The long trail of conversations best forgotten

I recently purged nearly a decade's worth of tweets on my Twitter account last month, going from over 51,000 posts to around 1,500. There's been a lot of talk about this sort of thing around the internet, in the wake of alt-right trolls tanking the careers of movie directors or attempting to do so to former colleagues. I'm certain that in the ten or so years I've been on Twitter, I've never really tweeted anything controversial, but if there's any one lesson out of some of these instances, it's that there's a lot that can be taken out of context and warped in ways that are unpleasant. 

This comes at a time when I've been really thinking about the uses of social media and been thinking about how I approach talking on the internet. Last year, I interviewed horror author Joe Hill, and the topic of Twitter and social media came up, which provided some real revelations for me, particularly in how he notes that sites like Twitter and Facebook can really isolate people and bring out their worst behaviors. As social creatures, we're really not well suited to working in really large communities. In smaller structures, we can easily self-regulate our behavior: someone who steps out of line will get attached with a considerable social stigma, whereas when they're able to network and pool their personalities together, that job gets harder — a job that companies like Twitter, Facebook, and others have completely ignored. Angry people is good business: it helps with engagement when you can rile yourself up in your own little echo chamber. 

The actions of various companies over the last year have really only reinforced this perception for me. Bad behavior that is really, truly detrimental just doesn't have consequences attached to it. It's weird, because when I was a teenager exploring the internet, the forums I belonged to were typically moderated. Bad behavior would earn you a time-out or a ban. The new wave of companies that followed prized growth over healthy communities, and now we're in today.

Facebook reminds me that I've been on the platform since 2006: I remember the hype around it when I first joined: an exclusive, college-only social network that wasn't as ugly as MySpace. Looking back on those early days, I cringe as the types of things that I was posting. There are conversations, complaints, and memories that would have otherwise faded with time, preserved in silicone and electrons. As a historian, that long tail of thoughts is really cool, because I can go back and mine that past for contemporary thoughts on ... whatever it was I was vaguebooking about. But it's not healthy to dwell over, or to have hanging over one's head, especially when there's the threat that it can be weaponized against you.  

This never really seemed to be a problem with blogs: Facebook and Twitter are great for dashing off thoughts that might have otherwise been deleted in a longer blog post, and the various services out there have tools to reward such impulsive thoughts, with Like buttons, favestars, and commenting sections. It's hard to ignore the rush that a bunch of notifications brings! 

But chasing the endorphin high that those reactions bring just isn't healthy in the long run, and they should be treated like the short-term missives that they are: available for a short while, then thrust out of mind. I've found myself being more thoughtful about what I post to Facebook and Twitter. I've gotten tired of the inane and continual outraged grind when it comes to politics and culture, the people shouting into the voice because it feels like it's better than doing nothing. I've muted vast chunks of my friends list on Facebook, and consider who I follow on Twitter. Social Media is a firehoses of information, and we provide a conduit straight into our brains. Cutting out the aggressive connections with no interest in anything other than mindless anger is a huge relief — not because it provides me with a nice, safe echo-chamber, but because pulling out the loudest voices gives more space to those who are measured and thoughtful. In theory. I'm still muting and hiding people, but it's at least manageable.

I've often said that if I didn't need Facebook or Twitter for work, I probably wouldn't have them. I don't know how true that actually is, because I like what these services provide: connections to people I know (even if I don't necessarily want to see what they have to say all the time). It removes some of the cost of staying in touch, which is a valuable thing. But I'd like to keep drawing back on my reliance of them, going instead to longer-form blogging and online journals that I came of age with. 

Warfare for the Crowdsourcing Age: Adam Robert’s New Model Army

New Model Army, by Adam Roberts, takes an interesting look at the function of warfare and society with the question: What if a hierarchical military, such as ones set up along the lines of the British or U.S. Armies, and pitted it against an army that was fully democratic in its organization?

The concept is an interesting one, and the book as a whole is a perfect example of something that I've wanted to see in the subgenre: a world in which the military itself is examined, not only in the tactical side of things, but also in its ideology. Roberts puts forth an interesting idea that blends together the changing states of technology and warfare: militaries have adopted a new organizational structure: rather than the strict chain of command that defines the military lifestyle, they have brought together a large group of people, connected them through secure wikis and use the power of the crowd to fight. Tactical decisions are voted upon, and each soldier updates the battlefield map with the needed information: where they are, where the enemy is, and so forth.

