Kingston Exposed - How Twitter can spread misinformation

The power of the pen is great, but I didn’t expect our front page splash and page 4/5 spread of Kingston Exposed to explode like it has done. Although I didn’t write the story, I did tweet a number of times asking for information and quotes from anyone affected.

Now that the story has been printed and Twitter exploded, I feel that I should explain for those who haven’t read the story…

When a tweet says “Kingston exposed has made the papers” what they mean is, ‘it’s in the university paper, which is run by some students and has a circulation of a few thousand’. Kingston Exposed is not in any other newspaper – yet – and certainly has not appeared on television, which was suggested by several Twitter users.

The majority of tweets are related to a photograph taken of the front page of The River, although to the uninformed it could be a page from any newspaper. Those who are unaware of the university newspaper may believe that this photo was of a national daily paper. This is not the case.

The very use of ‘papers’ by many is incorrect, but no one stops to check the facts and the snowball continues to build.

To those who raise the issue of The River publishing the ‘#kingstonexposed’ hashtag; yes, we did publish the hashtag, but as of Friday evening Twitter users are asking for links to the original PDF. This, surely, counters any argument that The River has publicized the location of the Kingston Exposed file on the internet.

If anyone suggested that The River’s handling of Kingston Exposed was not trustworthy or accurate, then I suggest that you read the number of tweets stating that the story has ‘made the papers’. This phrase suggests a local, or even national, paper. Clearly, this is untrue.

It’s exciting when a big story breaks and even more so if something we’re locally aware of becomes ‘mainstream’. Kingston Exposed has not become mainstream, but thanks to dozens of tweets talking about it, they are themselves adding to the snowball affect that has brought the story back into the spotlight.

This happened two weeks ago when the file was first published online, it died down in days and this will undoubtedly happen again over the weekend.

The River told the story honestly and truthfully in a professional manner. No names or photographs were published. Front page stories by their very nature gain public interest and spark debate and reaction; that’s how news works. But hysteria soon kicks in, rumours spread and too many people pass on half-truths.

No matter how many threats are made, retweets are sent or photos of the pages are taken, this is a small story within Kingston University, which has appeared in the university newspaper. Twitter has the ability to spread news quickly and far-afield. Sometimes this is a good thing, but in this case, it’s unnecessary and simply makes a mountain out of a molehill.

The above views are mine and not of The River or Kingston University. 

I'm talking to you. Put your stupid phone away and listen

I've been wanting to write this blog post for quite some time, but reading this on TechCrunch suggesting that we should all get used to people being rude was the straw that broke the camels back.

The writer, MG Sieger, talks about checking his phone while at the dinner table and that his mother would rather he didn't, to his annoyance.

I read it all twice to check I was a) conscious and b) not blind, and then tried to think back to when I last disagreed with someone with the same magnitude. After a second or two I decided that I'd never disagreed with someone this much. Ever. Those who know me will hopefully agree that I'm a fairly tolerant chap, but this rudeness got to me.

So, to everyone who checks their phone with alarming regularity whilst with other humans, be it in a pub, cafe, or restaurant, this is for you...

What are you doing on your phone that's more important than the conversation you're currently in? Perhaps you hadn't realised in your digital, tweeting, status-checking state of delerium, but being with mates in the pub is called being sociable. These are your friends - like the ones you have on Facebook, but they actually give a damn about you. They're sat right in front of you, waiting for you to stop gawping at the tweets of someone you've never met and answer their bloody question.

I know checking your phone is habit, like heading straight to Facebook after opening a new browser window, but it's still unacceptable with others around you.

Just got a text? Of course you'd know, because your phone's on the fucking table, but does it need to be replied to right this very second? No. If the sender needed an instant reply because their house is on fire or they've lost their daughter then they'd call you, or someone less moronic.

So you've checked it anyway. Hey, it might be work-related! Only it's not, because it's probably your mum. Or Vodafone. But you checked, then you type out a reply, while your mates sit awkwardly waiting for you to rejoin that social network also known as the real world. Sure, they could keep talking, but then you're not listening so you'll butt in in a few minutes asking what they're talking about.

