ATLAS Introduction

When we work in the Societal Web we are publishing and connecting people to knowledge, skills and experience in the information and people that we can pass on to them, as well as creating our own content sharing our knowledge, thoughts, ideas, innovations, products and services.  When we publish this material in the Societal Web it’s available to anyone and it’s sometimes difficult to see who the audience we are seeking to find actually is.

Publishing on the Societal Web

When we publish any material on the Societal Web we generally publish it in public, so that, in theory, anyone may happen across that content as they browse the Societal Web in general.

For most people the content we provide will not be relevant or may be untimely.  By really understanding the audience we seek to attract we can hopefully provide a better, more targeted way of publishing that will remain in public but not necessarily for the public.

Our aim, then, is to allow those who come across it to decide if that content is for them and, if so, to take action to enable us to identify them as part of our audience and enable us to hone the content we provide in future to be more targeted and more specific for them.

We have to do more though, we need to encourage our audience to let us know they are there, by making the content engaging and comment-able, we’ll learn about those who comment, but we also need to think about how we attract the less engaged to tell us they are reading. We’ll talk about that some more in later articles.

We need to think about Reading Styles in the Societal Web and question Who are you talking too as well and structure content to match the result of that analysis.

In a series of articles we’ll be discussing the techniques that enable you to both identify your audience more effectively and to target your content for them more effectively, too.

Introduction

Recently the Office of Telecommunications concluded a review on broadband availability and speed, resulting in a number of changes being recommended to the way that broadband is advertised.  Underneath the basis of that review was also a review of the availability of broadband and the routes to delivery.

In general, broadband is delivered into homes anad businesses by one of four primary methods:

• Via satellite which is expensive but can reach areas which the other means and methods cannot;
• Through mobile telephony;
• Through cable (typically fibre optic) generally used by television distribution companies on which broadband is an additional service; and finally
• Through copper cable via the BT telephone network.

All of these require some element of contractual commitment too, and can be withdrawn if the terms of those contracts are broken or usage limits exceeded.

Broadband Availability

Generally speaking, as the internet has grown, businesses in particular and, more recently, government in general, have started to provide services available only via the internet.  Internet Banking and Internet Investing, are fast becoming the typical consumer approach.  But there’s a problem here, which is that the internet is neither understood nor actively used by some tranches of the population, or it cannot be used by them.

My mother, for example, is 88 years old and has never, and will never, use a computer on a day-to-day basis.  She has no understanding of what the internet really is, other than at a very generic level. She has no practical experience of what it can provide.  This is not just because she is of a generation that grew up before the internet, but also because she is disabled and would struggle to use the equipment required.  Most of her business is still conducted via the telephone or written letter.

Copper wire broadband, provided by BT, is quite restrictive in range from the telephone exchange, but for voice transmission telephone lines can travel many kilometers from the exchange to the eventual end user and their home.  Inevitably this means that in country areas the availability of broadband through the telephone line is limited or non-existent for those people living remotely from towns.  Of course, they can access through either satellite or perhaps more conveniently through mobile telephone networks, but both these options are relatively expensive compared to the provision of broadband in town, and speeds tend to be significantly slower.

Increasingly, regulation requires connectivity.

Legislation is driving connectivity requirement into businesses in particular and to citizens in general. Recently the government, for example, introduced a requirement to provide VAT returns online only, with penalties if you failed to complete your returns on time through those means. (See HMRC – Online VAT returns)

Practically, that means that small businesses and start ups have no option but to be connected to the internet for their financial transactions with the government, and in turn that means businesses that are run remotely in rural communities or by those who have chosen not to use the internet as part of the provision of their service may increasingly find it difficult to interact as a business with the government.  That has some serious implications for social development in remote areas and for the elderly and disabled.  This is what we are calling ‘Digital Social Exclusion’. It is an aspect of government policy which requires review and consideration before making the decisions based on an, albeit large, majority for the sake of simplicity and speed. We are not convinced that sufficient consideration has been given to ensuring fairness and equality in this area in the past.

Digital social exclusion could be as significant to those affected as all the other forms of social exclusion have shown to be. It will create difficulties and black spots where the normal operation of business simply cannot take place.  In the long run we believe that the facilities that the Societal Web provides should be available to all. That means thinking a little bit innovatively around how to provide these services and facilities to those who struggle to use the existing technologies or live remotely from them.

I’m thinking about how we can achieve successes and practical, acceptable. connectivity for the digitally socially excluded and would welcome the views and ideas of others.

Introduction

In a recent post I was challenged by somebody commenting to make the post briefer, more bulleted, because, for them, that was their preferred style (interestingly, I talked about reading styles in an earlier blog post on The Societal Web).

