On my (disabled) Facebook account #FacebookUnfairToNailaJ

As you may or may not have noticed, I am no longer on Facebook. This was not my decision.

Sometime between 2am and 10am on Monday, March 28, 2011, Facebook disabled my account. I'm still not sure why or how or when this happened, since I didn't get a warning or even a notification of any kind. Instead, on Monday morning, when I tried to log-in to my account, I was met with this message:

Account Disabled
Your account has been disabled. If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page here.

Ironically, the "here" link wasn't actually working, so I painstakingly navigated to this page, which told me:

Disabled - Ineligible
Upon investigation, we have determined that you are ineligible to use Facebook. Unfortunately, for safety and security reasons, we cannot provide additional information as to why your account was disabled. This decision is final.

Sounds ominous, doesn't it? I'm not quite sure how I was ineligible to use Facebook. I'm over the age of 13, I hadn't posted any spam or scam links (not even the "Sports commentator shows her boobs on TV" virus video that had been going around). I don't have a fake account, or multiple accounts, or a business account as a personal profile. I hadn't done anything different than I usually do, so none of the reasons Facebook Help pointed me to apply. And it's not like I had received any "warnings" from Facebook prior to my account being disabled, which apparently means that it was a "severe" security violation, according to this.

Finally, I found this disabled report form which I only knew to look for because I pay attention to these things. Did I mention I always read the terms and conditions for websites like these? I'm one of the few people I know who is actually fully aware of all the clauses in my insurance policies. I filled out and sent the form on Monday around noon, which is also about when I replied to their "confirm your identity" email, which told me that my case would be put in a queue and there was nothing I could do but wait. Fine.

Let me point out that I am an ideal Facebook user. If you're one of my Facebook friends, you know this to be true. I post a lot, encourage people to sign up or direct them to little-used features, and I report spammers and abusers. My career path involves using social networking so I'm all over the new tools and trends. Well, except Facebook Pages because I'd rather not get robbed while I'm out on the town. I'm the main administrator for the "Fans of Wil Wheaton" group, for which I received an unofficial stamp of approval from Wil Wheaton himself. I am also an admin on the World Partnership Walk Ottawa fan page and on the Macdonald Festival fan page. None of this is illegal, according to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Go ahead. Skim through it. I haven't violated any clauses.

Unless someone (or several people) reported me for spam or abuse (multiple times), I'm not quite sure how my account was flagged or why. Even then, reporting my account would be an act of malice and cyberbullying, which, according to Facebook's own policies, should have that user banned from using the site.

It's been 5 days. So far, I have not received any form of personalised communication from Facebook. In fact, other than the "please confirm your identity" email, I haven't heard a single thing from Facebook. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In the mean time, I'm barred from starting a new account because that would be a violation of Facebook's policies. Meanwhile, I can't do my job, do my volunteer work, and even, in some cases, my school work (where I use my Facebook account to "connect" with other online tools to access their information). Plus, multi-tasking with Facebook helps me clear my head when I'm dealing with complex ideas during my researching and writing process. As a result, I have been LESS productive during this busy time than I would have had my Facebook account still been active.

In order to try to expedite the process, I sent in the "disabled by error" form once more yesterday, filling in the content box with an abridged version of the information I've presented here. I also pointed them to #FacebookUnfairToNailaJ, a clever idea from @tfromdtown, who suggested I get everyone I know to trend that hashtag. That hasn't quite happened but several people in my Twitter network have been using the tag to express their concern or discontent at my profile still being disabled, and, worse, still not knowing why and when I can get it back.

