Today I sparked a whole conversation in Twitter about the term “social media.” Here is the edited (for ease of reading) conversation. Weigh in with your own opinions in the comments (or tweet me at http://twitter.com/purplecar).
My comments are in bold.
++++++++++++++++++
PurpleCar: Getting a little sick of the term “social media.” Networks are social by definition. All recorded communication is media. It’s antiquated.
mikeyil: agreed
greendeeds: agree with you. The term “social media” is just so generic.
charleshope “social media” is a dumb term anyway.
PurpleCar: @charleshope agreed.
mleis: It’s the only term society could agree upon to describe making the adjustment to ubiquitous computing. Is what it is. Cliches are good. They hurt but they’re good. We all know what they mean.
PurpleCar: The time for calling the phone system “Ma Bell” is over. The time for calling communication online “social media” is over too. @mleis
PurpleCar: RT @deanwhitbread: calling it “social media” is like calling the telephone the “telephonic interpersonal talking machine”
potsie: Shall we re-introduce consumer generated media?
PurpleCar: @potsie I don’t see why, in general conversation, we need to identify who made the media. Unless it’s relevant, we don’t need to categorize.
potsie: It all depends on the audience. Some clients are still comfortable/think about traditional and social media separately.
PurpleCar: @potsie I say “paper copy” or “print book” – I make distinctions about the tech, not the product.
romez: How do you feel about emerging communication technologies being referred to as “New Media” ?
PurpleCar: “New Media” is a stupid term, too. New tech is fine. What it does isn’t relevant. It’s new tech or it’s old tech (like the wheel). @romez
MattTGrant: I absolutely agree re: “Social Media” – name me a medium that isn’t social? it’s like saying “social language.” sometimes I will say “emerging media” instead of “social” – at least it gets at the temporary novelty of the new.
PurpleCar: A Medium is something through or by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or carried on (m-w.com) (inherent social quality). but that’s my point. It’s emerging tech, delivering human communication. I say we just call it media and point out the tech diff
MattTGrant: The question is are “social media” essentially different from traditional media? A wiki is really different from a newspaper. The difference is the “two-way-ness” – I can edit a wiki – I can’t edit the newspaper – I can tag on Flickr, I can’t on TV (yet)
PurpleCar: @MattTGrant That is amateur vs. professional media. Sponsored vs. volunteer. That is where the difference lives.
BigBossBgilbert: “New media” (to me) describes new forms of media delivery (podcasts, for instance). Not sure what you mean.
PurpleCar: Media hasn’t changed. Delivery systems and participants have changed. Media hasn’t changed. “New media” makes no sense. @BigBossBgilbert
BigBossBgilbert: I think it’s also a question of the way news is being handled. There’s big difference between online reporting and print.
PurpleCar: @BigBossBgilbert How is there any difference between online reporting and print? There’s just a diff b/w amateur and professional reporting. Even with the iPad that will be able to have inline video with print, that is still just regular old media on a new device. I say “tweet” when I use Twitter, “update” for other services, “video” for YouTube. I don’t say “I put some social media up on YouTube.”
hchybinski: LOL thank heavens you don’t say that – because it sounds dumb! LOL
PurpleCar: @hchybinski Yes it’s all media. To call it “social media” is redundant AND too general of a term. Trying to think of other redundant terms…
BigBossBgilbert: That sounds like the opinion of someone who’s never written for both. There’s an enormous difference.
PurpleCar: @BigBossBgilbert If you run a search on my name, you’ll see I’ve written for both. Journalism is good or bad. Has nothing to do with tech.
BigBossBgilbert: I’m not talking about the thoroughness of reporting, I’m talking about the difference between online and print delivery mediums. The most cursory, basic example would be the concept of a “deadline”
PurpleCar: @BigBossBgilbert What makes you think online reporting doesn’t have deadlines? I’m really confused at what you are saying. I write for some online pubs and I can tell you, there are deadlines. I’m saying “social media” as a term is obsolete. Online or off. Good or bad. New tech or old tech. It’s all “social media.”
BigBossBgilbert: Agreed, but you’re painting with really broad strokes here. Let’s take that all the way out and say that any form of media that exists where you can interact with others is “social media.” And no, “deadlines” as a concept online are obsolete. The internet simply exists, there is no printing cutoff. Which is to say that stories are ongoing. Updates are constant. That changes reporting in a fundamental way.
PurpleCar: @BigBossBgilbert stories were always constant. Their ongoing quality was just ignored by the writers after the initial soundbite/story.
BigBossBgilbert: But the medium itself changes how easy it is to update that. The difference between updating an existing story online and doing so the next day in print is ENORMOUS. Also, the direct interaction between writer and reader is far more apparent online.
PurpleCar: @BigBossBgilbert but listen to what you are saying. Communication has increased. Info flows more. It’s all just media. More of it, but same.
BigBossBgilbert: Sure, but there’s no harm in specializing your reporting based on the medium. In fact, it’s greatly beneficial to your reporting.