This set me thinking about what I looked for in the web articles and documents that I read, and made me think about my use of other social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIN and Ecademy.

The devil’s in the detail

My own personal style is to seek a relatively detailed understanding of complex issues. So I tend to look for articles that provide a level of detail that is probably more specific than others would wish for. In general, that tends to mean long articles.

I looked at my use of Twitter and realised that, for me, it was a source of links to that detail rather than a source of the information in its own right, yet in talking and watching others using the tools and clients of Twitter it was clear that for many the links were spurious. They’d follow the links only if the initial post didn’t provide sufficient information, and often wouldn’t follow them even then.

When reading articles and longer posts on other sites, many people will already have stopped reading when they reach this point, they’ve a flavour of what the article’s about and have no desire to read the detail. Fair enough.

So who are we writing for?

When we write in public we’re not necessarily writing for the public. We’re not trying to develop an article that meets all of the requirements of all of our audience. Rather, we are writing for the audience we wish to attract but publishing it with visibility to everyone. This is, I think, why we have seen an explosion in the ‘noise’ in social media, as more participants publish more material to the widest possible audience in each site.

The challenge then is to build a network of followers who are more likely to see our material, and for whom we can write explicitly. The wider public ‘in the noise’ strategy is that even though for many people that content will be lost in the noise, for some, randomly, by chance, it will attract more than a cursory glance. For them, at least for those for whom it is relevant, a new follower can be attracted.

So there are benefits to publishing widely in terms of occasional growth of your inner network whilst being conscious of the need to write targeted material precisely for that inner network of followers for whom you are adding distinct and absolute value.

Conclusion

I’ve realised how important it is to really understand the audiences that you are writing for; to know where they are interacting and what they expect to see generally, and from you in particular. By carefully defining the messages, audience needs, locations and so on, it’s possible to produce the same content published widely but with a significantly improved result. The result of that thinking can be seen in more detail and mapped using the Societal Web ATLAS and we’ll continue to develop the discussions on this topic over time.

Interdependance is a mature state of human interaction, at birth we are dependant, entirely, on the support of others, as we grow we tend to seek independence from others and only as we become social, integral, adult, skilled people can we open the door to the possibility of interdependence, a recognition that in a world of equals our contribution is inter-dependant on others if it is to create value. We can’t force our contribution on others, they have a choice to reject it, nor can we demand their support, they have a choice to withhold it.

Interdependance, as a key factor in community values, and I believe that it is, requires a community to have sufficient mature, open, sharing, individuals who work with anyone in the community (randomly), supportively for others. Open, Random, and Supportive people (it’s a state of mind not a set of behaviours) are critical to interdependance, and so critical to community values.

Do you agree?

William Buist
Community values on-line…

When thinking about Reading styles on the Societal Web I got to wondering about English as a conversational medium and how it has changed over the centuries. I guess it’s possible that elements of the language that weren’t useful and got dropped and are now needed.

Does it matter that English lost the real distinctions between the dative and accusative in the middle ages and is left with a sort of pappy objective case that gives us pronouns used in both roles interchangeably.

Does that lead to misunderstandings where the dative is written but the accusative is read?

Should there be a better way to signal that statements are meant to be objective rather than accusative than just hoping that readers ‘get the right interpretation?’

Germanic languages have this distinction strongly embedded in them, perhaps they have an advantage in the written word that we don’t see in English?

Building any community requires tenacity, and effort, not by one person, not by a leadership team, but from within the community itself.

The American Center for Community Change comments on community values thus:-

… that we are all connected to each other and interdependent, that the [American] community includes everyone and leaves no one behind, that we care for each other and believe in shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, that we know everyone has inherent value and worth in the [American] story …

and there are some important points in this definition particularly online.

Interdependence

Interdependence is a mature state of human interaction, at birth we are dependant, entirely, on the support of others, as we grow we tend to seek independence from others and only as we become social, integral, adult, skilled people can we open the door to the possibility of interdependence, a recognition that in a world of equals our contribution is inter-dependant on others if it is to create value. We can’t force our contribution on others, they have a choice to reject it, nor can we demand their support, they have a choice to withhold it.

Interdependence, as a key factor in community values, and I believe that it is, requires a community to have sufficient mature, open, sharing, individuals who work with anyone in the community (randomly), supportively for others. Open, Random, and Supportive people (it’s a state of mind not a set of behaviours) are critical to interdependance, and so critical to community values.

