Social Media – John Vincent

Navigating the Digital Landscape

Maybe there’s no simple right or wrong answer. Polarising a debate doesn’t bring better results.

The landscape, the environment, the society that children grow-up in is ever changing. Moving to ban smart phones and tablets for children is gaining some momentum. Taking these components of modern living out of schools and limiting exposure to their influence is in the minds of campaigners. Organised movements and some politicians are going that way.

My childhood wasn’t dominated by digital technology. It was an analogue world. That single fact doesn’t make it “better”. Here, even my language suggests one good and the other bad. Perhaps I should be positive about the advantages of an analogue world. Afterall, it did stretch across the whole of human history right up to the time that personal computers found a place in our homes. However, that societal transition didn’t bring about Armageddon.

There was a moral panic in my late teens. As analogue video technology became widely available then so did pre-recorded video cassettes. Now, they look prehistoric when they crop-up on the shelves in charity shops. Chunky, magnetic tape-based machinery became a rival to regulated broadcast TV. At the time, media legislation was way behind the curve.

In the early 1980s, social commentators got highly agitated about the harm that easily available video content could do. True, with some justification, although this reaction went overboard. The media would keenly focus on any crime that could be tagged to “video nasties[1]”.

What’s my point? It’s that media technology will continue to evolve at pace. Even now with our small screens, being carried everywhere people go, are systems that remain relatively crude. Imagine what will happen if technology that directly connects to the human brain becomes widely available.

Teaching children to be able to cope in this rapidly changing world matters. In my opinion, sheltering them from this technology landscape isn’t a good idea. Yes, censor the bad stuff but taking away smart phones and tablets has a downside.

Abstinence is favoured by strong believers in that way of living. Tightly controlling exposure to everyday society on the basis that the dangers of corruption are everywhere. Over the long-term, what is observed is that an approach based on prohibition isn’t sustainable.

Like it or not, there’s a schizophrenic reaction going on. As I was last week. sitting in a busy airport lounge, I noted the number of parents and children glued to their small screens. For the flight home of almost four hours, the proliferation of smart devices was notable.

Promoting legislation that prohibits the use and carrying of smart devices during the school day[2] is foolish. It ticks the populist box of the concerned parent but it’s stoking a new moral panic.

Learning to live healthily in the landscape, the environment, the society that children grow-up in, that’s part of the school day.

[1] https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/where-begin-with-video-nasties

[2] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/19437/amendments/10018472

Rapid Change: Social Media’s Role

I don’t think we understand the impact our world of superfast global communication is having on human behaviour. A digital event happens with a group looking on, and gasping, and within hours it’s a talking point across great swaths of the INTERNET and social media. Worldwide in seconds.

We could be at a pivotal moment of human evolution. Every time humans have progressed there’s been something in our environment that has necessitated change. If we go back tens of thousands of years, it was the climate. People moved, searching for better prospects. When the rains disappear, migration happened. This still happens. Millions live in that time warp.

However, for those of us who live in communities where our basic needs are met, bar disasters, it’s different forces that motivate change. I say this after having watched a couple episodes of “Human[1]” a BBC series about the origins of modern humans. Billions of us fixate not on finding enough food or shelter but on scrolling.

I’m talking about a couple who got caught on camera. Obviously, they thought that their evening out at a rock concert was a private matter. It turned out to be anything but private. Suddenly these two people spark controversy and debate without any intention of doing so[2]. We live in a time where global social media can thrust a spotlight on any event, almost anywhere. The proliferation of high-definition cameras and the ease with which pictures spread has all speeded up in the last couple of decades. Any picture or video can go anywhere on Earth at lightning speed.

Past moments of human evolution never had these superfast phenomena to adapt to. Sure, we have had great steps in technology. I read that people are taller now than they were in medieval times. Industrialisation may have had downsides, but we are mostly better fed as a result.

Social media is not benign. It grabs attention, it demands an opinion, it drives rapid judgement and gets passed on to spark more cycles of comment and opinion. This conveyor-belt of comment and opinion takes on a life of its own.