The concept is one that is already in the earliest stages of implementation in the real-world battlefield, on a couple of levels. With the advances in technology, military leaders have been able to reduce the 'fog of war', the so-called elements of the battlefield, where commanders can't see what's happening, and are forced to rely on planning extensively. As the abilities of the military to watch the battlefield increases, from cameras mounted on soldiers to drones flying overhead, major changes have been seen, both in the leadership and organizational structure of the military, but also in how tactics are put forth.

Indeed, the connection between the ability to wage war and the relative ease to which technology is available has already begun some major changes. In 2008, insurgents entered the city of Mumbai, armed with cell phones and the internet, and were able to coordinate their attacks, using Google Earth to help plan the attack. Other examples of similar uses have been used across the various conflicts around the world. As the world becomes more connected, it's far easier to coordinate attacks with individuals across country borders and continents.

New Model Army, while it puts forward an interesting story on the military, there's a number of things that make the story a bit more implausible, technology advances aside. Currently, the United States and her allies are into their ninth year of waging a counter-insurgency battle in the Middle East, one that will likely leave lasting impressions on the organizations of all involved, and are lessons that would not be easily forgotten. As such, the New Model Armies (NMAs) are essentially a form of insurgency warfare that seem to plague the regular British military wherever they confront them, inflicting heavy losses and forcing surrenders at several battles. For a nation that's largely been involved with counterinsurgency warfare for longer than the US (if one can consider the problems in Ireland), it seems strange that they would be unable to counter said forces, not to mention not adopting some of the methods in and of themselves. The successes of the NMAs seem to come from the ineptitude of the British military. Political motivations or opinions notwithstanding, it are a situation that annoyed me as I read the book.

The British NMA, soldiers were instilled with a sense that a pure form of democracy, and carried such an air of superiority amongst them that I can't help but thing that their role was satirical, at least at points. It's not until into around two thirds of the book that the main character is confronted with any sort of counter-point to his philosophy that democracies are inherently better than any other form of self governance.

When it comes to military powers, democracy is something that really doesn't exist, and for good reason: the style of warfare that has evolved over the course of human history ultimately relies on a large presence of soldiers, acting in concert, to achieve a goal that's determined by someone higher up in the chain of command. The ability to work together as a unit is a key element for the battlefield, and discipline is drilled into soldiers early on. The evolution of uniforms and mass-produced weapons helped to support this. The outsider viewpoint of a the military as a close-knit group of people follow orders, are yelled at and depersonalized (The term G.I. means General Infantry), is somewhat accurate, but the full meaning and reasons behind this type of training needs to be taken into consideration. The role of the soldier is to fulfill national priorities: in this case, by force, and essentially, they are willing tools of what is determined needed to be done.

Looking at a group such as a New Model Army, it's hard to imagine that a force composed of individuals, with a bottom-up organizational method would be as successful in the real world: individuals might be disciplined, but military actions require the coordinated efforts of a group to accomplish their goals: hence the depersonalizing training to get people to not run away from being shot at. Similarly, in the NMA, people hold no rank, nor do they carry any sort of specialization, which in and of itself causes issues. Militaries are groups of specialists, whether it be in a certain weapons system, as medics or as leaders, and I don't believe that the simple availability of information through the cloud can replace an individual trained and specializing in something as important as lifesaving. (I know I wouldn't want a surgeon trained from Wikipedia in heart surgery). Militaries are likewise structured (when they work properly) with individuals skilled in leadership and planning are promoted, and are able to recognize, carry out and accomplish their goals.

Furthermore, military actions recruit more than just tactical (on the battlefield) planning to accomplish their goals: there is far more long term planning when it comes to carrying out national goals, which in turn, inform the tactical requirements of a battlefield. Once again, in a crowd sourcing environment, I don't see that this would be an effective style of fighting. People in a large group might have their own goals, methods of fighting that run counter to national goals. In the book, the NMA uses a nuclear 'bullet', a sized down nuclear warhead that surprises everyone. Similar actions exist in real life: groups such as Freedom Watch or the Minuteman Project, which advocates or utilize force outside of national interests and policy. Undoubtedly, said crowd groups would utilize similar behavior in their actions, especially in a war zone. A U.S. Officer who captures the story's main character makes such a point, noting that while his British NMA is a good example of where this sort of thing works, there's other groups that are essentially mobs.

