Planet Earth 2.0

«O wonder! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in’t!»

(William ShakespeareLa tempesta, Act V, Scene I, v. 203–206)

We thought the outbreak was going to be a hiccup in the steady throb of life; we thought it’d be a missed beat that we would recover soon thereafter; we certainly did not think we were partaking in the End of the World.

Yet, that’s exactly what it was.

A tsunami, an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts (a cookie for those who recognize the citation) wreak havoc on a specific area killing people, devastating land, destroying buildings and economic activities; even Ebola, the poor stupid virus which kills its hosts so fast it cannot spread, is but a local calamity. The process of rebuilding houses and factories rests its legs on the untouched rest of the world and easily primes the restarting of the great engine.

But this will be different: imagine the 16th century plague or smallpox outbreaks with today’s speed of movement and population density; imagine their stealth version which infects way before and even without sickening.

This rebuild is going to be bigger than anything we have seen in the history of the world, way bigger than post-war reconstructions or any natural disaster recovery simply because nobody will escape: China and Asia were first, then Europe, then America and the rest of the World. If epidemiologists are correct, Africa may escape due to a virus-hostile climate.

The stock market has already priced the loss of over a third of the world’s economy value even though the U.S. are beginning only now to feel the pinch.

DJIA at the close of mar 20, 2020

Those crying because their sector may be damaged beyond repair and lobbying governments for aid are not dissimilar to the passengers clambering to get at the top of the bridge when the whole ship is sinking.

For the first time in modern history, we’ll be rebooting our whole society, so the only intelligent question to ask is “How will Planet Earth 2.0 be different from the 1.0 version?”

Maybe it will be a younger world. the mortality curve steeply grows with age, so we can expect a significant portion of a generation to be wiped away. While the death toll is very unlikely to top the Holocaust, deaths will be far more concentrated in the 70+ age bracket, a concentration which is the flip side of what normally happens during a war, where the 20-40 yo generations pay the steepest human life price.

Maybe it will be a cleaner world. whether an association between particulate powders and virus diffusion is proved or not, the effect of the forced stop on air quality has been experienced already and it’s unlikely to go away when we emerge.

Maybe it will be a fairer world. perhaps this crisis has demonstrated the importance of universal public health systems, the importance of logistics and, before it will be over, the importance of not relying too much on technology. Maybe it will demonstrate that even the free-for-all social networks need policing, the importance of discipline, the trade-offs between profits, health and privacy.

Maybe it will be a more intelligent world. the demise of no-vax idiocy and perhaps also of the sovranist propaganda could spark a tendency to stop oversimplifying and favor an holistic vision of science rewarding those who dedicate their life to it. Populism fared very poorly in this crisis, flip-flopping on issues clearly proved they had no idea what to do. In the end, even flawed plans imperfectly executed proved to be better than no plan at all.

To be continued – Ce n’est qu’un début…..

No, io non sono ottimista

Vorrei chiarire: da qualche giorno pubblico uno studio di funzione (ve li ricordate?) dell’andamento dell’epidemia in Italia che ho chiamato Ottimismo Razionale, ma io non sono ottimista, perché l’efficacia delle misure restrittive non accompagnate da coprifuoco e legge marziale dipende dal senso civico degli Italiani.

Quelli che “duecento senza fattura, duecentocinquanta con”.

Quelli che sorpassano sulla corsia di emergenza.

Quelli che non fanno le code.

Quelli che non pagano il biglietto.

Quelli che è tutta colpa dei negri.

I falsi invalidi.

Quelli che “si informano” su Wikipedia.

Quelli che buttano la monnezza dove gli capita.

Da tanto dico che siamo un popolo ignorante ed egoista dove il marciume fermenta da secoli, forse millenni: ecco, ora è arrivata la disinfestazione, e saranno proprio egoismo ed ignoranza ad alimentare l’incendio che ci consumerà; dopo, finalmente il Paese più bello del mondo potrà ripartire con gente migliore di noi.

