privacy fail

In a nutshell: Path, a facebook-like social networking app, recently found themselves in hot water after a programmer discovered they’re uploading your entire address book to their Web servers when you use it.  Mike Arrington’s proposed solution is they should “nuke” all their data (and as disclosure, he’s an investor in the company).  My initial reaction is this is absolutely correct, but doesn’t necessarily address my real concern – moving forward, can I actually decide to trust Path or not?

I am in the “no photos of my kids on Facebook” camp.  Why?  Because Facebook has demonstrated a fairly deliberate motive to not keep my data private.  The company actually believes privacy is “Dead” so why would they even care about this kind of a thing?  They don’t, and that’s their decision, and since I think privacy is alive and well, I make the (easy) choice not to share anything about my children there (for so many reasons, but here’s one if you need it).  Enter Path.

When I first tried Path (and by the way, it’s one of the most beautiful apps I’ve seen for my iPhone), it seemed fairly clear they were pretty dedicated to privacy and your “real” social network.  Initially you were limited to 50 friends, and all sharing happened within the confines of the app itself.

Now, the 50 friends limit is up to 150, the app enables sharing to Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, and, lo and behold, there’s a privacy fail.

One can quickly look back to Facebook and say “privacy fail = no big deal”, unless, of course, your value proposition is around privacy!

As they say, it takes a lifetime to build trust, and mere moments to utterly destroy it.

Path is at a crossroads.  They must decide what they are, and what their stance on privacy is, and they must do it imminently.  If they want to be “the social network you can trust”, they have that opportunity.  But they are on the verge of squandering it.  Which leaves them as “the social network that’s not Facebook or Google+” and in that mode, I can’t imagine them doing more than just eking it out if they continue down this… wait for it… path.

I’d love to see Dave Morin (Path’s CEO) use this moment to step up, make a public statement on what the company’s vision is and what they stand for.  I for one hope they don’t choose… poorly.

Last January I wrote a post “Will Normal Folks Ever Use Twitter?” in which I decried the service from a “regular” person perspective, including the new user experience, search, etc.  It’s been almost two years, we’ve seen change of CEO, product team, engineers, lots and lots of cash, and #NewTwitter, but in my opinion, it’s far from enough.  I’m of the mindset that if Twitter cannot get it’s collective product experience together, their growth will flatten, and usage will recede amongst several populations (great post on that over at AllThingsD).  Here are some of my thoughts on how to improve the Twitter experience:

Eliminate URLs and @Users from 140 character limit
Twitter announced their official URL-shortener is here to stay, which is fine, but I think it’s a poor experience for all users.  Instead, I’d prefer to see a URL and an @User take up a single character each of the official limit.  It makes no sense, even in “tight” communication/messaging, to count against a link or a person simply due to character length. Twitter’s system should ingest all URLs and @Users and only count against the usage, not the length.  Further, all twitter clients should auto-expand the URLs, and preferably replace them with the title of the target website.  Here’s some examples:

whats your opinion on Google+ versus facebook and twitter?  do you think they’ll be able to “win”? @harrymccracken @Scobleizer @jlouderb @jlanzone

Is currently 147 characters, and I as a user would probably remove the 2nd half of the question to tie in the names.  Instead, removing the 39 characters “wasted” on the usernames would make the tweet legit.

i think this is the most important news of the day, everybody should take a moment, stop what they are doing, and read it.  http://bit.ly/p7Ez3c

The above is 144 characters, but of them only 6 were needed to uniquely identify the link, and 14 were a waste.  Further, if the above were auto-fixed by a twitter client, they’d know better than to click on the link.  Suckers.

Make Search Work
I’m not sure which is more useless, searching on twitter.com for something, or trying to stop getting printed catalogs from Restoration Hardware. It’s been more than a decade since Google figured out search, why can’t twitter?

Autocorrect Error @-Replies and DMs
Twitter only really has two “commands” and both can be done so wrong so easily.  That’s like having an iPod that doesn’t always play music when you pushed the play button.  Twitter should intercept tweets “gone wrong”.  Not only would this improve the product experience for all its users, it would probably save some famous people from incredibly embarrassing moments.  That said, perhaps this is just nature’s way of weeding them out?

So if twitter “sees” a tweet like “D @username” or “DM username” or ” D username” or anything *even close* to an almost-DM, the client should prevent it from being sent without a Yes/No pop-up dialog.  Same thing when a user starts a tweet with an @, since I still believe even experienced users don’t realize those tweets are fairly hidden.