Insurgencies around the world utilize social networking and crowd sourcing elements right now, and in all likelihood, there will be moves towards this future that Roberts has predicted. However, as they do so, their opponents will do what the militaries in this book haven't done: adapt to the new styles of fighting, and find ways to counter them, but also understand how and why such measures are being put into place.

While there are real issues with the style of fighting in the book, Roberts has done what I've really yet to see another Military Science Fiction writer do with the genre: look at how people fight, and how things might work. This is a military science fiction book that goes beyond the action; it goes straight to the heart of how militaries function, speculative in and of itself. I see the fighting that occurs in the book as an afterthought, used to support the real character elements that go into the story, and as such, New Model Army is an interesting, fascinating book that annoyed me thought out, but it frequently made me stop and think about how such a thing might actually work in reality. Because of this, this book stands out from a lot of other miltiary science fiction stories.

One thing is for sure though, if there is a rise in this sort of style of fighting, it will be a very bad thing for all of us.

Social Media and the 501st Legion

As social media and associated platforms grow in relevance in everyday user lives, so too has the importance of utilizing such platforms to the general public for any organization, to promote its successes of its events and members to further grow and prosper as an organization with such a charity focus as the 501st Legion. Over the past couple of years, I’ve helped promote the 501^st Legion online through Facebook and Twitter in an effort to help spread the word about the organization to the general public. On the first day that groups were opened outside of school networks, I created the official 501^st Group, which I still screen members for based on our group rosters, and when fan pages were first created, I set one up for the group, with the intention that it might hold the place of an official page, as well as one for the New England Garrison. At some point, an official 501^st twitter feed was put together by Legion Public Relations Officer Dean Plantamura, which has been continually updated. The New England Garrison twitter feed was put together, which I have since taken over in my role of Garrison Archivist. I had recently provided a similar document to the 501^st, and have adapted it with the intent that it could be used by other people who are looking for best practices to promote organizations online, but also for people to think about how they use the internet and social media.

Social Media is an incredibly helpful tool for organizations. As of writing this, the 501st Fan Page has garnered 12,393 fans, while the NEG total runs to 776 total fans. The NEG likewise has 243 followers on twitter (following 102 feeds, mainly local troopers, other garrisons and other geek-related people), while the 501st feed has 4,211 followers and follows 57 people total (Celebrities, official Star Wars related organizations and garrisons). The large number of people following the group, and the level of interactivity that has been noted is a positive one, and allows the 501^st legion to address and speak with fans, potential members and organizations in a public setting.

As Social Media is a tool, users and moderators must be mindful of the end result that they are trying to achieve, the overall purpose of the utilization of the tools, and select the proper tools accordingly. People have been organizing themselves into social networks since the dawn of mankind, and this development in the wired world should come as no surprise to anyone, as the seeds of how the internet will be used to connect people have been planted for several years now. As such, it is a tool that should be utilized in the best way possible. (Source)

Facebook is the best example of social media at the moment. According to its website: there are over 500 million active users, and with at least 50% of those users logging in on any given day. In addition to that, there are over 900 million objects (defined as pages, groups, events and community pages), with the average user connected to around 80 of these objects. Facebook also cites 30 billion content items are shared each month. (Statistics from Facebook) This is a company that is designed to connect people with a number of objects, places, and people over the course of each day. (Source)

One of the issues that I’ve noticed with some garrisons and similar organizations is the way that they promote themselves within Facebook, but use the wrong tools available for the job, or that such efforts aren’t followed through on: questions go unanswered, and spam piles up.

Facebook currently allows for several options for the 501st Legion:

Personal Page: A page can be created for any given person in the legion, or for a garrison as a whole, which users can befriend and communicate with. This is the least desirable option for a public relations page for the group, as it is a fairly closed system that permits only a select number of people to befriend (with a waiting period for the owner to accept them) Specific users can be banned, but in this option, the drawbacks are greater than the benefits. The best use for such an element is for someone to befriend legion members on the behalf of a garrison, or for an internal garrison roster, where information can be distributed to members on the platform.

