Is Social Media Social?
The word ’social’ has several meanings in the Oxford English Dictionary. The social in ’social media’ most likely refers to meaning number three: “relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure.” The keyword there is ‘meet’. Like chimpanzees and ants, humans are social creatures (see meaning number four: “breeding or living in colonies or organised communities”), and our social bonds are cemented by face-to-face meetings.
However, the most prevalent forms of social media – such as blogging, sharing photos, sharing videos, online gaming, Second Life, MySpace, Facebook, etc – are mostly performed by people sitting alone in front of computer screens.
Any interaction is usually via words only: comments on blog posts or instant messages to friends or strangers. And according to a 1971 study by Albert Mehrabian, the words we use in a conversation only account for 7% of our decision as to whether or not we like the other person. 38% is from tone of voice and 55% from body language. So if we interact only via words, we are squandering a large part of our natural gift for communication.
So is social media social?
In my opinion, it is only social if it leads to actually going out to meet people. Which is perhaps why Facebook was such a hit in 2007, and why it may be the only technology which really deserves the label – because it can get you down to the pub with your mates.
Please leave a comment if you agree or disagree, but especially if you agree.
PS: By this line of thinking, online dating also qualifies as social media, though Albert’s study shows that chatting by email for a month before meeting doesn’t improve the odds of liking each other by all that much. I wonder what he would have to say about webcams.
admin wrote this on 10.01.08 – 69 comments
It's filed in the Interesting, Off topic, Social media box
On January 11th, 2008 at 10:29 pm, Dennis Howlett responded:
Not heard of video or Seesmic?
On January 12th, 2008 at 11:46 am, Tom Nixon responded:
Controversial, Paul! :)
How about tools that keeps people in touch when they are unable to meet in the ‘real world’, even if they’d like to? People on different continents. Surely that is still social media?
On January 12th, 2008 at 6:12 pm, justin hunt responded:
What about disabled people who can feel liberated by entering virtual worlds and have a freedom they don’t have in the real world? They can meet people and express themselves in ways that are not possible usually.
On January 12th, 2008 at 10:00 pm, Cherry Austin responded:
What you say about the meaning of human interaction is true, however I suspect you are badly underestimating the degree of real-life action that ’social media’ promotes. It’s *more* common than not, for groups who get on well virtually, to form real-life groups as a result.
I think is where its real power lies: like any other form of social activity, it allows you to meet new people – some of whom you might actually want to meet again ;’)
Plus, don’t forget that online communications are still in baby stages. It won’t be long before you can ‘project’ your absent pals into the room with you, thus replacing the “lonely-at-keyboard” scenario with one which does encompass the 93% of communication accounted for by voice + body language.
So, yeah, I agree with what you say but not with your conclusions. Cheers!
On January 13th, 2008 at 10:08 pm, Jenni responded:
Paul Fabretti has also been thinking about this – http://tinyurl.com/28t2wk. He seems to think that video blogging services like Seesmic see us coming full circle, by allowing face-to-face communication over a network.
@Paul – I wonder if you believe this to be a valid form of social interaction or if it is still too virtual to be real?
I read in the Guardian yesterday of a social experiment that exists online with the purpose of building a real-life tribe on a remote Fiji-an island called Vorovoro. Read it here: http://tinyurl.com/yu4f4d
The article is non-committal over the success or otherwise of the project (it’s going to be explored more fully ‘Paradise or Bust’, an upcoming BBC documentary), but it did seem that the online aspect has dwindled to a small hard-core following, rather than the global community that was envisaged. This has consequences for those living together on the island and also on the funds available to finance the project properly.
The conclusion drawn is that internet background story not withstanding, the real success lies in the relationships between the ‘palangi’ – white people – and the local Fijian tribe and what they’ve been able to learn from each other.
On January 14th, 2008 at 10:03 am, Paul responded:
No I haven’t heard of seesmic, and I’m not sure whether webcams or videos would qualify as social or not. There are other means of communication – like touch – which are very important to peoples’ well being. I personally feel that someone who communicated with the world mainly via video would still feel pretty lonely, though it might qualify as ’social’ by the dictionary definition as it does provide the other cues of body language and tone of voice.
I think that enabling instant communication across continents doesn’t make social media any more social. It’s still virtual. I tried keeping in touch with many of the friends I had before I moved to England, but I find my friendship with my neighbours much more meaningful now. Geography must be one of the main factors in friendships.
And it would be interesting to hear the comments of a disabled person – what they do and don’t like about social media. I really hadn’t considered this angle.
On January 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am, Rosie Sherry responded:
If you bring up Facebook and say it may be the ‘only’ tool out there that deserves the title of ’social’ – well, be prepared to hear from people who think otherwise. Including myself.
Some people despise Facebook, such as Tom Hodginkson – who has written a decent article to why. There are plenty more Facebook haters out there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
I’m not huge of Facebook. It’s not done alot more than reconnect me with some very old friends that I have since only exchanged a couple of emails with.
There are plenty of other tools which encourage social activity. Upcoming is a great one. RSS is another. Blogs. Email. Mailing lists, niche (online) communities (e.g. Ning) etc.
On January 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am, Paul responded:
Hi Rosie – I agree with the social commentary in the first part of that article. I praised Facebook mainly because I wanted to say something positive about the possibilities of social media for encouraging people to meet up. But I don’t use it myself. There may well be much better examples.
On January 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am, Will McInnes responded:
I wanted the conversation to gain a bit of momentum before chipping in with my personal views, and am delighted to see that it has already been blessed with some great snippety contributions :)
I have to also confess that Paul asked around to see whether we thought his blog post reflected the company view. Personally I believe it’s a totally relevant viewpoint, Paul’s – this how ’social’ is all of this online media stuff question – and we at Nizomk can’t hide from naysayers and differing lenses that people see life through, even in our own small team.
