Author Archive

  • 28 Sep

    Posted by


    Category

    Back from the dead

    0


    It is hard to imagine that after all these years, the debate on which social network is king is still going on.

    Of course, until earlier this year when they released their IPO, Facebook was the de facto social media du jour. Twitter was a close second naturally but the truth is that it doesn’t have the user base that Facebook has. Google tried to make an entry as well, but really, who is still using Google Plus consistently?

    Still, if there’s one thing that active social media users know is that anything can happen. Look at MySpace and Friendster and how as former kings of social media they have both fallen from grace. I can hear you laughing at the mere mention of those two sites.


    But don’t dismiss them so quickly yet – at least not MySpace. It would appear that those behind it, including one very famous Justin Timberlake, isn’t quite so ready to let it go. And earlier this week, the social network site emerged with yet another rebanding exercise. This time, some people are actually getting excited.

    There are the usual cynics among the critics, but there are also many people around the world now saying they regret ever deleting their accounts. Personally, I’m not too sure of its future (I still have my account) but I will say it looks pretty slick.

    It’s not completely original, however. If you log on to the site, you’ll be welcomed by lots of nice big pictures reminiscent of, you guessed it, Facebook’s cover photo feature, which they introduced not too long ago. It would appear that this is the way to go – at least for now – for most social networks as even Twitter recently launched its new profile page a couple of weeks back which allows you to … yup, post up a huge picture to your page.

    If you’re keeping up with your social networks, however, you will also notice that many of these picture-based revamps came by after Pinterest took the Internet by storm. The storm has calmed a little but there is still great interest. I’ve never been one to believe in a dominant social network to rule them all. While I’m on pretty active on Facebook, my preference is Twitter for its speed and simplicity.

    And if you take the business elements out of it (Facebook’s stock price has not been doing really well anyway) and just focus on user experience, then I’d say that any social network site that is keeping it fresh and relevant has a fighting chance.

    That’s what the new MySpace seems to have going for it with this fourth major revamp. It’s sticking to what it knows best – music, something that grew organically when it first started up. It still has many of its deals with record labels and the truth is they’ve already been pigeonholed as a music network anyway. Having a name like Mr JT doesn’t hurt either (I’m sure you’ve already heard the puns about how he’s made MySpace Sexy/Back).

    But looks and sexiness doesn’t make or break a social network, it’s what users can do with it and whether they want to use it that matters. After all, it can be argued that Facebook isn’t the most visually appealing site out there. If anything, its attempt to be everything for everyone gives it an extremely cluttered look. Google Plus has sleekness going for it but it never really kicked off.

    All this brings us back to the question – who will be the eventual king of social networking? I don’t think there is an answer to this because as we have seen from past experience, these networks come, reign, get dethroned and re-emerge again.

    I’m more excited by the fact that people like those behind the revamp are actually still in it (for the money – eventually). Far from thinking that one or two networks need to reign supreme, I’d rather have these sites co-exist and give each other some competition – friendly or otherwise.

    This is because we have come to see how easily it is to get sucked into one ecosystem and never being able to leave. We often complain about Facebook and Twitter’s decisions and changes yet we can’t quit because we don’t quite have many alternatives.

    I hope that MySpace and other new attempts like App.net does well because it will keep their competitors and themselves on their feet. Only then will the power really return to the users. After all, the Internet is one of the most democratic tools of this generation and it’s about time we got more control of our (virtual) lives.

    Niki has just completed his MA Digital Culture and Society at King’s College London. Connect with him online at www.nikicheong.com and on Twitter via @nikicheong.

  • 25 May

    Posted by


    Category

    Web of confusion

    0

    By NIKI CHEONG
    alltherage@thestar.com.my

    I AM probably the last person to be asking this question, but do we really have time for another social network? I am referring to Microsoft’s new “social network” called So.cl (pronounced “social”), which was rolled out earlier this week as an “experiment”.

    The initial reports on So.cl state that Microsoft is staying clear of any connections to known popular social network structures like Facebook. While it does require you to sign up for a profile and connect with people (using the same following/followers formula), Microsoft is selling it more as a search tool targeted, for now, at students.

    Once you sign up for it and figure your way out through the clutter (it is a bit confusing at first), you’ll see why this is different from social networking as we currently know it.

    But this article isn’t just about So.cl. I have long contended that the market is big enough for many social networks to exist concurrently. When I give my talks on social media, a recurring suggestion is for people to spend time trying out various social networks and see which ones work for them best.

    There are many social networks that may not have the large numbers of Twitter or Facebook, but are thriving – especially those that exist in different cultural contexts.

    Yet, I wonder if social networking has come to a point of saturation where users like you and I are starting to realise that we do know what to do with all its different forms. Social networking has moved away from its timesink status.

