Imagine a world where your community, your friends, your assets, and all your creative freedoms were suddenly expelled by a corporation or government. Now consider the same corporations and governments pulling the plug on Facebook, 4Chan, Twitter, or other online communities you may belong to. A frightening thought. But is it really that far off? When considering the totality of creative expression and human connection found in online communities – arts, beliefs, thoughts, emotions – we are well beyond the simple definition of community, we are now entering the realm of culture. As online cultures continue to aid and develop human connections, serious moral questions arise. Is it time to start considering the ethical responsibilities of platform controllers who create and maintain these unique cultures? Should they have the right to determine the destiny of these cultures, or should the people have a right to self govern, free from the fear of complete annihilation? As online communities continue to blur the line between virtual and true reality, is it time to critically consider a Universal Declaration for Avatar Rights?
I have submitted this idea to the SXSW (South by South-West) Interactive conference in Austin Texas to present next year.
If you like the idea, please go to the website and vote for it. You don’t have to attend the conference in order to vote, so it would help me a great deal either way.
Questions I aim to answer:
Are we beyond the basic definition of community on the internet? Have we entered the realm of culture?
Should these online cultures have the right to exist free from the possibility of complete annihilation?
As a brand or a company, are we really obliged to preserve and protect online cultures?
What would a declaration of avatar rights look like?
What can I do to identify and protect rights of members in my online community?
Also:
Check out these other panel ideas from colleagues at Proximity, please vote for them too!
Andrew Bailey ” What does Google TV mean for advertising industry?”
This panel will explore what Google TV means for the advertising industry, what it will take to produce award winning and effective creative and how creative will have to evolve to meet the demands of Google TV.
Matt DiPaola “Branded Entertainment: Do Brands Hurt Good Storytelling?”
This panel is for anyone who lives to tell a story. Content producers will learn how to assess brand participation in their project, navigate new funding models, and bullet proof their elevator pitch.
Jeff Vermeersch “I’m a Flash Developer. Now what?“
On this panel we’ll discuss the future of Flash developers now that it’s “dead”.
Trademark infringement, or brand advocacy? Before you release the hounds with a nasty cease and desist, consider this approach that the Campbell’s Marketing Manager took over 46 years ago. Community managers and social media markerters should take note, this is how you do it!
Campbell SOUP Company
CAMDEN 1, NEW JERSEY
May 19, 1964
Mr. A. Warhol
1342 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York
Dear Mr. Warhol:
I have followed your career for some time. Your work has evoked a great deal of interest here at Campbell Soup Company for obvious reasons.
At one time I had hoped to be able to acquire one of your Campbell Soup label paintings – but I’m afraid you have gotten much too expensive for me.
I did want to tell you, however, that we admired your work and I have since learned that you like Tomato Soup. I am taking the liberty of having a couple of cases of our Tomato Soup delivered to you at this address.
It looks like teens might be moving on from Facebook. According to a study from OTX and virtual fashion site Roiworld, nearly one in five teens with a Facebook profile had decreased or discontinued their use of the site as of April 2010. The main reason? Their study shows that they are beginning to lose interest. “Losing interest” is a pretty loose definition. Some might interpret this trend as a migration to another platform – the way Facebook snagged MySpace users. But there doesn’t seem to be any one platform where teens are migrating to. And I don’t believe that teens are using the web any less. In my opinion, something much bigger is going on.
Facebook is about transparency. What about those who would choose anonymity?
In recent weeks I have talked with dozens of youth who are very concerned about identity on the internet. Teens are afraid of their future reputations. They don’t want their lives to be limited by half-naked photos, comments, art and other forms of expressive content they posted in their exuberant youth. They know all this content can be indexed by Google and searchable for their entire careers. This limits their creativity in extraordinary ways. But when creativity gets limited, people get more creative. Lately, teens seem more interested in belonging to a website that both encourages participation and protects their anonymity.
On Facebook, fake names are becoming more and more common. These names can range from purposeful misspellings to complete aliases. This simple edit makes a person a lot harder to find, friended and/or tagged in content. Even if you are discovered and tagged, it’s not likely that a future employer will spend the time to investigate aliases. Ironically, changing your name can give you more control over your online identity. There are some who take these new freedoms to extreme levels.
The Anonymous (aka “Anons”) are seeking even more extreme platforms for personal freedom, expression and disruption. By posing as a single collective identity on the internet, Anons remove all personal accountability and consequence in the digital and physical worlds. Personal expression can happen without repercussions, so anything goes. This take challenges the conventional limits of free speech not by the approach, but by infinite scaleability and momentum the web enables this movement to have.
Mischief thrives in the Anonymous web. Pornography, naked hatred, homophobia and rampant sexism are as common here as all other facets of life. Despite it’s follies, most internet memes can be attributed to the anonymous web. Child pornographers have been hunted down and exposed by the Anons. This movement offers the same creative, youthful, rebellious edge as the early days of rock’n'roll and hip hop did. Anons are typically anti-establishment, big on the rebellion and sometimes relentlessly vicious for reasons from very important to almost no reason at all. Just ask the Church of Scientology or Justin Bieber.
Urban Dictionary, (a “wiki dictionary” that defines slang, web and street language via crowdsourcing) provides definitions of “Anon” written by the Anonymous.
