Twitter newspaper subversion
Dr Mumbo loves watching newspapers get to grips with Twitter.
Take, for instance, the UK’s Daily Telegraph, which set up a feed so that any mention of the phrase “Budget 2009” would appear on the newspaper’s homepage.
Which led to it carrying excellent comments like “big shitty balls” and “The Telegraph is the worst newspaper in the UK. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it.”
Yes lets all ruin every venture by a big company to take social media on board, let’s scare them off so they won’t try anything like it again… don’t be such idiots.
User ID not verified.
We have to look beyond this drivel Ross. The Daily Telegraph are big boys and girls and would have seen this coming. Given the technological medium of Microblogging is still in a stage of proliferation; whoever uses it in business in the way the Daily Telegraph has will be sticking their neck out. The future is transparency and accountability so if your prepared to program the internet with drivel you will suffer the consequences at some point. Each remark will define these individuals identities which will tell a story once aggregated. At the end of the day they are only damaging themselves.
User ID not verified.
Good point – in the short term though it can be very discouraging though, and I want to see these big organisations continue with these sorts of ventures. Fingers crossed!
User ID not verified.
Agree with Ross 100%.
Ultimately some peer regulation controls in these social widget environments will help. eg: if “other consumers” see people screwing around and adding no value THEY will be able to ban/remove posts/posters without the publisher needing to get heavy handed, use filtering methods or pre/post moderation.
~ @eunmac
User ID not verified.
Eunmac…….not sure if I understand you fully here. I see great value in Peer review process but isn’t this going a little far, allowing ban/remove. I can see a simple voting system, allowing the valuable comments to bubble up to the surface thus leave the scummy residue at the bottom to be sufficient. Let me know if this is what you meant?
User ID not verified.
Thanks Luke – Good point. I’ll clarify my ramblings a little more…
“Report abuse” would likely be the way to frame the option as far as what a user sees – IMO it’s unlikely you’d ever give users ban/remove powers per-se otherwise that too would probably be abused 😉 – so a simple ‘abuse’ flag on a post, tagged with an IP address/cookie is normally sufficient to provide filtering options within a widget for a publisher.
To your other point, I agree. We know from Digg that users differ in how they prefer to sort user content : eg by rating, others by thread, others by date etc. So again ‘rating’ options etc would all be interesting options to add in.
🙂 Hope I make sense?!
User ID not verified.
Makes total sense – we’ll figure out the details sometime!
It would be nice if I could take the list of people I follow/block on twitter and take it with me as I travel around the web, to either highlight or remove comments from those people. It’s technically feasible an should be only a few years out.
User ID not verified.
Or, you could, you know, hire an editor to prune out the nonsense before putting it on your website. Just saying.
User ID not verified.