To resist this discussion would be to hole-up in our social media ivory tower and arrogantly assume that a singular view was the only view.
Instead, I enjoy sharing different points of view cos I generally feel I learn from them (not always, but more often than not!).
Paul says:
“So is social media social?
In my opinion, it is only social if it leads to actually going out to meet people.”
I personally *completely disagree* with the premise that Paul has built his logic on. I think that’s a restrictive and myopic view of socialness – that something is social *only* if it leads to going out to meet people. That premise flies in the face of many of the social activities I’ve participated in and loved.
For me, many digital tools, places or things don’t involve going to meet people, but are inherently social:
- forums (fora?) and messageboards
- instant messaging
- video chat
- online gaming (MASSIVELY social! – never ‘met’)
- twitter conversations with people I’ve never met
- ebay
- last.fm listening neighborhoods
- pen pals and snail mail
…and as Rosie says, good ol’ email. A social tool if ever there was one.
…and as Justin says, Virtual Worlds are an incredibly window into the future of social interactions without meeting.
Perhap a more interesting question is ‘what will constitute having ‘met’ someone in the future?’.
I’ve met wonderfully bright people in Second Life. Or have I? Paul would say not.
I personally feel I am more in tune with and up to date with some of the Brightonians that I follow on Twitter than I am with my friends I went to school with here in this city, who still live here, and who I see *in the real world* .
Our definitions are dated. Life has moved on.
On January 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, Sophie Tanner responded:
Isn’t the point really that the internet has provided us with a new and alternative world/space/universe? *Real* continuums of time and space are altered. Using the internet we become cyborgs in that our human senses are extended and enhanced with the help of technology. Within a hyper-real space, we are becoming hyper-social, we are being virtually social. It is about our e-behaviour and doesnt really translate to our embodied lives – as a website can’t translate to a retail outlet. We are on a new frontier – ahoy there!!
On January 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm, Cherry Austin responded:
Sophie Tanner responded (better than I did): <>
I think it has already changed the way we interact & communicate. It’s not so long since email & chat (and sms) were considered trivial by the majority. Now everybody uses them: corporations depend on messaging; emails can ruin a politician. They are certainly not meaningless.
Surely the same cycle – contempt; mistrust; adoption – characterises each major development. I’d say Paul’s view represents the mistrust stage.
Will McInnes responded: <>
Your avatar met some avatars belonging to wonderfully bright people. This still freaks a lot of people: how can you have an intelligent conversation with a puppet?
The reality, as you know, is that there are intelligent people behind the avatars – and the conversation is a real one, between you as humans. The avatar somehow enhances your experience. Perhaps that isn’t so strange, when you consider the extensive history of cartoons, puppets & mimes as means of expression.
New media (in general, not just ITC) always extend our capacity to interact.
On January 14th, 2008 at 6:15 pm, Cherry Austin responded:
sorry, I didn’t know it was going to go all italic like that!
On January 15th, 2008 at 7:21 am, David Stone responded:
“social bonds are cemented by face-to-face”, maybe the ‘cemented’ part requires face-to-face, but does everything pre & post that require it?
“I wonder what he [Albert Mehrabian] would have to say about webcams.”, no idea, but from this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jul/03/research.science) article, “language-trained chimps only learned to respond appropriately to TV screens after a long period of training. In contrast, Lou Herman’s dolphins responded appropriately the very first time they were exposed to television”. So apart from we’re more like dolphins? Is that face-to-face enough? No idea, but “responded appropriately the very first time”, interesting.
“Facebook was such a hit in 2007, and why it may be the only technology which really deserves the label”, I’ve been out to meet folk much more because of Twitter then Facebook, I guess this is more related to the individual and how they, and their friends use each social network. Social Proof anyone?
The way I see it, there is two main ways people tend to use social networks online:
* As an separate universe
* As an extension of your universe
I do both. I have my extension of myself, I mostly ‘connect’ with friends, and I have better relationships with them because of it, it’s an enhancement on top of the real world interaction we’ve had to ‘cement’ the relationship. I also meet people this way, often friends friends, or business contacts when applicable, do I feel like I’ve not “met” that person yet, no. Would I like to meet them IRL, sure, next time I’m in their city/country/etc.
In my separate universe I’ve an anonymous twitter (because if you follow me for web/technology/business/etc you probably don’t want to know about certain parts of my life), and while I’ll meet people online, I’m not sure I’d meet them in person. I’ve yet to decide, as I’d be merging the two.
Interestingly enough, I consider my World of Warcraft in the first, it’s an extension of me. I tend to play with people I know in the real world, but will meet random folk in game, and have met fellow guild members over Seesmic by chance – adding to the bond with that person. One thing we need to consider is kids in school already have this. 10 years (or so) ago, kids were texting for fun, and now texting is part of my business life. Now, kids are already online, e.g. Bebo/Facebook/Myspace, and we’re starting to see social networks used for business, e.g. LinkedIn/Facebook. So, what’s next? Where’s it going?
On January 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am, Paul responded:
There seem to be two strands of response here. One is that social media does promote real life meetings. Cherry says that perhaps I’ve badly underestimated this, and David and Sophie see social media (partly) as an extension of existing social selves. The other is that the definitions are changing. Will asks “what will constitute having ‘met’ someone in the future?”
I agree with the first strand, but am not so sure about changing definitions. To be happy, humans need regular warmth, touch and affection from other people. If online interactions lead to offline interactions which provide this, then social media is filling all of our social needs. If not, it’s only filling part of them.
I think Facebook (or maybe the next big thing after it) has the potential to fill all those needs. I could imagine a widget (which may already exist) for “I’m moving into your area”, which will help connect you to your future neighbours, so you can go and knock on their doors once you’ve moved, rather than spending five years not knowing who lives next door to you.