No, io non sono ottimista.

La triste storia della mia caldaia

Ho acquistato la casa dove vivo nel 2010: si tratta di un edificio rurale ricco di storia, il cui nucleo centrale risale addirittura al XVII secolo e che nel corso della sua lunga vita è stato fattoria, stazione di posta per il cambio dei cavalli, osteria e, da ultimo, abitazione di residenza.

Si tratta di un edificio isolato con prestazioni termiche passive pessime ma di difficile emendabilità: nel corso di questi anni ho investito decine di migliaia di euro per un grande impianto fotovoltaico (del quale ho raccontato su queste pagine) e sostituito man mano qualcuna delle 36 (!) finestre. Quest’anno ho affrontato la sostituzione della vecchia caldaia per il riscaldamento, una unità da 70kW non a condensazione, con un sistema più efficiente con due caldaie in cascata per una potenza totale di 50kW.

Interpellate diverse imprese nel dicembre 2018, ho ricevuto preventivi non sempre confrontabili tra di loro e la mia scelta è caduta su una piccola azienda, la Global Service Sas di Cosimo Damiano Totta.

La scelta è stata motivata in parte da fattori economici ma anche dal titolare, che mi ha favorevolmente impressionato per l’atteggiamento di chi risolve i problemi (anziché semplicemente denunciarli).

Nei mesi di giugno e luglio dunque il nuovo sistema è stato installato e le fatture relative saldate; subito dopo però, il signor Totta mi ha spiegato che per il mio impianto era necessario registrare all’INAIL un “libretto di impianto”, adempimento del quale si è incaricato e per il quale ho pagato in “diritti” la somma di €2.070,34; mi è stato consegnato un documento su ogni pagina del quale compaiono timbri e firme dall’aspetto ufficiale come questo qui accanto. Mi ha inoltre spiegato essere necessario un “libretto di centrale” per il quale ho pagato la somma di €1.922,10; anche in questo caso ho ricevuto un documento su ogni pagina del quale compaiono timbri e firme di identico tenore. Infine mi è stato spiegato che quest’ultimo libretto era necessario anche per gli anni precedenti; in sua mancanza era dovuta una sanzione che grazie alla negoziazione con un certo ing. Giuseppe Antonini dell’INAIL veniva ridotta a “soli” €1.756,80.

Sempre l’ing. Antonini richiedeva l’installazione di una seconda valvola di intercettazione combustibile (oltre a quella presente in centrale) per €2.745, mentre il suo assistente geom. Silvano Rabak chiedeva l’installazione di un sensore per monossido di carbonio che mi costava €756,40; su richiesta infine di un terzo funzionario ing. Eduardo Cagliostri mi venivano richiesta le analisi dell’acqua di condensa ex UNI 8065-2019 per le quali ricevevo dal Totta un preventivo pari a €6.222.

Su quest’ultimo punto, insospettito (meglio tardi che mai, state dicendo), ho interpellato la direzione territoriale di Pavia dell’INAIL che mi ha informato del fatto che all’INAIL non esiste nessun ing. Cagliostri e rimandato per competenza all’UOT CVR di Milano che a sua volta mi ha informato che la UNI 8065-2019 non si applica agli impianti di soli 50kW di potenza.

A quel punto ho capito di essere stato vittima di una truffa che ho denunciato alla locale Stazione dei Carabinieri, richiedendo nel contempo ufficialmente alla Direzione Regionale dell’INAIL se le somme che io ho corrisposto siano state effettivamente percepite dall’Ente in quanto potrebbe – oltre ai reati di truffa e falso materiale – ricorrere anche il reato di truffa ai danni dello Stato.