Some examples:

@charlesjbarry: @NailaJ I was wondering why you unfriended me.
http://twitter.com/charlesjbarry/status/52769453997436928

@EastCoastKnits: Keep checking to see if @NailaJ is back on Facebook yet. Nope. #FacebookUnfairToNailaJ
http://twitter.com/EastCoastKnits/statuses/53581074462289920

@ToulasTake: @NailaJ WHAT?? You should create a #FacebookUnfairToNailaJgroup and ask ppl to join!! Oh, wait. You don't have a FB account. ;) #ISoSuck
http://twitter.com/ToulasTake/statuses/53305936877592576

Clearly, the impact of my account being disabled reaches beyond just me. I have effectively been disconnected from family members on the other side of the world because I never bothered to get an updated email address - we were Facebook friends. They can no longer reach me either. And on a local level, I can no longer interact with certain Kingston-area businesses whose main web presence is on Facebook. I can't check to see if my friend got the birthday card I sent her. I can't even wish a Happy Birthday to some of my friends and family. And when my birthday rolls around next week, they won't be able to send me their wishes either. I don't even know how many people will actually be showing up to my birthday dinner because by disabling my account, Facebook also disabled my event, which means my friends haven't been able to adjust their RSVPs (as I have been repeatedly reminded) and I can't make proper reservations.

Yes, it is sad, to a certain extent, that I have come to depend so much on Facebook. The good news is, I'm not the only one. The bad news is, without a Facebook account, you are very much excluded from life in 2011. What frustrates me the most, though, is that I haven't gotten even a hint of a response from Facebook and there is no other way to contact them. I'm in social media limbo and I am powerless to do anything to get myself out of it.

A Twitter friend mentioned that this happened to her in the fall and her account was restored in 3 days. Well, Facebook, it's been 5 days. I'm waiting.

On the Future of TV News

With reports of journalism jobs being hard(er) to find and discussions at conferences like the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications's annual convention, people in the news industry can't help but wonder about the future. Not just their individual futures but their industry's future.

It's a discussion we've had before, on various platforms and from various points of view. The conclusion remains that we don't know what the future will look like. We just know that it will be different.

I'd like to take a look at what is commonly referred to as journalism's main enemy: the Internet. Why does it work? Because it's customizable. It's targeted. Similarly, which TV stations/networks/coverage tend to make the most cash (and therefore survive longer)? Specialised stations and shows. Things like live sports, or channels dedicated to a single interest, like home design and renovations or fashion. These networks survive because they've found a niche market and they're feeding off of it, both in terms of ratings and ads - it's a targeted "sure thing" investment opportunity.

How does this apply to TV news? Journalists usually agree that all consumers should have access to a source of news that will educate and inform them as well-rounded citizens. In other words, just because your main interest is the stock market doesn't mean you shouldn't know what's going on in Parliament. But let's be honest. After the first five minutes or so of political news, you'll probably switch channels. A good news network will try to keep you watching despite your lack of interest, by using teases, for example. But that's not a commercially viable long-term strategy to retain your attention.

The only way TV news is going to survive in a future overtaken by the Internet, PVRs and "On Demand" is to give consumers what they want, and now. That, for lack of a better word, is what they want. So why not give it to them?

It's not just sports or specialised channels that draw audiences in. News events do the same. Remember #Obamawa? What about the #H1N1 scare or #Haiti aid or, the latest big issue, the BP oil spill? What do these things have in common?

People want to know. They want to know everything and they want to know it now. They just can't get enough coverage and they'll watch several news cycles on several news networks to get their fix. This effectively creates a niche market for information on this issue. But after a day or so, most of the viewers think enough is enough.

What is the future of TV news? Feed the monster. But only if it's hungry.

Every time an event or issue temporarily overtakes the news market, create a specialised "On Demand" stream that will broadcast anything and everything that has to do with the subject. Whether it's NASA's latest space mission or Canada Day, a natural disaster or a political faux-pas, create an individualised stream and feed the monster.

Most of the networks already do it online. Those who know about it and have access to the Internet at the peak of their interest will routinely stream press conference feeds or sporting event coverage. Currently, the networks offer these services for free, mostly because consumers won't pay for a service they're already paying for, whether they consider that to be their cable TV or Internet. Also, most people aren't comfortable paying for any kind of information on the Internet because they're certain they can get it somewhere for free.

