Queensbridge Digital

Who holds the remote?

I have seen a lot written of late about the digital media and the emergence of dozens of new mediums giving viewers the power to choose exactly what they want and gain a form of power of the producers of media.

But who really holds the remote control?

The very fact that there are so many more choices and options available to viewers to tailor their entertainment to themselves indicates that more than ever, the media machine is learning from, shaping, and influencing it’s viewers.

Advertisements and product placements can be more easily assigned, more effectively designed, because they will only be seen by a select group of people. Messages can be constructed according to each specific medium, enhancing their power.

Common sense must indicate that the digital mediums allow the media greater ability to influence and appeal to their viewers. What does this suggest about the great interlectual freedoms of the internet?

Landmark Facebook Libel Case

In a move that, once and for all, draws a distinct legal and social line between what can and cant be done on Facebook/Myspace etc, a UK man has won $45,000 in damages against a former friend who slandered him online.

Mathew Firsht, owner of a UK based television company, launched a libel action suing freelance cameraman Grant Raphael, who created facebook profiles criticising the businessman and making allegations about his sexual orientation.

The compensation was as follows:

$31,000 personal damages

$4,000 invasion of privacy

$10,000 damages to Mr. Firsht’s business

This is a move that shows the public once and for all that they ARE accountable for the things they post on social networking sites.

According to Website-Law.co.uk:

1) What is defamatory?

Defamation is all about reputation, and in particular about statements which damage others’ reputations. The English courts have not settled upon a single test for determining whether a statement is defamatory. Examples of the formulations used to define a “defamatory imputation” include:

• an imputation which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking people;
• an imputation which injures a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule;
• an imputation which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided.

A statement that a person is an adulterer, a gold-digger or a drunkard may be defamatory, as may an allegation of corruption, racism, disease, insanity or insolvency.

(2) Libel v slander

The law of libel is concerned with defamatory writings; whereas the law of slander is concerned with defamatory speech. There are some differences in the laws relating to slander and libel. Because defamatory statements on a website will be libellous rather than slanderous, this article considers only the law of libel.

(3) Websites and “publication”

A defamatory statement is not actionable unless it is published. Unfortunately for webmasters, when libel lawyers say “published”, they mean communicated to one person (not including the person defamed). You can libel someone by writing about them on a personal blog, providing at least one person accesses the defamatory material.

That is not to say that a defamatory publication on your personal blog carries the same risk as a defamatory publication on, say, the BBC website. Libels on high-traffic sites are more likely to be discovered by the person attacked than libels on low-traffic sites. Also, potential libel claimants may let a libel pass if it hasn’t been widely disseminated - knowing that a court case would itself ensure the widest possible audience for the slur.

This marks the first precedent of a successful libel action based on a social networking site

Approaching the Digital Audience

Is there a right or a wrong way to approach the digital audience?

Are there, in all honesty, any rules which are unbreakable that must govern how we communicate with the countless publics presented online?

I suggest there are three rules.

1. Never believe that you *must* use traditional media practices, strategies, ideas etc to reach the digital audience.

2. Never believe that you *must not* use traditional media practices, strategies, ideas etc.

3. Dont try and make rules.

I think too often its easy to get caught up in the pure “wow factor” of the internet and digital media, the freedoms and restrictions never before possible.

The ability for instance to upload a promotional video in a matter of seconds that could have been filmed on the hand held cell phone camera of one of your coworkers and edited in a few hours, as part of a viral marketing campaign with the potential to reach more viewers than a TV advertisement from the 70’s. 

Admit it, that is……exciting.

But at the same time, technology for the sake of technology is a trap that could lead to the creativity we have access to now stagnating.

I think it is important to rememeber the power of the media that came before us. While so many things can be as sleek and thin as an ibook……there is still much that can be learned from the simple publicity stunts of PT Barnum.

Not really high brow PR…..but he could draw a crowd and sell a story with an outlay of practically nothing. He was inventive in a way that inspires me as much as the internet. A combination of his creativity with the creativity allowed to us through digital media is what I would like to accomplish see happening a lot more in the next few years!

MyLOL.net

From The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) website in London.

NSPCC warns children about the dangers of mylol.net

Press Releases

18 July 2008

The NSPCC is urging children to stay away from teen dating site mylol.net because of fears sex offenders may be using the site.

The NSPCC has issued the warning after finding that over 1,000 UK children - some claiming to be as young as nine - are searching for a ‘date’ on the website mylol.net. But the site is also attracting adults on the look out for teenagers. The oldest user says they 63 years old.

The unregulated site, which has nearly 1,700 UK users, contains disturbing content including:

• pictures of children who say they are 14, naively posing in underwear;
• evidence of adults asking children for mobile numbers and personal details;
• games where users are asked: “Would you **** me?”
  
  
  This presents an interesting problem. How can you provide teenagers and young people a social interaction website that actually keeps them safe? And how much responsibility should be assumed by the creators of these sites?
  Does the creator of MyLOL.net really feel that he has created a website that will not have negative effects on teens?
  
  The fact is that while you may compare this site with myspace, in that children are allowed instant access to the world outside their window, thus allowing predators access to them, myspace does regulate the site and are engaged in it’s security.
  
  Remember the old saying “It takes a village to raise a child”?
  The problem I can see with MyLOL is that it takes away the village. There are no older users on the site with more experience who are capable of identifying predators and possible threats. The young people on MyLOL are, by the very nature of the site, left to their own devices without the help or advice of older users.
  
  Any thoughts?

The Facebook/Myspace Change Up

The media worldwide were reporting constantly on the increasing popularity of facebook over myspace and the differing social appeal of the two social networking sites.

It was reported that younger people, ages 14-17 were the main users of myspace, and used it for teenage communication…..the “cory” incident in Queensland heightened that perception.

Because it seemed to a lot of my friends and acquaintences that myspace was no longer their age group, and that most of the people they know might move on to facebook, they moved on themselves.
The reporting on myspace and facebook created a real divide between the sites and became a self perpetuating prophecy.

Comscore released some statistics on the growth of myspace and facebook between 2006 and 2007:

Facebook’s massive increase of %270 to myspace’s %72 is definate proof of the rising popularity of the newer site.

Will this or has this damaged myspace?

I would suggest not. As the media and the users themselves perpetuate the idea of facebook as being the mature person’s myspace, the divide between the two sites grows ever larger. The effect this will have, I believe, is that it will create seperate markets for each, as facebook will target the over 18s and myspace the under 18s.

Will the content change more on each of the sites to reflect that?

Interesting to watch.

NB.
A big thanks to Watblog for that fascinating graph above.