Because I think it’s rather sad that two people living next door to each other can spend every evening being ’social’ with people on the other side of the world – that’s what bothers me about social media – what it isn’t rather than what it is.
On January 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am, Paul Fabretti responded:
Guys
Great post and what a fascinating thread. Paul hat-tip for raising the issue.
As Jennie alluded to in my Seesmic vid, we seem to be coming full circle in terms of removing and then re-inserting our faces into online communication.
BUT, there seems to be one missing ingredient that would ensure we can engage with each other online and Paul sort of hits that point:
At the moment, all conversations (even on Seesmic) are still uni-directional. One after the other. Proper communication should be multi-directional in real time.
I am sure those of you with Macs, will remember when Apple integrated the iSight camera into the frame of the machine.
The demo of the system showed three people talking to each other at the same time – now THAT is where we should be to make social media truly social.
For all this gubbins to make a difference, the technology needs to connect us in the ways in which we are wired to do as human beings (i.e. socialise) but connect us to people we don’t yet know or in far away places. The technology should not make us have to change the way we instinctively communicate.
The net as we know/use it now has created a flat world, there’s no reason we can’t talk to anyone, anywhere – but it does not as yet allow us to do that.
Give me a couple of mill and I’ll have a crack at something!
On January 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am, David Stone responded:
Should we not be thinking our online “extension of existing social selves” is changing “what will constitute having ‘met’ someone in the future”, isn’t that obvious already? Are they really two completely separate responses?
“If online interactions lead to offline interactions”, then offline interactions lead to online interactions. That’s how I use it.
This is what the kids in school already have. All their friends are already online. Gone are the days when the internet was left to early adopters and you had to meet new people online. 100% of people I know are online.
What concerns me is how that affect social aspects of life. In 30 years time when my little sister is 44 (assuming the data on Bebo isn’t lost,) she’s connected with all her school friends. There is no sense of moving on, you don’t loose friends because you just ‘grew apart’, who wrote the article about the number of people you can know before you stop having meaningful relationships, the tipping point of relationships was it?
On January 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm, Sophie Tanner responded:
Paul, I know where you’re coming from, I have had the depressing experience of temping in an office of *real* people, with their backs to me, listening only to the lonely sound of 15 tapping keyboards.
The problem is that pretty much every job involves sitting alone infront of a computer screen these days and, according to stats, many of these poor bots are pretty miserable. Social media offers a way to connect these people every day. My sister, working at the BBC, was being badly bullied recently and I believe our chats on Facebook really helped her through it. Maybe it shouldn’t be this way…I do consider the dystopian alternative sometimes – where people evolve to fat, pale maggots with tiny eyes and probing hands – a bit like some computer-game-obsessed stoners I know.
But then your idea of a widget for ‘people moving to your area’ is a perfect example of how social media can indeed be key to the community. A tired and stressed-out single mum can set up a ‘tired and stressed out single mums’ group on facebook and realise there are several living in her town…and they can arrange to get together and be able to look in each others eyes and smile, reassure, and smell the coffee. I think it absolutely needs to straddle on/offline.
There is nothing more painful and exciting and scary and hopeful as real life; social media should complement it, not replace it.
On January 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm, Paul Fabretti responded:
@Sophie You’ve hit on an important point there. Online can provide the facility to connect local people that wouldn’t otherwise meet.
Facebook Networks is a great example.
On January 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm, Jenni responded:
I’m loving this conversation – and agree particularly with Sophie’s last point.
For the last couple of years we’ve closed our street for a day and had a street party. It’s the only time we get to see our neighbours, even though most of the kids go to the school up the road. Last year was a nightmare to organise though and a bit crap because of the lack of communication over what was happening when and who was going to do what.
To help us out for this year, I’ve set up a Ning community and will be going door to door with the URL and an explanation – this way I hope it will be easier to manage communications between a disparate group of people with very little in common apart from the road we live on.
The hope is that establishing an online community will help us cement the physical community.
On January 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
I do not agree with your definition of terms at all. As I think your post was meant to a large degree to provoke and that it did successfully, my comment will be equally provoking.
Your ideal of social media, interaction and communication, fully sufficient from every point of view you consider in this post, can take place between blind and deaf primitives. Above all whatever happens in this blog post and accompanying commentary conversation does not in any way fit your definition of social media and interaction.
In comment 6 you write: “I think that enabling instant communication across continents doesn’t make social media any more social. It’s still virtual.”
Here you are stating your belief in a distinction I consider fully unjustified, between real and social communication VS. virtual and unsocial communication.
But what exactly do you consider as social media, or for that matter, social communication or interaction? Well pretty much nothing.
You say: “…It is only social if it leads to actually going out to meet people.”
I will isolate here (a) going out, and (b) meet people
Here you discredit as unsocial all media that do not involve
(a) Going out: therefore you discredit the telephone, telegraph, TV, radio, internet pretty much every medium that ever existed except, perhaps, the cinema. Of course you also discredit as unsocial all forms of writing on the same grounds.
(b) Meet people: here again you discredit all media and forms of communication that do not involve meeting people, I presume, for the first time. That is you do not consider as social, media that allow people to merely keep in touch.
Tone of voice and body language are two more things you accord privilege to as elements important in your ideal of a social medium. But when Dennis Howlett asks you whether you think that audiovisual social media do the trick you reply with hesitation “im not sure whether webcams or videos would qualify as social or not”.
And at this point, you reveal your ideal of social media. What is exceptionally idiosyncratic in your viewpoint is that you don’t simply privilege, like many people would, all natural means of communication (the five senses), but you isolate among them and accord special privilege to ‘touch’. Given that you come to this position after Dennis’s comment – which pushes to accept that the new media can replicate real, offline, interaction – I am led to think that the reason you privilege touch is because it is harder to replicate than sight or hearing which with 3D virtual reality and surround sound can both be fooled to very high degrees. And this is why I think that your ideal is what I suggested in the opening lines.