PurpleCar: @BigBossBgilbert That means our habits are changing. It doesn’t mean someone has invented a new medium, say, like info exchange via DNA. You would be forming your reporting around the tech and the environment, much like writing for NYT vs. small town rag. I hear what you’re saying but you sound like the rest of the old newspaper guys who really want to believe its “new” media.
PurpleCar: Anyway, I’m just saying “new media” should be “new tech” and “social media” should just be “media” or specific terms like “tweet” or “video”
BigBossBgilbert: You’re really nitpicking here. And yes, “new media” does mean “new medium.” It’s fair to call online-based news a “new medium”
PurpleCar: @BigBossBgilbert In a few years, the terms will fade and blend in, when people assume it’s online & paper is more rare. I’m an early adopter
BigBossBgilbert: Agreed! But it’s ridiculous to not parse the two now as they’re still pretty separate.
JustinKownacki: “New” always disproves itself over time. We need to subdivide the media, the tech & the distribution. No “new” required.
PurpleCar: @JustinKownacki exactly. “new” will fade, as will “social.” We need to use more specific terms for which media. NYT article. Blog post. Wiki
ericsmithrocks: but… @bigbossbgilbert is a full-time blogger for @joystiq, not an old-timey newspaper guy. Though his cap is very Newsies-ish.
PurpleCar: @ericsmithrocks yes, I know. I said he sounded like one. I’m just annoyed with the term. It hinders communication and is useless.
JustinKownacki: This is the danger of hastily-applied signifiers creating information muddles down the line. “Podcast,” anyone?
PurpleCar: @JustinKownacki agreed.
PurpleCar: Most people should be using the term “networking” or “networks” when they say “social media.” Making a Facebook fan page is networking.
JustinKownacki: The lack of demarcation between “social media” and “social marketing” also makes me apoplectic. But that’s a different rant.
PurpleCar: @JustinKownacki YES! Or MARKETING. Thank you! Calling media “social” when you really mean “marketing” is misleading and slimy.
PurpleCar: Maybe I can get @chrisbrogan to stop using the term “social media” and just use the specific terms like marketing, networking, online, etc.
PurpleCar: This article uses the term “engagement ads” — see, that is way more accurate and truthful than “social media” http://is.gd/7e2vh
Gruven_Reuven: Might be old school now, But I still prefer Howard Rheingold’s (@hrheingold) term “Virtual Community.” You should read his book “Virtual Communities”. I highly recommend it. The virtual circles we create are mini communities.
PurpleCar: @Gruven_Reuven Yeah, I don’t know how much “community” is a falsehood when one talks about online or virtual networks. Not sure on that one.
Gruven_Reuven: depends on the community. I’m still a part of a close knit mailing list community that’s been around since 1991
PurpleCar: @Gruven_Reuven The jury is still out on that for me. The whole perceived intimacy trap with online relationships can’t be ignored
georgedearing: liking @PurpleCar’s stream today
danieljohnsonjr: Catching up with @PurpleCar’s updates today. Wise she is, yes.
PurpleCar: @danieljohnsonjr @GeorgeDearing thanks, guys. I rant, therefore I am. It’s anti-social media.
richpalmer: @PurpleCar That’s why we follow you! It is nicely antithetical.
georgedearing: @PurpleCar you could be the voice behind my new venture @shitsocialmarketerssay / that says a lot..in a good way..really
+++++++++++++++++++++
Today I will change the name of 2 of the subcategories on this blog: Social Media and Social Media Gems to Media and Gems. I’ll think of more descriptive titles later.
This was a lot of fun. Thanks to everyone for weighing in. What do you think about the term “social media?” Are there comments in the Twitter stream above that I haven’t addressed or missed? Let’s continue this conversation in the comments.
The RSS of alerts on my online content from FairShare usually stays pretty quiet. Even when another site uses my content and a new alert is generated, 99% of the time a link back to my blog accompanies the post. Even then, the post isn’t a full copy but a summary and a link. I have no problem with this, as I license my content under a Creative Commons copyright.
For those of you who aren’t familiar, here’s a 3-step process on how a blogger can protect the words she writes from being plagiarized or stolen.
1st: a blogger visits the Creative Commons website and picks which type of copyright she wants. I’ve chosen the copyright that allows other people to re-post my content, as long as they link back to me or give me credit and they don’t use my work to make money. They can’t sell my work or use it to sell other things, even if they do link back to me.
2nd: the blogger downloads the graphic and puts it on every page of her blog. Mine looks like this:
3rd: the blogger uses various web applications to send alerts via RSS or email whenever her content shows up somewhere on the Internet. I use FairShare to look after all my content and Google alerts to look after various keywords, including my name and blog name. When someone uses my content, those alerts will fire me an RSS update or an email, respectively.
That’s the basic way to keep track of where your work ends up online.