What could possibly go wrong?

Offer Multiple Views
Lists are definitely a great way to view tweets, and the media views are good, but realistically they are barely a band-aid on the massive problem: separating signal from noise.  Twitter needs to offer a lot of new ways for me to view my twitter streams.  For example, how about letting me select a few users whose most recent tweets are simply always in my timeline.  Or how about showing me my stream based on which tweets have been retweeted at least X times.  I use Tweetdeck to separate numerous topics, but there’s so much more that could happen here.

#Explain #Hashtags #Somehow
OK, so a hashtag lets people tweet about one topic, and really only seems to exist because of the brokenness of Twitter search (see above).  But most of the hashtags I see make no sense, and even clicking on them doesn’t exactly “answer” the question of why they exist. How about having users “register” a hashtag for a period of time?  Even if multiple users do that, it’d be fine.  Then when a new user clicks on a hashtag, they can see all the “terms in use at present” to close the loop on it.

Eliminate Trending Topics
When was the last time a single trending topic was actually useful to you?  That’s right, it was never.

I'm sure I'd learn a lot by clicking on these...

Help Manage Contacts
Ever get a DM from someone, try to reply, but can’t because they aren’t following back?  That’s not user error, that’s product design error.  Users shouldn’t be allowed to DM without following the target themselves. Alternately, at least inform the user they aren’t being followed back…  Also, why can’t I easily ingest LinkedIn and other contacts into the people I follow?

In Conclusion

The reality is I could keep going.  I could explain why 140 characters is arbitrary at this point and should be bumped up to ~200/250 without “damaging” the service.  I could talk about how they should fix username squatting issues.  I could talk about improving integration with other Web services.  I could talk about fixing the RT/Retweet issues.  But then I’d have to write more, and that would far exceed my character limits.

Scobleizer doesn't have quite a "ring" to it...

Wondering who that is?  Here’s the link, and just for fun, I’ll try to get through the whole post without otherwise identifying him.  Oh who am I kidding, it’s the infamous Scobleizer, Robert Scoble.  He recently wrote a post on why he’s betting on Google+.  Here are some key reasons, and I believe they are represented fairly in context:

What I’m noticing is Google+ gets the best stuff first. And this is “with no one on it.” (That claim cracks me up, a new post shows up every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day, and that’s with following only 5,000 people here)

My videos get more views after a month, due to Google and other search engines, than they do in the first day (which is when you’d see them on social networks).

Google+ items are the best way to get my media into Google search. I’m already seeing that. Now that there’s a search engine here on Google+ it’s even a bigger deal.

How do you best capture the EMOTION of your time? Blogging? Not for me anymore. Tweeting? Not for me anymore (I will continue being there, mostly to let people who won’t leave that system know what I’m doing and where I’m doing it — it has turned into a UI for my Facebook and Google behaviors). Facebooking? Yes. I’m still there and will be for forseeable future at http://facebook.com/robertscoble

But other than that, what is my blog for? Monetization? Nope. My bosses are very willing to pay me even if I give up my blog completely. Branding? Does having a big logo help anyone? Really?

I think I can summarize his arguments into the following statement: Google+ is a great content discovery tool for both content consumers and products, and a personal blog and Twitter don’t capture enough emotion and conversation.  And I think he’s right — for Robert Scoble, and possibly a handful of others — and I can further understand why they have the passion for the site.  I’d argue, strongly, that for the majority of other people, and not just mainstream users but technically sophisticated ones as well, Google+ is utterly lacking the experience consumers want.  It doesn’t have my actual friends in it, nor does it seem to have the features that they will want (and they’ve reinvented the use of the + button, and there aren’t multithreaded conversations, and and and).  But I’ll instead just do the counter to Robert’s key points above.

First, it’s my assertion that most people don’t much care about finding “the best stuff” nor do they care about the speed at which they find it.  To my friend Robert, it’s a very important thing, which is understandable given the nature of his career.  Most people, however, are consuming a trickle of content, and are not living in “real time”.  Most people found out about Michael Jackson dying, Steve Jobs resigning, and the Japanese tsunami many many hours after the events, with only a tiny fraction of us in the few seconds or minutes after it was announced.  Considering the availability of blogs, twitter feeds, and other streams, if the mainstream really wanted to consume more stuff in real-time, we’d already see much higher spikes in traffic to some of these sources.  Google+ being “best” or “fastest” is one of those situations where “good enough” beats great by a long shot, and this isn’t going to send it users.