There’s such a mix that it’s not always easy to determine what’s true and what’s people pushing their own certainties and prejudices. Judgements are expected to be immediate. Any appeal to caution and considered thought can be seed sown on fallow ground. Like a Vicar in an empty church.

These behaviours are being applied to the daily News and events like the recent Air India accident. Attention increases when there’s tragedy and mystery. There’s wisdom in saying that people should wait for the formal accident investigation to conclude. Only this does nothing to impede a rain forest of judgements. Real and self appointed experts fight to get their view top billing.

Maybe these are ephemeral and of no great consequence. I don’t believe that because, like it or not, decision makers are influenced by social media’s compelling nature. What this says to me is that adaptation isn’t an option it’s a necessity. Appealing to past custom and practice isn’t going to work. I don’t have an answer as to the nature of this adaptation. Sitting quietly waiting for attention to subside isn’t a good course of action.

POST: It’s kinda funny that a magazine like WIRED highlights how to dump social media. How to Delete All of Your Social Media Accounts: Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, and More | WIRED

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002fc72/human

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/astronomer-responds-coldplay-concert-kiss-cam-moment-rcna219678

Free Speech or Unregulated Chaos?

Twitter grew to a global scale. It didn’t make money. It was a social media success but a commercial mess or, at least, that’s how a lot of people saw it. Its snappy short text became the playground for people pushing press releases and journalists seeking immediate printable lines. On top of the professional users were a mountain of commentators that ranged from the highly credible and reliable to the outlandish crazies promoting their every possible madness.

For whatever reason it caught the attention of Elon Musk. He has a numerous selection of descriptions ranging from wry businessman to futurist visionary. There’s no doubt he’s a risk taker who has an uncanny ability to come up smiling where others would likely have collapsed in bankruptcy or chaos.

Reports of “X”, as it is known now, are that Musk sees it as a platform for free speech. There’s an absolutism about this mandate. Although there’s legislative obligations in most countries that put some boundaries around what’s called “free speech” the platform X has become one that pushes at the boundaries.

Generally, moderate opinions don’t stir-up controversy. So called “mainstream” factual reporting can be boring and somewhat dry. What seems to trigger a lot of activity are opinions that are “extreme”. That is often extreme in the political sense from the left and the right. Tapping into the popularity of populism – if that makes any sense. Polarisation if it doesn’t.

As a platform for legitimate political views, however disagreeable, there’s not so much to complain about the openness of a lightly moderated space. Through history public spaces have been created for people to vent their views[1]. However, this is not done without regulation on conduct.

Where free spaces get extremely toxic is the riotous spread of misinformation. It’s one thing to have strong socialist or liberal views or hard conservative views but when views are presented as based on facts when they are not[2], and expressions are intended to create aggressive responses, there’s a line of unacceptability that has been crossed.

I am taking the view that today’s X is not a place for a reputable organisation or person. It’s not that social media platforms are intrinsically bad. No, it’s the way that they are managed. My observation is that there is a connection between the mindless riots of recent days in England and the lack of attention to civilised regulation of certain digital platforms. It’s a question of both written regulation and its consistent implementation.

This situation is recoverable. Putting digital social media back into a good shape for the public to conduct a dialogue about the issue of the day will require effort from its owners and governments across the globe. Is there a willingness to step up and act? Let’s see. Surely these subjects need urgent action.

[1] https://www.royalparks.org.uk/visit/parks/hyde-park/speakers-corner

[2] https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/5/20/23730607/elon-musk-conspiracy-twitter-texas-shooting-bellingcat-taylor-lorenz-psyops

Half full

Winter Sunday mornings are a good time for mild depression. Awake to grey skies as the bedroom radio clicks into action. Well, that’s one way of looking at the words dribbling out of the airwaves. Bouncing off the bedroom walls and hitting my half awake ears.

It’s billed as a weekly reflections on topical issues from a range of contributors. That’s elementary well-crafted BBC wibble[1]. Range of contributors means radio chums who sit well with the semi-religious Sunday schedule.

If we go back a couple hundred years, a middle-class family would be huddled around a hulking great bible looking for insights and explanations of the world around. Technology, namely radio, gives us the opportunity to squeeze all that into a short morning sermon. Now, the internet means a keen listener can revisit an ephemeral broadcast, any time, and any place.