On-line

On-Line Interdependence can alo be considered special form of interconnectedness (see the Mitch Joel Interview here > ) that happens on-line. Interconnectedness is not about being connected, but rather being connected and engaged. The special form of interdependent interconnectedness happens when the connections transcend platform but take place on them and off-line.  Communities will always have some level of interconnectedness between members and the best communities use on-line, in the mix of connectedness, as a binding force for the communications structure of the community.

Community values are passed on too, they live in the way the  community works as a whole and in the behaviour of the interconnected individuals. It’s probably also true to say that they express themselves in an interdependent way, it’s not enough for values to be communicated, but they have to be lived, by everyone in a common way. Being on-line helps that though, as the values can be communicated easily to many and examples and behaviours circulated and seen.

In a Village community the behaviour of one person is seen by a few and may contribute or detract, but it also passes quickly. For those who don’t see the behaviour directly there’s only hearsay to go on. Bad stuff fades quickly and good stuff takes on the power of legend. On-line behaviour is enduring, so communities can see it, communicate it and adapt, either to adopt or eject that expression of value. The bad is enduring, but it’s often not as bad as memories made it and the good is revisit-able too,so it  often doesn’t develop the same legendary status as a result. I talked about this in “The impact on community of an unfailing memory.”

I’ve also talked about the critical factors for Building Community in the Societal Web, these remin true even when considering the behavioural and value based aspects here. Values provide a framework in which the practical aspects can be seen and identified. Values allow the endurance of on-line to support community rather than pull it apart.

So, in the context of the todays world, community values are on-line as well as embedded in the people of the community, your communities will be talking about their values and communicating them everywhere, and in an alternative expression of the title its fair to say also that community does indeed value (being) on-line.

I’ve written recently about the change from analogue to digital thinking (June 29th 2010 -An Analogue Brain in a digital world >) which prompted me to think about how our memories also work and  how Analogue Memory and  Digital Memory interact and affect community in a digital world.

Human Memory

Human memory is reconstructive, incomplete, selective, regenerative and interpretative.

It’s reconstructive in that we relive the experiences temporally (i.e. in time order) reconstructing events as we go. When we sing songs we often use the last line to trigger the memory of the next line. That suggests that we store some things in a strict order with the need for entry points to get the memory to flow.

It’s incomplete because just as we have the capacity to rememebr we also have  the capacity to forget.  We tend to forget the negative and reinforce the positive, Generally none of us recall pain with the same vivid agony as when we suffer it, and from an evolutionary point of view you can see why.

It’s selective  because if we remembered every detail even the human brain would run out of space. Most things don’t matter, (No they really don’t – stop worrying so much!) so we can forget them.

It’s regenerative  because when we know we have forgotten something we can often regenerate the memory – although we may be remembering a pastiche of similar things that seem to fit. Often these regenerative memories are so real that we’l defend them as a truth when they are totally fabrications.

It’s interpretative  because we apply our emotional and environmental filters to it as we recall it. Someone we know slightly as an caring, intelligent, expert, will have those labels  because or al of our experiences of them and what others say. When they do something out of character, our memories adapt that recollection and interpret the behaviour we see in our model of them.

Machine Memory

Machine Memory is complete or corrupted, absent, never reconstructed, never interpreted.

It’s complete because it is stored in files which have a start and an end, when something goes wrong with the file, in most situations it’s lost completely (although some data may be recovered later the normal approach just says ‘error’, something our brains don’t do).

Machines  can’t easily interpret a memory in a different situation to the exact circumstances to which the data refers. Computers can be programmed to appear to interpret some similar situations we haven’t yet built interpretative routines that cope with any environment and situation and allow interpretation of the new data from a context that’s in files on hard disks so as to cope and react to new situations in a millisecond.

Outsourcing Memory

In Three degrees of Separation (Jan 7th 2009) I talked of how we are increasingly outsourcing our memories to social networks. I think the trend to doing this has accelerated since then. How does that trend affect community?

In Connectors: the power behind the power (Dec 8th 2009) I commented that:

we need a consistency and persistency of message as people get to know us, to like us, and to follow us.

To do that we need an outstanding memory and having a body of reference knowledge to our prior conversations that’s unfailing and complete is an exceptional resource. Connectors bind community, so all in all I think this is a benefit of machine memory over human memory. I rely on it.

In Social Media – Disaggregation (April 21st 2009) I recognised that the growth in the numbers of Social Networks was fragmenting the conversation across many platforms. There’s been a trend to linking through streams and feeds but those only work in the moment. The water in a stream moves on, get’s mixed, and evaporated and precipitated, quickly you can’t find the water you saw, just more of similar water. So it is with our outsourced memories, they are spread out, and hard to retrieve, increasingly we need an index or retrieval system that is as complicated as the messages it seeks to retrieve. In that context the social cohesion created by a few Social Networks can quickly break down for those working across many.

