The Network at a Glance

The header image above maps those interactions as a network graph. Node and label size are scaled by eigenvector centrality, meaning influence is weighted by the influence of your connections. This isn’t just a measure of how many people tagged an account. It reflects whether the most connected, most active people in the network tagged it. That distinction matters considerably when interpreting what you’re looking at.

Every coloured strand is an edge (i.e. a reply, mention, or quote tweet). The seven distinct colour bands represent the seven largest communities in the network, each accounting for at least 1% of all accounts (the largest / purple is about 26%). Together, they represent 40.6% of the full dataset. Nearly 60% of the network from the data sample isn’t even shown here.

And yet, with all of that filtering applied, one node still dominates the entire frame. The most central account in this conversation isn’t a journalist, a politician, or a media outlet. It’s @grok, X’s own AI chatbot.

What Happens When You Remove Grok

To get a clearer picture of how much structural weight Grok is carrying, I removed it entirely and applied a giant component filter to isolate the human interaction network.

What’s left is 1,172 nodes — 18.19% of the original network. Remove one AI node, and over 80% of the connected structure disappears. The second image is that network. It looks nothing like the first one.

Grok’s dominance here isn’t just visual. It’s structural. The network is held together largely by people routing their activity through an AI intermediary rather than through each other. That’s a meaningful shift in how online discourse functions during a crisis.

Who the Human Hubs Are

Once Grok is removed, the accounts that emerge as hubs tell their own story: @tuckercarlson, @berniesanders, @repjasoncrow, @secrubio, @whitehouse, @idf, and @osint613.

Right-wing media. Progressive politics. Congressional Democrats. A Republican senator. The official White House account. The Israeli military publishing real-time operational updates from an active warzone. And an Israel-based open source intelligence account covering the conflict from the inside.

Each sits at the center of its own community, and none of those communities connect to each other. This isn’t just a politically divided network. It’s one where combatants, intelligence aggregators, and domestic political voices all operate in entirely separate silos with no cross-talk between them. The divide here isn’t just rhetorical. It’s structural.

The Crisis Information Problem

The dataset mixes legitimate breaking news, unverified eyewitness reports, clear disinformation, and AI-generated fake content presented as real. People across all seven communities are routing their sense-making through Grok, an AI that retrieves live X posts in real time and uses them as context to generate its answers. It isn’t interpreting this crisis from a safe distance. It’s pulling directly from the same feed everyone else is working through.

Grok isn’t a neutral aggregator. When thousands of people consult the same AI simultaneously during a fast-moving conflict, fabrications don’t just spread. They get laundered through a source that feels authoritative. And the problem runs deeper than text.

The Synthetic Media Problem

Grok has no reliable way to determine in real time whether footage circulating during a live conflict is genuine or AI-generated. Posts claiming to show missile strikes, explosions, and ground-level combat are moving through all seven communities simultaneously, and that content can be generated by any number of AI image-generation tools.

X rolled out a “Made with AI” label on March 1, two days before this data was collected, which is a step in the right direction. But the system relies on self-reporting by creators. During a conflict in which bad actors deliberately circulate synthetic media as real footage, voluntary disclosure is not a meaningful safeguard.

What’s needed is platform-level content provenance built on standards like Google’s SynthID watermarking and C2PA, an open standard backed by Adobe, Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, and Midjourney. These tools embed verifiable signals directly into AI-generated content at the point of creation, and major AI generators are already adopting them. The problem is that C2PA metadata gets stripped when images are screenshotted and re-uploaded, which is exactly how conflict footage travels on X. The infrastructure exists. The gap is deployment at the platform level, in real time, at scale. I wrote about content provenance standards in more depth back in November 2024, if you want to go further on this.

X’s Community Notes Feature Isn’t Filling the Gap

The crowdsourced safety net isn’t compensating either. Research published in January 2026 found a substantial drop in the number of X’s Community Notes being proposed since Grok’s rise on the platform, with researchers suggesting people are treating the AI as a direct substitute for human fact-checking. During a fast-moving conflict, that gap is significant. Misinformation spreads faster than community consensus can form. And because none of these communities are talking to each other, there is no cross-community correction. Each community gets its own version of events, with no friction between them.

The Bigger Picture

What this network shows is a structural shift in how people process breaking geopolitical events online. The AI hasn’t just entered the conversation. In this dataset, it owns the conversation.

That should prompt serious questions about platform design, about AI transparency during crises, and about what happens to public discourse when a single non-human node becomes the dominant information broker in a conflict with real-world consequences. If you work in communications, intelligence, journalism, or policy, this is worth paying attention to.

I’ll keep running pulls as this conflict develops. The network will change. Whether Grok’s role in it does is the more interesting question.

Methodology

Note: NodeXL collects via the X Search API in reverse chronological order and stops at the set limit. Despite a March 1-3 collection window, 99.6% of this data falls within a two-hour peak window on the evening of March 3. This is a snapshot of peak crisis conversation, not a representative sample across the full period.

Tracking AI’s role in crisis information environments? I’d like to hear what you’re seeing. Find me on X or LinkedIn and drop a note.

The post Grok Owns the Conversation: What a Social Network Analysis of the Iran/Israel/US War Reveals About AI and Crisis Discourse appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

Between decreased engagement, shifting moderation rules, general toxicity, the politicization of nearly every topic, and increasingly vocal critics, many organizations have started eyeing the direct alternatives, specifically Threads and Bluesky. But is switching easily justified? And just how many Canadian X users have even left in the first place?

While a variety of headlines claim that a mass exodus has occurred on X, official Canadian usage statistics for these platforms are extremely hard to come across.

Global statistics? Plenty available. American-specific numbers? Easy enough to find a multitude of reports. However, when it comes to specifically Canadian usage data, we Canucks are often left to pick up scraps of statistically insignificant surveys with questionable methodologies or severely out-of-date research.

While I don’t have a magic bullet answer to this dilemma, I thought it would be useful to write up a post that shows a consistent way of calculating approximate Canadian usage statistics for these niche platforms in a consistent manner, at least until a better option appears.

Let’s break down the numbers.

Global Monthly Active Users

Using official platform sources, these are the most recently reported Global Monthly Active Users (MAUs) for each of the three platforms we’re looking at today. I am purposely omitting 3rd party data sources. By all means, if you have more recent data from an official internal source that can be publicly disclosed, please let me know. I’ll update this post accordingly. I’ve asked a few of mine, and they confirmed these numbers as official.

• Global MAUs on X: ~600 million (Source: Elon Musk, May 2024)
• Global MAUs on Threads: ~320 million (Source: Mark Zuckerberg, Jan 2025)
• Global MAUs on Bluesky: ~30 million (Source: Jay Graber, Mar 2025)

U.S. Monthly Active Users

In the absence of any recent official MAU numbers provided by the platforms at the country level, we have to rely on 3rd party data sources. These tend to vary widely depending on the methodology used. At least for the U.S., there are plenty to choose from, so what I’ve done below is provide a range along with a link to the source claiming the higher number in the range. If you need a single number, a safe bet is to pick one that represents the middle of the range.

