Choosing the tools
Lists: Twitter, blogrolls and playlists
Blogrolls and shared news feeds
Video and audio playlists using YouTube, Spotify, Last.fm or Soundcloud
Image curation: Pinterest, Flickr pools
Mixed media: curation using maps and timelines
Curate your own magazines with Flipboard
Curation as a platform: Tumblr, Storify â and Twitter again
UPDATE:Â This great StorifyÂ by Kevin Sablan goes into more detail about what curation is in a cultural context, and how journalism uses the same skills. It also links toÂ this Mindy McAdams post on 7 types of curation in journalism.
When we talk about design nowadays, the focus has been on the lures (or dangers) ofÂ flat designÂ andskeumorphism; whether there should be (or really are any)Â intuitive interfaces; and wearable, maybe âdisappearingâ interfaces.
But these discussions ignore half the problem. Any software system has a digital interface and a physical interface. The digital user interface (UI) is crucial, but physical or housing design — the design of the machine as a real object — has been a crucial problem since Eliot Noyes inaugurated IBMâs field-leading design program in the 1950s.
Weâre still trapped inside the design world of the 1960s — the last era in which fresh design thoughts (as opposed to endless re-runs) dominated the field. Since the advent of personal computers around 1980, our digital stuff (including computers, smartphones, watches, and so on) has barely inched ahead. Our wearable interfaces (glasses, watches) look just like their analog precursors. Office-building architecture has changed since the 1960s (a little, anyway; we still see the 1960s glass-box ice-modernism of Mies van der Rohe in 2010s Renzo Piano, still see biomorphic â60s Eero Saarinen in the flustered flappings and flutterings of 2010s Frank Gehry) — but the officesÂ insideÂ are stuck in 1945: Theyâre designed for typewriters, wired-up phones, paper filing and large flat writing surfaces. Desk-chairs encourage the back-straight!/chin-out! posture that 1950s secretaries needed to do their best typing on Remington Rands and Selectrics.
But a modern office should obviously be designed aroundÂ computersÂ and computing — not the relics of a distant past beforeÂ Mad Men. Not many people want plastic furniture, so why would they want a plastic computer? A computer housing could be made of wood, metal, glass or a million kinds of plastic, could be surfaced in colored glass tiles, leather, cloth, granite, amber. So why do our laptops and desktops all look the same? Touch-screens become more important all the time, so where are the machines that combine touch-screens at a comfortable distance and angle with the keyboards we still need to create content?
Since then, weâve entered the world of ubiquitous computing where digital gadgets surround us — yet our gadgets all hate each other, evidently, because they rarely talk to each other (except in trivial ways). Thatâs why theÂ ensembleÂ is a big theme of the designs you see here: Our personal computers should add up to something more than the sum of parts. So these new designs addresscoordinated functionalityÂ more than color and finish. (By the way, many of these redesigns suggest a different direction for in-car computers, too — donât even get me started on those.)Little has changed in the senile world of computer design. The design field is stuck with dead-end shapes that are dearly beloved because they are old. Even our âdepartures from the conventional are conventionalâ — as I wrote inÂ The New York TimesÂ exactly 16 years ago as of this past Saturday — in a piece called âBreaking Out of the Box,â complaining that computers were everywhere, were ugly, and all looked the same âŠ merely because we were too lazy to make them better. (A year later, Apple released the iMac, which did finally âbreak out of the boxâ shape, literally, and came in bright colors instead of the thousand shades of oatmeal that had been making us nauseous.)
The devices we take with us, or use together in some workspace, mustÂ form a clean ensemble. Hardware and software should be designed together. Why does a telephone need a screen (except for a one-liner to tell me whoâs calling), when itâs so easy to carry other, better screen-devices along with the phone? (Do you carry a wallet? Why not build the screen into the wallet?)
Future civilizations will know we were crazy when they see clips of us talking into our screens.
Above: Laptops and Desktops
Current laptop and desktop design is basically no good for touchscreens. As these devices acquire touchscreens (weâre already in the first generation here), their designs need to change fundamentally.
In fact, laptops have always been rotten designs, because they force the screen down low, away from the natural sightline. Fundamentally, a touchscreen means changing the distance between screen and user: The screen now needs to be upright and fairly close to the user, and the keyboard should gobeneathÂ the screen — not beneath and way out front as it is today. Since users needs to touch keyboard and screen, both need to be poised at roughly the same distance from their hands.
