What influences job choice? Social media, mobile devices and Web access

The growing use of the Internet and mobile devices in the workplace is creating a significant impact on job decisions, hiring and work-life balance," the report concluded. "The ability to use social media, mobile devices, and the Internet more freely in the workplace is strong enough to influence job choice, sometimes more than salary.

This research by Cisco could be a wake up call for many companies involved in the war for talent. However, its interesting to consider the attitude of many companies toward how people actually use social networks like Facebook, which is still quite negative (read the comments). But if Cisco is right, employers may need to think about both access and what their policy is towards what staff do on social media, if they want to create a workplace that is attractive to staff with high job mobility.

Hat tips to Venessa Peach and Peter Black.

Utopia is... touch screens and surfaces

Nicholas Carr thinks these kinds of techno-utopian videos are creepy. I'm not sure about that, although both of these videos are some what homogeneous and perhaps a little 'antiseptic' - but they are marketing pieces, not true works of science fiction. They actually remind me of rather badly thought out 'perfect' user journeys. If you want something a little grundgy, try William Gibson.

For more on Microsoft's vision, see their Office Labs site.

The Dignity of Risk and Social Media

In a story in the SMH this weekend about the role of location-powered social apps like Grindr, Blendr, Roamz and Foursquare I read:

'While critics lament the next generation's inability to make friends without a computer screen, Joel Simkhai, the American creator of Blendr and Grindr, thinks that in five years we may have twice as many friends because of his apps.

''I don't think a hello and a handshake will become redundant. We come before that, so now it's easier to initiate the conversation and then go say hello,'' he said. ''In terms of breaking the ice, it goes a long way.''
Users have proved willing to accept the danger of people misrepresenting themselves in order to find friends in a society that has become busier, less sociable and, according to Mr Brechney, ''more boring''.

''I honestly think you get a richer experience talking about your life and typing away on your phone than you would in a loud club,'' he said. ''The downside is that you have a lot of churn in your life with friends. It can become a bit of an eBay for love.'

The opening credits of the 1969 French film, Mississippi Mermaid (watch the trailer above) feature a reading of personal classified ads. I can't but help think that the "eBay of love" has been around for quite some time, as well as the risks.

But in saying that, there is also a concept of Dignity of Risk:

Dignity of Risk refers to the right of all people to undertake some tasks that have a level of risk. It can be risky to go surfing as accidents can occur, but if you are a good swimmer, surf with a friend and check surfing conditions it is a reasonable risk to take.

All human activity has risk. Social media doesn't necessarily change that and if people want to meet using an app rather than a classifieds ad, I'm not sure what the difference is?

The London riots and social media

The wonderful thing about news in the Internet age is that we have unfiltered access to both first hand reports and the perspective of overseas news channels. In this panel interview, Guardian journalist Paul Lewis emphasises that he feels the use of social media and Blackberry Messenger in particular to orchestrate the riots should be considered in the loosest terms, rather than it being a defining factor.

The comments from the panel also reflect some of my own experiences of watching the riots unfold online - the positives far outweighed the bad.

Its also interesting to reflect on the evolving relationship between the traditional media and social media. Lewis immersed himself in the medium, like photojournalist, adding credibility and insight into his reporting in parallel to user generated content. The Guardian newspaper also leads the way in using open data to share facts, so we can judge for ourselves. The public record of social media also means we can check quotes for the original context too (scroll down to Misquoted).

The UK Police are also using social media to track down offenders, although perhaps they should have read from Queenland Police's book for their approach to #mythbusting during an emergency (PDF).

Such is the ever tightening relationship between our every days lives, the delivery of community and government services, professional media reporters and social media I can't see how in reality we can really untangle the technology without unintended consequences.

The internet is actually making us more socially active

The commonly held belief that the internet is turning an entire generation into solitary web-junkies is a myth, according to new research. The findings may offer succour to parents worried that social networking sites such as Facebook are reducing their children's participation in school sports and cultural activities.

In a paper to be presented to a gathering of Nobel prize winners later this month, three influential economists claim their work demonstrates the internet is actually making us more socially active.

Stefan Bauernschuster, Oliver Falck and Ludger Woessmann of the Ifo Institute in Munich reject the claim that the internet isolates people socially and erodes the traditional foundations of society. "There are no indications whatsoever that the internet makes people lonely," Bauernschuster said. He explained that their study revealed that a broadband connection at home positively influences the social activities of adults as well as children.

