Got a Google Bike

Google's kinda scarey.

It records all your searches; develops a profile about you from your use of the search engine and your visits to other websites; if you use gmail it reads your emails so that it can serve you adverts; if you use Google Maps it literally knows where you are down to a point of 3 metres; its secret algorithm is NOT the Dewey Decimal System, so it should concern everyone about how decisions are made about the editorial policy, the prioritisation of websites in search results and the information that comes top of search rankings.

But it is very easy.

So whilst people should be concerned about Google, naturally there are benefits, and just like walking into McDonalds for a hot meal that's ready in less than a minute, the convenience of the service means that people can sell out their ethics and concerns about dealing with companies that raise ethical concerns.

However, since my last bike got stolen, I decided I wasn't going to mess around - I got myself a Google bike.

Never heard of one? Well this is where some of that scarey stuff that Google does has a security utility.

The chip forged into the Google Bike's frame means you can track via Google Maps by synching it with your mobile phone or sticking a code into the app on your PC. I like it because if someone steals it, I can instantly find out exactly where it is within 3 square metres - and so can the police.

Of course, it's also handy if you just forget where you parked the bloody thing. Doubtless parents might get Google Bikes so that they can keep track of their kids when they go out cycling.

So whilst Google can be scarey, the social utility of some of its applications is undeniable. Maybe I fear the untransparent monotlith of information gathering that is Google. Or from my experience with the Google Bike, maybe I don't mind Google and it's tracking, info gathering, profiling activities, as long as I'm in charge of it.

The Social Network - Review

NB: I hate spoilers, so this blog won't give away plot, but will talk about themes in the film.

Aaron Sorkin? I didn't even know he was the screenplay writer until it popped up on the opening credits, and as a HUGE West Wing fan (I have to watch an episode before I go to sleep every night - no kidding. Get lost!) I figured I'd be into Social Network. (It's him and David Mamet that are so seriously wicked.)

And Sorkin hits you with a first scene that is masterful in its integration into a face to face conversation of the crap cliches and meaningless, trite content of social media messages and comments that belie true feelings and honesty.

Seriously, it's worth going purely to experience the first scene's cynical regard for the changes in human communication that social media has impacted upon us.

You can read about the anti-hero claptrap from other reviews, but instead consider the contemporary portrayal of geeks in films recently, of which this film is a prime example. Whatever happened to Hollywood's loveable poindexters? Y'know like Lucas, the guys from Weird Science, and Revenge of The Nerds? (Jesus, the temptation to summise that we're in "Generation G" for "geek" is incredible. Cliched device duly avoided.)

Executive producer Kevin Spacey follows-up the vibe of his film 21 - which explores the corruption of geekdom - with an even stronger and darker assertion that successful nerdity leads to megalomania.

But of all things, almost counter-intuitively until you reflect on it, this film is about superficial friendship and insincere communication. But then it's about Facebook, so of course it is.

The only entity in the film that retains integrity is The Social Network. (I don't want to spoil it, but I'm dying to make a point about a character which you might also argue retains integrity - but the very last scene proves that not to be the case.)

Fiction or not, it's a tragic depiction of the loneliness of the man at the centre of the world's largest social network, the man who commoditised friendship.

But regardless of whether the sense of affirmation for my cynicism towards social network "relationships" was from my own imposition on the film or whether it was an intentional reflection of my views, it was the most powerful thing I took away.

Lots of other things were just lessons I'd already learnt. Never blog when you're hammered. But great ideas come to you when you're pissed - in both the UK and US sense. Defamation is defamation, on the 'net or not. Pretty girls on websites drive traffic. A "the" is great for bands, not for brands. People you think are "cool" will disappoint you when you realise their reality.

Questions I asked myself after the film:

Whatever happened to Faceparty.com?

Why was my university only on the second round of UK invites?

Why the hell would people put photos of themselves drunk on the internet? Looking in the mirror when I'm drunk is frightening enough, why the hell would I want to relive that?

Lessons I think are intended by the film:

If you've got a true friend who's become simply a facebook friend, go hook up with them, have a real chat about real stuff.

Also ask yourself, how many of your Facebook friends you would give $25mn to?

And if you really think that social network friendships are real friendships, take your social media face out of your social media arse, go down the pub, and talk to someone you don't know about something real. And if you like them, learn something from them and think you can add to each other's lives, stay in touch with them. Ask them if they're on Facebook.

Outrage For The X Factor Machine

It’s official. The nation is obsessed with the media monstrosity that is The X Factor. Auto-tuning auditions, exploiting the mentally ill, the innocent and the deluded hopefuls, and the production team’s decisions to drop anyone with real talent but no emotional back-story. Not despite, but because of, the continuous negative coverage related to the show, the public are tuning in and ratings seem to be at an all time high. The publicity strategy for this year’s X Factor campaign (cue back drop fireworks, stings and rapturous audience applause please)…causing, and sustaining, public outrage.

When Cheryl Cole chose not to let eighteen-year-old Gamu Nhengu through to the live shows after a flawless performance at Cole’s million-pound pad in Ascot, the public were furious. They blamed Ms Cole’s decision to end the young girls dream on her immigration status, as Miss Nhengu and her family have recently been refused permission to stay in the UK and face deportation back to their violent and unstable home country, Zimbabwe. Although cleared of racism after Cole punched a black toilet attendant in 2003, her decision not to let Miss Nhengu through to the live shows sparked a huge race row. Seeing the usually obsessed-by-everything-Cheryl-Cole-says-and-everything-Cheryl-Cole-does nation turn against her was fairly man-bites-dog, so great publicity for the show.