• U.S. MAUs on X: 70-104 million (Mar 2025)
• U.S. MAUs on Threads: 25-30 million (Jan 2025)
• U.S. MAUs on Bluesky: 4-6 million (Mar 2025)

Canadian Monthly Active Users

This is where things get tricky. Unlike in the U.S., there is no widely available third-party tracking of Canadian-specific social media MAUs. Occasionally, small-scale surveys provide snapshots, but these often rely on limited sample sizes that are in no way representative. Since no official sources exist and third-party data is scarce, I’ve used a ratio-based extrapolation technique, applying U.S. social media usage rates to Canada’s population (~12.3% of the U.S.). After rounding the numbers, I cross-checked them against the few available 3rd party reports to ensure they fell within a reasonable range (spoiler: they did). While I realize that this method isn’t perfect, it offers a consistent, data-backed approach to estimating Canadian usage until better official reporting becomes available. Here are the ranges:

• Canadian MAUs on X: 9-13 million (estimate)
• Canadian MAUs on Threads: 3-4 million (estimate)
• Canadian MAUs on Bluesky: 0.5-0.7 million (estimate)

To simplify further, I used the average of each range.

• Canadian MAUs on X: ~11 million (estimate)
• Canadian MAUs on Threads: ~3.5 million (estimate)
• Canadian MAUs on Bluesky: ~0.6 million (estimate)

And here are the numbers as a percentage of the total Canadian population (ages 13+) along with a corresponding bar chart for those that prefer visuals.

• Canadian MAUs on X: ~31%
• Canadian MAUs on Threads: ~10%
• Canadian MAUs on Bluesky: ~1.7%

So, what do these numbers actually mean for public sector organizations wondering what to do with X?

They mean a few things. Here’s a summary.

1. X Still Has a Significant Canadian Audience

Despite its challenges, X remains one of the largest social media platforms in Canada, with an estimated 11 million monthly active users. While that’s only approximately one-third of Facebook’s Canadian users and definitely far less representative, X continues to be a primary hub for journalists, policymakers, advocacy groups, and engaged citizens. There’s also a sizeable silent audience that may not be engaged but is exposed to the content. For government and non-profits that rely on real-time updates, crisis communication, and media engagement, it remains difficult to ignore. It’s also worth noting that X posts are still indexed by Google, affecting what you see when using AI search tools, making it an important component of your organization’s digital footprint.

However, staying on X now requires careful risk assessment. Engagement is declining, key features like research API access and account verification are paywalled, and moderation policies remain unpredictable. The platform has also become increasingly polarized, raising concerns about reputational risk. One notable change is the Community Notes feature, which allows users to fact-check and add context to misleading posts. Some argue this system is working well, providing a crowdsourced approach to misinformation control. Others, however, remain skeptical about its effectiveness and consistency. It should be noted that Community Notes are now also being adopted by Meta, so organizations may want to get used to working with them.

2. Threads is Gaining Ground, but Adoption is Gradual

Threads has seen impressive global growth, reaching ~320 million monthly active users, making it the most significant direct competitor to X. In Canada, the estimated 3.5 million active users is a respectable number, but it is still far behind X in terms of reach.

Its biggest advantage? Its seamless integration with Instagram as a Meta entity. Many Canadian public sector organizations already have established Instagram accounts, making it easy to cross-promote and migrate audiences over to Threads. Meta has also been rolling out new features to make Threads more appealing for real-time conversations, including improved search functionality and a better desktop experience, two areas where X has long been dominant.

However, Threads is still evolving, and its long-term viability remains uncertain. Unlike X, which is deeply embedded in political and media discussions, Threads currently feels more casual, more brand-friendly, and less focused on breaking news. This presents both an opportunity and a challenge.

3. Bluesky is Still Super Niche but Has Potential

Bluesky, the decentralized social platform originally incubated by Twitter and launched as an independent project, has been growing steadily, recently surpassing 30 million global users. In Canada, the reasonable estimate is 0.6 million monthly active users, making it a much smaller player compared to X and Threads. While Bluesky was initially backed by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, he stepped down from its board in May 2024 and is no longer involved in the platform’s operations. Today, Bluesky functions as an independent public benefit company led by CEO Jay Graber.

Despite its lower adoption, Bluesky has strong appeal among journalists, academics, and digital rights advocates, the very groups that often drive public discourse. Its decentralized model, which gives users more control over their feeds and reduces reliance on centralized moderation, has been a key selling point. Some organizations see it as a more transparent, less algorithm-driven alternative to X.

That said, Bluesky is still in its early stages. Many features that public sector organizations rely on (such as advanced search, organizational accounts, and API integrations) are still limited or in development. The platform also lacks the broad public audience that governments and non-profits often need to reach.

Should Public Sector Organizations Shift Away from X?

There’s no universal answer, but your decision should be based on data, not assumptions. If X continues to deliver value, it may still warrant a presence. If engagement is dropping or your audience is becoming less active, it could be time to reassess your priorities. Reducing your presence doesn’t mean abandoning the platform entirely. Many organizations choose to scale back gradually, update service standards if needed, and let their audience know where else they can be reached. This helps preserve transparency, manage expectations, and maintain your digital footprint.

Before making a decision, consider the following three factors:

1. Audience Behaviour

Is your audience still there—and still engaging?

If key stakeholders such as media, policymakers, and advocacy groups are continuing to interact with your content, it may make sense to stay. However, if engagement metrics are falling or your content is reaching fewer people, it might be time to invest more in other platforms. Use platform analytics, referral data, and direct engagement trends to guide your decision-making.

2. Reputational and Operational Risks

X has become less stable. Policy changes, inconsistent moderation, and a rise in misinformation and polarization have made the platform riskier for public sector use. The Community Notes feature is a step toward improved transparency, but its effectiveness is still debated. Complicating matters further, leaving X can be interpreted as a political statement, even if that is not your intent.

For government organizations expected to remain neutral, this creates a delicate balance. You can minimize risk by clearly explaining any changes in platform use and focusing on operational reasoning, such as audience engagement or accessibility. Communicate thoughtfully, make changes gradually, and ensure your website and other platforms are up to date.

3. Strategic Diversification

No single platform is likely to replace X in the short term. A better approach is to diversify your presence. That might include:

• Maintaining a limited but visible presence on X while tracking performance
• Expanding to Threads if you already have an established Instagram audience
• Exploring Bluesky if your work connects with tech-savvy, policy-focused communities
• Communicating clearly across all platforms about how and where to engage with you

This approach provides flexibility without losing important points of contact.

Some Final Thoughts

Social media strategies in the public sector need to be data-informed, audience-aware, and reputationally sound. If X still supports your objectives, stay, but start building redundancy. Test alternative platforms, establish a presence where your X audience is heading, and create a transition plan in case X no longer meets your needs.

The landscape is evolving. Staying flexible, strategic, and transparent will help ensure your communications remain effective and resilient, no matter where the platforms go next.

Oh, and please let me know if you see any updated official Canadian usage statistics for any of these three platforms. That would be much appreciated!

DISCLAIMER: This post was 95% written by me, Mike Kujawski, a human. I used AI for outlining, research assistance, and grammar checks. And yes—I was using occasional em dashes long before AI made them trendy.

The post Are Canadians Leaving X for Threads and Bluesky? Implications For Public Sector Organizations. appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

What’s the issue?

Meta, the parent company of global social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, recently announced that it will remove its third-party fact-checking program and shift away from extensive content moderation. It plans to replace its existing content moderation system with a crowd-sourced “Community Notes” model similar to the one used by X (formerly Twitter). This development raises concerns for Canadian government organizations, many of which use Meta’s platforms for communication, outreach, and engagement with Canadians.

