I've worked under too many decision makers who think that placing a Like button on something is a pivotal business model move, or adding a share button will magically make content go 'viral' -- these concepts are best understood by those who practice them, not by those who create a blog or Facebook account as a point of presence.
I thought this was going to be about social services like welfare and food stamps, and how people don't understand the reality of those services unless they've been in a position to really need them. That could be a great article.
I don't know any particularly good articles/books on this subject, but Morgan Spurlock had a documentary tv series called "30 days" where he spends 30 days doing things like living on welfare, working for a minimum wage job, living in prison, etc. It's a fascinating show, and while he's the first to admit that even this level of exposure is not equivalent to what people in those situations actually feel (largely because he has a safety net, and his is only a temporary condition), it still dramatically shifts your view of what life really is like for people in very different circumstances.
If you're interested in the topic, read Sudhir Venkatesh's books, like his most recent _Gang_Leader_for_a_Day_.
It's about his experience of spending 8 years with impoverished residents of a Chicago project community, including gang members, drug users, and prostitutes, as part of his graduate studies in sociology.
A possible title for such an article is a word I first read about when reading Isaiah Berlin and his students for some philosophy of mind work I was doing a few years back. The term they use is "Einfuhlung", which translates to a "feeling into" (empathy?) but one that is quite directly experienced. Thay claim that one cannot feel and be moved by the depth of woe (or any other emotion, for that matter) in a blues song, for instance, without having experienced it firsthand.
Yeah me too. Funny how the meaning of things changes in a different context and how the new speakers of these words neglect to check what the other meanings are.
This seems to me to be one of Apple's key weaknesses right now: who among Apple's top folks is involved in social? There was a big furor when @forstall joined Twitter... he's up to 33,000+ followers, still with zero tweets. Does Steve check his Facebook all the time? I don't get the feeling that he does, based on what I see from Ping.
very true - you can tell when jobs called TweetDeck "TwitterDeck" in his earnings call - quote here: http://www.businessinsider.com/tweetdeck-steve-jobs-2010-10 . Hopefully apple doesn't miss the social boat, because i'm a big apple fan
I use social media tools as much as the next guy, but I don't believe that a company like apple really needs to get 'inside' the whole 'social media' movement.
I think they're playing the right moves focusing on allowing their platform to be a great base for these newer forms of media. All their new products and updates lend themselves well towards being a good base to build robust simplified online interactions on.
The iPad + App store are a prime example - it's almost the perfect tool to build easy, simple, social interaction software on top of.
My employer does a significant amount of work with Apple and, regarding their social media awareness, they're more cognizant than 90% of our clientèle about what they should and shouldn't be doing in the space. As for individual contributors at Apple, I have no clue, but the company as a whole is doing well in that regard.
My friends always ask why I pull out my phone whenever we go somewhere. I'm hesitant to explain "oh I'm checking into Foursquare" because I don't want to get them hooked too
Basically I agree 100%. There's no reason to tweet or check-in places but once you start it's pretty difficult to go back. Although maybe I'm just a secluded Twitter addict
I was one of the people that was very gung ho about Twitter's role in the Iranian Election brouhaha. I recently got an email from a friend linking the Gladwell post with the underhanded "Look at how wrong you were" statement.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong (albeit in a very public way), but my response was this: Even though Twitter may not have played as direct of a role as the media was portraying, it was the open, decentralized nature of new social media/communication that made it so much harder for the Iranian government to strangle what got out. These sorts of protests have been going on for a while in Iran, but those of us in the west have never had such an intimate, play-by-play look at it until the 2009 elections. That's how we got pictures of Neda shot to death, stories about the Basij wreaking terror at night, and so on, practically in real time.
Sure, most of us have forgotten about it and moved on (I haven't; most of my extended family is in Iran), but the level of coverage and fostering of connections just means the next time something happens, support from the rest of the world will be stronger (which I can personally say is extremely encouraging to my friends/family in Iran -- they've felt isolated, until now). Yes, I wasn't on the streets in Tehran, but I was helping some of them coordinate and communicate with shells/proxies/tunnels/etc.
I think at this point, a better interpretation of the phrase "The Revolution will be Tweeted" would be that in this day and age, if anything is happening anywhere, it will be tweeted about as close to real-time as possible. Iran is "lucky" in this sense, they have a fairly modern communication system. Imagine if live streams of the atrocities in Darfur or North Korea were up on Twitter. These causes could emerge from being momentarily trendy to actually being a subject of intense worldwide criticism. And then maybe something good will become of it.
The decentralized, anonymized web definitely helped get those videos out...but I don't know whether the social networks really had much effect. Even if they had, you're assuming that the Iranian gov't cares what a mass movement of its citizens thinks, which by all indications it doesn't. Things like Wikileaks, Cryptome and YouTube, which are not social networks in the sense that "social" is understood by the Valley, have far more potential to influence events on a government-to-government level -- or between other parties with power parity. The social nets are just a bunch of squawking parakeets that governments like North Korea and Iran are free to ignore at will.
