Follow
Download
Twisted City by Chris Singleton - album sleeve

Just enter your details below to get a copy of Chris Singleton's first album, 'Twisted City', entirely free.

Your name *  
Your email *

Postcode (County if Ireland) *


By signing up you accept
the
terms and conditions.

Sign up to the blog

Enter your email address below to receive Chris Singleton's blog in your inbox. You can also subscribe via RSS (using Feedburner).

Facebook

Entries in Facebook (12)

Saturday
Nov142015

Prayers are not what Paris needs right now



Paris is the most amazing city I've ever been to - aesthetically and culturally. It's heartbreaking to see what happened there last night.

The #prayforparis hashtag isn't sitting well with me though. Paris is the home of the Enlightenment and capital of one of the most (proudly) secular countries on earth; and, although there are many complex factors at play here, it is impossible to ignore religion as a key driving force behind these awful attacks. So given the toxic role that relgion in all this, and the historical aversion to it in France, I'm not sure Parisians want to be prayed for right now - there are more appropriate or practical ways of supporting them. And better hashtags.

Feel iffy about all the flags on Facebook too, sorry. Facebook could have suggested a better way of showing solidarity than encouraging a bit of flag-waving (mixed with selfies) at a time like this.

We find ourselves in a place where religion and flag-waving have played a huge role in generating these awful attacks - but somehow our collective social media response has been 'let's pray, and here's a picture of me with a flag on my face'. There's an old catchphrase involving liberté, égalité, fraternité which might work a tad better both online and offline. Each of these three ideals will be much needed in the coming weeks. Less so the prayers and French-themed selfies.
Saturday
Jul302011

Computer says no: time to fear the algorithm?


When you are waiting at a red traffic light at a junction, a little algorithm – a formula or set of steps for solving a particular problem – is silently judging you. It’s working out how long you and other motorists have been waiting at the various sets of lights at the junction, how many pedestrians have pushed a button at a crossing, which road is the most important one, what time of day it is, how quickly you need to pee and so on. Based on these variables and what the algorithm makes of them all, you’ll either be waiting a short or a long time before you can stop cursing, uncross your legs, release the handbrake and move on (assuming, of course, that you’re the sort of person who uses the handbrake. There is a very good reason for using a handbrake whilst waiting at the lights, but that’s another, and perhaps rather boring, blog post).

Algorithms are in the news a lot at the moment, partly because a clever chap called Eli Pariser has written a book called The Filter Bubble about them. Annoyingly, this is a particular interest of mine, and he’s beaten me to writing a tome about it – but in my defence I’m a new dad and finding the time to write a blog post is very tricky, let alone attempting a book. For similar dad-related reasons, I haven’t got round to reading The Filter Bubble, but from what I can gather from reviews and an interesting TED talk he gave recently, Parisier’s focus is on how algorithms are used online. More on that in a moment, but first it’s worth pointing out that algorithms are nothing new – they’ve been around for donkey’s years, and are as much an offline phenomenon as an online one. Healthcare professionals use detailed algorithms to examine symptoms and establish courses of treatment; call centres use them to evaluate your response to certain questions and ascertain what crap to sell you. If you’ve got a Volvo it will probably tell you off for starting the engine without putting your seatbelt on, and if you get in an elevator, it will hopefully take you to a floor which corresponds to the button you press. In their simplest form, algorithms are little flowcharts which ‘process’ a situation – or you. If yes, do this; if no, do that.

All the above examples seem rather mundane – and unless you’re particularly into the electronics in a Volvo, they are. But lately, algorithms have taken on a new importance. As with most things, the internet has sort of ‘turbo-charged’ them: it’s made them (a) more sophisticated and (b) far more prevalent, to the point where it’s virtually impossible to do anything online without encountering an algorithm that is doing its very best to make you take a very particular course of action. You are probably only reading this blog post because Facebook or Google used an algorithm to process you – or your search query – in a very specific way and decided that this article was for you. If you’re reading this in the south of France, you may well be there because when you perused the Ryanair site, it did some sums and thought that offering you a so-called free flight to Nice was a good idea. If you’re staying in a four star hotel in Nice you may be there because when you searched for hotels in the area, an online advertising algorithm pointed you in the direction of a cheap deal on four star hotels in France. Personally, if I was in a four star hotel by the Mediterranean, I wouldn’t be reading a blog post about algorithms, I’d be doing something more interesting, but there you go.