When I get an alert, I immediately investigate. If everything looks OK and within the terms of the Creative Commons copyright, I leave it be. About 99% of the alerts fall within what’s called “Fair Use.” In other words, the other site that borrows my content links back to my blog, giving me credit, and the site isn’t covered in ads or selling any products.
Today I started my RSS reader and found an alert from FairShare that was in that 1%.
FairShare showed me the site New and Used Books, where my review of NurtureShock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman was listed under the ad for the book. I was not credited. The full review was posted, not a partial clip. There was no link back to the Amazon site where I had posted my review, there was no link back to my blog. No link at all. And they were using my review (albeit a non-favorable one) to sell the book.
This is when I send a “cease & desist” letter. Basically, a cease & desist is a letter that says, “Please link to me or remove this content immediately. You are violating my copyright.” In other words, somebody owes me money or credit, and if you don’t delete my content from your site, you must pay me.
NewandUsedbooks is still violating my copyright because they are using my words to sell a book, but even that I could let go if they just linked to me or to my Amazon review (which links to my blog).
Here is my email to Newandusedbooks.com. It is a typical cease & desist email that I write:
“You have used my content and are violating copyright. Please either remove my book review or give me the link credit to my blog. You have taken the online reviews from Amazon.com but have not linked to that either. I will be forwarding a copy of this message to Amazon.com.
Here is the link to your page where you violate my copyright:
http://newandusedbooks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=zmore&manu=Twelve&prodGroup=Book&item_ASIN=0446504122&author=Po%20Bronson&SubscriptionId=0JN0QHH0QAG4YVY4FY02
Here are the first few phrases of my review:
‘Conservative agenda by non-scientists.: (2009-09-20)
New York Magazine journalists Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman team up to add commentary and more information to their articles in this new book published by Twelve, a division of the Hachette Book Group.
The last page of the book has this blurb about Twelve:’
I expect this situation to be resolved by Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009 by 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (GMT – 5).
Thank you.
Christine Cavalier
christine@purplecar.net”
Today is Sunday. I didn’t expect a quick response, but a few minutes later I received this email from newandusedbooks.com:
“Dear Ms. Cavalier,
New and Previously Owned Books is an Amazon affiliate. We have not “copied” anything from Amazon rather as an Amazon affiliate and by contract with Amazon, we receive by automatic “download” the books, book covers, reviews, prices, availability, etc. directly from Amazon. We do not select what reviews to post on any given book – they are downloaded from Amazon. We cannot control what Amazon puts on their site and we cannot add to their descriptions and cannot add a link to your blog within their downloaded review.
I hope this explains where the information is coming from and alleviates your concerns.
Vickie Denney
www.ReaderToReader.com”
I wrote back immediately, but have yet to hear a response:
“Dear M. Denney,
Thank you for writing with a prompt reply.
Does your server refresh the pages often? If we remove our content from Amazon, can we conclude that it will then be removed from your site?
-Christine Cavalier
christine@purplecar.net”
Then I went and deleted all 4 of the reviews I posted to Amazon.com, despite the reviews’ good ratings and conversations they generated.
Newandusedbooks.com passed the buck to Amazon, saying that the catalog content they lease from Amazon isn’t controlled by them (or their seemingly parent company readertoreader.com). Does Amazon strip the links before they sell the content? Or does newandusedbooks.com strip the links when they post the Amazon catalog content to their site? The response I received didn’t answer these questions, and I don’t think my follow-up email will get much of a response, either.
I don’t need to pour over Amazon’s Terms of Service. I can already guess that Amazon has standard legalese that states they own the content of all reader reviews on their site. I proceeded to delete all my reviews and decided that the few links back to my profile or blog aren’t worth it. My stats never showed very many links back to my blog from Amazon, and I don’t need to spend time building up a “reputation” on Amazon as a good reviewer.
I know, I know. I’ve been blogging since 2004, I should’ve known better. I was thinking it was an even trade-off for the potential in new blog readership. I didn’t think Amazon would sell my content without at least a link back to the original content on its own site.
This is one of those situations that critics Andrew Keen, @AmandaChapel, et al., cite when they bemoan the current practice of online retailers using free content by amateurs. Readers write free reviews on Amazon and Amazon sells them along with their catalog content to book selling sites. The Publisher’s Weekly reviews are also on Amazon, but Amazon doesn’t lease out that content because Publisher’s Weekly tells Amazon they must pay for that work. The lone avid reader/blogger has no team of lawyers looking after them like that. Amazon and other sites take advantage of readers’ want for connection, or fame, or whatever misguided motivations and sell their very-marketable, worthy content for their own profit.
What do you think of this? Has this happened to you? Do you use copyright protection on your work? Let me know in the comments.
As for me, I say, “Bye-Bye, Amazon.” Now I’m going over to Goodreads.com to see if their revenue model is based on members’ free reviews.
