https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/01/31/how-this-amateur-painting-became-hilarious-social-media-sensation/?utm_term=.632bb78a2539

In this case check out this really great set of interactions around amateur art, social networks and recognition. The nascent spark was with an individual sharing some creativity online with minimal expectations. Reddit took the concept and users began to post their versions of the same image, with the original contained within – a bit like a hand painted Russian Doll.

What’s interesting is the pursuit of recognition, and being “in” on the meme. Think of the WORK it took to participate. In the right conditions is there no limit to that valuable devotion?

Travis Simpson saw what was going on and wanted in. He said he knew artists everywhere were painting fast so they could get their painting up before others could. He stayed up all night to paint the latest iteration, then posted a photo, writing on Reddit, “When it sinks in that I stayed up most of the night to paint a meme for internet points…”

We all do this to some degree. There is a sense of piling on, jumping in before all the magic is spent – Currency.

And I don’t have any issues with targeted marketing. In fact, I prefer it. As a friend of mine who is a noted expert in marketing science said, “That ad space inventory is going to be sold, it might as well be for something I might be interested in.” So yes, by all means…show me ads for turntables and men’s grooming products!

But this is something else. This is…alarming.

As we all know by now, a December 18 article in the New York Times laid bare what many of us have suspected for years, and it’s right there in the lede:

For years, Facebook gave some of the world’s largest technology companies more intrusive access to users’ personal data than it has disclosed, effectively exempting those business partners from its usual privacy rules, according to internal records and interviews.

OK, that’s bad enough. Giving their partners a pass on privacy rules? That means they weren’t rules at all, and it certainly belies Facebook’s various attempts to position themselves as reformed privacy derelicts. I mean, just take a moment to watch Zuck’s apology in front of congress:

One might think that’s it! They get it! They’ll do better! Now, back to the NYT article:

Facebook allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages.

Read that last bit again: “…and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages.”

That’s not aggregate data or blind user journey tracking. That’s access to private, personal messages. And that, to me, was just too much.

So I quit. For a while. Kinda.

The same day that the New York Times article ran, I posted this:

And we had hit a turning point, or I had. I stopped posting and changed a bunch of my privacy settings. But I didn’t really leave Facebook, and I don’t know that I ever will. I became a lurker. I checked the site daily to see what’s going on, but I didn’t post anything save for a couple photos because of a linked Instagram account (another Facebook property, I know), and to answer a few questions via Messenger and some private groups. The truth is that a lot of my life is wrapped up in the platform, for worse or, as it seems, for better.

I just moved back to my hometown after 20 years living elsewhere. First in Chicago for about a decade, then in Portland for a decade more. I’ve not only left memories in those cities, but friends. Lots of close friends who I miss all the time. Facebook’s value to me as a user hasn’t changed; I really enjoy the small interactions I have with people hundreds and thousands of miles away. I see the pictures of their kids and their hikes and their new cars and yes…their lunches. All of it makes me feel closer to them. I’m not sure I can give that up.

I am also a digital strategist by profession and a musician by stubbornness. Those two worlds are meticulously intertwined in social media, including the biggest player on the cyber block. As it happens, I can’t afford to leave Facebook.

And so I am back, but will certainly be changing some behaviors. Core to a brand’s value is trust and I absolutely do not trust Facebook right now. And so I’ll work with them as I would anyone I don’t really trust: carefully.

Matt’s latest obsession is timely: Post-Truth. Matt uses the Oxford English Dictionary definition of post-truth (Emotion around something is more important than the actual fact) In fact it’s spawned a whole new dialog about our perception and place in society.

In partnership with Open Signal (Portland Community Media) Matt has sourced 5 $1K stipends that will help create films for a November screening, around the concept of post-truth.

Lower Boom projects underway:

Post Truth Project with Open Signal (Portland Community Media) Media for Social Change

How to see Lower Boom content at the Hotel Eastlund

VR and film makers’ opportunities in this new platform – get in touch with Matt

More about post-truth in The Economist

In this case, it did. And it ended up being stranger than fiction.

This week the Twitterverse was abuzz with the best distraction we could have in the Trump era when Gizmodo posted: This Is Almost Certainly James Comey’s Twitter Account

Comey being the director of the FBI and a key figure in the recent Clinton/Trump election as well as leading an investigation into Trump’s campaign team’s possible collusion with Russia to throw the election. But wait…that’s not even the mystery!

What’s captured in the Gizmodo article is how one intrepid reporter possibly (probably) uncovered the secret social media profiles of the Director of the FBI. It’s a really interesting look into how even with all of our settings locked in Private Mode, we can still be pretty easily unmasked if someone’s determined to find us.

The weak link is in our networks, meaning the people we follow and who follow us as well as the technology that enables it. Gizmodo’s Ashley Feinberg found her way into Comey’s life by way of the Director’s 22 year old son. Well…not directly. It was references to the younger Comey in other feeds that led the way.

That led me to this tweet from the Twitter account of the Kenyon College basketball team, on which the younger Comey played as an undergraduate. It showed Comey teaching basketball to some schoolkids, and @-mentioned the now-dead Twitter account “@twittafuzz.” That account, if you search through its mentions, appears to have been previously owned by Brien Comey—if you believe the folks on Twitter congratulating @twittafuzz for his dad’s ascension to the head of the FBI.

That tweet led to an Instagram photo, which contained a comment tagging the younger Comey, who is then associated through algorithms to a handful of other accounts, including one with an odd handle that caught the reporter’s eye.

Read the article for the whole story, which is a fascinating look into how we have created a false sense of privacy and security by employing weak tools. Sound familiar?

Oh, but my favorite part is a tweet in response to the story from the account uncovered.

And that is how you do it, folks.

What energy do you bring to problem solving? Are you the type who loves a good challenge and just digs in? Do you get frustrated by the seemingly never-ending train of issues? Or are you someone who needs to know WHY before you dig in? We’ll discuss it all and some tactics for shifting the energy.

We all carry our biases with us. They are there in the music we listen to, the TV shows we watch, the news sources we trust. We live our lives through experiences that shape us and our views of the world, which naturally creates preferences and biases.

But what should we do with our bias in relation to creative problem solving? How do we ensure we’re not getting lost in our own blind spots?

Tom does a lot of customer research that includes actually talking to people, so we spend a bit of time hashing out techniques to limit the influence bias can have in a conversation.

In the meantime, that’s just….like….your opinion, man.

Definition of sarcasm
1. 1:  a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2. 2a :  a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b :  the use or language of sarcasm

Seems silly to try and unpack sarcasm as a mode of communication, but what if you grew up in a culture that had no sense of sarcasm? What is second nature to some is utterly baffling and intimidating to others.

This week Derek and that precious snowflake Tom dig into sarcasm as a layer of meaning in communication and whether it’s a crutch for feeble minds and the emotionally shallow or a palette for creativity in language. How precious does that sound?

The Right Way

The Wrong Way

Tom and Bryan Rhoads discuss content – the importance of narrative, and what’s next. Too often organizations worry about only the next post, article or email blast, when in fact the entire story line is critical. It’s all got to go somewhere. Bryan breaks down story archetypes in light of modern content requirements. Ever wonder why fairy tales stay part of our cultural consciousness? It’s all there for us to study and plunder.

We had to move to a mobile location for the audio… so it definitely sounds different, but if you can get past that there’s some good content coming your way.