The example on the left is a laptop design where one can unfold the screen and use it as a pad, or unfold the keyboard too, which lets you type conveniently without putting the screen too far away for convenient touch control. Thereâs plenty of room to fit hands beneath the screen, above the keyboard. This design doesnât compromise the portability of portables in any way.
The example on the right is a desktop with a prism-shaped mount faced with stone. (Pink granite would be nice. Because this base supports the large screen, it must be substantial andÂ lookÂ substantial). The prism slants gently upward to the rear, so a keyboard can be pulled forward from its cradle or pushed back out of the way when you want to sit back.
How much originality is there in putting together a compilation album?
The answer could inform an interesting new copyright case in the United Kingdom.
There, Ministry of Sound, a London nightclub that has successfully extended its brand by putting out compilation albums featuring popular DJs, is suing Spotify. According toÂ The Guardian, Spotify has refused MoS’s demand to delete user playlists that copy its compilation albums.
“Everyone is talking about curation, but curation has been the cornerstone of our business for the last 20 years,” MoS CEOÂ Lohan PresencerÂ tells the newspaper. “What we do is a lot more than putting playlists together: a lot of research goes into creating our compilation albums, and the intellectual property involved in that. It’s not appropriate for someone to just cut and paste them.”
In dance circles, the pulsating beat of the music has been known to cause sweaty bodies. In copyright circles, there is something known as the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, which could apply here.
The doctrine holds that creativity is not what is essential to copyright protection, but rather the tireless effort in creating a work. It has served to protect factual compilations.
For example, inÂ West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1985 extended protection to the plaintiff’s system of compiling and reporting opinions of state and federal courts. Over the years, the decision has been heavily criticized, and frankly is one of the reasons why many of the documents coming out of the judiciary systemÂ are cloaked from thoseÂ who would like to offer up wider access in the digital age.
Not everyone is so keen on the “sweat of the brow” doctrine.
In 1991, a dispute over the copyrightability of phone books made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and inÂ Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., JusticeÂ Sandra Day O’ConnorÂ criticized the “numerous flaws” of the doctrine, sayingÂ “the most glaring being that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement…to the facts themselves.”
Facts can’t be copyrighted, of course. Justice O’Connor went on to say that “a compilation, like any other work, is copyrightable only if it satisfies the originality requirement,” stipulating that “not every selection, coordination, or arrangement will pass muster.”
That’s legal precedent in the United States. How about the U.K.? It appears that the situation is no different. According toÂ The Guardian:
“The case will hinge on whether compilation albums qualify for copyright protection due to the selection and arrangement involved in putting them together. Spotify has the rights to stream all the tracks on the playlists in question, but the issue here is whether the compilation structure — the order of the songs — can be copyrighted.”
Is there originality in such order?
If so, and an entity like MoS can guard against user playlists that serve up music in essentially the same way that its compilation albums do, then perhaps it’d work the other way too: Spotify users who make creative arrangements in their playlists could shut down compilation albums likeÂ Now That’s What I Call Music! (Such an event would be remarkable sinceÂ NowÂ is owned by major labels which would theoretically face action over their own music.)
For now, MoS is attempting to score points by establishing some form of unfair competition from Spotify’s allowance on letting users make playlists with some 20 million tracks. Presencer makes the point that when the company acquires licenses from music labels to put out its compilations, “they do not grant us the rights to stream those compilation albums.”
What is it that makes videos go viral? It is one of the big questions in digital marketing. While there is no single magic formula, weâve come up with some key insights after tracking the stories behind three recent viral videos.
Our UK Research team looked at popular videos that are all very different in nature. They range from Doveâs Real Beauty campaign to the Ryan Gosling âwonât eat cerealâ videos and Commander Hadfieldâs âSpace Oddityâ.
One of the key things we learnt from looking closely at these three is that videos donât go viral in the same way. There are no rules to âviralityâ â while some ignite, and spread like wildfire across the web, the growth of others is much more measured, like ripples spreading across a lake.
In each of the dynamic visualisation videos you can see how fast the three videos went viral. In each one, thereâs a mixture of blue and yellow. The blue nodes represent Tweets; the bigger they are, the larger the potential reach of that Tweet. The yellow dots represent retweets. In each case, reach takes into account not just followers, but also audience size and amplification by retweet.
Vine videos: Driven by Retweets
1. âRyan Gosling wonât eat his cerealâ
This video took its creative expression through Vine as a pop culture gem, comprising a series of six-second clips of A-list actor Gosling being offered spoonfulâs of breakfast cereal.
