So rather fortuitously (or not, depending on your point of view) Third Thursday this month has fallen slap bang in the middle of perhaps the biggest controversy to affect the internet since it’s commercial release (1995, for any budding geek historians out there). I think we can all agree that since then it’s done nothing but grow, the clear principle being that the more people who have access to it, the more the amount of content generated constantly rises.

And so we land in the here and now, a time at which the internet is no longer populated with reems and reems of text but also video, audio, images, satellite data, pointless conversation, pretty much anything you can imagine exists online (which is both fantastic and terrible at the same time). But hold on a second, isn’t that much the same as the real world? There’s good and bad, there’s philanthropy and there’s greed, those who give and those who take. In those terms surely it’s simple to think, we should police the internet in much the same way as we do the real world, right? Catch the criminals, and allow innocent civilians to go about their day to day business and innocent companies to carry on trading.

This is the of view I want to talk about SOPA and PIPA from, as someone who works in the tech industry I feel I have a pretty decent understanding of the internet and this is how I believe it should be viewed, as another (virtual) world in it’s own right, much like the “real” one in which we live. The opinions being bandied around by politicians and corporate execs don’t seem to recognise this fundamental fact but instead they think of the internet as a system, probably due to “technology” being involved. The internet is a living thing, a representation of billions of living beings (that’s us by the way) and therefore can’t be controlled, it will refuse to be, as we would refuse.

It’s this fundamental misunderstanding of the internet that is causing these IP owners to try and wrestle control of what we’re able to see and do online and it’s the fundamental lack of knowledge in the legal establishments that is letting them get so close to achieving it. For example, if I were to go out into the local community and look around for seedy criminal types, then go and chat to those people about their various activities (for the purposes of the metaphor I achieve this without being brutally murdered or robbed) then that would be entirely my own choice. It might not be a smart thing to do, it may even mean I have an implicit knowledge of illegal activities that makes me a person of interest, but it’s my own choice to do so.

Now imagine I do the same thing but instead what I find is the community (housing estate, street, town, etc) in which those people live, has had a 50 foot wall built around it, unfortunately cutting me off from visiting the poor innocent locals as much as their shadier neighbours. This is basically what rights owners have been arguing for with the presentation of SOPA and PIPA. Rather than targeting the criminals who steal, duplicate and distribute content, they want to take down entire sections of the web so these people can’t communicate with us regular folk and spread their ill gotten gains.

The more worrying aspect of the two bills is that don’t even operate on a “suspicion” basis rather than a “proof” basis. So if a site is reported to be under suspicion it could potentially be blocked somehow.

Up until this week the creators of SOPA and PIPA were suggesting achieving this through alteration of the DNS, or Domain Name System. A fundamental foundation of the internet that allows sites to be identified by names like www.google.com, instead of purely IP addresses, like 209.85.147.103

They wanted to be able to remove (on suspicion) a domain name from the internet registry, if that site was in any way associated with illegal sharing. This would potentially give them complete rule over the web space. So you’d either play by their regulations or have your site’s domain name removed. Fortunately, due to opposition from the Whitehouse this section of the bills has been dropped but that doesn’t mean the concept is gone. Discussions in the senate recently have been around how to block sites like this anyway, even without using the DNS.

Now as an every day internet user I have to ask some serious questions:
Firstly, what exactly is considered illegal behaviour, constituting a block on that site? They certainly haven’t gone into much detail regarding this but surely it should be incredibly well defined. I can’t be arrested in the real world without a damn good explanation so why should my online presence be impounded without a clear description of the precise charges relating directly to sections of the bills I’ve contravened?

Secondly, who’s going to police this and enforce the blocks on sites? It’s obvious that the movie and music industries want the power to do this themselves but in the real world don’t we call that vigilante justice? Surely a system based on these kind of “site blocks” needs to be run by a third, independent party, who are not on the payroll of the very companies seeking to exert more control.

Lastly, how will this affect social media? We once lived in a time when the majority of online content was created and owned by news agencies, corporations and private companies. We now live in a time where most of the content is, in fact, user generated. A lot of it may be utter rubbish but the internet is now a social space, a prime are for exchanging everything be it useful or the aforementioned utter rubbish. I’ve seen plenty of people tweeting or posting on Facebook about how to access football matches or movies online, some if it legal, some of it not so much. Would these industries seriously purport to block social media platforms because they contain normal human conversation, some of which is less than law abiding. That’s like shutting down a pub because someone once sold something shady under a table there.

