Technically Incorrect

Updated 2.37pm PST with comments from the developer

The first step in discerning the source of the "Should Obama be Killed?" Facebook poll has been taken.

Jesse Farmer, of Bumbalabs in Palo Alto, Calif., has given permission for Facebook to reveal that he was the developer, but, significantly, not the author behind the poll that nauseated many Monday.

The poll, which was removed by Facebook when it was brought to the site's attention, offered those who wished to enjoy such an exercise four potential answers (see screen grab by The Huffington Post). More than 730 people participated before it was removed.

On Farmer's Twitter feed, Twitter.com/jessefarmer he describes himself as "Entrepreneur living in Palo Alto, Calif. I grew up in the Midwest and think everyone is awesome." Which will naturally be a relief to many.

(Credit: The Huffington Post)

On his site 20bits.com, which I am fairly sure stands for one more than 19 bits, rather than two obituaries, Farmer seems a genial and sociable type, saying: "If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, drop me a line and let's meet up!" He may be getting one or two requests.

Farmer describes himself as "a bit obsessed with data and using it to build better products and companies."

On his Twitter feed, he declares that he has already talked with the Secret Service, who he endearingly abbreviates to "SS." Farmer posted: "The conversation with the SS was fine. If the goal was to resolve the issue + inform the SS, the way it went down was suboptimal."

A reading of a rather fractious Twitter exchange with Bababoosh, an Oklahoma City programmer, suggests that Farmer was unhappy that a third party had informed the Secret Service rather than leaving him to do so.

Farmer accuses Bababoosh of assuming he had "the worst motives."

In an e-mail to Technically Incorrect, Farmer says he first saw the offending and offensive poll Monday morning.

"I have a system in place to flag potentially offensive polls that I check once per day; I checked it Monday morning, saw the poll, and deleted it," he said.

Which might make some wonder what other potentially risque polling might have slipped onto Facebook's pristine pages.

He says that he knows the Facebook identity of the poll's author and one presumes that this author might have received a social call from the Secret Service.

Farmer's own chat with the service he describes as lasting 15 minutes and being "friendly," although he won't comment on specifics.

Perhaps it might amuse some and appall others to discover that he is an Obama supporter.

He told me: "I went to school at the University of Chicago (SB Mathematics, '06), where he was my state senator. I volunteered for him in the primaries, worked with the California data team, and canvassed in N. Michigan during the general."

All human life is to be seen on Facebook. Which, for some, is not necessarily a good thing.

Facebook has removed a poll asking "Should Obama be killed?" But not before at least 730 people took part in the poll. The poll offered four potential answers to the question: "Yes", "No", "Maybe," and "If he cuts my health care."

The Plum Line, a Washington Post site, reports that the Secret Service has begun an investigation into who might have been behind such an imaginative exercise. It appears that a blog called the Political Carnival first noticed the poll and alerted the Secret Service over the weekend.

(Credit: The Huffington Post)

Facebook is increasingly becoming a popular forum for all kinds of hateful speech--from Holocaust Denial Groups to anti-Muslim organizations. Groups purporting to hate specific individuals have also found a home on Facebook, and the company has not found it easy to keep up with the amount of policing that is required to cover more than 300 million members.

However, this poll will represent for many an entirely new dimension in human dementia. It will be interesting to see how quickly the source is located and who that source might turn out to be.

Facebook's Barry Schnitt told me in an e-mail that while the site doesn't comment on actions against individual users, "penalties for posting content in violation of our policies range from warnings to temporarily or permanently disabling accounts." He also confirmed that the site is working with the Secret Service but couldn't provide any details of their investigation.

As to the source of the poll, he said: "The third-party application that enabled an individual user to create the offensive poll was brought to our attention this morning (Monday). It was immediately suspended while the inappropriate content could be removed by the developer and until such time as the developer institutes better procedures to monitor their user-generated content."

It's not every day that a high school student gets some advice on social networking from a president.

So it was interesting to hear where President Obama's focus lay Tuesday when talking to 40 students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va., before his nationally broadcast speech to America's schoolkids.

There he was in the school library. Books abounded. Yet his focus fell on Facebook. According to the Associated Press, President Obama asked the 40 assembled kids, all sitting politely on nice wooden chairs, to think very carefully about their socially-networked content.

"Be careful what you post on Facebook. Whatever you do, it will be pulled up again later somewhere in your life," he told the kids.