The videos, created byÂ @RyanWMcHenry,Â were carefully seeded with key influencers in the world of Vine such asÂ @BestVinesEverÂ andÂ @VineLoops. This ensured that the videos went viral quickly, echoing the online journey of a major breaking news story.
Key insight – The success of the Gosling viral points to the power of effectively seeding your content with the top influencers and how if you hit just a small number of those it can in some cases go global.
How it went viral
2. Culture: Commander Hadfield âSpace Oddityâ
Singing astronaut Commander Chris Hadfield gave a rendition of David Bowieâs âSpace Oddityâ while he was orbiting the Earth aboard the International Space Station. It spread quickly around the globe; more than 90% of shares took place in the first three days after he posted it.
Key insight – Link mentions peaked fast and were driven by global influencers. The viral effect demonstrated sustained growth that was driven by a single personâs effort. Hadfieldâs link was much more appealing to the crowd because of its unique nature than a more earthbound video and as a result he featured much more prominently in the sharing of this video than other viral examples.
How it went viralÂ
3. Brand Campaign: Dove
The video for Doveâs Real Beauty SketchesÂ #WeAreBeautifulÂ campaign spread very differently to any of the others, and was largely driven by a long tail of link-sharing and by positive audience sentiment.
Key insight – This video showed less burnout than the others, and there were also fewer influencer-induced spikes. Instead, conversation existed in clusters of communities spread around the world â showing the value of local engagement â and highlighted the good use of a digital outreach programme.
How it went viral
Twitter video insights
1. Twitter users love video
Tweets containing video have strong engagement rates, with 42% likely to retweet, reply, or mention brand Tweets that contain a fun or interesting video.
2. Videos are easily shareable
Videos integrate seamlessly into a Tweet, and every Tweet is instantly shareable. Make sure you devise a hashtag to organise the conversations around the video campaign and messages.
3. Promoted products amplify your reach
Use Promoted Tweets and Trends to help surface and amplify your message. Combine with interest and keyword targeting to hit the right audience.
4. Get creative with Vine
Vine lets you create six-second looping videos that are instantly shareable on Twitter. And if you really love it you can Re-vine!
Seconds after the first bomb exploded at the 2013 Boston marathon, social media erupted. In minutes, media giants likeÂ The Boston GlobeÂ were harvesting content from thousands of sources on the ground; verifying and broadcasting information at unprecedented rates.
The ensuing manhunt led to the most profound example how social media is altering the face of journalism. More threatening than when print was overtaken by radio and television, journalists need to evolve with social media in order to retain their eminence as the go-to news source.
But how, as journalists, can you build a following that opens their news app before their Twitter one? Or better yet, save print media from extinction?
Journalism and Social Media
Journalists have adapted quickly to the emerging new media paradigm. Yet, as with most things, it didnât happen overnight. Todayâs most prominent social âThinkfluencersâ are the product of trial and error.
Since the inherent nature of communication is such that individuals are more likely to source information from each other â rather than traditional news agencies â information sharing has become decentralized.
Whether itâs sourcing the initial information reports during the chaos of the Boston bombing, breaking the story or tracking analytics on a controversial follow-up piece, here are a few ways social media management can help journalists get the most out of their stories.
1. Source From the Street
When the Egyptian government blocked access to social networks like Facebook and Twitter during the wake of revolution,Â citizen journalists from all over continued to share the story in real-time via HootSuite. Quickly these individuals became the centrepiece of every headline and update released as the world waited with bated breath.
Similarly during the Boston bombings, marathon runners and bystanders rapidly became citizen journalists, taking photos and videos of the aftermath. Quick to pull out their camera phones, the most-read headlines featured on major news networks were sourced from citizens.
With the right tools, crowdsourcing is easier than ever for journalists and news agencies. Literally thousands of citizens are taking photos and videos every day, developing an endless archive of sourceable content, and itâs all just a keyword search away.
2. Master the Art of Listening
Whether a company, individual or idea, HootSuiteâs search streams let you track key users and listen to specific conversations while blocking out the white noise. TheÂ drag, drop and widen streamÂ feature makes for easy tracking and organization, allowing you to seamlessly move people from your search stream into aÂ Twitter List.
Use theÂ geolocation featureÂ to narrow down your search to a specific region, country or even city. This way you can guarantee that youâre one of the first âon the sceneâ and quickly identify a storyâs key stakeholders.
Retroactively sift through Tweets from weeks, months or even years prior, to gain context on the history of your topic by customizing âsinceâ and âuntilâ parameters in your stream. Next, partner your search with one or multiple keywords and you will find valuable data in seconds.