Algorithms helping you get cheap flights seems pretty harmless; a good thing, right? Perhaps, depending on what you make of global warming. However, online algorithms are not just benign little bits of code that help you find stuff you like; they are often rather more sneaky than that. If you use Gmail to read your emails, Google’s algorithms are reading them too, and displaying adverts to you based on the things – however sensitive or confidential – you are discussing in the mail. If on Facebook you casually mention that you are a bloke and list yourself as ‘single’ (yes, I know, as if anyone ever does that casually), you will see a plethora of attractive big-breasted ladies beside your news feed, all enticing you to visit their dating website, where of course all the ladies are as attractive and big-breasted as the girls in the ads. Not that I would know. If you visit an insurance website, a series of algorithms will track your every click and change the content of pages in real time to ensure that you only see the policies you are most likely to buy. If you search for a product on eBay, an algorithm will take note of this, put a ‘cookie’ on your computer (without asking you), and you will see a shedload of adverts for that product when you visit other, completely different websites. This is perhaps why, when I turn on my computer after my partner has been on Ebay, I see countless adverts for Cath Kidson products wherever I go online, and if I’ve been using her laptop, all she will see is guitars.

This is all about personalisation: very big, powerful companies filtering content and showing you stuff based on who they think you are. (And to be fair, they’ve got a pretty good idea. Every time you clicked that little ‘like’ button on Facebook, you told it you are into Ann Summers products, Tom Jones and Pizza Hut. Hence the constant ads for sexy Welsh pizza). It’s not because these companies particularly want to make the web experience better for you – although sometimes, this is a side-effect – they really just want to sell you something. But either way, personalisation algorithms are now being employed on an industrial scale, to the point where to use the internet is to be pushed hard, and in a sophisticated way, in a certain direction. And the interesting – perhaps disturbing thing – is the effect this is having on our worldview and behaviour.

Let’s take a look at worldview: it will come as no surprise to anyone who reads my blog, or has the misfortune to be subjected to my Facebook status updates, that I’m an outspoken pinko-lefty-liberal type. But I’m a tolerant guy, and I have some conservative friends. However, I’m unlikely to ‘like’ their status updates about so-called benefit scroungers or click on links they post to Daily Mail articles. Equally, my conservative friends probably won’t be too keen on my rude status updates about David Cameron or the links to Guardian editorials that I post. However, I am quite likely to click on other people’s left-leaning posts, and my Tory cousins will no doubt hit ‘like’ every time somebody whinges about a mythical gold-plated public sector pension, calls for the return of the death penalty or wants to privatise the NHS.

These kind of social interactions have consequences for Facebook users. This is because the network makes use of an algorithm called ‘Edgerank’ to determine what to display in users’ news feeds. Without going into too much detail, it takes three variables – ‘affinity’, ‘weight’ and ‘time’ – to make a call on what pieces of content are relevant to each Facebook user. With the examples highlighted above, it will conclude that ‘right-wing’ posts are less relevant to me, and that ‘left-wing’ posts are less relevant to my conservative chums. And it will edit them out of our respective news feeds. This is truly a shame, as it means I can’t wind up my conservative friends any more. Rather more importantly, a valuable exchange of ideas is no longer taking place. Despite all the sharing of information and views that Facebook was meant to bring, every time I use it, a piece of maths is effectively hiding content from me. Not just me: 500 million or so Facebook users who are looking to it for information 20 times a day, 365 days a year. And the overwhelming majority of these have no idea at all that Facebook is taking such an active role in deciding what they should see. I’m no social scientist, but I’m sure this kind of filtering of content applied on such a huge scale cannot but have a significant impact on how people see the world. 

This algorithmic, personalised filtering is not restricted to social media news feeds. It’s now crept into search results. Up until fairly recently, you could be fairly confident that if both you and your friend searched for Russian brides on Google, and you both lived in the UK, you’d get exactly the same results. However, about a year and a half ago I started noticing – not, I must stress, as a result of searching for Russian brides – that when I searched for the same thing on Google, but in different contexts, that the results were very different. By different contexts I mean searching for the same thing

  • on more than one computer
  • when I was logged into my Google account, or when I was not logged into my Google account
  • after clicking a particular search result
  • in a different geographical location.