Now you can see that the president, himself the father of two girls, is worried about the future consequences of present actions.

Is the president right to worry about kids' Facebook postings?

(Credit: CC SEIU International/Flickr)

He is concerned, no doubt, that practices such as sexting and other possibly absurd types of openness on social networking sites might lead to some future calamity.

But I wonder if this is entirely true. One of the strange effects that time has on human life is to render somewhat meaningless the actions of the past.

Once, people might have been concerned if their employee, or, indeed, their president, had smoked pot at some point in their flailing youth. Now, it seems almost a rite of passage. If you didn't at least try it, you seem just faintly peculiar.

Once you reach a certain age, does anyone really care what you did when you were 14? So isn't it fair to wonder just what effect kids' socially networked indiscretions might have 20 years from now?

Might it be that by then social networking will seem so ridiculously normal, that you will seem strange not to have some something embarrassing in your younger days, available for all to see?

Might it be possible that those who eschew a life exposed online will be seen to be the odd ones, rather than those who let what seems to be a little too much hang out?

I know it may be difficult to imagine, viewing it from our current perspective. I know that employers these days often search the Web for incriminating evidence of the misdeeds of potential employees. ("Aagh. He got drunk at a party three years ago! I'm not employing him!")

But it's extraordinary how quickly the apparently abnormal becomes the norm, especially with the accelerated change created by anything Web-based.

Of course, there will be those of you who will have had your heads turned by another aspect of the president's talk.

Why did he say "Facebook"? And not "MySpace"? And not "Twitter"?

I know there will be at least two boardrooms Wednesday where everyone will be terribly concerned about this apparent endorsement of Facebook's ubiquity.

I wonder if the CEOs of MySpace and Twitter will blog about it, or at least slip some bons mots of concern onto their Facebook pages.

We live in times when celebrities become mayors, governors, even presidents. They use their good looks and power to speak out about all the important things in the world. Like cancer. And fur.

Which is, perhaps, why Sense About Science, an organization that exists to give a little scientific perspective in the midst of our madness, has published the Celebrities and Science Review 2008.

This delightfully downloadable pdf shows celebrities for what they really are: somewhat deficient. Scientifically speaking.

The report barely conceals its glee at what it sees as some of the magnificent nonsense that has emerged from celebrity brains, navigated celebrity tonsils and popped out from celebrity mouths in 2008.

Here is Kelly Osbourne, daughter of Prince of Darkness, Ozzie Osbourne, talking about her mother's cancer: "Because of her history of colon cancer she is absolutely convinced the Pill caused the disease. I don't have a microwave in my house for the same reason."

The best scientific evidence apparently suggests that the Pill reduces the risk of cancer. It simply doesn't eliminate it. And there is no evidence, the scientists say, that microwaves cause cancer.

The Review is critical of the spit parties organized by Anna Wojcicki, wife of Sergey Brin, and founder of 23andMe, a company that tries to identify people's genetic markers.

It quotes clinical scientist Mike Hallworth on the subject: "Genetic testing is not fun if it makes you think you're likely to develop a devastating disease or gives you false reassurance. Very often, the evidence linking genetics to individual outcomes simply isn't good enough yet. And 'high quality but limited scientific evidence' is a bit like 'a definite maybe' - a contradiction in terms!"

One can only imagine the smirk on scientific faces when they included this quote from Ivanka Trump, a spit party attendee: "I have a very low chance of becoming obese. That makes me exceedingly happy." Perhaps even happier than plastic surgery might make her.

Sing with me! Eeeee equals MC Squaaaaaared.

(Credit: CC Current Events)

The Review's authors go on to dismiss Barack Obama's and John McCain's views on autism, Sarah Palin's deep thoughts on fruit flies, and Julianne Moore, Demi Moore, Oprah Winfrey and Kate Moss on such varying subjects as 'natural' chemicals and detox diets.

The authors aim some of their toppest guns towards Tom Cruise, who sagely declared: "Psychiatry doesn't work. [...] When you study the effects it's a crime against humanity."

Professor Simon Wessely, a psychiatrist from Kings College, London shoots back: "The real crime against humanity continues to be the enduring misery caused by the major mental illnesses across the globe, and the continuing lack of resources devoted to supporting those afflicted and their families and to improving our currently inadequate treatments."