Group: Likewise, Groups are a somewhat closed system, but can allow for open access for the general public, while retaining the ability to hide some information for users, or to lock out specific users. The 501st has an official group, of which only official members with a TK ID and Honorary members are allowed to join. This group is not actively updated. The best use for something like this is for select people to join (garrison or 501st legion members) to discuss garrison events or communicate with one another within the context of the 501st legion.

Fan Pages: This element represents the best option for garrisons or other legion elements to present themselves to the general public. Information can be placed for the public to see, such as news articles, specific topics, or to solicit information from the fan base of the group. This also represents a good location for public information on the legion, such as relevant reference links. The best purpose for a group is public relations with non-members, and presents a place for non-members to ask questions of the legion and its members.

All three locations have specific uses for specific actions and intentions, and Garrison members should be mindful of these uses as they are designing them. While a closed system such as a personal account can be locked down for non-members, and certain things can be discussed, things like fan pages can be opened to the public, and certain things can be viewed by the general public. As such, all elements should require constant supervision by an appointed or volunteer moderator to ensure that the image of the legion is upheld, and that appropriate conduct is visible to members and non-members alike.

In one incident recently, a disgruntled member who had been banned from the internal forums had accessed the 501st Legion page and posted a gallery of screen shots of an incident that had ended up with his dismissal. This was not the appropriate location for such discussion in a public place, and the entry was promptly deleted. Similar incidents with spam postings, inappropriate language, insults and other conduct have been noted, and are removed when found.

Moderation is needed for the most public areas of such sites, to prevent this sort of thing from lasting too long on the site, and proving to be a negative experience for the legion. However, moderators should allow genuine critical comments and not be overly heavy-handed when it comes to deleting comments. Statements, pictures, and links that are overly hateful, inappropriate, solicit non-legion activities and other obvious things ('All members, friend me!', 'Click here to donate', and so forth are examples that have been removed). The idea is to foster a positive community that people who follow the organization can look at and contribute to.

Moderators also need to be aware that they are representing the Legion as a whole, and people unable to cope with this responsibility should not be in charge of a page. One of the most crucial lessons that need to be learned for anybody using the internet is that there is no privacy, and there should not be the expectation of privacy: where this is the case with an individual, it should be noted for an organization as well. While the 501^st Legion is a diverse group, conflicts such as the ones noted above are elements that should be limited in the public’s eye; such actions disrupt the public image that any organization is trying to promote.

Fortunately, the 501^st’s fan base is a good, robust one. A large number of fans on the 501st page have shown to be helpful, directing people who might otherwise not find costuming and reference links, showing people where to join in their area, and allowing the Legion as a whole to demonstrate causes and charities that it frequently works with. The ~12,000 fan base allows for the legion to direct support to local garrisons, similar organizations and causes as well. Recently, the Georgia Garrison put out a call for fans to invite others with the hope that they could reach 100 members in the two weeks prior to Dragon*Con. This call was replicated and tagged on the 501st page, and the Georgia Garrison was able to reach and exceed that goal within a day. Similar actions have been taken, with comparable results. On author, Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) on twitter, has produced what is called the Neil Gaiman Effect, where he has accidentally taken down websites by directing an incredible amount of attention to said sites, requiring the webmasters to work and get them back up again. This is part of the power of social media.

The use of twitter is common amongst garrisons, and the 501st has utilized this to highlight announcements, news articles, update fans from events, and to communicate with fans who might have questions. The Legion's feed entries are often copied to the Facebook page, and have been used to retweet links, statements and pictures from fans who post up relevant information.

The New England Garrison has a relatively small presence when it comes to social media. While it boasts nearly 800 fans, the fans are relatively quiet, interacting with the site minimally, whereas the legion site has a much higher active number of participants who 'like' and comment on posts. Similarly, with twitter, there are few direct messages or @ replies to the garrison as a whole.

The NEG likewise posts up public events to the Facebook page, with the relevant details: location, time and description, and allows members to invite people to events, which has brought people who otherwise might have missed such events (members who are not frequently up to date on garrison activities, friends and family who might not have otherwise been known about events, etc). These event listings are helpful, and allow members to keep track of garrison activities through where most people go each day. Care needs to be taken that private events not be posted up for safety and privacy concerns: birthday parties, or other non-public events.

