Social Media And Its Role In The Panic-demic

As former member of the fourth estate, I feel quite elegiac about the sound of the presses slowing towards an inevitable stop. Ever since I saw His Girl Friday as a very small child, I wanted to be a reporter. [And who wouldn't - Roz Russell was gorgeous, bantered beautifully with even more beautiful Cary Grant and got to do good through the power of the word!]

Today, however, I find myself in the surprising  and uncomfortable position of being more than a little miffed at my paper- and broadcast-based journalistic brethren. Their eagerness to point the finger at social media as panic-mongers of DOOM as the Swine Flu crisis develops.

REACTIONARY REACTIONS?

An example of the digi-pointing can be found in a blog by Milo Yiannopolous of the UK’s Telegraph who notes:

Twitterers are saturating the Twitterverse with scaremongering and nonsense about swine flu via the #swineflu hashtag. Let us be clear: swine flu aint some hot internet meme. It’s not a lolcat or a great flash game. It is a serious disease.

The speed with which idle chatter about swine flu is propagating, at the hands of those (it seems almost wilfully) ignorant of the facts, is terrifying and may cost lives. It has now become impossible to separate hysteria from vital news. For perhaps the first time, Twitter has become a hindrance and not a help to newsgathering and to the public seeking information.

And closer to home, the usually level-headed and excellent news source NPR has also chimed in, with  Evgeny Morozov noting that

despite all the recent Twitter-enthusiasm about this platform’s unique power to alert millions of people in decentralized and previously unavailable ways, there are quite a few reasons to be concerned about Twitter’s role in facilitating an unnecessary global panic about swine flu.

You’ll forgive me if I state that this sounds a bit like sour grapes. True, one of the justifiable concerns about social media is that there is a dearth of fact-checking. And yes, there are idiots out there who will play the Web 2.0 version of the game of telephone, terror edition.  But has there never been a panic caused by a broadcast network or a newspaper? Truly? Rumours never have flown because of a hyperbolic headline or an over-emphatic piece on a 24 hour news network?

ANOTHER LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA IN RELATION TO SWINE FLU

No one is downplaying the fact that this is a potentially deadly illness and that people have been tested positive for it on several continents. The threat is real and frightening.

However, it is also true that almost nobody has looked at the positive ways social media has been used in the course of this porcine pandemic.

Just to offer a few examples:

The Centre for Disease Control has been offering updates on Twitter such as

“20 confirmed cases of swine flu in U.S. 1 hospitalized. All have fully recovered. http://bit.ly/uycgL #swineflu”

And over on FriendFeed, one of its users has created a Swine Flu room which aggregates “various real-time information streams on swine flu from across the web,” making it a reliable and timely source of information.

The CDC has also used YouTube to present a video by Dr. Joe Bresee of its Influenza Division dealing with the signs, symptoms, transmission and treatment of Swine Flu.

So, in fact, social media has been a means for calming the public and providing it with a stream of accurate and useful information – which is not a story you are likely to see in your local paper, if in fact you still have one.

Only Connect…Or Only Collect? The Whole Follower Question

“Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect…”

E.M. Forster

INTRODUCTION

While it is probably unwise to begin a blog post by quoting superior writer, it’s a mistake I’m going to repeat twice, because it was the brilliant Corvida Raven, whose thoughtful musings served to kick start my little grey cells and nimble typing fingers. She asked the following question in terms of social media networks:

Everything is about connecting to others, but have you considered the type of connection you’d like to have with people?

FIRST A DISCLAIMER:

I’m not going to tip-toe through the minefield and muck of “suggested Twitter users” – dangerous territory already well covered elsewhere- like here for a start.

MOTIVE IS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION

Hopefully the most common answer to Corvida’s question is ” a meaningful one.”

But from where I sit, the type of connection a person has with someone on a social media network such as Twitter can depend on their motive for engaging with and being engaged by that network in the first place. Are they trying to connect – connect to ideas and increase your knowledge? Connect to people with whom they can discuss shared passions or debate differing outlooks? Or are they looking for something else entirely?

I SHALL LEAD YOU ?

Are they looking to boost their ego? More and more there seems to be a sharp increase in people simply looking to amass numbers – be elected electronic prom queen so-to-speak – rather than actually connect. A sort of  “Mine’s bigger than yours” mentality- only this time having to do with numbers of Twitter followers.