Tip: Donât forget about your collaborators and competitors.Â Create a list on your dashboardcontaining publications, editors and journalists.
3. Amplify Your Story
Avoid spamming your followers. Regulate the flow of your social posts by creating various timezone friendly posts and scheduling them in intervals.
TheÂ Auto SchedulerÂ lets you schedule and curate tweets, continue engaging followers and maintain genuine online discussion.
Also, take your streams with you using the mobile app. This way, no matter where you are, you donât have to be in front of your computer to keep tabs on any leads.
Tip: Use theÂ Quick SearchÂ function to follow current trends and hashtags.
4. Analyze the Results
HootSuiteâs built-in Analytics, powered by the handy ow.ly link shortener, automatically syncs with your accounts, creating digestible weekly, monthly and annual reports.
Try finding influential users who are engaging with your content byÂ filtering using Klout scores. While youâre at it, drag those users to a new list. You will value this resource later on when you need to amplify future posts and reach out to extended networks.
Finally, archive your story-specific search streams usingÂ HootSuiteâs archive feature. This allows you to store the valuable information you gathered and reference it later for follow-up articles or recaps.
Is traditional journalism going extinct? Share your thoughts with us by commenting below.
Â “Accidente. Ni sĂ© si saldrĂ©. Me ahogo. Aplastada”. Es el whatsApp que Susana RelaĂ±o, de 46 aĂ±os, enviĂł a su marido a las 20.45 del pasado miĂ©rcoles desde el tren siniestrado en Santiago. “Yo la esperaba en A CoruĂ±a y cuando avisĂ© en la estaciĂłn aĂșn no sabĂanÂ que el tren habĂa descarrilado.Â A los cinco minutos mi mujer me enviĂł otro mensaje de WhatsApp que decĂa: “Estoy a salvo”.
Arcadio cuenta cĂłmo fueron los cinco minutos mĂĄs largos de su vida al lado de su mujer, que milagrosamente saliĂł con apenas unos rasguĂ±os en las piernas y ya ha sido dada de alta en el hospital de La Rosaleda de Santiago.
AĂșn no se lo creen. Solo el bolso de Susana, lleno de sangre, demuestra que estuvo allĂ,Â en el octavo vagĂłn de un trenÂ siniestrado en el que 78 personas murieron y ella, milagrosamente, logrĂł sobrevivir. Ahora se van a pasar el fin de semana a Santander, a celebrar que han vuelto a nacer.
According to aÂ new reportÂ from mobile analytics firm Flurry, free apps supported by ads and/or in-app purchases are becoming an increasingly popular choice for developers and consumers alike, with 90% of iOS apps now being offered for free. In 2012, that number was just 84%, marking a 6% increase over the past year.Â
Some might argue that this supports the idea that “content wants to be free”. We donât see it quite that way. Instead, we simply see this as the outcome of consumer choice: people want free content more than they want to avoid ads or to have the absolute highest quality content possible.
Flurry also compared the pricing of both Android apps and iPhone and iPad apps, finding that iOS users are generally more willing to pay for content. The average Android app price as of April 2013 was $0.06, while the average iPhone app price was $0.19.Â
iPad apps have traditionally been more expensive with developers charging a higher premium for more screen real estate, which caused the average iPad app price to be a good deal higher than Android or iPhone apps at $0.50. iPad apps, on average, are priced 2.5 times higher than iPhone apps and eight times higher than Android apps.Â
Due to the uptick in free apps, Flurry suggests that consumer behavior indicates ad-supported content will continue to surge, and that ads in apps are a “sure thing for the foreseeable future.”Â
Flurry collects its data from the more than 350,000 people that access its Flurry Analytics tools.
In 2001, composer Scott Schreer wrote a roughly two-minute saxophone-heavy acid jazz instrumental called Love Doctor, and the song lives in an online catalogue of music that he licenses to film and TV producers. It also exists in some 1,500 YouTube (GOOG) videos that used the song without paying for the rights. Hunting those stray recordings and trying to collect licensing fees has never been worth most musiciansâ trouble. In May, however, Schreer started getting paid by the former freeloaders.