Il danno che ho subito (che ovviamente andrà quantificato con maggiore precisione per via periziale quando mi costituirò parte civile nel procedimento penale a carico del sig. Totta) è compreso tra i 10 e i 20.000 euro, perché non contento di avermi preso per il naso, il signor Totta mi ha sovra-fatturato facendomi pagare il triplo o il quadruplo del listino praticamente ogni componente installato. Dalla mia ho solo il fatto di aver insistito perché tutto fosse fatturato: da una parte ho buttato via anche il 22% di IVA (che chissà se il signor Totta ha versato all’Erario) dall’altra ho la magra consolazione che almeno le somme non siano in discussione.

L’impianto, ancorché “realizzato in modo confuso e disordinato” (sono le parole di un ingegnere termotecnico che ho interpellato quale perito di parte) sembra funzionare e spero che, almeno, risulti in linea con la normativa vigente; per la sua manutenzione mi rivolgerò ad un’altra ditta consigliatami dal produttore della caldaia.

Nella mia interlocuzione verso l’INAIL ho sottolineato però che tutto ciò accade perché gli obblighi a carico dei cittadini che, come me, vorrebbero semplicemente che i propri impianti fossero a norma non sono chiaramente definiti, creando uno “spazio di opacità” in cui operano professionisti disonesti, certamente all’insaputa dell’Ente stesso, cui però resta la responsabilità almeno morale di aver creato questo “spazio di opacità”.

Perché raccontare questa storia, che non mi fa certo fare una bella figura?

In primo luogo perché se sarà servita di stimolo per migliorare nel dialogo tra Ente e cittadino, i soldi che ho speso almeno saranno serviti a qualcosa.

In secondo luogo perché, sai mai che qualcuno stesse prendendo in considerazione il signor Totta per cambiare un rubinetto…

Di privacy e carte di identità

Per evitare di ripetere cento volte le stesse affermazioni, forse è meglio metterle qui una volta per tutte.

Il dibattito sulla proposta Marattin (chi non sa di cosa si tratti può pure saltare il resto dell’articolo) è vivacissimo proprio perché mette di fronte due istanze egualmente degne di attenzione:

  • il diritto all’anonimato (si pensi a chi vive in un paese totalitario)
  • la necessità di perseguire chi viola la legge

Le mie credenziali in questo campo non derivano dai miei studi né dalla mia attività professionale, quanto dal fatto di aver operato quale consulente pro bono in alcuni Paesi che non potremmo definire “dittature” tout court, ma ove le libertà personali potrebbero risultare più ristrette che (almeno non ufficialmente) nei paesi dell’Europa Occidentale.

In questi viaggi verso Est o verso Sud i miei interlocutori erano quasi sempre accademici o intellettuali e l’argomento – sembra incredibile – è saltato fuori più spesso di quanto uno si aspetterebbe.

Le mie riflessioni tra un couscous e una vodka sono culminate in un breve saggio pubblicato nel 2013 (e che chi volesse separarsi da 2 euri può acquistarlo su Amazon ancor oggi) al solo scopo di non doverci più ritornare; le indicazioni in esso contenute hanno in parte trovato riscontro nel progetto SPID col quale, però, è bene chiarire che non ho avuto nulla a che fare.

Il saggio cerca di descrivere cosa sia – a mio modo di vedere – la “persona digitale”: la sua identità, i suoi dati, la sua rete di connessioni, la sua “stream” di interazioni e commenti, affermando il principio fondamentale che l’unico proprietario e titolare di ogni diritto è la persona stessa.

Questo principio è a mio modo di vedere di un ordine superiore persino rispetto alla libertà di espressione ed alla vita stessa: prima di essere travolto dalle vostre obiezioni provo a dirlo in un altro modo. Da buon cattolico ho imparato che il valore supremo è la Verità, e non la Vita: se così non fosse, il sacrificio di Gesù Cristo e dei martiri da un punto di vista dogmatico non avrebbe il minimo senso….

Se dunque devo scegliere tra i due, personalmente scelgo la Verità.

