Comments on: Is the “social media” really “social” or “media”?

By: Twitted by thomlieb

Twitted by thomlieb — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:33:36 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by thomlieb [...]

By: David Phillips

David Phillips — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:29:37 +0000

Paul, I have little to add suffice to say that it is my belief that the evolution of internet mediated relationships will be driven much more by human preference as time goes by. There will be an ever increaseing need to understand mediation in all its forms.

The internet is very Darwinian now. People and corporations develop the means by which humans can do what humans do. They are, en-mass, inquisitive; they seek the ability to extend their physiology, they seek (depend on) the company of others and they are adaptable.

We all mediate what we will do and accept. Does everyone need FriendFeed or Twitter? No. We mediate even the technologies we want to use and are actors in the internet evolution.

The ability for so many to add so much so fast (Yochai Benkler expresses it well) will mean change will come about at an accelerating pace. We do not have to accept it all. Some will accept some things others something completely different.

All this will mean that those of us who have a professional interest in relationships in a commercial context have our work cut out.

It also means that we have to be pluralist in our endeavours.

Shirkey made a point. Perhaps a trifle over the top and from the perspective of his own extrapolated experience.

Mediation is something we have to consider and is why I teach net-neutrality as part of online public relations.

Even my computer is set up to catch spam and malicious code – who is to say that it is spam? For some its an opportunity – just not mine at the time.

Heady stuff for PR’s I think.

By: Paul Seaman

Paul Seaman — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:50:05 +0000

Howard, thanks for the correction. I have altered the text accordingly. For the record, I’ve nothing against filtering by machine or humans or both – I’m an advocate. But I would like to see Graylisting in action before saying it really works. The better term is media.

By: Howard Greenstein

Howard Greenstein — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:28:26 +0000

I’ll point out a gramatical error here – it was Keen, and not Shirky who described the Al Jazeera twitter workflow in the videos you linked to on Supernova, so when you describe that, the pronoun “he” should refer to Keen, but Shirky is the most recent person mentioned.

That said, you seem to devalue the “Graylisting” concept – I support the concept for social news – in that, I’d rather watch a funny video if most of my friends though it was funny, but not drown in all the jokes everyone randomly posts in my news stream.
I understand the value of serendipity as well as the value of being exposed to multiple news sources – however, my friends are already a filter for me – they tend to surface more interesting stuff than I do on my own. Is that graylisting or just the way it has always happened – to reference your piece – when someone pointed me to a useful tv show or magazine.

I’m heard your argument around social media – yes, media has always been social. End of story. People needed something to call the new services and products they were using, and as I’ve said to Steve Rubel, when you find a better name than “social media” please share it with everyone, and tell them to share it, and so on.

– Howard Greenstein