Este autor foi muito importante para mim quando eu ainda estava cursando o mestrado. Aprender sobre o Flow naquele momento foi crucial. Depois disso, virou figurinha garantida em minhas aulas. Além do Flow, recomendo muito o livro The meaning of things.
As previously said my browser usage could change and I am not ashamed of it.
Last week I decided on going back to Firefox as my daily / default browser.
The main reason was not ideological. The thing that made me switch back to Firefox was one particular extension / add-on: Firefox Multi-Account Containers.
So my decision was purely based on my need to be logged in into three Microsoft accounts simultaneously: one for my personal OneDrive storage (unfortunately I have not yet found a better and cheaper solution for my family’s cloud storage needs) and two different accounts for my work (for some strange reason my employer decided it would be better to keep academic relations and administrative tasks running on two separated Teams instances. It is a nightmare but it seems I am the only one who thinks so).
The only manageable way to deal with this mess was to use this extension / add-on. And it work flawlessly. This plug-in is so good I completely ignore the lack of PWA support in Firefox just to access the set of benefits it provides me.
So here it is: I am back at using Firefox as my one and only browser and it is working great. I set up sync and now am using it in my phone and in both my computers. Performance is as good as in Brave and Vivaldi.
Also, participating in Teams meetings improved a lot in Firefox. The interface for using Teams in a Firefox window resembles a lot the experience I have when using the native desktop app. It is significantly different than using it in a chromium browser so I guess that’s another point for Firefox.
I must also say that one minor annoyance I had related to Firefox has a workaround and it makes using Firefox visually better now.
The positive side effect (is this such a thing?) is that by using Firefox I support an alternative web; the one I believe. So no negative points at all. PWAs are nice, but this is better. For now.
De fato, a transformação digital já aconteceu há tempos.
Entretanto, infelizmente, neste ano de 2023, ainda temos empresas, gestores e práticas que evidenciam que há um enorme atraso em trabalhar a questão digital nas práticas empresariais.
O exemplo de hoje é emblemático. Veja a imagem abaixo e preste atenção nos horários das mensagens.
Estamos vivendo um contexto bem interessante e animador para implementação de multiplos canais convergentes de comunicação, atendimento e, claro, de vendas.
O WhatsApp se mostra como um grande trunfo para empresas agilizarem processos e inclusive realizar vendas de maneira personalizada e ágil.
Entretanto, práticas e implementação de sistemas com poucos recursos ou uma operacionalização deficiente podem atrapalhar mais do que ajudar no processo. O ocorrido comigo que está ilustrado na imagem que mostrei acima é um exemplo de algo que não deve acontecer. Jamais.
Por mais que o dia esteja atípico, uma espera de mais de 4 horas para realizar um atendimento digital é algo realmente que afasta o cliente deste canal e, talvez, até da marca.
Colocar o atendimento via WhatsApp é algo que deve ir muito além de implementar um bot para coletar os dados dos usuários e direcionar as mensagens para um atendente real. É preciso que este atendente real tenha a estrutura e o acesso a recursos para colocar este tipo de atendimento em pé de igualdade com o atendimento que o consumidor teria se estivese presencialmente na loja.
Nesse sentido, há que se pensar também em uma equipe que não seja reduzidade pessoal de atendimento, bem como este pessoal precisa estar equipado com acesso a sistemas de estoque para consulta e informação para fornecer ao consumidor os dados mais atualizados. De maneira complementar, este pessoal de atendimento precisa fazer parte de uma equipe integrada de vendas que receba os mesmos treinamentos e acesso às mesmas informações que os demais profisionais de atendimento têm acesso.
Ou seja: a transformação digital, de forma efetiva, já ocorreu há muitos anos. Gestores precisam compreender que se estão com este assunto em pauta no dia de hoje, estão muito atrasados e precisam agir com grande esforço para tentar reverter a situação de défcit.
I’ve been using a combination of Linux on my computers and iOS on my cell phone for a few months now. Previously, when I used the macOS operating system on my computers and iOS on my cell phone, it was a pretty easy choice. I used Safari and lived my life.
However, when I started using Linux on my computers, a new demand appeared: I needed a web browser that would synchronize tabs between the two systems and that wouldn’t compromise my computers’ RAM.
Remembering that I migrated to Linux on computers because my equipment is older (a 2012 MacMini and a 2015 MacBook Air) and the Apple system I used on them was no longer supported (specifically for the Mac Mini).
After installing Linux Mint (Debian Edition) on my computers, I noticed that the system was much more responsive and adapted well to older hardware. Right off the bat, I got to keep the default browser (Firefox) and it was doing fine. I used Firefox a lot on my Mint (Debian based version). The multi-account-container plugin is excellent.
However, a few things caused it to flash a red light in my use with Firefox:
– Firefox’s RAM memory consumption seemed high to me and the computer’s performance was below expectations.
– Firefox’s support for MS Teams (which I use for work) is below par. Joining a meeting or teaching a class with Teams in Firefox is impractical.
– Firefox doesn’t support PWAs and I really like using some websites as apps. As examples, I mention Simplenote, WhatsApp and MS Teams itself. I prefer to use these services as PWAs. I know that there is a Teams application, for example, for Linux, the performance is very bad.
Therefore, after much consideration, I decided to switch to a Chromium-based browser, as they would meet my demands (tab synchronization, performance and PWA support). My automatic choice was Vivaldi. It has everything I need (especially since the trial version for iOS was recently released). I started using this browser.
After a period of using Vivaldi, which is very good, by the way, I found myself a little frustrated with the fact that, precisely because it is still in an experimental period on iOS, I cannot set it as the default browser on the system , which always gave me some headaches because it doesn’t open links from other apps natively (because it’s not the default browser).
In that sense, I ended up migrating to Brave.
Both (Vivaldi and Brave) are very good. Brave did better because the way they implement support for PWAs seemed more interesting to me. In addition, it has the ability to be set as the default browser on the cell phone (with iOS).
This way, my usage was optimized with Brave on all devices and a series of services / websites running with PWAs. One thing to strongly consider is that there is no Chrome extension that comes close to the Firefox plugin for multiple accounts in containers.
This was something I had to balance and I decided to go with Brave.
Brave has that crypto-related issue, but just remove all mentions of crypto stuff from Brave via settings and life goes on. Also it has really nice support for using TOR and an included .torrent client (the latter doesn’t work 100% well, I must say).
Still on Brave, I must register that I know about the controversial issues about Brendan Eich’s attitude towards the LGBTQIA+ community, but I needed to prioritize using a browser that has good support for my demands (being the default on iOS and Linux), who could run MS Teams and who had a good way of dealing with PWAs. It’s quite possible that when Vivaldi becomes available outside of Testflight and can be set as the default browser on iOS, I’ll end up revising my choice.