Love Doctor and Schreerâs library of about 1,700 other tunes now bring his company about $30,000 per month from their use in YouTube videos. Heâs the test case for a New York startup called Audiam that says it can help artists profit when others use their music. Jeff Price, Audiamâs founder and a friend of Schreerâs, pitches musicians like this: âLetâs go find you money that already exists.â
Big record companies and music publishers already have deals with YouTube to collect money when their songs show up in videos. Small artists and composers donât. Price wants Audiam to be the middleman for them. When YouTube ads appear on videos while their music is playing, Audiam will claim a share of the revenue and send it along to the artistâminus a 25 percent cut. âItâs magic money,â Price says. âItâs buried treasure.â
Price has helped indie artists profit before. In 2006 he co-founded TuneCore, which lets musicians distribute their songs to iTunes and other online markets. He was ousted by the board last year in a nasty public feud, and he launched Audiam as his next act.
He picked a giant target in YouTube. The Google video-sharing website streams 6 billion hours of video each month. By one estimate, YouTube contributes 10 percent of Googleâs revenue, which topped $50 billion last year. That would put YouTubeâs revenue at about half of whatâs spent on billboard advertising in the U.S.
Audiam was launched abroad in mid-June and will be ready to work with other artists in the U.S. by late July. Musicians can sign up for free and send the company their songs, granting Audiam the right to license them on YouTube. Audiam scans the gargantuan library of YouTube videos to find where those songs appear. The company does this with YouTubeâs ContentID system and a separate piece of âaudio fingerprintingâ software called TuneSat developed by Schreer (he has a partnership with Price). Then Audiam authorizes YouTube to put advertising on those videos.
When Price and Schreer plugged Love Doctor into the system, it found 1,500 videos that had been played more than 100,000 times over 11 days in Mayâgood for $120 in licensing fees, according to Schreer.
Few artists will see the kind of cash that Schreer now gets from Love Doctor and the rest of his catalogue. Schreer owns Freeplay Music, a library of hundreds of songs meant to be background music for videos. For a garage band with a couple of albums, any YouTube revenue will be âa little extra gravy,â says Aram Sinnreich, a media professor at Rutgers University and author of the forthcoming book, The Piracy Crusade. And Sinnreich says Audiamâs 25 percent cut is steep: Organizations such as Ascap and BMI that represent performers and songwriters typically take around 10 percent. (Price maintains that performing rights organizations collect more than that on YouTube; Ascap and BMI did not immediately respond to queries.)
Still, Sinnreich says, Audiam is poised to benefit from music consumersâ shifting habits. âThe writing is essentially on the wall for the download model,â he says, as fans switch from buying music on iTunes to streaming songs on such sites as Spotify, Pandora, and YouTube. Thatâs proving to be a lousy way for even successful artists to earn money. Plenty of striving musicians would welcome revenue from YouTube clicks. âThere are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of independent composers and performers whose work does appear on sites like YouTube,â Sinnreich says.
And if a song like Love Doctor happens to show up on a video that achieves âGangnam Styleâ reach, Audiam can make sure the musicians get their due. Says Schreer: âIf someone takes the music you wrote as a garage guy in Minneapolis and puts it into a cat video that goes viral, youâre doing pretty well.â
Hace unos meses, antes de que Snowden convirtiera la polĂtica exterior en un capĂtulo deÂ Homeland, tuve una revelaciĂłn. Imagino que mucho despuĂ©s de usuarios de Internet mĂĄs avispados que yo, pero tambiĂ©n antes que otros que hasta hace unos dĂas han vivido en la inocencia. Estaba contestando correos cuando el pensamiento revelador cruzĂł mi mente. Fue una idea tan sĂłlida que me levantĂł de la silla como un resorte: decidĂ que a partir de ese momento no escribirĂa nada en mi ordenador que no pudiera defender pĂșblicamente. No pensaba solo en algo tan pueril como los âestados de ĂĄnimoâ que uno comparte entre sus conocidos en las redes sociales, tambiĂ©n me referĂa a los correos de naturaleza privada, a los que se mandan con algĂșn tipo de confesiĂłn a los amigos, a los hijos, a la pareja. Nada, las intimidades se acabaron en el ciberespacio.