“We built a lot of complex systems to moderate content, but the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes even if they accidentally censor just 1% of posts. That’s millions of people, and we’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship”

-Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Meta

Context

• Content moderation on social media involves monitoring and regulating user-generated content to ensure it adheres to the platform’s community guidelines and complies with the legal requirements in the countries where the platform operates.
• On January 7, 2025, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a significant shift in the company’s approach to content moderation. Citing concerns about the political bias of its 3^rd party verifiers and a desire to promote free expression, Mark stated that Meta will discontinue its fact-checking program and reduce reliance on content moderation teams.
• Meta previously employed a combination of artificial intelligence, human moderators, and third-party fact-checkers to identify and address content that violated its policies, including hate speech, mis/dis- information, and incitement to violence. This system, while imperfect, aimed to create a safer and more trustworthy online environment.
• Meta plans to replace its existing system with a crowd-sourced “Community Notes” model, similar to the one used by X, where users can comment on the accuracy of posts.
• Meta hasn’t released specifics about how its own version of Community Notes will work; however, it is likely going to be similar to X, where approved contributors call out content deemed false or misleading by attaching notes providing more context.
• This decision follows previous policy changes that reduced the visibility of political content and loosened restrictions on controversial topics like immigration and gender.
• Meta plans to phase in Community notes in the United States over the first quarter of 2025 and continue to improve it over the year.
• While there’s no confirmed timeline for expanding Community Notes to Canada, it’s highly probable that Meta will eventually implement this feature globally, given its goal of promoting user-driven content moderation.
• Meta plans to relocate its remaining content moderation teams from California to Texas, which some experts suggest could further influence how content is moderated.

“As we make the transition, we will get rid of our fact-checking control, stop demoting fact-checked content, and, instead of overlaying full-screen interstitial warnings you have to click through before you can even see the post, we will use a much less obtrusive label indicating that there is additional information for those who want to see it.”

-Joel Kaplan, Chief Global Affairs Officer, Meta

Key considerations

Pros:

• Greater user engagement and sense of ownership.
• Diverse perspectives reduce perceived bias.
• Facilitates more open dialogue and a wider range of views.
• Less risk of over-censorship.
• Avoids false positives (i.e. blocking content that shouldn’t have been blocked).
• Users can personalize their experience and curate their content.
• Advertisers may benefit from a more lenient content policy, which could allow for a wider range of creative and targeted marketing strategies.
• Users who value free speech and less restrictive moderation may increase engagement, creating more opportunities for advertisers to connect with specific audiences.
• For government organizations, platforms with high user engagement could still serve as valuable channels for outreach and public awareness campaigns.
• Relaxed policies on sensitive topics (e.g., immigration, gender) could foster more open discussions and engage users who felt previously censored, potentially broadening public discourse.
• Greater user engagement could increase participation in conversations on topics critical to policy development or public awareness.
• Meta’s reduced reliance on fact-checkers may appeal to users who distrust institutional interventions in content moderation.

Cons:

• Accuracy and reliability of content may decline.
• Possibility of false balance and bias in Community Notes.
• Incentive for malicious actors to infiltrate Community Notes with AI and/or bots.
• Potential harm to public trust and discourse integrity.
• Higher exposure to harmful content like hate speech.
• Public trust in Canadian government organizations may decline if misinformation about them increases as a result.
• Risk of creating even greater echo chambers and deepening polarization.
• Sharing critical information with diverse audiences and minority communities will likely become more complex.
• Advertisers may reduce spending or withdraw entirely due to concerns over brand safety if their ads appear alongside harmful or controversial content, potentially decreasing platform revenue and trust.
• A decline in public perception of Meta’s platforms could impact their effectiveness as communication tools for government organizations.
• Government agencies might face reputational risks if their messaging is associated with a platform that is seen as unreliable or polarizing.
• Relaxed policies could lead to the normalization of harmful stereotypes, discriminatory content, or misinformation, creating a more hostile environment for marginalized groups.
• In response to Canada’s Online News Act (Bill C-18), Meta has already stopped displaying news content on its platforms in Canada. This and the shift to Community Notes could further amplify misinformation and disinformation, complicating efforts to share accurate and trusted information.
• Meta’s perceived alignment with specific political figures or demographics could harm the government’s reputation for neutrality, making government engagement efforts on Meta platforms more challenging to justify.

What to do for now

At this time, I think Canadian government organizations should closely monitor how Meta’s content moderation changes unfold. These platforms remain key for reaching many Canadians, especially given the ongoing effects of Bill C-18 on news content. It’s important to keep an eye on how these changes impact public discussions as they roll out in the United States. Once the changes are introduced in Canada and there’s more clarity on how Community Notes will work, organizations should evaluate whether participating as contributors could help build trust. This is also a good opportunity to reassess whether Meta’s platforms align with your organization’s strategic priorities and social media engagement goals.

The post How Meta’s Changes to Content Moderation Might Impact Canadian Government Organizations appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

YouTube is overflowing with AI-generated media, from unofficial movie trailers and music videos to fake live streams strategically timed to coincide with real events. Other platforms like Reddit, Facebook, X, Threads, and LinkedIn are also saturated with AI-generated content, which people are increasingly getting used to.

While this influx of synthetic content may seem harmless, it gradually erodes users’ trust in what they see online (or, at the very least, fosters widespread skepticism). As a result, when actual genuine content conveying important information is circulated online, people are increasingly likely to question its authenticity. Basic watermarks, logos, and content styles are now far too easy to replicate. This is where newer forms of content provenance and credentials come into play.

Understanding Content Provenance

Content provenance refers to the basic, trustworthy facts about the origins of a piece of digital content (image, video, audio, document). It may include information such as who created it, as well as when, where, and how it was created or edited. Unlike basic metadata, which can be easily modified or removed, content provenance uses cryptographic encryption to securely embed this information, making it tamper-resistant and verifiable. The content author always has control over whether provenance data is included as well as the specific data it contains. Think of it as a digital “paper trail” that gives content a trackable origin and journey, helping users verify its authenticity.

Important Note: Verifying the authenticity of content is not the same thing as verifying its accuracy or factualness.

Key Players At The Moment

Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI): A community of media and tech companies, NGOs, academics, and others working to promote the adoption of an open industry standard for content authenticity and provenance. It’s the driving force behind the development of the C2PA technical specifications.

Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA): Think of this as the technical implementation of the CAI. The C2PA brings together a consortium of technology companies, including Adobe, Google, and Microsoft, along with a growing list of media outlets and other stakeholders, to create open standards for digital content provenance. The goal is to enable publishers, creators, and consumers to easily trace the origin and history of digital content, verifying that it has not been altered or manipulated.

Main Components of C2PA

The C2PA specification: Defines the metadata fields that should be included in digital content, their structure, and how they’re cryptographically signed to ensure security.

Software Tools: These tools apply the C2PA standard to content by embedding C2PA credentials directly within the content and allowing other C2PA-compliant tools or platforms to verify these credentials (e.g. TruePic).

Display Mechanisms: Web browsers, image viewers, and platforms are being designed to intuitively display C2PA credentials to users. This often includes the automated appearance of the Content Credentials (CR) pin, indicating that verifiable provenance information is available. Users can click on this pin to review C2PA-verified information, helping them trace back to the content’s origin and verify its authenticity. Note: You can also try the CR verification tool, which allows users to upload and verify content with embedded credentials.

What Governments Can Do

For government organizations, maintaining public trust is essential, especially in an era when misinformation and disinformation spread rapidly, and digital manipulations are harder to detect. Adopting content provenance standards like C2PA can play a significant role in ensuring that official communications and social media content are trustworthy and verifiable.

Here are a few ways government departments and agencies can start implementing these standards effectively.

Implement C2PA Standards for All Visual and Digital Content: Begin by incorporating C2PA standards for all images, videos, documents, and multimedia content shared by government departments. This ensures that each piece of content has an embedded digital record that shows where it came from, who created it, and whether it has been modified.