It’s a mindset that’s been encouraged by tools like twittergrader.com – something that was meant to be helpful in measuring marketing reach (itself a dubious prospect in terms of what these networks were designed for) that has instead somehow been twisted into a popularity meter for many a person.

You know you’ve seen those tweets – “I’m ranked number __ in the city of Oz.” And frankly it’s disheartening.

BUSINESSES TOO

And that’s just regarding individuals, that says nothing about the unfortunate new inroads spammers and unscrupulous marketers are trying to take.

It’s getting worse too. If you don’t believe me, take a look at more expert opinions – such as the one tweeted by PurpleCar (who writes quite a bit about online behaviour and does it very well)  yesterday when speaking of www.tweepme.com, an “opt-in group” to help rapidly build a base of followers.   “this is a total travesty” she tweeted, followed by “what’s the point of tweepme after a while? Mainstreamers will realize you can rig the system and not use twitter. Follow rates lost value”

EFFECT OF COLLECTORS

It seems to me that trend of collecting has had a tremendously negative impact, having lead to all kinds of dubious services and narcissistic behaviour. Collectors will pander, flirt and provoke shamelessly just to raise their numbers. This kind of tactic is very seductive but ultimately cheapens whatever “connection” there might be. How meaningful is your connection if you are one of thousands?

The truth of this is hammered home if you take into consideration a recent, beautifully crafted commentary on Posterous concerning Dunbar’s number.

In it Melanie McBride sagely noted:

“there are only so many people we can treat reasonably and thoughtfully given the fixed capacity of the human OS and available relationship RAM.“

IN THE END

If you are in fact considering the type of connection that you want to have online, if you want to have meaning, doesn’t it seem better to focus on quality than quantity?

Ironically, given his massive legion of followers, Robert Scoble may have best summed up why it is best not to be a collector and not to focus so much on the size of your following:

If you define yourself by who is following you you’ll always feel inadequate. After all, you can’t control your followers and any idiot can follow people. But, define yourself by who you are following and you can really build something of high value.

In other words, isn’t it best for the tenor of these social networks and your experience on them that people try — really try — to connect and not just to collect?

Sweeping Away the Cobwebs and Pulling Back the Curtains

Admittedly, this blog has been moribund for awhile.

But with the great changes that are sweeping the landscape, I’m determined to take my own positive steps – and actually start posting again.

So while this is brief, it also is a post. It’s a start. And yes, it’s about Barack Obama.

America’s 44th President continues to prove savvy in terms of the online world and to promise that his governing style will be one of openness and public accountability.

He has launched an Office of the President-Elect website that will be a source of information about the plans and personnel for his administration, walking the American people through the transition from W’s gang to his Cabinet and staff.

It’s as if someone has gently parted the curtains and let a little light into a room that has been plunged into darkness and despair for far too long. And it’s beautiful.

iPhone? Not I.

With all the fanfare attached to it, you’d think the arrival of the iPhone in Canada was the Second Coming.

True, it’s been a long wait. Our neighbours to the south have had access to that sleek, touch-screen goodness for almost a year.

And frankly, like most Apple products, it is a beautiful, stylish piece of technology. Just look at it.

As with most of the items masterminded by brilliant British-born industrial designer Jonathan Ive, so deservedly feted by the Design Museum in London for his body of work, the result is innovative, clean and instantly covetable.

But like many others living in Canada, I will resist the siren song of this particular piece of technology.

Why Resist?

It’s not because of Apple. Indeed the powers-that-be at Apple are very canny about promoting the brand and making their products must-haves.

As noted by the still-in-beta-site BrandDoozie, Apple’s brand is powerful and has an amazingly loyal following:

“From their iconic logo to iPod’s campaign of gyrating silhouettes against a kaleidoscope of color, Apple is more than a brand—it’s a culture.”

And the fact they’ve managed to do that generally by buzz rather than by expensive marketing campaigns.

[Tangent: For an alternative take on Apple's brand that is quite intriguing, take a look at what Robert Scoble had to say last winter in a post entitled The Brand Promise of Apple.]

So, Why Resist Again?

Two words: Rogers Communications.

Rarely has a company with exclusive rights to a product managed to generate so much negative buzz for a hot commodity so quickly.

Because it is the only phone provider in Canada that uses the GSM network required by the device, Rogers is the only provider that can carry Apple’s 3G iPhone.

And unlike in the United States where unlimited data plans are offered, Rogers decided to lock iPhone purchasers into a three-year contract. And according to CTV.ca, the initial pricing was…less than ideal.

