Is social media inherently useless?
There have been a couple of posts commenting on the apparent uselessness of web 2.0/social media web apps recently.
Mike Ellis commented that:
None of these tools (Twitter, Jaiku, Tumblr etc) actually adds anything… All of these tools do add huge amounts of noise, but to me none of them add signal… they’re not doing anything useful for me.
And then godofbiscuits79 commented that Google Reader is ‘not bad though fairly pointless’.
The last comment I’ll put down to web 2.0 naïvety (godofbiscuits79 is my little brother - it would be wrong of me not to take the opportunity to tease him a little about this) but both these comments got me thinking.
Genuine human relationships are essentially useless. Most of us don’t form connections with people because of a transactional value (apart from some business contacts perhaps). My relationships with my friends are based on shared interests or opinions or outlook on life. Sure, some of those relationships come with benefits (like knowing music industry people who can source tickets to sold out gigs ;) ), but these relationships still only last if there is some genuine connection between the parties involved.
At the moment, most of the ‘friends’ I have in online social networks fit into the description above - they are people I share interests, opinions or outlook with. This means social media for me is essentially useless as it facilitates relationships that are essentially useless. But that’s what I like about it the most.
Popularity: 41% [?]
Hello, I'm Jenny Brown.
I agree with both sides! But the key thing is that for those looking to change the world, social media whether big (Blogs et al) or micro (Twitter et al) allow story-tellling, connections and conversations which create networks which are the source of all good campaigns and progressive social movements.
Comment by Paul Caplan
11/02/08, 11:13
All depends what’s useful to you, as you say. For most of us in this space, cultivating relationships with others in the sphere and staying abreast of their activities is very useful indeed!
Comment by Ian Delaney
11/02/08, 11:18
good post! i think there’s friction in all this as work and play get a bit screwey. work tools for play? play for work? we’re having trouble letting wired (or wireless) into our life. we shouldnt be asking ‘does it add value’. like you say, we dont evaluate friends on that basis. (unless we’re patrick bateman-borgs). personally, i’m all for the web in my life - its great, but more and more i’m convinced that leading a productive work life and happy social life will depend on how you screen stuff, use it for what its good for and still allow yourself time to make informed judgements without RSS getting in your face. (take life slower is my new mantra - less haste, less digital fudge)
Comment by roger
11/02/08, 11:58
Mike Ellis’ point seems to me to be complete bollocks.
Comment by Will McInnes
11/02/08, 13:32
Will, thanks for the insight and intelligence in your comment. It really has added to the conversation.
The irony is that *if I had* been saying that “social media is useless” then you would, in one sentence, have validated that point just by commenting with such an inane perspective.
As it is, (and as you’ll find if you actually took the trouble to *read* my original post), I’ve actually been taken slightly out of context here. The post actually suggested that *lifestreaming* was useless *from an institutional point of view*. At no point have I said social media is useless (I don’t think this, as you’ll know if you’ve ever seen me speak, or read my blog). I do, however, think that lifestreaming per se leaves a lot to be desired. It is fun, amusing, and a great timewaster, but I can’t *at this point in time* see how it adds to the environments in which we work.
Personally, I think Roger has a point - stuff that adds value and removes noise is likely to have more longevity.
Comment by Mike Ellis
11/02/08, 13:47
The quote *was* taken slightly out of context and was a sound-bite rather than a representation of the whole post. Sorry for any confusion.
I guess my point was that for me, it doesn’t actually matter if these tools are useful. There appears to be a lot of emphasis placed on ‘usefulness’ within emerging tech and some things perhaps don’t need to be useful.
In response to roger and his new mantra to take things slow, I recently got my http://www.seesmic.com invite through and I found whilst browsing and trying to think of something useful to post (heh) that I’m a bit too impatient with video posting.
It takes too long to watch a video - I can’t scan it! It makes me have to sit down and actually dedicate some time to it!
Perhaps it’s exactly what I need.
Comment by Jenny
11/02/08, 14:25
Absolutely agree. I twitter and still maintain that it’s useless :-)
Comment by Mike Ellis
11/02/08, 14:39
Hi Mike - sorry, that was the worst single contribution I’ve ever made. I wanted to write something more sensible but couldn’t muster the intelligence earlier. Apologies, it was twattish.
I did read your blog post earlier and to be honest it seemed unclear as whether you thought it was good bad or indifferent.
To start again, can I ask: what is an institutional point of view? Do you mean an organisation like a business, or do you mean an institution in the purists sense, more like a public service?
Comment by Will McInnes
11/02/08, 19:41
Hey Will - not a problem. I was slightly over-scathing with my response :-)
You’re correctly picking up on what I see as a confusion. There has been a temptation institutionally (and by this my particular context is “within museums and HE”) to look at these web2 tools and then try to find ways to take *very good* tools like Facebook, Google Docs, Twitter etc and put them into a different environment. Asking “what can Facebook do for my museum” is a familiar question. The answer is varied I think depending on *why* you actually want to do it. The same thinking has been applied by Brian Kelly at UKOLN around Twitter.