Anyway. Although choosing apps is something very personal and subjective, here’s my story. I hope it helps someone who is with similar demands.
Hoje é dia 27 de junho de 2023. Há exatos seis anos era publicado o episódio de número 135 do podcast Ainda Sem Nome. Este acabou sendo o último episódio do podcast.
O Ainda Sem Nome nasceu em 2011 e foi um projeto muito legal que conduzi com o Felipe Menhem, que anos antes havia sido meu colega de trabalho quando eu trabalhei em uma produtora web entre 2002 e 2003. Acabamos ficando amigos e resolvemos prosear um bocado sobre o que vivíamos no fabuloso universo da comunicação digital.
O podcast nos trouxe muitas alegrias e aprendizados. Foi intenso e bastante divertido. Chegamos a fazer algumas pausas porque eu precisei terminar minha tese de doutorado e também porque em outros momentos apenas ficamos de saco cheio.
Durante os mais de seis anos e 135 edições que fizemos muita gente bacana passou pelo Ainda Sem Nome e muita coisa legal foi discutida. Criamos uma pequena comunidade que sempre escutava os episódios e colaborava com sugestões de pauta e feedback sobre como estávamos tocando a coisa.
Desenvolvemos novas habilidades de produção, transmissão, gravação e edição de áudio e vídeo que são úteis até hoje. Enfim, é um projeto pelo qual tenho grande carinho.
Tanto que, coincidentemente, exatamente no dia de hoje, terminei de colocar todos os episódios em meu canal no YouTube, para fins de backup. Você pode conferir tudo o que foi feito na playlist que criei (e reproduzo aqui embaixo) e também no canal oficial do Podcast, que o Felipe está publicando também. Há muitos episódios que são atemporais.
PS: Revendo os episódios para colocar no YT eu vi que foi em maio de 2017 que falamos do Mastodon por lá. Foi bem bacana. Já naquela época falamos também de fake news e da revolução da transmissão esportiva no site de vídeos do Google.
Since 2016 I have been using Apple computers.
Until then (more precisely from 2006 to 2015) I was a Linux user ranging from Ubuntu to Mandriva and ending up with CrunchBang, which had been the last distribution I used.
In 2016 I decided to set up a studio and sell professional video services. During that time I used Windows. The experience didn’t last a year (both the company and my brief return to Windows, which had been my day-to-day system since I started using computers more seriously in 1995). Well then. It was then, in 2016, that I started using Mac.
I was already frustrated with the planned obsolescence of Android phone devices and decided to buy an iPhone after frustrating months using Windows Phone (when I said that I migrated to Windows when I started the company, I changed everything to Windows and it was a huge pain) .
Upon purchasing the iPhone, I was amazed at how comfortable the system is to use compared to my previous Android experience. It wasn’t long before I decided to give it a try and switch all my computers to Apple computers.
These are the computers I use to this day. I have a 2012 Mac Mini, which I bought used, and a 2015 Mac Book Air, which I bought new in 2016.
The first thing I noticed is that, just like the experience of using the cell phone with the Apple system, using the computer had become an excellent experience. So much so that later I also decided to buy Apple computers for my family.
Things work out the way you expect them to work. Things are where you expect them to be and everything is very smooth. It seduced me instantly. Things just work. That is great. There’s a price to pay for that, but I thought it was well worth it because the experience with the other systems I’ve used in the past always left something to be desired.
However, I decided to try new things in this year of 2023. The big motivator for this was my Mac Mini from 2012, which is still working perfectly, but which has not received operating system updates since macOS Catalina. Until then, so good. Catalina is an excellent system and I was very satisfied. However, in November 2022 this version of the operating system stopped receiving updates, which puts my system at risk. Then I spent some time thinking about what could be done… I could spend a good amount of money and buy new Apple computers, or I could try to change again.
Since money doesn’t grow on trees, I decided to try something new. I must say that I am quite satisfied with the choice.
I had heard great things about Fedora and decided to try installing it on one of the computers my kids use (a 2011 Mac Book Pro). Everything worked perfectly once I did the installation connected to the internet via cable and after a few initial updates the system recognized the WiFi as well as the Bluetooth. With the test done, I decided to also put it on my desktop and everything worked very well. With Fedora running on my desktop, I decided to update macOS on my Mac Book Air to the Monterey version. Only something was bothering me. I don’t think I do very well switching between different systems on my desktop and my laptop. So I decided to test something even cooler: put Linux on the 2015 Mac Book Air as well.
But then I started thinking about the limitations of this hardware and that put me off a bit because Fedora uses Gnome and this is not the lightest system out there.
It was then that I decided to follow a tip that came from Mastodon: why not Debian? Studying a little I saw that Linux Mint has a Debian-based version that could be a good option. And it was.
First I tested it by placing it on my desktop (2012 Mac Mini) and everything worked perfectly. Cinnamon is very comfortable to use and the whole system feels very smooth. I decided to try it out on my Mac Book Air as well and today I have the same operating system on both computers again, which makes my life a lot easier.
Linux Mint Debian Edition is excellent, exceeding all my expectations. Things work great and I haven’t faced any serious issues so far.
There are, of course, two or three things that bother me a little. The first is that there is no native client for OneDrive (my cloud option since 2016, when I used Windows), and that made me have to buy InSync and so far, so good. What sucks is that InSync doesn’t have the same operating logic as the default OneDrive client. It gives me a bit of a headache because either everything is in sync or it isn’t. There isn’t that nice option in OneDrive’s default client of showing the document but only downloading it from the cloud when I click on it to use it.
The other thing that annoys me a bit is how fast the track pad and scroll work on Linux. For me this is too fast and bothers me a little. I haven’t found a place to adjust this yet, but it’s something I can live with.
Finally, one thing that annoys me a little is that I’ve spent so much time using Apple’s shortcuts that now I’m always hitting the Command key in Linux when it’s actually the ALT or CTRL key I need to access. This last question is of course not a Linux issue but mine 🙂
Well, anyway, it’s important to point out how much I’m enjoying the experience of using the Linux Mint Debian Edition but also to send a compliment to Fedora, which is the system that is still being used a lot on my kids’ computers.
The evolution that has occurred with Linux systems since I stopped using it in 2015 until now, when I resumed using it in 2023 has been brutal. Everything is very nice and very comfortable to use. Including, I must say that my Mac Book Air is much better. One thing I’ve noticed and I can’t quite explain why is that when I connect this computer to teach on the university’s projectors, the projector’s screen resolution is better with Linux than it was with macOS. In addition, the process of sharing my cellular connection with my laptop for work away from home is also much easier. Amazing that doing this using the laptop running Linux is easier than it was before when the computer was running macOS.
