Objects : Personal, Social, Official

There is a new term floating around : “Social Objects”.  Apparently, it was coined about five years ago and is slowly gaining notariety.

The concept of a Social Object is discussed by Jaiku’s Jyri here : http://strange.corante.com/2007/06/13/nmkforum07-jyri-of-jaiku

Social Objects are basically internet media objects (text, audio, image, video) that are the message of the Social Network medium.  For the longest time on the internet the message had to be sought out.  You had to go to a website to get the social object you wanted.  However, by utilizing your social network, people with similar interests send the social objects to you.  They are gifts.  For example, flickr used to be the place to goto for photos.  Now flickr photos are sent to you by your social network.  Blog posts used to be sought out and blogs subscribed to.  Now blog posts are sent to you by your social network.  News used to have news sites that you would go to and follow.  Now news is sent to you by your social networks.
But that isn’t everything Social Objects come in different varieties:
  1. Dumb Social Object : an object with no link to a source site.
  2. Smart Social Object : an object with a link to a free source site.
  3. Store Social Object : an object with a link to a store source site.
  4. Cart Social Object : an object with a link to a store source site item.

The classification system can be more extensive, but the separation of object from link is worth noting.

So, the social network is simpler than surfing, it eliminates the cost of filtering, and it is pushed, you don’t have to pull.  So why is it not possible to have a computer do it?  I think a computer can, but not by examining the preferences of the individual.  Instead the system must examine interpersonal and group preferences associated to the individual.
But even automating individual, interpersonal and group preferences is not enough.  Members of social networks have status as Social Senders.  Part of receiving a Social Object involves filtering who you accept a Social Object from.  How would an advertising vector automate the status of a Social Sender?  Facebook calls them “Pages”.  It is like a Social Sender/Receiver, but it has a different character, a Social Organization, and it failed.  It failed because Social Organizations are one trick ponies.  They have a Mission.  Mission’s kill diversity and consequently desensitize the Social Receiver.
Now let’s take a step back and rethink the Internet for a moment:
Interaction can be divided into Self, Personal, Social and World.
Stand Alone Computing was Self Computing.  Your computer did not interact with any other computer.
Web 1.0 was Personal Computing.  Suddenly messages were travelling.  And a message could be sent to you without query, Push, or it could be sent to you with query, Pull.  Your computer interacted with other’s computers in the following ways:
  • Email : Personal Push
  • Web Pages : Personal Pull
  • Message Boards : Social Pull
Basically, messages are Push or Pull.  You have:
  • Self-Mediums,Self-Senders, Self-Messages, Self-Receivers;
  • you have Personal-Mediums, Personal-Senders, Personal-Messages, Personal-Receivers;
  • you have Social-Mediums, Social-Senders, Social-Messages, Social-Receivers;
  • you have Official-Mediums, Official-Senders, Official-Messages, Official-Receivers.
With the advent of Web 2.0 and Social Networks something new came about : Social Push.  Through Social Network connections you could push a Social Object (Social-Message) to a broad audience of generally like minded individuals.  This is based on the Social Psychological “Law of Attraction” where it is highly likely that individuals of common interests form connections.
But Companies fail in the Social Network model.  Why?  Perhaps because companies have entered at the wrong end.  Perhaps because we are looking at the next stage, Web 3.0, cold and hard in the face.  Contrary to what many in the industry claim, perhaps Social Objects are not the future for advertising.  Instead of using coercion to get Social Users to share Ad Social Objects, perhaps Objects are the future for Customer Service.  But not in a Social Network.  Perhaps in an Official Network.
Now to think what the nature of an Official Network would be.

Medium, Message, Meaning and Measure

This is a bit of a rambling thought.
Marshall McLuhan in his studies divided all Media (tools), including art into Medium and Message.  In working on this essay, I have come to find another division for McLuhan’s Model:
contains Message
contains Meaning

I was thinking about how to represent this and turned toward the interrogatives to look for guidance.  As I worked with the interrogatives I realized that the interrogative “What?” was the bridge between one level of the new media structure and another.  I found I could nest Meaning in Message in Medium using What as the doorway.

Dealing with it this way brings out the Semiotic trio of Semantics, Syntactics and Pragmatics.  However, it does not fit cleanly.  Medium is not semantics, for example, for it involves the physical carrier.  Semantics is more part of the message.  Yet Semantics itself can be called a Medium for Syntactics and Sytactics a Medium for Pragmatics.  As you can see it is really a pain, because the term Medium has been over generalized.

Another way to think about it may be Medium as Form and Medium as Function, Message as Form and Message as Function, Meaning as Form and Meaning as Function.  I had to come up with new language to handle the scope of my thinking.