Call us cynical but at the back of X Factor publicists’ minds, the toilet attendant fiasco is something that has been forgiven but not forgotten from Ms Cole’s past. Faced with a black African contestant, the publicists were able to turn a controversial event in Ms Cole’s past into a valuable media asset to publicise the show through outrage.

We’re not the only minds that this possibility has popped into, Mark Borkowski commented in a recent article, on his website Mark My Words that: “I strongly suspect that they may be deliberately leaking info and then claiming to be upset, thus generating more stories. All of this boosts the show, the ability to make money, and more often than not it is at the expense of the ‘talent’.”

Social networking sites are undoubtedly one of the best ways for people to express their personal feelings, vent some anger and generate debate. And the vehemence in which people portray their opinions through these sites is a hell of a lot more aggressive than what is portrayed in print or broadcast media. With 17,000 people joining a Facebook page ‘Gamu should have got through’ in a matter of hours after the show was aired, and a ‘Hate Cheryl Cole’ trend emerging on Twitter, these two social networking sites were clearly a great method of supporting the media strategy. And The X Factor is clearly aware of this. If they want to create hype, using social networking sites is probably the best way to go about it and they’re certainly not going to generate the same amount of fuss about the show if they put through the public’s favourite, maintain Cheryl Cole’s ‘the nation’s sweetheart’ title and simply let the overall winner get that expected Christmas number one spot they’ve always dreamed of.

However, one’s fall is another’s rise. The “Mr Nasty” music mogul and fellow X Factor judge Simon Cowell is coming off looking like the good guy. Again. Granted it is his show, so why wouldn’t he want some positive PR. Using Miss Nhengu’s uncertain future, BBC News reported Mr Cowell “has thrown his weight behind the campaign to save X Factor singer Gamu Nhengu from being sent back to Zimbabwe.” Simon Cowell commented: “We have lawyers working with her lawyers – not because we have to – but because I really feel for their situation, and that’s outside of the show.” How good of him. Although I’m sure the price he’s paying for his lawyers will be like a drop in the ocean compared to the money gleaned from sustaining viewers to the ad breaks during The X Factor, whether or not Miss Nhengu’s potential deportation is “outside of the show”, the media coverage of the threat is a boon to the programme’s view figures.

Nick Ede, Creative Director of Eden Cancan, comments that: “The controversy surrounding the judges’ choices is always of interest and there will always be media stories to fuel the public’s interest in the build-up to the first live shows. It’s a win for The X Factor but a loss for Cole.”

So with Cole getting the negative coverage this time round, the tables really have turned as Cowell has managed to go from Mr Bad Guy, to Mr Nice Guy – at least for now. On the contrary, the incredibly powerful entrepreneur is never going to come out of the show any worse off from any negative publicity the show receives. This is, after all, the man who attacked last years Rage Against the Machine campaign to sabotage the Christmas number one spot from winner Joe McElderry, telling The Daily Star: “It’s all very Scrooge.” Of course, he probably wasn’t that bothered by it at all as he does after all own rights in Sony BMG’s catalogue – who Rage Against the Machine are signed to. So for Simon Cowell, it was always a win-win situation. He’d earn money from sales of “Klling in the name” and “The Climb”.

Profiting from the positive and the negative – what a genius.

It wouldn’t be unfair to suspect that the previous 2008 campaign to get Jeff Buckley’s Hallelujah to the number one spot and deprive winner Alexandra Burke of the Christmas number one with her version of the song, was a test run for the Rage Against the Machine campaign. Social networking sites went lunatic, and although Alexandra Burke still managed to win the top spot, fans were angered on either side of the debate. This perhaps resulted in the show realising just how much benefit they can gain from pissing people off.

So when Ms Cole kicked off Gamu-gate, social networking sites were swamped by X Factor viewers’ campaigns demanding the reinstatement of Miss Nhengu and hundreds of fans lined the streets outside the eighteen-year-old’s house to show their support for her.

How on earth did they get her address? Has the show no consideration of public safety?

Well, actually they probably do. It’s quite easy to come to the conclusion that the X Factor publicity team may’ve organised such an event. Cheryl Cole on the other hand reportedly received death threats over her controversial decision.

So we could finish this all off by saying the same trite stuff that “people are clearly forgetting that this is just another reality TV show. It’s a competition. It’s just a bit of fun…”
But no – what people are clearly forgetting is that the X Factor is a masterful media product, a powerful publicity machine and a genius money-making, ad-unit selling device. Question and criticise the ethics, but be amazed and aware of its raison d’être.

All the so-called ‘leaking’ of stories about the show and about its contestants seems like an inexcusable way for a huge corporation to exploit innocent contestants who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for. Miss Nhengu recently told The News of the World that: “If I hadn’t been on X Factor everything would have been fine. Someone else would have been the scapegoat instead of me.” All these hopefuls want is a chance to live their dream of becoming the next Leona Lewis, but if the show actually treated them with any respect, they wouldn’t receive the publicity the show craves so badly.

So this years PR campaign of causing public outrage is doing pretty damn well so far, but what those who are so outraged need to see is that while it’s all very well campaigning against decisions made by the show, bitching about it by the water cooler and criticising the ethics of the show, if you really want to make the point, stop watching the show.

Try it. See if you can. We challenge you.