Use the Content Credentials (CR) Pin for Public-Facing Content: Automate the display of the CR pin on content shared through official channels, signalling to the public that the content has a verifiable provenance. This can be particularly effective for high-stakes communications, such as public health advisories, election-related information, or emergency broadcasts.

Educate Employees on Verifying and Using Provenance Data: Training communication and social media teams on how to verify and embed C2PA credentials will ensure consistent use of content provenance across the organization. This training should cover the basics of digital authentication, how to check for provenance data, and how to respond to public inquiries about content authenticity.

Build Public Awareness of Content Verification: Encourage citizens to look for the CR pin on government content and provide resources on how they can independently verify authenticity. By promoting the use of C2PA, government organizations can empower citizens to be more informed and skeptical of manipulated content. Over time, if digital media lacks provenance information, it won’t automatically mean it’s fake, but it should prompt citizens to take a closer look. As content provenance standards are increasingly adopted, the absence of verifiable credentials should suggest that a piece of content hasn’t undergone rigorous verification.

Moving Forward

Content provenance and verification standards like C2PA are powerful tools for restoring trust in digital media, offering government organizations a way to protect their reputations while setting a standard for accountability and transparency. For citizens, these standards provide a tangible method to verify content authenticity, and as more platforms adopt them, content verification could become a natural part of online interactions and a cornerstone of digital literacy. I’m genuinely curious to see how this space will evolve; for now, it seems like a step in the right direction.

Other Related Initiatives Worth Checking Out

I’m including a few links to related initiatives for those of you interested in learning more about this topic. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Project Origin: A joint effort by the BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft, and The New York Times to establish a way for publishers to provide signals of editorial integrity for news content. They have partnered with C2PA. https://www.originproject.info/

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI): A collaboration between major news organizations and tech companies aimed at stopping the spread of disinformation, especially around major events like elections. https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/

The Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI): Spearheaded by Reporters Without Borders, this initiative focuses on promoting transparency and accountability in journalism, which can be related to how media content is produced and shared. https://www.journalismtrustinitiative.org/

The Deep Trust Alliance: An organization that works to combat deepfakes and other synthetic media through the development of technology standards, policy frameworks, and market-driven solutions. https://www.deeptrustalliance.org/

The Partnership on AI’s Media Integrity Steering Committee: An effort to bring together a range of stakeholders to combat disinformation and media manipulation through research, discussion, and development of best practices. https://partnershiponai.org/program/ai-media-integrity/#steeringcommittee

Canada’s Digital Citizen Initiative: A multi-component strategy that aims to support democracy and social inclusion in Canada by building citizen resilience against online disinformation and building partnerships to support a healthy information ecosystem. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation.html

The post How Adopting Content Provenance Standards Can Help Government Organizations in the Fight Against Mis- and Disinformation appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

While individual Government of Canada (GoC) departments and agencies have long experimented with simpler “programmatic” chatbots on their websites and social media, most of these never really took off. They were quite basic and required human intervention very early in the conversation (i.e. as soon as the question fell outside the basic preset parameters).

Fast-forward to 2024, and the use of AI chatbots for government service delivery is now a hot topic. Here in Canada, the government has updated its AI guidance resources and is working on an AI strategy that encourages departments to experiment with generative AI, including chatbots, to improve public services.

On the international front, there are numerous examples of government chatbots at various levels of government. Many have been around for years but have gone through multiple iterations. Noteworthy efforts include:

• Dubai: Uses the chatbot Rammas, a virtual employee of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA). It has been enhanced with ChatGPT, allowing it to handle a large volume of inquiries (over 9.6 million as of 2024).
• Government of Singapore: Uses its in-house Virtual Intelligent Chat Assistant (VICA) platform, which powers various agency chatbots (e.g. Captain Green) as well as the centralized AlphabotSG, and integrates with and learns from the various agency-specific chatbots.
• Australian Government: The Australian Taxation Office uses a chatbot named Alex, which assists with various taxation-related queries and improves user navigation on the agency’s website.

While these and many others not listed above tend to work quite well, it’s worth pointing out that most are still limited to individual departments or agencies of government rather than centralized government-wide efforts (with the exception of Singapore).

Current options for Canadians seeking government information via AI

As Canadian citizens become accustomed to interacting with increasingly intelligent AI chatbots developed by the private sector (general and task-specific), they will likely expect a similar capability on government-run websites.

When looking to use a chatbot to inquire about government services, Canadians already have several options:

• Using a free, publicly available generative AI chatbot, such as Perplexity, ChatGPT, CoPilot, Gemini, etc., and instructing it to only use the information found on gc.ca or canada.ca domains for its sources.
• Using a customized AI chatbot developed by an individual or organization for a specific purpose. An excellent example is TaxGPT, which Paul Craig developed to help Canadians with their tax filing questions.
• Developing a basic AI chatbot independently using OpenAI’s GPT builder or a similar easy-to-use tool. An example of this is my plain-language Canadian Government Services Navigator, which I created to assist Canadians in finding and using federal government services.

The elephant in the room

So why on earth should the Government of Canada (GoC) invest in creating or managing its own AI chatbot(s) when citizens can already easily use existing AI tools to access government information? What’s to stop government chatbots from facing the same fate as GoC website search tools, which have been largely abandoned in favour of people preferring to use Google?

The case for a GoC AI chatbot

When looking for information about government services, especially those that don’t involve providing sensitive private information, most Canadians simply want accurate and up-to-date responses as quickly as possible. However, they also need to trust the source. While I’ve tried to achieve this with my own chatbot by instructing it to only provide information from official government sources, this assumes that the sources themselves are up to date and that the chatbot is actually following instructions. The responsibility lies in the user to ensure that the responses are indeed reflective of the provided government sources.

Having AI chatbots reside directly on government websites or apps would add an extra layer of credibility. The gc.ca and canada.ca domains are powerful brand components encapsulating the trust and authority of the Government of Canada, which is generally high—though I’m setting aside the 2024 Edelman GoC trust barometer score of 49%; let’s leave that for another post.

Even though there is always a risk of hallucination and errors, which can be addressed in a disclaimer, a chatbot backed by the authority and credibility of the GoC (i.e. residing on canada.ca) will have some key advantages over third-party tools:

• It will be perceived as more trustworthy when it comes to the accuracy of information due to the oversight that would be required.
• It will be used by significantly more Canadians, especially those who don’t currently use AI tools to find government information.
• It will provide the GoC with valuable usage data, allowing for continual improvement in online service delivery. Note: I’m only referring to chatbots used for conveying publicly available information rather than handling sensitive personal information requests.
• It will be the only one that can ensure up-to-date information is being used, as it will be connected directly to official government data sources. Perhaps other AI tools can be blocked from scraping these.
• Ideally, it will seamlessly integrate with various services and databases across departments, providing a more cohesive user experience (something a third-party tool wouldn’t have access to).

The end of government websites

AI chatbots may end up being just a temporary blip in the evolution of online government service delivery, but I believe they will play a significant catalyst role in the shift away from government websites as we know them today.

Eventually, I can see us having access to a single, secure, multi-modal (text, voice, video) AI-based government virtual agent of some sort that offers a fully personalized experience and remembers our interactions. This means we’d need to feel comfortable sharing sensitive personal information with the AI, just like we already do with secure online government forms, websites, and applications. While we might not be at that comfort level yet, I believe it will happen sooner than we think. We’ll just need the “erase AI memory” button to always be a click away — and trust that it will actually work.

The post Canadian Government AI Chatbots: A Natural Next Step or Destined to Fail? appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

Why adopt an ethics statement?