Sunday morning should, in my mind, mean an articulate 10-minute essay on anything. Yes, anything. Often, it’s a rush to be profound and tickle unwilling asleep brain cells. This can start with controversial words that are then diluted for the breakfast table. Rather than writing a best-selling self-help book that only sells at international airports, Radio 4 drags in a version of deep thought to churn over a subject that’s vaguely topical but not quite. Vaguely philosophical but not quite.

Strangely, I like listening to the laconic warbling of someone like Wil Self[2]. It’s true that I can only do that if the dosage is reasonably thin. An excessive exposure to early and intense thoughts about the human condition can get overwhelming. Especially when sentences are the length of a double decker bus.

Sunday’s awakening is a moment in the week when I can be assailed by adolescent optimism or gravelly pessimism. Bravura passages can run the gamut of the whole of history. Equally, they can dissect a microscopic moment of personal revelation.

I’m going to get Confucian. If I recollect correctly, he has something to say about NOT being obliged to accept gifts that are not given with the best of intentions. It’s a kind of allegory. It’s a good one for the social media age.

Let’s say Suella Braverman does a slot on the BBC’s Point of View. I might be included to turn the radio off. But that’s not a good reaction for me, a person who believes in freedom of speech within civilised and reasonable limits. There’s the rub.

The essence is that it’s one thing to be offered a gift of someone’s great “wisdom” but there’s no obligation on my part to accept it. I think, in this country there’s too much a tradition of not rocking the boat. That’s to accept a gift as a matter of politeness. Even if the gift is quite appalling or bound to be harmful. Some cultures and countries don’t have that problem. I’m a great fan of Dutch bluntness. It’s a classical Britishness that has unwanted repercussions whereby we tolerate that which should be given short shrift.

How did I get to this point? Don’t tell me pessimism is good for us on a damp gloomy Sunday morning. Human events are not mostly random. Agreed randomness is a big part of life but please drop the “mostly”. Understanding probability is a useful skill. Randomness isn’t so random. But don’t let such an understanding led you to think that choice is immaterial.

I will choose. Radio, on or off. Get up now, or slumber.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001t34q

[2] https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/out-of-their-minds/

Charm

It’s a curious question. What part does “charm” play in life? Does the charming man or woman get the job and the dull or grumpy but competent person fail? Do charming people get more done, or are they more inclined to laziness?

Like most assertions or questions, it’s as well to start with some definitions. If we put aside nuclear physics and jewellery the definition of “charm” could be said to be the power or value of delighting, attracting, or fascinating other people. It’s an intrinsic human characteristic but I’m sure it can be learned by those who start of with basic abilities.

One of my favour fictional characters, from the 1960s has this in bucket loads. Personified in the TV series The Saint[1], Simon Templar played by Roger Moore exuded charm. In this exhibition of charm, it’s more than an external attractiveness. It’s also a moral and ethical code.

Perhaps it’s not just charm that I’m discussing. When I asked the question of a supporter, what do you see in Boris Johnson? The answer came back – charisma. It’s a power to stand above the crowd and exert influence over people. Here’s another fuzzy characteristic. Everyone recognises charisma exists but may choose to describe it differently in different people.

The reality seems to be that charm and charisma may be combined but they have little to do with moral and ethical behaviour. However, the general perception is that there’s “good” in these characteristics. Is this obvious, and thus not warranting much further thought? Or is it, that because this seems obvious, that in the hands of the “ungodly,” as The Saint would say, these characteristics can feed unfairness, injustice, or corruption?

What I mean is that “bad” charming or charismatic people are allowed to get away with misdemeans and occasionally down right criminality without the accountability that would punish others. We can add to the equation the current social media explosion. Most platforms are a gift to the self-publicist. They can be a shop window and a soap box for the adoration of charming or charismatic people, good or bad.

