I just revisited a blog post by Dan Schultz titled In Search of a Community That Takes ‘Me’ Out of Social Media. I came to it after a fan of Front Porch Forum pointed out to me why she likes FPF so much… its design puts neighborhood before individual. Many of the giants of social media these days go the opposite way… they’re all about optimizing the experience for the individual. Here’s Dan’s chart…
I’m shocked that John Stewart would cast aspersions on our omniscient corporate overlord. How dare he! It’s imperative that we all march lock-step into Facebook’s warm embrace.
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
The Anti-Social Network | ||||
|
Entrepreneur and venture capitalist Mark Suster open his blog post today with …
What I want to answer with this post (long though it may be) is:
- Why did Web 2.0 emerge and are there any lessons to be gained about the future? [cheap accessible digital hardware]
- Why did Twitter emerge despite Facebook’s dominance? [asymmetry, real-time, curated RSS / link-sharing]
- Why did MySpace lose to Facebook & what can Twitter learn from this? [encouraging an open platform where 3rd parties can make lots of money]
- Does Facebook have a permanent dominance of the future given their 500m users? [chuckle. ask microsoft, aol/time warner & google]
- What are the big trends that will drive the next phase of social networks? [mobile, locations, layering of services, data management, portability & more]
An excellent piece… worth the whole read. Shortened version here… and full version here.
Blogging VC Fred Wilson writes today about a dream of “giving every person a voice” via social media…
I had the pleasure of watching John Battelle interview Evan Williams to wrap the Web2 conference yesterday. John’s a great interviewer and it was a memorable talk. But the thing that stayed with me through the night and was on my mind as I woke up this morning was this part, as transcribed by Matthew Ingram.
Williams — who founded Blogger and later sold it to Google — said that “lowering the barrier to publishing” has been something he has spent most of his career on, and this is because he believes that “the open exchange of information has a positive effect on the world — it’s not all positive, but net-net it is positive.” With Twitter, he said, “we’ve lowered the barriers to publishing almost as far as they can go,” and that is good because if there are “more voices and more ways to find the truth, then the truth will be available to more people — I think this is what the Internet empowers [but] society has not fully realized what this means.”
Of course, blogging in general and Twitter specifically are two juggernauts. If you have a smidgen of tech savvy, something to say, and a dose of extrovert in you, then these are two great options. And millions of Mother Earth’s 6-7 billion people are blogging and tweeting now.
What I haven’t seen is what percentage of internet users are blogging or tweeting… or posting on Facebook or YouTube, etc. I wonder how close these various services are to the ol’ 1:9:90 estimate… 1% of visitors post frequently, 9% have posted once or twice, and 90% never post… just lurk.
While this seems disappointing in light of Fred and Evan’s ambitions above, it’s a heck of a lot better than the pre-social media ratio. What could that have been? 0.1 : 0.0001 : 99.9? That is… 0.1% contributed almost all the content of the newspaper, 0.0001% wrote letters to the edit, and 99.9% just read the thing.
With Front Porch Forum, we aim to take this to where Fred and Evan dream of. In dozens of Vermont FPF pilot communities, more than half of the households subscribe. And it’s not uncommon to find participation ratios akin to 25:50:25. Put another way… 75% post! This is getting close to “giving every person a voice.”
UPDATE: Just came across an interesting blog post by David Sasaki that includes this chart…
An interesting take on Facebook…
This is a very interesting article (hat tip to Michel) on why Facebook (and for that matter other social media platforms too) want you to have more friends. In essence it is because more friends equals more activity which equals more content. Keeping the content coming is the key to a living social network. Like a shark, that must keep moving forwards to stay alive, social networks that start to run dry of content, start to die:
Online social networks are built on user-generated content. Without this content, these networks are the equivalent of dying blogs (or MySpace). That said, Facebook faces the (potentially impossible) task of keeping its users engaged and active. Account holders have lives outside of Facebook, what social scientists call opportunity costs, so these social networks need to incentivize participation short of paying people. What better way than to give us a large captive audience of acquaintances, colleagues, classmates, friends and family to share our content with.
Andy Bromage writes in this week’s Seven Days about VT police use of digital tools… interesting stories. He closes with…
Burlington police do closely monitor the neighborhood Front Porch Forums, replying to questions and concerns posted by residents. But they do not maintain a Facebook page because, in Schirling’s words, “It is one more thing to maintain with limited resources, and our website is quite comprehensive.”
Malcolm Gladwell opens his Oct. 4, 2010 New Yorker article…
At four-thirty in the afternoon on Monday, February 1, 1960, four college students sat down at the lunch counter at the Woolworth’s in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina. They were freshmen at North Carolina A. & T., a black college a mile or so away.