    The many milestones that social networking has achieved over the past few years – through its use for education, activism, information dissemination and more – have shown that a lot of good and practical results can come from spending time on it.

    So.cl

    While we used to have virtual pillow and food fights in the early days of Facebook, today, we are changing the world. I don’t mean to exaggerate; my point is that users these days appear to have taken a social deterministic approach to these networks and have learnt how to make the technology work for them.

    This, of course, has led to the emergence of companies creating networks that serve as a “layer” above all the other popular social networks. That is how Microsoft is positioning So.cl – not as a competitor to Facebook, but as a layer above it.

    Social photography apps like Instragram, timeline networks like Path and bookmarking sites like Pinterest essentially do the same thing – you function within each respective app (after all, social network sites remain in the numbers game for business purposes) but have the ability to share its content on your existing networks.

    I would argue that this is a good thing because it allows users to find products which are most relevant to their interest and what they do, as opposed to a catch all site.

    The problem, however, is how one manages all these. Because it is a business and most sites operate in isolation, I find that I have digital footprints all over the interwebs, many of which I am unable to maintain and control.

    I just think of social networks that I have created but neglected over the past few years – Friendster (although I managed to download my profile), MySpace, Plurk and even Instagram, to name a few. While with some I have the option of deleting my profile, to do so would mean that a big chunk of my “social” prints from the old days will be missing. So I leave them there.

    Then, there is also the problem with duplication. When I use sites like So.cl, Path or Pinterest, for example, I often share the content with my two basic networks – Facebook and Twitter. However, this also means that discussions and conversations regarding the same content could happen in various sites within the social networking ecosystem.

    My concern is that if we see more of these “layer” networks emerging, this could be a major issue. How long before we forget, get overwhelmed and lose control?

    Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution. The most ideal possibility is the emergence of an open and neutral web, where users don’t find themselves walled up behind networks like Facebook or Google+, for example, although it is unlikely that will ever happen.

    What users can do now is to be more discerning when engaging in social networks by taking time out to figure out which networks work best for them, and how they plan to manage it all, rather than engaging them all for the sake of popularity.

    It’s tough and possibly a lot of work – after all, social networking truly affords narcissicm – but considering the direction the technologies seem to be heading in, it might be the wisest route to take.

    * Niki is an MA Digital Culture and Society student at King’s College London. Connect with him online at www.nikicheong.com and www.twitter.com/nikicheong.

  • 22 Mar

    Posted by


    Category

    Be mindful

    0

    Does art imitate life, or is it the other way round? In the Harry Potter movies, Jamie Waylett often found himself in hot water as Vincent Crabbe, one of Draco Malfoy’s sidekicks.

    In real life, he’s just found himself in trouble as well after he was found guilty of “violent disorder” earlier this week for his participation in the 2011 London riots.

    I don’t want to guess why he got involved in the riots, but I think it’s safe to assume that he didn’t think about the consequences of his actions.

    Unfortunately, Jamie would not be the first – and surely not the last either – person to act without thinking. This pretty much brings to light the old adage of thinking before one speaks; these days, we also need to think before we tweet.

    Think before you tweet

    In today’s networked environment we exist in, we need to start putting a little bit of thought before we send out a tweet or update our status online.

    Many people have been preaching this for years, right from the start of the social network phenomenon. Yet, we are still seeing so many people getting into trouble for the messages they post online.

    There are many reasons why this happens. One of the most significant reasons is that we often forget that social networking sites are text-based, and as such, it is hard to attach emotion to our posts (and using emoticons don’t really work!).

    Jokes don’t always translate well in text format, and neither does sarcasm. In 2010, British accountant Paul Chambers sent a tweet, which read: “C***! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your s*** together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high”.

    Paul Chambers

    He claimed to have sent that tweet as a joke to a friend he was due to fly out to meet, and was worried that heavy snow fall might affect his trip. The courts, which convicted him for being a “menace”, obviously didn’t find it very funny (Chambers filed to appeal the conviction in February).

    Jokes aside, things also have a tendency to get lost in translation, especially within different cultural contexts. In January, two British (would-be) tourists were denied entry into the United States because of a tweet sent by one of them that read: “… free to meet this week for a quick gossip/prop before I go destroy America? x”.

    Those of us familiar with popular culture terms might understand that “destroy” is slang for “partying like crazy” (ie getting drunk). A US Department of Homeland Security officer instead (reportedly) thought that Leigh Van Bryan was messed up for sending that tweet.

    Fahmi Fadzil

    There is also reason to be careful because of defamation laws. Last year, Malaysian theatre practitioner Fahmi Fadzil had to send out 100 apology tweets over three days as part of a defamation settlement.

    Then there is just plain silliness. On Monday, British student Liam Stacey was in court to face criminal charges for racist remarks on Twitter.

