I attended the Facing up to Facebook session at the University of Ottawa, yesterday. It was a panel discussion with Law and Technology Faculty Professors Jeremy de Beer, Ian Kerr, Jane Bailey, Val Steeves and Michael Geist and it was moderated by Andy Kaplan-Myrth.

The discussion was lively and informative and had a unique mix of social media participants (Profs de Beer, Kerr and Geist) and observers/researchers (Profs Bailey and Steeves). While there was a clear recognition of the role of social media tools such as Facebook, the discussion focussed largely on the impacts of these technological gathering places on culture and privacy, and their not-so-subtle use for corporate interests.

I found it particularly interesting when the panel explored the influence of culture on the need for social media tools and influence of social media tools on culture. Prof. de Beer introduced the room to John Fiske’s concept of Semiotic Democracy, “the delegation of the production of meanings and pleasures to viewers”.

The majority of the conversation focused on privacy concerns, the misrepresentation of information sharing controls as privacy controls and the use of aggregate information (not specific information) to generate consumer profiles. Prof. Bailey wondered if privacy is now passé. Indeed, social media tools are about publicity and micro-celebrity rather than privacy.

The session reinforced my realization that businesses that have stood up social media services (such as Facebook) are manufacturing a three-tiered privacy-crippled environment:

• crippling amounts of information that creates an environment in which privacy may be possible through obscurity
• crippling suite of options designed to perpetuate a false sense of privacy
• crippling terms of use agreements designed to protect the interests of companies through obscure language, excessive text and circular references beyond the patience and comprehension of most people

Excerpts of the Facing up to Facebook session are available in this week’s episode (#95) of the Canadian Podcast Buffet. The entire session will be released as a podcast through the University of Ottawa.

The University of Ottawa Law and Technology program hosts something called the Torys Speaker Series which features thought leaders and subject matter experts discussing issues related to law and technology. The next public session looks great!

Facing up to Facebook
A discussion panel on social media and social networking

Please join the Law & Technology group as Professors Jane Bailey, Jeremy de Beer, Michael Geist, Ian Kerr, and Valerie Steeves discuss legal issues arising from Facebook and related social media technologies.

Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Place: Fauteux Hall, room 351
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Please RSVP to techlaw@uottawa.ca.
Join the Facing up to Facebook event page.

By the way, Michael Geist, Ian Kerr, Jeremy de Beer and Jane Bailey are all contributors to the book, In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law, published September 2005 and available for purchase (CDN$50 for a printed copy) or as a Creative Commons, by-the-chapter, download.

In its heyday in the 1960’s, NASA invested in two key areas of the space program: the technology and the people. The premise of this spending decision was that NASA couldn’t get to the moon without the tools to get there (and of course, the people who knew how to use those tools) and the excitement and support of the public. The latter led to astronauts being sent to charm school. They learned how to dress, be social and communicate with the public. The astronauts understood NASA’s operating goals so they could communicate them in their own words, with their own passion and the values of the organization. Public relations junkets became the norm for the months and years following each mission during which the astronauts were expected to speak on behalf of the organization. Despite its operational and public-relations problems, NASA has been around and intact for forty-nine years.

When I started my career in the mid-1990’s, management sold the staff on our importance by sending us to technology and customer service ‘boot camps’ — five day courses compressed into two because we were ‘the elite’ and being away from our desks cost money. We were expected to memorize and recite, verbatim, the mission statement of the company. Whether or not we believed in the mission statement and whether or not it was anything more than a string of platitudes was inconsequential so long as we could regurgitate it to anyone that asked about the company. If the person with whom we were speaking started to ask additional questions about the company, we were expected to defer up the chain of command and if anyone from the press approached us, even reciting the mission statement was considered a no-no. That company lasted a little more than two years before being bought for a song, converted into a few business units each of which was sold off and ultimately dissolved less than five years after the original company had started.

I continue to see examples of the corporate communications trends of the 1990’s in the new millennium.

As the world of technology and communication has evolved, it would seem that the world of management and marketing has generally devolved. Companies are investing heavily to develop and deliver the same old top-down message to a more critical public using newer and sexier technology. They should be investing in all of their people — sending them to Web 2.0 charm school for customer service courses, public speaking workshops and writing classes.

Web 2.0 is a culture, not a technology. If you embrace the culture throughout your organization, your people and technology will help you build a strong community of real-life and online relationships central to your brand.