Finally, along with disabled people whose opinion on the social value of social media you say you didn’t consider, please also consider: gay people in rural areas or closed communities, elder people most of whose contacts have perished, people whose hobbies are too niche to hope to accidentally meet someone that shares them etc.
I agree with Sophie (comment 10), and Cherry (11), David (13, 16)
But in the end I agree with you as well, in so far that by comment 14 you seem to have revised your initial viewpoint on this topic: you say that online social media can fill part of our social needs. Couldn’t agree more. BTW I also like your meet your neighbours widget. There is an app like this in Facebook but I haven’t used really. I think you have a problem not only with all kinds of mediated interaction, but also, with any kind of interaction whose mediation can be replicated in a way that it becomes impossible to tell whether it is virtual or real. You remind me of Descartes and of Neo (in Matrix).
On January 15th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
Wow! I though comments in this blog posts would be moderated. BRAVO guys. I hope you dont change your mind after my post. I spent my evening after work writing this. That’s how engaging i found it.
Well one last thing :)
I also disagree with Paul (Fabreti) also. I don’t think that there is such a thing as proper communication. I disagree in particular with what he seems to consider as proper communication. I don’t understand what he calls ‘multi-directional in real time’ communication exactly is. His Apple example perplexes me even more. There is no such thing as three people talking to each other at the same time. Three people can only talk at each at the same time. It is impossible to speak as well as hear two, or for that matter, one person simultaneously. Communication must take turns, with only partial bits of overlap. This is a problem certain autistic people, the inability to understand when the other person has finished a sentence. From this point of view blogging, IM, and other forms of turn-based conversations are equally proper.
Ive also written something on social media in my blog if you care to take a look http://agoraplace.wordpress.com
On January 16th, 2008 at 12:10 am, Paul Fabretti responded:
Theo, whilst I think your comment(s) are incredibly anal and overkill for the light-hearted discussion we WERE having, I actually think you take the discussion to a whole new level and made me ask a couple of questions – what does communication REALLY mean? How many of the 5 senses do I use when interacting online and does not being able to use one or more of these senses mean that any online social interaction is not as fulfilling as face to face?
Whilst I am not sure anybody else had picked-up on the talking “to” instead of “at” difference in my comment or indeed had considered the challenges of autism and video-conferencing when we started on this thread, each to their own and I think your thoughts add an interesting angle to the conversation.
For purposes of clarification, my references to Apple and “multi-directional in real-time” were aimed at the way in which the Macs of the time promoted live video-conferencing (although I suspect you may correct me by suggesting you can’t have a “dead” video conference) through the integrated iSight camera.
This meant that people could much more easily have a conversation at the same time rather than through “innovative” websites like Seesmic where video is still the medium being used but a “conversation” is made up of several separate videos – much like a blog post comment thread.
I suspect you have probably read too much into what I have written.
No form of communication is right or wrong. I am sure the majority of people at NM (and the thread) are well aware of the point I was making re: the differences and problems with Seesmic, not being able to carry out a face-to-face conversation and how communication on the web has moved on from text-based emails and messages to now include faces much more.
On January 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am, Theo Papadakis responded:
i was anal and want to apologise for being carried away. I just sometimes get in anal essay mode.
You re right in that i ve probably read too much into your Apple example.Nevertheless i think the main points i raise are valid and that there where both self-contradictory as well as provocative statements in your viewpoint.
Finally it may be best if you remove them, for i would not in any way like to kill this otherwise fruitful discussion.
If i ever contribute to this or another discussion i ll do so as if we where out for a pint, talking face-to-face, rather than engage in this sort of academic bickering. Just noticed i am using the same template on my blog as you are.
Regards
Theo
On January 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am, Paul responded:
Hi Theo, you’re right that my post was provoking, and that my position has changed and softened as I’ve read these very interesting comments.
The reason I emphasised touch is that it requires people to be in the same physical space. In fact, only 2 of our 5 senses are catered for virtually, and there is a lot more about offline interactions (like the fact that two people sitting in a cafe together have all their senses flooded by similar information, and so are more likely to be in tune with one another) that doesn’t always happen online or on the phone/fax/telegraph/morse code, etc. Perhaps if/when virtual reality can mimic all our senses fully, then the distinction will no longer exist.
In response I ask you this: Would you rather spend a month’s holiday at home, completely alone, but with a computer, internet connection, video conferencing facilities, enough food, and paid subscriptions to every social media site that exists? Or a month wherever you please but with severe RSI so you couldn’t touch a keyboard? If I had to do the former, I’d probably wait by the window each day just to see the postman coming.
On January 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
Hello Paul. I mainly took issue with the extremely high criteria you set for something to qualify as a social medium, namely, to lead one to go out of the house to meet others, the conveyance of body language, tone of voice and lastly, touch. In this way I thought you were discrediting pretty much every medium that ever was and will be.
Although I certainly agree there is still a distinction between off and online media, I disagree with the fact that you need certain all 5 senses, or, for that matter any of the senses in order to have social interaction. Social interaction can take place even within a medium that does not allow visual, aural, tactile, oldfactory etc contact between the subjects of interaction. If such a medium allows for social interaction then it is a social medium e.g. writing letters, or even worse, typing letters and interacting via post. This you seem to agree with when you say ‘you’d wait by the window each day just to see the postman coming’.
I think that every medium is social in so far it achieves its essential role, that is, allowing communication to take place between two individuals. The medium is merely what lies or is put in the middle, in between the subjects of communication.
