The other day, Kara Swisher gave a good impression that a woman ended her wit in The New York Times, for the role of social networks in recent murders in Sri Lanka over the weekend and in New Zealand a few weeks ago.
Social networks "have blown the covers of controls that have kept society under control," he wrote. "These platforms give voice to all, but some of those voices are false or, what is worse, malevolent, and the companies continue to struggle with the way to deal with them."
In fact, the social networking community seems to be tied to what needs to be done about all the abuses that occur within their communities, but if you look elsewhere, you can see signs of solutions that could solve some fundamental problems.
There has been a chorus of calls from all corners for the regulation of social networks, from experts like me to the halls of Congress and even from the same Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. A few weeks ago, Zuckerberg wrote an editorial in The Washington Post saying that the first things we should work on or regulate include "harmful content, electoral integrity, privacy and data portability."
However, a quick look at the CRM industry reveals that its use of social networks along with the analysis far exceeds everything that Zuckerberg's company is dreaming of. The solution that works well in CRM has come about almost by accident, and companies like Salesforce have been bringing solutions to the market implicitly based on some ideas that the larger social networking community could emulate.
Salesforce Accidental Model
I covered some Salesforce ads last week, and two stand out: the Einstein Prediction Builder, which allows administrators and developers to create AI models for applications that run on the Salesforce platform; and the Einstein Prediction Service, which allows administrators to integrate Einstein AI's analyzes into third-party systems. This is the interesting thing about them.
The Salesforce customer organization has its data, which is stored in Salesforce, and discriminates who accesses it. Each organization administers a minimum set of rules about who can use their data, what it can be used for, and things like frequency of use.
The system tracks who uses the data and for what purpose, to the point of providing reports on customer responses. These are some of the elements of a wider and more professionalized use of social networks that could be implemented without much fanfare.
The essence of regulation in our society is that it is bottom-up, not top-down. We just finished the tax season, and very few of us had to consult with a government official or agent who told us what to do and how to submit the application. Some of us introduced ourselves, and a growing number of tax preparation professionals and software firms handled the rest of the load.
We do not take our taxes to the hairdresser, we take them to the accountants and lawyers, or people who are certified to make taxes through specialized training in a tax course. Also, if you do not calculate your own taxes, the person who did it must sign the form as well. That's all we should expect to find solutions for the current disaster of social networks.
Deepening in specific
Not only the filing of taxes works in this way. Consider plumbing and electricity work. Many people do it themselves, but for complicated jobs, most people hire professionals with pleasure, because they have the right tools and experience. They also have licenses administered by the state, which allow them to obtain a construction permit if necessary.
A job without a permit can be closed by your municipality, for good reasons. Security and zoning laws are applied through permits, and help the community maintain standards and prevent wild cats from doing strange things with plumbing or grid infrastructure.
There is an obvious exception when it comes to social networks. What used to be considered an elaborate e-mail system has become a major data analysis and gathering effort to help clients better understand people's actions and motivations. By the way, a customer is, as always, who pays the bill, and for most users of social networks, is not you. You are another category called "product".
A humble proposal
Zuckerberg could have made some good points, but he proposed a top-down approach when the bottom-up approach would be much more effective. Top-down approaches are often ridiculed as bureaucratic, and they are, because they require laws to cover all contingencies.
In a bottom-up world, people with a good amount of training make the calls. It may not be a perfect situation either, but applying local facts to decision making outweighs a blizzard of rules.
So, here is the playing field. If we had a two or three level approach to social media certification, we could solve many problems. Non-certified do-it-yourself can still operate on a personal level, but possibly with some restrictions on the number of contacts. By analogy, you can ruin your own pipe but not your neighbor's.
A "do it yourself" called "Crazy Dog" should not be able to attack the world if you remember that the purpose of social networks is to keep up with personal relationships.
Professional users should be required to have both knowledge and stylist to obtain certification, and rabid dogs do not have to apply. Real names please. Professionals should be required to put their names or license numbers in their work, such as an electrician who is obtaining a building permit.
My two bits
I'm not under any illusion that these suggestions would change everything about the social media landscape, and maybe that's a good thing. The social is successful because it is spontaneous and satisfies the need to maintain human contact.
Older people of the reason do not like to be told what to do, so any regulation should be applied with a light touch. Assuming responsibility with the actor fosters a sense of agency, a powerful tool to spread and share responsibility. It works in many places. We should try it in social.