And that’s what I’ve been getting at throughout this whole rambling journey. The internet is a world in and of itself, trying to control it is pointless and would cost (read: waste) billions as it will grow and adapt as it always has. Besides, (outside of James Bond movies) no one has ever tried to destroy the whole world just because it was a bit flawed. The internet is fundamentally flawed… of course it is, it’s populated by us and we’re only human. The biggest thing I’ve been able to read through all the myriad of situational analyses lately in the press though is this; the institutions pushing for these changes have a complete lack of understanding of the internet in its current form. It’s evolved to a point where it belongs to billions and declaring war on the internet just to solve a piracy problem is in fact declaring war on every consumer they have. This is hardly going to endear those consumers to them and gain their support in the war on piracy. Instead declare war on the criminals themselves in such a way that the ordinary users of internet services are not even aware there is a new system in place. It’s probably difficult to achieve but it’s the only solution that won’t cause an enormous backlash, the like of which we’ve seen in recent weeks.

This months Family Guy style light hearted rant is about my irritation of how people have started using Facebook and Twitter statuses as if they were lines in their own personal diary.

The informative nature of the Facebook or Twitter status has been downgraded. Do we really need to know what our 200 plus friends are doing every minute of the day? Do all our online friends want to know what we are doing every minute of the day? I can tell you the answer is NO!

Being part of the Facebook and Twitter generation has been incredible so far. Being able to connect with friends, share photos, and now music through the Facebook partnership with Spotify. Twitter, the social networks micro blogging system has gained over 100 million active users in just 5 years. With popstars such as Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber having over 10 million followers each, it is easy to see that it is a popular platform for fans to get a glimpse at what it is like to be a celebrity on a day to day basis. It gives them a digital friendship with their favourite stars that they never had before. Their followers get to find out what designer dress they are wearing, or what swanky Michelin stared restaurant they are going to for dinner. A far cry from some of the updates I get from my digital friends, who keep me updated very regularly with updates on how their kid just burped, or that they have just eaten a doughnut.

I love social networks, and working in the digital industry when Facebook and Twitter are evolving is great, with timeline for example which could change the way businesses communicate with their customer. Learn all about the Facebook changes in our previous blog post http://codegent.com/blog/2011/10/what_are_you_up_to_the_world_wants_to_know_apparently

I use both Twitter and Facebook every day, they enable me to see what others are doing on other digital platforms, they help inspire me, it could be a Facebook viral like the 'Take This Lollipop' campaign or an article on Mashable being thrown around on Twitter. They have become part of the creative industries modern DNA.

The openness to see and share photos, to communicate with friends in other counties, and of course the occasional stalk, and anyone that says they do not stalk their old friends or partners is a liar. Everyone loves a good self satisfying Facebook stalk.

However, this former pleasant experience has now been tainted by over enthusiastic status updaters. Now 70% of my Facebook newsfeed is clogged up with people telling me that they had beans on toast for dinner, or that they can’t sleep. What do you want me to do about you not being able to sleep, come round, get into bed with you and sing you a lullaby ? You can’t sleep because you are staring at a bright screen in the middle of the night when you should be de stressing and getting away from the technologies you are bound to all day long.

How did this happen? Is it from the influx of younger users on the networks, wanting to show off to their friends about what cool lives they lead? Is it just the users who are bored and just don’t have anything else to do with their free time?
Get out of the house, get some fresh air, go somewhere with no wi fi signal for a while.

The irritation of these insignificant, unhelpful status update is extended further with the use of incorrect, slanged English they are all written in. Incorrect spelling and punctuality is used in all of these ridiculous updates. I’m not sure if this is because of the speed some of them are written, or that some of them are written on smart phones so fat thumb syndrome and auto correct occurs. I have some sympathy for some statuses on Twitter, as there is a restricted 140 max character limit, so abbreviating a few words is acceptable. However, on Facebook you have over 60,000 characters to use, there is no excuse to cut words down, and use slang such as “bby, ppl, da, and bout” you can write a whole bloody monologue in there. It also takes me much longer to read it when it is in slang text like this, it you really want everyone to know and read your status, please write it in a language we can all understand.

I am a believer that I am not the only person that gets irritated by this topic. Some websites and blogs have dedicated whole sections to these pet hates about Facebook statuses; here are some of my favourites courtesy of http://failbook.failblog.org/




So I plead to you social network users, make your statuses interesting for your audience. Give some thought to the topic, as well as the spelling, grammar and punctuation, and we will all reap the benefits.