Here are some interesting ones:
• n. Anon or ‘non’ is an abbreviated form of the word ‘Anonymous’. Used to refer to a member or members of the internet-based free speech movement Anonymous.
• Anon does not have a stated purpose. Anon is anarchy, urges and untamed mental impulse, harmful to anyone whose inhibitions and sense of decency are still intact.
• Anons meet on internet message boards and networking sites to protest and plan pickets educating the public on violations of free speech and other human rights.
• Contrary to popular belief “Anon” is not any anonymous stranger on the internet. Anon is the hive mind of deviant fantasies and crude jokes inhabiting the subconscious of hermits, burnouts, stoners and suicidal shut-ins everywhere.
• Anon has a soft spot, not only in his clearly unsatisfying real life but also in his love for mudkipz , longcat and baww ing about his loneliness.
• You will the anarchic entity that is Anon if you spend enough time on the internet. He frequents many a venue – in hopes of adding a touch of chaos to the lives of others – for instance the anonymous chat site, Omegle .
• Anon does not forgive.
Anons can range from simple commenters to radical activists, both online and offline. Many extreme Anons are cut from the same cloth as “hackers,” but with distinctive differences.
Anons are typically content hackers not technology hackers. They are not interested in the contents of your hard drive, nor are they interested in robbing you of your identity. They thrive on the memes and conversations they’ve sparked.
Anons are obviously not looking for credit the way hackers do. They don’t claim to be motivated by cool. They are motivated by freedom, and they feel they must hide their identities to truly be free. They are a collective and they are growing in size.
Anons are, in many ways, un-definable. They seem to be motivated by the id rather than the ego. They are sometimes creepy, disturbing, hilarious, insightful, disgusting, revolting and almost always compelling.
Every culture needs a counter-culture to encourage evolution and self reflection. I think this may be the beginning of the most important behaviour shift we’ll see on the internet for the next several years. The Anonymous will certainly continue to test and challenge the limits of free speech without the accountability of identity.
(Ironically, the anonymous creator of this video was lambasted by anonymous commenters for trying to define what anonymous meant. )
So how do we sell soap to the Anonymous generation? Very carefully.
Is Facebook a utility? Could it be positioned like a phone bill? Although it may seem inconceivable, try to imagine a world in which you paid for access to Facebook. Not a lot, just a buck a month. Would you stay? Would you go? This is the conversation I’m hearing with regards to Facebook’s potential business model.
But before you answer, consider a different scenario.
E-commerce is beginning to emerge more and more on Facebook. You can buy game credits for apps like Mafia Wars, for example, and there are direct sales programs popping up on fan pages for services like “Off the Wall”. Yesterday, Disney launched an app that pre-sells tickets to Toy Story 3. These initiatives are bubbling up amazing opportunities, but still lack the scale that Facebook has the capability to deliver.
Facebook is rumoured to be considering its own currency – think Paypal meets the US treasury meets your bank. In this scenario, you would be able to buy and sell with Facebook currency. I think of it as exchanging your “Bucks” for “Zucks”. You could manage this account with your current profile and have one-click shopping – using this Facebook currency around the web on sites like eBay, Etsy, Zappos and other leading e-commerce platforms.
Now imagine a personal e-commerce app for your own profile. Use it to have a garage sale and dump your old Ikea lamps to family, friends and friends of friends. Sell your car, sell your house … you name it. Even expand your reach with e-commerce enabled widgets.
You ship and you manage, but Facebook deals with the money, exchange rates and security – each payment made to you directly deposited it in your account in Facebook tender. You can spend it or exchange it at the current rate for your country. Do you see a use for that?
I think people would use it – a lot of people. Although Paypal and others have tried, we’ve never seen a global e-commerce currency exchange find success. Typically these platforms have been limited to one or a few sites and could not easily scale internationally. Many of them rely on the US dollar as the base. Not a good bet, particularly in this economy. Boo.com tried international currency exchange – they spent billions to go bankrupt trying to figure out this one. Amazon has an amazing affiliate program, but it’s about selling their stuff for the most part, and has a very steep learning curve to get involved. Etsy is great for peer-to-peer e-commerce, but they take a cut from every sale and are very niche. eBay works well with Paypal, but Paypal also takes a cut, as does eBay, making it costly to end users. All of them have an issue with international scale, something Facebook has no problem with.
Facebook has 500 million members. They are outnumbered only by China and India in population. They don’t have to charge for profiles in order to make money, nor do they need to skim off the top of P2P transactions. They could become their own bank, make hundreds of millions in exchange rates, hundreds of millions in access fees, hundreds of millions in apps and digital downloads to go along with their hundreds of millions in ad revenue.
And what if “Zucks” were accepted in brick and mortar retail stores?
Facebook is uniquely positioned to deliver the P2P e-commerce of Etsy, beyond a specific vertical. They can deliver the affiliate program of Amazon, without the skimpy return. The scale of eBay, without skimming off each sale. And the ease and trust of PayPal, without the issue of global scale.
Now reconsider paying a buck a month for this Facebook service.
How much do you spend on your bank and credit cards every month? Do you need them all? A buck seems kind of cheap now doesn’t it? Even cheaper with a name like “Zuck”.
Facebook will inevitably charge us for something on their platform. I speculate that this currency service could be the beginning of something very profitable for Facebook, and at the same time, useful for the web.
