Meme meme meme

Richard Dawkins, as we will learn, came up with the idea of memes to try to figure out how cultural ideas replicate. If genes have to do with biology, then memes have to do with memory. He ascribed a biological view to the transmission of memes through culture, using ideas from evolution to help us understand how cultural products transform and change. That's part of where the whole "viral" thing comes from.

Every week, at least, there's at least one serious meme (serious in that I see it everywhere) crossing my Facebook feed. Over the past two weeks it was this one:

Everyone, everywhere -- now if you look there's

religion professors, cultural anthropoloists, historians, biologists...I couldn't find a Mass Comm professor one though, which is ironic because Mass Comm profs are the ones most likely to be talking about this.

But one thing I'd like to make clear: Memes work not because they are viral, but because they are something we share and produce. The reason this meme (where did it start? Who remembers the first one?) is that someone could very easily make this very same powerpoint and put it up on Facebook and share it. Or on Twitter. Or Instagram. Or Google+ or whatever darn social network you like. This is our shareable writeable web.
We make it fun. That's something to remember - in the face of corporate power that shapes and control how we experience the Web, from our ability to get data to the way it appears on our computer screens - we can ultimately make and share things that are funny.

In my view, I guess, the memes show the power of cultural consumption and production. For all the same reasons that mass media theory assumed the mass man (and was wrong), all the ideas about viral sharing are wrong too. We share things because we ascribe cultural meaning to them. We bring some sort of emotional attachment to these things we make and share. We'll be learning about this idea of spreadablity, but this silly stupid meme of the week made me want to get this out early.

Baby Polar Bears

This is a totally unserious post. But the most important thing about social media, to me, is that it can spread and share not just information, but emotion. And for me, that emotion for the past few weeks has been pure joy as I have learned about two little polar bears, abandoned at birth by their mothers in their respective zoos. I have been watching these baby bears grow up over YouTube, but lest you worry, there are still some mockeries of these adorable bears.

First, let me introduce you to baby Siku. You can like Siku on Facebook. Note that he has public figure status. Siku was born in a Danish zoo, and has been hand raised after his mother could not provide him with milk. As the Today Show and AFP described him, he has become an internet sensation with adorable Siku videos hitting the web.

The second is the unnamed bear at the Toronto Zoo, but I've just overwhelmed this post with baby polar bear videos, so I won't post more of these. But the Toronto Zoo is using a social media campaign to name its adorable baby bear (born October 11, 2011). This one actually has a very sad story, as three bears were born and only one survived.

Translated - an internet show. Rock the Danish.

How freaking adorable is that cooing?

Here is Siku at 16 days.

Here is Siku at 32 days.

Here is Siku on the Today Show:

Here is Siku at 66 days old (he's a little less of an internet sensation now) (only 4,000 views)...

BUT, I learned today that he's getting his OWN web camera, courtesy of Polar Bears International.

And here we have the amusing Mockmentary videos of Siku: Siko (which means Angry Drunk).

"Siko wants Jim Beam"

And here's Siko and Jim Beam and Super Bear....with Siko threatening to shave Justin Beiber's hair

The Facebook IPO is EVERYWHERE

When news of the Facebook IPO broke on Feb. 1, the story has been everywhere.

In fact, the news was so fascinating to many in the tech world that folks were even LIVEBLOGGING the S-1 forms that any company is required to file for an IPO (I think I'm right about that)...well, practically (though David Gallagher's, tech editor @nytimes, had a tweet about this, it's mysteriously gone? I replied to it...)

Anyway, what's been so interesting about this arc of coverage is that first the business press descended on the forms themselves. One of the findings was that Facebook actually has a decent amount of cash on hand, and a fairly decent idea of how it might continue to make money. In fact, as blogger Dan Frommer points out, Facebook actually is a more diversified company than Google, which still gets 96 percent of its revenue from advertising.

I thought these two stats were particularly interesting:

• Facebook has $3.8 billion in the pocket
• Zynga accounts for almost 12 percent of Facebook's revenue (which might not be the best business model)
• Zuckerberg makes 500k a year. I thought this was kind of small compared to the salaries of football coaches that I'm used to seeing ($4 million for Lane Kiffin at USC)

Then the arc of the coverage changed to the MAN behind the Facebook behemoth. Article after article followed about how Zuckerberg was going to retain control of the company even after IPO because of his massive holdings.

As Fox Business News put it, "Facebook IPO Will Leave Zuckerberg Firmly in the Driver's Seat."

Though I can't embed some of the top coverage, here's CNET's take on it:

As users of Facebook, we need to be thinking about the personality, values, beliefs, and ideals behind Facebook's exec, as it will guide the company. Much as Steve Jobs guided Apple, Facebook's future will largely be determined by 27-year-old Zuckerberg.