Alabama Kicker Cade Foster Gets Death Tweets

It’s almost de rigueur at this point.  Somebody pisses off a group of people who reach for their keyboards and let slip the doggerel of wrath in the form of assault by Twitter.  This holiday weekend, the target of death threats was Alabama football kicker Cade Foster and family, following his poor performance in the Iron Bowl against Auburn.  Foster wasn’t even the kicker who missed the final 57-yard field goal attempt, impressively caught and run back 109 yards for a game winning touchdown by Auburn’s Chris Davis.  According to reports, it was Foster’s three missed attempts earlier in the game that predicated tweets instructing Foster to die, kill himself, hoping his mother gets raped, etc.  By Sunday, however, I think it’s fair to say the “system” worked as fellow team members, fans, and just users in general rallied in a show of support for Foster that more than outweighed the attacks and seems to have quickly silenced the reactionary authors of the nasty tweets.

It’s easy to ask the question as to whether or not social media like Twitter helps bring out people’s worst natures, and I have certainly criticized this kind of behavior in the past; but the trend itself begs the question whether or not it has any socially redeeming value.  In this episode of the Freakonomics podcast, Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt propose the idea that “virtual mayhem might reduce actual mayhem” by giving particularly young men 1) something to do; and 2) a means to vent their latent rage.  Specifically, the Freakonomics partners are talking about video games, suggesting that if adolescent and 20-something males are occupied with anything (like babies with busy-boxes) they simply don’t have as much time or incentive to get into trouble.  Turning to the topic of online behavior, however, Dubner proposes the same net social gain that real violence might be diminished by letting people rant even violently online.  Levitt counters, though, that online rants can be as hurtful as some physical violence (in fact they have led to physical violence) and he suggests that in virtual space these behaviors usually persist and consume real discourse in contrast to a heckler in a live audience who is more likely to be told to sit down.

I’m glad to see that in the case of Cade Foster, the audience seems to have told the hecklers to sit down.

Bits & Pieces – Search, Speech, Privacy, Interdependence

The Illusion of Search

Casey Chan at Gizmodo.com suggests in this brief post that Google.com “barely shows real search results” on an initial results page, devoting a lot of screen real estate instead to Google services.  According to the linked study at Tutorspree, the problem is only exacerbated on smaller screens, and searching for products and services appears to put small business in direct competition with Google, which could well be the seeds of an anti-trust violation.

This does look a lot like an Illusion of More subject — the assumption that a universe of knowledge and resources is at our fingertips is betrayed by the reality of a circumscribed world designed to serve one corporate powerhouse.  It’s worth paying attention to with regard to consumer-based search, although research based search still seems to be relatively unchanged.  If I search something fairly esoteric like “Charles Giteau,” the delusional sap who shot President Garfield, I get links that are arguably valid results.

Free speech has its limits, even on Twitter

Speaking of presidential assassinations, it turns out that it’s a bad idea to threaten the President of the United States (or anyone else under Secret Service protection) even through social media.  The New York Times reports that Jarvis Britton (26) posted assassination threats against President Obama and that he is now serving a one-year term in federal prison.  After an initial round of threats, Mr. Britton was visited by Secret Service agents, who let him go after he apologized and said he’d been drunk; but it was Britton’s subsequent threatening tweets that led to prosecution.

Speaking for myself, if Secret Service agents showed up at my door and let me off with a warning, I might just find religion and join a monastery; but somehow there is a persistent yet absurd belief that social media is in some way private and personal.  We continue to see evidence that users of social media fail to recognize that it is a soapbox in the city square, and one that creates indelible impressions.   The free speech question in this case is settled law. If you say you wish the president would die, that’s protected speech; if you say you intend to kill the president, that’s grounds for being investigated and possibly prosecuted.  Why this would be any different on Twitter or other social media is a mystery to me, but I’m sure someone will offer a bizarre theory to the contrary.

Privacy Concerns

While many Americans continue to post gripes about their perception that the 4th Amendment no longer exists, I see far less wall-space being devoted to Google’s privacy policies landing it in hot water again.  Inviting censure from five EU countries, privacy watchdogs have expressed concerns as to how user data will be “shared” across the spectrum of Google products and how transparent Google is with regard to user understanding of the policies.

As I have stated repeatedly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with keeping a weather eye on government intelligence services, but I continue to be surprised by the level of Orwell-invoking hysteria while simultaneously volunteering privacy away via private companies like Google.  If Snowden reveals anything (and I personally don’t think he reveals much), it’s that at the point when government agents do infringe civil rights their information is going to come from large telecom and internet companies.  Where else do we expect them to look?

A Declaration of Interdependence

In a rare moment of digital-age exuberance on this American Independence weekend, I leave you with this wonderful short film that reminds us that interdependence is a requisite constituent to human existence.  Directed by filmmaker Tiffany Shain, with animations by Stefan Nadelman, and music by Moby, the film is comprised of clips submitted from around the globe of individuals reading “The Declaration of Interdependence” in their native languages.

The reality of the internet, I believe, is that it does indeed connect us or, as this film reveals, reminds us that we have always been connected.  That is the power of these technologies, and the collaborative filmmaking being done at Let it Ripple is certainly inspiring and also humbling.  But this film also brings to mind the tension of the digital age.  With awareness of interdependence comes greater responsibility to live accordingly.   And as discussed in recent posts, the technology seems to foster the dichotomy of committing selfish acts under the cover of a generalized humanism.

A Conversation with Dan Goodman of Believe Entertainment Group

IOM Webcast – A Conversation with Dan Goodman of Believe Entertainment Group from David Newhoff on Vimeo.

There’s no question that digital technologies have fostered tremendous opportunity for any content creator with a dream and the passion to pursue it; but these technologies have also created a dynamic, even volatile, market with forces both great and small competing for ad dollars, investors, and sustainable viewer attention. At the same time, we hear an awful lot about how content creators must adapt to new business models, which can be both true and false, depending on exactly what that means.  Certainly, we have new platforms for distribution and marketing and new ways for artists and creators to break out and build a fan base; but when it comes to building a professional career or an entertainment-based business in the digital age, are all the rules really so different, or do many of the fundamentals still apply even as we learn to use new tools?

To discuss some of these topics, I met with Dan Goodman, who co-founded Believe Entertainment Group in New York City with partner William H. Masterson III in 2010.  Believe Entertainment Group is essentially a traditional, financier/studio producer of original content for the digital-only market.  Their slate of shows includes the popular series The LeBrons, which has just launched season two on Xbox LIVE; and a brand new show called EpicEDM for fans of electronic dance music, which is the first studio-originated content series designed specifically for the Twitter platform.

I believe (pun intended) companies like Goodman’s represent the future of what we now call television.  As the worlds of TV and the Internet continue to converge, it will be the producers who build sustainable models based on professional, quality content who will be the studios we talk about in years to come.

To learn more about Believe Entertainment Group and their shows, visit their website here.

DanGoodman

Dan and I spoke in Believe Entertainment Group’s Manhattan office.