Anyway. Testing new things is always good. Running Linux is always good. Using Apple (intel) hardware with Linux has proven to be excellent.
This post was originally written in PT-BR and published last april. It has now been translated to EN.
Both the text and the video are quite interesting and I recommend that you pay attention to what is there.
Watching the video, I was reminded of points that had already been indicated in a text published in 2019 that deals with the necessary reflections on social platforms and what we do with them. Although the 2019 text mainly addresses Facebook, I believe that reflection can be dealt with in order to understand what happened and was reported in the video/podcast by Tecnopolítica and in the text by The Intercept Brasil.
We adopt social platforms as an important part of the dialogical dynamics that occur on the internet. We make use of these platforms as if they were part of social structures inherent in the forces of corporate financial interests. Only they aren’t. The platforms serve the interests of the companies that maintain them.
We are so used to living our lives considering that “everyone is on twitter / facebook / youtube” that we forget that these spaces are not public spaces. As said, they are private applications that belong to commercial institutions that exploit them hoping for a financial benefit. As such, they follow rules and act in accordance with the interests of the companies that control them.
Does this mean that platforms and companies are essentially evil and that we should avoid them? Obviously not. If it weren’t for platforms and social media, many of the benefits and social movements we’ve witnessed in recent years would not have gained the dimension they did or even would have occurred.
A long way to go
We must not regard platforms as exempt or neutral. The myth of neutrality must definitely be debunked (this text by the CHT is very interesting in this sense). We need to overcome this idea / utopia of neutrality (whether from press vehicles, governments and, of course, corporations).
The next step will be to overcome the idea that “since they are not neutral, these entities are evil”. It’s not like that either. The important thing is that we – as a society – manage to see these entities as what they really are: the materialization or operationalization in actions of interests of groups of people.
In this sense, it is to be expected that governments, in theory, will come to represent broader interests, which aim at the good of all those who are represented by them. Specific interests, linked to financial gains, are what drive company actions. Knowing that they are companies that create and maintain social media platforms, this becomes simpler. Likewise, they are companies that control and guide the actions of communication and media companies.
They are all defending interests. As citizens, we can interfere in the process by choosing well our legislative and executive representatives who will work to defend our (society) interests, creating the rules and working to guarantee the execution and compliance with these rules.
This leads to the fact that it is up to legislators to create the rules that will guide and regulate the actions of companies and governments to act to ensure that they are complied with. In the specific sense of what I’ve been dealing with here, regulation applies to media and communication companies and, of course, to social platforms. Regulation does not mean and does not imply censorship or even curtailment of freedoms. I understand that they should be mechanisms that guarantee a clearer functioning of the activities in which these institutions are involved.
If we choose the legislators and our representatives in the executive branch well, we (society) will have more chances of a better future in this regard.
At the other point are the companies and commercial entities that, when the set of regulations is established and in operation, must adjust their operation and develop internal policies to deal with issues that have impacts on the societies in which they operate.
If there are no sets of norms and rules that establish the boundaries of the actions of commercial institutions, these will create their own rules, resulting in developments that will not necessarily please or even meet the interests of societies. Commercial entities, in turn, need to act in a way that reconciles their interests with those of the communities they serve.
Em 2017 eu fui apresentado ao Mastodon. Como a maior parte das pessoas, a primeira impressão que eu tive (e, francamente, praticamente todo mundo fala assim) era a de que o Mastodon seria “apenas” uma alternativa ao Twitter. Ainda mais depois das pataquadas proporcionadas pelo recordista mundial Elon Musk com o Twitter, o Mastodon vem ganhando muitos usuários nos últimos meses e, praticamente todo mundo, pensa que ele é apenas um clone do Twitter. É normal pensar isso… A limitação de caracteres e até a forma que a interface padrão se apresenta, nos fazem pensar ser este realmente o caso.
Só que a coisa não é bem assim. E, ainda bem, não precisei de 5 anos para aprender isso. O Mastodon é algo completamente diferente do Twitter (francamente, bem melhor também); bem fácil e divertido de usar.
Para começar, uma coinsideração importante. O Mastodon faz parte do Fediverso, uma verdadeira constelação de serviços que funcionam em cima de um protocolo chamado ActivityPub, criado pelo W3C e que permite que conteúdo em diferentes formatos seja distribuído pela internet.
O Mastodon é um destes serviços, mas não é o único. Existem serviços de mídia social que funcionam em cima do ActivityPub dedicados a imagens e vídeos, por exemplo. O Mastodon é apenas um deles, que permite atualizações em formato de texto e postagem de diferentes formatos de mídia.
Pois bem, Este é o básico da coisa relacionada ao ActivityPub. Se quiser saber mais sobre o ActivityPub, pode seguir este link.
Para entender e usar o Mastodon, no entanto, você não precisa saber isso a fundo. Basta entender que, sendo construído tendo como base este protocolo (ActivityPub), o Mastodon é uma plataforma de mídia social federada e aberta. Por federada, entenda que cada um pode criar uma instância (ou servidor) e ligar este servidor à federação, fazendo com que o conteúdo dos demais servidores federados seja acessado por quem estiver em sua instância e vice-versa (o conteúdo postado em sua instância será visualizado / acessado por quem estiver vinculado às outras instâncias federadas).
Isso proporciona um cenário bem interessante. Cada administrador de instância pode definir regras próprias e também é responsável pela gestão de usuários e, claro, pelo funcionamento deste pedacinho da rede. E como a rede é federada, os servidores se comunicam entre si e todo mundo pode ver o que é postado em outros servidores e interagir com outros usuários.
Funciona mais ou menos como o e-mail. O meu servidor de e-mail (caiocgo.net) tem regras específicas de tamanho de anexos e espaço de armazenamento para mensagens. Estas regras podem ser diferentes das do Gmail, do iCloud, do UOL ou do Yahoo. No entanto, pessoas que tenham e-mail criado em cada um destes serviços podem mandar mensagens para pessoas nos outros servidores sem problemas. Fazemos isso há anos, certo? No Mastodon é a mesma coisa. Cada servidor tem algumas particularidades mas, desde que vinculados à federação, os usuários podem interagir livremente.