    He allegedly made those remarks after people took offence to his original tweet, mocking English football player Fabrice Muamba (born in Democratic Republic of Congo) who collapsed on the pitch due to cardiac arrest recently.

    Closer to home, a youth was detained and questioned by police recently for allegedly sending a threatening tweet related to a minister.

    If anything, these examples should make us all think twice before posting anything online. I am not suggesting that we take the fun away from these social networks, but it is important that we realise how easy it is to make mistakes especially when using tools that prides itself in being fast and instantaneous.

    Not many people often stop to think about the implications of their online actions. To be a digital citizen is no different from being a citizen of any country – we are still subjected to laws, morals and propriety.

    One of the things that advocates of digital culture often speak of is how democratic the Internet is. But a democracy does not simply exist; it is the active participation of its citizens that shapes it.

    If we want the right to speak out, we also need to respect the rights of other citizens as well – and yes, even the ones who misunderstand us.

    Niki is a MA Digital Culture and Society student at King’s College London. Connect with him online at www.nikicheong.com and www.twitter.com/nikicheong.

  • 07 Feb

    Posted by


    Category

    I speak code

    0

    By NIKI CHEONG

    alltherage@thestar.com.my

    In the mid-1990s, I created my first website. It was only a single page, though. Through some very easy online tutorials, I managed to teach myself basic Hypertext Markup Language or HTML, and could add text – in different sizes and colours – to the page.

    Those old enough to remember the early days of the World Wide Web will also remember such free hosting sites as Geocities and Tripod. These sites made it easy for people to create websites, though you had the choice of including HTML codes to personalise your pages.

    I had so much fun learning something new and that I could experiment with, I probably went overboard with my modifications.

    Still, I managed to get skillful enough to “teach” fellow netizens who wanted to learn basic HTML through the various online communities on those sites.

    What I didn’t realise at the time was that I essentially learned a new language – even though it wasn’t as conventional as say, learning French, Mandarin or even Sign.

    Of course, technology has advanced so much since then that you arguably do not need to know HTML (we’re in version 5 of the language now, compared to v.1 when I first learned it).

    Blogging sites such as Blogger and WordPress have made website creations as simple as typing some text in and clicking a few buttons. And if you wanted something more elaborate, you could use a software like Dreamweaver, which doesn’t require you to code either.

    The advantage I had, as someone who was familiar with the basic language of the web, was that I could probably modify my Blogger and WordPress sites a bit better than the average layman. Still, languages evolve and digital languages are no different.

    Besides newer versions, there are also other “languages” that can make things more sophisticated including CSS (cascading style sheets) and Javascript.

    Last year, I had the opportunity to learn these new languages (and refresh my basic HTML knowledge) when I opted to study Web Technologies as a module
    for my Master’s course. Since then, I have managed to maintain my blog and website better.

    This year, I am auditing a class which teaches a different language – Python.
    One of the reasons for this is not only to extend my understanding of computer coding (although these are probably entry level).

    The other is that I made a New Year’s resolution similar to that of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s – to spend the year learning to code.

    Bloomberg, myself and almost 400,000 other people around the world have taken the pledge as part of the “Code Year” campaign, organised by CodeAcademy (www.codeacademy.com).

    The company sends an e-mail each Monday (we’re in week five at the moment so there’s still time to catch up if you wish) that contains some basic lessons and exercises on coding.

    I would encourage you to do the same. Just in the few lessons I’ve had over the past few months, I now have a better understanding of why things work the way they do on the Internet and on my smartphones (apps need to be coded too).

    Other than just having additional knowledge, it also allows us to manipulate such sites to function better and more relevant to our use.

    It is also always useful to learn a new language, and considering how much technology looks set to be part of our lives in the future (if it hasn’t already), it would make sense that we equip ourselves with as much knowledge about these systems as possible.

    In Britain, the education secretary Michael Gove has recently announced that starting September, schools will teach computer science and programming.

    Not every body may want to be a computer programmer but there are other values to learning a different language – whether in just maintaining your personal sites, having an extra skill on your resume or getting a headstart in what might just become the major language of the future.

    Most importantly, I think understanding the fundamentals of the technology that we have become so reliant on will also empower us as users.

    It will give us more options in terms of usability. We will no longer need to be slaves to systems and programmes that have been so far forced upon us through lack of choice (and ignorance).

    We will be able to do much more with open source software, and who knows, you might just be good enough to create your own applications that works for you.

    So, try to spare some time once a week and take part in the Code Year tutorials (www.codeyear.com). It may be really basic lesson, but it’s a good start. And the truth is, you have very little to lose and all to gain.

    Niki is a MA Digital Culture and Society student at King’s College London. Find him online at www.nikicheong.com or via Twitter at www.twitter.com/
    nikicheong    .