Varias circunstancias me influyeron para tomar tal decisiĂłn. Es posible que en mi mente resonara el eco de la reseĂ±a de un libro que acaba de salir,Â Big data, en el que se analiza cĂłmo las grandes corporaciones relacionan datos privados destilados por cualquier listado online para llegar a los posibles clientes en modo de oferta o publicidad. Los consumidores de Amazon, por ejemplo, ya sabĂan que de sus compras por correo esta empresa deducĂa los intereses lectores de sus clientes y mandaba listas de sugerencias bastante acertadas; pero lo que parece rozar la ciberficciĂłn es saber cĂłmo la cadena de hipermercados americana Wallmart adivina que alguna de sus clientas estĂĄ embarazada antes de que esta se haga elÂ predictor. Parece magia, no lo es. Nuestra mente especula con conclusiones estadĂsticas, pero no, las empresas predicen nuestro futuro cruzando datos: edad, intereses, cambios en los hĂĄbitos de consumo, movimientos de tarjetas de crĂ©dito. Y es que a lo largo del dĂa vamos dejando pistas de quiĂ©nes somos, hasta tal punto que ellos acaban sabiĂ©ndolo mejor que nosotros mismos. Recuerdo el agobio que sentĂa cuando en el siglo pasado encontraba mi buzĂłn fĂsico lleno de publicidad. Era un milagro encontrar una carta personal entre tanta maraĂ±a. El agobio no era sĂłlo por la labor de desbroce que llevaba todo aquel papeleo, tambiĂ©n se trataba de una ansiedad ecolĂłgica al imaginar los ĂĄrboles talados inĂștilmente por un derroche de papel que irĂa inmediatamente a la basura. El correo electrĂłnico evita tal ansiedad, pero la abundancia de mensajes publicitarios que irrumpen en nuestra bandeja de entrada ha acabado provocando el mismo desconcierto: entre tanta informaciĂłn comercial que te mandan sin pedirte permiso, ÂżdĂłnde quedan los mensajes personales?
En los periĂłdicos que leo aparecen anuncios de tiendas que he visitado. En alguna dejĂ© estĂșpidamente mi direcciĂłn, en otras, no, mis datos fueron vendidos o intercambiados. Como buena hipocondriaca que soy, suelo confesarle mis sĂntomas al buscador. SĂ, yo tambiĂ©n lo hago. Y es asombroso cĂłmo esa diabĂłlica mente consigue relacionar un dolor de brazo con una mala digestiĂłn, y ofrecer un diagnĂłstico. A mĂ, los mĂ©dicos reales nunca me han seguido tanto la corriente. Como resultado de mis pesquisas mĂ©dicas, recibo a diario recomendaciones homeopĂĄticas, compuestos vitamĂnicos para reforzar la memoria, tratamientos con envĂo a domicilio para conciliar el sueĂ±o o publicidad de todo tipo de almohadas. Un resumen patĂ©tico de lo que soy.
Hace aĂ±os que mi pobre procesador mental consiguiĂł relacionar dos tĂ©rminos que ademĂĄs riman graciosamente: internauta con incauta, porque enviĂ© mensajes impulsivos, hice pĂșblicas opiniones que se difundieron, a mi pesar, o escribĂ a presuntos amigos que reenviaron frĂvolamente mis mensajes. ÂżDiscreciĂłn? Eso no existe en este medio. Internet acuĂ±Ăł como propio el verbo âcompartirâ. Compartimos ideas, textos, mĂșsica, artĂculos, noticias, fotos, defendemos airadamente este nuevo campo sin fronteras, pero, ay, que no nos toquen la privacidad. Suele haber unos mensajillos muy enternecedores en Facebook que los usuarios cuelgan en sus muros y que alertan a los âamigosâ de los pasos a seguir para que en tu espacio, en tu muro, no haya fisgones indeseados e indeseables. Hace ya tiempo que no me atengo a ese protocolo: sĂ© que mi teclado no es el de una mĂĄquina de escribir. Lo sĂ© incluso antes de que Scarlett Johansson le mandara a su novio una foto desnuda, o antes de que la concejala Olvido se masturbara ante el pueblo espaĂ±ol.
La confesiĂłn pĂșblica del joven Snowden ha desvelado prĂĄcticas inquietantes: los pueblos amigos se espĂan entre sĂ. Ya no hay aliados que valgan. Cualquier ciudadano estĂĄ bajo sospecha, y los Gobiernos pueden comprar o exigir los datos que nosotros, incautamente, hemos cedido a las grandes corporaciones. Pero quĂ© querĂamos: Âżcompartir nuestros deseos y preservar nuestra intimidad?, Âży cĂłmo se hace eso navegando por este abrumador ocĂ©ano que no se concibiĂł a la medida del hombre? No puedo decir que no me haya sublevado la revelaciĂłn de Snowden, pero que conste que la mĂa se produjo antes: cuando decidĂ que no escribirĂa aquĂ algo Ăntimo o inconfesable. Mi pequeĂ±o acto de resistencia consiste en contar los secretos en persona. Y no sĂ© por quĂ©, sospecho que poco a poco irĂĄ aumentando el batallĂłn de resistentes.