That my friends is what Grinds My Gears.

This month’s festive grinds my gears is something that I'm only reminded of once a year, but every year without fail it gets to me. Christmas Pudding! Hot, delicious, moist, fruity goodness topped off with a bit of booze and cream. What could be better? Nothing.

So, why if it's so great, are we restricted to only enjoying Christmas Pudding at Christmas?

On Christmas Day millions of us tuck into the Great Christmas Pudding (herein GCP), even when we are ready to burst from a full days eating, we force it down knowing "eat it now, or regret it for another 365 days". Surely I am not the only one that wouldn't mind, after a dinner party in August, being offered a yummy bit of GCP?

I guess a similar thing could be said for mince pies, or even pumpkins at Halloween. Every year in early November there are loads of people serving up delicious pumpkin pie or pumpkin soup, under the pretence that they are just getting rid of the left overs from Halloween and it's the seasonal thing to do. If you look to other countries however, you can buy pumpkin no matter what season, because the fact is people actually like it and people generally buy what they like regardless of the time of year - there is demand all year round.

Which brings me to my tenuous link to agency life. Let's adopt the Christmas spirit all year round. At this time of year everyone is thinking "let's do something festive". Briefs suddenly have that fun factor, with clients wanting to be more humorous and light hearted....because that's the spirit of Christmas.  But do their audience actually change at this time of year? Do people go from being miserable, serious types to jolly, cheerful folk just because it's December? Does what they desire from a brand suddenly change because the sound of The Pogues is in the air? I don't think so.

I think we stay the same. The way to capture our attention and engage with us stays exactly the same. What we like and don't like stays the same. What a brand/product/service is offering should be consistent with the audience, not the season. Fit in with what your customers want, not what tradition tells you to.

In an attempt to reinforce my point I'm going to turn to GQ's chef of the year Mr Heston Blumenthal. Last year his GCP's flew off the shelves, there was unprecedented demand, Waitrose (the only place to buy them) couldn't keep up and in the final days before Christmas the only way to get your hands on one was eBay for over £500. So what did Mr Waitrose do to respond to this demand, to capitalise on this cash cow? Well obviously, because it wasn't Christmas anymore he took them off the shelves.  For 9 months in fact, only making them available again in September. And now EXACTLY the same thing is happening again. I just don't get it. Give us Christmas Pudding all year round!

And that my festive friends, is what really grinds my gears. Merry Christmas!

In August I flew north to Chiang Mai to attend Barcamp, a geeky gathering held once or twice per year. Looking out of the window of the plane shortly after takeoff I was shocked to see an inland sea. As far as the eye could see, sunlight reflected back off the surface of the water, roads were submerged, small villages and temples had become islands.

Prior to this flight I had seen news reports on TV, but only when witnessed from the air did the extent and magnitude of the flooding hit home. On the flight back I kept a close eye on the water and followed it right up to the northern edge of Bangkok. Over the following weeks slowly but surely the water progressed south, swallowing industrial estates, university campuses, and whole neighbourhoods in it's wake.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/thailands-disastrous-slow-moving-flood/100188/

By late October it became clear that those in power had little or no clue what they were doing. In scenes reminiscent of Monty Python, hundreds of boats were strung together and used to push the water down the river and out to sea. Daily there were assertions of "confidence" and reassurances inner Bangkok would be "100% safe". Once you have been in Thailand a while you learn that an assertion of confidence by someone in power means exactly the opposite. It was time to prepare for the inevitable. Bangkok was going to flood, and it wasn't going to be over in a few days.

We made a list.. sand bags, plastic sheeting, duct tape, boards, silicone sealant. I had nightmares about power cuts, or worse, losing internet connectivity! We sourced a generator, stored up water, and mentally prepared for the worst.

By now some of our team members homes were flooded or at grave risk of flooding. The water was putrid and they were forced to leave and stay with relatives. Our work continued without too much interruption thanks to distributed source control and a wide choice of communication options ranging from Skype chat rooms to Google hangouts.

Then one night it hit me. We didn't have to stay, we could do our best to protect the house then move our office. Once the decision was made we just had to work out on when to leave. I looked at satellite images of the flooding overlaid with elevation data and expert predictions. Based on my unscientific estimates it looked like we had about a week.

We booked flights and I found a few large houses in Chiang Mai and a reserve in the mountains. If you have to evacuate you might as well do it in style. Luckily I think we booked a few days before the main exodus started. As people left, Bangkok was transformed, the traffic jams evaporated and highways were lined for miles with parked cars seeking higher ground.