E che vuol dire Verità su Internet? Beh, vuol dire avere certezza di chi sia la persona con cui parlo ed avere la responsabilità diretta e personale di ciò che scrivo.

Gli obiettori dicono: ma l’anonimato assoluto su Internet NON ESISTE, chiunque è tracciabile, commettendo il gravissimo errore di confondere l’identità di un dispositivo (legata sostanzialmente all’ineluttabile necessità di un indirizzo IP) con l’identità della persona: con tutta la loro tecnologia, loro (o se preferite, la NSA) possono sicuramente tracciare il dispositivo da cui è stato scritto un certo messaggio, ma assolutamente non provare che dietro alla tastiera c’era Gianni Catalfamo, interrompendo la catena probatoria che mi porterebbe ad essere penalmente responsabile delle pernacchie che indirizzo quotidianamente al mio amico Roberto Rossi dal mio indirizzo.

Succederebbe la stessa cosa se non esistessero le anagrafi: un reo potrebbe essere solo condannato se colto in flagrante innanzi a testimoni. Ogni processo basato su prove documentali perderebbe di significato perché se le suddette pernacchie le inviassi a Roberto per iscritto firmandomi pure, nessuno sarebbe in grado di provare che “Gianni Catalfamo” è quel tizio alto un po’ in sovrappeso e sbatterlo in galera come merita.

Dunque in uno Stato di diritto l’anonimato personale è ottimo ed abbondante, garantito proprio dallo Stato di diritto stesso.

E’ in uno Stato totalitario che viceversa, l’anonimato NON ESISTE: una Gestapo, un KGB, una STASI non si preoccupava certo di questi dettagli da leguleio: il sospetto trovato nei pressi della tastiera tracciata viene caricato di mazzate finché non confessa, e buonanotte ai suonatori!

Dunque il c.d. anonimato su Internet non protegge nessun dissenziente né gli garantisce protezione contro la polizia segreta del suo paese dittatoriale, anzi: facendogli credere di essere protetto, lo espone al gravissimo rischio di finire come Jamal Kashoggi.

C’è qualcosa da criticare nella proposta Marattin?

Eccome: ad esempio l’idea novecentesca che sia necessario “depositare la carta di identità” (creando un potenziale rischio per la custodia di dati in capo a soggetti esteri) quando persino in Italia c’è lo schema SPID che è perfettamente capace di identificare la PERSONA senza mandare dati in giro, oppure l’idea che una iniziativa del genere possa essere nazionale quando è ovvio che deve essere di respiro ALMENO europeo.

Ma del resto, stiamo parlando di un tweet, non di una proposta di legge già scritta, per arrivare alla quale si possono e si devono introdurre importanti miglioramenti.

La direzione, però, è a mio parere perfettamente centrata ed andrebbe aiutata invece di osteggiarla per mal posto fervore ideologico o più prosaicamente perché “non l’ho detto io”.

Why I hate Communications

Not that anybody cares, of course, but for personal reasons I find myself in the need of explaining how comes I have now such a deep animosity towards the industry where I earned my living (quite generously, I must admit) for about 20 years, that is Communications.

We have become a culture that relies increasingly on the written word: the explosion of digital channels of communications has brought about countless improvements to the humane society, but it also the possibility of representations so detailed to be “almost as good” as the real thing.

This is only going to get worse, with the maturing of technologies which have been in the “almost ready” limbo for decades, such as Augmented / Virtual Reality and Artificial Intelligence.

We have perhaps come full circle back to the ancient times where he who names something, has power over it:

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:19)

We have two great examples right in front of us.

“Fake News”

Since when we decided to stop using the word “lie”? Since perhaps when the prominent users and distributors of lies decided that calling them “fake news” made them slightly less conspicuous. In every language of the world s/he who tells lies is identified by a short and unmistakable appellative:

  • liar
  • bugiardo
  • menteur
  • mentiroso
  • Lügner
  • лжец (lzhets)
  • (kadhaab) كذاب

in none of these languages, this term has a connotation other than 100% negative. But when you start calling them “fake news” for one thing you lose the substantive: how are you going to call a politician who spreads fake news? “Fakenewsman”? No, it’s so awkward that you simply stop using the substantive, with the result that the blame, the negativity moves from the liar to the lies, as if they had invented themselves, and the politician is merely guilty of not having checked more thoroughly.