This was a bit of a headache, as at the time I was doing a bit of freelance work involving search engine optimisation for a music site and I kept getting multiple sets of results for the exact same keywords. It turns out that Google had started doing the same thing as Facebook – looking at a whole load of variables relating to me and making assumptions as to what floated my boat, rather than giving me an impartial set of links. In his TED talk, Parisier highlights this filtering extremely effectively, by describing an experiment where he asked a few of his friends to google ‘Egypt’ and send him a screenshot of the results provided by Google. The screenshots all varied enormously – Google had personalised the search results to the nth degree for each of his friends.

It’s worth noting however, that personalisation isn’t restricted entirely to online algorithms written by big powerful corporations; in a sense, we also write our own. Here’s an example of how. These days I mainly read the news on a smartphone. I'm going to come across as very bien-pensant here, and perhaps a bit of a knob, but my two news sources of choice are the BBC and The Guardian – and I "consume" (eughh) news via two apps that I’ve downloaded for my phone. Both these apps let me select exactly what content I want to appear when I open them. So, when I’m reading the news, I’m presented with content to do with politics, comment, technology, music and whatnot – and generally speaking not much fashion, showbiz and sport. But when I used to buy a newspaper, I would read it from start to finish, meaning I was invariably exposed to – and would read – a much wider range of stories. With news apps, even though they don’t use any surreptitious personalisation filters, they subtly encourage users to apply their own personalisation filter. The upshot is arguably a narrower view of what’s going on, despite there generally being more content available to browse.

So should we be worried about all this filtering that’s going on? Yes. Because it means that the internet is changing in a profound way. Traditionally the web has been (justifiably) viewed as a tool that

  • widens access to information
  • provides an ‘impartial’ way of sifting through information
  • increases transparency.

But now, the two major prisms through which people see the online world – arguably Facebook and Google – are throwing the above notions out the window. Facebook is actively restricting what people see in news feeds, based on perceived taste. Google’s results are no longer impartial – they’re personalised. And both services have not been at all transparent about how this filtering is / has been applied, or how to switch personalisation off.

And that’s just Facebook and Google – a multitude of sites are going down the personalisation route. It’s the Next Big Thing on the web. And when it gets to the point that every site you visit is running an algorithm that shows you ‘relevant’ information only after it has checked your IP address, cross-referenced its content with what you searched for on Google recently, examined your Facebook likes, scanned your computer for cookies and checked out that Russian brides website you were perusing the other day, the internet can no longer be considered a 'source' of information. It will be a gatekeeper far, far more powerful than Rupert Murdoch, and one that you can’t haul before parliament – or throw a foam pie at.

More Chris Singleton content

Tuesday
Jun162009

Syndication

Budding - or not-so-budding - musicians are naturally drawn towards social networks. In fact, I'd say the explosion in the popularity of social networks owes a lot to bands and artists going round 'befriending' people (a misnomer if ever there was one - and that's coming from a musician - 'bespamming' would be more appropriate!).

It's easy to see why: since their earliest days, social networks have offered bands (and indeed brands) a cheap way to connect with other people and to display their wares easily on a digital plate.

However, social networking has got to the point where there now are multitudes of communities to focus on - or worry about. Bands will know that keeping people engaged with these communities relies on there being interesting content regularly posted on these sites. But keeping tons of social networking presences up to date is extremely laborious.

Thankfully, there is a way around this, and it comes in the form of syndication. Recently I made a decision to use this blog as the main source of my content, and to feed it through to all my profiles. I started off by doing this mainly through importing this blog's Atom feed into Facebook pages, Last FM etc., but I'm now going to be using a tool called Ping to spread my blog's content all over the interweb.

If Ping does what it says on the tin, when I post this blog it should show up literally anywhere I've got a social networking presence - and that's a whole load of places: Myspace, Facebook, Last Fm, Twitter, iLike and more (it's getting faintly ridiculous!). Ping has been around for a while and I'm possibly a bit late to the party, but my hope is that from now on if I write stuff here, anybody else who has a whiff of interest in what I'm doing should get updated...without me having to worry about using javascript to import RSS feeds or copying and pasting content. There's a whole load of other snazzy (but probably pointless) stuff I can do with Ping too - for example, I think I can just text Ping if I want a message about the poo my cat is currently doing to appear on 20 social networks at once.