The 501st Legion has the ability to post up events, but the framework and logistics are not in place for effective coverage of the Garrison's activities as a whole. This does remain a possibility, and there are other activities that the legion and garrison can do to reward the large number of fans that it's gained - contests have been staged at milestones, and certainly, the page can be used to solicit images, stories, and other items.

To conclude, Social Media is an important tool for legion members and non-fans to interact with the legion and their local Garrisons, and the appropriate, official venues for such things should be sought out.

Care and dedication needs to be put forward by said groups, in order to ensure that timely, accurate and appropriate information is directed to the general public in the best manner possible, while removing information and comments that would otherwise be inappropriate for the Legion to be associated with.

Legion members should foster a constant and relevant relationship with fans - answering questions in a timely manner and posting up information that reflects the efforts of the members that keeps the public engaged.

Utilization of social media helps to foster relationships with fans, potential members and members of the legion, as well as local businesses and organizations who might be willing to partner with the legion and its members.

The results thus far have demonstrated that the Legion has a positive experience thus far from the technology, and that it will need to continue such a presence, on an official, and local level. The lessons that have been demonstrated with the legion’s experience with social media are ones that should be learned and implemented by other organizations to help utilize social media to its fullest potential.

Pattern Recognition, by William Gibson

After reading Ian McDonald's River of Gods recently, I was compelled to read another science fiction novel that took place around the planet, interacting with a number of other cultures. As William Gibson's latest novel, and the last of his 'Bigend' trilogy, Zero History was recently released, I picked up the first of the series, Pattern Recognition, published in 2003. I've had the book for a number of years, but had never picked it up, or even cracked it open. My first surprise, upon doing so, was to discover that the book had been signed by Mr. Gibson.

Pattern Recognition, from an author that helped define the notion (and term) cyberspace, as well as much of the cyberpunk genre, might seem as a sort of step back. The book takes place in contemporary times, in a post-9/11 setting, in England, Japan and Russia. Media consultant Cayce Pollard is hired by a company, Blue Ant, who is redesigning a logo for a Tokyo firm. Pollard, who has an adverse reaction to logos and marketing, and a curiosity with a series of videos that have surfaced on the internet, is hired by Blue Ant founder Hubertus Bigend, who wants her to find the maker of the clips, because of the potential gain that can be achieved by learning everything about them, and why they attract so much attention. This job is one that takes her across the world, from London to Tokyo to uncover a code that would help connect the videos to a firm in the United States, and to Russia as more leads come about. Her trip around the planet is one of discovery, as she moves from world to world following information.

While the book is set in contemporary times, it fits well with Gibson's notion that science fiction doesn't have to be part of the future. Instead, this book does what the best science fiction stories do: amidst the science fictional elements that surround the story, there is a central element that defines the book. In this case, this book is about networking, and the ability of technology to bring a diverse set of people together. In 2003, this stage of the internet hadn't quite happened yet: blogging was the big thing, and Facebook was still a year away, twitter three. Pollard's quest? To find what's arguably a viral video. In a large way, Gibson has recognized the rise of social media before it happened.

While the predictions of Pattern Recognition aren't quite as revolutionary as Gibson's were with Neuromancer, this book is far more relatable, relevant, and understands the heart of the internet. The story contains very few speculative elements: Pollard's allergy to advertising (in some cases) and some of the technological elements that are at this point outdated. Author Dennis Danvers noted it best in his review:

Science fiction, in effect, has become a narrative strategy, a way of approaching story, in which not only characters must be invented, but the world and its ways as well, without resorting to magic or the supernatural, where the fantasy folks work.

In a large way, Gibson has demonstrated that he's very good at figuring out how people will use various technologies, and in a way, the gap between Neuromancer and Pattern Recognition (and presumably, its sequels, Spook Country and Zero History.) isn't as far apart as when it first meets the eye. Pattern Recognition illustrates a reality that is cold, separated from humanity while being connected at almost all times through the internet. Gibson makes the point that the future isn't far away, it's right now, this very moment.

