Rob Manuel

I’ve tried to quit Facebook a handful of times. No big flounce and I’m off but a quiet retreat from something that I find myself looking at too much whilst shaking my head. Yes there’s privacy issues, yes it’s a creepy bit of tech that turns all our memories into mulch to sell us product but mostly I want to leave as it sucks time.

But when I’ve tried to quit I get a message about needing to stay out for 14 days else my account will be reinstated. This is the problem. As Facebook has become a reflex – I’ll often log instinctively when hit with a browser, staying logged out is a problem.

Imagine trying to give up cigarettes but Philip Morris made you sign a legal document demanding that you carried around a packet for two weeks. You’d quite possibly hit a trigger for sparking up (leaving tube stations was a strong one for me when I used to smoke), reach for the fags, smoke half of it before realising, “oh damn, but I’ve given up. Oh well, it’s obviously too hard, I’ll stay on the cigs.”

This is how Facebook operates. It’s the pusher of an addictive product that puts massive barriers in the way of leaving.

But there is a way to just say no to the cyber-cigs. Change your password to something awkward rather than that flurry of characters you’ve ended up using on half the sites on the web. Then you can’t log in by accident.

Feeling emboldened that I’ve managed to get out of Facebook I decide to close as many sites as I can – well not Twitter as I’m not ready to shake that addiction – but all the sites I faffed around with and then got bored with. It says something very clear about the ethics of a site in the ease of letting you leave. These things should be fun, not prisons.

Google plus – very easy. Nice and clear. No weird psychological pressure. +1 for Google.

Flickr. No trouble. One of the good guys.

Ebay – easy but won’t let me leave properly for 180 days in case there’s problems with my transactions. Hmmmm.

Posterous – very difficult to find the leave button but emailing them got a prompt response allowing me to bugger off out of there.

Linkedin – won’t let me close immediately and says it needs a moderator to approve my decision to leave – apparently having over 250 contacts is significant. Later I get an email saying. Still remanded in cyber-custody as of writing this.

Quora – like Facebook makes a distinction between closing and deleting your account. A deletion can only be obtained via emailing an admin. Waiting on this as of writing.

Obviously, all these sites have potential for almost infinite abuse of your data but I suspect the willingness to let you leave represents some level of respect for you as an individual. As that great philosopher Sting once sang, “if you love someone set them free.”

Just had an email from Connor Clark who writes, “I’ve rather foolishly decided to write my dissertation on ‘animated GIFs in web culture’ looking at its history on the early web to its recent renaissance. as part of this i would like to interview some relevant artists/curators.”

Connor has give me some questions, but I thought it might be interesting to throw this out to the internet for comments? Please add your thoughts.

When you started the B3ta message-board in 2001, did you consider it as a community for just sharing images, rather than animations?
Neither. We saw it as a community for encouraging people to create web projects.

However, animated gifs were part of the message board tho pretty much from the start. I was mildy obsessed with them and used to make tributes to my favourites.

Like a bunny in an ascii mirror:
http://www2.b3ta.com/_bunny/

And my tribute to the crappiest / best animated gifs at the time. It already was a world tinged with nostalgia and I was saying goodbye in 2001
http://www2.b3ta.com/videokilledtheradiostar/

Many viral animated GIFs have originated on the B3ta message-board, is there one which is particularly memorable for you?
I liked the Halifax one which had Howard shagging a girl from behind. Two frames – utterly changed the meaning of the slogan, “who gives you extra?” Halifax’s lawyers got in touch and made us remove it but they’ll never remove it from my mind.

Do you see animated GIFs as purely nostalgia for old technology, part of a wider trend of retro-fetishism?
Maybe. Mostly I think it’s user interface thing. They play inline without anyone having to press a button. Handy in messageboards etc.

GIF animation was arguably made obsolete by technology such as Flash and streaming video, why do you think it continues to thrive on content sharing websites such as Tumblr/Reddit?
See above. They also loop which Youtube doesn’t. Some jokes are better for being repeated endlessly without having to press play.

The recent closure of Geocities highlighted how easily web content can disappear forever, do you feel that the visual history of the Web (user generated content rather than web design) should be taken more seriously?
Of course. It’s a crime that so much primary source history gets flushed down the memory hole in the name of saving a few quid on web space. Let’s burn libraries. No? Exactly. @Textfiles is good on this subject – talk to him.

‘Web 2.0′ saw a drive to professionalise the Web; Facebook for example does not allow animated GIFs. Does the often purile/lo-fi aesthetic of many messageboard posts represent an anti-professional ideology?
Web 2.0 wasn’t a drive to professionalise the web. It was just marketing speak to glue together a bunch of sites that centered around user created content rather than paying a load of journalists.

BTW: Twitter does allow ani gifs if you are careful. 128px square and less than 1mb.

Anyway – please feel free to answer Conner’s questions yourself. Please do.

Skittles.com is doing a PR stunt – they’ve redirected their homepage to a twitter search on the word skittles. There’s no way to censor this – hence it’s marginally amusing to those inclined to say RUDE THINGS.

Here. Look – I managed to get some message about “anal cunt” to appear on their home page. Fantastic. I’m a big boy and my parents are proud of me.

Click for bigger

What I didn’t expect is that my message would be retweeted several times by other peeps:

Click for bigger

Thought I’d take a screengrab as I was pleased with myself – partly as I’m only dipping my toes in twitter and this is the first time I’ve ever felt a real inkling of its power.

Quite what Skittles make of it all is anyone’s guess – yes they’ve got their brand mentioned everywhere, but at what cost? Annoyed mums seeing rude messages? I’d pay a good 50p to sit on a few meetings and see how it’s going down internally.

