Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Netflix' keyword pg.1 of 1
24 AUGUST 2013

Kevin Spacey: television has entered a new golden age

"He said Netflix ... had proved one thing: 'The audience wants control. They want freedom. If they want to binge–as they've been doing on House of Cards–then we should let them binge.

'We have learned the lesson that the music industry didn't learn: give people what they want, when they want it, in the form they want it in, at a reasonable price, and they'll more likely pay for it rather than steal it. Well, some will still steal it, but I believe this new model can take a bite out of piracy.'

But if the medium was to continue in this rich vein, TV executives would have to adapt to the way viewers want to binge on their favourite programmes on the internet or by watching DVD box sets, Spacey said.

Younger viewers no longer saw any difference between watching TV and online. 'For kids growing up, there's no difference between watching Avatar on an iPad or watching YouTube on a TV and watching Game of Thrones on their computer. It's all content. It's all story,' he said."

(John Plunkett and Jason Deans, 22 August 2013, The Guardian)

1
2

TAGS

1950s1980s • Aaron Paul • AMC • AMC Networks • American Beauty • American Movie Classics (AMC) • art formaudience • binge • Breaking Bad (television) • broadcasterbroadcasting • Bryan Cranston • cable channel • cable televisioncharacter-driven stories • cliff-hanger • complex characterisation • control • David Fincher • demassificationdemassified media • DVD box set • Edinburgh Television Festival • Game of Thrones (television) • golden age • HBO • Hill Street Blues • Home Box Office (HBO) • Homeland (television) • House of Cards • iPad • Jack Lemmon • Kevin Spacey • Mad Menmusic industryNetflixOrson Wellespilot episode • programme maker • risk averserisk-taking • sense of total abandon • small screenstorytellingtechnological changetelevision channeltelevision networktelevision programming • The Sopranos (television) • The Usual Suspects • TV • video-streaming service • YouTube

CONTRIBUTOR

Alex Shutti
31 MAY 2011

Eli Pariser: beware online 'filter bubbles'

"Mark Zuckerberg, a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed. And the journalist was asking him, 'Why is this so important?' And Zuckerberg said, 'A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.' And I want to talk about what a Web based on that idea of relevance might look like.

So when I was growing up in a really rural area in Maine, the Internet meant something very different to me. It meant a connection to the world. It meant something that would connect us all together. And I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy and for our society. But there's this shift in how information is flowing online, and it's invisible. And if we don't pay attention to it, it could be a real problem. So I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time –– my Facebook page. I'm progressive, politically –– big surprise –– but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives. I like hearing what they're thinking about; I like seeing what they link to; I like learning a thing or two. And so I was surprised when I noticed one day that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed. And what it turned out was going on was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on, and it was noticing that, actually, I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links than on my conservative friends' links. And without consulting me about it, it had edited them out. They disappeared.

So Facebook isn't the only place that's doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic editing of the Web. Google's doing it too. If I search for something, and you search for something, even right now at the very same time, we may get very different search results. Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me, there are 57 signals that Google looks at –– everything from what kind of computer you're on to what kind of browser you're using to where you're located –– that it uses to personally tailor your query results. Think about it for a second: there is no standard Google anymore. And you know, the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see. You can't see how different your search results are from anyone else's.

But a couple of weeks ago, I asked a bunch of friends to Google 'Egypt' and to send me screen shots of what they got. So here's my friend Scott's screen shot. And here's my friend Daniel's screen shot. When you put them side–by–side, you don't even have to read the links to see how different these two pages are. But when you do read the links, it's really quite remarkable. Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all in his first page of Google results. Scott's results were full of them. And this was the big story of the day at that time. That's how different these results are becoming.

So it's not just Google and Facebook either. This is something that's sweeping the Web. There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization. Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet, is now personalized –– different people get different things. Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times –– all flirting with personalization in various ways. And this moves us very quickly toward a world in which the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see. As Eric Schmidt said, 'It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them.'

So I do think this is a problem. And I think, if you take all of these filters together, you take all these algorithms, you get what I call a filter bubble. And your filter bubble is your own personal unique universe of information that you live in online. And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do. But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in. And more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out. So one of the problems with the filter bubble was discovered by some researchers at Netflix. And they were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny that a lot of us probably have noticed, which is there are some movies that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses. They enter the queue, they just zip right out. So 'Iron Man' zips right out, and 'Waiting for Superman' can wait for a really long time.