Incase you hadn't noticed - which you probably hadn't, because staring at your MSN contacts list is way more important - there's a sort of social hierarchy that you should probably stick to. At the top there's the people you are with right now; be it your mates, your mum or your bank manager, they take priority. So when you get a text/email/tweet/event invite/phone call LEAVE IT ALONE. It can wait a minute can't it? Yes. Yes it can, until your current conversation is over. Answering your phone while being served at a shop? I'm queuing behind you, wondering if I could tear your fingernails off one by one with a rusty key.

If I come back from the bathroom and see you checking your phone, that's cool, go ahead. You found a sensible time to check your tweets. You clever human, you.

Just because we all carry iPhones or whatever that leave us connected to the Internet 24/7 doesn't mean we need to be connected the whole time. MSN on your phone? Great for a long train journey, but in the pub? Turn the damn thing off and pay attention.

I should say that this post isn't aimed at any one person but Mr Siegler's blog post annoyed me. If you've made it this far then well done, you may check your phone now.

The future of search...facebook?

I've decided to write this post off the back of something Kevin Rose said last week, suggesting that Facebook will become a rival to Google in the search market.

You’ve probably never linked Facebook with internet search, but have a think about it. When you search for something on Google and get the results, how do you know if the results are accurate and reliable? You don't. You have a look around, make your own mind up and move on. But what if these search results had been voted up or down depending on its accuracy or relevance by millions of people?

Facebook already has a voting up system with the infamous 'like' button. If a search result is what you were looking for, then click 'like'. The more a link is liked then the higher up it'll appear in search results. A voting down system could be implemented, but that would probably be open to abuse, with sites voting down their rivals en masse.

Google already have a similar feature where results can be voted up, but Facebook can go further. Facebook knows an awful lot about you; not just your age and location, but your job, what films you like, which celebrities you admire etc etc. Whatever you say or ‘like’ on Facebook could be added to the algorithm used to provide your search results.

Recent comments could also be included, giving a quick review of if the link is relevant to your search or not.

Yes, it's completely open to abuse but so was the system Facebook used to translate their site into other languages, but the process of letting the users say what is the correct and incorrect translation worked so well that complete new languages were added to the site in mere days.

Facebook Search could make searching more accurate. Instead of searching for 'restaurant in Surbiton' and getting a random list, you'd get reviews and ratings, with the most popular restaurant appearing at the top. Link it to your own Facebook friends and their mentions of restaurants in Surbiton could also appear.

This personal, human search would grow incredibly quickly. Facebook has 600 million active users and half of these visit the site every day.

Eric Schmidt said this week that the future Google “will just know” what you want to search for, and while we maybe some time away from mind-reading, we’re definitely heading in the right direction.

Your mobile phone knows where you are, and once logged into Facebook it knows what you like, what you’re friends like. Now enter a to do list into your phone. ‘Buy new jeans’ might be on your list. Your phone – using data from Facebook about what brands you like, and any recent sales mentioned or purchases made by your friends – could prompt you when a relevant shop is nearby.

Yes, this sounds like a mobile phone that stalks your life, but I think it could be useful. The whole idea of crowd sourcing information is exciting; getting real, recommended search results instead of what Google thinks you want could be huge. The quantity of data we give Facebook is vast and this has already led to very targeted advertising. I think a targeted, useful search could be Zuckerburg’s next plan.

Facebook Deals launches in the UK, gives you free stuff

Facebook Places on the iPhone app always seemed a bit pointless. You could check in to places, telling your friends where you are and who you're with. Great for stalkers, bad for loners who see you having a whale of a time while they're at home with their mums.

Anyway, Places just got a lot better today, with the launch of Facebook Deals, which promises to offer incentives, discounts and free offers to anyone who checks in at a certain place.

