Author: Search Influence Alumni

Millions of Americans log onto Facebook every day without giving it a second thought, but something we consider a part of our everyday lives is very much a forbidden fruit in China. A recent protest has drawn attention in the news to just how fortunate we are to be able to use social media as a part of our regular communication.

Chinese internet regulator Fang Binxing may have known he’s not in most students’ good graces when we walked into Wuhan University to give a talk on internet security this past week, but he probably didn’t expect to be attacked by an angry student with projectiles such as shoes and eggs. However, that’s exactly what took place.

A student only identified by his Twitter handle, @hanunyi, claims that several other students had planned to join in on the protest, but got cold feet at the last minute. After being interrupted by the projectiles, Binxing cut the talk short and left to go to the airport.

In the hours that followed, a surge of support for the attack appeared on internet forums and channels, only to be deleted by censors. Less courageous voices named @hanunyi a hero for the people, offering him all sorts of rewards for his act.

Fang Binxing’s work in banning a tremendous number of websites from the Chinese public is considered a safety precaution. Websites such as YouTube and Facebook are considered a danger as they may enable Chinese citizens with a means to oppose Communist Party rule.

The incident has not been officially acknowledged, but the Associated Press quoted a policeman in saying it was “under investigation”.

The extent of the internet censorship in The People’s Republic of China is not commonly known to most people in other countries. China has a long history of not allowing its occupants to openly communicate, banning everything from books to films. In China, every key social media site including Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Foursquare and many more are banned.

How would your business be different if you could no longer use social media?

While Google announced its own independent “liking” feature in the form of the Google +1 button several weeks ago, Microsoft competitor Bing announced on Monday that it would be directly incorporating Facebook “like” data into its search rankings. For the logged-in Bing user, a result that may have originally appeared lower in relevance will gain a boost toward the top simply by the virtue of having been liked by the user’s friends. In this gutsy move, Bing has divorced itself from the simple “search engine” label and is now something more like a community opinion aggregator, specifically relevant to the individual utilizing it.

The question is, how useful is this going to be to the average searcher? While I like and respect my Facebook friends, chances are I’m not going to be interested in what every one of the 400+ party acquaintances, elementary school buddies and past coworkers think that I should be looking at. While Facebook has some rudimentary measures in place to weigh whose profiles are more important to yours and vice versa, I’m not sure if this weighting will translate well to said friends’ opinions of search results. However, opinion harvesting is not simply related to your own friends list; Microsoft is touting this measure as a triumph of “collective IQ,” stating in its official blog post about the move that results will also be influenced by the likes of those who are not in your network. It’s the wisdom of the crowd, extended to large-scale. Popular recipes, for example, are markedly prominent when their ingredients are searched for:

While I’m unsure of the specific implementations of this move, such as incentivizing users to actually stay logged in to Facebook while they browse, I’m not sure if this is the death of objective search results. Google has always based its rankings at least partially on outside approval, and who’s to say that the average Bing user won’t benefit from the recommendations of their peers?

One intriguing and complex aspect of this new method will come in the form of “enabling conversation,” wherein Bing attempts to determine who (if anyone) in your friends network is most qualified to help make a decision or provide advice. If you’re searching for a certain city, for example, those in your network who live or have lived in said city will be suggested to provide recommendations. This is a useful but potentially enormously complex system involving huge amounts of data gathering, one whose practical applications remain to be seen when tested by user interaction.

With Bing and Facebook announcing this unprecedented merger of sociality and search, Microsoft’s rebranding of Bing as a “decision engine” instead of a “search” one is well-chosen. While results may be skewed toward the populist instead of the purely informational, there is unquestionably a specific niche for this kind of service, and I’ll be surprised if the coming months don’t usher in an even closer and more integrated relationship between the two.

In January, the world media and most of its consumers were riveted as events unfolded in #Egypt as the ouster of Hosni Mubarak gradually unfolded. It may have been the most widely televised, blogged, photographed, and tweeted-about revolution in the history of the planet, as people received up-to-the-second updates as to what was occurring in Cairo.

(Of course, Kenneth Cole unwisely used these events as a way to promote his clothing on Twitter, but that’s neither here nor there.)

Social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook, allowed people all over the world, especially Egyptians (after a nationwide internet blackout was reversed), to voice their concerns, support, and questions regarding the revolution in Tahrir Square. In some ways, one could argue that social media websites allowed the revolution to take place, as people in Egypt could instantly communicate and coordinate with one another. One Egyptian man even named his newborn daughter “Facebook” to signify the network’s importance in coordinating the revolution successfully.

Well, what about our own government? Some might say that our politicians have been slow to capitalize on the connectivity of social media, especially in the Oval Office. Bill Clinton only wrote two emails while in office, George W. Bush didn’t start using social media until after his presidency, but President Obama seems to have staffers controlling communications via Facebook, Twitter, and Hootsuite at all hours of the day, which proved to his advantage in the 2008 election. Many members of Congress have active accounts on these sites as well, and the media in Washington and other political power centers have long established their presence on social networks.

What does this mean? Well, for starters, rather than writing your Congressman, you can now tweet @ him or her and vice versa, opening up a new form of conversation in the political arena. As important legislative deadlines approach, like the budget debate earlier this month, constituents can get instant updates not only as to who’s voting for what, but also concerning behind-the-scenes negotiations and deals that can make-or-break a legislative agenda. The President can live-tweet his speeches and public events as they happen (#SOTU), and he often chooses to announce his press conferences via Twitter. In New Orleans, our mayor even has his own Twitter account and updates it frequently.

What’s even more interesting is that politicians’ use of social networks can essentially cut out the traditional media in the chain of communication between politician and constituent. Rather than having a reporter or broadcaster select and edit the quotes they choose to convey to their readers (we’re all too familiar with “sound bytes” that are taken out of context), politicians now have a direct line to speak to their supporters and discuss their views and actions on their own terms.

However, social media does the same for media outlets as well. Many Washington reporters have their own active Twitter accounts, and certain news organizations, like the New York Times, have them as well. (Hint: if you click on a link leading to any NYT article, you can bypass their new paywall and read it for free. @nytimes #FF)

Does this make American politics more democratic? Absolutely not, but it seemed to have that effect in Cairo. While business on Capital Hill will progress as it always has, social media allows for a deeper focus and scrutiny on political events. One now has greater access to inner workings of our political system and can speak up as speeches are made, negotiations are conducted, and votes tallied. If Egypt, is any indicator, social networks are now becomingly increasingly powerful tools in the political landscape, a trend that can only increase in the future.

(For further reading, check out NPR’s article entitled “Digital Media Could Make Or Break Presidential Race.”)