More research supporting the positives of being online.

Online identity as part of the promise, tool, and bargain

Onlineidentitycard

Google+ has stirred up interest in the issue of online identity and the use of 'real names' - I'm seeing support for and against this policy being expressed. Of course people have always been concerned about online identity and the privacy issues around social networks, particularly massive networks like Facebook. So why is this an issue now?

  • We are thinking and learning more about the issue of privacy as more people live out their lives online.
  • We are transacting more and more online (and we are aware we leave digital footprints).
  • The role of social media in 'government 2.0', politics and its role in stimulating change in countries which are less open.

Google+ simply came about at the right time - it presents the oppourtunity to do things differently. Or as I like to think about it, we are re-evaluating the promise, tool, and bargain offered by these services.

For those arguing for real names, the basic argument I'm hearing is that people like the idea of creating a social network based on those real identities because it will create a better, safer and more friendly environment. And of course, why do you need to hide behind a pseudonyms anyway? A more blatently commerical view, but worthy of consideration, is the argument that if you want the benefits of transacting online in interesting and social ways then the network needs to know who you are.

Focusing on the arguments against real names:

The way I think about is that if this is to work, then people are really asking for the creation of an online identity card. This presents a useful way to engage with the issue of 'real names' - as a primer Wikipedia has an introduction to the pros and cons of identity cards, which I won't repeat here. Not only would we need to enforce the use of real names, we should also consider systems to create compliance and trust in other aspects of how people present themselves online, including their profile picture and profile information.

Personally, I wouldn't rely on that 'real name' that appears on the screen. Social systems (online and physical world) can be gamed and identity is only one element of trust. What we actually need to think about are circles of trust and building systems that allow us different levels of freedom and interaction using degrees of identity, just as we do in the physical world.

I mean, imagine if each and every conversation or transaction in the physical world required you to identify yourself explicitly. Even worse - if you refused to show that ID card for each conversation or transaction, you would be excluded from the community you live in.

We actually need to find a balance between the promise, tools and bargin made with social networks so that it benefits both individuals and the other users and stakeholders of the network. I'm not sure a blanket real name policy achieves that.

Credits for images used in the fake identity card: Social media icons by Nicolas Gallagher (CC BY-SA) and face by Roger Braunstein (CC BY)

 

 

Get the Proles back to work, their opinion online is worthless

THE anonymity afforded by the internet makes it hard to know for sure who is driving online public opinion. But one thing can be said about this surfing, tweeting, blogging community busy putting links and comments up on their Facebook pages: it is made up of people with nothing better to do.

An interesting argument to discredit the value of online opinion: most people are participating online in company time because they are bored and cranky, so their opinion is skewed and unrepresentative (and clearly, they are of bad character by slacking off).

Curiously, no mention of the online popularity of the ABC's #qanda and SBS's refugee 'reality' documentary. I'm pretty sure those shows play outside of normal business hours - perhaps they were only popular with shift workers?

And there is plenty of other local research that challenges the mythology of cyberslacking too.

But based on the overall negatively I often see coming from the traditional Australian media about anything to do with the Web (e.g. social media, the National Broadband Network) I can only conclude its the result of widespread boredom in the industry itself.

What do you think? (Comments to be submitted outside working hours only, please)

Law and justice in our 21st century Web-era society #gov2au

Sunday Mail reporter Anthony Gough called me last week seeking my views on a Queensland Police Service Facebook site featuring public comments on crimes and arrests.

Of course, before making a media comment on the matter I took a closer look at the site.

I quickly formed the view that it seemed an excellent community policing tool and a great way for police to get information about unsolved crimes but that many comments crossed the line once suspects had been arreste

Mark Pearson, an academic who specialises in media law, caused a bit of a stir with his reported comments. However, one of the benefits of the Web is that we can go straight to the source and bypass the newspaper editorial filter. Personally I think this is still a grey area - there are still too many variables, such different jurisdictions (e.g. US where Facebook is hosted and Australia where the user live). We won't really know until something ends up in front of judge. An more ideal outcome is that the law (in Australia) will catch up with a common sense view towards social media that meets the needs of our 21st century Web-era society.