If I run fast enough, I'll have all the news!

Robert’s next two points have to do with getting his content to a wider audience – I’ll keep this point short and sweet: the vast majority of people rarely create content that they share with the general public.

Next up is creating emotion – I don’t mean to sound too harsh here, but the “emotional fabric” of Google+ is roughly on par to that of a sheet of loose leaf paper, maybe slightly less.  Google+ is about as bland and expressionless an environment as I have seen online, it’s only slightly more “warm” than their search results.  Facebook is unquestionably a better experience from this perspective, and as clever as the Googlers are, incorporating the warmth it’d take to create this kind of environment is simply beyond their DNA.

Let's just put it this way, in the movie version, they get Costner to play Google+

Lastly, on what is a blog for?  It’s about identity.  It’s only because of the “.com” that Robert grew an identity as Scobleizer (like it or not).  If a random person were to hear about Robert Scoble and decide he wanted to learn more about him, read his works, etc, he’s going to end up at his personal identity site.  Which is, at present, his blog.  In the future if it’s a smorgasbord of content distributed across the blog, YouTube, Building43, Google+, Facebook, and the occasional tweet, he’s diluting his brand.  Now luckily for Robert, he already has a brand, and he can really push the limits of sites like G+ and Facebook to accommodate his following behaviors.  But again, none of this ties into the identity of a random individual online, who is, like it or not, probably based on Facebook, with occasional presences on Twitter, Yelp, and other sites.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t question if Robert himself is getting a lot, at present, out of Google+, it’s clear he is.  But I’m shocked he’s betting the future on it.  I feel like we saw this play out once before, back in the FriendFeed days.  At the time, he was warned by Michael Arrington not too invest too heavily in that service. And just because “it’s Google” isn’t enough to be certain of permanence, in fact Google’s killed quite a few products recently.  And if Google+ really becomes a “ghost town” that the founders themselves aren’t interested in participating in, I wonder how long it can survive.

Just like governments, mixing “creativity” with “banking”, taking naked pictures of yourself and hoping they won’t end up on the Internet, and well, this stuff, tech companies have a certain inevitable amount of failure built-into them.  Sure, IBM, Xerox and Motorola have existed for many decades, and both Microsoft and Intel still have dominant positions, but if we really think about the “powerhouses” in technology today (Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple), they are all fairly young (I’m using the argument that Apple effectively reinvented itself in the late 1990s).  And if we look ahead even 10 years, it’s hard to argue those four will hold they same positions they do today.

Little known secret? Sony guts.

Of the four, I’d personally assess Google and Facebook as “most vulnerable” to obsolescence (just a hunch, I’m sure I’ll be ridiculed in the commentary for such a statement), and with the points made on “why Facebook’s the new Yahoo!” by Mike Elgan and Mathew Ingram, I thought I’d write up a little somethin’.

First and foremost, I see Facebook as in no way similar to Yahoo!  Not even a little bit, I’d barely even figure out how to compare the two companies (other than the “.com” at the end of their URLs).  The key thing, beyond whatever “Facebook.com” is all about, is that Facebook is unarguably the most well-distributed and deeply integrated service on the Internet.  According to Nielsen, Facebook users spent 53 billion minutes in May 2011 using the site – and this does not count Facebook-integrated features on other websites.  The Facebook “social graph” is at/near/above 700 million users at this point.  That’s a lot of the Internet.  A lot.

My God. It's Full of Likes!

I don’t see Facebook dying due to “stale technology” – they aren’t about technology (other than scaling, etc).  They aren’t about UI/UX (tip to FB: the “clickable thing” in an update should be the action/verb, not the user nor target/noun).  Most of the typical norms of a website’s laws of gravity simply don’t apply to them, due to the massive inertia they’ve built with their userbase. Further, the inertia of existing social graphs make growth of Google+ and Twitter effectively irrelevant – I think speculation that “Facebooking” will shift to a different social network is extremely hard to substantiate.

I used to take the “cool club in town” position on Facebook, and the moment it wasn’t “new” and instead full of B+T crowds, it’s popularity would sink and people would move on.   But I don’t think this argument holds up anymore, Facebook is too popular in too many demographics and the “cool kids” are “over” the fact that their lame parents are there as well.  It’s like the mall – just because Dad’s shopping at Eddie Bauer isn’t stopping the utes from hanging out in the food court.  I know it too is easily picked apart, but I think the mall argument works really well as a parable for Facebook.