Social marketers working across different social contexts often come across a wide range of diverse ethical issues. Any behaviour change programs and projects that seek to influence individuals and communities should, therefore, be developed and delivered in a way that demonstrates that these ethical concerns have been identified, considered and addressed.

Having worked on various social marketing initiatives over the years across many cultures, I welcome this long-overdue addition to the social marketing field and encourage other practitioners to reference and adhere to the ethics statement whenever possible. I genuinely believe that adherence and reference to these principles throughout program design and delivery will go a long way toward building trust with audiences, stakeholders, and those in charge of policies/laws that can affect positive change.

The core principles

The six social marketing ethical principles, as outlined in the official statement, are as follows:

1. Respect and Sensitivity: Respect for people’s privacy, autonomy, diversity, free and informed choice, rights to participation and non-participation, inclusion and exclusion, and control over their lives.

2. Social justice and fairness: Promotion of social justice and avoidance of unfair distribution of benefits and burdens.

3. Openness and transparency: Transparency of goals, methods, intended and achieved outcomes, data ownership, and potential or apparent benefits and risks to target group(s) and society.

4. Avoidance of conflicts of interest: Avoidance of potential or apparent conflicts of interest, including opportunity for personal and reputational gain or avoidance of loss; promote public trust in social marketing.

5. Duty of care and non-malfeasance: Endeavor to do no physical, psychological or environmental harm and exercise a duty of care, integrity and professional and scientific responsibility.

6. Serve public interest: Fulfill social and political mandates and identify responsibilities and accountabilities for all stakeholders.

For additional details, please refer to the official statement.

The post Social (Behaviour Change) Marketing Statement of Ethics appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

The marketing mindset

As a strategic marketing consultant who specializes in government initiatives, I have spent a considerable part of my career explaining to public servants what marketing is, what it is not, and how a marketing mindset in a government organization can help it improve its services/programs, and provide more value to taxpayers. 

The biggest obstacle has always been the many preconceived notions of what “marketing” entails, as it is often confused with profit-driven sales, advertising, and top-down demand generation. 

At its core, marketing places great importance on understanding the needs of the customer (target audience). I like to think of it as a planning process for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for your audience.

Marketing should always begin with audience research to better understand audience wants, needs and pains regarding the service, product, or program. This research should then (ideally) guide decisions about:

• segmentation and targeting
• positioning (value proposition);
• actual product/service design;
• price (non-monetary or monetary);
• location/channel;
• promotion (tactics and messaging).

The importance of research

In most government organizations, the “research” component is outside the jurisdiction of the folks responsible for marketing, which means if it does take place, it isn’t done in a way that is specific to the marketing initiative (i.e. the right questions aren’t being asked). As a result, most marketing initiative attempts in government end up reverting to top-down communications, primarily focused on raising awareness/uptake rather than ensuring the service or program is actually meeting the needs of the audience.

User-centred design (UCD)

Enter the newfound popularity of user-centred design and its related terms across government (i.e. design thinking, usability, user experience, etc.) At its core, UCD is an iterative design process in which designers focus on the users and their needs in each phase of the design process. Remember that “designers” can be anyone responsible for developing a government service or program.

Similarities between marketing and user-centred design

While marketing and UCD can be considered different domains, they intertwine in several ways. Here are a few:

1. Customer at the Core: Both marketing and UCD prioritize the customer (i.e. user of the service, product or program). Where marketing seeks to understand and tap into customer needs and desires to shape these services, UCD ensures that services are designed keeping users’ needs and feedback central.
2. Iterative Feedback Loop: A key characteristic of UCD is iterative design, wherein products/services are continuously refined based on user feedback. Similarly, a marketing mindset is about constant adaptation to market reactions, trends, and audience feedback.
3. Value Proposition: Whether it’s creating a user-friendly online passport application interface or crafting a campaign attempting to get people to compost, both concepts revolve around the value proposition. It’s about answering the user’s fundamental question: “What’s in it for me?”
4. Empathy-Driven: Empathy is crucial. Marketers must empathize to resonate with their target audience, and user-centred designers must empathize to create solutions that users find intuitive and helpful.

While these processes each have their unique nuances, they converge in their end goal: delivering value to the intended audience and ensuring satisfaction.  

A step in the right direction

At the end of the day, regardless of the terminology and specific processes being used, I’m just happy to see more focus finally being placed on the end-users of government services. I genuinely hope that the creation of a Minister of Citizens’ Services role continues to emphasize this importance and encourages public servants responsible for service/program delivery to incorporate more of a marketing (or UCD) mindset into their work.

The post The Convergence of Citizen-Centric Concepts in the Canadian Government: Marketing and User-Centered Design. appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

What if all health-focused social marketing/behaviour change efforts by public sector organizations were required to show the strategy behind each campaign? I’m thinking of an actual “operational transparency” link at the bottom of any video, image, infographic, etc. This link would point to a downloadable folder that would have all the raw files, data, research, and draft documents that led to the current health approach being promoted (essentially an expedited, proactive version of ATIP “access to information and privacy”).

Perhaps that is exactly what we need in order to rebuild the deteriorating trust in public sector institutions. Of course, this link would not be for everyone, but everyone should at the very least know that it’s there. That, in and of itself would help.

Some people would welcome it with open arms, and others, of course, would proceed to criticize each and every decision that was made along the way.

But what’s worse? Informing people that increasingly don’t trust you and think you’re hiding information from them OR Informing people that increasingly don’t trust you but at least know that there is no malicious intent behind your decisions? Perhaps the latter will eventually reduce that decline in trust, which is far more important for the long-term health of a democratic society.

It would surely be an interesting approach. Something to ponder as we enter yet another pandemic-dominated year. Stay healthy out there folks.

The post Operational Transparency in Social (Behaviour Change) Health Marketing appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

To those of us working in the digital space, there is really nothing new here. However, the fact that this documentary has hit mainstream audiences (ironically, thanks to recommendation algorithms) did remind me just how important it is to continually educate and build up the digital literacy skills of all internet users. The intent of this post is not to provide a synopsis (there are more than enough of those out there), but rather to share some high-level thoughts on what I liked and disliked about it, as well as concrete actions people can take.

What I Liked About It

• The people interviewed were former senior social media company employees, investors and/or technologists admitting that things have gotten out of control. This ups the believability quite a bit. I remember watching the U.S Senate Hearings with Mark Zuckerberg and cringing at some of the questions being asked by uninformed Senators, completely unaware of how the Internet works. Not the case here.
• It emphasized the sheer scale at which all of our micro-engagements (likes, glances, searches, comments, clicks, hesitations) are monitored across all platforms and mined in real-time by AI-driven algorithms optimized to keep us engaged, regardless of the effects this may have on our health or the health of society.
• It covered the business model dilemma at the heart of all of this. Primarily that we, “the users”are the product (i.e. our data) that brings in the profit thanks to all the 3rd party individuals/organizations (including both state and non-state actors) willing to pay for this data so they can influence us through modern advertising techniques. This can be anything from getting us to purchase a product to small nudges in opinion on a social issue, which lead us to behaviour change over time. While it can be argued that the latter can be a good thing if it’s, let’s say, a public health organization basing its messaging on science, it becomes more problematic if it gets in the hands of someone or some organization that has malicious intent or is trying to advance their own idea of what is good for society.
• It addressed the fact that real people are getting hurt, manipulated, abused, and in the worst cases killed as a result of the above.
• Rather than simply pointing fingers at social media company leaders, it touched upon the fact that nobody set out to design these platforms with malicious intent. Lack of ethical control measures? Yes. Willful blindness to issues being raised by whistleblowers? Yes. Hubris? Yes. The desire for profit? Yes. But not malicious intent. While that doesn’t justify what these platforms have become and how they are used with malicious intent by others, it does help to shift the focus inward to examine our own behaviours, since without us (i.e. the product /data) there would be no platforms.