Maybe instead of Twitter’s blue tick there ought to be an emoji of the devil or an angel. No – that would be worse than nothing at all. In the end we do depend on authors, journalists and investigators looking behind the masks that prominent personalities keep up. What I can say is that, if there are contemporary Robin Hoods that prevents the “ungodly” from succeeding, they may need help. It’s not so easy to stay one step ahead.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055701/

To see

It’s the most difficult of challenges. Trying to see things as they are rather than how you would wish them to be. I came to that conclusion much because of my work on aviation safety management. Collecting data, doing analysis, and trying to distil what’s important and what’s not.

Data speaks. It tells you things about what has happened in the past. That gives a clue to what might happen in the future. Although, estimates and forecasts are derided by some people they are essential in a technocratic society like ours. Results can be inconvenient and embarrassing. Not paying heed to them can compound any difficulties a thousand-fold.

It’s not sane to use complex technology without doing some projections into the future as to its possible implications. I know there’s a contradiction in that we have adopted digital interconnections without a great deal of thought as to what can happen. That proved to be a very bad move in at least one fictional depiction of the future[1]. The possibility that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could move against our general interests is real.

That aside, my general point was on the more unemotional and objective view that can be taken of evidence gathered for a purpose. Taking that and then imposing dogma and prejudice on what has been learnt can be down right dangerous.

I found a backup for this view coming from British philosopher Bertrand Russell. He provided advice when he was interviewed in 1959 by John Freeman for the BBC’s Face to Face programme[2]. The great man came up with this message to future generations a year before I was born. Russell having been born in 1872 had seen so much change in his life he was well placed to conclude as he did.

Good advice “ask yourself only what are the facts” and what they show. He’s not saying we must be automatons. Judgements must still be made in relation to the facts. There will always be an ethical dimension to those judgments. There are most often multiple choices.

Russell foresaw more societal interconnection and interdependency but left us before the world wide web took-off. In social media venues like Facebook and Twitter tolerance and care for the facts are often found to be lacking. This does have a profound impact on political thinking. It gives legitimacy to complete folly. Dare I bring up the subject of Brexit?

My advice – Try to see things as they are rather than how you would wish them to be.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407362/

[2] https://youtu.be/ihaB8AFOhZo

Blah Blah Blah

To comment on British politics, Twitter maybe the perfect platform. It’s one of the ways commentary and observations can keep up with the pace of change. So febrile is the current landscape of British politics that it’s almost impossible to predict what will happen next. Naturally, there’s thousands who will volunteer their views. It’s a wonderful entertainment but probably not terribly helpful.

What makes a good politician, or at least what makes an effective politician in 2022? Let’s forget what makes a great politician because that category is only ever seen in the story books.

Setting our situation in the context: however good a person maybe they will make errors and have failures. Let’s not get hooked on the ridiculous idea that perfection is out there to be found. That’s the territory of ideology and fanatics. There’s too many of them in Twitter-land.

What makes a good politician? I think it does come down to fundamentals. There is a big word that stands out in any community. It has done throughout history. It’s that simple but sometimes illusive quality of TRUST.

It’s not enough to stand in front of a group of citizens and espouse trustworthiness. It’s not enough to say – trust me, I know what I’m doing. There must be believability built on sound evidence. That’s a record of saying things and doing things that are correct, consistent, and coherent.

Not easy to do. The frenetic speed of News is like a hungry monster wanting to be feed minute by minute. Say too much and arguments are pulled apart ruthlessly. Say too little and the vacant space is filled with speculation.

Getting beyond the blah blah blah of ephemeral commentary is not so easy. Trust and communication can’t be separated. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say must run through every message.

Am I being naively contradictory? To start, I emphasised that it’s human to get thing wrong now and then. If public communications must meet unobtainable standards what hope does any politician have in this new media world?

Well, there’s a balance to be struck. That’s where we are – way off balance. Like a wobbly wheel spinning on a worn out axal. Both the wheel and the axel need replacing.

Social media and aviation safety. Part 2.

Reports of aviation accidents and incidents and occurrence reports vary greatly in quantity and quality. Improvements have been made, as legislation has demanded basic data be recorded and retained.

Nevertheless, the one-line narrative is still with us. These reports are frustrating for safety analysts. If a bland statement about an aviation occurrence is received a couple of weeks after an event it can be almost impossible to classify. The good that social media can do is to supplement official information.