Moving our office isn't that hard. Everyone on the team has a Macbook and can live without hefty desktop computers. We packed a box with our office essentials:

• Mac Mini - This acts as our dropbox server for file sync with London
• Diskstation - Used for internal file share and backups
• Apple Airport - So we don't have to deal with unreliable or unencrypted wifi
• Android Phone - In case ADSL connection is unavailable we can fall back to 3G or EDGE
• Power strips with surge protection - You never know how many sockets will be available
• WDTVLive - Allows us to connect any old TV to our network
• Spare Macbook power adapters - More the better
• Network cables - A few short ones and a long one

Before leaving I setup some webcams and installed tracking software on the computers left in the office. If someone was to break in and make off with them we might as well have some fun tracking them.

The day the evacuation came was not without minor drama. Over night water had overflowed the canal and was within 500 metres of our house. In times of flooding a friend with a pickup truck is a friend indeed. Luckily our designer Nor had such a vehicle and that day was a saint coming through the floods to transport our family, luggage, and french bulldog to the airport.

Upon arrival I discovered my beloved laptop had been left outside the house! If you are a geek you will understand the terror this caused. Nor rushed back and thanks to the lack of traffic on the roads was able to return to the airport before our flight left. Phew!

Later that day she made yet more trips to the airport, collecting Jirasak from his flooded neighbourhood with his two cats and getting them out safely. We are all grateful for her help.

Once we arrived at the rented house in Chiang Mai we plugged in our network and settled right back into work. We spent a week working out of a house in the suburbs then moved to an amazing reserve in the mountains where we were reunited with the rest of the team.

We have been here for a week so far and its the best office I've ever had. The internet connection is a bit lacking but the view more than makes up for it. I grew up in Snowdonia,North Wales and so feel a certain connection to mountains. Waking up in the morning and watching mist roll over mountains while drinking your coffee beats commuting through busy city traffic any day.

I feel this break from our routine has been productive. We mix activities with long quiet periods of sustained focus. Fresh air, walks down country lanes, and wood fire under stars provides the perfect setting to discuss what really matters to us and has helped us define our strategy for the year ahead.

Next year be there floods or not I think we will return here. Arthur C Clark described a future in which knowledge workers have the privilege of working from anywhere. We are lucky to live in the future and yet we seldom get up from behind our screens to make the most of it. Just because we work as a team doesn't mean we have to be stuck in an office. If your team is small and your systems are lean you can work different.

We have one more week in Chiang Mai before we are scheduled to fly back to Bangkok. When we left I felt a little guilty leaving friends to face the floods but in retrospect escaping the mental stress and relocating the team was the right thing to do. The flood waters will recede and Thailand will rebound as it has done many times in the past. No amount of water can wash away the character, resilience, and pure ingenuity of the Thai people.

Another month and another light-hearted rant in a series that we have called “Grind my gears” after the popular US cartoon, Family Guy.

This month, I will be ranting on about the inconvenience of undelivered parcels, and my frustration of how other companies don’t have the same ‘communication is key’ and ‘get it done’ mantra that we here at Codegent follow.

Working in the creative industry we are familiar with deadlines; my irritation when others don’t seem to understand the importance of these, and having what is needed there and ready to go when it is needed has been bubbling at a high temperature this last fortnight.

The phrase ‘next day delivery’ is being spread thinly across every form of e-commerce, we expect everything to be in our hands instantly. Is this asking too much, or is it just part of our fast paced modern day needs?

Going through any online e-commerce purchase is often a strung out painstaking process. Click to add to basket, go to basket, proceed to checkout, double check that is what you want, proceed, address, address look up, delivery address, payment, pick payment, card details, address of card.

Then near the end, you get that little ray of hope, you can almost see the light at the end of your tunnelled problem, when you read the phrase “next day delivery”. You fork out that extra £5-£10 for that relaxing, reassuring feeling that the product that you have just paid hard earned cash for is going to be at its required location tomorrow.

“aahhhhhh” Time for a cup of tea and a sneaky choccie biscuit.

If only it could go that swimmingly every time. You sit there all day clock watching, imagining your parcel on route, wondering if your parcel is all lonely sat in an abandoned warehouse somewhere, or is just around the corner, in throwing distance. Some companies supply a tracking number for your parcel however, most the time this code does not seem to clear the muddy, confused location of your parcel any more than imagining where it is does.