What I Didn’t Like About It

• I don’t think it went quite far enough in exploring how a certain percentage of social media users (a minority but often the most active) are simply negative, broken individuals spewing hate on others. That’s a human problem that existed long before social media. No algorithms can be blamed for that. They amplify it, but they can’t be blamed for it.
• Most daily social media usage has moved to so-called “private” social media (i.e. instant messengers). Most of these are not driven by algorithms or recommendation engines but rather by humans. The forwarding of messages on these platforms can lead to the rapid spread of disinformation. True, there are bot accounts disguised as individuals, but they are created by humans.
• It didn’t cover the rapidly growing area of ethical algorithm design and government policies in the ethical use of algorithms. A good example of this is the Government of Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision Making.
• It missed an opportunity to provide tools and resources that people can immediately use to help them reduce the ways in which they contribute to the problem.

What You Can Do To Help Minimize “The Social Dilemma“

• Turn on and use the screen/app limiting features of your smartphone. On Google/Android phones the built-in app is called Digital Wellbeing and on iPhones, it’s Screen Time. Study your own usage and set controls for each app. You can set a hard stop for all social media past a certain time.
• Go to your notification settings right now and ask yourself if you really need to be proactively notified if “friend/organization X” posts something. What will happen if you miss that selfie? Please, for your own sanity, turn at least 3 notifications off. Imagine the exponential effects this would have if everyone took this step.
• If you have young kids ( I have three for the record), seriously ask yourself if they need to be on public social media. It’s no longer just about “trusting” them to do the right thing. They might be doing everything right but that doesn’t stop them from being exposed to bad actors and manipulated over time as the algorithms learn about their preferences. I realize that many people use dedicated accounts these platforms provide for kids but I find that approach only feeds the beast. Imagine all the precise data (i.e. personal behavioural profiles) the machines will have by the time your kids are of age to create regular “adult” accounts.
• Discuss, discuss, discuss. Talk about this with your friends, family, colleagues. We need more people talking about this to keep it on the radar as a pressing issue (not just when there is a Netflix doc about it). Eventually, the folks that are civically engaged (you perhaps?) will write to government leaders pushing for more digital literacy education (i.e. self-awareness as to our own role), better regulation, and the need to build responsible digital engagement into the curriculum of the public school system. Given the effect algorithms currently have on our lives and society as a whole, it’s crazy this hasn’t become a major election issue other than from the perspective of “influencing” an election.
• Use basic tools like Snopes. com to verify links before sharing anything that creates an emotional reaction in you. Better yet, do some basic detective work yourself by getting familiarized with tools that can be used to detect fake photos, accounts, emails, etc. (refer to slides 22-28 in this presentation I posted).
• Next time you see something on social media that triggers a reaction, take a deep breath, put down your phone/screen, and go for a walk outside. There is still hope for us.

The post What You Can Do About “The Social Dilemma” appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

Here are a few of my favourite OPH tweets…

Friendly jab at Toronto, home of Ottawa’s rival hockey team…

Cheeky response to news of certain residents berating cashiers…

Poking fun at conspiracy theorists…

All of these may seem trivial in the greater scheme of things, but when you take a step back to see the birds-eye view of how catchy health information like this spreads, the network effects of maximizing the visibility of credible health info can be tremendous, especially when influential accounts from other communities are lured in to participate.

To better illustrate this, I performed a quick data pull and community visualization using social network analysis techniques of nearly 12,ooo tweets mentioning @OttawaHealth or @OttawaSante over the course of 4 weeks (June 17-July 7, 2020). As seen in the slide I created below, there are nearly 7,000 unique users interacting with the Ottawa Health account from a variety of closely-knit communities. Each one of these accounts helps expose the content from Ottawa Public Health to their own respective followers and communities, in an exponential fashion. It’s worth noting that at present time, most of the fringe conspiracy/disinformation accounts tend to be drowned out to the periphery and/or to their own small, like-minded community clusters, however, they should be monitored for growth on a regular basis as they can grow rapidly to form a disproportional footprint, especially if they use black-hat bot-driven techniques (see my presentation on the anti-vaxxer community).

For those interested, I’ve also created an interactive web-based version of the graph below (although not as pretty and without a legend) and a hi-res image of just the graph. Feel free to shoot me a DM on twitter (@mikekujawski) if you have any questions.

The post It takes a community to effectively spread evidence-based COVID-19 messaging appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

So what’s the big deal?

It depends on who you ask. I came across this video mash-up of COVID-19 commercials the other week, which pretty much highlights what I’ve pointed out above in a mocking way. Have a look.

I have seen many of these ads circulate individually now across various marketing and communications communities, and it’s been interesting reading the different reactions depending on where they are shared. In general, emotional (yet uplifting) ads such as these resonate well with consumers in times of crisis, hence why most brands took this approach in the first place. Yet I’m also seeing folks criticizing these brands right now for not taking the opportunity to stand out with unique positioning, instead, opting for a predictable message, and unimaginative ad. Joining them are people that have a healthy distrust of consumer brands and corporations to begin with, not at all buying these corporate attempts to demonstrate caring.

What do I think?

I believe the unique positioning here is actually the similarity. While I doubt it was approached strategically in a coordinated manner between so many industries, the likeness of each one of these ads builds a stronger whole of something bigger than the individual brand itself. We are legitimately in this together. I believe it’s better to show our similarities than pointing out differences right now in an attempt to be “king of the hill.” This similarity of commercials is also a compelling way to strengthen and help promote key government health messages that often don’t get the same reach on their own.

In summary, the similarity of commercials like this would be a travesty at any other time. But it’s COVID-19, and it’s not a normal time by any means. I, therefore, don’t mind the approach many of these brands have taken.

The post COVID-19 Commercials – A united message or simply a lack of creativity? appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

Of course, during the current COVID-19 pandemic, there is the added complexity of many of us having young kids at home (I have three) that need to be homeschooled at the same time. Depending on the age of your kids and the support network that you have, working from home at the moment can get tricky and requires a high degree of flexibility. This post assumes that you have a spouse/partner or someone from your support network to help you free up at least a few uninterrupted hours in your day for your work duties.

1.) Know your own circadian rhythm and set your work hours accordingly

Circadian rhythms are physical, mental, and behavioural changes that follow a daily cycle.  The above image is a sample circadian rhythm typical of someone who rises early in the morning, eats lunch around noon, and sleeps at night (10 p.m.). Although circadian rhythms tend to be synchronized with cycles of light and dark, other factors such as ambient temperature, meal times, stress and exercise can influence the timing as well. Personally, I tend to look at an entire 24-hour cycle and optimize it in a way that aligns with my personal and professional priorities in life (I realize not everyone has that flexibility in their profession). If you are used to a clear divide between a workday and personal time, it’s important that you continue to set your workday hours firmly and stick to them. What you can do is try to optimize them as much as possible to ensure that your time is being used effectively. During the first few weeks, try keeping a simple journal to track three things to start: when you tend to get sleepy, when you are energized and when you feel really focused. Look at your tasks for the day (I use the Bullet Journal Method) and try to place them into the appropriate time slots. For example, I tend to work on my written deliverables that require high focus between 9 am and noon or at night (after 8 pm) once all my kids are in bed. I also find I get a boost of energy (not related to my caffeine intake) in the late afternoon, which I use to work out. Some of you may find that a quick 30min- 45min power nap during your “sleepy” time (usually somewhere between 1 PM and 3 PM for most adults) can work wonders by powering up your productivity for the remainder of the afternoon. Bottom line: Experiment, learn and apply.