In most cases, mobile phone video taken by a passenger or onlooker can be checked for veracity. It needs to have the characteristics that confirm that it was taken at the time and place of the event it depicts. Photographs often have location, picture size, resolution, and device information.

It’s as well to recognise that this work can’t be taken for granted. There is work for aviation safety analysts to do verifying information. Images can be edited by effects that create an exagerated sense of drama.

Image copywrite does have to be considered. Professional photographers make it clear that their work is protected. This is often stamped on the material in some manner.

Impromptu videoing of an aviation incident, that may involve the person taking the video changes its status once its launched on social media. At least that is my understanding of the legal paperwork that few people ever read, namely the common clauses of End-User License Agreements.

So, advice might be, to try to avoid copyright infringement it’s always a good idea to credit the source of the material used. Using copyed material in good faith is no defence for ignoring ownership.

The pursuit of aviation safety can be argued to be the pursuit of the greater public good. Unfortunately, the lawyers of some newsgathering organisations will not give the time of day to anyone who argues that they are in pursuit of the greater good.

Suprisingly, the subject of who is a press reporter or newsgathering organisation is vague in a lot of national legal frameworks. Protecting free speech is a strong case for not drawing too many boundaries but a complete free for all has a downside as “truth” goes out the window.

On another subject, privacy is a sticky one. Where people are identifiable in randomly taken pcitures or video of accidents and incidents there is currently no protection.

Again, there are questions to be answered in relation to use of social media derived safety information.

NOTE:

Example: Dramatic footage shows firefighters tackling fire on British Airways passenger plane at Copenhagen airport. [Dailymotion embeded video].

An Online Safety Bill in the UK will shake up the regulation of material on-line even if its not designed to address the issue raised in my blog. Online Safety Bill: factsheet – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Social media is changing aviation safety

You may ask, how do I sustain that statement? Well, it’s not so difficult. My perspective that of one who spent years, decades in-fact, digging through accident, incident, and occurrence reports, following them up and trying to make sense of the direction aviation safety was taking.

In the 1990s, the growth of digital technology was seen as a huge boon that would help safety professionals in every way. It was difficult to see a downside. Really comprehensive databases, search capabilities and computational tools made generating safety analysis reports much faster and simpler. Getting better information to key decision-makers surely contributed to an improvement in global aviation safety. It started the ball rolling on a move to a more performance-based form of safety regulation. That ball continues to roll slowly forward but the subject has proved to be not without difficulties.

Digging through paper-based reports, that overfilled in-trays, no longer stresses-out technical specialist quite the same as it did. Answers are more accessible and can reflect the real world of daily aircraft operations. Well, that is the theory, at least. As is often the case with an expansion of a technical capability, this can lead to more questions and higher demands for accuracy, coverage, and veracity. It’s a dynamic situation.

Where data becomes public, media attention is always drawn to passenger aircraft accidents and incidents. The first questions are always about what and where it happened. A descriptive narrative. Not long after those questions comes: how and why it happened. The speed at which questions arise often depends on the severity of the event. Unlike road traffic accidents, fatal aviation accidents always command newsprint column inches, airtime, and internet flurries.

Anyone trying to answer such urgent public questions will look for context. Even in the heat of the hottest moments, perspective matters. This is because, thankfully, fatal aviation accidents remain rare. When rare events occur, there can be a reasonable unfamiliarity with their characteristic and implications. We know that knee-jerk reactions can create havoc and often not address real causes.

In the past, access to the safety data needed to construct a context was not immediately available to all commers. Yes, the media often has its “go-to” people that can provide a quick but reliable analysis, but they were few and far between.

This puts the finger on one of the biggest changes in aviation safety in the 2020s. Now, everyone is an expert. The immediacy and speed at which information flows is entirely new. That can be photography and video content from a live event. Because of the compelling nature of pictures, this fuels speculation and theorising. A lot of this is purely ephemeral but it does catch the eye of news makers, politicians, and decision-makers.

So, has anyone studied the impact of social media on developments in aviation safety? Now, there’s a good topic for a thesis.