Comments on: Doc Searls and Robert Scoble on What’s Wrong with Social Media

By: Defining Social Media | Brian Solis

Defining Social Media | Brian Solis — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:12:13 +0000

[...] ago, I was part of a dedicated group of people who worked together to establish Social Media as an official stage in the progression of New Media. An evolution that is well documented. The conversation continues [...]

By: Brian Solis

Brian Solis — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:17:00 +0000

Therrick, your question, “Isn’t it the very nature of the beast to let it define itself or at the very least leave it to the masses to define it?” Yes, absolutely. And through extensive research, polling and experimentation, the term social media is the one most widely used and understood.

Ace, again, great comment. “when we say social media we say media that activates social interactions.” Indeed. Whereas previously, whether print or brodcast, most of the media was for private consumption with the more compelling stories sparking word of mouth. I truly believe that “media” has grown to acheive its greatest levels of influence to date while also empowering “we the people” with our own channels to share information.

By: ace

ace — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:42:00 +0000

“Ace, I like your position. Do you think that social media in its original context was social because it sparked word of mouth…whereas today the tools enable something more powerful, something like word of mouse”
when we say social media we say media that activates social interactions. in it’s essence it does not matter is it key press or print press. in social matrix social interactions (amongst individuals) are in essence informations computations (information processing). what has been changed since gutenberg. social media context. and that context did not created new social media, it created improved (evolved) social media and it will continue to do so.

By: THerrick

THerrick — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:58:00 +0000

A someone who is diving into this world and learning from the masters (like Doc Searls and Scoble) I find it interesting that there is a debate at all about the terms used to describe this shift in communication and how people are connecting. Isn’t it the very nature of the beast to let it define itself or at the very least leave it to the masses to define it? It seems to me that this communication style works better the less said or done to label it. To define is to limit what it can be so why lable it at all? Let’s just keep developing it and the masters can save their words and brain power for making it better- whatever “it” and let it be called whatever it will be called.

By: Brian Solis

Brian Solis — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:59:00 +0000

Michael, thank you good point.

Shannon, yes, indeed. The label does its job...in my opinion.

Karim, really interesting take. Read your post on "informed social authoring" and I think everyone agrees that it all comes down to social roots.

Alan, yes, the landscape will change even more dramatically. Looking foward to the conversations that spur as people try to categorize and document it.

Ace, I like your position. Do you think that social media in its original context was social because it sparked word of mouth...whereas today the tools enable something more powerful, something like word of mouse?

Here's a very thorough on social media and social tools from Stowe Boyd and Greg Narain

By: ace

ace — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:26:00 +0000

“Social Media is only a buzzword if certain individuals decide to call it such because they don’t understand what or why it is.”
have you ever read from?
first newspapers were social media in complex society. it is only about improved communication. hence: using it by certain individuals it becomes buzzword because you are trying to give more meaning to something that is “just” complexity – improved capabilities for social interaction and computations.

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:12:00 +0000

Sorry, posted wrong link for semantics.
This one should be better:
http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2007/02/web_30_roundup_.html

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:50:00 +0000

I believe that language is a precursor to consciousness and the naming of things harkens back to a time whence to name was to truly know.

With the advent of more recent web technologies, social media, user generated content, crowdsourcing and other myriad virtual realities, a new generation of participants are aboard this vehicle called the web who now gravitate to a process rich experience. This impulse, however named, is being examined and I can’t wait for the details to burgeon forth.

Add to the above list an example of research and development that’s taking place in semantics.
http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2007/02/steps_towards_a.html

Fantastic attempts by Lessig and others to shape political attitudes.
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/Spectrum_small.mov

The landscape is not only going to change but the ride is going to be wild.

All cultural/social/technological paradigm changes create new phenomenological experiences and those are what I am interested in.

Alan.

By: Karim Tahawi

Karim Tahawi — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:22:00 +0000

I understand and agree with Doc Searls point about “an accessory to our humanity”. However, to gain wider adoption and hence fulfill the potential of these new communication tools to make things better for the world, we need language hooks so things don’t get lost in translation. I think social media is pretty good but if Doc wanted to go with, as he seems to imply, “informed authoring” or as a hybrid (and perhaps more on point) “informed social authoring”, so be it! There is no denying the social aspect of what’s happening because we are engaging and connecting with each other as we bring to bare our unique and “informed” perspectives.

By: Shannon Whitley

Shannon Whitley — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:08:00 +0000

I completely agree with Michael’s comment. How much energy have we wasted worrying about the semantics of this movement? I realize the impact that language has on defining what we do, but just think how much more we could accomplish if we focus on developing these “things” (whatever you want to call them).

This discussion over the “Social Media” label, for me, amounts to a bunch of hairsplitting. Do you generally know what I’m talking about if I use the term, “Social Media?” Yes? Then the label does its job.

By: michael

michael — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:23:00 +0000

Great post. I’ve been following this debate for a day or 2, and I think I have to take Scoble’s side on this one. Let’s just admit something has happened and have a name for it and move on.