The final comment I’d make about committing our human memories to machine when we outsource them is that the negative never fades, our mistakes are  always available on instant recall, complete an unadulterated. For those seeking to disturb community that creates an opportunity. Communities that don’t learn to tolerate and accommodate the unchanging nature of machine memory will be ripped apart in time by those who seek to use the past to change the present, through consistently returning to infallible recall of fallibilities.

Communities gain strength when they choose to ignore the machine memory that they intrinsically know would have been collectively forgotten.

That’s the sign of a strong community in a digital world.

What is Analogue and What is digital

Analogue signals vary infinitely (well in theory) and digital signals use discrete states (usually 1 or 0) to transmit information.

Increasingly the world is becoming digital, Radio (DAB) TV (DVB) and the internet are all manifestations of the digital world. Yet our minds are analogue, and the interface is complicated.

For television the digital signal transmits first broad sector information and then narrow sector changes, the signals been squeezed down to minimise the amount of data that needs to be transmitted and band width and conversion rates have been increased to the point where digital transmission was possible. The best is via fibre optic cable to minimise signal noise and over the air and via an aerial the worst. We’ve all seen the impact of a pixellated screen when the signal has degraded.

Our memories don’t do that -They degrade in different ways, and the recombine to reconstruct history – Digital recall is perfect recall, but analogue, human, recall is subjective and selective.

The challenge is that humans are (self)selective. That means that we overlook trivial things our friends and contacts say and do that hurt us, pretty quickly usually. Digitally though those things are fixed. When we cause pain in the analogue brain through a digital medium we also create an endurance that doesn’t match the evolutionary path that we have taken as a species

Are communities digital or analogue?

Communities are groups of people with shared methods, shared beliefs and shared support and shared place (read more here >). When that place is on-line there is an element of digital involved yet at the heart of it are people with an analogue approach.

So, what is the impact? Well according to this article > Facebook is now a key witness in divorce proceedings. Digital evidence of an analogue affair. Not just the analogue affairs either – The article highlights :-

Consider, for example, the mom who lost custody of her kids because she was playing FarmVille or World of Warcraft when she claimed to be spending time with them, or the husband who denied anger management issues but flamed like a true troll, complete with violent threats, on his Facebook profile.

Digital evidence that never lies, never goes away, never reflects the context, and is ever present, causes analogue impacts that are complex and far reaching.

Whilst togetherness on-line can help provide a glue for community, there are risks that the digital/analogue interface of on-line to real world could also damage the heart of community too.

What does your analogue brain make of it?

We’ve all seen Foursquare and Gowalla grow and gather a following, they are building their own communities. But, like Marmite though they also have some very vociferous and noisy critics talking of these services being used to track each of us in real time, or to tell when to visit our ‘apparently’ empty houses for reasons best left to the imagination, but probably not legal. The upside is that with location based services you can get real time appropriate data pushed to your data aware device.

Now some of that might be inappropriate advertising, but that just means they haven’t got sophisticated enough – yet.

The trends point towards these services becoming more embedded in our lives not less, and like all tools there is a possibility that the information could be misused. Should we run with that negative view or take the positive approach that the benefits outweigh the possible risks. Time will tell on that.

There’s lots more to come and Marshall Kirkpatrick talks of some of this in this blog>

Data about the geographic locations of people and things will in the near-term future become a massive flow of sensor, satellite and citizen input made freely available to developers through government and other collaboration programs. It will be available in real time, to and from mobile devices, and be machine processed to pick out objects and patterns that can be used as hooks for mashups.

Increasingly location based services help us to build and maintain community, by giving the community a clues to our presence and our network of friends enables random meetings to take place. That drives strength into existing relationships, and creates new ones. We already have ways we probably couldn’t facilitate without the technology.

Often we think the technology just makes things easier, this time it makes them possible.

NIKE is already mapping your workouts and it already has build the network to allow others to compete with you on routes you have run even when you aren’t there. Automation of that mapping can only be a matter of time. Competition becomes enabled even when disconnected from a common time – that leads to a whole new activity set I expect. You could, for example, run the London Marathon, and have your actual path validated by the race controllers, the week before the race and still compete, or tomorrow.  There’s community as well as competition hidden in latitude and longitude.

Where would you like to see this location based technology go, and where would you really like it to stay well away?

In this recorded webcast you’ll learn about the key features of, and the key steps in, building your community around you.

More Societal Web Webcasts here >