But can anyone guarantee a high-quality, uninterrupted, 24h specialised stream? Not on the Internet. Not yet, anyway. But on TV? They've pretty much got it down.

My suggestion - and I want to note that I haven't crunched the numbers on this since broadcast finances are not something I'm familiar with - is to provide that specialised stream on cable TV. Users with a digital box can simply call up their provider (or use self-serve menus) and add CBC News Network 2 or 3 or 4 (for example), depending on which major news story they would like to follow non-stop. The subscription would automatically expire once the story and coverage dies down, or the user could call and cancel it at any time. Set a one-time subscription fee of under $5 per story/stream - my suggestion is somewhere around $3 plus any applicable taxes - and a minimum subscription period of 48 hours, and I'm sure people will pick up on it. I would.

The network would have to broadcast several signals, but since we're switching to digital anyway, it probably wouldn't put too much of a dent in the budget. Getting CRTC clearance is another story.

And what kind of coverage would our reduced newsrooms offer to their new avid customers? Live streams of any of the gazillions of press conferences going on about the topic, interspersed with airport-style "breaking news" segments recorded in a centralised studio, potentially by anchors assigned only to that specific developing news topic or perhaps by the anchor on shift recording for all the specialised channels. You could also throw in live hits from the network reporters on location assigned to the story, interviews with experts and people affected by the story, and related pre-packaged reports - which you're producing anyway. Add in re-packed news conference highlights - longer than the ones played in the main network's news cycle - and boards showing upcoming events related to story, and you've got a nice loop-able mix of non-stop coverage on the news event du jour for the modern news junkie.

In terms of staff, the only extra hires would be technicians to monitor the various streams and editors to package and produce the stream's content. Current online editors would be perfect candidates for this position since they already understand the technology and short attention span of today's news audience. Most of the content is already coming in for the 24h news stations and the live press conference feeds are usually provided as in-house service for a minimal fee.

That way, when a major news story or event takes over the news industry, we won't be overwhelmed by endless reports on an issue, meanwhile getting less than satisfactory coverage of all the other going-ons in the world. And we won't be saturated by a constant flow of information that will make us stop caring about a potentially important issue, or worse, make us actually care about a non-important issue. Like Lindsay Lohan being sentenced to jail.

I don't know about you, but if I could buy non-stop quality coverage of the next shuttle launch, I would. Even if I know I could watch it for free online at NASA TV. Why? Because I can get everything I need to know about that one topic in one spot. And because I'm a space geek. And a political geek would buy coverage to Obama's visit to Canada, and a TV geek would purchase a CRTC telecommunications panel package. In this case, the repetition of the news cycle wouldn't be such a bore because you would choose to watch it.

What do you think? Could dedicated temporary cable streams be the future of TV news?

I guess there's only one way to find out... Stay tuned!

On Nodar Kumaritashvili

As you have no doubt heard by now, there was a tragic accident at Men's Singles Luge training at the Whistler Sliding Centre on Friday.

21-year old Georgian athlete Nodar Kumaritashvili slid off his sled and off the track, hitting a solid post. When it happened, I was in the Mixed Zone. I didn't not personally see the incident, but I heard a disturbance. The reporters who were watching the live footage on the big screen exclaimed in surprise and distress.

Hours after it was all over, after the Opening Ceremonies, after a comforting dinner with some of my co-workers and lighting some candles at the Olympic rings in Whistler Village, I came home and turned on the TV. It was still all over the news. As well as a soldier's death in Afghanistan and a young woman's death in Ontario. It was a tough night for Canada.

I also posted a few stories on the incident. One on juggling being a reporter and being a human being. One on the balance between reporting the news and exploiting someone's death.

The latter got a lot of comments on my Facebook page, and most people agreed that the footage of the crash leading to Nodar's death should not have been showed. However, they disagreed on the degree to which the death should have been reported. I would like to share the comment I wrote in response to theirs.

