recent posts

lolcats: biznass serieuse

October 19, 2007


I’m officially a lolcats expert (and a fluent French speaker, to boot!):

Invasion de chats mal embouchés sur le web

My Aussie friend Kat had it translated with babelfish, with some hilarious results:

Invasion of cats badly embouchés on the Web

Nicolas Ritoux, special collaboration
September 25, 2007 - 08h42

Did you receive these laughing images of cats in new positions, decorated of a poorly spelled English legend? They are called the “Lolcats” (all stupidly, “cats which make laugh”). The phenomenon took as well width as they are now million, increasing the ones on the others to create one of these long “running planetary gags”, called “even” whose Internet has the secrecy.

New images of these “lolcats” are added tous.les.jours in sites like iCanHasCheezburger.com sent by courriel to the friends and colleagues.

One does not weary any more these photographs of cats to the humanized remarks. Does a cat open large the mouth by tightening its legs? The legend indicates “invisible Sandwich”. Another does the depths seem lost in of a sofa? It shouts with the assistance so that one left it from there.

But the “lolcats” are not right animals put in situations the human ones. They have a very technological side, which returns some their jokes difficult to include/understand. And due, they draw from the depths of the subcultures of Internet, the forums of clavardage to the video games on line, where one speaks the “leet” (or “l33t”), a kind of technological Creole born from Internet.

As in these more or less élitistes places where the language holds place of cultural membership, Lolcats speak in “ur” (your), in “teh” (the), in “mah” (my), combine the first nobody with the third (”I edge haz” instead of “Edge I cuts”) and finish all their plurals in Z.

One of the latest to date: the famous photograph Stephen To grip cherishing its cat, diffused on its Web site, transformed into “lolcat” on the blogist Torontoist. COM: “I’ m in ur house, snugglin ur PM”, known as the legend (I am in your house, in the train of câliner your Prime Minister). It is the grammatical construction most run to the “lolcats”; it is inherited the video games on line when an unfavourable player exclaims for example “I am in your base stealing your flag”.

A “idea-virus”

“What is most interesting in it, it is to know that you form part of the gang which included/understood! joke Sylvain Carle, a contractor Web of Montreal and specialist in emergent technologies. That combines at the same time pussies very cute with sentences used for a long time to joke in the rooms of clavardage. That makes these jokes accessible to more people.”

One really does not know where this history started. All which one is sure, it is that it acts again “even”. What “same”? It is a recurring gag of Internet, which evolves/moves at any speed by multiplying allusions to itself. If the first episodes are missed, one is foutu. Reason moreover to appreciate to form part of those which include/understand.

“” same “, it is a shared vision of the world, indicates Sylvain Carle. It is an idea which takes the form of a virus and which retorts itself, on the basis of a handle of initiates until reaching whole planet.”

Example of replication of very “the lolcat”: a cat taking a sandwich in its hands, of which the legend known as: “visible Sandwich”. If one missed the joke of the “invisible sandwich”, one missed the train.

Hardly appeared, already last of mode

“the lolcats leave a long tradition likewise, but they became particularly famous because they are nice and does not require technological knowledge to be included/understood, indicates Kate Raynes-Goldie, enquiring of Toronto specialized in the cyber-culture. At the beginning, they referred to obscure references of Japanese video games, but maintaining the joke evolved to more human things to which everyone can stick.”

But when the “same one” becomes too popular and too accessible, it is there that he dies. “In Expo Web 2.0 in San Francisco, last spring, it was the large trick. But now that one speaks about it in the media general practitioners, it is inevitably the end, analyzes Sylvain Carle. It will be taken again soon by an unspecified publicity campaign and it will be the fatal blow.”

A site to create your clean “lolcat”: http://wigflip.com/roflbot.

(Next post is deleting Facebook, part 2. I promise!)

Tags: lolcats, academic

9 comments | Leave a comment | Permalink

So, you want to delete your Facebook profile… (Part 1)

October 8, 2007

So, I’ve been a very naughty Facebook researcher. A few days ago, I tried to delete my Facebook account. Despite my best attempts, I’ve only gotten as far as deactivating it, thanks to the insane demands of Facebook. I’ll save that story for another post, because its a fun one.

I’ve been toying with the idea of deleting my account for a while now. There’s a bunch of reasons. A lot of it has to do with privacy and IP issues (did you know Facebook owns everything you upload?) I’ve also had an account since 2004 and convinced a lot of my friends to join, so I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like to be on Facebook. I was curious about what it’s like for everyone else (or at least that’s my excuse for being a Facebook researcher with no Facebook account… heh). But, mainly, it was my growing weariness with the increasingly performative nature of personal conversations that are carried on on the wall, for everyone to see and know how popular you are. I’m totally complicit in this, and I’m very aware that I’m writing for an audience when I’m leaving wall messages, even though we all pretend we aren’t.* I’m beginning to notice this personal/public audience split is decreasing the amount of genuine, meaningful and intimate exchanges I have with friends. When you are writing for a public audience, you aren’t writing everything you’d want to say to a friend in private.

I’m not sure when Facebook added this feature, but what really made me want to run away was when I started noticing that random snippets from other people’s wall conversations were appearing in my minifeed. So now these public conversations are even more public, and are randomly broadcast out to your friends. The weird thing is, there’s no “earlier” or “archive” on the minifeed, and the stuff that appears there seems to be based on constantly filling the page with new items, rather than actually representing what happened and when. So, unlike LiveJournal’s friends list (my all time favourite web app), you don’t actually get a reliable or meaningful stream of what your friends are up to, and you can’t be sure they are seeing what you’re doing either. It seems that the minifeed isn’t actually about keeping up to date with your friends, but something else. The design of the minifeed gives me the sense that we’re taking on elements of blogjects, feeding the Facebook zeitgeist and creating this huge mass of depersonalized random data, which is feed back to us on the minifeed and becomes our means of interaction with one another. We interact with the depersonalized mass, rather than each other as individuals. That’s why the feed is random and has no archive. All that matters is a consistent stream of newness, rather than the actual content.

Gosh, I sound like a luddite or one of those old school internet researchers who, as my technology-journalist-friend Nicolas said so hilariously, thinks he understands the entire philosophical implication of the internet, but still takes 5 seconds to click a dialogue box. But, despite all my concerns (theoretical or otherwise), it was actually my discovery of the difficulty in actually getting off Facebook that sealed the deal in my decision to delete my account. As I’ll write about in my next post, the huge amount of work involved in actually deleting your Facebook account is something I’m sure we can all agree is worth worrying about.

*Or maybe we’re all in denial. A surprising finding in Alessandro Acquisti and Ralph Gross’ 2006 survey of Facebook users was that people reported their own use as socially acceptable (finding classmates, keeping in touch etc.) but reported everyone else’s use in negative terms, such as using Facebook for self-promotion or attention whoring.

Tags: academic, facebook, privacy, thesis

12 comments | Leave a comment | Permalink