Social networks "have blown the covers of controls that have kept society under control," he wrote. "These platforms give voice to all, but some of those voices are false or, what is worse, malevolent, and the companies continue to struggle with the way to deal with them."
In fact, the social networking community seems to be tied to what needs to be done about all the abuses that occur within their communities, but if you look elsewhere, you can see signs of solutions that could solve some fundamental problems.
There has been a chorus of calls from all corners for the regulation of social networks, from experts like me to the halls of Congress and even from the same Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. A few weeks ago, Zuckerberg wrote an editorial in The Washington Post saying that the first things we should work on or regulate include "harmful content, electoral integrity, privacy and data portability."
However, a quick look at the CRM industry reveals that its use of social networks along with the analysis far exceeds everything that Zuckerberg's company is dreaming of. The solution that works well in CRM has come about almost by accident, and companies like Salesforce have been bringing solutions to the market implicitly based on some ideas that the larger social networking community could emulate.
Salesforce Accidental Model
I covered some Salesforce ads last week, and two stand out: the Einstein Prediction Builder, which allows administrators and developers to create AI models for applications that run on the Salesforce platform; and the Einstein Prediction Service, which allows administrators to integrate Einstein AI's analyzes into third-party systems. This is the interesting thing about them.
The Salesforce customer organization has its data, which is stored in Salesforce, and discriminates who accesses it. Each organization administers a minimum set of rules about who can use their data, what it can be used for, and things like frequency of use.
The system tracks who uses the data and for what purpose, to the point of providing reports on customer responses. These are some of the elements of a wider and more professionalized use of social networks that could be implemented without much fanfare.
The essence of regulation in our society is that it is bottom-up, not top-down. We just finished the tax season, and very few of us had to consult with a government official or agent who told us what to do and how to submit the application. Some of us introduced ourselves, and a growing number of tax preparation professionals and software firms handled the rest of the load.
We do not take our taxes to the hairdresser, we take them to the accountants and lawyers, or people who are certified to make taxes through specialized training in a tax course. Also, if you do not calculate your own taxes, the person who did it must sign the form as well. That's all we should expect to find solutions for the current disaster of social networks.
Deepening in specific
Not only the filing of taxes works in this way. Consider plumbing and electricity work. Many people do it themselves, but for complicated jobs, most people hire professionals with pleasure, because they have the right tools and experience. They also have licenses administered by the state, which allow them to obtain a construction permit if necessary.
A job without a permit can be closed by your municipality, for good reasons. Security and zoning laws are applied through permits, and help the community maintain standards and prevent wild cats from doing strange things with plumbing or grid infrastructure.
There is an obvious exception when it comes to social networks. What used to be considered an elaborate e-mail system has become a major data analysis and gathering effort to help clients better understand people's actions and motivations. By the way, a customer is, as always, who pays the bill, and for most users of social networks, is not you. You are another category called "product".
A humble proposal
Zuckerberg could have made some good points, but he proposed a top-down approach when the bottom-up approach would be much more effective. Top-down approaches are often ridiculed as bureaucratic, and they are, because they require laws to cover all contingencies.
In a bottom-up world, people with a good amount of training make the calls. It may not be a perfect situation either, but applying local facts to decision making outweighs a blizzard of rules.
So, here is the playing field. If we had a two or three level approach to social media certification, we could solve many problems. Non-certified do-it-yourself can still operate on a personal level, but possibly with some restrictions on the number of contacts. By analogy, you can ruin your own pipe but not your neighbor's.
A "do it yourself" called "Crazy Dog" should not be able to attack the world if you remember that the purpose of social networks is to keep up with personal relationships.
Professional users should be required to have both knowledge and stylist to obtain certification, and rabid dogs do not have to apply. Real names please. Professionals should be required to put their names or license numbers in their work, such as an electrician who is obtaining a building permit.
My two bits
I'm not under any illusion that these suggestions would change everything about the social media landscape, and maybe that's a good thing. The social is successful because it is spontaneous and satisfies the need to maintain human contact.
Older people of the reason do not like to be told what to do, so any regulation should be applied with a light touch. Assuming responsibility with the actor fosters a sense of agency, a powerful tool to spread and share responsibility. It works in many places. We should try it in social.
0 Comments