What I feel is new with web 2.0-era social media, indeed unprecedented is the opportunities of publisher-to-audience and audience-to-audience interaction particularly in respect to mass media which have always been one-way.
Finally, as regards face-to-face contact, a lot of people are much better in online conversations that involve no face-to-face contact because all the anxieties related to this sort of encounters are absent; this is a major reason behind the attractiveness of meeting and dating people online. The security associated with not revealing your physical appearance and the hope that the person will in time come to be charmed by your inner, true, self.
On January 16th, 2008 at 2:05 pm, Sophie Tanner responded:
Theo Papadickis, I’m sorry, but your terribly smug, pedantic and frankly badly-worded contributions are slightly uncalled for and have indeed thrown a bucket of ice on discussions. Noone asked for you to over-analyse and (fail to) undermine their thoughtful posts. You have certainly highlighted the most important difference between e-social and social for, were I actually down the pub with you, you may soon find your pint had spilt in your lap :) Now, I’m off to consider gay people in rural areas…
On January 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm, Paul Fabretti responded:
My last thoughts on this discussion:
Theo, let me say your opinion is as valuable as anyone elses and it would be a shame to hold back on what you feel because I or others may take exception to comments you have made – no need to apologise.
If blogging does nothing else, it allows us to air our views without constraint and encourages discussions.
I wouldn’t ever advocate deleting comments every opinion is valid unless it is defamatory or racist.
Que sera, sera!
@ Paul – hat-tip again for bringing this all up!!
On January 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
I apologise, again, and wish i had not written what i thought where valid points in this way. I hope i can make up for it with future, more civilised interactions.
On January 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm, Paul responded:
Thanks for everyone’s contributions. I like Sophie’s point – if this had been a face-to-face discussion, the body language of the other people would have probably toned down Theo’s comments from the outset. From the comfort of your own home (even with a webcam) many of the normal ’social’ constraints are lost. But I think you made some valid points.
By the way, by “I’d wait by the window each day just to see the postman coming”, I meant just so I could see and maybe speak to a human face – not that I was waiting for a letter. All I get these days is bills and bank statements anyway.
I suppose this debate boils down to the meaning of ’social’. I certainly didn’t expect us to agree on one meaning, but it is good to get various view points.
On January 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm, Will McInnes responded:
LOL!!!! Guys, guys – come on, theres so much good here, lets not end whipping ourselves in repentance.
This has been a wonderful and spirited conversation, with frankly amazingly good contributions. I’m biased, but I really think this has been a really superb conversation.
And conversation is much used in our world, right? But rarely really seen. Most blog comments are sucky celebratory ‘woo hoo – you rock, oh A-list blogger god’. This has been between peers and brilliantly argued.
I actually really enjoyed Theo’s contribution. It was radically different, passionate, outspoken, interesting, different. And it takes online balls (e-balls?!!!!) to cut against the grain – Paul did it first, and Theo did it too.
Paul, Sophie, just really great stuff. So good. And Paul, who was willing to stick his head above the parapet originally, not as a shock-jock tactic but as a sincere point of view, thank you.
I sincerely thank you all
On January 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pm, Paul Fabretti responded:
Agreed! It’s the stuff of good blogs!
On January 16th, 2008 at 3:04 pm, Sophie Tanner responded:
Agreed indeed! No worries Theo, I’ve just got e-PMT ;) Blog on!
On January 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
Thanks for accepting the apologies!
On January 16th, 2008 at 4:41 pm, Paul responded:
Thanks for your phone call Theo. I realise that debates can be heated, so no worries about your post. I hope you continue to contribute here. It’s nice for this blog to cross boundaries into the telecommunications world.
On January 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pm, Paul Fabretti responded:
Good on you guys! Theo – great stuff!
On January 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am, Pete Burden responded:
Probably I am arriving too late.
But I though you might all like to know of an interesting bit of technology: a video conferencing tool that allows real eye-contact – just as in real life. Having used it I’d say the sense you get of “meeting” someone is 10 or 100 times that of using a web-cam.
You really feel you have met the person at the other end (although of course you still can’t shake hands – touch). Of course it’s real-time too – so you have a conversation, not one monologue after another (honestly I’m not referring to blogging ;-)).
From this I’d draw the conclusion that as some forms of online interaction become more like real-life interaction (ie by including non-verbal cues for example) we’ll see a step change in “social media” of some sort.
I can point you to it but I am not sure if that is quite PC.
On January 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pm, Paul responded:
Hi Pete, please do add the URL. Admittedly I have never used more than a basic webcam, so I’m not sure how I’d react to a really good video-conferencing facility – whether it would feel more social than I’ve given it credit for.
I’m not sure where it fits in, but I talked about the Nintendo Wii in a previous blog post – I think that this technology goes some way to making the virtual feel real by translating real-life movements to movements on the screen. If that were combined with Second Life or World of Warcraft perhaps they would feel more social too.
On January 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm, Pete Burden responded:
It’s at http://www.my-eyecatcher.com/. This is being trialled by many major corporations. It will become really interesting when something like this becomes ubiquitous.
Maybe one reason some people still prefer the ‘phone over email is because it allows lots of non-verbal communication (pregnant pauses etc). I don’t much like mobiles for the same reason – often the connection is so bad I can’t really hear what else is happening at the other end.
On January 18th, 2008 at 9:35 am, Paul Fabretti responded:
Thanks for that Pete. Great stuff. Got the demo downloaded and looking through it as we speak!
On January 19th, 2008 at 8:46 am, Pete Burden responded:
Looking back over all this I’m confused. The original question was “is social media social”. What I don’t understand is why all the emphasis on the word social?
Isn’t the word social simply used to differentiate social media from traditional media? Traditional media clearly are social too – in that we all spend a heap of time discussing them (films, books, the news, personalities etc).