2.) Ensure that you have a well-lit, dedicated workspace

While it can often be nice to just move from location to location in your home (I do that on occasion when seeking creative inspiration), having a “home base” is important for your own sanity and to help you mentally disconnect from work when you need to (the majority of your spaces at home should ideally not be associated with work). If you don’t have a dedicated room that you can use as an office, try to block off some space in an existing room. Work close to a window if you can, as nothing beats natural light. If you have limited access to daylight or none at all, augment what you have with 5000K colour temperature lighting during the day (it mimics daylight) and 3000K colour temperature light in the evening/night (assuming you’re still working). If I know I’ll be working through the night on a deliverable due the next day then I’ll keep the 5000K colour temperature lighting to stay awake (not wise to do this regularly as it will mess with your circadian rhythm). My own setup is four 2×2 5000K LED panel light fixtures mounted to my home office ceiling along with two task lamps on my desk that can switch between 3000K and 5000K as needed. My desk is adjacent to a north-facing window so I don’t get sun in my face at any time. This also helps with proper lighting during video calls throughout the day. For video calls during the night, I use a small Manfrotto LED light on a tripod + the two task lamps to augment side lighting. Bottom line: Create a dedicated workspace and don’t overlook lighting.

3.) Turn off push notifications on your phone and don’t touch it during your high-focus hours.

There is enough statistically significant and peer-reviewed research out there to make this a fact: Your phone is a serious distraction when it comes to staying focused. This is especially true since many people have emails, texts, IMs, and their social feeds delivered through push notifications. The latest neuroscience research clearly states that for the vast majority of people, multitasking is not possible. Don’t use the excuse that you have to be on-call with your team (emergencies are an obvious exception). Let them know when your focus time is and set aside separate time windows for answering emails and checking messages every day (e.g. 10 am and 4 pm). Communicate this with your team and the reason why you’re doing it but be flexible and leave room for exceptions. Bottom line: Find at least two hours each day during which you don’t touch your phone. And absolutely no cheating by enabling push notifications on your desktop!

4.) Commit to using a work-focused instant messenger with your team

If there’s one thing COVID-19 is teaching people about remote work it’s how useful Instant Messengers can be for work-related discourse. I’m referring to tools such as Slack, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp Business, Facebook Workplace, etc. all of which have great cross-platform and cross-device applications. One of their main benefits is that they can dramatically reduce your reliance on email, especially for transitory messages between colleagues. When used effectively this can free up your time rather than adding “more things to check” as naysayers often say. Keep in mind that this is not meant to be a complete replacement of email but it should definitely reduce internal emails and email chains between colleagues. It should go without saying that it’s also not a channel to be used for sending protected/classified government information. Unfortunately, many government organizations still tend to err on the extreme side of caution (rather than reasonable side) and forbid access all together instead of allowing case-specific access and empowering through employee education (here’s a good recent Twitter thread on this – complete with links to some resources). Bottom line: Use the right tool for the right task at hand.

5.) Get some fresh outdoor air at regular intervals

People just transitioning to working from home often make the mistake of getting too comfortable not leaving the house. Even factoring in the current social/physical distancing requirements, you have no excuse not to go in your backyard, front porch, your balcony, or for a nice walk around your immediate neighbourhood. A fresh burst of air every few hours does wonders for me in terms of clearing my mind. Don’t make it a big production or you won’t end up doing it. A two-minute walk to your community mailbox can do the trick. Note: This should be separate from your exercise routine and should not be counted as such unless you’re getting your 30 minutes in there at least. Bottom line: Fresh air is good for the mind, body and soul.

6.) Wear comfy clothes, but don’t overdo it.

I’ll be the first to admit that the cheesy stock image I used for this post could have easily been me in my initial years working from home. Business top, party bottom (ok, at least I used joggers). These days, whether I have a video call or not, I dress comfortably but also in a way that I’d be comfortable presenting myself should a colleague come to the door (not just the Amazon delivery person). With that being said, study yourself and how much work you manage to get done in different types of clothing. You’d be surprised how easily your mind can be tricked into thinking it’s lounging/movie time just by what you’re wearing.

The post 6 not-so-conventional tips for working from home appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

The pros and cons of niche content

Many people, myself included, long for critical thought, moments of pause, genuine openness and curiosity as well as the lost art of argumentation, especially when the arguing parties demonstrate respect towards each other while holding different opinions and leave at least a small window of room to be persuaded into changing their own thinking (i.e what I call genuine empathetic listening). This is simply not possible in most quick consumption and network news formats due to their firm time constraints (televised political debates being the prime example). I can’t even begin to list the number of new topics, ideas, thought leaders, authors, and industries that these sort of podcasts have introduced me to.

The fragmentation of the internet into millions of niches has opened up room for anyone with a mic, unique content, and a tolerable voice (even ASMR-driven) to become a big fish in their respective small pond (i.e. topic area). Whether that’s a mother/daughter combo talking about knitting, or fighter pilots discussing combat, there is something out there for everyone in the long-tail world of internet podcasts. Further to that, the ubiquity of the internet (nearing 59% global penetration), smartphones (49% global penetration), and platform neutrality (i.e. it no longer matters if you have an iPhone, Android, etc.) has definitely helped this medium grow.

On the flip side, one can argue that when it comes to podcasts involving controversial social/health/environmental topics and politics in general, all of these small ponds only perpetuate group think and increase the polarization of society. They also allow the digital-savvy fringe communities that exist among the extreme periphery of a network to build a powerful footprint, enter the mainstream discourse, and create a sense of false balance for others outside of their community that happen to come across their content (case in point, anti-vaxxers).

This, however, is a much broader issue (with social media in general) and won’t be solved anytime soon. At least not until the level of digital media literacy increases drastically across society.

Back to podcasting and its resurgence.

The initial hype surrounding podcasting actually peaked around 2006 and then began to decline for the majority of the following decade. It’s not until the end of 2014 that it began to climb back up again (refer to the Google Search Trend visualization below). I believe this is partially a result of the rise of smartphones, global 3g/4g infrastructure and subsequent visual/video content possibilities on these devices. Let’s face it, our lizard brains are attracted to dopamine inducing shiny objects and there is more than enough of that to go around these days. The renewed growth also seems largely driven by the popularity of true crime / investigative journalism, specifically, the release of the “Serial” Podcast, which within a few months of launching in 2014 had been downloaded more than 68 million times. By 2018 that number hit 340 million. Now true crime podcasts account for nearly 50% of the top 10 podcasts listed on iTunes (interestingly, numerous sources also point out that the majority of true crime listeners are women).

If you take a look at the most common and fastest rising global search queries containing the word “podcast” (below), you’ll notice that besides true crime and people interested in learning how to start a podcast, another massive contributor to the podcasting comeback has been American comedian, actor, sports commentator, martial artist, and television host,  Joe Rogan, with his phenomenally successful Joe Rogan Experience (launched in 2009).

The format is simple, Joe brings in an interesting (albeit at times controversial) guest and has an unstructured conversation with them often lasting 2-3 hours and typically going on wild tangents. Who has time for that these days you ask? Joe Rogan’s daily audience is estimated to be anywhere from 5M-7M. For comparison, the most-watched U.S news anchor, Sean Hannity (Fox News), has an audience of about 3.1M people (using Neilson data).

Fastest Rising Search Queries with the word “podcast’ (2004-2020)

Numbers are one thing, what’s the impact?

