideas  ideation  identity  ideology  ignorance  illusions  illustration  ilovebees  im  imagerecognition  imagery  images  imagination  immaculateheartcollege  immersive  impulse  imtiredofthistoo  individualism  industry  inequality  inequity  inexpensive  infinitejest  infinity  inflatable  inflatables  influence  infographics  infooverload  informatics  information  infowarfare  infrastructure  innovation  inspiration  instagram  installation  instapaper  institutions  intellectualproperty  intelligence  interaction  interactiondesign  interactive  interactivefilm  interactivity  interdependence  interdisciplinary  interface  interiors  international  internet  internet.org  internetbubbles  internetofthings  intervention  interviews  intrinsicmotivation  intriquing  invisibility  involvement  ios  iot  ip  iphone  iphoto  ipod  irrationalexuberance  irregularity  isaacmizrahi  israel  it  italy  itunes  ixd  jackiebatey  jackwelch  jaiku  jaimecasap  jamescscott  jamesdarling  janchipchase  janecouldrey  janejacobs  janemcgonigal  japan  jaronlanier  javascript  jay-zdecoded  jaynewilson  jeffreyzeldman  jelanicobb  jellyhelm  jenlowe  jennyodell  jeremykeith  jessemyerson  jesus  jiatolentino  jilee  joannemcneil  joaquinalmunia  jobhunting  jobs  johncage  johngruber  johnherrman  johnjay  johnperrybarlow  johnthackara  jonahlehrer  jonassalk  jonathandayton  jonkolko  journalism  joy  juanfreire  judsontrue  juliaangwin  julianbleecker  julieault  juliocortázar  junkspace  jyriengestrom  karlmarx  kasiacieplak-mayrvonbaldegg  katecrawford  keepingupwiththejoneses  kenmcleod  kevinkelly  kickstarter  kids  kierkegaard  kiev  kindle  kitchens  klout  kneehighmedia  knowing  knowledge  kodak  kogi  korea  kottke  kurtcobain  kurtwagner  kyte  labor  labrynth  lakmé  language  laptops  larrylessig  latecapitalism  latinamerica  law  lawenforcement  lcproject  leadership  learning  learningbyheart  learningplaces  lecorbusier  leftbrain  legacy  legal  lego  leisure  leisurearts  leonardodavinci  leveragepoints  liberalarts  liberalism  liberation  libertarianism  libraries  licensing  life  lifelonglearning  lifespan  light  lightbrain  likeagirl  likes  liking  lilianschwartz  liminality  liminalspaces  linux  listening  literacy  literature  live  living  local  localcurrencies  localcurrency  location  location-based  locative  logic  logos  loki  london  longevity  longnow  longtail  longterm  looking  losalamos  losangeles  lost  louisck  love  ludicsublime  ludocapitalists  ludotopians  luxury  mac  machinelearning  maciejceglowski  maciejcegłowski  macroscopes  madrid  magazines  magic  mail  mailchimp  maintenance  make  making  malcolmgladwell  management  mandybrown  manipulation  mannequins  manufacturingconsent  mapping  maps  marcandreessen  marcgoodman  marcusaurelius  margins  markandrejevic  markearls  marketing  markets  markjacobson  markzuckerberg  marriage  marshallbrain  martinbeck  marvel  marvelcomics  marxism  masculinity  mashups  masses  massmedia  materialism  math  mathematics  mattjones  mattrolandson  mattsiber  mattwebb  maya  mazda  mcdonalds  meaning  meaningmakers  meaningmaking  meansofexchange  measurement  media  media:document  media:video  mediaaccess  medialiteracy  mediarevolutions  mediart  medieval  medium  meetings  mehmedii  melancholy  melbourne  memetics  memory  mercecunningham  merchantsofcool  meritocracy  message  messaging  metadata  metamorphosis  metastories  methodology  metro  michaelpollan  michaelsweeney  michaelwesch  michelgondry  microcelebrities  microformats  microinteractions  microsoft  middleages  middlemanagement  middlemen  miesvanderrohe  millennials  millermcclintock  millsbaker  mind  mindcandy  minecraft  misconceptions  misdirection  misfits  misinformation  mission  mistakes  mixedreality  miyatokumitsu  MMO  mobielinternet  mobile  mobility  moblie  modeling  moderation  modernart  modernism  modernity  momus  monarchis  monarchism  monetization  money  moralpanics  motion  motivation  movies  mozilla  msnbc  mtv  multimedia  multiplicity  music  musicvideos  myspace  myth  mythbusting  myths  nanotechnology  narrative  narrativesequences  nathanfreitas  nationalgeographic  natural  nature  nbcnews  nea  neo-nomads  neoliberalism  nestle  netart  netneutrality  networkculture  networkedlearning  networking  networks  neuroscience  neurosis  neveralone  newmedia  newmediaart  news  newsfeed  newspapers  newyork  nextdoor  nexusone  nfb  nfbc  ngo  nicolefenton  nike  nike+  nikefuelband  nintendo  nintendods  nissin  noamchomsky  nokia  nomads  nomanbelgeddes  non-space  nonconformism  nonprofit  nonprofits  normanfoster  northropgrumman  norway  notebooks  noticing  notknowing  novels  nutrition  nyc  nytimes  obedience  objects  obligation  occupywallstreet  octopus  office  offices  offline  oldspice  oligarchy  oligopoly  oliverluckett  olivetti  olpc  olympics  onavo  oneupmanship  online  onlineads  onlinemedia  onlinesafety  open-ended  opendata  openended  openminded  openness  opensocial  opensource  openstudioproject  openweb  opinion  oppression  optimism  oregon  organic  organizations  osgemeos  osmutantes  osx  ownership  ows  p2p  packaging  packardjennings  pagebloat  pageviews  pagination  palm  panic  paolopedercini  paper  paradoxofchoice  parenting  paris  parisaccord  parkour  parks  participation  participatory  participatoryculture  partnerships  passion  patents  patterns  patternsensing  paularden  paulford  paulofreire  pay  payment  paypal  paywall  pdf  pedagogy