What – What as Form – Medium as Form
Where – What as Function – Medium as Function – Semiotic Semantics
How – How as Form – Message as Form – Semiotic Sytactics
When – How as Function – Message as Function – Semiotic Pragmatics
Why – Why as Form – Meaning as Form
Who – Why as Function – Meaning as Function
How Much – How Much as Form – Measure as Form
How Many – How Much as Function – Measure as Function

Notice I added two interrogatives at the end.  I realized message has a size and a quantity.

What this reveals is the interrogatives are paired.  What is a point but Where is What occupying space.  How is a point, but When is How occupying time.  Why is a point, but Who is Why occupying a person.  How Much is a point, but How Many is How Much occupying a quantity.  Form and Function.

I am going to think about this more, but it’s out there for you to think about as well.

Part of Something Larger than Ourselves


As I mentioned in my previous post I have spent months reading world history.

One of the fascinating things I have learned is the history of the nuclear program.

It turns out that Albert Einstein told the President of the United States about the potential to make a nuclear bomb before 1939.  Before World War II even started.

The United States began a program to build a nuclear weapon.

There were two facilities preparing the fissionable materials Uranium 235 and Plutonium.

The Uranium 235 facility in Tennessee was the largest industrial complex in the United States to that date and consumed ten percent of the United States electrical power supply.  No one except the President of the United States and a handful of people actually knew why the complex existed.  Even the people who built it and worked at the facility did not know what they were making.

The Plutonium facility in Washington State was built in a desert adjacent to one of the state’s largest rivers to provide cooling.  The site had several large nuclear reactors and again no one except the President of the United State and a handful of people actually knew why this complex existed.  Even the people who built it and worked at the facility did not know what they were making.

The same went for the Nevada testing site.  Thousands of people worked in the Nevada desert building the facility where the nuclear devices were constructed.  No one except the President of the United States and a handful of people knew why the complex existed.  Even the people who built it and worked at the facility did not know what they were making.

These facilities came into existence before the Second World War and operated with only the knowledge of the President of the United States and a small community of people right up until the dropping of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear devices.  That means the largest scientific, engineering, industrial and military project in the world was operating without almost anyone’s knowledge.  Including General MacArthur the Supreme Commander of the Pacific Allied Forces.

And until the moment of detonation, no one on Earth knew if each device would even work.

All of us in the world are part of something larger than we understand.  Each of us only knows a subsystem of the global human system.  We each have knowledge the rest of the world does not have.  And we are each influencing as individuals, as the human colony and as part of nature the course the Earth is taking.

None of us has an understanding of the full picture and none of us ever will.  Historians admit we will never understand why any world event of any kind is happening.

What we have to accept is that the Universe, Nature, Yawheh, God, Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucious, Manitou, Ehecatl, Shango, Bochica, Wandjina, Io and all creators told us their creation is “Very Good”.

All hardships stem from humanity doubting this.

We are all part of something greater than ourselves and we simply will never understand all of it as Goedel the mathematician explained to us in his proof.

After 25 years developing information systems I realized every system will be asked to do something it is not designed to do.

That is what Charles Darwin was explaining to us.  Whatever the Universe’s origin it is constantly evolving.  We will always find something larger than ourselves, the same as ourselves and smaller than ourselves that we have not encountered before.  The Universe is just too vast for us to experience all of it.

Einstein told Heisenberg, “God does not play dice.”  Heisenberg agreed and told Einstein, “We will never know what game God is playing.”

Von Clauswitz said this is also the case for warfare.  Peter Drucker said this is also the case for business.

After decoding the human genome biologists are saying the same thing too.

If you want to be happy in life everything in the Universe is telling you this:  There is no meaning you will fully understand, just accept moment to moment everything is very good.

Jack Kerouac said, “Nobody knows what’s going to happen to anybody besides growing old.”

As Max Ehrmann, the author of Desiderata said, “The Universe is unfolding as it should.”

14Ga, my latest book


click on image to view listing

Education: The Bell Curve


Media: Evolution Timeline


I have done further work on: Media: Evolution Timeline

Evolution: Manchinekind


My latest post in my blog “globvilla” worth checking out:

Evolution: Manchinekind

Media: Globalization


A Brief History of Globalization, by Alex MacGillivary


Reveals that the major turning points in history were changes in the predominant media:

150,000 years ago Advent of Sequential Man – Global Culture

15,000 years ago Advent of Numeral Man – Global Agriculture

5,000 years ago Advent of Literal Man – Global Literature

500 years ago Advent of Graphical Man – Global Mapping

125 years ago Advent of Chronal Man – Global Time Zones

100 years ago Advent of Audial Man – Global Radio

75 years ago Advent of Visual Man – Global Television

50 years ago Advent of Virtual Sequential Man – Global Satellite

25 years ago Advent of Virtual Numerical Man – Global Internet

0 years ago Advent of Virtual Literal Man – Global Social Networks

Do you see a pattern?


With this video I announce a change in my interests and my new blog.


Please visit me at globvilla.com

Apollo 11: Cold War Victory