God_of_the_Mind writes, “A couple of issues ago you posted an article called Mutant Toys, with the inside-out teddy bears. Well I had a crack at it myself and took before and after pictures. Have a gander. The question begs, ‘Have I just ruined a perfectly good teddy bear?’”

Actually, I should mention that I too had a go at this, although I forgot to photograph the before state, and poor teddy’s eyes didn’t really work, so there’s bulldog clips instead. Obviously.

Just been for a cheeky trout in the office bog and spied a book stuffed behind the radiator.

Entitled “Bla Bla 600 Incredibly Useless Facts”, it sounds like the perfect formula for shit-lit: open on any page and there’s something to startle or make you laugh.

(As a quick aside, there’s a litmus test for populist entertainment: is it funny or interesting? It’s no coincidence two of the more popular acronyms on the web are LOL and OMG. LOL = Funny, and OMG = interesting.)

On reading the back-cover, I find I’m reaching for another netism: FFS, these facts are complete nonsense, and anyone who’s read more than two pages of every-ones favourite spoilsports Snopes will recognise this stuff as sub “duck quacks don’t echo” bullshit.

Whilst wiping my shitty arse I briefly fantasise about debunking all 600 “facts”, but of course, I can’t really be bothered. However, I can spend ooh maybe 20 minutes taking the stuff from the cover and testing the rubbishness using the mighty power of the internet.

MARILYN MONROE HAD ONLY SIX TOES ON HER LEFT FOOT

I know this one without Googling, the rumour relates to an early set of photographs in which her feet looked a bit odd, and Snopes calls false.

A GOLDFISH CAN ONLY REMEMBER THE LAST THREE SECONDS OF ITS LIFE

I’ve mostly heard this as 10 seconds, but maybe goldfish are getting stupider. Sounds like pants to me, as survival would get a bit tricky of you forget you were being chased whilst swimming away from a predator. Anyway, according to Wikipedia, “Research by the School of Psychology at the University of Plymouth in 2003 demonstrated that goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colours and sounds.” Ha. That’s one in the eye for goldfish haters.

ADOLF HITLER HAD ONLY ONE BALL

Another I know without checking, this relates to an uncooborated Russian autopsy that was probably published for propaganda purposes. Am I right? Am I? Straight Dope is calling it bollocks. (Did you see what I did there? I used the word ‘bollocks’ to refute a story about testicles. Yay me.)

EVERY YEAR, MORE PEOPLE GET KILLED BY DONKEYS THAN PLANE CRASHES

Hmm. This is hardly comparing like with like. Snopes calls it as a urban myth, but best of all is the rabidly pro-donkey site Love Long Ears which passionately pleas, “Help us to dispel this awful rumour-mill factoid – it’s not true, it’s bunk, treat it as such. Please don’t let this statement stop you from getting a donkey or any other animal if you wish to own one!”

GEORGE WASHINGTON GREW MARIJUANA IN HIS BACKYARD

Possibly true, but it sounds like a misrepresentation of the facts. The hemp plant has been widely cultivated around the world for food and making rope. To call this crop marijuana is to emphasise the psychoactive properties of the plant. Wikiquote reports Washington as having said, “Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!” but I find no reputable source that suggests George was a stoner.

Ok, that’s five facts from the back page. Four were complete horse-shit whilst one was written to deceive. That gives Bla Bla a score of 90% toss-monkey. Don’t buy the book, burn it.

Just a quick observation – I was just looking at YouTube and as I clicked onto another page, a banner ad caught my eye.

It was something to do with a Cadburys Creme Egg user group. I was curious because a few years ago, I pitched for a job for them (rejected pitch here), and I’m wondering what they are up to.

Anyways, so I hit the back button and the page displays a different ad.

This strikes me as ironic, as about the the first time in years I actually wanted to click on a banner ad, I couldn’t.

Surely the web should work better than this by now? If a bit of content is on a page, then it should stay on the page?

Yes, I know I can use Google to find the page, but that’s not the point.

I’m taking some small delight in using my blog to give Orange a small bit of bad PR.

Basically, they’ve really cheesed me off by refusing to change my contract. “You’re incompatible” they say.

All I wanted to do was change the contract from a £50 one to a £30 one, as the amount of call minutes this represents is closer to my actual phone usage.

But no, phoning them up to change it, I’m told that I’m “incompatible”. I ask what this means, and they can’t tell me. I’m not satisfied and ask to speak to a manager, and I’m promised a call back.

Two weeks later and no return call, so I’ve cancelled. Sod them. They can’t be bothered to give me any form of service for £600 per year? Then I won’t give them what they want, i.e. my cash.

Right. So what next? I’m left without a phone? Not for long I hope…

Well, first off, I happen to know about a website called Quidco. It’s a rather interesting thing, basically it gives you the cash back from affiliate schemes. (Websites pay other websites to promo their deals, Quidco give it back to the consumer.)

Certain mobile phone companies (not naming them here) cash back very heavily, up to £100 for yearly contracts.

(Ever been to a middle-man phone hawking site that’s offering you an iPod if you can referrer three costumers? This is how they afford it, you’ll be earning them up to £300.)

So, that’s £100 in my pocket, plus the contract I’ve picked is half-price for 18 months, meaning I’m only paying £17 for approximately the amount of minutes I wanted to pay Orange for.

So yah-boo-sucks to Orange. And listen to your customers when they say they want to change plan!

UPDATE: I’m now sorted out with a lovely new Sony Cybershot phone. It only took me about two hours of reading to work out how to “de-brand” it. I.e. Stopping every damn button from pimping ringtones…