The way I understand “social media”, it’s about a change of power around the media ie who controls the means of production and the means of distribution. And, of course, we are hoping it’s a shift of power from the few to the many. And that is happening – the numbers of people posting their personal stuff on Facebook (production) and the success of e.g. wikipedia (distribution) are strong evidence.
But traditional media have other purposes too, surely? For example, in the BBC’s rather paternal mandate: “educate, inform and entertain”.
As one of my heroes says “With great power, comes great responsibility”. Sure we have a responsibility to ensure that social media entertain us and meet our needs for socialisation. But don’t we also have a responsibility to ensure that social media also meet our collective needs for information, education, and whatever else traditional media do? Regardless of whether the word social is in the term, or not?
And by focussing on the “social” aspects of social media, isn’t there a risk that we neglect these other important aspects and spend our days plugged into a soma-like social media which keeps us drugged and dozy watching videos of people doing weird stuff that we would never attempt ourselves (sounds dangerously like traditional media to me!). When we perhaps ought to be doing something more useful with our time?!
We are social animals so we will always be doing social things, I guess. We’ll strive to make our media more and more “social”. But isn’t a more important question something like “how do we ensure social media (whatever it is exactly) serves us better?”
Is that too heavy for this forum? Feels like it might be!
On January 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm, Matthew Hill responded:
I’m coming to this a bit late too. I was fascinated by the original question as I seem to have similar feelings as Paul.
I’m not entirely sure that I can add much to the discussion, but I thought I’d share how I use ’social media’
I’ve been using the internet for about 16 years, first using BBSs, then Newsgroups and email, and then the Web and for me, the first few years of communicating using the web were using forums and messageboards.
These are still very popular today. Forums are often about niche subjects or set up as a support channel attached to company websites. I’m a member of many gaming forums as I still enjoy the odd computer game — indeed, I admin and moderate one forum for a very old game. I have now known people through that forum for over eight years. I probably know them better than many of my ‘real life’ friends. Yet because they are people I haven’t met, does that make them somehow NOT my friends?
Of course not. In fact, just last year we finally had a meet up in London and about 9 of us old-school game playing geeks finally got to meet each other for the first time over a weekend: one guy even came from Canada and he’d never left the continent before! So while this took a long time to achieve, I got to meet people I never would have known had it not been for our little forum.
However, one thing that comes up frequently on forums is when people aren’t around for a while: upon their return, forum regulars might say “Where have you been” and the response is invariably “Oh, you know, RL!” (Real Life). For me, that says it all.
I use FaceBook as a way of keeping in touch with friends in Brighton since I moved to London. I have the odd game installed (Scrabulous) which I play with my girlfriend or sister when I have a moment (a game might take weeks) and I update my status occasionally. Other than that, I junk all the rubbish I get sent and don’t respond to any invites to Poke someone or Kick Them In The Nuts; all that stuff is just mindless bilge.
I sometimes use messenger to chat with people but rarely these days — usually only for work purposes. I’d rather talk on the phone or face-to-face.
Since moving to London, it has been really difficult to meet new people and start making new friends. I joined a socialising website that organises events for people in the same boat. Although the site connects people and allows you to send messages and set up events, the crux of it is to get out and meet people for real and that’s what I love about it.
So for me, I use these tools (and that’s all they are) to:
1) Find people who have a like minded interest and talk about it — and maybe make friends in the process
2) Keep in touch with old friends
3) Help me find new friends, not online, but OFFLINE, in Real Life.
I’m sure I’m not using these things as effectively as I might, and I can see that some of you might think I’ve missed the entire point of the post. I don’t think so at all. The tech simply helps me choose how I want to interact with people, it isn’t an end in itself.
PS: Paul mentioned about online dating. I’ve tried that too and wrote about the trials of that aspect of ’social media’ here if anyone’s interested:
http://www.palemovie.com/2007/09/08/the-online-dating-minefield/
On January 19th, 2008 at 8:14 pm, Matthew Hill responded:
Aargh, the one thing I really wanted to say I forgot!
I can’t abide the term “social media”. All media, by it’s very nature, is social as it is about connecting society. It’s another misnomer buzz word to go along with “web 2.0″. I hate it… can’t we have something a bit more useful and accurate please?
On January 20th, 2008 at 7:42 am, Pete Burden responded:
How about “new” media? (oh dear I think we already tried that one!).
“Social” works for me in that it kind of implies lots of people involved (back to user-generated content).
But I agree it doesn’t work for me when we start to think that other media aren’t social.Or when we think social media is just about making friends.
On January 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
Although the name ‘social media’ is not really correct given that all media are social, the following insight from philosopher Saul Kripke into how names work is interesting. Darthmouth was a village built near the mouth of the river Dart. After a few hundred years the river Dart is nowhere near Dartmouth. Nevertheless people’s reference to the village works just fine. Nobody is confused by the fact that the mouth of the river Dart is no where near Dartmouth.
Similarly, although all media are by definition social, the majority of the people that read, write and discuss about social media, have reserved this term to refer exclusively to internet media such as blogs, wikis, social forums and networks etc And this works just fine. Everybody understands what particular media ‘social media’ refers to. What is important is to clarify what is new about them. This I ve tried in a blog post about the origins of social media.
Furthermore the same problem will appear if we adopt the term ‘new media’ as opposed to ‘social media’. In 20 years time these media are not going to be new – but we’re still going to be referring to them as ‘new media’. For me, given Saussure’s thesis of the arbitraryness of the signifier, i.e. that it is irrelevant how something is called in relation to the success of reference, it is not really important how things are called (unless their names are misleading). What is important is that we examine the object, the phenomenon we have just named sufficiently well. That is the field where argument should take place, and is at its most fruitful.