What they discovered was that in our Netflix queues there's this epic struggle going on between our future aspirational selves and our more impulsive present selves. You know we all want to be someone who has watched 'Rashomon,' but right now we want to watch 'Ace Ventura' for the fourth time. (Laughter) So the best editing gives us a bit of both. It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber and a little bit of Afghanistan. It gives us some information vegetables, it gives us some information dessert. And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that, because they're mainly looking at what you click on first, it can throw off that balance. And instead of a balanced information diet, you can end up surrounded by information junk food.

What this suggests is actually that we may have the story about the Internet wrong. In a broadcast society –– this is how the founding mythology goes –– in a broadcast society, there were these gatekeepers, the editors, and they controlled the flows of information. And along came the Internet and it swept them out of the way, and it allowed all of us to connect together, and it was awesome. But that's not actually what's happening right now. What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones. And the thing is that the algorithms don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics that the editors did. So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see, then we need to make sure that they're not just keyed to relevance. We need to make sure that they also show us things that are uncomfortable or challenging or important –– this is what TED does –– other points of view.

And the thing is we've actually been here before as a society. In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot about their civic responsibilities. Then people noticed that they were doing something really important. That, in fact, you couldn't have a functioning democracy if citizens didn't get a good flow of information. That the newspapers were critical, because they were acting as the filter, and then journalistic ethics developed. It wasn't perfect, but it got us through the last century. And so now, we're kind of back in 1915 on the Web. And we need the new gatekeepers to encode that kind of responsibility into the code that they're writing.

I know that there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google –– Larry and Sergey –– people who have helped build the Web as it is, and I'm grateful for that. But we really need you to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility. We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough that we can see what the rules are that determine what gets through our filters. And we need you to give us some control, so that we can decide what gets through and what doesn't. Because I think we really need the Internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it's not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one."

(Eli Pariser, TED.com)

Fig.1 recorded at TED2011, March 2011, in Long Beach, CA. duration: 9:05

1

TAGS

57 signals • algorithmic editing • algorithmic filters • algorithmic gatekeepers • authorised voiceauthorship • balanced information diet • broadcast society • challenging consensus • civic responsibilities • civic responsibility • content editors • curate the world for us • demassificationdemocracydifferent perspectivesecho chamberEgyptEli Pariser • embedded ethics • Eric SchmidtFacebookfilterfilter bubbles • gatekeeper • Google IncHuffington Post • human gatekeepers • information dessert • information flows • information junk food • insular • insular communitiesinsulationisolated in a Web of one • journalistic ethics • Mark ZuckerbergNetflixnew ideas • new people • New York Timesno single standard • personal unique universe of information • personalisation • personalised filters • query results tailoring • relevancesearchsilotailoredTED Talksthe self • uncomfortable • Washington Post • Yahoo News

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
08 MAY 2011

Gamestorming: structured play for business innovation

"Games come naturally to human beings. Playing a game is a way of exploring the world, a form of structured play, a natural learning activity that's deeply tied to growth. Games can be fun and entertaining, but games can have practical benefits too.

This blog is about games designed to help you get more innovative, creative results in your work. We'll show you not only how to play them but how to design them so they fit your own specific work goals."

(Dave Gray, Sunni Brown and James Macanufo)

Dave Gray, Sunni Brown and James Macanufo (2010). 'Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers', O'Reilly Media

1

TAGS

Amazon.comApplebest practicesbusiness innovationchange agentscollaboration • creative results • Dave Gray • design methodsdesign the futureeBayeconomic growthelevator pitchexploringgamegame mechanicgame playing • game principles • games • gamestorming • gamificationgamifyingGoogle IncHewlett-Packardinnovationinnovative companies • innovative people • James Macanufo • learning activity • MicrosoftNetflix • networked economy • Oracle Databasesoftware companies • structured play • Sunni Brown • teamwork • toolkit • tools and rules • visual thinking • work goals • Yahoo!

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
22 AUGUST 2010

Most video on the web is published using the H.264 format

"Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access 'the full web' because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don't say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web's video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others."

(Steve Jobs, April 2010)

Fig.1 video of iPhone mugging attempt on Steven Levy's phone.

1

TAGS

2010ABCAdobe FlashAdobe SystemsAppleCBSCNNCODECcontentconvergence • ESPN • FacebookFox NewsH.264HTML5 • iPads • iPhoneiPodmobile device • MSNBC • National Geographic Magazine • NetflixNew York TimesNPRPeople magazinepublishing • Sports Illustrated • Steve JobsTime Magazinevideovideo on the webVimeoWall Street JournalYouTube

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.