  • 10 Jan

    Posted by


    Category

    What is right

    0

    JUST last week, Vinton Cerf got the interwebs abuzz with his article in the New York Times titled “The Internet is not a human right”.

    Besides the sensational headline, the article was also fascinating because Cerf is one of the original architects of the Internet, back when it was used by only the military.

    I’m not sure of his intentions for writing the article, but one could argue that a couple of things that happened in 2011 led to it.

    Dr Vinton Cerf: "The Internet is not a human right."

    The first is of course the massive protests that happened around the world – from the “revolutions” in the Middle East and North Africa to the Occupy movement.

    Journalists, academics and the layman have spent the past 12 months debating the role the Internet, and social media specifically, played in the movement.

    The digital determinist among us are more than happy to give social media all the credit. After all, there is no doubt that we are on the edge of a communication revolution and even after these few years, it still remains a buzzword.

    Then there are the opponents to this idea, like writer Malcolm Gladwell who wrote, “The revolution will not be tweeted”. Those who share his sentiment claim that social media did not cause the revolutions, but instead only served as an enabler.

    The arguments had escalated to the point where, as Cerf noted in his article, there are suggestion that the Internet should be a human right.

    “The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters,” he wrote.

    It was at this juncture, however, that Cerf  made his point – “technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself”.

    In my opinion, he is absolutely right (no pun intended). My view is that technology affords communication and the dissemination of information, which in turn affords access to information, freedom of speech and education.

    These three things, among others, are what I would consider human rights. If technology was to be a right in itself, then one could easily argue – within the same context – that radio frequency, telecommunication waves and satellite signals are human rights too.

    The second thing is the introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States.

    According to popular technology site CNet, if passed, the act will allow “the US attorney general to seek a court order against the targeted offshore website that would, in turn, be served on Internet providers in an effort to make the target virtually disappear”.

    In short, ISPs can be pressured to block off access to certain websites – ie censorship.

    Naturally, the major supporters of the act are the entertainment industry, who claim to be victims of acts of online “piracy”. The bill is expected to come to a vote when the US Congress meets next.

    However, CEOs representing major companies in the digital industries – like Google, Twitter, Mozilla, Yahoo! and Facebook – have come out to oppose it through an open letter.

    Google are one of the companies opposed to the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act.

    Nowhere in the letter, however, do these CEOs claim that the Internet is a right.

    Instead, they write that the act will allow the US government “to censor the web using techniques similar to those used in China, Malaysia and Iran” – which, I suppose, would infringe freedom to information via censorship.

    They also claim that the act will “deny website owners the right to due process of law”, which infringes the right to a fair trial.

    In his article, Cerf wrote: “The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information – and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time.”

    Cerf also noted that a larger issue has been overlooked amid this debate, and that is the “responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights”.

    He proposed that engineers take on a larger role in ensuring that technology continues to protect users and help them exercise their human rights.

    I would like to take this one step further and suggest that it is not just the CEOs, technologist and even people like Cerf, who should take on this role.

    We – the users – should as well.

    In 2012, I hope that users will empower themselves more, through knowledge and practice, to ensure that nothing (and definitely not their own actions) compromises what amazing technologies we have that makes the world a better place.

    * Niki is an MA Digital Culture and Society student at King’s College London. Read his jottings on digital culture at www.nikicheong.com or follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/nikicheong.

  • 29 Dec

    Posted by


    Category

    Of social media and new gadgets

    0

    JUST like that, 2011 has passed us by and so much has happened in the technology world. Both of us can hardly keep up with what’s been happening, given the break-neck speed at which things changed and developed all year long.

    More significantly, technology has shown this year that it matters beyond the world of geeks; it has played a major role in the world at large, particularly at the intersection of technology, society and culture.

    This year was where all these forces came head to head. And along that vein, each of us has picked our choices of the most significant technology-related moments of the past year.

     

    Tablets and the Amazon Kindle Fire

    Right from the start 2011 was hailed the “year of the tablet”. Google was releasing Honeycomb, and several manufacturers had already shown off prototypes of other Android tablets.

    We were pretty much bound for disappointment on this count, until Amazon came out with the Kindle Fire recently.

    Okay, so it hasn’t hit Malaysia yet but the Kindle Fire did what a bunch of other 2011 tablets challenging the iPad failed to do: It changed the game, faster than even Apple could.

    You see, before the Kindle Fire, the tablet market was all about product specifications, faster processors, cooler Android skins and better marketing. Prices hovered near the iPad range, and the only real innovation was the seven-inch form factor first introduced by Samsung via its Galaxy Tab.

    The Kindle Fire changed all that with a US$199 (RM628) price tag, and decent enough specs and a beautiful screen. More importantly, it wasn’t a tablet for the sake of being a tablet, but rather as a gateway to buying all of Amazon’s digital content and goods.