Pois bem, os diferentes servidores / instâncias do Mastodon podem permitir – por exemplo – o ingresso apenas de um tipo de usuário (pense em uma instância de uma Universidade, que pode permitir cadastro apenas de membros da comunidade acadêmica), estabelecer regras de postagem e conduta próprias, definir limites de caracteres, permitir ou proibir tipos específicos de mídia e por aí vai. Isso pode ser bacana porque há a possibilidade de você restringir a visualização ou resposta a determinados posts apenas para membros da instância (ou para seus seguidores)… De qualquer forma, uma coisa é importante reforçar: os membros de uma instância com ingresso restrito (como no exemplo que dei, de uma Universidade) poderão seguir e ser seguidos por todos do fediverso (como é chamado este grande ambiente de servidores participantes da federação) normalmente.
Muitas pessoas colocam esta questão das instâncias como um elemento complicador do Mastodon. No entanto, explicando dessa forma, a coisa fica bem simples, né? A gente escolhe um servidor para se vincular a partir de quesitos que podem ser nossos (fazer parte de uma comunidade, por exemplo, ou ter interesse em conhecer pessoas de um determinado grupo) ou mesmo por quesitos que sejam particulares da instância (escolher participar de uma instância que tenha um limite maior de caracteres nas postagens, por exemplo ou mesmo ser empregado de uma empresa que criou uma instância) e manda brasa na interação.
Uma coisa que falei acima é relevante explorar mais: conhecer pessoas de um servidor / instância. Isso porque no Mastodon as postagens são visualizadas em três possíveis timelines mínimas (falo “mínimas” porque você pode escolher seguir hashtags e ter ainda mais timelines). Estas três são: A sua timeline (chamada HOME) em que aparecem as postagens de todas as pessoas que você segue. A segunda timeline é a do servidor (chamada LOCAL), onde você pode ver todas as postagens marcadas como públicas de pessoas da sua instância. A terceira é bem ampla (chamada FEDERADA) e mostra todas as postagens marcadas como públicas de todas as pessoas vinculadas aos servidores que estão conectados ao seu. Isso quer dizer que estas três timelines tendem a ser bem movimentadas, de forma crescente, percebe?
Ah, e já que estou explicando isso, vale aprofundar em um tema que toquei acima: as postagens marcadas como públicas. Isso porque no Mastodon, você pode marcar as postagens como restritas. Daí apenas quem te segue vai ver a postagem. Assim você não terá suas postagens selecionadas visualizadas nas timelines LOCAL e FEDERADA de ninguém. A não ser que você sinalize. Tudo isso é configurável para as pessoas, o que dá uma liberdade enorme ao usuário do Mastodon. Além de poder marcar as postagens como públicas ou privadas, você pode estabelecer o idioma da postagem (porque, de igual maneira, você pode escolher visualizar apenas postagens de um idioma especificado) ou mesmo trancar seu perfil, para que apenas quem você aprove possa te seguir. Ou seja: o usuário tem controle de muita coisa no Mastodon.
Entendendo estes pontos básicos, dá para ver que é uma plataforma de mídia social com bastante versatilidade e potencial, não é?
Ficou com vontade de usar o Mastodon? A primeira coisa a fazer é criar a sua conta. A melhor forma de fazer isso é acessando joinmastodon.org onde você poderá fazer uma filtragem de servidores e encontrar o seu servidor preferido. Não se preocupe pois esta escolha não é definitiva. Você poderá migrar depois. Eu mesmo já migrei quatro vezes (comecei em 2017 no mastodon.cloud, depois migrei pro mastodon.online, em seguida fui pra ursal.zone, depois pra social.vivaldi.net e agora estou no mastodon.social). Quando você migra de servidor, você leva sua lista de seguidores e a lista de perfis que você segue. Apenas os posts não são migrados também. É tudo muito simples.
Pois bem. Escolhido o servidor, basta fazer o seu cadastro. Recomendo enfaticamente que este processo seja feito pelo navegador em um computador. Depois de criada a conta, você pode acessar o seu servidor pelo navegador e também usar um dos vários clientes de mastodon disponíveis. Há clientes para todas as plataformas e com funcionalidades / visuais distintos. Os clientes nativos (oficiais) para Android e iOS são bem bacanas. No iOS eu uso Mona. Mas já usei muito o Metatext, que acho bem bacana (o Metatext permite editar postagens depois de publicadas, o que eu acho muito legal, visto que vivo cometendo erros de digitação) e tem também o Woolly e o IceCubes, que são excelentes aplicativos.
Usar o mastodon no smartphone é mais fácil. Os aplicativos fazem o processo de seguir e interagir com pessoas de outros servidores ser bem fácil. No desktop você pode interagir com as pessoas livremente também, mas de vez em quando seguir um perfil pode demandar copiar um URL e colar na barra de busca para poder seguir. Um passo a mais mas que não mata ninguém. A gente se acostuma. Como se não bastasse, você pode escolher também, no navegador, usar a interface básica ou avançada. Muitas pessoas recomendam a interface avançada porque fica parecendo com a interface de alguns clientes de Twitter que as pessoas usavam (TweetDeck).
Como o Mastodon é aberto, há também formas alternativas de acessar via navegador. O Elk (elk.zone) e o Pinafore (pinafore.social) são duas destas formas. Estas iniciativas permitem que você use o mastodon com uma interface diferenciada. Eu gosto muito do Pinafore e, quando estou no computador, acesso por ele.
Veja, abaixo, algumas possibilidades de interface citadas:
Voltando ao uso, o Mastodon é bastante inclusivo. Toda imagem que você postar, você pode colocar um texto de descrição. Os administradores de instâncias enfatizam que isso é muito importante e recomendam que todos coloquem as descrições das imagens. Isso acaba ajudando muito. Além disso, cabe ao autor do post indicar que um conteúdo é sensível e, assim, os leitores são avisados. Você pode fazer isso com postagens de texto e também com postagens de imagens. Olha que bacana! Claro, nos aplicativos (e também na interface web) você pode configurar para marcar tudo como sensível ou então visualizar todo conteúdo sem precisar dar mais um clique.
Sobre a dinâmica da plataforma, entenda que uma coisa é muito legal: o Mastodon não tem interferência no sortimento e ordenação das postagens por meio de algoritmos. Isso faz da plataforma um ambiente muito bacana para interação. Você verá tudo o que os perfis que você segue postam e vice-versa. Todas as suas postagens públicas serão visualizadas por todos que te seguem. Além disso há os boosts, que são os impulsionamentos. Você pode replicar uma postagem de alguém para os seus seguidores. Isso é bem legal para fazer uma mensagem chegar a um público maior. Tem também, claro, os comentários, que permitem que você interaja com os autores dos posts e com quem por ventura já tenha comentado lá. Por fim, há os favoritos, que, embora não amplifiquem uma mensagem, sinalizam ao autor que você gostou daquilo.