Here are some highlights of Joe Rogan’s podcasting impact (both good and bad, pulled from Wikipedia):

• By April 2019 the podcast had 190 million downloads a month.
• An annual Joe Rogan-inspired “Sober October” tradition started in 2017 has influenced some listeners to curb their addictions by partaking in the challenge.
• Elon Musk‘s appearance on episode No. 1,169 on September 6, 2018 saw Musk smoke cannabis, which attracted worldwide press attention and caused a 9% fall in Tesla stock.
• The podcast helped Andrew Yang’s campaign for the 2020 U.S. presidential election gain momentum following his appearance in February 2019.
• On June 20, 2019, Area 51 conspiracy theorist, Bob Lazar, made an appearance on the show where Rogan frequently discusses the possibility of aliens and extraterrestrial life. This episode was cited as the inspiration for the planned Facebook event and Internet meme known as Storm Area 51, They Can’t Stop All of Us, created one week later.
• A study conducted by Coleman Insights in 2019 with 1,000 monthly podcast listeners aged 18 to 64 revealed that The Joe Rogan Experience ranked the highest in the “unaided awareness” category, double that of any other podcast
• According to The New York Times, Rogan and The Joe Rogan Experience became an “unlikely political influencer” in the 2020 presidential election after presidential candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard both saw measurable surges in popularity and fundraising after making guest appearances on the program in 2019, and in 2020, when presidential candidate Bernie Sanders saw a surge of press coverage in national news and global media outlets as a result of his campaign using a clip from The Joe Rogan Experience showing Rogan speaking favorably about the candidate and saying on air, “I think I’ll probably vote for Bernie.”

So what?

I point all of this out because it turns out that there is still an appetite and an audience for long-form audio content, there always has been. The difference is that it’s growing faster than ever thanks in large part to some of these massive podcasts that are introducing people to the medium for the first time and also inspiring new content creators to start their own. Think of the tens of thousands of podcasts out there following the same long-form style but addressing a niche audience of some sort (even if it’s just 100, 1K, or 10K people per podcast). While many organizations looking to engage with their audience on social media are busy chasing the shiny fast-paced platforms of the day, I feel that not enough consideration is being given to this highly immersive, first-generation form of social media that has come back stronger than ever.

Action item: Browse through some podcasting directories or simply do a google search for the following: [your industry/topic area] + “podcasts”. Subscribe to a few. Listen in, and not just to the top ones but the bottom of the list as well. You will likely find a highly engaged and relevant community that you’ve been missing this entire time.

The post Joe Rogan, true crime, and the 2nd podcasting revolution appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

• Section 1 – Respect for democracy – Expected Behaviour 1.1 – Respecting the rule of law and carrying out their duties in accordance with legislation, policies and directives in a non-partisan and impartial manner.
• Section 3 – Integrity – Expected Behaviour 3.1 – Acting at all times with integrity and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.

The issue as I see it

• Many public servants (not all of course) are well-informed about government and politics in general
• A sub-set of these public servants are passionate about their political beliefs and/or passionate about politically sensitive topics.
• A further sub-set have no issues engaging on social media and building their online personal brands / digital footprints surrounding these topics. This of course violates both of the sections from the Code that I highlighted above (non-partisanship and impartiality goes out the window as does acting in a manner that bears the closest public scrutiny)
• Even if this last group stops engaging in these topics online, it has already built up a permanent digital history that someone (media, political party, troll, NGO, etc.) can rather quickly find using freely available social media monitoring tools.

Key questions

• In an era where building a strong digital presence is crucial for advancing a political movement/policy/belief, is it really fair to tell public servants that they must stop, especially if they have a Charter-protected right to political expression as a civil servant?
• If their entire online history can’t be removed anyway, what’s the point of telling them to stop now?  The perception of their partisanship is already there.

Legal perspective

Amanda Clarke and Ben Piper published an excellent paper last year that looked at this issue from a legal perspective and provided some general guidance based on their reading of relevant case-law: A Legal Framework to Govern Online Political Expression by Public Servants. Some highlights from this research:

• The more senior you are in your position as a public servant the less scope you have to engage in political discourse
• The more closely your political discourse is related to your work as a public servant, the less scope you have to engage
• The more substantive the impact of the act, the less permissible it is
• The more visible the act, the less permissible it is
• The more easily you can be identified online as a public servant, the less permissible it is.

My own take

While it can be argued that some of the above guidance makes logical sense, you can see how this becomes a fully subjective exercise when it comes down to enforcement. Further, I think the last two guidance items (visibility and identification) should be removed as they can give public servants a false sense of security. It’s best to always work under the assumption that anything you do online, especially on social media, can be found by those seeking it. Also, attempting to hide that you are a public servant while remaining politically active on social media only encourages others to seek this information out. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule (intelligence/policing/military agencies, etc.) but they have stand-alone protocols and guidance.

The bottom line

The advice I provide to public servants (when asked) is that it all comes down to personal risk tolerance. Even if you use your best judgment in applying the case-law guidance, you should still at all times be prepared to become a headline news story, which may put your personal/professional reputation at risk, as well as the reputation of your employer. Some people are comfortable with that. What I worry about are the public servants that do follow general guidance but never anticipate that something seemingly innocent might quickly blow out of proportion and are surprised when it does. Trolls act rapidly and tend to be quite digitally savvy.  When delivering seminars on this topic I like to point out examples of people who followed all the rules in their organizations but still ended up having their reputations permanently associated with a particular incident that occurred online. Whether they were in the right or wrong does not matter to the internet’s digital footprint zeitgeist.

The post The murky waters of government employment and political neutrality appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .

Much of the discourse on ‘fake news’ these days conflates three notions: misinformation, disinformation and mal-information. It’s important to distinguish messages that are true from those that are false, and messages that are created, produced or distributed by “agents” who intend to do harm from those that are not. I recommend that you ensure your online comms and digital engagement folks are well versed in key definitions from the Council of Europe’s Information Disorder Report:

• Misinformation: Information that is false, but not created with the intention of causing harm (e.g. someone posting an article containing now out of date information but not realizing it).
• Disinformation:  Information that is false and deliberately created to harm a person, social group, organization or country (e.g. a competitor purposely posting false statistics about your organization with an intent to discredit you)
• Mal-information:  Information that is based on reality, used to inflict harm on a person, organization or country (e.g. someone using a picture of a dead child refugee (with no context) in an effort to ignite hatred of a particular ethnic group they are against.

I find that misinformation can be identified rather quickly by scanning through the history of the account in question to determine if there is a clear pattern of posting erroneous content or if this was a one-off innocent mistake.

The latter two can also be easily identified after some basic digging but are generally tricky to differentiate. Think of mal-information as containing something real that was taken completely out of context and with malicious intent, whereas disinformation contains outright lies with no element of truth. Here are some tools to help you identify this sort of content.

I like to evaluate these on a case by case basis (to determine if and where to engage) by doing a thorough scan of their social networks using social network analysis (SNA) techniques (refer to Slide 38 in this presentation I posted up in the past). From there you can find out how much influence they have in their network, who their key sources of information are, how much influence their network has in the wider topical discussion and any places that you could potentially leave a well-crafted counter-response pointing to factual information without engaging directly and/or entering directly into the troll sewers. Instead, I like to think of it as dropping a permanent note in the troll sewers so that it can be found by other potentially vulnerable innocent souls that accidentally wander in there. Good luck!

The post Misinformation vs. Disinformation vs. Mal-information appeared first on Mike Kujawski's Blog | Navigating Digital Disruption .