“Many of the people that I get as followers on Twitter seem to offer nothing more than a continual stream of advertisements. It seems that a growing number of “Internet marketers” are taking over Twitter, trying to get business in teaching people how to grow their follower counts and sell advertising.”

He is right, but only to a point. What he does not seem to grasp is that Social Media is “self-policing;” that is, there exist far more tools to kill spammers and other pests than there ever have been for email, which is far less spam-proof. But it takes a bit of diligence to keep one’s social media streams clear of unwanted spam.

I use Socialoomph.com one or two times a week to vet my Twitter followers. There I can “ignore” – not reciprocate follows of troublesome new followers. I can also block them so that they can’t see me and I can’t see them.  If the spammer is particularly bothersome, posting nothing but ads or links to “how to make money on Twitter” or “come see my pictures,” there’s button that reports them to Twitter as a spammer.  You can’t do that with email if some unscrupulous actor gets your email address and sells it to others causing a tidal wave of unwanted garbage.

If anyone with nothing useful to offer has multiple thousands of followers, I don’t want to be on their follower list either.  Except for users who are doing company branding or are celebrities in their own right, it just isn’t reasonable to expect that having 10 thousand or more followers or reciprocated friends might be useful in any sense.  I like the concept of “Dunbar’s Number,” first featured in the book The Tipping Point, that theorizes most people can only manage about 150 meaningful social relationships.  Back in 2007, Tobias Escher wrote a good piece on this social brain hypothesis.

Most social media tools, and especially the ones that are popular, offer options to help users eliminate just about any content they don’t want.  FaceBook’s recent change, broadening permissions to a default “everyone,” can easily be throttled back if only you take a couple minutes to dictate specifically what content you want to see and what content of yours that you want to share only among close friends.

So, Mike Schaffner has valid complaints, but he is just dead wrong about the ramifications of them.  As people become more proficient in managing their social media spaces, and as companies like FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn and others devise ways to make their user experiences less spam-susceptible, this issue is likely to become moot.

It makes no sense to conflate social media’s growing pains with mortal flaws.

News travelled slowly for centuries, going only as fast as human messengers could travel, whether by foot, horse or ship. It also tended to be specific – from individual to individual – and controlled. The people received only the news the authorities, church or monarch, deemed fit to release.

That changed in various European countries from the mid-17th century with the foundation of newspapers. Though they had a long struggle to secure the freedom to publish, they did impart “unauthorised” knowledge.

I think this may reveal one of the biggest disconnects that today’s “Old Media” professionals and purveyors have about people in general: when information is shared between two or more people it is seldom kept “specific;” rather, it immediately becomes nuanced byindividual biases, perceptions and interpretations. Information, as is transmitted from one person to another, is necessarily “seasoned” by the unique experience of each party in a conversation coupled with whatever historical or shared understandings the “transmitter” and the “receivers” might share.  When I think about the way people shared “news’ in the past, I’m reminded of this picture of my dad in a general store in 1909 (he’s the one on the stool).

How did these people share "news?"

Had Prof. Greenslade made his argument about the impact of “public illiteracy” on a ruling power’s ability to control the message and, thus, the masses, he’d have had a better point.

While it may be true that rulers, leaders, monarchs, priests and/or other “authorities” have always and will always seek to control how information is disseminated they cannot ever succeed completely in managing how it is received, or, more importantly, how people change it through social interaction and conversation.  This is something the “journalists” or “advertisers” or “marketers” or “PR Pros”of 2010 must come to terms with, and soon, or they will find themselves without a source of income in 2012 or surely by 2015.  In a sense, social media is freeing us to be more like the way we used to be… or perhaps it is just putting us back in touch with the way we are.

There are other parts of the article with which i disagree, but I don’t want to be too hard on Prof. Greenslade.  His Op Ed piece is important to read if you care about the future of the “business of communication,” particularly if you hold a reasonable distrust of people with power and the lengths they will go to keep it.

Twitter’s Constant Stream Of Update Messages Suddenly Grinds To A Halt

Lucky for Twitter this happened on a weekend during the night (at least U.S. time) so most users won’t have even noticed. But it goes to show how dangerous it is to rely on a free third-party service for important communication.

This is just absurd.  Computer systems rarely go without glitches, particularly those that are scaling up. Think about all the times your paid services have been down.  If you spend any significant amount of time connected to the Internet, you’re familiar with outages.  The only time in recent years that I’ve found any outage to be unacceptable was when I was without my (former) main email account with Netidentity for two days.  And then a couple of months later it happened again. From what was reported, that the outages happened during upgrades, it was beyond unacceptable. That’s failing to plan ahead, plain and simple.  Inexcusable.

My point?  It is no more dangerous to rely on free services than it is to rely on paid services.  The only difference is that when it’s free, you don’t get to call customer service and complain.  That’s all.  In the case of Twitter, does anyone really think that its staff – and its investors – consider up-time any less important than the staff at your cable or telephone company?  Really?

When supposedly smart folks dole out horrible advice or commentary about anything to do with social media, I feel it’s important to point it out.