I found myself cheering for the scientists, until the Report's very last page. (Yup, I read all of it.)

For some strange reason they decided to go after the entirely innocent Mariah Carey and her explanation for naming the latest showcase of her modest talents e=mc2. She explained: "Emancipation equals Mariah Carey times two."

A painfully humorless mathematician, Dr. David Leslie, retorts in the Report: "Unfortunately, Mariah has misread the algebra. The two in the equation means c squared, not mc multiplied by two. The correct reading of the equation is E=mcc, so perhaps Mariah's re-interpretation should have been "Emancipation equals Mariah Carey Carey"? I would have been very happy to chat with her and check it out before she went to print."

Oh, come on, Dr. Leslie, why would Mariah need to confirm her artistic interpretations with you? I mean, you're no Oprah, are you?

I have just arrived in that Europe place, where, just as in America, few are indifferent.

Happy, sad, angry, amazed, disbelieving, numb. These would be a few of the words that might describe reactions to Senator Barack Obama's decisive victory against John McCain.

However, it's easy to let today's strong feelings mask yesterday's. In previous elections, there was much concerned discussion (on the losing side, naturally) about machines that could be programmed to steal the vote.

Voters would walk up, touch screens and, thanks to a little venal hocus-pocus, their choices might allegedly be made to disappear by those who favored one side or another.

Those thoughts appear silent today, partly because the race wasn't close, and partly, perhaps, because enough people decided that this was a time to assert themselves and their views, regardless of the technology that was being used to hear their voices.

Negative thoughts about paperless machines recording votes might also have reflected a wider view of technology's potential for a more embracing control of both individuals and society.

(Credit: CC VoxEfx TM)

I hate to mention Google at this point (well, not 'hate' exactly) but what will it do with all our information? How long will it REALLY keep hold of it? And who will be monitoring whether the company keeps its word?

Then there's the folks who will own your particular cloud, one that will increasingly store more of your inner depths and secrets? Can you trust them?

Technology has, in the last very few years, allowed far more people to express themselves to a wider audience than ever before.

However, certain people with high technological skills are spending many of their days trying to find ways that technology can control humanity rather than enhance it.

Perhaps some simply believe machines are a little more interesting than humans. Perhaps they look forward to the day when machines replace humanity.

Yet there are some who have slightly more cynical and nefarious intentions.

Today, a day when there is much concern about the UK Government storing every single email and web visit in a giant database, there are many real and ordinary people in America who feel slightly reassured that no technology (yet) can stop their voices being heard.

A company run by Hillary Clinton's fine people-knower, Mark Penn, got together with the highly-regarded Landor Associates, an organization that once came to the enlightening conclusion that "green is the color of reading," to research the relationship between presidential candidates and brands.

It makes for very colorful reading. Purple, to my eyes.

It seems that the respondents, who came from all political shades and who intended to vote, were asked to choose which brand best characterized Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden.

The brands were from most of the essential categories--cars, coffee, Internet search engine, portable music devices, social networking sites, mobile phone carriers, you know, the essentials.

The survey's results betray a depth of consumer perception that few might have expected.

While Joe Biden and John McCain are both AOL, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are both, apparently, Google.

"I'm a PC. You betcha I am."

(Credit: CC SSKennel)

The authors of this report suggest that the Google association reflects the personable and youthful nature of both candidates. Which might leave some to wonder whether respondents might have thought that AOL stood for An Old Label.

The candidates were also evenly split when it came to cell-phone brands. Senators Biden and McCain were both AT&T, while the Obama-Palin tandem apparently said to people "Verizon."

Where does that warm and fuzzy conclusion leave the iPhone? Ah, now, the survey is quite definite that Barack Obama is the iPhone. While the other three are Blackberries. No, really.

And you may begin to feel a little more queasy, regardless of your political leanings, when you discover that all four candidates were iPods (you don't see a little Zune in Joe Biden?).

I am fairly confident, however, that there will be metaphorical or, in some cases, physical regurgitation at the conclusion that, when it came to social-networking sites, all four of these fine politicians were MySpace, rather than Facebook.

The authors seem to put this down to MySpace's alleged game-changing nature. But some might think this clear bilge, as even a cadaver could tell you that John McCain is, my friends, a quintessential Friendster.

Now I know that the most important questions for readers, far above "Believer vs. Atheist" and "Desperate Housewives vs. the Discovery Channel," is that huge political issue: "Mac vs. PC."