Say you go to Starbucks, you check in, and now you're given the chance to claim a free coffee by showing your iPhone to the staff. Obviously Deals will live or die on the range and quality of participating companies.

Alton Towers theme park is offering an exclusive day out for anyone who checks in on February 18th, and you can take three friends with you for free! YO! Sushi is giving away masses of free food to customers who check in at their stores.

I really love this idea and it take Facebook right into the firing line of Foursquare, the checking-in app that has offered incentives to its users for some time. If offers of free drinks and sandwiches at the likes of Starbucks continue, then I'll definitely be checking in a lot more than I currently do.

It's not just about giving away free stuff, Argos and Benetton have pledged to give £1 and £2 respectively to charity every time someone checks into their stores on Facebook.

Deals is free for both customers and retailers, while Facebook says it won't be taking any revenue from the service. Being free, I can see a lot of retailers getting involved with Facebook Deals, maybe offering incentives or a sort of virtual loyalty card to frequent customers.

Deals could be huge for Facebook, as according to the BBC, a third of the social network's 650million members access the site on a mobile device. 

I can't wait for more companies to embrace Deals

Dear The Media, you're not as helpful as you think

Couple of interesting stories from the Sunday papers today, both involving the media and their responsibility.

First up, senior ministers are backing a change to the law that would prevent the media from reporting the names of criminal suspects until they are charged. This might be a headache for reporters and 'the suspect did this....the suspect did that' might not provide great reading, but I like the proposal.

Can you imagine being wrongly accused of rape or murder? The media circling you like hungry vultures, obtaining your name, address and job, and printing every little detail of your life for all to see. It must be awful. Sure, once you've been proved innocent you'll probably disappear from the media shitstorm as quickly as you entered it, but your name and face is still lodged in the public's memory.

Go for a job interview, the boss thinks he recognises your face and ah yes! You're that bloke who was accused of that crime last year! Wonderful.

There probably shouldn't be a blanket ban on naming the accused before proven guilty. Maybe censor the names of those accused of serious crimes, not petty theft or similar? Or should there be a complete ban? It's a tough one.

Of course I could play devil's advocate and say 'well, if you're innocent and have nothing to hide then why should your identity be protected?' Perhaps a valid point, but the general public gain nothing from knowing the name of the accused, whereas the accused has the shame of having their innocent name printed for all to see.

As you've probably guessed, I can't really form a strong argument one way of t'other, but this story caught my eye and I'll be interested to see where it goes. 

Next up in my browse of the Sunday papers is a story stating that security chiefs are calling for live TV news to be delayed by 15 minutes, saying that this could 'save lives'. Live TV is, for the most part, boring and endlessly repetitive. But then someone blows themselves up or a plane crashes, and suddenly we're glued to the TV like there's no tomorrow.

We see unscripted reports shouting into cameras from the scene, helicopters circling and interviews with shaking eyewitnesses. During these events TV news is like a budget disaster movie that you can't turn off. Great, we get to see things as they happen and it's exciting, in a slightly weird way.

But it's not just us watching the live feed of a hotel siege or whatever, so are the bad guys. While we see armed police preparing to enter a building, the baddies are watching too, before running in the opposite direction, leaving the coppers' scuppered.

Home Office officials believe that the live TV footage of the Mumbai Hotel siege helped terrorists discover the movements of security personnel as they prepared to rescue hostages.

Alright then, this is makes sense, so let's have a 15 minute delay. Does 15 minutes really make a difference to our viewing experience of global disasters and terrorist situations? No, it doesn't. But TV execs argue that this live footage actually saves lives, by directing the public away from any disaster hotspot.

Nope, sorry. I'm not buying that. TV news is never on the scene quickly enough for a 15 minute delay to make a difference. And anyway, 15 minutes after a terrorist attack or similar I'd imagine that, if I was nearby, I'd be able to tell something was wrong, so I'd probably not go there. I don't need the TV to tell me that.

How valuable is the 'Live' icon on our TV sets? That's what this all boils down to and I can't see TV stations backing down and removing it anytime soon.