Steve Rubel, who is normally pretty savvy about these things, comes out today and says:

“So you heard it here first, folks. Twitter is peaking. Now I believe Twitter can get through “the dip” that stares them in the face, but it will need to adapt by: keeping its core users intact, remaining attractive to corporations and celebs and by becoming more organized. Search will help with the latter, but expect a battle as Facebook and Friendfeed both make a concerted push to become the place for all your social stuff.”

This is just nuts.   First of all, I’ve been on Friendfeed for at least 18 months now and don’t find much use in it, except that it helps feed my other social media streams to Facebook.  If it went away, I’d find and use other apps to do the same. Friendfeed has yet to break out beyond the more technically literate crowd.  Considering what Facebook is doing with developing its core product, I don’t think Friendfeed has much of a place beyond its existing niche going forward.

Twitter, on the other hand, I predict, is going to be ubiquitous.  Yes, it’s disorganized today, but it provides an information stream that can be sliced and diced in so many different ways that eventually everyone will be able to find an application of it that suits their needs.

The next big step, I think, is for Twitter, or some other programmer, to come up with an address book that allows people to categorize followers and followings by various relationship types.  I think TweetDeck may be the farthest along toward this.  But if the next generation MS Outlook includes the ability to add social media connections to its contacts data (and I believe it will), that may end up being the thing that locks Twitter into the same class as email as a permanent business and personal communication tool.

Yes, Journalism As We Know It Is Dying

You’d have to have been living under a rock over the past few years to have been insulated from the stream of stories and much bemoaning about the fact that newspapers are folding and the ranks of employed professional journalists is shrinking. A crashing economy is only facilitating the inevitable.

I found an excellent blog post discussing the current situation in more depth than I’ll go into here:

Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky

The newspaper people often note that newspapers benefit society as a whole. This is true, but irrelevant to the problem at hand; “You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model. So who covers all that news if some significant fraction of the currently employed newspaper people lose their jobs?

I don’t know. Nobody knows. We’re collectively living through 1500, when it’s easier to see what’s broken than what will replace it.

When I read stuff like this, I do feel a bit glum because I know that many of my classmates went on to mainstream media jobs and are now facing and fearing very uncertain futures. Clearly, a profession that evolved from some 15th century innovations is dying.  In fact, it probably is already dead but the flat-line has yet to register on the monitor. But beyond commiserating with my friends I feel incredibly invigorated because I sense that what is to come of this will be very good.

So, I hope you’ll forgive me if I seem more than a bit impatient: Can we please finish having this wake for Gutenberg’s descendants and get on with it?

Fear of What’s Happening Inside the Cocoon

The new communication truth that social media puts on the table is, to paraphrase an awful, recent Newsweek headline, “We Are All Journalists Now.” The fact of the matter is that humans still need news and many of us consume more of it today than ever before; I know I do. But I don’t read four or five newspapers a day any more to get it.  In fact, I stopped subscribing to any newspaper when I moved to Tallahassee six years ago, ending a daily fact of my life that began when I was about six years old.  I made the shift to using RSS news readers and Google Alerts to keep me informed and engaged. If anything, I read more news and a broader range of opinion now than I ever have. The demand remains, so I have no doubt that there will be careers for those with old-school journalism skills who are willing to adapt as new models are hashed out.  The market for their skills isn’t disappearing, it is just morphing from caterpillar to butterfly very quickly and it’s hard to see inside the cocoon.

When I think about this stuff, I inevitably break the history of human communication down into phases: Communication 1.0 was the path from grunts and gestures to formal spoken language; the advent of written symbols, alphabets and words, usually shared among the elites of various cultures, was Communication 2.0; Gutenberg’s invention ushered in Communication 3.0 and it’s logo, the printing press. In this perspective, the original Internet, Version 1.0, wasn’t really much of an advance over the printing press or over the old overhead projector presentations we suffered when I was in school (for all you youngsters, it’s what we did before PowerPoint).

Fulfilling the Human Need for News

I find it interesting to note that the pathway from Communication 1.0 to Communication 3.0 led to less broad participation in defining and less dependence on interchange between people to create “the news.” The unfulfilled human need for broader interchange in reaching understandings, and I believe it is indeed a “need,” was somewhat ameliorated by the telephone, but as a tool phones offer mostly limited exchanges between two individuals. They generally lack the power to define “news.”

I contend that Communication 4.0, including “Web 2.0” and “Social Media,” is defined by mediums with more distributive freedom than what was offered by the two previous phases of human knowledge exchange; it re-interjects a key element that was made less vital to “news” by them: Conversations in the public square. And the public square is suddenly a heck of a lot larger than it was when tribes were painting on cave walls and carving “news” into rocks. The big idea that unites my Communication Versions model is that in each case an exciting innovation led to epistemological change ; that is, something radically altered the very nature and methods of human knowledge itself. Placed in this framework, social media becomes far more than faddish or trivial.

Ignore at Your Own Risk

So, go ahead and mock Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter if you like, but do not ignore them or think they’ll just go away. What they all are telling you, or, rather, what you should be getting from them so far, is one very important message that includes and goes beyond “news” and promises to be a rule for the future of communication for all organizations: Converse or die.

The old rules no longer apply.

Read more >> Options >>

]]> http://whatsnextnow.net/2009/03/communication-40-we-are-all-journalists-now/feed/ 0