Please Let’s Have No More Unfriendly Comments About FriendFeed

While it may not have carved out the giant slice of the social media pie that Twitter has, FriendFeed  has something truly exceptional: The individuals who make up the FF community. It is a community that is largely comprised of  good-hearted, wicked-witted and fierce-brained souls who are deeply loyal to each other.

That FriendFeed is special is something I firmly believe — even as a former member of that particular community. (A status revealed in the interest of full disclosure. Similarly, it should be noted that my reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the service or the other folks using it. If you have a year where two people to whom your family is close die in rapid succession, you too might consider spending much more time connecting with those important to you face-to-face as opposed to screen-to-screen.)

But that community is also one that has been feeling more than a little worried ever since Facebook bought up FriendFeed, a feeling perhaps best summarized at the time it happened in this witty yet wise post by Louis Gray.

Thus, it is completely understandable that the community took some offense to Robert Scoble’s comment on the current state of FriendFeed the other day. If someone hurts your friends, you get angry. You defend your friends. Simple as that. And that’s just what people did – some eloquently and some in a more brusque manner. But the reactions to Scoble’s comment that can be glimpsed below the initial post demonstrate what is best about FriendFeed – it is an excellent forum for rapid interchange and discourse rather than just a way to broadcast your own “look at me, look at me!” message. (I’m looking at you Twitter.)

It seems unlikely that Scoble realized quite how disrespectful the tone of his comment seemed or how massive the impact of one of FF’s foremost cheerleaders seemingly turning on it would be — though he almost certainly has an inkling of it now.

Consider the impassioned and articulate response to Scoble crafted by FFer Lindsay Donaghe:

“<plea>
Please, Robert, I know that you’re disappointed in what has happened to FriendFeed and you feel like you need to take out your frustrations on something, but it’s time to take your own advice and leave quietly if you’re going to leave. FriendFeed may not serve your particular needs anymore but your needs seem to be very specific, decidedly not mainstream, and difficult to comply to. That doesn’t mean that FriendFeed is not a valuable service to others with different needs. You don’t have to leave, but there’s no point in making things harder for the rest of us who support the service by trying to hammer the nails in the coffin while we are still pushing up the the lid for air.

You are actively fulfilling your own prophecy by chasing people away from FriendFeed and inciting people there to unsub and block you so that your feed is less and less interesting. And then you are insulting the rest of us by declaring that all the geeks have left when it’s your own efforts in sabotage (or lack of in pruning your feeds) that are making your experience worse, while claiming that you’re trying to spur someone into action to be FriendFeed’s new hero. But we don’t have that knight in shining armor to champion for FriendFeed and return it to its former glory. If anything, you were the most likely candidate. Now we just want to be left alone to use FriendFeed the way we are comfortable to using it. It’s time to stop the abuse.
</plea>”

How many other online communities would inspire commentary with that much depth of feeling and intelligence behind it?

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?

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?

Speaking Up for the Shy- Not Everyone Wants to Vlog

There are a lot of narcissists on the Internet.

Well, it’s not just narcissists. There are also gifted performers with something to say. Their vlogs are actually quite interesting. Some achieve the rare and brilliant balance of informing while entertaining and promoting dialogue.

But an awful lot of folks out there don’t have much to say except “hey look at me, look at me, look at MEEEEEEEE!”

Why Vlogging Can Be Good for PR

Now, there’s no doubt that vlogging can be an invaluable tool, particularly in the field of PR. It is a great, shiny and newish tool for our ever-expanding toolkit. We can use it in a variety of ways- interviewing key influencers and industry thought leaders about timely topics like how PR professionals can best utilize social media or the best and newest practices for media monitoring.

Conferences streaming over the Internet on something like Ustream, while not technically vlogging, also allow for PR practitioners to get an immediate handle on how their clients are being perceived as they are speaking. That’s a nifty bit of monitoring and will also provide PR pros with immediate feedback that will help them coach their clients more effectively.

Other Arguments for Vlogging

Additionally, there are those who argue that the use of video can humanize the Internet, that it is harder to slag or slander “face-to-face” as opposed to words. (And it can be very easy to wield words like a weapon, especially because of the distancing factor.)

And it is sort of neat that people can just present their words themselves in their own voice. In fact, one of my classmates blogged quite eloquently on this point when discussing seesmic:

You are the master of your voice in the seesmic universe. You don’t have to bold, use exclamation marks or emoticons to get your point across. You can hit record and share your message the way it is intended.

On the Other Hand

But what if you are someone who is shy? Or someone who is not presentable or not confident or not articulate? What if you are someone who can express your thoughts beautifully in text but hem and haw like you’ve been hit in the head with a bat just before the camera was turned on when you must speak on video?

Vlogging has its benefits and it is where the technology is heading but does that mean there is no longer room for writing?

And does it mean that the wired world will become a landscape dotted with hair-flipping girls talking about their social schedules and what Sex and the City inspired them to buy?

I guess that means that we’ll have to keep looking for the diamonds- those who vlog articulately with purpose and meaning- amongst the mass of muck.