It is worth noting that this was my third comment on the story. The first explained how the Olympic Broadcast Service cut the feed of the crash as soon as it happened, but CTV, ABC and other networks aired the full crash footage. CTV stopped airing the actual crash once it became clear that Nodar had passed away. ABC not only showed the full crash, they also aired a picture of his bloody face, receiving CPR before being put in the ambulance.

My second comment referred to the idea that people "need to know" and the media being the ones to deliver that information to keep people informed, though I didn't agree with airing the full footage and said that if someone was truly compelled to watch it, they could be pointed to it online.

Commentators on the post talked about conscience, the morbid interest we have in death - something we can't understand, on ratings and money, on having limits and respect and not airing something if you're "struggling" with the decision, on family and friends having to see it over and over again, and on how the incident airing live could not have been prevented but networks would never air the footage of someone being shot to death.

Without further ado, here is my long-winded response to all these concerns and comments. It is my form of therapy and sharing it with you will make it easier for me to deal with this horrific incident, put it behind me, and enjoy the rest of the Olympic Games.

There was no way of knowing what would happen live, so that's not up for discussion. I personally don't think that it should have aired completely, but if it hadn't, I and other reporters who are covering the story would have seen it and wouldn't have been able to understand what happened.
That doesn't mean that I would have put it on a broadcast. Like I said, I would have aired up until the sled started slipping, and cut it there.

An article doesn't work for TV, unfortunately, and having an anchor on cam for over a minute describing the incident doesn't work either.

There are rules in Canada - and journalistic ethics - that prevent the showing of someone's death on TV and it should have stayed that way. If there was any indication at all that Nodar had passed away (which there was - one reporter I talked to who saw the crash live (on the venue screen) said right away that he thought Nodar might be dead), then you shouldn't show the moment of death. It's a lack of respect, it's unnecessary, and it's gruesome.

Ratings shouldn't matter in this case. What if his family and/or friends had been watching and this was how they heard/learned about the death?

Similarly, nothing serious should have been tweeted/FB about the incident until the family was notified and the IOC confirmed the death. Reporting that there was a major crash is one thing. Putting it out there that he's dead when there hasn't been a confirmation is unacceptable.

Yes, journos want to get the story and get it first, but at some point, humanity has to step in. Just as there are embargo rules on deaths in military zones, there should be embargo rules applied to ALL deaths.

As for having it online, I don't think it should be advertised, but human beings can't help but be curious and want to see it for themselves to believe it, even if the footage is behind a gazillion disclaimers - people tend to ignore those. In this case, competition and ratings did take over, but before any networks put the OBS footage online, some people had apparently already put it on YouTube. That's gross and it pisses me off.

I was there, I heard the scrapping of the sled and the initial exclamation from those who saw it happen. I felt the moment of shock, when we were all frozen in our understanding and realization of what had and may have happened. Then, someone sprung into action and decided to head down to the crash site. By then, Nodar was already being moved into the ambulance. Some reporters saw more than I did, and photographers captured some gruesome images. I don't blame them, that's human curiosity. You do want comes natural, and taking the shot is what photographers do naturally.

I saw Nodar's feet as he was put into the ambulance. That was enough for me. When I saw the crash footage later, and how still Nodar had been, there was no doubt in my mind that he died instantly. The networks should have come to the same realization and decided NOT to air the footage.

Nodar Kumaritashvili, rest in peace. Here's a prayer for your soul and the quick healing of all our hearts. May we remember only the positives from your life and may your legacy make your favourite sport safer for all. I hope you left this world full of joy and the thrill of doing what you like the most, not fear or desperation.

My condolences to the whole Olympic family.

On Indexing

When I decided to change my blog URL, I thought I had it made. I was finally ready to go from the unsophisticated, now defunct http://starshinediva.blogspot.com to the more professional http://nailaj.blogspot.com.

"NailaJ" also fit in with my "new" personal online branding as it matched my Twitter and Flickr handles. When I realized that I couldn't change my Flickr URL, I was disappointed, but I didn't think it was that big of a deal.