Employers are vetting out applicants online. The new adage is “Google them.” Some employers are stepping over the line of a simple web search to asking for an applicant’s password to social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace. This may seem like prudent vetting practice, but in fact it’s more troublesome and legally dangerous than it is worth.
After an uproar over privacy laws on the Internet, a Montana city government retracted their policy of asking for applicants’ private passwords for social networking sites. Personally, I think Montana was fortunate it was an uproar on the internet and not an EEOC lawsuit that caused them to rethink their policy. Collecting a mere applicant’s or even an employee’s privacy credentials is not only legally dangerous, but unnecessary.
Let’s think through the logic of this. Say an employer, “BigCompany,” wants to vet potential 17-year-old intern, “Sarah Genius;” they want to ensure she conducts herself in a manner that is becoming to BigCompany. BigCompany’s Human Resources staff, namely low-on-the-totem-pole tech “Pete BadApple,” conducts a simple web search and views what the public can see online about her.
Pete BadApple fancies himself an expert internet searcher. He finds every group Sarah Genius had ever briefly been a member of, every update she posted on MySpace, and every forum she ever lurked on. This is all just public information. Pete BadApple makes a note that Sarah Genius suffers from diabetes and kidney problems (information he assumes based on her group memberships). Pete BadApple uses Sarah’s passwords to log in as Sarah on Facebook. He concludes that Sarah is African-American, based on her family and friend connections. Pete BadApple had met Sarah Genius during the interview process (and found her to be quite cute, actually), and this information is jarring to him.
Still, Pete BadApple continues on, looking through Sarah Genius’s friend lists. Lo and behold, Pete finds that Sarah is a cousin of Huge MovieStar. Huge MovieStar has a private profile and is connected only to friends and family that also have private profiles. They are a tight-knit group and protect Huge MovieStar’s privacy fiercely. Well, Pete BadApple is logged in as Huge MovieStar’s cousin, Sarah Genius, so Pete can thumb through Huge MovieStar’s updates. He finds that Huge MovieStar, who is all over the headlines for being tapped to star as the Next Indiana Spider-Terminator, was newly diagnosed with Leukemia. The headlines have no idea about this, and the movie studio would certainly withdraw the offer if they knew. Pete BadApple is a little short on cash this month, so he calls and sells the story to a tabloid, sending screen shots as proof. Pete BadApple finishes his vetting process of Sarah Genius and emails his report to his boss, and then forwards a copy to his friend, adding pictures of Sarah Genius in a topless bikini, captioning the pictures with “Can you believe this chick is Black? She’s totally hot anyway!”
Lo and behold, somehow Pete BadApple’s report and email wind up in the hands of an EEOC lawyer and the local and federal law authorities that investigate child pornography. BigCompany now has a Big Problem.
Even if Pete BadApple was Pete GoodApple, the mere public web search may have brought up information that although public, should not be part of the vetting process. Pete BadApple should not have included Sarah Genius’s medical-condition support group memberships in his report. This information violates the law. The other concern is that every company has a Pete BadApple. Even Pete GoodApple can “turn bad” when faced with potentially money-making information about an applicant. Why put your employees in that situation and your company at risk?
Nowhere in this process should private interactions come into public view. When you vet a person’s background, you should worry only about what the public can see about that person. Of course, password protection and site security aren’t foolproof and one day private information may become public (although this is a very rare occurrence); we can understand why BigCompany wants to make sure Sarah Genius isn’t a closet freak. But just because the Internet makes it more possible than ever to vet out a person’s background, it doesn’t mean an employer should. Employers got along just fine before Facebook. BigCompany can better predict Sarah’s future performance by looking at her past performance than they can aptly predict her performance based on her private web page. In fact, Sarah’s private web persona is most likely very different than her work or everyday persona. If employers make assumptions based on the content of Facebook Walls, they will be likely passing up qualified candidate after qualified candidate (this is especially true when the hiring manager is a Boomer and the applicant is from Gen X or Y).
An applicant’s privacy is better left intact. If you are an employer, rely on the old-fashioned vetting methods like a credit check and recommendations, and add a regular web search of public pages. Ignore memberships in any public support groups or forums. Keep your company free of legal and civil complications.
What do you think? Have you run into a situation at work where someone’s online privacy was violated? Heard of any lawsuits about this type of thing? Let’s discuss in the comments.
If you haven’t already, make sure to go over to Facebook and make an account. Once you have an account, go to facebook.com/username to pick out a “vanity URL” for your Facebook profile.
A Vanity URL is a website application’s unique web address for your profile. Until now, Facebook’s URLs were a combination of odd symbols, numbers and letters that had nothing to do with your name. Now you can have a URL that is similar to your name or preferred username (if you get there in time OR if you have a very unique name). My vanity Facebook URL is facebook.com/christine.cavalier .