    Rather than making money off selling you a piece of hardware, Amazon is selling you a piece of hardware to make money off you buying videos, music, books and any other piece of content they can sell you from their store. The best part is – this model works and Amazon is the best positioned company to take this on. Next year, I’m expecting to see lots of solid tablet options aimed at competing with the Amazon Kindle Fire instead of the iPad, and lots of folks toting seven-inch tablets. – David Lian

     

    Year of the Protestors

    Say what you like about how social media was just an enabler of revolutions but I challenge you to find a time in history when so much change (and impact) could descend upon the world in under 365 days.

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is thanks to social media. Granted, many of the revolutions were a long time-coming. After all, the sentiments that the public held in contempt of those in power are not new.

    Yet, one can hardly argue that if it was not for social media networks – be it Facebook or Twitter – the public would have felt as empowered as they did, even in countries where the change they were hoping for did not come their way.

    Time magazine may have named the “Protestors” as their Person Of The Year.

    I would rather look at how social media was integral to their strategies for mobilising the people.

    Just look at the #Occupy movement around the world as an example. – Niki Cheong

     

    Group buying

    Somewhere deep inside each of us, there’s a little Kiasu Malaysian waiting to get out. Unfortunately, that Kiasu Malaysian just got unleashed this year with the string of group buying sites now flooding the market.

    Somehow, I don’t remember it being this prevalent in 2010, but when Groupon entered Malaysia by buying over local leader GroupsMore, it seemed to kick the group-buying trend in Malaysia up a couple of notches. Instead of seedy discounts offered for obscure holiday packages and slimming trials (or “experiences” as they were marketed previously), we get good discounts on good brands, and at the very least, some top name restaurants offering really good deals on meals.

    The cheap person in me wants to rush out and buy as many Groupons as I can. The savvy person realises I’m probably going to forget to use half of them. – DL

     

    Timelines

    It may have only been rolled out for a couple of weeks but one of social media’s biggest stories of 2011 has to be the introduction of the Facebook Timeline.

    People may whine and whinge about how it changes the look of their profile but this is probably the most significant aesthetic change Facebook has introduced in a long time.

    Look aside, this move by the social media giant could serve as a warning to its competitors, especially as speculation of an IPO gets rife, to show just how much of an institution it already is.

    Numbers or users aside (the largest in the world, in case you didn’t know), Timeline also shows other networks what Facebook has that they might not – years of history with its users.

    Users who have been with the network from the beginning would have close to a decade’s worth of history saved onto the site, which is now available at a mere click. It not only helps users walk down memory lane but also reminds them just how much they (the user and Facebook) have gone through together over the years.

    Who needs to write an autobiography these days? Just make your timeline public (if you dare to share your life with the world!). – NC

     

    Steve Jobs

    You might think it’s cliche that Steve Job gets a mention, but in my mind, his passing stands out as one of the best covered events on the Internet, surpassing even Michael Jackson’s.

    When the announcement first broke on Twitter, it smashed a number of records with hashtags #iSad and #ThankYouSteve jamming up Twitter and Facebook. Then came the wave of inevitable Steve Jobs quotes flooding everyone’s wall. And this is merely on social network sites.

    Blogs, columns and yes, whole websites, started commemorating the inventor of the Apple devices we all love. So if this doesn’t get him a mention as perhaps one of the biggest “things” to happen in the technology or social world, I don’t know what else does. - DL

     

    Google+

    While Google+ is not yet a #fail story, one really has to wonder when it’ll all come together for the Internet giant.

    Earlier this year, Google released its new social network in beta mode to selected users, although control wasn’t that tight and most early adopters found themselves actively using it within weeks.

    Unfortunately for Google, it seems that many of the said early adopters have left the network, or at least left their accounts idle.

    The biggest problem? No one really knows what adding people to “Circles” mean. Facebook took the easy way out with “Friends” while Twitter’s “Follow” concept is easy enough to grasp. – NC

     

    Circles is another issue

    Despite the bad press (more to do with its initial push for users to use their real names), Google+ is still running, probably because it owns such a huge database of users from its Gmail accounts which makes it easier for new users to start using the network.

    But you can’t force these things. If Google doesn’t think of more nifty ideas (such as organising a Google+ Hangout session between the Dalai Lama and Reverend Desmond Tutu), Google+ might just go along the same route as Google Wave and Google Buzz before it.

    And that’s nowhere. – NC

  • 20 Dec

    Posted by


    Category

    To predict or not

    0

    IN the past few years, social media “predictions” have been a popular subject to approach, especially towards the end of the year.

    With social media being such a “new” phenomenon, it was easy getting caught up in it. Will next year see Twitter trump Facebook, or will Google come up with something to kill off its blue nemesis (it tried, and failed miserably in 2011)?