When my deadline specific parcel did not arrive on its projected day, I called the store that I placed the order with to try and find out where the hell my parcel was. As you can imagine, my irritation and frustration was flowing through my voice box down the phone. I got passed from one person to the next just to ask the simple question – “where the f##k is my parcel?”. After explaining how I paid for next day delivery and it hadn’t arrived, I then asked them to find my nearest store and to have it couriered to me. Regrettably, I received a “computer says no” answer. I don’t appreciate being passed around like a new born baby, being charged a fortune on their phone line just to be back at square one. “arrrghhhhh”

To further my annoyance they then decide to deliver my parcel three days later, when I no longer needed it, and are yet to refund my ‘next day delivery’ payment.

The frustration comes from my own extended efforts of making sure things get done on time, no matter how short the deadline. I and others within the agency, go above and beyond to make sure everything runs to a schedule and clients are equipped with everything they need to attack their digital design problems straight on. It is just unthinkable to set a design delivery date with a client, decide you are not going to give it to them on that date, just sit on it and randomly post it through a few days later to their surprise. When they no longer need it, or have found another form of getting the same product somewhere else. So what gives others the right to do it?

Companies and people need to learn to stick by their word, if you state something will be their next day in black and white, then it should be there. Don’t give me the hope and optimism to think it is possible, for you then to rip it away from me, and turn me into a squabbling toddler who isn’t getting that bike I wanted for Christmas till after Christmas.

I was happy to hear this week that I’m not the only one frustrated by companies delivering habits. MP of Corby and conservative party politician Louise Mensch broadcasted her annoyance with Argos’ lack of delivery service on Twitter and BBC Breakfast on Tuesday 15th November. Her frustration was sound and clear, being told that her delivery had been cancelled and Argos have the right to not tell her. Utterly ridiculous lack of communication with consumers, she Tweeted that Argos “need to add reliability to complete the package, letting customers know is just good business”.

She encouraged her 41,000 followers to rally together and Tweet their delivery hells to the world and companies, GoGirl! Stories included @TaraLouRico who waited home for Virgin Media to arrive on five different delivery occasions, only for it to be cancelled each time without being told. Rightfully so, Virgin Media lost her as a customer and she switched to Sky.

Now, you could be reading this as a one in a million individual who has never had to encounter the irritation of delayed deliveries, thank you for letting me cry on your shoulder, and cleanse my soul. A big shout out to anyone currently reading this while waiting for a delivery, good luck!

Is it so bad for me to want things to run on time and to what was expected? Do I expect too much? Maybe I’m too demanding, but we can't afford to waste a day in modern day society merely walking back and forth up and down the hall way, peeking outside the front door to wait for something to arrive. We have much better, more productive things to do with our day, like writing an article about it, that I must clarify I delivered on time!

All I can say is Good Luck on your delivery quests for the future!

That my friends is what really grinds my gears.

Another month and another light-hearted rant in a series that we have called “Grind my gears” after the popular US cartoon, Family Guy.

This month up 2012.

Not the Olympics and what life might be like in living and working in London, or the outlook for our economy and the way it seems to be sluggishly making its way to another year or underwhelming growth.

No, the thing that really grinds my gears is the fact that right now we appear to be living in the year 2011 (pronounced two thousand and eleven), whereas on the strike of midnight on 31st December, we’ll be in 2012 (pronounced twenty twelve). So why the change in the structure of how we pronounce the year?

"Is that it? Is that your gripe for the month"? I can almost hear you saying. OK it’s not a massive issue, but doesn’t that kind of thing bug you? It’s the sort of thing that I lie awake thinking about and I’ve got a 10 month old baby at home, so lying awake really does grind my gears.

I can kind of understand why we had two thousand and six because pronouncing 2006 as twenty six would just make it sound like 26. But, in theory, we could have just switched to twenty ten once that confusion could be avoided. But we didn’t. We stuck to the two thousand and ten pronunciation, maybe out of a sense of continuity or a feeling that twenty ten sounded a bit too zingy. As in, “Hey catch ya on the flip-side in twenty ten, dude”.

I think, however, that when we won the Olympics back in 2006, we all somehow assumed that 2012 would be pronounced in the same way as 2020 or 1980 and so it became part of our collective consciousness. But once we get to 2012, will we carry on the tradition in 2013 and beyond, or will we revert back to two thousand and thirteen? I just don't know.

