internet

Klout

Have you heard of Klout?  Klout is a service that measures social media influence and distills it down into a numerical value: the Klout score.  This number can range between 1 and 100, but it's not a linear scale.  Klout scores are exponential.  It's an interesting concept, but it's not without controversy.  The methodology behind Klout scores has never been disclosed.  This secrecy lead most people to question the legitimacy of the score.  After all, how accurate can an influence measure that ranks Justin Beiber as more influential than Barack Obama really be?

Klout logo

Some of this criticism is unfair.  How many people get upset over the search placement Google assigns to them?  Unlike Google, the Klout score is personal in a way search listings are not.  This is an attempt to describe your role in the world to a number.  This number already has consequences.  Customers with higher Klout scores are sometimes treated with greater deference by companies.  

Many customer service organizations have been trained to examine the Klout score of customers who engage the brand via social media.  Klout has become a staple of community management.

I know that I've been given goods, services and upgrades just because my Klout score is above 60.  Flawed though it may be, Klout is still the most popular and known service of its kind.  It's become the de facto measurement of social media influence.

In my life, Klout is mainly an inside joke with my coworkers.  We "+K bomb" each other.  You can use a virtual currency called +K to indicate who you consider an influencer and in what areas of expertise.  My coworkers have resoundingly agreed that I am an expert in the Fancy Dress Political Party and Kittens.  This information appears on my public Klout profile.  It's possible to hide this activity, but I don't.  Good natured +K bombs are fun, and I don't want to imagine a world where social media is stripped of whimsy.

Yesterday, Klout announced major changes to its scoring system.  I can't remember an update from any company that seems so tailored to my criticism!  The new Klout score pulls in more data points, and discloses what those points are.  Klout makes better use of LinkedIn and Wikipedia to gauge influence, so someone who is prominent-but-not-active like Warren Buffet receives a Klout score more inline with their real world stature.  Klout is also using "moments" to show its users what specific pieces of content resonated with their audience, and in doing so contributed to their Klout score.

The results of the new system are positive.  Barack Obama now (rightfully) scores higher than Justin Beiber.  Don't misread me: I don't want to detract from Mr. Beiber's influence.  His audience is large and devoted.  It is likewise clear to me that the elected leader of the free world wields even greater influence and Klout now scores this correctly.

As I've looked through my own network, the scores seem likewise validated.  Some of my friends are influential, but relatively quiet in social media.  Their scores have all risen–probably based on LinkedIn data.  They are influencers of the influencers, and I'm glad to see their score reflect that.

From my perspective, the new scoring system is a great win for Klout.  The increased transparency makes this metric more trustworthy.  The addition of more networks and platforms acknowledges and addresses that rapidly shifting landscape of social media.  Moments will be a great tool for individuals and companies alike to understand which content posts are most meaningful to their audience across their entire social media presence.

If you haven't tried Klout yet, I can finally recommend the service with a straight face.  Click the link below and sign-in with your Facebook or Twitter account.

Try Klout.

My website is a safe place for people whose beliefs about God are changing. Many are recovering from spiritual abuse or trauma. Please remain civil and kind in the comments section at all times.

The Great Apple Screw Hoax

The "evidence" of a new proprietary Apple screw.

I've been watching a hoax spread across the Internet.  It's about a screw.  The authors of this hoax have come clean and shared their findings about how misinformation spreads in the Internet age.  The setup was simple.  Apple is known for building devices that are challenging to upgrade and repair.  Indeed, Apple often uses uncommon types of screws to discourage casual disassembly of the devices they sell.  It was this conventional wisdom that acted as the soil for a false rumor to spread.  The perpetrators comped up a proprietary, asymmetric screw design in a 3D program and "leaked" it to Reddit.  It didn't exactly set the world on fire.  Reddit is famously skeptical, and even the passionate crowd at /r/Apple viewed this posting as improbable.  Regardless, Reddit can generate a lot of traffic, and from some of these views came blog posts.  After the bloggers came Mac news sites, and with those posts came comments, and ultimately people sharing the news on Facebook and Twitter.   I watched as skepticism gave way to belief as the news was shared.

I believe that the Internet is one of the greatest inventions mankind has produced.  The ease with which people can communicate and share information is transformative and beneficial.  Unfortunately, this power comes with a price.  Information on the Internet can be very low quality, and the evidence suggests that most societies are not well-versed enough in critical thinking and qualitative information evaluation to allow the Internet to do its best work.

It seems that for every bit of self-organized brilliance, the Internet seems to share 100 baseless memes.  Look at your Facebook Newsfeed or Twitter stream.  How many stories could be debunked with a simple visit to Snopes?  How many claims are completely unsubstantiated?  How many friends post opposing statements on the behavior of politicians or candidates, but fail to provide evidence on the basis that their post is "self-evident."

The combination of rapid, easy communication and relatively low skepticism toward ideologically sympathetic messaging is creating echo armies.  Established interests use the Internet to rebroadcast sound-bites and snippets of thought.  Repetition reinforces the feeling of truth in those who share similar views.  The same mechanisms that make us believe that Facebook will donate $1.25 to a suffering child if we just share an image also allows political parties to rally a base toward a cause without fully clarifying or justifying their agenda.

Do you believe that Affordable Health Care act will provide a net economic benefit to our society?  If so, why do you believe that?  What evidence have you been shown?

Do you believe Obamacare is a government takeover of private industry that will saddle our nation with unbearable levels of debt?  If so, why do you believe that?  What evidence have you been shown?

I've spent dozens of hours studying the healthcare strategies of different countries.  What do they cost per capita?  What effect to the have an personal budgets?  How about national budgets?  How do you quantify health care quality?  What effects are seen in societies with less population coverage versus more?  What effect does a profit motive have on research and medical advancement?

Where has the research lead me?  I am 100% convinced that I don't have an opinion worth sharing at this time.  I've looked at both sides of the argument and I've seen a lot more propaganda than substance everywhere I look.

Critical thinking is checking assumptions.  Whenever I read something, I look first at my own assumptions.  Where did I get them?  On what evidence are they based?  After I have contextualized my own assumptions, I look at the author.  What evidence does he/she cite?  Who produced it?  Under what context?  Has this evidence been supported by another organization?  If it is scientific in nature, has it been published and peer reviewed?  What does the opposition say?  What evidence do they site?

Try this.  Scroll through your news feed.  Look at their posts.  Now critically analyze the one you don't agree with.  Now do the same with the ones you agree with.  Finally, look at your own timeline and look at your own statements.  How much analysis and evidential evaluation have you performed on your own media?

It's hard work, sure.  It means you are often silent when discussions are heated.  It means you have to draw a harder line between your opinion and fact.  It means that you will very often find out that a position you hold is wrong, or at least difficult to support with evidence.

Now imagine for a moment the level of accountability we would present to governments, political parties, corporations, churches, and establishments of all kinds if we started our discussions with critical examination.

Don't hear me wrong.  I'm not saying critical thinking will produce universal agreement on issues.  It won't.  What it does produce is humility and an understanding toward people who have reached a dissimilar conclusion, but done so after honestly considering your own viewpoint.

Change the world.  Think critically.

My website is a safe place for people whose beliefs about God are changing. Many are recovering from spiritual abuse or trauma. Please remain civil and kind in the comments section at all times.