“The cheapest plan under that structure includes 400 megabytes of data, 150 minutes of weekday talk time and unlimited evenings and weekends for $60 per month plus fees and taxes.”

The Result?

A Major backlash. A website called ruinediphone.com sprang up and led to massive online petitioning, the organization of a protest rally and a campaign to get many Rogers customers to drop the corporation as a provider.

The protest has had an impact. As noted by the blog Load This with Steve Tilley, earlier this week Rogers decided to offer iPhone buyers the chance to choose their own standard voice plan and then add on a data plan allowing for 6 GB of mobile data a month for an addition $30.

But this has been a bit like throwing a bucket of water on a three-alarm fire. Gillian Shaw, of The Vancouver Sun, noted that this appeasement has not been entirely effective:

“The numbers of disgruntled consumers voicing their ire at www.ruinediphone.com continued to climb in the wake of Rogers’ announcement, aimed at cooling the controversy before today’s launch of the new phone.”

Who Was Smart About This?

Bell Canada. They looked at the negative publicity that Rogers was receiving and did something clever.

As of August 8th, they’re going to offer Samsung’s version of the iPhone, the Instinct (currently available in the US via Sprint), and they’re going to offer it with reasonable rates. Look at the comparison that the Globe and Mail offered on the two phones:

“The Samsung Instinct, which has many of the same features as the Apple iPhone, differs from the iPhone in one major way: Its monthly price plan, which will dramatically undercut the iPhone plan announced last week by Rogers Wireless.

A subscriber can…pay less than $40 a month for a modest voice plan accompanied by an unlimited Internet on Bell’s high-speed data network.”

Conclusion

So despite my love of Apple’s blend of solid technology and superior design, it looks like in this case, I’m going to have to wait and follow my Instinct instead of biting into Apple’s latest.

Part of it is the better pricing- that’s for sure. But a company clever enough to be responsive to another company’s disgruntled customers and to generate good PR by being more reasonable about rates?

They just seem smarter than the other guys. And a tad more reasonable.

What about you? Would you go along with Rogers’s terms to get the new iPhone? or would you be satisfied by a Samsung? What would/will you do?

Twitter Feeling Less Chirpy: The Migration is Well Underway?

Despite the fact that there must have been a chorus of “hosannas” when Jon Stewart briefly referenced them on The Daily Show the other night, the folks at Twitter might not be feeling too chipper (or chirpy) at the moment.

Over on FriendFeed as of late, amongst many of the early adopters and A-listers, much of the discussion has been about leaving Twitter.

Alas, microblogging service, they just can quit you.

The Early (Adopter) Warning Signs

It’s not like anyone missed the signs that this was coming. Citing FriendFeed once again– mostly because that’s where the flock with foresight have flown –there have been innumerable posts about Twitter’s status noting whether it was up, whether tweets were vanishing into the ether or whether it was so down that nothing was happening and even the fail whale was too ashamed to make an apologetic appearance.

But What About Those Who Came Into the Conversation Late?

As a recent but really curious newcomer to social media, it’s been fascinating to actually watch the adoption curve of the trend in action. Because just as the earlies are flying off for more hospitable climates, there are many late adopters who are using Twitter and enjoying the process. For example, it has been a way for classmates to keep each other apprised of cancellations and summarize the substance of classes missed.

Personally, Twitter and I had more of a flirtation than a love affair. I only gave it a whirl (or twhirl?) for a few months before leaving it last week.

I didn’t like the fact that its concise nature seemed to encourage or even crystallize narcissism in some cases, or that you couldn’t really place a conversation in context.

That’s one of the things I like about FriendFeed. You can get the whole conversation and its offshoots in one spot. It often makes for fascinating reading as well as engaging participation.

What Does This Mean For Twitter- and for Its Users?

Poor Twitter – you can’t help feeling sorry for the former favourite. Especially as the disappointed and displeased word-of-mouth by former influential fans has spread in intensity and scale faster than a nasty virus at a preschool.

Is Twitter doomed? Or has it merely lost the favour of the tech elite? Is the mainstream still using the microblogging service – or are they leaving in droves also? And where are they going- Jaiku? Plurk? FriendFeed?

I know my chirping days are over but what about you: Will you continue to tweet? And if you do, will there be anyone to answer back at this point?

And if you were Twitter- how would you handle this increasingly dire situation?