“I’d like a cup of coffee, please,” one of the four, Ezell Blair, said to the waitress.
“We don’t serve Negroes here,” she replied.
The Woolworth’s lunch counter was a long L-shaped bar that could seat sixty-six people, with a standup snack bar at one end. The seats were for whites. The snack bar was for blacks. Another employee, a black woman who worked at the steam table, approached the students and tried to warn them away. “You’re acting stupid, ignorant!” she said. They didn’t move. Around five-thirty, the front doors to the store were locked. The four still didn’t move. Finally, they left by a side door. Outside, a small crowd had gathered, including a photographer from the Greensboro Record. “I’ll be back tomorrow with A. & T. College,” one of the students said.
By next morning, the protest had grown to twenty-seven men and four women, most from the same dormitory as the original four. The men were dressed in suits and ties. The students had brought their schoolwork, and studied as they sat at the counter. On Wednesday, students from Greensboro’s “Negro” secondary school, Dudley High, joined in, and the number of protesters swelled to eighty. By Thursday, the protesters numbered three hundred, including three white women, from the Greensboro campus of the University of North Carolina. By Saturday, the sit-in had reached six hundred. People spilled out onto the street. White teen-agers waved Confederate flags. Someone threw a firecracker. At noon, the A. & T. football team arrived. “Here comes the wrecking crew,” one of the white students shouted.
By the following Monday, sit-ins had spread to Winston-Salem, twenty-five miles away, and Durham, fifty miles away. The day after that, students at Fayetteville State Teachers College and at Johnson C. Smith College, in Charlotte, joined in, followed on Wednesday by students at St. Augustine’s College and Shaw University, in Raleigh. On Thursday and Friday, the protest crossed state lines, surfacing in Hampton and Portsmouth, Virginia, in Rock Hill, South Carolina, and in Chattanooga, Tennessee. By the end of the month, there were sit-ins throughout the South, as far west as Texas. “I asked every student I met what the first day of the sitdowns had been like on his campus,” the political theorist Michael Walzer wrote in Dissent. “The answer was always the same: ‘It was like a fever. Everyone wanted to go.’ ” Some seventy thousand students eventually took part. Thousands were arrested and untold thousands more radicalized. These events in the early sixties became a civil-rights war that engulfed the South for the rest of the decade—and it happened without e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
When it comes to changing health behaviors, it takes more than a far-flung network of friends on Facebook egging you on. It takes a jostling herd, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
Social scientists have assumed that changing behavior would spread like the flu, which transmits best via individuals with lots of long-distance contacts.
But to change behavior, you need to be surrounded by the message — with neighbors, family and members in the community all reinforcing the same idea.
“For about 35 years, wisdom in the social sciences has been that the more long ties there are in a network, the faster a thing will spread,” Damon Centola of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose study appears in the journal Science, said in a statement.
“It’s startling to see that this is not always the case.”
Knowing how best to influence health behavior is important to health reform as the United States turns its focus to preventing disease, rather than treating it…
From Scientific American about a recent meta-study…
… The benefit of friends, family and even colleagues turns out to be just as good for long-term survival as giving up a 15-cigarette-a-day smoking habit. And by the study’s numbers, interpersonal social networks are more crucial to physical health than exercising or beating obesity… The researchers analyzed results from 148 studies—which included a total of 308,849 participants—going back to the early 20th century…
Despite the hyperconnected era of Facebook friends and Blackberry messaging, social isolation is on the rise. More people than not report not having a single person they feel that they can confide in—up threefold from 20 years ago, the report authors noted…
… [regarding] digital social interactions, Holt-Lunstad says, “there are types of things you can get from an online friend, but there are other resources that you cannot.” Although online connections “might be better than nothing,” substituting time in front of a screen is likely not as beneficial as a phone call or face-to-face conversation…
I’d like to see a study along these lines of the health benefits of knowing and communicating with the neighbors.
Oh boy. Umair Haque is gonna get it. The boisterous boosters of the blah-blah-blah-o-sphere won’t let his Harvard Business Review piece pass without comment (and lots of them). Here’s a snippet…
Despite all the excitement surrounding social media, the Internet isn’t connecting us as much as we think it is. It’s largely home to weak, artificial connections, what I call thin relationships.
During the subprime bubble, banks and brokers sold one another bad debt — debt that couldn’t be made good on. Today, “social” media is trading in low-quality connections — linkages that are unlikely to yield meaningful, lasting relationships.
Call it relationship inflation.
Heresy!
Ghost of Midnight is an online journal about fostering community within neighborhoods, with a special focus on Front Porch Forum (FPF). My wife, Valerie, and I founded FPF in 2006... read more