On January 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm, Paul responded:
Thanks for your contributions Pete and Matt and Theo. It’s true that the definition of ’social media’ can be completely divorced from the definition of ’social’ and ‘media’. Though probably in far less time than it took the Dart River to change locations. And whoever came up with ‘postmodernism’ did not really have an eye on the future.
On January 21st, 2008 at 5:41 pm, Pete Burden responded:
Bizarrely and knowing Dartmouth (in the UK) quite well last time I was there the Dart river ran right through it! We must be discussing another river Dart and a completely different town!
Despite this Theo, I do agree. Names aren’t that important, in this context.
What is important is what social media is for. My point is that creating social cohesiveness (or something like that) is probably only one of its functions.
By comparing it with traditional media (which after all are only means of artificially extending what we do naturally – communicate) perhaps we can come up with some ideas?
Anyone want to have a punt?
On January 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
Im sorry Dartmouth is Kripke’s example in Naming and Necessity. Never been there myself!
But though it runs through it, the mouth of the river may be far away and not where it was when the village was founded.
On January 21st, 2008 at 7:23 pm, Pete Burden responded:
No, sorry. Dartmouth is at the mouth of the River Dart. Click for multimap link.
I can’t quite believe we are discussing this. Maybe this says something about the informational or educational value of social media!?
On January 21st, 2008 at 8:54 pm, Jenni responded:
New media is no longer new, social media is just a handy moniker for an evolution of media. Ive never been to Dartmouth – but I do know that we have a handy, ready made previous post about what social media should be called:
http://www.nixonmcinnes.co.uk/2007/09/12/wtf-is-social-media/
On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am, Pete Burden responded:
Hi Jenni
Yes, I read that. But it didn’t tell me what “social media” was for? Its purpose, its function?
Pete
On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am, Theo Papadakis responded:
Ok maybe its just an example – the point still stands – i did not bring it up to make an argument about geography but semantics. Sorry i presented it as the former. Please try to understand the point.
On January 22nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
What i really like about this blog is the fact that it is that the readers speak with one another loads i.e. is not restricted in a two-way communication between reader and blogger. Whenever i enter this place i feel i am in a room or IM forum.
I suppose one reason for this is that most readers treat it as a room to socialise in, visiting again and again whenever we have the time, rather than an exhibition you visit, talk with the artist, write your comment in the book, leave and never return.
On January 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm, Paul responded:
In response to Pete, I think that social media’s purpose, or rather the reason these various websites were invented, was to make money for their creators. Maybe some began as “wouldn’t it be great if…” but the revenue potential must have been close to the surface.
Attracting lots of registered and regular users seems to be part of this business model. And it happens that what attracts people is the ability to network and share. So perhaps social media is just a very successful byproduct, a means to an end, rather than something with its own purpose and function
A possible byproduct of social meida: I think I might visit Dartmouth, it looks beautiful from above.
And many thanks to Theo for his kind words about this blog – I have very much enjoyed participating in the discussion too.
On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm, Pete Burden responded:
Hmmm – interesting.
Did Paul Reuter start Reuters just to make money? Perhaps. But he also helped start a data communication revolution.
And there are, of course, lots of easier ways to make money – including plenty on the internet – other than building social media sites.
My view is that most people who start these things *also* want to do something useful. Beyond just making money.
And whether it’s an accident or not the question remains: what is the aggregate purpose of social media. What do all social media sites have in common?
Are they just there to help people make more (or better) friends? Is that as big as our vision gets?
PS Dartmouth is great and the river trip upstream is just sublime.
On January 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 am, Paul responded:
I don’t think all inventions had money in mind – like the wheel, or rockets, and perhaps washing machines. But to be able to handle a billion visits a month, you need a lot of capacity, which is expensive, so you have to follow the money to some extent. Perhaps the question is “Why do people use social media sites?” I think it is, as you said, to keep in touch with friends and to strengthen offline relationships. Some people make new friends online – but I don’t know what percentage of old versus new is. What makes you think our collective vision is bigger than that?
On January 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am, Pete Burden responded:
Why do I think our collective vision is bigger than just making friends? Blimey, I hope it is. Otherwise we will never improve the world we live in. I think everyone wants to make the/their world a better place. Don’t you?
Traditional media help people communicate in other ways – they inform us (some would say not much). They educate us – how else do I know so much about say climate change?
I think that people collectively (all those entrepreneurs and visionaries and practical people) have created the traditional media to serve our needs – for communication, education, information, entertainment etc.
What we (and especially people like you all at NM) are doing at the moment is working out how to make sure social media best meet those same needs, whatever they are.
To do that, surely we need to work out “Why do people use social media sites?” Or in other words, what needs are being met? My personal view is it goes far beyond just making friends. That’s what I mean by a bigger vision.
On January 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 am, Theo Papadakis responded:
That everyone wants to make the world a better place sounds too optimistic. Their world sounds more realistic perhaps.
I am not sure that it is altogether a bad thing to have selfish motives driving projects or inventions that help improve the world. Even if it is not money, it is often ego, taking up a challenge or other personal motives.
In any case i agree that the emphasis you place on understanding human needs, for the purpose of understanding the role and future of social media.
On January 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am, Paul responded:
Sorry – I was just referring to a collective vision regarding social media. And I don’t think it’s given that everyone wants to make the world a better place. It would be great if social media could be used to deter global warming or something similar – but I’m not sure how it will be pushed in that direction unless there is money to be made.
On January 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm, Pete Burden responded:
According to Boston-based think tank Corporation 2020 (and several others) the purpose of tomorrow’s business corporation will be to “harness private interests to serve the public interest.”
http://www.corporate2020.org/
Interesting that this is happening at the same time as a revolution in the media is also taking place – from traditional to “social” (or “new”).
On January 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm, Pete Burden responded:
Hi Paul
Re-reading your post it seems just a tad negative.