That's when I discovered the intricacies of search engine indexing.

Though I was always more or less aware of how sites got added to search engines, I forgot to take the lack of indexing into consideration when I switched URLs. I went from having having a respectable minimum amount of incoming traffic daily to almost no blog hits. For the longest time (give or take a week), I couldn't figure out why. (Not that I particularly value accidental 30-second clicks!)

That's when I noticed my keyword stats. Google and Yahoo! were no longer sending users my way (except for a couple of hits from Google.fi). Why? Well, even though I worked hard to establish my blog and presence online, indexing is still a primitive technology and couldn't see that I was still me, just... under another name and in a different place.

All my pride at my blog being the first search result for "Naila Jinnah"? Gone. Now, I've resorted to hoping that people will click on my Twitter feed, look under the bio, and stumble upon my blog, or find me through LinkedIn. It's no longer easy for employers to simply look me up. My social media/online branding credibility? Also greatly reduced.

Hopefully, my online involvement and activities will help boost my worth in Google's eyes and I'll return to my former blog glory... name recognition included.

Stay tuned...

PS: Maisonneuve re-posted my blog "On Hand Washing". How cool is that?

Taking care of business

A few short business items...

As you may have noticed, I've changed the URL to this blog to better reflect my online brand. I started the transition from starshine_diva to NailaJ a few months ago when I switched my Twitter account name. Now, all my public accounts can be found by searching for "nailaj". The sole exception in the URL game is Flickr, where my display name is now "NailaJ" but my URL remains unchanged at http://www.flickr.com/photos/starshine_diva.

So please, do update your feeds and take note. My blog is now located at http://nailaj.blogspot.com.

I've started the process of uploading my 2009 AKFC Awareness Trip pictures to Flickr for easy public viewing. Hopefully, you'll see why I enjoyed Africa so much. Next step, the videos...

... "real" blog posts to follow, I promise! Stay tuned...

On #IN09

Wow.

What a whirlwind couple of days IN09 was! I really should have blogged about it earlier, but when I came home to Montreal, I also came home to a pile of work. Not that I'm complaining...

But I digress.

Last week, I flew to Toronto for The Interactive Exchange, formerly known as ICE, which took place from March 17 to 19, 2009.

It was amazing. I met so many interesting people with so many interesting thoughts, working on so many interesting projects. These people are truly innovative. They have experience being successful in our tumultuous times. They have great ideas about where the industry should be headed.

Sure most of the creative ideas came from social media types while traditional media emphasized that they wouldn't work as a business model... (Check out #IN09 on Twitter for all the fun.)

Still, an amalgamation of points from both sides might lead to sustainable platforms, both in terms of business and content. Don't ask me which points though... I'm not that smart!

Some highlights?

• The huge use of Twitter. Including the Twitter wall and panelist David Crow tweeting while on stage for "Future of the Medium (2): The New Rules".
• Meeting people I only knew online and making new contact who have become online friends.
• Discovering the variety of opportunities in interactive media, from news to gaming to social networking.
  
• Seeing what everyone else is planning, implementing, raving about, working on...
  
• Realizing that ethnography, aka the socio-anthropological impact of anything online is what really interests me.

And most importantly...

Finding out that there IS hope for the industry. Even though a lot of the news-related panels were a bit defeatists, I'm actually more optimistic now than before because I know the depth of creativity and the willpower of all those involved in helping the industry survive... no matter how different it will look and feel once it emerges from the turmoil.

Every panel I attended, whether I was there by choice or because I was assigned to it - via my super sneaky plan to get into IN09 by volunteering - gave me a wealth of knowledge and helped me grow as an online media content producer and enthusiast. Some filled me with wonder and others with so much information that I'll probably take another couple of weeks to finish processing it all.

And so, while this post was meant to be super insightful and full of goodies you may have missed if you didn't attend IN09, I'm just gonna leave it at this. And maybe I'll revisit the topic in a few weeks.

Meanwhile, check out the Twitter stream. It's worth it.