    Who can blame the experts, analysts or academics their predictions? After all, isn’t this the era of new media technologies that move so fast there’s always something new to look into?

    Well, not really.

    If anything, 2011 has taught us that it’s not the mediums and the networks we should be focusing on.

    There was the prediction that this was the year of geolocation – you could tag your tweets with data about where you were, while Facebook’s “check-in” was supposedly going to crush Foursquare. Except that it never really took off, so Facebook essentially killed it and Foursquare remains a niche network.

    Some people who saw this coming decided that it would be more accurate to look at it from a business point of view. After all, how many new networks can one deal with? So, while predictions about which social media network will go public entertained us all year, we’re actually still guessing when all of it will happen.

    I suspect that while we obsessed over what was coming next – in an effort to one up each other – we forgot to look at what was already at hand.

    The biggest mistake in 2011 was asking what was coming next when we should have focused on what the current big guns had in store.

    If we just looked at the more mainstream networks, Facebook introduced the social graph and its Timeline, which look set to change the way the Internet functions forever.

    Twitter gave us several new looks – not just via its web version but also with its native apps for the iPhone and BlackBerry.

    Then more recently, we saw the re-emergence of the “anti-social social network” Path, an iPhone app that once allowed you to add only 50 friends (its reincarnation allows 150). The first time it launched, it died a slow death but rose from the ashes over the past few weeks by “borrowing” ideas from successful applications like Facebook (with its own timeline feature) and Instagram’s photo manipulation concept.

    The best part is that it allowed you to connect each update via its application with the most popular existing networks – Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Foursquare.

    Facebook

    It’s early days still but it looks set to be the next iPhone app du jour. Why? Well, it’s because it acknowledges the power of the aforementioned social networks and attempts to survive by complementing them as opposed to competing with them.

    If my interpretation of what Path is doing is correct, then 2011 would have been the year that the biggest social networks made their mark and withstood any of its competitors – Google+ and Diaspora (what?).

    So where does this leave us as 2012 approaches?

    I wouldn’t dare make any predictions, really. At this stage, I feel like we’ve been obsessing over social media so much that we’ve forgotten the largest digital ecosystem in which it resides.

    Along that vein, I would say that we can look forward to 2012 as the year where digital users empower themselves. We’ve already seen how social media assisted in protests – either in the Arab world or in many Western countries via the Occupy movement – so much so that Time magazine named the “protestors” as its person of the year.

    My vision is that next year, we move forward from there and empower ourselves to be active users of social media by being more conscious of how we engage online, be aware of what we’re “liking” and retweeting and figure out how else we can be more efficient users of social media, than just following the trends.

    I won’t predict that for 2012, but I would definitely hope for it.

    * Niki Cheong is pursuing his Master’s degree in Digital Culture and Society in London. Connect with him via www.nikicheong.com or www.twitter.com/nikicheong.

  • 17 Nov

    Posted by


    Category

    Free digital world

    0

    A COUPLE of weeks ago, I took the train up to Oxford in Britain along with my classmates to listen to Richard Stallman speak.

    Stallman, or RMS as he is known, is a renowned software freedom activist most known for starting the Free Software Foundation in 1985. The FSF is a non-profit corporation, which aims “to promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users”.


    Founder of the Free Software Foundation and key advocate of free software, Richard M. Stallman
    In his talk, titled “For A Free Digital Society”, RMS spoke about numerous ways in which digital and political masters are using technology to control the general public. He said that in fact, it should be the public who holds the power.

    The fact is, people have long become “victims” of technological advancement, as much as we have benefitted from it.

    RMS spoke about how authorities in many countries – indeed, even the democratic and liberal ones – have used technology against their people. Governments have used tools like surveillence cameras and used censorship laws to advance their agendas. As a programmer, however, RMS’ biggest “cause” is the battle for free software – free here meaning freedom, as opposed to gratis. He believes that all software should be available to users to edit and distribute, and not just be used.

    It is no wonder then that RMS is not a fan of the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, whom he believes produce software and products which are akin to a technological “jail”.

    After Jobs’ death recently, RMS wrote on his website, “Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died. Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill (Gates), not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs’ malign influence on people’s computing.”

    Obviously, no love lost.


    RMS is trying to persuade netizens to support free software, and free themselves from the digital “jails” of Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs.
    He started his talk by reminding his audience to take the stickers he had printed for them.

    One of these stickers was bright yellow and read: “iBad. Bad for your freedom.”

    Another one read, “Warning DRM. Products restricts usage or invades privacy.”

    DRM, or digital rights management, is another technological advancement that RMS feels jails people. Digital music, movies and books these days usually come with DRM attached which limit the way in which users can access, execute or distribute those works (many of which are usually paid for).