Don’t you think the media might have some kind of role in improving the way the world works?
And if money is generated along the way what is so bad about that?
Of course it’s possible that the social benefit of social media is just a by-product of a money-making objective behind it.
But doesn’t that beg another question: What if we (all of us) seized hold of social media and tried to give it a useful purpose? Isn’t that close to what “social media goodness” means?
On January 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am, Theo Papadakis responded:
Couldnt agree with you more Pete. I dont think there’s anything bad about that especially if we think of money as ‘people buying into an idea’, enjoying the product etc
Coming back to the baptism debate. How bout digital media? It isolates a property all ‘new’ or ’social’ media share (though not a very telling one), and it does not face any of the problems ‘new’ and ’social’ have.
On January 25th, 2008 at 8:14 am, Pete Burden responded:
Thanks Theo, a perfect definition of money.
The name’s not that relevant to me. I think we know what new or digital or social media are. And what they mainly are is something different from traditional media. As Jenny said it’s just a handy moniker.
But in the theory of change, there’s an essential idea called “agency”. Agency is about having the power to do something about something. Critically, it’s also about believing one has that power.
In other words, if you don’t think you can change something, you won’t.
It strikes me that rather than debating what social media is called, and even what’s it for today, we really need to be debating what we would like it to be for.
In the first decade of the 21st century we (especially those of us in the developed world) are in an incredible position (economically, socially and in just about every other way) to make this kind of choice.
And to decide consciously what we would like social media to do for the whole of humanity.
I think we’re missing a huge trick if we don’t.
On January 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
I agree with you that it is possible.
The problem i think is in the ‘we’. There is at the moment no ‘we’, that will act as a single agent (i.e. having the same belief about what must be done and actually doing it as a single agent) in order to make social media what it thinks social media should become.
What we have at the moment is a fragmented multiplicity of groups and individuals that use social media in a variety of different ways, and towards a variety of different goals.
We could of course try to create a ‘we’ that will do this, and we could use social media to create this ‘we’ subject/agent. I am not convinced however that such a we is in the end a good thing. This requires a post unto itself tho.
On January 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm, Paul responded:
I really like what Pete said about agency – “if you don’t think you can change something, you won’t.” In a country of 50+ million, I think people often feel powerless to change things, and that feeling means that we don’t try.
But unlike in politics, (and as Theo said) there is no organised ‘we’ in social media. This might be a good thing if it can bypass that sense of powerlessness.
For instance, I can think of lots of ways social media could help the environment and communities: car sharing, organising political campaigns, reducing waste through peer pressure, meeting your neighbours, cycling-to-work clubs, discussing alternative power sources, etc.
And I think most people are willing to do a little bit for the environment as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them too much, and people will do more if they see their friends and neighbours doing more. If all those ‘little bits’ could be harnessed and amplified it might start to make a real difference.
All those activities above already exist, but perhaps social media has the reach to make it feel like a powerful unified effort, rather than powerless isolated effort, and without having anybody dictating from above.
Is that the sort of direction you had in mind Pete?
On January 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am, Pete Burden responded:
Yes I think so. Certainly one of them.
Transferring the power of communication into the hands of the many rather than the few seems to make sense give our needs at the beginning of the 21st century. And I say “our” because at the most basic level “we” (all 6 billion of us) share the same roof. We’re living in the same house.
We have some significant challenges to deal with – poverty, disease, climate change etc. These problems are all global but they are also local. For example, I heard that about half of the UK’s carbon emissions come from energy that we use in our homes and day-to-day lives. So it seems what people do locally really can make a difference globally.
While I think the mainly top-down systems which we inhabit have served us pretty well up to this point many seem to be starting to creak – a good example is the global financial system which just does not seem to be fit for purpose. My evidence is that despite the trillions in flowing around the world economy they don’t seem to be flowing where needed!
And, yes, you are so right social media can make individuals and communities feel powerful again.
Potentially social media can create “awareness” – allowing people to start to understand the problems and issues and challenges and impacts.
Potentially social media supports “agency” – by providing access to the best knowledge and best practice to try and do stuff. It shows us the alternatives, what others have achieved and shows that better solutions are possible.
And social media seems to offer the potential for “association” (ie supporting one another) – through a sense of community which often is the sense of sharing a problem then finding a solution with others.
On January 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am, Pete Burden responded:
Paul Hawken is one of my favourite reads. In this short article he talks of the discovery of what he calls the “largest social movement in all of history”.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/265/
(To remake the world).
I quote:
“It is dispersed, inchoate, and fiercely independent.”
“The movement can’t be divided because it is atomized—small pieces loosely joined. It forms, gathers, and dissipates quickly. ”
If there isn’t a role for social media in supporting this movement I’d very surprised.
On February 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pm, Theo Papadakis responded:
Pete thanks for the link, just finished reading it, excelent article.
On April 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm, Joshua responded:
I really am not sure about the labelling ’social media agency’. The more i think about it – the more I feel it does not cut the paper very well.
This bubble could burst. ‘New Media’ is a dirty word these days from the dot.com burst bubble. And I can’t help but feel that the ’social media’ bubble will just float away into the sky.
Social media will grow and weave into our lives, and so what’s next?
Putting all your eggs into the ’social media’ basket is dangerous, it can make you look de riguer one day and old news the next.
I think its important to own a broader space that encompasses ’social media’ but makes you more of master of this strand of communication, not a slave to it.
As a designer I respond. I absorb what culture is upto, really feel the pulse and produce something that should be felt by the audience and in turn they will want to engage in.
For me – Responsive Design Media Agency (working title) works for me.
The foundation of an agency is the ability to look outside and pick up on whats going on, have ideas, shape them, then make media/technology do something useful or inspire an audience.
There again what’s wrong with design agency?
On April 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, AJ responded:
No.