I'll let you know how I get on. If you're reading this successfully, it's probably worked!

Get Chris Singleton's blog in your inbox - sign up at www.singletonmusic.com/blog.htm

Follow Chris on Twitter - http://twitter.com/chrissingleton

Subscribe to Chris Singleton's blog in a reader: http://feeds.feedburner.com/chrissingletonsblog

Get Chris Singleton's acclaimed music entirely free at http://www.singletonmusic.com/

Monday
Jun152009

Facebook vanity URLs

The eagle-eyed social networkers amongst you will no doubt have noticed the launch of Facebook's vanity URLs on Saturday; individuals can now register a Facebook URL with their name plonked at the end of it - i.e., www.facebook.com/chrissingleton. If you've got a page with over 1,000 members, you can assign a Facebook URL to that as well.

I'm trying to work out what the benefits of this are to musicians (or indeed anybody else trying to flog stuff on an unsuspecting public). One of them is convenience. If you've got a Facebook page or profile, you can now just whack www.facebook.com/yourname on your marketing material. More importantly, there are probably some interesting search engine implications associated with having a vanity URL. I reckon that when you google a band with a Facebook page / profile associated with them, we'll now see the Facebook page come higher up in the rankings, because URLs that contain keywords have a positive impact on search results.

How useful the latter will be depends on how the band in question use Facebook; if it's your main marketing tool then search results displaying your Facebook page more consistently are unquestionably beneficial. If Facebook is not your main way of communicating with your fans, then it's better to use search engine optimisation and a lot of linking to ensure that the web presence you really want to push comes up top of the tree.

Very famous bands (or indeed brands) will be able to benefit from vanity URLs for another reason: people are lazy and will expect top-selling rock acts (or companies) to just have a Facebook page by default. So they won't bother searching for a band or brand's Facebook page, they'll just type www.facebook.com/u2 (or similar) directly into the browser.

Regardless of the benefits to those of us who wish to use Facebook to flog our wares, I've got a feeling that the whole search engine thing is ultimately more about Facebook than its users...the more Facebook can get associated with other people's content in search engine results, the more visits it will get to its site, and the more advertising revenue it will generate.

Anyway, now that I've waffled on about vanity URLS, do feel free to befriend me at mine: www.facebook.com/chrissingleton. It has a certain ring to it, don't you think? Makes me feel kinda vain. If you want to register your own vanity URL go to www.facebook.com/usernames.

Get Chris Singleton's blog in your inbox - sign up at www.singletonmusic.com/blog.htm

Follow Chris on Twitter - http://twitter.com/chrissingleton

Subscribe to Chris Singleton's blog in a reader: http://feeds.feedburner.com/chrissingletonsblog

Get Chris Singleton's acclaimed music entirely free at http://www.singletonmusic.com/

Monday
Feb022009

Twitter

Hmnn...interesting. Everybody is currently talking about Twitter the way that we all went on about Facebook a couple of years ago. Even though Twitter's been around for a while, I think it's only now that widespread take-up of it is starting to happen. Maybe it's something we've all got to do in a recession.

For the uninitiated, Twitter is basically a way of telling people what you're up to at a given point in time. It's pretty much like a Facebook status update, but I think what makes it a little bit more interesting than that is the way you can syndicate your twittering quite easily across the web. One status update can be broadcast across a wide range of networks - say what you're doing on Twitter, and it can appear on your Facebook page, website, blog and so on.

I'm not sure what the advantages of this are yet, compared to syndicating other content, but more and more people are twittering, so there is probably something in it - at the very least, some sort of market. As such, I'm going to find out how musicians can use Twitter to flog albums and gig tickets. If I come up with any interesting 'learnings' (to use a horrible management-speak word that should be banned) I shall think about letting you know.

If you are arsed, my rather uninteresting twittering can be heard at http://twitter.com/chrissingleton.

Get Chris Singleton's blog in your inbox - sign up at www.singletonmusic.com/blog.htm

Subscribe to Chris Singleton's blog in a reader: http://feeds.feedburner.com/chrissingletonsblog

Get Chris Singleton's acclaimed 'Twisted City' album entirely free at www.singletonmusic.com/freealbum/