All this led me to wonder what they did at the beginning of the last century. Did they ever say nineteen hundred and eleven or was it always nineteen eleven? We all know how we pronounce the 1914-18 war, but are we only seeing that through the benefit of history? We refer to 1908 as nineteen o eight but did they say it like that? I think that once we have got used to the pronunciation of 2012, we’ll refer backwards to the years 2011 and 2010 in the same way and so the notion that it was ever two thousand and eleven will be lost to history.

And while we’re on the subject, when we were in the 1980s and the 1990s it was easy to refer to them as the eighties and nineties. We occasionally hear reference to the years 2000-09 being the naughties but it somehow feels cumbersome and trying to be a bit funny so most people don’t bother. But if naughties is the correct term, what are the hinter years before we reach the twenties supposed to be called? The teens? Surely not – it’s not even accurate: you wouldn’t call an eleven-year old a teenager. Maybe the tens?

Anyway, these things shouldn’t occupy my mind. They don’t matter, people don’t get sick, nobody cares and the world doesn’t fall over because of it and I have more important things to be contemplating. But, folks it’s the very fact that I can’t help myself and now I’ve wasted another 20 minutes of my time writing about it (and if you've got this far, a couple of minutes of yours too), that really grinds my gears.

Wow. Only a few months ago, Karine wrote an article about how for the first time social media had allowed people a taste of freedom during recent uprisings in places like Egypt and Libya. 

And here we are wondering whether social media is a menace as it appeared to be so central to the recent riots and looting in the UK. As David Cameron told the Commons:

“When people are using social media for violence we need to stop them”

As we all know, Twitter and Blackberry Messaging appears to have been widely used to organise and even incite groups of rioters firstly in London and then further afield to other cities in the UK. With this in mind, should the authorities somehow shut down access to these services if a similar thing happened again?

Is it practically possible to shut down ‘social media’?
Yes and no. In the UK it would be disastrous for the government to completely shut down all internet traffic because so much business now relies on it and frankly it would be ridiculous. So they would have to lean on ISPs and people like RIM who own Blackberry Messenger to block specific sites and applications. 

Is it right to do so?
It’s part of the human condition to want to explain things in a simple way. As designers and information architects, a lot of what we do is about organising content to make it easy for people to assimilate. Nobody has the time or inclination to go through a list of pages to work out which ones they might want to read, instead they rely on visual signposts and grouping of content. 

In explaining why so many (mainly) young people took to the streets, destroyed buildings and helped themselves to other’s property, the same thing applies. It’s variously been concluded that bits of society are simply “sick” or they are just greedy opportunists, or that the corruption shown by politicians has somehow given them a sense that if you can get away with it, then it’s OK. Others have said they were just bored or having a laugh or simply swept up in a tide of excitement fuelled by social media.

It’s all too easy to say that one thing is the problem and so much harder to say in a headline or a soundbite that lots of combinations of factors may have been at play. Which is partly why I think that shutting down “social media” however that is defined, would probably not have the desired effect and sets a dangerous precedent.

Put it this way, people have been rioting way before social media was invented. In 1985, during the Broadwater riots that culminated in a policeman being hacked to death, there was no pre-digital equivalent of Twitter that galvanized people into action. Social media may make the process easier and faster to disseminate, but it’s people, not technology, that starts riots.

And who is to say what constitutes civil disobedience.? Isn’t one man’s demonstration another man’s riot? The student marches earlier this year and the public sector workers one more recently, were by and large peaceful. But when one moron starts swinging from the Cenotaph or another lobs a fire extinguisher from a roof, should that trigger an instant shut-down of social media?

There’s another thing, too that goes back to the unrest in Egypt and Libya. When protestors were using social media to communicate with people, we in the democratic West were shaking our heads in horror that any government would be so scared of the will of the people that they would be prepared to shut down their right to communicate with each other online. We start shutting down social media in the UK, for whatever justification, we lose that moral high ground.

From the printing press to the internet, every time any advancement in communications is invented, the people tasked with ruling us get twitchy. They feel the need to control and restrict it. But I don’t think it’s down to the people we elect to decide how or with whom we communicate. Of course this makes things harder for the authorities, but so it should be: having the freedoms we enjoy have been hard-won and we shouldn’t give anyone who wants to take them from us an easy ride.

I want to start this by saying that I won’t even pretend to understand the effect that the hoax blogger purporting to be a gay woman in Syria has had on people’s struggles in that country. So my intention isn’t really to comment on the specifics of what happened, but instead to consider more broadly what it illustrates about the validity of content online.

When it was revealed that a blogger claiming to be a gay woman in Syria called ‘Amina’ was, in fact, a 40 year old US man living in Scotland called Tom, people were shocked. 