Evidentemente você pode usar as respostas às postagens para construir threads (fios), da mesma forma que no Twitter. De igual maneira há também as mensagens diretas (DMs, que podem ser individualizadas ou em grupo). Sobre as mensagens, uma coisa importante: elas não são criptografias e o adm da instância poderá acessar. Então, vale a recomendação de jamais colocar informação sensível em uma DM (mas isso vale para qualquer plataforma).
Pois bem. Acho que isso é bem o básico, né? O lance agora é criar a conta e começar a interagir. Há serviços legais como o movetodon (www.movetodon.org) em que você pode ver quais pessoas que segue no Twitter já estão no Mastodon e segui-las por lá também. A migração fica bem simples e fácil.
Há outros textos e guias bem bacanas para ajudar a usar o Mastodon. Este – em vídeo – do Manual do Usuário é muito bom. Também tem um guia da URSAL bem legal. Vale a leitura! Ah, e se pensar em algo para complementar, pode usar os comentários a esta postagem.
Translation note. This text was originally written in Brazilian Portuguese and presented at the 2019 edition of INTERCOM, at Belem (PA), Brazil. In view of the emergence of Mastodon and the problems involving Twitter, I decided to translate this text into English so that it would gain greater reach. In addition, I took the liberty of making minor corrections and additions to the content so that the reflections presented here are not restricted to Facebook.
This text has as its main goal to reflect on the issues that involve and surround the prioritisation of the use of platforms to address the presence of both individual and as commercial in the digital context. For this purpose, a description of the transformed through which communication on the Internet has passed until reaching the context current. The focus is on Facebook (but the reflexions here can be applied to all other commercial social media platforms), taking into account the impact and influence of this company in social, political and commercial aspects. The text aims contextualize and problematize the focus on a communication mediated by platforms and their impacts on the lives of people and organisations. in the end they are listed some referral questions that may be preferred in thinking or proposals for future work.
FROM THE SOCIAL WEB TO FACEBOOK
In the mid-1990s, when Internet access began to be exploited commercially, enthusiasts discovered a different way of communicating. It wasn’t as easy as making a phone call, and it didn’t require the physical space, presence and engagement of a large number of people as a class.
Building a website and publishing any kind of information was an undertaking relatively easy, although it required specific knowledge of the language HTML developed years earlier by Tim Berners-Lee. Creating services like Blogger, developed by Pyra Labs in 1999, provided the necessary push for publishing content to reach the masses. The growth of personal websites and blogs practically accompanied the growth in the number of users who connected to the Internet for the first time each day during that period.
The production and distribution of information by people who were previously only readers and spectators gave rise to a new term. In a time when the Internet became part of the lives of societies, social media emerged.
From 2001, when the use of social platforms for publishing content starts to gain popularity, it also starts, which can be considered the future of journalism (GILLMOR, 2006). People (and later also companies) come to understand that, with social tools, they no longer need intermediaries to consume (and produce / disseminate) content. The wide adoption of social media marks the definitive migration to digital culture (SANTAELLA, 2003).
The communication model that prevailed at the time, in which media acted as the “official sources” of the events (GILLMOR, 2006; KAPLAN; HAENLEIN, 2010) gradually loses importance and starts to compete space with a new way of producing, distributing and consuming information. In that new cultural context, people and institutions of different types began to act and interact in a hybrid, dynamic environment where communicational flows could be multidirectional (CASTELLS, 2009).
Initially, this new context indicated that people and companies could act as producers and disseminators of information, being able to achieve efficiency in the process using social media, minimising or eliminating the power influence of the money (and mass media) in communication initiatives (KELLY, 2002).
The discovery and adoption of social media has proved to be very important for social and, of course, commercial dynamics. The logic of the mass media in which the struggle of public attention was a zero-sum game seemed to have been fully overcome. The adoption of social media, initially with websites, provided an understanding of that it was no longer necessary for a company to monopolize a particular medium nor a mass media channel to get your message out to a large number of people just for the purpose of starting a relationship with a fraction of that audience.
With social media, people began to understand that the principles of marketing one to one, presented at the turn of the 1980s to 1990s (PEPPERS; ROGERS, 1995) could come true. The commercial internet and the web were, then treated with great enthusiasm, providing a bright and euphoric era of social media. Manifests (LOCKE et al., 2000) and recipes for action (GODIN, 2000) potentiated the emergence of relationship marketing practices.
In terms of advertising communication initiatives, the action of publishing content on its own site, independently had its efficiency catalysed by the emergence of search engines like Google. With this type of combination, it was enough for companies to get the attention of those who are in the process of finding a solution is offered and show the offer. The possibility of reaching a potential buyer through an action based on his behaviour (the search) became known as winning the zero moment of truth, or ZMOT, for its acronym in English (LECINSKI, 2017) and, even today, it influences the development of advertising actions and of communication in the context of the internet. In this way – as we are all in many parallel processes of searching for solutions to our day-to-day problems and constantly looking for information, news, products or just answers – ended up developing a profitable advertising communication market around search activities and content published on social media (ENGE et al., 2012; FOX, 2010; HALLIGAN; SHAH, 2009).
The emergence and popularisation of Social Networking Sites (SNS) catalysed the process of people’s participation with publication and dissemination of content in the Internet. These services, by allowing and being based on the construction of a profile individual, where and through which people can connect with each other and show their connections; as well as publishing content and interacting with other people and their publications (BOYD; ELLISON, 2007; ELLISON; STEINFIELD; LAMPE, 2007; RECUERO, 2009, 2012) has provided profound changes in how people relate to each other (SPYER, 2017), inform themselves, deliberate on issues social and political, interact with brands and learn (ROCKEMBACH; GARRÉ, 2018; TEZANI, 2017).
It is through SNS that society presents itself and acts in the digital context. However, despite providing great enthusiasm, due to the increasingly prominent of this type of technological resource, it is necessary to reflect on these spaces; especially Facebook, which has more than 2.3 billion users 3 active monthly on the platform.
Despite being termed and commonly identified as an SRS, it is necessary to face Facebook (FB) as an enterprise that transcends this definition. Interestingly, when looking for a definition of what Facebook is on the company’s own website, there is no clear answer. In an interview, the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, defines it as a space for information sharing where people can publish what they want (VOGELSTEIN, 2009). In this sense, more than an SNS, FB is also a social platform, bringing together the characteristics of an SNS and also those of social media (OBAR; WILDMAN, 2015).
But, taking into account that Facebook’s influence goes far beyond the sharing links, images and short texts with friends and family is I have to look at Facebook as something even bigger. In addition to people, companies and organisations of different natures use Facebook as a space for interaction with its internal and external audiences; explore the services offered by the company as communication platforms and customer service, which leads to understanding it as something that goes beyond the definition of a social networking site or social media. one can consider Facebook as a central agent in social relations; a platform which acts as an intermediary between agents of different modalities.