Please put down your weapons, step away from all sharp objects, blunt instruments, potential projectiles and, um, walls.

Alright, here it is.

Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, and John McCain are, so the people say, all PCs. Yes, just like Sanjay Gupta, Eva Longoria, and the men with beards and glasses.

While the 1,002 voters were tied, yes, their heat was dead, when it came to deciding whether Barack Obama really is a Mac or a PC.

Who would have thought that, should he be elected, the first crisis facing Senator Obama would be an identity crisis?

I understand that some people might be upset that Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, has decided to personally endorse Barack Obama for President.

I have heard echoes that this taints the Google brand, that McCain-supporting Google employees (yes, both of them) are upset and that Mr. Schmidt just might be using this endorsement to foster his company's, or even his own, ambitions in the event of an Obama victory (Gosh, no. Really?).

Here is the news. Every CEO is political. Being CEO is, in its very essence, something of a political position. With a small 'p' and sometimes with a larger 'p'. Most of the time, employees will have a pretty clear idea of which political winds their CEO might be helping to blow.

"Eric Schmidt has endorsed me. That should carry Florida, right?"

(Credit: CC Aficio2008)

But criticism of Mr. Schmidt opens up wider issues.

Do we really think of brands as Republican or Democrat? No more than we think of JetBlue or Marriott Hotels as Mormon brands. Think about it- Tide: Republican or Democrat? (Stain removal suggests Democrat, no?). What about Honda? (Those eight-seater people carriers surely suggest Democrat, don't they?)

And should we really believe that a CEO's political proclivity determines how he or she goes about their daily work?

I wonder if some of the whining at Mr. Schmidt carries with it a suggestion that a CEO's politics determine what kind of company leader he or she might be. Republican-leaning CEOs are frightfully mean authoritarians, while deeply Democrat CEOs are cuddly, feely, people-friendly, all-listening altruists. Didn't you know?

It strikes me that the one thing, perhaps the only thing, all CEOs have in common is a remarkable fondness for amassing money. Their political bent doesn't generally dictate how they view their employees or their brands.

I've seen avowedly Republican CEOs who were immensely sensitive and talented managers and Democratic CEOs who were venal, insensitive numbskulls. And vice-versa. I once encountered a CEO who voted as often as possible for Ralph Nader. She was a very fine CEO.

The truth is surely quite simple: Some CEOs are good, some are not so good. And the performance of their brands reflects their personal performance, not their personal politics.

The fact that Meg Whitman is a Republican doesn't affect in the slightest what people think about eBay.

Neither will Eric Schmidt's admission of Democratic tendency (goodness, he contributed $229,216 to Democrat candidates and a vast $6500 to Republicans, so surprise!) drive millions of Republicans to Yahoo or Ask (wait, they might be run by Democrats too..).

Personally, I am far more concerned about what Mr. Schmidt's company is doing with all the intimate information we are allowing it to collect than about whether he rides a donkey or an elephant.

Disclosure: I once voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Does that make me a...oh, well, perhaps.

Nike, having already collaborated with LCD Soundsystem on the creation of music that might enhance running performance, is now commissioning more young musicians to create tunes specifically for your sweaty ears.

A key in finding music that will improve your performance, some experts believe, is Beats Per Minute (BPM). The more beats in every 60 seconds, the more strides you are likely to take.

However, I understand that aerobic performance might also be enhanced by the rearrangement of a song's lyrics.

The Taylor and Francis Journal of Sports Science published research that concluded: "When selecting music for an individual, the effects of personal associations should be considered. For example, a boxer may have conditioned him or herself by listening to a certain piece of music prior to fighting. Where possible, practitioners should attempt to encourage the formation of such personal associations and harness their power."

If you make the lyrics more meaningful to you, then you will experience a heightened emotional involvement which will drive your body to more intense action.

Indeed, several of the more influential personalities of today's troubled world have been trying to find an extra edge through their ears. Some have, allegedly, commissioned well-known lyricists, producers and performers to reimagine existing works, specifically to improve their aerobic efficiency through their iPod-coddled ears.

I understand that Steve Jobs himself has had the Village People's YMCA reworked by Coldplay. The new personal jogger version has a much faster tempo and, in honor of Apple's successes when recently presenting its case to the recording industry's association, is entitled RIAA.

