First, let’s get this out of the way: every year, SXSW regulars say the festival has jumped the shark. It’s too big, there are too many panels, and they’re poorly curated. It’s impossible to get anywhere. Too many lines, too many wristbands, too few taxis, too damn many cards, pens, pins, stickers that will inevitably end up in landfill. Breakfast tacos become a temporary food group. And there’s always a contingent who mistake the festival for Spring Break and leave their trash, noise and bodily fluids everywhere.
At the same time, certain things happen at SXSW that rarely happen elsewhere: hallway/street/in line for barbeque conversations that build or change businesses; serendipitous combinations of technologies; new and old friends settle into the Driskill or the Four Seasons or a corner at a party somewhere at 1:00 am and plan out the innovations that will drive next year’s technology agenda.
From the conversations I had, it was generally agreed to be a transitional year. Social media, long the darling of SX, was significantly less prominent, replaced by the maker movement, collaborative economy, IoT, privacy and surveillance, cognitive computing/AI, digital ethics, and data, data, everywhere.
Sure, people were Yik Yakking and Meerkating away, but the tone of the conversation was a bit more sober, at least among the people I interacted with. Meerkat in particular raised the spectre of Google Glass, specifically because of its privacy implications. The Beacon sensors throughout the conference logged the movements of thousands of people in an effort to better understand attendee traffic patterns and preferences, although a lot of people I spoke with were unaware that they were being tracked, a sign of cognitive dissonance if there ever was one.
I counted 21 panels that featured “privacy” in the title (121 that included it in the description), and five with “ethics”, (93 that included it in the description.) “Surveillance” clocked in at five, with 38 total results. The panel on DARPA was so over-full that many, many people were turned away, while other panels (as usual) had barely enough attendees to fill the first row.
Overall, it felt as though the zeitgeist was catching up to Albert Einstein’s assertion, so many decades ago, that “it has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” I wasn’t able to attend as many sessions as I wanted (who is?), but the ones I attended were terrific. Parry Aftab, CEO of WiredTrust, and Mat Honan, bureau chief of Buzzfeed, proposed a framework for privacy by design that seeks to embed privacy into business practices and operational processes. Not sexy, not even cool (yet), but so, so needed. In that panel, Ann Cavoukian (via video) rejected the notion of privacy as a zero-sum game: we don’t have to trade competitiveness for ethics. To me, that was a breath of fresh air.
The panel I participated on, “Emerging Issues in Digital Ethics,” (hashtag: #ethicscode) was moderated by the brilliant Don Heider, Founding Dean and Professor at the School of Communication at Loyola University Chicago, and Founder of the Center for Digital Ethics and Policy there. My co-panelists, Brian Abamont from State Farm (speaking on his own behalf) and Erin Reilly, Managing Director & Research Fellow, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, covered everything from privacy to cyberbullying, Gamergate to doxxing to scraping. There was so much ground to cover, and yet the panel started to feel more like an open conversation than a transfer of “knowledge” (at least to me). The audience was as or more fluent with these topics as we were; we’re all still figuring it out.
A final thought: every year I insist that it’s my last SXSW, and every year I break down, pack my comfiest shoes and attend. If there’s any takeaway this year, it’s that SX continues to be a pretty good indicator of the tech zeitgeist. I’d love to see some of my data science friends go through the schedule and do an analysis of trending topics on the schedule from year to year. With all our obsession about data, wouldn’t that be an interesting benchmark to have?
A look at the digital ethics and privacy conversations from this year’s SXSW conference.
A new law banning the collection of personal information in South Africa could influence legislation in other countries as well.
This year’s results have troubling implications for the technology industry.
A look at what we give up and gain when we allow our lives to be turned into sources for data.
Here are five data questions about the Super Bowl that we’d like the answer to.
Highlights of what the Big Boulder Initiative accomplished in 2014, and its plans for the new year.
This document is just a first step toward setting context for the many disruptions of ubiquitous and complex data, but it includes preliminary frameworks to help us examine these issues in more detail.
In my last post, I discussed some themes for 2015, one of which was an imperative for us as an industry to get serious about digital ethics.
I’m not generally a fan of annual predictions; they always remind me of a carnival in which you’re encouraged to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”; you almost never win the giant teddy bear.
During the past several years, the television industry has changed dramatically, spurred by device proliferation, changing distribution methods, and the increasing popularity of social media.
By now, you’ve probably heard that data scientists at Facebook recently published a study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science…
Late last year, I started wondering about social media command centers. Salesforce had launched one, as had Brandwatch, but I wondered: were they really still relevant? Were companies investing in command center deployments, or had interest subsided since their heyday in 2010?
In the past year, social data has continued to wend its way into organizations of all types, from large enterprise to small business to media and entertainment and the public sector. We’ve seen use cases far past marketing into product and service quality, entertainment programming, customer service, fraud detection and a host of other examples.
I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about social data: what it is, what it isn’t, how to measure it, where it’s going.
It’s a nightmare scenario. You get a frantic text or call from a co-worker that someone tweeted a tasteless joke or profanity from your corporate Twitter account.
Everyone talks about the challenges of measuring the revenue impact of social media, but how are top brands actually doing it? And are they successfully measuring ROI?
The run-up to Facebook’s IPO reminds me a bit of a wedding: everyone’s attention is on the big day (expected to be Friday May 18), without much regard for the weeks, months and years afterward.
Even though the topic of social media ROI may sometimes seem like an endless game of Whack-a-Mole [see previous post], there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’re inching ever closer to accountability.
Wherever I go, the question I hear most often is this: “What is the ROI of social media?” Even though most companies we’ve surveyed have a brand monitoring solution in place, few have yet to crack the measurement code. It remains one of the most stubborn challenges for the social business.