Why does the one in the middle look so. much. older?

When you want to open a Gap, and you want customers, you find a mall.  Orange Julius? Mall.  Crappy replica furniture Bombay Company? Malls.

What’s the online equivalent of that?  Facebook, Likes, Facebook Connect, etc.  Facebook is the way brands are engaging with customers online.  And this is just making them even stickier.

I just hope there's a kiosk with a crazy lady selling mystical gems.

So how might Facebook fall?  A few thoughts…

1. Massive shift to mobile interactions - Facebook’s weakest point at present is its mobile presence.  If the world continues its mobile/social/web path, I believe Facebook has less to offer that ingrains it so deeply in the traditional browser/web world.  Without the stickiness across mobile apps (especially with the iOS shift to Twitter and Android’s inevitable equivalent with Google+), they could be highly vulnerable.
2. Massive revolt on social networking – At present, our society is unfortunately radically focused on narcissism and fulfilling ego problems.  This may (please, please, please!) change, in which case folks’ll have much less desire to share every (useless) nuance of their (mundane) lives with their friends/acquaintances/people they kinda met once.  If these patterns ever emerge, you can put Facebook at the top of the chopping block as it’ll become the target of said pushback.
3. Massive elongated platform failure – Whether its by hackers or internal problems, a significant outage of Facebook and its related services could cause things to unravel in a significant way.  I’d wager that if a Facebook Connect downtime prevents users from logging into websites/apps for more than a few days could cause the digital equivalent of a bank panic by both the web services and the end-users themselves.
4. Massive rapid shift to post-PC platforms – Similar to (1) above, if the shift from a computer-based world to a tablet iPad, phone, connected TV, and other device world happens, and Facebook can’t provide the same “glue”, they’ll be vulnerable.
5. Massive privacy breach – When I say massive in this case, I don’t just mean Facebook makes some (typically) poor decision regarding consumer rights/privacy, I mean something really awful happens, and its very public, and its entirely due to Facebook.  Like, huge act of terrorism on highly visible people entirely tied to something that was Facebook’s fault.
6. Unknown – This would be the deux ex machina of today’s post – something otherwise unpredictable comes along and clobbers them over the head.

It’s hard to predict the end of giants or eras.  But that they will fall and whither away is predictable.  Curious to hear any other people’s thoughts on the topic in the comments below!

Last week I had the opportunity to speak at the Over-The-Top TV Conference and wanted to quickly share some of my experiences at OTTCON.

Overall, it was an enjoyable experience with many knowledgeable industry experts in attendance. My talk on how the Connected TV space has changed in the last 6 months went well and was written up by Ken Pyle at the Viodi View. His article is worth a read, and discusses many trends in the Smart TV space, including the rise of the second screen. Quoting from his piece:

There are kinks with two-screen interactions that need to be ironed out, as pointed out by Jeremy Toeman of Stage Two. He cited the example of the use-case where multiple people are watching television and the one, whose smart phone is controlling the program, goes to the bathroom, effectively taking the remote control with him. Similarly, who is the master, when multiple people are trying to control the second screen from their respective personal media devices? This could portend a new generation of “remote control wars”.

Jeremy Toeman also gave designers some good tips, including:

* Lean back means “passive experience”.
* 2nd screen should have all the text heavy comments.
* People don’t want to log-in or have passwords on their televisions.

Toeman’s updated his predictions for losers and winners in his session. He cited the big service providers, TV manufacturers and content owners as being among the winners. He suggested that the biggest winner would be the consumer, provided the new features that the over-the-top approach unleashes are not overwhelming.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks to everyone who attended the Over-The-Top TV Conference and shared their passion for the next generation of TV.

Starting today, Amazon Prime customers can take advantage of the company’s new, unlimited video streaming service. Amazon Prime Instant Video is free, with a few caveats. Quoting from Engadget:

This is only for paid Prime subscribers, so if you’re a college student or the like with a free membership you’re sadly out of luck. Also it’s US only at this point.

Of course, comparisons to Netflix are inevitable here. Early reports say that Amazon’s catalog of titles is comparable to Netflix, while the quality of Prime’s video has been so-so. Prime Instant Video will have some ground to make up if it wants to compete toe-to-toe with the market leader.

Amazon streaming is missing from a few key set-top boxes, including video game consoles and TiVo.

There are 180 million current generation video game consoles on the market, and they all offer Netflix. So that means that Netflix is in more components, has a larger content library and offers higher quality video.