The point isn't that the governments in Iran or North Korea care about tweets - they don't - but that the people there and here can find common ground, rendering the governments less relevant. Not "superfluous" - but less able to influence things for the worse.
I know that's the positive view of the situation... but if it makes governments less relevant and makes Facebook more relevant, all it's doing is shifting the power locus somewhere else, not actually enabling people. Spreading the word is worthless without power parity and trust. I.E. social networks don't threaten governments any more than a mob of people in the street would; empirical evidence in Iran does suggest that the rest is hype. After all, it's not like the US population started pressuring their government to invade and save the Iranian resistance -- or the Darfurian resistance, or anybody else for that matter.
And empowering Facebook isn't such a hot idea, is it? Facebook isn't a democracy, either; it seems to care as much about the will of its constituents as does the Iranian gov't.
I don't so much see the transfer of power as being from governments to social networking services themselves as much as it being from governments to the users of social networking services.
Exactly the sentiment I was going to express. Thank you. There is a story I'm trying to remember that goes something like this: There were two abusive rulers looking out over their people, and one suggests to the other that maybe all the slaves should wear white armbands so they could be identified easier. The other replies "No way! Then they might realize how many of them there are."
I don't know. Facebook users didn't even have the power to roll back the outrageous TOS changes, they all know exactly how many of themselves there are. You're telling me they have the power to overthrow the Ayatollah? If so, where's the proof that they've made any positive social changes in the last few years that they've been around? Sure, they helped elect Obama, but that can also be read to mean that social network groups can be just as easily manipulated as any other mass of people.
Yes, Facebook users did have that power. Whether or not they took advantage of it is another story, but if all Facebook's users decided to leave without a TOS change I bet they would have got the changes because there is no FB without users -- same with governments. And there is a mountain of difference between having motivation to try to effect TOS changes, versus a human condition prevalent with graphic images of your neighbors being beaten and shot in the streets.
So, yes, I do believe the people have the power to overthrow the Ayatollah (or any other govt. for that matter) if they are organized enough. Unfortunately, I don't see that large undertaking helping even if it were to happen because the Iranian people largely want a theocratic government, which to me will be inherently dictatorial. It comes down to this: the Internet is inherently about connections -- connecting computers, which by extension connect people. It's not social networks themselves that provide the magic, they're just vehicles riding on top of that fundamental connection potency; that's where their success has come from. When you want to give people power you let them connect, communicate and organize. When you want to weaken them, you isolate them. It's that simple.
Okay, but networking a thousand jihadists makes a stronger jihad, while doing nothing to make them better or less violent people. Networking a million cancer survivors makes people feel better but doesn't do much to cure cancer. Where is the proof that networking millions of apathetic people is going to make them one iota less apathetic, as opposed to just reinforcing their preexisting condition?
I don't know about you, but I think the existence of HNN is kind of a refutation of your argument. I know I never had the chance, here in rural Indiana, to engage with this many thoughtful people.
What you're forgetting is 99.9999% of all discussion ever has been banal. The only difference is that Google now indexes some of it. The other 0.0001% is what changes the world.
I'm not sure what answer you're looking for me to say. Networking is simply a tool, and like any tool it only provides the potential to be of benefit. But having the tool available is certainly advantageous.
As for apathetic people I'm not sure where you get that. I was able to find a clip that shook me a bit as a freedom loving American. It was during the protests in Iran where a woman openly cries out for help against her oppressive government's actions. Watch it and tell me you consider her and those like her apathetic.
As emotional as that is, I feel powerless and sad that there is nothing I could do, or expect my government to do. The issue in Iran is political, and it's something that has to be worked out by the Iranian people themselves, possibly like Americans worked it out with the oppressive British government during the Revolutionary War. However, as I've explained above, I don't see that as improving the condition unless the result of any revolt is a constitution being drawn up, as ours was, which is designed to protect citizens' rights and freedoms.
And you need to be poor to understand and effectively help the poor. And you need to be a minority to understand the problems minorities face.
Yes, participating in something or belonging to a group helps one understand it, but participating and belonging are not pre-requirements to help and understand.
Paul Graham and most other (good) investors invest in people rather in ideas, so this is why it is less important for them to use social services to invest in social services.
As for Steve Jobs -- he's the perfect example for @cdixon's argument, because Apple doesn't get social.
"Please tell us in one or two sentences about something impressive other than this startup that each founder has built or achieved."
"Please tell us about the time you, philwelch, most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage."
"Please tell us about an interesting project, preferably outside of class or work, that two or more of you created together. Include urls if possible."
"How long have the founders known one another and how did you meet? Have any of the founders not met in person?"