Chris Brogan, a social media guy who is one of the area’s more prominent leaders, didn’t choose the URL facebook.com/chrisbrogan. In fact, he didn’t choose anything for several precious hours after the vanity url registration opened up, in which time someone else snapped up the name. He was at odds with the effects of URLs, naming and applications have on his identity. As he says on his blog:
“It’s never about the sites and services. Never forget that. YOU add value to them, not the other way around. “
This is true, but I tend to think a name is the quickest way to find a person anywhere; Having the vanity URL as your name would be most prudent, especially since Facebook’s search engine is notorious for bringing up all sorts of flotsam when you are looking for friends. I oftentimes type a vanity URL in my browser’s address field, e.g. twitter.com/johnsmith, in the off chance I may just find the John Smith I want on Twitter.com with little effort. I want Facebook to work for me this way, too. I toyed with registering facebook.com/purplecar, but instead stuck with my name. I run the risk of someone else registering that vanity URL, because Facebook allows you only one. This was something I could live with, because eventually I will probably phase out “purplecar” altogether. I own my domain name, so perhaps I’ll move to that URL and make “purplecar” a quaint username I offer in chatrooms.
I digress.
Will life end because Chris Brogan’s vanity URL is facebook.com/dotchrisbrogan? No. Will your life end if you don’t rush over to facebook right now and sign up? No. But you will be online somewhere soon, and you will have to choose your tattoo like the rest of us. What will yours be?
You know the email. It goes along the lines of the urban legends we told each other as teens. Masked man in the back of the car (because naturally, you wouldn’t notice a MAN in the back seat of a Corolla). Delivery van full of poison, don’t open your packages. Whatever the flavor of the week was, you heard it. Now, instead of around a fire on a camping trip, these tales are delivered right to your inbox. Lovely.
The internet spreads so much fear. Even once my neighborhood knew the following report was false, they conceded that perhaps it is best for us to be wary of the real dangers the false story presented. Basically, they were warning each other to be aware of something that isn’t there, just to “be safe.” Well, that safety comes with a cost.
See, that’s the rub. This type of fear isn’t free. By vowing to “stay alert” at the level of an MI-6 assassin, you overlook the real petty crime that may hurt you, you give away your sense of safety and community, and you stress yourself and others out to the point that they doubt their very useful gut instincts. (These are the very gut instincts, by the way, that you need to keep you safe when something truly dangerous is going down. We don’t want to learn to ignore them.)
Yes, violent crime happens. Protect yourself. Learn when and what type of crime happens in your neighborhood and the places you frequent. Take a self-defense class. Sending around sensationalistic urban rumors won’t do crap in protecting you from what crime you more likely will face. Depending on where you live, you should probably concentrate on how not to get your purse snatched or your vehicle broken into instead of giving yourself hyper-xenophobia and a false sense of bravado because you “know” what can happen in a Target parking lot.
Why am I bringing this to your attention now? Today this email was sent to a Yahoo group I belong to. It has over 100 members of my neighborhood in it. I wanted to share this exchange with you to remind you that this type of fear isn’t free. Think twice before you mindlessly forward it on and pat yourself on the back for keeping people “safe.” It degrades community and actually supports an environment where even more violent crime will flourish. We only have each other; distancing ourselves from our neighbors isn’t the answer.
Here’s the whole exchange. Please share this widely. Let’s breed community, not crime.
My Mom sent this to me — it’s a legit story from Illinois (verified on Snopes) but who knows if it could happen here… be careful!
A new way to abduct a female . This is very scary!
Please pass on to all your girlfriends, wives, etc.
Just to be on the safe side. Please be aware and pass it on to anyone you think this will help.
Sunday afternoon around 5 PM I headed into the Target in Wheaton, IL
where crime is VERY RARE and mostly it is with bikes being stolen!!
It was still light outside and I parked fairly close to the entrance.
As I got out of my car and began walking towards Target, an older lady shouted to me
from the passenger seat of a car about 30 feet away from me.
“Ma’am you must help me, help me please, help me Ma’am!”
I looked at her in the eyes and started to walk towards her when all of a sudden
I remembered an email my Mom had sent me a week or two ago about rapists and abductions
using elderly people to lure women in.
I paused, memorized the license plate and immediately headed into Target to get a manager
to come help this lady, just in case something was up.
While the woman manager headed out there, I kept a close watch just because I was curious
what was wrong with the lady an wanted to be sure nothing happened.
As the Target lady walked up towards the car and got very close to the old woman in order to help her,
the back door of the car flies open and a large man with a stocking cap on, jumps out and sticks a gun to the lady’s stomach as he shoves her into the back of the car.
I yelled out “call 911″ several times and just as I was saying that, a policeman who happened to be on the other side of the parking lot! And who, luckily had seen the entire thing happen, raced over to the car.
He was able to stop the car and arrest the male as well as the old lady, who was involved in the scheme.
By God’s grace everyone was all right, including my self, although I think we were both shaken up.
Like many of you, I would not in a million years have left an elderly person who was yelling for help if it weren’t for the e-mail I had read last week. So, I wanted to pass this along so you all can be aware and remember that you really can’t trust anyone these days.