Which is not to say that Amazon is DOA. Not by a long shot.

It would be interesting to know what the goal of Prime Instant Video is. Do Bezos and company want more people to pay for Prime shipping, or is this offer aimed at getting people used to watching videos on Amazon and – later – purchasing media from their ecosystem?

Amazon can assemble a formidable library of content. They don’t need the same titles as Netflix, but the shows and movies need to be compelling. To win here they need to offer a blend of new releases and older classics (think TNT shows and the kind of programming you chill out with on a Sunday afternoon). Expect the library to mature as the service does.

Amazon could also white label Prime Instant Video and let other content providers offer their videos over the Prime streaming media center. The troubled Blockbuster brand could find new life here as a streaming only service (although at this point we’re not even sure if Blockbuster knows what streaming video is).

Finally, Amazon needs to get on as many pieces of hardware as they can. If people can only use Prime Instant Video on their desktop, it will have limited value. One of the first goals needs to be getting on gaming consoles, mobile devices and televisions. Again, this is an attainable goal, especially for Amazon.

I have always maintained that there can be more than one “winner” in the streaming media wars and there is certainly room for Amazon’s service to grow alongside Netflix. While the two services will probably compete for some customers, one does not have to lose for the other to win. It is clear, though, that the stakes of the online distribution game have just been raised.

I keep running into a problem with Gmail. Every so often – without warning or good cause – it rejects one of my emails as undeliverable spam.

These aren’t mass email blasts or creepy solicitations. These are emails addressed to my coworkers and colleagues getting bounced back for no discernible reason.

From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>

Date: December 2, 2010 3:16:09 PM PST

Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

Ugh. There are two main problems here. The first is that an email between two people who work together and know one another in real life is getting marked as undeliverable spam. This should be a “solved problem”, but apparently it isn’t. Bummer.

The second, far worse, problem is that I have no (reasonable) way to correct to this error message. There is no one to contact in person. Literally not one customer service professional at Google to call and fix this situation. The only recourse I have is a help forum. Which is ridiculous.

Sure, I could pay Google $50 per year and get phone support, but this seems outrageous. And I am not the only person who feels this way. Quoting from Krish Subramanian’s excellent post on this same topic:

I fully understand that Google cannot offer support for free users. However, there should be some other option for me to get in touch with Google (say, an email support for an one time fee of $10). It is important to recognize that Google Apps Standard Edition users not only help Google monetize through Google Ads, they also serve as a “testbed at scale” for Google so that they can serve their paid customers better. Also, many free users eventually become paid users too. In short, these free users are not freeloaders and Google should offer some way to escalate those issues that are not getting solved in the forums.

That last point is especially salient. I support Google in other ways. I search, I click ads, and I use and evangelize their apps. They should be invested in my well being and satisfaction.

But this issue is larger than Gmail’s nonexistent customer service. The bigger picture is a lack of humans in charge on the internet. In order to flourish, the internet can’t be all bots and algorithms. There needs to be a personal touch influencing (or at least checking) high level decisions.

Now, humans can’t run the entire web, but certainly we can do better than this scenario recently published on the RAAK blog. This social media firm set up a few Twitter bots in order to see how klout measured their influence.

The four bots Tweet[ed funny non sequiturs] once every minute, once every five minutes, once every fifteen minutes and once every thirty minutes respectively. They are completely anonymous, have no avatars or custom user profiles set, and do not follow anyone.

The results weren’t pretty. Here are the klout scores for the once a minute bot.

It should not really be possible for a bot to reach a Klout Score of 50 within 80 days merely by Tweeting random (yet entertaining) rubbish every minute, should it?

No, it shouldn’t. And even though the CEO of klout jumped in to the comments to participate in this discussion, the real issue here is a lack of humanity making key decisions online.

I would look back at Rand Fishkin’s post which we wrote up last month:

Why does a page rank first in Google for a particular query? Why does one link stay on Reddit’s homepage for hours while another, with a similar number of votes, fall off in just a few minutes? Why does Facebook show me ads for customer service jobs at Comcast? Why did Amazon recommend buying whole milk with this Badonkadonk Land Cruiser?

If we don’t understand why these suggestions were made, couldn’t that bias us against trusting future recommendations from these services?