“Technical recession”

A few days ago, the Italian Statistics Institute reported that the GDP for Italy had dropped for the second consecutive quarter. Not a big drop, mind you, but enough to trigger the technical definition of a recession.

No Government in the world likes for the economy it oversees to drop into recession, much less so when it bombastically predicted an economic boom days before, but there you go.

Now the media are going to report on it mercilessly using the dreaded R-word, so what do you do?

You steal the thunder, announcing it one day before it gets officially reported, but you use the term “technical recession”, apparently evoking the nature of the technical definition, but in reality to make it look less bad than it is. A technical recession is NOT a real recession, is it? Because if it was, why call it “technical” in the first place?

Execution

If you execute right, these strategies work only too well, and in fact in both cases the media went for them hook, line and sinker: the word “lie” disappeared from global headlines and the adjective “technical” is now inseparable from the word “recession”.

For now, the latter is in Italy only, but I am sure there are foreign economic journalists  who are scratching their heads over what the difference between a technical and a real recession might be.

What does it have to do with me?

Nothing.

It’s just that I have been in this game when it was relatively innocuous: I have called civilian casualties “collateral damages”; I have called deadly diseases “side effects”; I have called layoffs “restructurings”.

I have witnessed the good power of communications (for example when the Italian Communist Party in talking about Red Brigades terrorists switched from “comrades who went too far” to “enemies of the people”) but I also have witnessed and practiced the evil power of Communications and simply decided this is not for me.

Not anymore.

Negating personal brands

A while back I wrote a small piece in response to a speech request describing what I believe is a Personal Brand.

Obviously mine are nothing but opinions, and – equally obviously – not everyone shares them. In particular my LinkedIn profile was visited today  by a person I don’t know who evidently thinks exactly the opposite of what I think.

Nothing in his profile identifies him as a person: he has no name, no face, not even a bio which does not tell us where he worked and when.

Besides, he claims he’s been in the role of Web Marketing Manager for almost 20 years, which is remarkable given the fact 20 years ago a lot of the Web as we know it today did not exist at all. That is not to say you could not do many of essentially the same things: I myself described what I consider one of my greatest achievements in Digital dating back to 1999.

Not one of his numerous posts are his writing: he likes and re-posts stuff he finds here and there.

And his personal website is not much better; actually it’s exactly the same content dressed in a plain HTML website written probably in the 70’s and never reviewed again.

In short what I do not like about such a profile is its complete lack of transparency, a trait I consider essential in this age of fake this and that.

That said, he’s got over 20,000 followers, while I am barely pushing 2,000 so, by that measure, Luca S. is right and I am wrong.

I’ll do my best to get over it.

Screenshot 2017-08-06 12.54.14.png

Is the gift of Facebook ads “wrong”?

Having been involved in several flames on the subject I feel compelled to articulate why I don’t like the fact that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated $500k in FB ad credits to the Red Cross to help out victims of the earthquake who shook Central Italy on aug. 24th.