USERS OR EMPLOYEES? THREE MOVEMENTS TO UNDERSTAND THE FACEBOOK DOMAIN
In the early 2000s, more experienced internet users started using feeds and RSS aggregators to stay informed. At that time, the Internet was experiencing exponential growth in publishing multimedia content and keeping up with the updating of various sites through RSS feeds and readers (or aggregators) it brought great gain to the people.
The process of production, circulation and consumption of information was, at that time, context, very site-centric. In a very important strategic move for the company (reference) Facebook implements a way to, at the same time, learn about the habits and preferences of its users, and provide this user with a way of showing his network which sites he values and admires. The “like” button, created in 2009, provided FB with the possibility of gathering information about its users and their habits.
In the meantime, despite the solution provided by RSS feeds and aggregators, the process for this to work satisfactorily represented an enormous amount of barriers for most people. In a second very strategic movement for the company, in 2011 the Facebook news feed is made available. this solution proved to be FB’s easy and efficient answer to the difficulty that most people people faced with RSS.
With these two moves – the like button and the news feed – Facebook becomes a central space for social life on the network. It constitutes as the a place where people’s tastes and habits are exposed, functioning as buttons, in a way form similar (but not necessarily identical) to those observed when on display of Orkut communities into personal profiles (RECUERO, 2006).
Creating the newsfeed converts Facebook to that place on the internet where everyone could publish content without needing their own website to do so. Through the newsfeed, people can follow each other’s posts practically in real time. This drives mass membership to the platform. Not it took a while for companies to also discover and start to explore that space. With this, the dynamics around the circulation of content becomes quite messy. People and brands fight for attention.
The solution to lessen information overload for users has been shown to be also as an opportunity for Facebook: the reduction in the organic reach of posts. Organic reach would be reduced so that brands that want to reach most of the audience they fought so hard to build could only be reached when Facebook got your money. Pay to achieve. The same logic as can be seen in the mass media. This solution is considered extremely strategically important because it is the perfect solution to provide FB with a template of business that guarantees you a continuous stream of income.
As said, these three moves – recovering: like button, email feed news and control of the organic reach of posts – are crucial for company consolidation.
In doing so, FB closes an important loop that provides the big business with power and, consequently, control over the lives of people and actions of companies.
It starts with monitoring and gathering information about people’s habits and tastes through the like button; This procedure assists in the collection of data that will help consolidate what we know as big data (COULDRY; POWELL, 2014). The second drive is the news feed, which gives people a space to centralised dissemination and consumption of information, without the difficulty represented by RSS. This second movement also takes companies into space, providing the noise to the FB, reason that is used as justification for the final movement: control of the organic reach of the posts.
In a way, that sums up Facebook: Everyone works for Mark Zuckerberg, even though they are not registered employees of the company. The people that use the web every day tell Facebook about their preferences via clicks on the like button on sites outside of FB and also on pages. Furthermore, Important information is provided through the engagement metrics, namely: Likes on posts, comments, shares, and link clicks. And the perfect illustration of the theme “The machine is us/using us” (WESCH, 2007).
Also, brands and other companies work for Zuckerberg by dumping content on FB and fighting to get more followers and build a larger audience for your posts in that space. The great advantage of these two forms of work provided to Facebook – for people and companies – it’s obvious: there is no remuneration paid by Facebook to those who collaborate with data and content as explained above.
It is the third strategic move worked on in this section that provides the financial income direct to Facebook. By controlling the sorting and reach of posts, the entities present on FB that intend to publish messages destined to their tanners have to pay ever-increasing sums of money to be able to provide your posts with reach to a larger part of your audience tanners. It is also this strategic move by FB that puts it in the same position of mass media companies, as discussed below.
PLATFORMS AND MASS MEDIA: MORE SIMILARITIES THAN DIFFERENCES
Even though Facebook should be or was initially envisioned to be constituted as an SNS, its growth has transformed it into a platform with features on a list that far surpasses those of an SNS and business objectives others. In addition, its operation is based on a business model that resembles what we are used to seeing in the mass media.
Companies that operate following this logic are called “attention merchants” (WU, 2017). The operating logic of this type of entrepreneurship is simple. The objective of this type of business is to keep the attention of the people focused on their products interspersing content of interest with offers advertising. The product is offered free of charge to people and companies that aim to reach these people to show them their commercial offers pay to these operators (the merchants) who display the message to the users.
Facebook is a complete example of an attention merchant; operating within the same logic of selling advertising spaces, as seen in the context of the mass media, on TV or Radio programming. However, due to the possibility from the collection of user information, such as an advertising platform, Facebook can go much further than broadcasters and even segmented media publications. And it is at this point that a difference can be found crucial between the modes of operation of Communication companies in the mass media and platforms like Facebook.
The differential that is, at the same time, the guarantee of a distinctive capacity for FB and a threat to different social processes is the issue of context and behaviour. Through user control functionalities, it is possible to configure the Facebook news feed to display information only and posts of direct interest to people. This is done by liking (i.e.: opting for follow/view posts from specific pages) and following only those friends which people want to receive/see news in their feed. However, there are also the non-direct way to configure the feed. Facebook learns from people’s interactions people and starts to prioritise publications that the machine understands to be of greater interest for each one. The consequence of this is called a filter bubble (PARISER, 2012): people will visualize only what pleases them. With this it is expected (and achieved) that people will stay more and more time connected to the service. The longer connected, the greater the amount of advertising can be shown to each user scrolling through the newsfeed for news.
How Facebook is collecting information about your habits and likes users within the platform (through interactions with posts) and also outside – through “like” buttons and navigation tracking scripts installed on websites that choose to insert these buttons in their environments – there is a virtually constant collection of countless information about people’s behaviour. FB’s initial justification for carrying out this type of action is that with these information the company will be able to provide increasingly intelligent filters to advertisers while providing users with exposure to advertisements that are more and more in line with your interests at any time.
Through this type of initiative based on people’s behaviour – Online Behavioural Advertising (BEALES, 2010; UR et al., 2012) – Facebook inserts different advertisements; personalised in the feeds of each of your users. despite the initial logic be the same – the platform acts as a message intermediary between advertiser and audience – there are some potentially problematic issues in that application.
In the context of mass media, if two people are watching the same television program in their homes, but in different neighbourhoods of the same city, the advertising message they will watch is the same. In the case of Facebook, due to the fact that publications of an advertising nature can be based on the behaviour of each user, each of these users will be impacted by different messages.