    That is why he referred to it as digital restrictions management instead, and cited examples of how some e-readers and music management systems have backdoors which allow the creators to access a customer’s purchased item and manipulate or remove certain content.

    RMS constantly changed names of popular products and items because he did not want to help with the marketing – he referred to Apple products as “those i things” and the Amazon e-reader as “the Swindle”.

    In today’s social digital world, it is no surprise then that networks like Facebook and Google+ were not spared his wrath. Privacy is high on his list, as is the need to use real names on a users’ profile.

    It is hard not to be impressed by such an eccentric but dynamic public speaker, and his passion for a cause he obviously believes in very strongly is admirable. He also made a lot of sense and his points were mostly valid.

    Although the things RMS propagated made a lot of sense and he raised many valid points, it was hard to believe that his vision of a “free” world would ever see light. A member of the audience suggested that his were utopian ideals but RMS felt that the strides he had made in his campaign for free software indicated that is a viable goal.

    The reality is that it is names like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that the general public will recognise. They are associated with brand names that people trust, which is how the commercial world works. It is thus hard to imagine RMS’ vision of the free software world. Still, there is no reason for the people – you and me – to give in so easily. It never hurts to know what we’re getting into, educate ourselves and use these technologies for its benefits, which include speaking out anytime we feel that technological masters have wronged us.

    We can be more aware of our online behaviour, think about the tracks we’re leaving behind and think before we share private and personal information online.

    I think the middle ground really is for digital citizens to empower themselves in terms of knowledge and actions.

    • Niki is currently reading for his MA in Digital Culture and Society at King’s College London. Connect with him online at his blog or via Twitter.

     

  • 12 Oct

    Posted by


    Category

    Legacy left behind

    0

    LAST week, the technology industry in particular, and the world at large, mourned the death of a visionary. Apple co-founder and former CEO Steve Jobs died at the mere of 56, just one day after the announcement of the company’s latest iPhone release and new operating system.

    Naturally, in this day and age, the news spread quickly. Social media was abuzz – #thankyouSteveJobs and #RIPstevejobs rose up the Twitter trending list quickly, while some people changed their Facebook avatars to mourn his death. Blogs were updated with stories of how Jobs, Apple or both have impacted their lives.

    Then there were the other stuff – old YouTube videos featuring Jobs’ speeches became popular, links to web pages featuring his famous quotes were shared and images people had created in tribute of him and his work went viral. One of those images is a silhouette of Jobs with the Apple logo designed by Hong Kong graphic design student Jonathan Mak.

    It goes without saying that Jobs was one of the catalysts for all that to be possible, thanks to the technology he introduced to the world. By extension, it was these technologies that contributed to the success of social media, which enabled the news of his death to spread quickly, and made it easy for all those other elements to go viral.

    US President Barack Obama probably explained it best when he said in a statement: “There may be no greater tribute to Steve’s success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented.”

    Despite the fact that Jobs obviously had a major passion for technology, he also never saw it as an industry that worked in isolation. This, despite the fact that there is so much focus on digital industries at the moment and the communication revolution the world is going through.

    Those who have watched the YouTube video of his speech at the Standford University commencement ceremony in 2004 (which has since gone viral after his death) would know that it wasn’t the potential of technology that made Apple what it is today.

    Tribute to Steve Jobs, the Apple founder and former CEO, at an Apple computer outlet in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    In that speech, Jobs talked about how sitting in on a calligraphy class during his college years led to the introduction of typography into the Macintosh system (which, he alluded, Windows copied).

    “It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way science can’t capture,” he said of calligraphy during the speech.

    For someone who is so associated with technology and is a pioneer in the field (he also the person behind the success of animation studio Pixar), Jobs also appreciated the humanities.

    He was also known for saying that Apple (and by default, himself) “existed at the intersection of technology and liberal arts.”

    It was not enough that the company was producing the more advanced technologies, but these products had to be “intuitive, easy to use, fun to use, so that they really fit the users …”

    As someone who has long admired Jobs, I feel that his biggest legacy he has left behind is not the Mac, or the iPhone or the iPad.

    It is the understanding and belief that technology cannot be seen in isolation of every thing else in the world. It is equally important to appreciate what has come before it.

    Social media may have helped many of the media featuring Jobs go viral, but without the original mediums – whether it was the video recording of the speeches, the transcription of his interviews for the quotes or even that logo that Jonathan Mak created – there would be nothing to share and spread.

    With the current obsession with technology and social media, it is easy to overlook this. Who can blame anyone? After all, this is an exciting time we’re living in and it’s already hard enough keeping up with technology, let alone worry about everything else.

    Which is why it is important that moments like these when were are in the mood to look back and reflect (on Jobs’ life and legacy, for example), even if it is caused by something as sad as death, that we remind ourselves of the wise words of someone like him.