John McCain, who is said to take regular power walks up and down several of his homes in his singlet and shorts, managed to persuade Latino star (Mave)Ricky Martin to redo the Beach Boys' classic Barbara Ann.

Performance enhanced by iPod?

(Credit: CC Mark from Borft)

To a fast, repetitive and haunting beat, the words assault the ears and make the listener run for the hills. But they are not the "Ba'mb, Ba'mb, Ba-Ba'mb Iran" lyrics with which Mr. McCain once regaled an audience. No, no. Instead we have:
"Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba-Barbra Bush.
Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba-Barbra Bush...".

Strangely, the verses include the line:
"Went to a dance,
looking for romance,
Saw Barbara Bush
and my insides turned to mush....".

You see, aerobic exercise and a traditional view of love really do go together.

Barack Obama is not one to be outdone. So it is not surprising that he has jumped on the personalized iPod running content bandwagon. Apparently, he managed to persuade Stevie Winwood, a star from quite a long time ago, to recreate his hit "Valerie".

Some of the words make for very moving listening:
"Hillareeee.. Call on me.
Hillareee, Call on me..
Come and see me...
I'll be here in the morning at three...."

Clearly, it helps to have the right connections to create your own jogging accompaniment. But perhaps Apple will consider allowing anyone to recreate their own performance-enhancing versions as part of the iTunes service.

More royalties for the artists. More loyalties for Apple.

I, for one, have a new version of the Vengaboys' Boom Boom Boom Techno Trance Dance Mix that I'd like Radiohead to have a look at.

Perhaps you, too, would like to share the ways in which you would like some of your favorite songs rewritten and rearranged for performance-enhancing purposes?

There they were, two up and coming Senior Vice-Presidents discussing how they would change things if they got the top job.

The top job they were talking about was National CEO.

Barack Obama and the leader of the traditionally snooty, but now trying desperately to be hippish, UK Conservative Party, David Cameron, strolled through the British Parliament last week and didn't mention V for Vendetta once.

Instead, Mr. Cameron told Mr. Obama he should go to the beach. Really.

And Mr. Obama recounted how someone who has already gone through the White House experience told him "the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you're doing is thinking."

Naturally, this made me think of the tech industry. And, in particular, Google, a company that prides itself (or at least did last time I heard) on giving its employees one day a week to associate their mind with something slightly more free than the direct work function.

When Valley companies first came to the notice of those who wore tasseled loafers and tasteless neck adornments, derision was the initial reaction.

These are silly little children, the east coasters would say. They're just playing at business and they will get their fingers burned.

And if they weren't being described as childish, they would receive another damning slice of spittle- they would be accused of being vaguely effeminate.

Yet in the time it takes to flip up their zippers, folks in the more traditional industries were suddenly tucking their golf shirts into their khakis and believing they had found a new freedom. At least on a Friday.

So it makes me wonder just how far Mr. Obama, should he get elected, would adopt the management principles of Silicon Valley rather than those of the Valley of Elah.

This was taken at the British Computer Society Dinner. Should Mr. Cameron be concerned?

(Credit: CC Mark Hillary)

Will we suddenly see a more dressed-down government? (I know Banana Republic, John Varvatos and The Golf Mart are hoping we do.) Might we even see a more direct correlation with the Nine Heavenly Graces that Google's Marissa Mayer laid down in 2006?:

1. Ideas come from everywhere.

Of course, I couldn't possibly comment on how much Google has lived up to these principles. But I am told that at least the company has tried.

And how bad would it really be, for example, if the truly brilliant were all moved to participate in government? Or if 'users, not money' was just an occasional guiding shaft of light?

Sometimes it's hard to parse the truly material parts out of what seems like naive idealism. And the tech industry in general has sometimes suffered, at least in image terms, from its tendency towards idealistic impudence. And impudent idealism. Just as Mr. Obama has suffered for his overt penchant for green tea and his prissish avoidance of trans-fats and beer.

But perhaps Mr. Obama has already shared an audacious and hopeful low-fat biscotti with Messrs. Page and Brin. Perhaps, one day, we might see and hear the results of their ruminations. It would, one imagines, be as revealing as the conversation between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Obama.

It's Sunday. A good time to consider ideals just for a few hours. Why don't you go off to the beach? I understand it will make you a more ideal manager. Or, at least, a better politician.