Indeed, Gibson is probably one of the few science fiction authors to see his works come to life - not only in the details as to what he's written, but in how the future has been realized. It's a bit of a given point, seeing how the book has been set, but between 2003 (when I entered college) and the present day (out of school and working for several years) the world has changed immensely, not just in the speeds and the availability of communications, but in how people understand and utilize the internet. This seems to have been anticipated, and while the real world is already leaving this story behind, it's clear that there are some lessons here that can be learned: we're all connected.

As a story, the execution leaves a book that makes me feel much like Chris Kelvin from Solaris: isolated, cold, somewhat depressed, and Gibson writes Pollard’s character as a fairly empty person, someone who is socially isolated, but at the same time connected to those people whom she shares mutual interests with. Pollard’s journey across the planet in search of a revolutionary form of marketing is an interesting one across a number of countries and subcultures that could only exist in the internet age. At journey’s end in Moscow, Pollard comes to meet the maker of the clips, and an interesting story of commercial viability vs. artistic creativity is brought full circle.

While it’s not as groundbreaking, Pattern Recognition succeeds by using science fiction as a mirror, demonstrating not only that we live in a futuristic world, it’s one that we’re only now fully realizing as we live it.

Tools of the Trade

Facebook has had an awful week, with rollouts and several blotched interviews with employees about the future of the website, with how the site is handling user information. While at points, I've been somewhat worried about what is going on with some of the changes, it's really no different than any other element of the internet, going back to when I first starting building websites online: there is nothing private on the internet. With that in mind, it's important to remember that Facebook is a tool, one that is highly popular, useful, and still very new, but when using it, it should be used as such.

The internet is a place that has absolutely revolutionized how we interact with people around the world. Personally, I work for a graduate school through Norwich University, which deals exclusively through the internet as a way to deliver its content to students enrolled in the various programs that we provide. Speaking as a student who's been through the Military History degree, the online aspect wasn't a huge barrier for me, and ultimately, for other students who go through the program, because the school has refined its methods and found the best way to deliver the content that makes up a graduate degree. And, having gone through the program, I can attest that because it's an online school, it's not an easy thing to do.

Things such as iPhones, Twitter, Facebook, the Angel Learning Platform, hardbound books, and so forth are all tools that are designed (or come to be designed to meet an end) for some purpose. Oftentimes, I've heard people talk about how useless it is to tweet, to be connected to an iPhone, and to spend one's time indoors reading all the time. While it's true that in a number of instances, online resources can be incredible time wasters, they can also be vital for networking, communicating and learning with any number of topics and subjects.

I've been largely leery of twitter, up until a couple of months ago, when I began speaking with several authors and websites through it. Not only did it open several possibilities, I've found that it's a fantastic, informal way to speak with people I might not have been able to speak with, and it allows me to spread what I write as well to those people, who might not ordinarily read my blog, or remember to. At the same point, where I've found that it's a fantastic way to keep in touch with some people, it's likewise a good way to spread news, stories, webpages and videos, like any good social media application should do.

Tools are tools, and the nature of online sites really makes it unclear as to what something is supposed to do. A hammer is supposed to pound nails into things, a car is supposed to transport a person from point A to B, in varying amounts of style, and a website is supposed to promote, create or make money. Facebook is doing just that, and it's doing it well. While I'm disturbed at the sheer amount of unleashed greed and disregard for any sort of ethics behind some of the business practices that Facebook seems to be moving in, it makes perfect business sense for what they're doing: as a business, they need to make money in order to keep the lights on, pay their employees and continue to innovate.

I don't know what the legal obligations are in place for the site to keep people's information secure. It seems like it would make good business sense for them to keep a lid on a lot of things, because with major news organizations and even Congress looking into what they are doing, that doesn't help business, and in the Darwinian world of commerce, something better, like Diaspora, which is touting itself as a startup that will be an open sourced, locked down alternative to Facebook, will take over and go from there. At the same point, users need to realize that Facebook is a sort of tool that allows for connections, and that inherently, they want to make as many connections between users, businesses and items as possible, and opening up information, with that context, makes a lot of sense.