    In one of his final public appearances on stage, Jobs said that “technology alone is not enough … it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that make our hearts sing.”

    Rest in peace, Steve.

    * Niki is currently reading for his MA Digital Culture and Society in King’s College London. You can connect with him at www.nikicheong.com or www.twitter.com/nikicheong.

  • 14 Sep

    Posted by


    Category

    Backtracking your thoughts

    0

    By NIKI CHEONG

    OVER the past few years, netizens have been obsessed with their cyber trail, making sure to log off from personal accounts, clearing their caches and deleting their browsing history, among others.

    When social media entered our consciousness, this obsession moved beyond just personal data – what else are we putting out there? A lot, apparently. There have been calls by many people, myself included, for a more active participation by users.

    Basically, think before you tweet. Apart from making sure you don’t fall prey to the foot-in-mouth disease, there are also much more serious implications in the form of privacy issues. Over its few years as the social media network du jour, Facebook has kept changing its system’s ability for users to have more control over their information.

    For other people’s safety, Google+, the latest kid on the social network block, has a policy where only real names can be used for its accounts. There are many more examples, of course. Users, too, have been more aware of the implications, thanks to personalities from around the world getting caught out via social media on some of their less proud moments.

    Facebook has changed its systems ability many times over the years.

    However, I would like to add another element to this discussion – should we not be equally worried about what kind of cyber trail we are leaving behind when we die? Excuse the morbidity but it is something many people rarely think about. In the past, paper documents can be destroyed. And in many cases, over the years, these documents just disappear or disintegrate.

    With digital technology, however, this is unlikely to happen. There is a common saying that what goes on the Internet stays on the Internet. Even if you delete something, it might have already made it onto some cache somewhere. Otherwise, someone might have already downloaded it or captured it and saved it onto their desktop. The reality is that the Internet runs on millions of servers and computers around the world, many of which serve as backups of backups.

    Chances are, anything you put online has already been duplicated several times. Scarier still, none of these disappear even after you are physically gone. I lost an aunt and a friend, both of whom were rather active social media users (on Facebook and Twitter) recently and it freaks me out to see their names and faces appear on my timeline because of a reminder (like birthdays) or when a friend leaves them a condolence note.

    Even worse, when someone you know who has passed on, is “suggested” to be a friend. A couple of years ago, Facebook introduced the ability for family members to get profile pages of their loved ones turned into a memorial profile but not many people use this function. But even in this case, much of the deceased’s memories and past actions remain. This might be comforting for those who want to hang on to the memory of someone long gone.

    That said, I cringe at the idea that some information, which might make sense now, would be accessible to the generations that come after me. Just imagine your grandchildren Googling you and discovering that you were a massive Justin Bieber fan (or worse, Rebecca Black!).

     

    What happens on the Internet, stays on the Internet.

    Not only that, as opposed to my parents’ youthful days of courting via letters (which can be destroyed), these days we shamelessly leave potentially embarrassing messages of affection on each other’s wall.

    Or worse, bad pick up lines. These will be forever immortalised.

    Mashable editor-in-chief Adam Ostrow presented this thought at a TEDGlobal (technology, entertainment and design) event where he spoke about what would happen to one’s social media presence after one dies. He said: “Our descendants … will have at their fingertips a deep digital archive of information that we created ourselves.”

    More so than this, Adam suggested that with the amount of data and information that we would have left on the Internet by the time we die, there is a possibility of something more dangerous, sinister even, developing.

    In an accompanying article on his TED talk for CNN Interactive, he wrote: “I think as the quantity of content we’re producing and technology’s ability to make sense of it continue to expand exponentially, it will inevitably become possible to not only define our own legacies, but to recreate very lifelike representations of ourselves.” Yes, folks, he is talking holograms.

    And who knows how technology will advance in the future and we are able to “download” all this information into a cyborg of sorts. Or worse still, clones.

    I don’t mean to scare anybody but considering how fast technology is moving, there is a possibility that this day will come.

    But don’t start to freak out and go deleting all your information (it’s too late, by the way) just yet. It all starts with being a little bit careful with whatever information we put out there, who we are sharing it with and whether or not we have thought things through before clicking the “send” button.

    After all, who knows by the time anyone looks back at our data, we might be long gone and couldn’t care less any more. Or maybe our legacy would be so amazing because that is what we choose to leave behind.

    It doesn’t hurt to be more aware of what kind of cyber trail we’re setting as we move along with our lives. Worst comes to worse, our future self might just have to come back – via time travel, of course – and warn us.

     

    Niki is in London to do his MA in Digital Culture and Society. You can find him online at http://blog.nikicheong.com and www.twitter.com/nikicheong.

Page 1 of 712345»...Last »