  1. is this a policy? there are about 1,500 earthquakes of magnitudo 5 and above per year. Are we to expect a similar donation to the Red Cross for each one? Flattened houses and dispossessed people count the same whether they are European, American, Asian, Australian or African, right? I expect therefore that the Red Cross (or Red Crescent, as the case may be)  gets $750M per year in ad credits turning them overnight into one of the world’s largest FB ads brokers, a role for which I am sure they have experience and skills…
  2. “in kind” donations are not immediately helpful. True, they have SOME value for the recipient, but exactly how much is not clear (see #4); plus they place on the recipient the onus of transforming whatever goods the donor gives into the thing that an organization like the Red Cross really needs (i.e. money) and introduces a time delay in the availability of the additional resources. What would you think of Philip Morris giving a truckload of cigarettes, Coca-Cola a tanker of Coke or a University 100 MBA scholarships?
  3. the public announcement stygma. Should donations be advertised? An old discussion which was settled (for me, not by me) long ago, when I was the Country Manager for Lotus Development, a company which gave a percentage of its net profit in every operation to local charities each year. Not only this gift was prohibited from getting ANY sort of publicity, but the committee deciding who would get the yearly gift was formed by employees (not managers). I never knew who received it in the seven year I ran the Italian operation.
  4. transparency. That’s the flip side of #3: shouldn’t donations be public? Don’t shareholders have a right to know? In my opinion they do, as they are the ones ultimately donating, but disclosure should be made at policy level (i.e. how much the company intends to donate and with which criteria the beneficiaries will be chosen) NEVER at the recipient level. Transparency is an additional reason “in kind” donations are bad: I suspect once you factor in all the transformation costs and fees, the real value to the receiving organization is much diminished, so shareholders don’t even know exactly how much they are agreeing to give.
  5. decision process. In other words, who decides? In this case it appears it was mr. Zuckerberg’ own decision, and while he’s the Founder, the CEO as well as one of Facebook’s largest shareholders, Facebook is NOT his property alone: others should be involved in this decision, representing other shareholders and proposing worthy destinations for corporate generosity.

csrSo all in all (while it is obvious that ANY help is welcome) what this boils down to, at least for me, is the fact that mr. Zuckerberg is a person of vast wealth: if his good feelings prompt him to give to help people in distress, praise to him, but he should use some of his own money (= cash)  and not mess with the Corporate Social Responsibility of Facebook.

Maybe he ought to take a lesson or two from Bill or Warren….

Language gender bias

Unbeknownst to international media, a small drama was consumed over the last few days in the Italian media world. In Rio, the female Italian Archery team nearly made to a first-ever bronze medal, prompting regional sports daily QS-Quotidiano Sportivo to headline:

trio-cicciottelle-300x194

The trio of chubbies nearly achieves an Olympic miracle

Outrage exploded: the President of the Italian Archery Federation issued a protest letter and the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper, Giuseppe Tassi, was promptly fired, two months ahead of his planned retirement date of  September, 2016.

Today, well-known columnist Beppe Severgnini calls this dismissal “excessive”, on grounds that Italian politicians often trespass the boundaries of gender-correctness (specifically citing as example the leader of the Northern League Matteo Salvini who recently at a rally compared a female political opponent to a sex doll).

severgnini cicciottelle

Let me offer a scientific reason why I think such a sin by a journalist is more sinful than when done by a politician (despicable as it may be).

In a recent study on machine learning, researchers at Google studied so-called “embedded word associations” using Word2vec, a large corpus of text (nearly three million words) coming from Google News. These associations allow a machine to respond to the query:

London : England =  Tokyo : X

with the answer “Japan”. As some other researchers at Microsoft Research have found, however, Word2vec is significantly gender-biased; for example the query:

Man : Computer programmer = Woman : X

returns “Homemaker” or the query:

Father : Doctor = Mother : X

returns “Nurse”.

If this gender bias is powerful enough to make its way into something very young like machine learning, imagine what it does to the programming of the human brain. Journalists therefore – as the authors of such texts, hold a special responsibility in being vigilant about this bias, and this is why IMHO, their sin is more despicable.

Storytelling gives me the creeps…

Some of my best friends specialise in Storytelling and, as you see below, are quick to respond whenever the discussion veers towards the importance of Content:

Screenshot 2016-06-01 12.02.52

In the course of this discussion I stated that I have contradictory feelings about the word “storytelling” and since I have been asked to expand, let me try to dissect these contradictions.