You just never know when something like this could happen. I would have never dreamed it to happen to m e especially on a Sunday afternoon at a Target in a safe area!
It definitely was not a coincidence that my Mom sent that email just a few days before this all happened. Please, be careful and always be aware of your surroundings.
Just because you individually don’t go over to help someone doesn’t mean you have to leave them in trouble, but don’t go ALONE, you really don’t know what might be going on.
This was checked with Snopes.com http://snopes.com/ – this is true – and they also use children to lure the victim !!
Thankfully a second member posted a reply to this message, quickly stating that it was a false rumor that was, in fact, chronicled on Snopes.com:
actually, i just checked snopes http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/wheaton.asp
and it said this was false!
it always pays to check yourself – but it maybe also pay to follow the advice of this email anyway.
This is great, of course. But I had to take issue with the last statement that perhaps the false advice to good to follow anyway. That kind of thinking comes a price. A price too costly to pay.
Here’s my reply:
There are a few take away lessons from this for all of us:
1. Always check Snopes.com, even if it says “verified on Snopes.”
2. Always do a general internet search on keywords if you can’t find it on
Snopes.
3. Make a decision about what fear is worth spreading. It doesn’t come without
cost.
Do we really want to live our lives as if ridiculous, senseless violence is around every corner? If you want to truly be fearful, inform yourself about real crime statistics. Our neighborhood is relatively safe. Sure, a certain amount of “street smart” caution is needed at all times anywhere, but there’s no reason to doubt your regular instincts. Emails like this seem helpful, but they just work to spread baseless fear and degrade feelings of community.
Do we really want to live in a world where we don’t help our elderly? Granted, if said elderly is in an effed up van and your common sense is sending off crazy alarms, by all means call 911. But let’s not build this idea that we are to be on alert for violent crime around every corner. It’s just not real. What we would pay in stress and loss of community isn’t worth it.
Actual odd crimes like this get plastered all over the world news. You will not find out about them via email, trust me.
Ok, that’s the end of my rant.
Your loving pro-community internet queen,
(PurpleCar)
(If you aren’t familiar with Twitter, hop on over to Common Craft and watch this video.)
How to Start Using Twitter.
So you’ve gone over to Twitter.com and signed up. Congratulations, you’re a Tweeter! Now what? What do you use it for? How do you find people to follow? How to get people to follow back?
First things first. You must do the following 3 things when you sign up to Twitter:
1. Upload a picture (any picture will do, but one of your face is best. G-rated helps too).
2. Fill out a bio, including Location.
3. Provide a URL, even if it is your MySpace page.
A picture, a bio, and a URL go a long way in making you appear to be someone who wants to join the community. (I also advise new users to keep away from putting numbers in their username as this tends to look spammy.)
TIP: Don’t be afraid to change your bio sometimes. I personally change my bio every few weeks. It gives my followers some variety and a way to learn a little bit more about me with every tweak. Still, I keep the common elements in the bio field (e.g. “writer” and “techie geek”).
OK, you’re all set up. Now what?
Now you start following people. To follow a person means that you subscribe to their feed; you see everything they tweet out in the public timeline.
Hopefully you know a person or two to follow to get you started. If you don’t know a soul on Twitter, follow me! If that isn’t enough for you (which, I can’t imagine), then start searching for people who share your interests. You can do this in a few ways.
Search locally. An ADOBE AIR application called TwitterLocal will show you tweets from people in whatever area you specify. It doesn’t work that well but it does work enough for you to find some local people.
TIP: After you’ve downloaded the free AIR application, check out Twhirl and Tweetdeck for great Twitter interfaces.
Search Google with the following syntax to find a bunch of people to follow: Term location site:twitter.com (replace “term” with “writer” “doctor” “juggler” or whatever you’re looking for, and put your city in the “location” part. My favorite search is writer philadelphia site:twitter.com).
Twitter Grader allows you to put in your city and see the top Tweeters (I’m usually around #12 for Philly). Follow a few that sound interesting. Tweet them (type @ then their username, no spaces. Type your message, then hit send). Start conversations. Most people usually follow back.
Twellow is a service that helps people find niches on Twitter. There are so many of these types of sites popping up everyday. Just look for them.
TIP: Under the Notices tab in your Twitter Settings is the word “@Replies” next to a little pulldown menu. [See picture]. Until you are very familiar with Twitter, I suggest that you set it to “Show me all @replies.” This helps you find new people to follow. If someone sends an @reply to someone else that seems interesting, check out the person they are @replying to. Do this by clicking on the username or typing http://twitter.com/username in your browser’s URL (replace “username” with whatever came after the @ in the person’s tweet). You may find that the person on the other side of the conversation may be just the kind of person you’re looking for. Once you are comfortable with Twitter and have found enough interesting people to follow, then you can change this setting to “Show me @replies to people I’m following.” Doing so will keep the noise in your stream to a minimum.
How to get people to follow back?