"Please tell us something surprising or amusing that one of you has discovered. (The answer need not be related to your project.)"
The problem is that autobiography is awkward and weird to discuss. So while you may discuss ideas, that's probably so you have something less awkward to talk about in the process of feeling each other out as people. Discussing your ideas shows how you think and operate; telling someone how you think and operate is, OTOH, fraught with cognitive error and lies, since most people don't have an accurate self-image.
PG's goal is to make money. Period. It may give you the warm and fuzzies to believe that he's trying to find passionate people, but without a profitable idea, the rest doesn't really matter.
These questions matter because PG doesn't want people that don't work together well (which will cause unneeded drama and destroy the company internally), and that they will have the drive to continue on the current project and not give up (there are many people that jump around to 1000 different projects or give up easily). It's merely a way to increase his chances of ROI, which isn't a bad thing.
I don't think there's any dispute over why an investor invests. The point is that investing in people is a more effective means to that end than investing in ideas, that autobiographical questions are asked in the process, and that discussing the idea also functions as a way to evaluate a candidate as a person.
You can make distractions for the masses or you can consume them; ya can't do both. If you have a thousand telephones that won't ring, then social networks are a great way to get suckers to sell your garbage to each other with as little effort as possible. They're the internet equivalent of reality TV: The content creates itself, so it's cheap to run; product placement through aspirational, voyeuristic relationships are the paradigm; topics are vapid, memory is fleeting. Gen X mostly understands this, but we're basically irrelevant to the marketers -- actually, in most cases now we ARE the marketers, which might explain why we have a better handle on it. But Gen Y seems to have an impossible time grasping the idea that they're being used by all these neat little tweets and likes. They've got an insatiable appetite for short-attention-span candy. It's easy fishing if you want to profit off it; they're like a bunch of trained goldfish in a perfectly transparent tank. Total advertising saturation has apparently done to our culture what it was intended to do: Replace genuine interaction with a series of tailored sales pitches, in a Truman-Show-like fashion.
I guess the question now is, what do we do with 30 million kids who can't write a complete sentence? And the correct answer is: War.
How can targeted advertising be a service? It would only be a service if you wanted to buy something but you didn't know what until you saw an ad for it.
I think it's bizarre that anybody who grew up after the '50s would buy anything based on an ad... and yet... I make a living in advertising because it's true.
Also, they should get off your lawn? "The kids" have never been able to write a complete sentence. Until they get to the point where some of them need to - at which point, they do fine.
I was sold on social media when I asked a friend about Square's encryption via twitter (he was ecstatic about it), and got an answer directly from the top in response.
This is the exact reason that I ignore any article or blog post announcing that the author has quit Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare or any other social service. If you're quitting you're not seeing the benefits. The people who continue to use the services are reaping the benefits.
My take is if you have a way to announce to people that you are quitting social_network_001 then you likely didn't need it and aren't even close to an average user anyways. It's when your average user stops or worse slowly stops using your service that should set off the alarms.
I remember a time I was sitting in a restaurant run by some Egyptians, watching a satellite channel aimed at the middle east.
There was a show on that was something like "American Idol"; they listed numbers that you could text to, in different countries, to vote for your favorite music videos. One country was Iraq... And i'm thinking, the majority of these people must be really pacified, not jihadists, if you can get them to send texts to vote for music videos.
I wasn't surprised. But it reconfirmed my convictions in a memorable way.
I'm pretty sick and tired of the "hate muslims" wave that's sweeping the U.S. as the election nears. What makes the U.S. great is that people come here from all over the world and get treated fairly -- at least more fairly then they'd be treated anyplace else. Yes, we've got discrimination, racism and other stupidity, but just try immigrating to any place else.
Americans who decide they hate immigrants are turning their backs on who they are.
Chris makes a good argument, but there are counterexamples. It's well known that Ron Conway doesn't use these services. PG's a pretty good counterexample too, though he did finally dip a toe into Twitter. Ok, two toes.
Aside: I initially misinterpreted the title in that I thought "social services" referred to public welfare programs. However, it brings up an interesting question: does the statement still hold? Is it necessary to use public welfare programs to understand them properly?
I use twitter extensively all day long, and I still agree with Gladwell. The author of this post seems to misunderstand Gladwell's point. Of course you can make new friends and business contacts online, including via twitter, which become strong real life bonds. But can you get 6,000 of your followers to face down riot police ? Not likely. Gladwell is not talking about establishing a few dozen close contacts a year. He's talking about motivating vast numbers of people to make serious sacrifice and commitment around important issues. As it stands we can barely get enough people to vote.
Since starting work for CompassLabs, I find myself using more social networking sites as a learning experience.
There are two social networking sites that I have been using long term: Twitter (I follow people who post very interesting links) and LinkedIn (for me, just because it is fun: I have reconnected with a lot of people who I used to work with).
reply