Social Media

Brian Solis has posted a lengthy and informative treatise entitled, "What's Wrong With Social Media?", in which he brings together a number of positive and negative viewpoints on the use of the term "Social Media".

IMHO, the only thing wrong with "Social Media" is the questionable motivations of those that find it necessary to give it a name. Let's back up a bit and take another look at what has been happening.

Back when the Constitution of the United States was written, our forefathers wrote about freedom of the press, meaning newspapers. Sometime between then and now, technology gave us magazines, radio, television and the term "media" to cover everything. By and large, the media was run by journalists as delivery of news was of paramount importance.

Now, it has been downhill for the media ever since, what with the growth of advertising along with our normal competitive desires and need to control the activities of our fellow man. Newspapers, radio and television stations used to be locally owned and dedicated to the prosperity of the local community, a situation that has changed over the years.

To make matters worse, technology introduces the microprocessor, and a bunch of geeks see it as an opportunity to take over the world. (Prior to this time the geeks were quite happy serving as tool makers for the world).

So, what do the geeks do?? They turn the whole world upside-down, rename everything, throw out the baby AND the bath water. Of course, they have an advantage -- they are the only ones that understand this new technology.

Someone coined the phrase, "Revenge of the geeks/nerds." Maybe so -- one would have to admit that the geeks have done a very poor job of providing the whole of society with a safe, workable, economical "Personal Computer".

We need to understand that the first users of any technology will be suspect while they plow new ground -- but, even more so because of the extremely high financial rewards some have reaped at the expense of society as a whole.

The net effect of all of this is a system that is highly competitive. The blogosphere creates problems for the mainstream media causing them to join the competition. This, at a time when we should be lowering the competitive levels, not increasing them.

So, when Brian Solis writes:

"The key point is that Social Media has yet to reveal its true impact among those around the world who have yet to embrace it and participate."

"The way we react and share information will only continue to change until it completely transforms from one-to-many to many-to-many."

I must counter by noting that the transformation would be very simple -- switch from blogs, a one-to-many format, to forums, a many-to-many format.

You might be interested in my Off-Line Forum samples, a true many-to-many approach:

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

Peer Review...

When I went to school there was a horrendous gulf between the social sciences and the real sciences, you know, math, physics, chemistry and biology.

In the real sciences we have the Scientific Method where we collect data, formulate an hypothesis, test our hypothesis, all subject to the careful scrutiny of other scientists.

In the social sciences they have Theories, Causal Variables, critical analysis and peer review. Frankly, I don't see any difference. Theory, hypothesis, either one is of no value without peer review. And that seems like the fundamental premise supporting the ultimate definition of Democracy.

Let's look at a specific example:

One of my daily stops is Doc Searls Weblog, not because of what he says, but because he has the best links in the blogosphere. Now that is not a put down of Doc Searls, it is my way of saying that a combination of things makes it very difficult to understand precisely what he is saying. I keep reading little gems of wisdom that I can't consolidate because they are all mixed up in all the other things that interest Doc, to say nothing of the crummy blog format used by Doc.

On yesterday's post, Doc starts with the heading "Losing our heads" and links to Dave Rogers (and some other place) and then posts a quote. He interjects a comment and then continues with a very, very lengthy quote.

Now, I don't intend to provide a bunch of links beside the one to Doc Searls above. You can try and follow the discussion between Dave and Doc the same way I did. OTOH, you can skip the exercise, as most others do.

The point is -- here are two intelligent people discussing a matter of great importance to all of us -- yet there is no possibility of any Peer Review. Oh, at least Doc has the ability for any of us to post a comment; but, just try and make any sense out of that kind of thread.

What we have is the modern day equivalent of an electronic football game with one team in Indianapolis and the other in Chicago, and the audience spread all over the world. First, you tune in the Colts to see their play and then you need to tune in the Bears to see their reaction. and to make matters worse you need to tune in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, etc to get a feel for the crowd reaction. Silly, isn't it??

But, this is what we have in the blogosphere. Doc didn't like this description; however, a blog is a soapbox, one-to-many, one individual shouting a message to the world. Adding comments does not a forum make, it is still a blog with comments.

A forum may begin with the same kind of message as a blog; however it is aimed a smaller group of members involved in the evolution of the group. Now, don't get all excited by my limited comparison -- I accept that there are good blogs and bad forums. The critical point is that the forum can contain, in one place, both sides of a discussion in addition to some reader contribution. Yes, it may put a little more burden on the individual than a personal blog, but it makes it a whole lot easier on the general public.

BTW, I'm not convinced that you guys are really on different sides. Dave, you said that you are opposed to the unchecked expansion of commercial activity at the expense of social and political activities. Doc, you said that you were not going to stop trying to change the balance of power within commerce. What's the difference??

Dave, you don't like the phrase, "Markets are Conversations". I don't either; however, I see the phrase as a misguided attempt to change reality by changing the framing. In other words, while you can frame a discussion in many different ways to facilitate an understanding of reality, it is a mistake to believe that you can change reality by framing the discussion differently. Think about it!!

Doc Searls, Dave Rogers, I make this challenge, Bring your discussion to my web site. Let's set up a forum where others can get involved. Yes, it is necessary to download some software -- to accommodate present and future non-broadband users I am using a slight modification to the standard e-mail system. That same software will allow you to respond to this message, out in the open where everybody can see. (Sorry Dave, requires a PC and Windows 2000 or Windows XP, but, that's another story. I'll bet that you could borrow a laptop, someplace).

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

If you send me an email, please put a [PDMSB] in the title, to separate your message from the Spam.