Usually people will follow back once you follow them. If they don’t, don’t worry about it. There’s way too much emphasis in the social media world about number of followers. Follower numbers are not trustworthy; as cool as Twitter is, spammers abound, which send follower rates through the roof but make those rates totally bogus. Don’t waste your 140 characters per tweet on desperate pleas for followers either. Just Tweet out things that interest you: links, quotes, musings, etc.
TIP: Under settings at the very bottom of the page is a checkbox next to Protect My Updates. Don’t check this box. If you protect your updates right away, you won’t get any followers and it will be nearly impossible for people to have conversations with you. Private tweeting is more of an advanced Twitter function and requires a little learning curve.
Don’t follow thousands of people. To start out, try about 20 people on for size. See how the timeline suits you. See if people are following back. One of the biggest mistakes that I see constantly is the Major Follow Move. Newbies start on Twitter then click follow buttons all up and down the timeline like a squirrel hoarding nuts in November. DO NOT DO THIS. That’s a dead give-away for “spammer.” In fact, the spammer Major Follow Move had gotten to be such a problem that the Twitter.com staff have now put a 2,000 person cap on new follows. You can’t follow more than 2000 people if your follower::followee ratio is too out of whack.
So, as people follow you back, follow more people. Grow your network slowly. You can always watch the humongous public timeline if you’re bored (Japanese kids are writing novels on Twitter, so be forewarned if you want to absorb the world’s public tweets).
Last but not least, the big question: What the heck do I use this for?
Great question. Once you are familiar with tweeting, you’ll have learned that the simple answers to “What are you doing?” don’t really elicit intellectually stimulating conversations. I don’t use that prompt much anymore myself. Telling my followers “I’m getting my roots done” doesn’t really keep my anyone interested. As a freelancer and stay-at-home mom, I use Twitter as my water-cooler, my board room, my lunch table, and my happy hour. I send out questions to the group that sometime roll into heated debates among many users. Sometimes I retweet a funny link someone else sent me. Just wing it for now. You’ll get into the swing of things.
TIP: Search the internet for 3rd party tools that work with Twitter (it’s ok to give your password to the apps, just make sure your Twitter password isn’t the same as your banking or email or any other password). The Twitter search functions may help you figure out what you want to do with your account and who you may want to follow. Check out this wiki to get started.
Twitter is one of those litmus tests in life: what you put into it will be what you get out of it. Find your people. Start connecting.
And try your hardest to avoid addiction.
Here’s the Better Philly video segment. It’s definitely a very cursory introduction and it is geared toward stay-at-home moms:
Second video, learn about Joey Fortman’s bubble tweet:
A “meme” is a little chain-letter-like game that people send around the internet. You may have heard of Facebook’s latest meme “25 Things” (that was started by users, not the Facebook staff).
Ever wonder how these memes begin?
Let’s use the 100 Book meme that is hitting Facebook this week. It’s a good study on how memes get started, how they change over time, and how they grow.
I just caught this from FriendFeed user Mark Dykeman:
“This is one of those Facebook memes that keeps circling around the universe. I answered it on Facebook, but since some of you might not have access to my Facebook account, I thought I’d post the results here.
‘The BBC believes the majority of people will have only read 6 of the 100 books here.
Go to your profile, choose notes, post a new note – copy and edit.
Instructions: Look at the list and put an ‘x’ after those you have read.’”
Mark goes ahead and checks off the books he’s read on the list. It’s more than 6. The list is below, but hang here with me for a second.
Before you get your feathers ruffled about the audacity and snobbery of the BBC, let’s take a better look at this.
I looked for the origin of the meme by checking urban-myth-busting site Snopes and the BBC website. Snopes had nothing about how the BBC supposedly claimed that most people will have read only 6 books on the entire list. Snopes usually catches rumors quickly, but they don’t necessarily investigate every silly Facebook meme. Personally, I doubt the BBC would have said that, but let’s be honest: They’ve said worse.
On the BBC site I found no quotes, articles, or any mention whatsoever about the 6 book number; I did find the BBC’s BIG READ list where they list 100 books and they ask UK’ers to vote on their favorites. Both the list from the Facebook meme and the BBC’s Big Read list look similar. Could they be the same list?
So I stuck them in a spreadsheet and compared. 63 of the books are shared; 37 of the books are not.
Here is the shared list (click to embiggen):
63 FB List titles on left, 63 BBC List titles on right. This list contains exactly the same books, with titles edited.
You’ll notice some of the book titles are written slightly differently, which implies more editing by the clever meme maker (who’ll we’ll refer to as the Facebook Meme Maker -FMM) that adjusted the original BBC list. (With the Facebook Meme’s “Harry Potter Series” entry, I just used the first Harry Potter book. Same with “The Faraway Tree Collection.” In a list of 100 books, it’s confusing to reference a series.)
So this table (click on it then zoom in to see better) contains the 63 shared titles. That means 37 titles were deleted and new ones added by the Facebook Meme Maker.
