While the American preacher Harold Camping, who predicted the world would end in May, was mistaken it’s hard not to notice the huge number of natural disasters hitting mother earth.
From the Japanese tsunami, through to the Chilean volcano and increase in tornadoes, it’s been a frightening few months.
Two weeks ago my Wellington- to-Sydney flight got re-routed through Christchurch to avoid the Chilean ash. Just as we were coming in to land, the pilot pulled out as a result of the 5.0 earthquake.
Fifteen minutes later he got the all-clear to land, meaning I was in Christchurch for the 6.3 shake that happened soon after.
Like most Wellingtonians I’ve had a sort of misplaced guilt about Canterbury’s shakes. Having now experienced a glimpse of what it’s like to be in a decent shake, my guilt has turned to self-centred appreciation that my family aren’t going through what thousands of Christchurch families do on a regular basis.
There’s nothing like the smell of one’s own mortality to focus the mind.
A natural disaster may also have started to affect Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook empire. The seemingly unstoppable social media behemoth has just suffered its first month of negative American growth in May.
According to Inside Facebook, the social network lost six million users in the US, 1.5 million in Canada and 300,000 across Britain, Norway and Russia. Total users were still up 1.7 per cent but a loss of almost 8 million in core territories is a mite queer, especially after a sluggish April.
Whether it’s the cavalier attitude to privacy, their misguided plot to defile Google’s reputation or Zuckerberg’s exceptional ability to annoy the heck out of people, it’s noteworthy. Locally Facebook is still strong, overtaking every other social media site to make up 79 per cent of all New Zealand social media activity in 2010, according to Nielsen Online; it also has similar social media dominance in Australia.
The Australian Defence Force recently got a damn good lesson in how not to handle social media when a recruit secretly filmed sex romps with other recruits and aired it via social media.
The result was widespread condemnation by everyone from Prime Minister Julia Gillard through to the Defence Minister Stephen Smith who commissioned a review of the Defence Force’s social media policy. In announcing the review Mr Smith promised it would “harness opportunities to improve Defence’s work and reputation”.
It was at this stage that things got seriously unstuck. Sydney- based hipsters George Patterson Y&R Advertising was chosen to conduct the review, a firm that positioned themselves as “digital social” experts. When the Australian news media took a cursory look at this firm whose mandate was to sanitise the Defence Force’s laundry, they found a steamy pile of clangers dropped by George Patterson Y&R’s own social media team.
On the company’s Facebook page, and their own sites and profiles accessible from the advertising company’s homepage, were a sobering collection of colourful posts; ranging from some describing Julia Gillard as a lesbian and Kevin Rudd a loser, through to links to acceptable stalking and how to make your own sex toys. Remarkably, the bulk of the offending was conducted by members of the firm’s social media team, likely to be the very people who would be advising Defence.
Herein lies the challenge of social media. The only two commodities with any serious currency in social media are truth and humour. Both are extremely contextual, and thrive on intimacy. If you take either out of context or transpose them into a formal environment they can bite you on the bum.
To many it was further evidence that on the internet you really can’t control what is said about you. To others it was a convincing argument for the need for more control. Whichever camp you fall into, social media and the web more broadly is inspiring in that you don’t need to ask permission to make a tweet, to throw up a hyperlink, or make a complete dork of yourself and your brand.
When the father of internet jurisprudence Larry Lessig reviewed the movie The Social Network, his main beef was that the film failed to get the message across that the key enabler to Mr Zuckerberg’s success was the free and unfettered nature of the online distribution platform.
To Mr Lessig this defining characteristic of the net is under threat. His research (as a professor of Law at Harvard and founder of Creative Commons) has led him to the belief that policymakers and old world powers are collaborating to bargain away net neutrality in favour of regulation through software coding. In his book Code 2.0, Mr Lessig argues that rather than the net being uncontrollable, it allows more regulation than is possible in an offline world.
This week Mr Lessig is in New Zealand for the first time, delivering the key note presentation at Internet New Zealand’s Nethui. For more information check out www.nethui.org.nz

