The site that uncovered the hoax blogger is called LezGetReal.com but a few days after the revelation it was discovered that one of LezGetReal’s editors, “Paula Brooks” was not who she said she was either. In fact 'she' was 58 year old Bill Graber. He said he posed as a gay woman because nobody would take him seriously as a straight man. No shit, Sherlock! Somehow Amina's heady mixture of sex, politics and an old fashioned triumph over adversity seemed less engaging when you learn it was nothing but the fantasy of a middle aged man.

When I read this I was reminded of an episode of the Simpsons. Krusty the Clown decides to call a Sex Chat Line. When he gets through it turns out that he is in the company of Apu, the Mini-Mart store owner and two other guys. The conversation goes like this:

Krusty: Ooh! Sex Chat! (dials)

Female voice: You've reached the Party Line! In a moment, you'll be connected to a hot party, with some of the world's most beautiful women! Now, let's join the party!

Krusty: Hello?

Man 1: Hello?

Man 2: Hello?

Apu: Are there any women here?

Krusty: Hello!?

Apu: Are you a beautiful woman?

Krusty: Do I sound like a beautiful woman?

Apu: This is not as hot a party as I anticipated.

 (listen to it here )

Since then both hoaxers have been at pains to apologise and explain that their intentions were noble, but as one activist in Syria pointed out “I could have put myself in grave danger inquiring about a fictitious figure.”

But, the subject of the hoax aside, it does pose quite an interesting point about the validity of content we read online. We assume that when a newspaper or TV show reports something they will have checked their facts as far as they can and will be clear about what is fact and what is fiction (and what is a reconstruction), but can we assume the same is true online?

Given the ability to be anonymous and without any need for editorial integrity, we have no idea whether what we are reading is accurate or indeed written by the people who we think are writing it. So often (and I’ve done it myself) we use Wikipedia as a source, believing that there are so many people out there scrutinising this stuff that it’s bound to be true, but you only have to look at the history of a Wikipedia page to see how many malicious changes get uploaded. You just have to hope that when you read it, it's a corrected version.

And is it ever OK to lie online and say you’re someone you aren’t? How many celebrities and politicians pay other people to write on their behalf? Is that mis-leading, or is it something we should just expect? From people uploading false information about themselves on a dating site to companies posing as unbiased members of the public defending or promoting their own products, this looks like a problem that isn’t going away anytime soon.

Your website is your marketing tool and should reflect what you do and who you are. With that in mind do you like the image that you are projecting to the world? If no, then probably it is time to start reconsidering your options. You don’t necessary need to overhaul your old website; it might be only a matter of tweaking your existing one. To help you to make a decision here are 4 reasons that may mean it is time to change.

1. Your current site doesn't allow you to communicate with your audience

Sorry, this is another social media stick to beat you with but it’s the world we are now living in. It doesn’t apply to everyone but increasingly users expect to be given the opportunity to interact with your content – share it, recommend, express likes and dislikes or comment. But it isn’t just about users, social media will also benefit you. Properly optimised sites can increase your conversion rates, SEO and help spread the word – all for free!

2. Is it stuck in 2004?

If your site was developed in and built for older browsers and on old kit then you might want to try using it on big screens and modern browsers because that is how the lion’s share of your users will see you.

3. Does your website still represent who you are and what you want to say?

As an agency what we offer our clients today is not what we offered them 2 years ago, let alone 6 years ago. We are beginning to think about v5 of our website because, although v4 (released in 2009) is great, it no longer communicates everything about our offering today. We have evolved and therefore so has what we want to tell the world. You would think that as a web design agency this would be pretty straight forward, but as is all too common, making time for ourselves amongst our clients is tricky to say the least. But make it we shall because if we don’t no one else will be telling clients about our usability experience or brand work or… you get the picture. Take a look at what you are saying about yourself but don’t be surprised if you don’t recognise yourself any more.

4. You might be the same old dog but has your audience changed?

How much has your online behaviour changed in the past few years? Are you reading this on your iPhone? (I bet it is a 4). Your audience and their expectations are developing as the technology does and your site should reflect those changes. Is your site optimised for a mobile or tablets or have you even considered what people coming to your site on those devices might be after?

Hopefully you are not feeling too stressed out reading the above. Get in touch for a cup of tea and a chat with us if you need a bit of therapy!

Hi my name is Matt, and I am an addict. It’s been 34 days since my last tweet, check-in or status update. I am a social media addict who, in a single 24-hour period, is capable of posting upwards of 20 tweets, five check-ins, and three status updates – on a quiet day.