It goes to show that whatever you put online, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a safe haven. MySpace, Livejournal, Wordpress, Twitter, Facebook, Meebo, Friendster, and the whole lot of it, can be overcome and in all probability, someone else will see it, and they might not be people you want seeing that sort of thing, whether it's a boss, girl/boyfriend, parent, relative, or random other person who has some interest in you. The bottom line, for me, is that it shouldn't go online. Period.

When I heard some of the news coming down the pipeline about Facebook, I was more than a little annoyed. I was almost ready to wash my hands of it, walk away and not look back, but looking at what I use the site for, I would have a difficult time doing that: I use it to talk to people, to share information and to promote my own writing and articles when published, and I have no issues with that. It's become a dominant form of how we talk to each other, and the recent news serves as a good reminder that large businesses don't always have the user's interests at their heart. So, with a little more care online, plus an adblocker, I realize that I really don't care that Facebook sees and shares that i'm a fan of Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Sherlock Holmes and Carbon Leaf - the information is there for people to see, and the information that's not there, isn't.

History in 140 Characters

A couple weeks ago, the Library of Congress announced that they had acquired the expensive backlog of tweets from Twitter, adding in millions of bits of information to the archives. While each tweet is no more than 140 characters, it will likely represent one of the larger collections that the Library holds, preserving quite a lot of information for the long foreseeable future. It also sounds like it will be one of the more ridiculous holding that the Library holds, for with that mess of information contains abbreviations, thousands of individual statements and other 'useless' bits of information that in and of itself has little practical value. I was incredulous at the news at first, simply wondering why anyone would be interested in such a thing. However, it's since occurred to me that the massive amount of information that Twitter has acquired is a unique look into a society.

Twitter in and of itself is a communications tool. It's one that I've thought of as a ridiculous waste of time, not good for much, as have my friends and co-workers, who see its 140 character limit as something that is not only limiting, but a form of preening communication. I've come to use it myself, and while there are certainly a lot of people out there who'll say things for no reason at all, I've found that it's a fairly good, informal way to keep in touch with some people, businesses, and as a way to distribute information.

I follow several news sources, such as the BBC and the New York Times, which updates constantly on the news of the moment. But I also follow a number of celebrities, websites and figures, and find that at points, it's an interesting way to get an inside look into what is going on at their end. Craig Engler, the SVP & GM of Digital for the SyFy channel, regularly updates fans on some inside information on how the television business works, as does David Blue, who stars in SyFy's Stargate Universe. There's numerous other people in addition to that list, but it's also an interesting way to keep in touch with several other friends that I don't normally speak with in other channels.

Beyond that, the acquisition of Twitter by the Library of Congress makes a bit of sense when you look at the archive as a whole. Millions of people have signed up for the service, and there's a large number of people who do use the service. While it's not necessarily representative of the population as a whole, it is a highly visible, print record of people talking to each other, about everything. With that in mind, consider that a recent study found that by analysing tweets across the world, by keyword and frequency, researchers could accurately predict what a film's opening weekend take at the box office would be. While that's just one somewhat frivolous thing to study, imagine taking that study and applying it to the reaction to the Haitian, Chilian or Tibetan earthquakes that just occurred. Or a major presidential election, social events, major news stories and so on. People talk about these items, and by placing it into the Library of Congress, it essentially becomes historical record, for future historians to read and study long after we're gone. Individually, the tweets probably can't tell you much, but as a whole, there's a lot that can probably be learned, especially when you look at social mediums.

Beyond websites such as Twitter, there are numerous other blogs, wikis and other, more substantial websites that offer much more than 140 characters. With my own site, I try and work on analysis, review, and research, often presenting an argument that I try and prove with backed up information. Authors of numerous genres and backgrounds publish a great variety of information, and in all likelihood, internet authorship will rival print media in the nearish future.

As the internet becomes more ingrained into everyday life, it will be important to take a closer look into finding ways to preserve what is said, either social media sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, Wordpress, and even e-mail. In the past, historians relied on what they could find relating to a source: photographs, letters, journals, which show a small window and limited view into any given events. The diary of a Civil War soldier might tell much about him, but not about the war as a whole. With hundreds of journals together, a much different picture emerges. The same goes with websites like Twitter. Historians of the future will likely have greater resources at looking at our time long in the future. Their challenges will be to sort through it all.

BTW, you can follow me here.