I associate the word STORYTELLING with an inward-focused posture: take your key messages and articulate them in a well-thought out sequence which drives engagement through narration.

Of course, I fully recognize the power of narration: narration offers context, color and background. It stirs emotion, makes you dream. No question a good narration turns a message into a story.

But here is the itch I need to scrape: the story remains YOUR story, and I don’t think this is what it is needed in today’s world, because however well-written/told/visualized the story still originates from YOU: it is designed to make YOU look better, sort of the same way a CSR program whitewashes (some) of your sins.

Storytelling, in blunter words, does NOT CHANGE you. And profound change is what is needed. CHANGE as in a shift of focus from YOU to THEM, that is to say the recognition (and acceptance) that the play is not anymore about

your brand featuring your users

but

your users featuring your brand

Nowhere this distinction is more evident than in the communications jargon of car manufacturers: humans are almost invariably represented driving the car, getting in or out, experiencing the beauty of nature cocooned in a controlled, artificial, branded atmosphere. It’s almost as if the car Brand cannot survive without its product without which it becomes totally irrelevant. Car manufacturers brand extensions are the most abject of failures, bar perhaps the lone exception of Ferrari.

Modern Brands instead managed to achieve a much more daunting objective: they have become personalities, capable of abstraction from actual products.

Apple, Disney, Nike or Armani have transcended their products and have become synonymous of values which they carry along and confer on any product they emblazon.

This distillation can only happen if you drop every pretense of telling a story and instead focus on living your story, tearing down the walls of your organisation for others to see exactly what is inside.

The story is not told by well-groomed expert storyteller, but demonstrated as a living thing by each one of your employees, partners and clients. The preparation shift from packaging and delivery to understanding the conversation that’s already going on and making sure your story fits.

The old value proposition:

“This is the role I have reserved for you in my world”

is replaced by a newfangled one:

“Let us talk about which role I would like to play in your world”.

Permission has to be obtained, and honesty is the admission ticket. The brand story is not told, but lived. The key skill is not engagement, but comprehension.

The 10 things I hate most on Social Media

The list was MUCH longer, so I had to prune it to the absolutely despicable ones.

1. Selfie Nuts
It does not matter if they are meeting the Pope, Barack Obama or the building janitor, no opportunity is too small not to deserve a selfie, as if to say “See? I was REALLY there!”

2. The hash abuser
One thinks s/he does not know how to write a noun without the sharp sign (because that’s what it is, a musical notation which increases a note by a half tone). A bit like grandma trying to use kids’ slang: sad, borderline creepy.

3. The foodie
From egg benedict to a six course meal, foodies MUST show you what they’re having for breakfast, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner and midnight snacks. And they must add the lamest of comments: “Yummy”, “Delicious”, “”Most excellent” because they would never eat anything that’s average quality.

4. The Poser
This obnoxious individual not only publishes only selfies, but they are also always in the same pose. When they distributed authenticity,  the Poser was taking a leak, probably.

5. The Influencer
The influencer influences, right? And s/he wants you not to forget how influential s/he is by constantly addressing his audience and prodding them with questions and controversial statements to drum up the engagement stats.

6. The Competitive
Obsessed by rankings, # of followers or friends, Klout score and other similarly worthless measurements, the Competitive spends inordinate amounts of time in the onanistic pursuit of perfect understanding of how the algos work.

7. The Converser
He believes in dialogue. No matter what and no matter with whom. He is the guy with the automatic “Thank You” message on Twitter asking you to also connect on Facebook or Linkedin. Female conversers are most likely prostitutes.

8. The Anatomist
This is a variation of the Selfie Nut, because s/he is obsessed with a specific bodily part: it could be feet, biceps, lips, tattoos they so like themselves they want the world to know.

9. The List Maniac
Any concept can be turned in a list of bullets, right? Simple schemes from a simple mind…

10. The Curmudgeon
Always something to complain about

image