The consequences of this type of guidance are many. Starting with itself nature of Facebook where advertisements and sponsored messages are not easily identified by users. In this sense, there is an initial difficulty of up to differentiate what is advertising and what is a post that would naturally appear naturally in the newsfeed.
In addition, due to the personalisation of the message based on filters that were built from the characteristics, habits, tastes and behaviours each user, advertising messages can also be highly personalised and tailored to trigger specific behaviours in each user.
This question brings to the table another complicating point that deserves to be duly questioned and studied.
Anyway, returning to the similarities with the business model of mass media, if a certain brand wants its message to reach a particular audience, you must pay Facebook for the platform to display this message in the form of ads or boosted posts (posts made by pages liked by users but not shown to them due to low organic reach controlled by the company itself).
Through this set of strategic procedures, Facebook and other social media platforms – much more similar to what was previously understood as mass media – are adopting traditional intermediation practices than as a Social Networking Site.
However, as stated, with filtering and ad targeting tools, FB is even more efficient than mass media in providing the visualisation of ads and posts only by users who fit or meet parameters specific.
The initial idea that the SNS would constitute open spaces where participants (be they people or companies) could relate, publish and make information to circulate independently is, in practice, a fantasy. To understanding FB as an attention merchant, the realisation that free and truly disintermediated communication evidences a rather easy to see. In addition, the issues and specificities of advertising exploitation based on user behaviour is potentially problematic.
To become financially viable, these entities start to intervene in what is displayed to your users. What is published in these spaces is no longer shown for all the people each user or brand is connected with; only part of these people view what is posted by their connections. In that sense, organic reach is reduced and non-organic reach prevails; that is, understood as “unnatural” and that needs to be inflated through boosting of posts and of course ads.
By introducing this form of relationship with posts and advertisements, it is established, then, a billing model based on the intermediation of posted messages. The adopted model is that only through payments to those who control the reach of the posts, those interested in having their messages consumed by their public can spread messages and have the audience reached.
Therefore, although the context is digital, the logic of mass media, based on financial power, is the one that still prevails. Those with more money can take advantage of the best seats at the best times on TV, print media or radio stations and reach your audience. On Facebook, those with money can make your posts reach your audience.
IS THERE A SOLUTION? FINAL REMARKS AND REFLECTIONS
It is necessary, in the first place, to reinforce the point that the Internet, and consequently the web is an open and free space. In this sense, understand that no good solution for the collective can come from giving up control of the spaces and delegate this power to a large company.
It is necessary to regain control of communication processes (production, circulation and consumption of information) in the digital context (LANIER, 2019). Be by through the adoption and maintenance of spaces that are not controlled by corporations or with other initiatives that are not subverted to the imperatives of big data (COULDRY; TUROW, 2014). Perhaps the answer lies in remembering that the web is an open system and that RSS is still a very current and used technology (HOLIDAY, 2013).
In addition, for both individuals and companies, it is important to keep in mind that this social space represented by FB has a function. The features of this space for connecting people, as listed in the characteristics of an SNS.
Furthermore, for companies, today Facebook is used as a way to attract people and place them at the top of a marketing funnel (HALLIGAN; SHAH, 2009). deny your useful to try to completely eliminate this service from the digital context can be harmful. However, it is important to prioritize its use. Spaces like FB can be very useful for publishing messages, but they should not be the only way to do it advertising communication in the digital context.
In terms of business communication, although, as mentioned above, Facebook can be a good space to publicize a message and get people to a website and start communicating with them, it is necessary to understand that FB should not be the only way to achieve this. And, returning to the aspect of interpersonal communication, it is necessary to if you consider it strategic for individuals not to provide data that may later be worked aiming not the best for each one, but to meet interests and corporate goals (COULDRY; TUROW, 2014; SEARLS, 2012; SILVEIRA, 2017).
It is not the best solution to solve the problem and meet the interest collective, letting one or a few corporations control or decide what can or not see (JURNO; D’ANDREA, 2017). That’s what mass media has always done and that’s what Facebook does. For companies, it is not smart to invest so much money in content and deploy efforts to create an audience that cannot be reached because the platform controls this reach via algorithm (GILLESPIE, 2018).
It is still necessary to consider the sequence of controversies involving Facebook, especially since the US presidential elections of 2016, when it was demonstrated that the platform had been used to influence outcomes of that claim based on data explored by the company Cambridge Analytica (GRANVILLE, 2018). Since that time, repeated problems involving the management and management of user data were evidenced, causing a significant reduction in company reliability.
As it is a publicly traded company, the issues and controversies to be respect for the privacy and access to the data of its users represented an impact in the value of shares traded on the stock exchange. As a result, Facebook comes working intensely on its image and, recently, announced a shift, no less controversial, towards a more privacy-oriented focus (SULLIVAN, 2019). The controversy of this turn is due to previous statements by Mark Zuckerberg on the end of privacy (JOHNSON, 2010). Therefore, the last attack of the company towards a scenario more focused on the protection of user data is viewed with much disbelief and scepticism; certainly deserving study and future follow-up.
There are still a number of issues to be considered involving Facebook that help to understand the argument of this article that we concentrate the presence – both individual and institutional – in the digital context on platforms it may not be beneficial. Some of them deserve referral here for future developments.
The first is related to the influence of what happens on the platform in election results, for example. Due to algorithmic manipulation and formation of filter bubbles, communication platforms and especially Facebook, play an important role in spreading disinformation and news false. Actions aimed at prioritising checked and verified information contradict the dynamic created and maintained by the platform to put in people’s newsfeeds that which originates in your circles of friendship. As a result, sources of information checks are pushed into the background, creating an even bigger problem. An
One of Facebook’s action fronts in this regard is to act as an intermediary, also in financial terms, between users and content (SLOANE, 2017). for representing more a financial barrier (both for vehicles and for users), this type of initiative has obvious developments that deserve attention, problematisation and investigation.
Another important issue concerns the proliferation of hate speech in platform and how the company handles it. Issues have recently come to light involving the precarious working conditions and remuneration of employees of companies contracted by FB that act as responsible for evaluating content posted and flagged on Facebook (NEWTON, 2019).
Finally, one last issue that deserves follow-up and referral refers to the question of Facebook’s dominance in different aspects of communication in the social context. So much so that one of its co-founders demonstrated, in an opinion article, the need for the company to be divided, given the influence and power it wields on actions and society (HUGHES, 2019).
It is hoped that, through this text, the main issues related to impacts of platform actions, especially Facebook, in the context of Digital Communication have been addressed. Furthermore, it is expected that contemplated the intention of forwarding a set of possible developments of investigation for future work regarding the important issue of the use of social platforms, especially Facebook.
BEALES, H. The value of behavioral targeting. Network Advertising Initiative, v. 1, 2010.