As a closing example of the frustrating state of the machine-run internet, Google once marked my personal blog as Spam. And there was literally nothing I could do about it other than fill in some form and hope (I also tried doing the blinky-thing like in I Dream of Jeannie, not sure which was more effective). Not one person to call. No one to follow up with face to face. A machine blindly made a (wrong) decision and I couldn’t contact a human being to talk about why this happened and how we could prevent it from happening in the future. For all the talk about “connecting people,” the internet – as it is set up today – actually does a poor job of allowing humans to interact with one another when they need to most. When things break or don’t turn out as expected.

This isn’t just an problem with Google. It’s Facebook. It’s Yelp. The system we have all agreed to online is callous, demoralizing and broken. And it’s getting worse.  Yes there are help forums and FAQ sections and Customer Service email addresses on Help Pages. But what I am arguing for here- and what the internet should be – is a network that unifies and empowers people. A place where all are welcomed and made to feel welcome by people who care about getting things right all of the time. And for that to happen, the way things work online will take a more human touch.

In other words, make the Internet more like Soylent Green.

Warning: Spoilers Ahead (for real).

For a time, twist endings, surprise cameos or cliff hangers were shocking secrets that were not discussed in the media. Psycho ads even asked movie goers to “not give away the ending.” Ah, that was nice.

Then, around the time of “The Crying Game” and later “The Sixth Sense,” people and media began to publicize clever plot twists (in my opinion the “big secret” of The Crying Game was that it was a pretty lousy movie). This lead to an environment where viewers went in to movies aware that there was going to be a “shocking twist ending.”  On the small screen, virtually every show seems to end with “scenes from the next episode” as if we viewers need some teaser just to watch the following week’s episode (heightened to its worst moment ever by having Heroes show a preview of a scene later in the same episode during a commercial break – like I was about to change the channel, but ooh, cool, now I won’t just to see that little gem.  come on.).

Now, with the rise of real time media, it seems that no secret is safe anymore. CNN Showbiz recently tweeted that Ricky Gervais will make a surprise cameo in “The Office” later this season. The blog post mentions a “top-secret cameo, which was shot in September.”

Awesome. Now I know it’s coming. No spoiler warning. Nothing in the headline that hints at a secret that is getting ruined. Just a leaked secret that can not be unseen.

If I am already an Office fan, viewing that tweet, blog post or headline made my experience with that show worse. I know that the “secret” cameo is coming so the surprise and delight that would accompany an uncredited, unspoiled cameo by Gervais is gone. If I am not a fan of the show then I have no reaction to the headline. It is just news (sort of), as opposed to a leaked secret.

The bottom line is that there is no upside to broadcasting spoilers as news with no warnings attached that tell people what is coming. Sure, some small segment of fans or potential viewers will be gratified by the news, but the large majority of other fans and casual observers will either be spoiled, upset or indifferent.  In my opinion, treating audiences this way is, in a word, disrespectful, as if we are just so flippant that the only way we can possibly like your content is by knowing what’s coming.  Some of us just like you for what you are, not what you will be.

Another example of real time media and spoilers comes up frequently in sports. Readers of this blog know that I am a big hockey fan and support the Montreal Canadiens (Go Habs!). Living on the West coast means I watch all games timeshifted, and have done so for over a decade.  At first I just had to ignore my family calling me after/during big games – that was easy.  Over the past couple of years they’ve learned (somewhat) not to text me either until the next day.  But between the terrible UX surrounding the otherwise awesome NHL Gamecenter Live (Web and iPad app both default to showing scores, not hiding them) and the official Twitter accounts for the teams and sports services, I have to close multiple windows just to avoid getting score updates!

It is easy to point fingers at Twitter and say that real time media and 24-7 micro-broadcasting has erased our right to be surprised by films, television and sports. But I don’t see this as a technology issue. This is a personal issue. Why do so many people have the desire to spoil things? We all should reexamine our Netiquette in this regard. How can we live spoiler free in a media saturated world? The answer is not more tech (a top of mind easy solution is the creation of spoiler accounts (ex: @CanadiensMTL and @CanadiensMTLScores) and spoiler free accounts for social TV clients, or splitting up fans by time zones). The answer, for me, at least, is more conscientious communication when it comes to disclosing spoilers, secrets and plot twists (the first rule of Fight Club is…).

I think this issue is sure to grow and gain more media attention with the rise of social TV. For instance, how do you avoid a twist ending or a season-finale cliff hanger on the west coast if all of Twitter is sending out the  the ending as soon as it airs back east? Expect even more on this topic as Connected TVs take off and “Social TV” heads toward the mainstream.