I became acutely aware of my addiction on the eve of my latest holiday, when I dropped my iPhone and shattered the screen. In one absent-minded swoop, I had destroyed my book, my camera, my watch, my calendar, my MP3 player and... my phone. The tiny electronic object, which could never be further than 2m away from me, was useless. This left me isolated, disconnected and clamoring for internet cafés, just to get a fix of what my friends were up to – and that was just the start. Apart from the obvious lack of incoming and outgoing phone calls, I couldn’t perform tasks that would ordinarily slip off my fingers without a second thought.

For starters, I had to print out maps to navigate the most basic city streets; I couldn’t even refer to my phone to orientate myself North. I would walk past store fronts, displaying items I wanted to research further and be at a loss without a search engine and a quick bookmark for later reference. Cute little landmarks that reminded me of my friends were past and forgotten, since I had evolved into a state of clicking and uploading. So to stop and take out a camera was way beyond my limited attention span. I also constantly found myself asking passers-by for the time.

Most tragically, I was unable to ‘check in’ at the North Pole. For a whole month I was plunged into a state of what is now known as ‘nomophobia’.

I am not alone in my addiction; nearly 50% of 16-24 year olds have an internet-enabled phone. This instant access to the internet is set to radically change the purchasing habits of future generations of consumers and it is vital that retailers are prepared to respond.

Before the social media revolution, advertising was often focused on getting the consumer into a store. This mindset is in need of drastic change, for the simple reason that even if a potential customer is in your store, a few simple taps on their phone could easily take them to a competitor’s website, comparing prices. Guy Laurence, the Chief Executive of Vodafone reports that “20% of consumers on Oxford St on a Saturday are online at the same time, checking Facebook and checking rivals prices”.

Mobile social networks like Twitter and Facebook have put all of your consumers' friends into their pocket. And the consumer is happy to have this support – not least in the changing room. Gone is the impulse buy, along with the perennial question, “Does my bum looking big in this?”. Now this question can be answered with a quick photo post. Laurence again reports that this in turn has led to a drastic increase in time spent in a store’s changing rooms, as the potential customer waits for their friends to respond. This is social sharing at its most intimate and empowers the consumer to either purchase the product or, in the face of new information arriving whilst they’re switching between skirts, leave it behind.

Amazon has further empowered the consumer with their latest iPhone application. A shopper can be wandering through a store and upon finding a product they are interested in, whip out their handset and simply scan the barcode. The app then hops online and proceeds to show all the retailers who stock that product, arranged from cheapest to the most expensive. And yes, there is a large ‘buy-now’ button. This gives the consumer unprecedented power over the retailer; never before has direct product comparison been so simple.

In practical terms, this means that bricks & mortar retailers can no longer compete on price alone; logically, this should push the retail industry back into the realm of the service industry.

The internet trade body, IMRG, is estimating that £6.4bn will be spent online this Christmas, and 20% of that through mobile applications. That is £1.28bn changing hands through iPhones, Blackberrys and Android phones.

This bourgeoning market is rapidly being catered for by many high street traders, who are building mobile websites – rather than apps – in order to capture the consumer in the heat of the moment – and specifically whilst in the competitors’ shops, when there isn’t time to download an app.

Marks & Spencer has just launched a fully transactional e-commerce mobile site, to connect with this mobile audience. This is a simple site which works on almost any mobile browser and allows a user to search through their extensive range. But something is missing: nowhere on the site can I find a store locator or contact details. These two features are vital to today’s consumer, who might be checking out the competition while trying on an item of clothing in another retailer’s changing room.

In an effort to get the consumer to spend more time in store, department store Debenhams has initiated a competition with the children’s game of ‘four-square’. Anyone who “checks in” (via the Foursquare app) on a Friday is given a free cup of coffee in their in-store café. This is a fantastic way to get the mobile consumer in the store and keep them inside longer. The only weakness with this is that this free coffee potentially gives them time to sit down, take out their smart phone and check the competitors’ prices of a product.

It’s easy to forget how quickly this change in the consumer's mindset has come about. It was just a year ago that it was only online retailers who were investing in mobile platforms, and the thought of making a payment on your phone was foreign to the mainstream consumer.

But with the advent of the iPhone, which put the internet into everyone’s pocket and Apples App store, which made it easy (and acceptable) to pay for goods through your handset, we now have a new and formidable generation of mobile consumers who are educated about retailers and competitors at the point of purchase.