03 May 2009
Layers of social media
06/05/09 13:06 Filed in: Social
networking practice
I like social media. I do like social media, social
networking, whatever you want to call it. It’s
just that sometimes people get it a little wrong.
Let me elaborate. They get the idea that people will want to know interesting stuff. Good. They find something on the Web. Great. They think someone else might want to know so they opt to share it. Right up until this point I’m with them.
Then they Facebook it - put it on their FB page. OK, still good. Then they link to their FB Page - not the original page - with some sort of scrunged social media site that aggregates links. At this stage they’re starting to lose the plot ever so slightly because if I come across their favourites on Digg, or Delicious, or whatever, I don’t want to be taken to a Facebook page, I want to go straight to whatever it was that’s piqued their fancy.
Then they Tweet the aggregator site. So to find whatever it was that interested them I have to receive their Tweet - no problem there - then click through to some daft aggregator site, work out how to bypass that, end up on their Facebook profile and eventually, very eventually, click through to a picture of a dog that can walk on its hind legs or something.
Sadly by that time I’ve lost the will to live. I’m seriously considering starting a campaign for straightforward links as a result of all this. I’d be intrigued to hear from anyone else who’s had similar experiences.
Let me elaborate. They get the idea that people will want to know interesting stuff. Good. They find something on the Web. Great. They think someone else might want to know so they opt to share it. Right up until this point I’m with them.
Then they Facebook it - put it on their FB page. OK, still good. Then they link to their FB Page - not the original page - with some sort of scrunged social media site that aggregates links. At this stage they’re starting to lose the plot ever so slightly because if I come across their favourites on Digg, or Delicious, or whatever, I don’t want to be taken to a Facebook page, I want to go straight to whatever it was that’s piqued their fancy.
Then they Tweet the aggregator site. So to find whatever it was that interested them I have to receive their Tweet - no problem there - then click through to some daft aggregator site, work out how to bypass that, end up on their Facebook profile and eventually, very eventually, click through to a picture of a dog that can walk on its hind legs or something.
Sadly by that time I’ve lost the will to live. I’m seriously considering starting a campaign for straightforward links as a result of all this. I’d be intrigued to hear from anyone else who’s had similar experiences.
0 Comments
Real life Twittering - from College Humor
05/05/09 14:18 Filed in: Humour
Like many failed comedy writers I often pretend other
people can’t make me laugh. This item below is
the exception.
Watch Real
Life Twitter on CollegeHumor
Political twit
05/05/09 13:32 Filed in: Social
networking practice
Great blog post here by Chris Nee about a
blog post by Nadine Dorries MP, which tells us
all why we’re wasting our time on Twitter.
Well, I’ve picked up a lot of commissions from my Twitter habit so I know I’m not - but the serious issue overlooked not only by Ms. Dorries but also by Mr. Nee is that she’s paid out of public funds - never mind politicians and expenses, I don’t pay my taxes so someone who has only glanced at something can take a sideswipe at it on a blog that’s supposed to reflect her job as a representative of the public. It’s outrageous that any MP is indulging themselves in this sort of trivia, let alone that she’s taking time and airspace to knock an enterprise that’s doing well in a time of recession.
I do urge you to mail her and complain about this misuse of her time. Her website’s contact page is here.
Well, I’ve picked up a lot of commissions from my Twitter habit so I know I’m not - but the serious issue overlooked not only by Ms. Dorries but also by Mr. Nee is that she’s paid out of public funds - never mind politicians and expenses, I don’t pay my taxes so someone who has only glanced at something can take a sideswipe at it on a blog that’s supposed to reflect her job as a representative of the public. It’s outrageous that any MP is indulging themselves in this sort of trivia, let alone that she’s taking time and airspace to knock an enterprise that’s doing well in a time of recession.
I do urge you to mail her and complain about this misuse of her time. Her website’s contact page is here.
Europe tells America what to do
05/05/09 12:18 Filed in: Internet
I’m trying not to giggle at this. Really I am.
The European Union is - wait for it - asking
President Barack Obama to hand over control of the
Internet to an international body. They think
he’s going to do this and will see the sense of
it. There’s a report here.
First let me say that I think the idea that a single country holds all of the aces as far as such an internationally-important resource is concerned sucks big time. Nobody needs to convince me that we would all be better off if America had a significant say in, rather than total control of, the Internet. This is because I am wise, balanced, sensible, oh yes, and not American.
President Obama, on the other hand, is indeed American. He is, as of November last year, one of the most important Americans on the planet. And his responsibility is to defend America’s interests wherever he goes. That part of his job seems to have been forgotten by a great many of his supporters in the international press and it’s unfortunate. It could make a lot of the decisions he’s bound to take look quite jingoistic as a result - not to the same extent as those of his predecessor but trust me, he’s going to start doing things that are very pro-America soon. He’s obliged to. It’s his responsibility.
So when I see a story entitled ‘Europe tells Obama to...’ well, anything, I start to get a bit giggly. The President will not and should not do anything contrary to his country’s interests, and handing over control of the Internet without some sort of good reason or evidence of payback certainly counts. I’d be pleased to be proven wrong, in principle the Internet is too big to be the property of any individual territory - but it’s America’s playground. Why should they give it up?
First let me say that I think the idea that a single country holds all of the aces as far as such an internationally-important resource is concerned sucks big time. Nobody needs to convince me that we would all be better off if America had a significant say in, rather than total control of, the Internet. This is because I am wise, balanced, sensible, oh yes, and not American.
President Obama, on the other hand, is indeed American. He is, as of November last year, one of the most important Americans on the planet. And his responsibility is to defend America’s interests wherever he goes. That part of his job seems to have been forgotten by a great many of his supporters in the international press and it’s unfortunate. It could make a lot of the decisions he’s bound to take look quite jingoistic as a result - not to the same extent as those of his predecessor but trust me, he’s going to start doing things that are very pro-America soon. He’s obliged to. It’s his responsibility.
So when I see a story entitled ‘Europe tells Obama to...’ well, anything, I start to get a bit giggly. The President will not and should not do anything contrary to his country’s interests, and handing over control of the Internet without some sort of good reason or evidence of payback certainly counts. I’d be pleased to be proven wrong, in principle the Internet is too big to be the property of any individual territory - but it’s America’s playground. Why should they give it up?