I guess my point is that Twitter is a fun tool, a time waster, but that *as of now* it doesn’t offer anything for institutions. That’s not to say it won’t change, of course..
Mike
Comment by Mike Ellis
12/02/08, 08:36
OK, cool - I’m relieved we can still have a conversation after my bizarre bollock-led turn yesterday :)
Look, I think Twitter is so much more than a fun time wasting tool. Clear usages aren’t necessarily right before our eyes just yet, but I can imagine all sorts of use for institutions.
What do institutions generally want to achieve?
Comment by Will McInnes
12/02/08, 14:10
I spotted this thread via a referrer link to my post.
For info, Mile Ellis and I will be running a blogging workshop in a month or so’s time. I’ve an interest in organisational benefits of micro-blogging - as opposed to the social banter we (e.g. Mike and I) currently have.
Two initial suggestions:
o shared watercooler moments for a distributed environment
o learning how to communicate in 140 characters, rather than peer-reviewed papers over a year’s timespan.
o Twitter buddies as personal agent (”anyone know good xxx Web sites?”, “I’m in Paris, what can I do?”, etc.)
Brian
Comment by Brian Kelly
12/02/08, 17:34
to be fair I didn’t classify whether google reader being useless was a good or a bad thing!?! I can’t see myself using it was more my point…
G
Comment by godofbiscuits79
13/02/08, 19:36
One of the most interesting aspects for me of Brian Eno and Clay Shirky’s talk the other night were the mentions of flash mobs as quiet protest in various countries, and twitter as safety device for activists in Egypt. In those contexts things that seemed like a gimmick in comfortable western societies suddenly become radical, changing societies rather than merely social lives.
Which of course, isn’t to downplay the positive impact in our social lives, or really to engage with questions about social media’s role in institutious, but perhaps a small reminder that usefulness is often something we can only judge in hindsight.
Comment by James Stewart
19/03/08, 10:47
Social Media has been with human species since we could grunt - it clearly isn’t useless as otherwise we would have bred it out. Whats more true is that its hard to put direct financial value on it, which in todays’ world makes us question its overall value.
Social Media is a lower transaction cost way of doing what humans always do - communicate - and that is massively shape changing if history is anything to go by
Hmm…will have to waste some time and blog a full response ;-)
Comment by alan p
19/03/08, 11:03
Yet to be proven either way, but for me, twitter gets me, for low cost, near to the mental space of some clever / interesting - or even both 8^) - people, outside of the occasional conference, seminar or other jolly. So, at least potentially, I may learn something and, even contribute. So, I vote that these streams are useful - there’s just a chaotic mass of them at the moment. Good thread setup Jenny, I missed it earlier somehow.
Comment by Mike Lowndes
19/03/08, 11:38
Weirdly this seems to have been the general thread of many and varied discussions these last two weeks - and always results in a passionate discussion. For some reason the usefulness and value of social media fascinates and confuses people, presumably because there is no real or reasoned argument for or against it really. However, Jenny, you have put your finger on exactly why that is. You are absolutely right, and it goes back to the old adage: ’some things are right for some people some of the time’.
Comment by Emma Mulqueeny
19/03/08, 12:38
Following on from Alan P’s comment, I would agree and suggest that altruistic social networking tends to be much more satisfying for all concerned.
However, as networking is also a useful business and promotional tool, its fairly inevitable that web-based social networking will become more oriented around exploitative business models, human nature being what it is. In this context, the blurring of the lies between industry/business relationships and personal/friendship relationship can be disastrous for all concerned, and I don;t think it’s any co-incidence that Facebook (for example) has lost a lot of credibility since its weaknesses and potential for exploitation have become more apparent. Although no-one would necessarily describe it this way, I think a level of trust has been eroded, which is why the membership/usage has dropped off dramatically recently as people vote with their feet.
I also wholeheartedly agree with the points earlier raised - these things are, to some degree “pointless”, and that is their joy. One can wonder whether such things should vacuum up our time, or perhaps we ought to be asking whether or obsession with using our time for economically expedient ends is out of control.
Comment by Mike R
19/03/08, 13:04
Funny how suddenly this thread has sprung back into life…
Note to self: some kind of auto-generated ‘popular threads’ sidebar thingy would be handy.
@James Stewart - I think you’re right, often ‘usefulness’ is easier to decipher with hindsight.
@Mike R - The line between ‘business’ and ‘friendship’ is very much blurred for me. I’d say around 50% of my facebook friends are business contacts. Having said that, there are some business contacts I definitely wouldn’t send a friend request to.
I’d say this is also an example of where social media apps are not ‘use-less’ - when they facilitate transactional business relationships.
Comment by Jenny
19/03/08, 15:35
Amazing post.., brother
Comment by Zachariahet
25/03/08, 01:11