Here are the remaining 37 titles from the Facebook meme next to the original 37 from BBC list (click to embiggen):
37 FB List titles on left, 37 BBC List titles on right. The lists don't share titles.
Seems like FMM preferred more American authors and books that were later adapted into successful movies. Maybe FMM heard some rumor that the BBC was dissing American authors and readers and felt like putting some of her/his own favorites on the list. Who knows?
But this meme has some of the great signs of a viral commodity:
1. The meme’s subject is elitist in that it says something about the user’s level of intelligence. (“What? You haven’t read War and Peace?!) This fosters (usually friendly) competition amongst friends.
2. The meme has a whiff of injustice that stirs up indignance. (“How DARE the BBC say that?! GIMME THAT LIST!”)
3. Filling out / answering the meme doesn’t take much time. “Put an X by the books you’ve read.”
4. 100 books is perfect. A nice, big milestone number. “16 Things” (which I filled out) didn’t take off on Facebook but “25 Things” did. People gravitate toward milestone, lucky, and zero-ending numbers in this culture. No-one will look at an “82 Books You Need to Read” list. “100″ grabs everyone’s attention.
The FMM probably saw the BBC list and wondered how many of the books she/he had actually read. Out of curiosity, the FMM checked off which book titles were familiar. Perhaps when the number of recognized titles were low, the FMM decided to add the ones she/he did in fact read. What followed was an email or two, with bragging evidence attached, of course, to a few dozen friends on Facebook. Voila! A meme is born.
People who successfully ignore memes will be sucked into this one for the false academic quality of it. It’s about traditional literacy; We all take the “How Well Read Are You?” measurement quite seriously.
I myself am trying to work on being better read. With all the hype about how the internet and tv are melting our brains, this meme is a zinger. It feeds all the fear surrounding the changes in our culture. It will most likely take off and get so big that Snopes will have to post on it.
Now you know how memes like this start. And you also know why I’m not going to be sucked in. It’s a hoax created by a smart FMM who blended some pop culture news story from half-way across the world into a pride-ruffling insult that must be disproven immediately by the educated American masses. Have fun with it if you like, but please don’t spread the indignant attitude. Reading itself should be a positive and inclusive activity.
Skeletons in my closet: To Friend or Not to Friend the Ex.
The other shoe dropped for me last week.
One shoe: The internet.
Other shoe: The past.
Don’t be smug. You think you’re ungoogleable? You think it won’t happen to you? It will. Skeletons have broadband access in your closet. Prepare yourselves.
I’m going to tell you the story knowing full well that the person I mention, my ex-boyfriend, will probably be reading this. Normally, I am quite polite. I’d steer quite clear of this breach of privacy, but the situation is more and more common and we could all use some help. We need to sit down and talk about this.
So, in the interest of science and all life digital, I will tell you the story.
My ex-boyfriend found me online.
We’re not talking the ex from gradeschool, the cute one with the first kiss behind the willow tree on the playground, in the breezy shade from the summer sun. (That ex friended me too, and that’s cool).
No. We’re talking the person that I thought I was going to marry. A college love. Serious. Meaningful. Heartbreaking. The mess you never ever want to see your children go through. The Break-Up of the Century. That was over 15 years ago. This Ex and I didn’t end well. There was no contact and no closure. I was OK with this.
The term “crowdsourcing“ is widening in definition. It used to mean sending one particular problem out to the universe. The amorphous crowd, that undefinable pack of listeners floating around in space, would come up with a solution, either individually or working together and send it in.
Find your crowd.
Small businesses aren’t going to be hiring big corporate crowdsourcing services like Innocentive, but they can use Web 2.0 technologies to gather data and have conversations with their customers or potential customer base. Gathering data and ideas is now considered to be under the umbrella term “crowdsourcing.” Here are 5 FREE ways you can crowdsource for your small business.
1. Start with your immediate, real life crowd. This means ask your own employees, friends or contacts, maybe even your child’s kindergarten class to help you come up with a solution or new ideas.
A particular anecdotal example of this type of private crowdsourcing came from NASA (it was told to me at my former employer, Mars, Inc. when I was a server administrator):
The space shuttle Atlantis was 600 pounds too heavy. In space flights, even the slightest pounds make a difference. The NASA engineers had to get rid of exactly 600 pounds or the mission would fail. The engineers could not figure out where to trim this weight. They had planned every last detail down to its maximum efficiency. These highly trained, world-class engineers mulled over the problem for weeks. Finally someone suggested that they get every single NASA employee in one room and present the problem. Every employee from the night janitors to the mechanics to the secretaries to the astronauts were called into one big assembly with the engineers in the front on stage. They explained the problem. The crowd sat, thinking.
Tags: emerging, generic, meaningless, Media, Rhythm Ticks, social web, terminology, terms, Twitter conversation, useless 
The other shoe dropped for me last week.
Entries (RSS)