BOYD, DANAH M.; ELLISON, N. B. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, v. 13, n. 1, p. 210–230, out. 2007. Disponível em: <https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/210-230/4583062>.
CASTELLS, M. Communication Power. [S.l.]: OUP Oxford, 2009. Disponível em: <https://books.google.com.br/books?id=5tEu8q-Aqn8C>.
COULDRY, N.; POWELL, A. Big data from the bottom up. Big Data & Society, v. 1, n. 2, p. 2053951714539277, 2014.
COULDRY, N.; TUROW, J. Advertising, big data and the clearance of the public realm: marketers’ new approaches to the content subsidy. International Journal of Communication, v. 8, p. 1710–1726, 2014.
ELLISON, N. B.; STEINFIELD, C.; LAMPE, C. The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x, v. 12, n. 4, p. 1143–1168, 1 jul. 2007. Disponível em: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x>.
ENGE, E. et al. The Art of SEO. [S.l.]: O’Reilly Media, 2012. Disponível em <https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Pnv_6UJ_KKMC>. (Theory in practice).
FOX, V. Marketing in the Age of Google: Your Online Strategy IS Your Business Strategy. [S.l.]: Wiley, 2010. Disponível em: <http://books.google.com.br/books?id=F4rF5SxYqMEC>.
GILLESPIE, T. A relevância dos algoritmos. Parágrafo, v. 6, n. 1, p. 95–121, 2018.
GILLMOR, D. We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People. [S.l.]: O’Reilly Media, 2006. Disponível em: <https://books.google.com.br/books?id=5DMSVPEv86gC>.
GODIN, S. Marketing de permissão : transformando desconhecidos em amigos e amigos em clientes. Rio De Janeiro: Campus, 2000.
GRANVILLE, Kevin. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need to Know as Fallout Widens. The New York Times, New York, New York, USA, 2018.
HALLIGAN, B.; SHAH, D. Inbound marketing: get found using Google, social media, and blogs. [S.l.]: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
HOLIDAY, R. Trust me, i’m lying: confessions of a media manipulator. [S.l.]: Penguin, 2013.
HUGHES, Chris. It’s Time to Break Up Facebook. The New York Times, New York, New York, USA, 2019.
JOHNSON, Bobbie. Privacy no longer a social norm, says Facebook founder. The Guardian, jan. 2010.
JURNO, A. C.; D’ANDREA, C. F. DE B. (In)visibilidade algorítmica no “feed de notícias” do Facebook. Contemporânea-Revista de comunicação e cultura, v. 15, n. 02, p. 463–484, 2017.
KAPLAN, A. M.; HAENLEIN, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, v. 53, n. 1, p. 59–68, jan. 2010. Disponível em: <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007681309001232>.
KELLY, K. Novas regras para a nova economia. In: SHETH, J. N.; ESHGHI, A.; KRISHNAN, B. C. (Org.). . Marketing na Internet. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2002. p. 23–36.
LANIER, J. Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now. [S.l.]: Vintage, 2019.
LECINSKI, J. ZMOT: conquistando o momento zero da verdade. 2011. Acesso em, v. 30, 2017.
LOCKE, C. et al. O manifesto da economia digital. [S.l: s.n.], 2000.
NEWTON, C. The Trauma Floor: The secret lives of Facebook moderators in America.
OBAR, J. A.; WILDMAN, S. Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy. [S.l: s.n.]. , 2015
PARISER, E. O filtro invisível: o que a internet está escondendo de você. [S.l.]: Zahar, 2012.
PEPPERS, D.; ROGERS, M. A new marketing paradigm: share of customer, not market share. Planning Review, v. 23, n. 2, p. 14–18, 1995.
RECUERO, R. Diga-me com quem falas e dir-te-ei quem és: a conversação mediada pelo computador e as redes sociais na internet. Revista FAMECOS, n. 38, p. 118–128, 2009.
RECUERO, R. Dinâmicas de redes sociais no Orkut e capital social. Razón y palabra, n. 52, p. 11, 2006.
RECUERO, R. O CAPITAL SOCIAL EM REDE: Como as redes sociais na Internet estão gerando novas formas de capital social//SOCIAL CAPITAL IN NETWORK: HOW INTERNET SOCIAL NETWORKS ARE GENERATING NEW FORMS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL. Contemporânea-Revista de comunicação e cultura, v. 10, n. 3, p. 597–617, 2012.
ROCKEMBACH, G. R.; GARRÉ, B. H. O WhatsApp e os novos modos de aprender dos Jovens na atualidade. Revista Thema, v. 15, n. 4, p. 1404–1413, 3 out. 2018. Disponível em: <http://periodicos.ifsul.edu.br/index.php/thema/article/view/1076>.
SANTAELLA, L. Da cultura das mídias à cibercultura: o advento do pós-humano. Revista FAMECOS, n. 22, p. 23–32, 2003.
SEARLS, D. The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge. [S.l.]: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012. Disponível em: <https://books.google.com.br/books?id=jbK7wSwqOFgC>.
SILVEIRA, S. A. DA. Tudo sobre tod@s: Redes digitais, privacidade e venda de dados pessoais. [S.l.]: Edições Sesc SP, 2017.
SLOANE, G. FACEBOOK’S SUBSCRIPTION PLAN GIVES PUBLISHERS HOPE AT LAST.
SPYER, J. Social media in emergent Brazil: How the Internet affects social mobility. [S.l.]: London: UCL Press, 2017.
SULLIVAN, Margaret. Mark Zuckerberg claims that, at Facebook, ‘the future is private.’ Don’t believe him. The Washington Post, 2019.
TEZANI, T. C. R. Nativos digitais: considerações sobre os alunos contemporâneos e a possibilidade de se (re) pensar a prática pedagógica. DOXA: Revista Brasileira de Psicologia e Educação, v. 19, n. 2, p. 295–307, 2017.
UR, B. et al. Smart, useful, scary, creepy: perceptions of online behavioral advertising. 2012, [S.l.]: ACM, 2012. p. 4.
VOGELSTEIN, F. The Wired Interview: Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Wired, 2009.
WESCH, M. The Machine is Us/ing Us (Final Version). Disponível em: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g>.
WU, T. The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads. [S.l.]: Vintage, 2017.
Take a look at this dialog:
It shows the owner of twitter responding a user of the platform insulting them.
Would you buy from a store where the owner behaves like this?
Would you buy anything from someone who behaves like this?
Would you be friends with someone like this?
Would you support a business of someone who behaves like this?
So… why are you still using Twitter? Seriously. The web is a huge environment. You can choose from dozens of other services. Just stop using (and by using you are endorsing this behaviour) Twitter.