Tweeting Groom

I'm not sure if the Tweeting and Facebooking Groom is falling under the criticism of McLuhan. If nothing else, it seems as if his doing this was done with a sense of humor and even satire. When watching the video, never did it cross my mind that he was doing this seriously or that he honestly really felt the need to update his status. Doesn't this actually signify a critical view of these uses of these technologies? In doing this, the groom is satirizing the people who feel the need to update their feeds endlessly on Facebook with such useless and inane information such as their relationship status. It's gotten to a point where your status on Facebook is nearly as important as your status in the real world. The groom seems to recognize this and at the opportune moment, decides to poke alittle fun. Would I have done something like this at my wedding? Hell no. Do I think it is a sign of the Twitter/Facebook apocalypse? Absolutely not.

What Now? Consumption Habits?

2. What are MY content consumption habits, at that point?

Not sure. I'm guessing that I'll still rely on blogs a great deal. I like the idea of blogging and there is a plethora of legit bloggers producing really excellent work. I have no reason to think that blogs will suddenly cease to interest me. Cover your eyes and ears blog-haters but maybe blogs are going to be the newspapers of my generation? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm ok with being entirely online. With the advent of internet TV, both in original and syndicated content, I'm wondering if everything won't come from the 'net? Windows 7 is heavily emphasizing home networks as something even the most tech-handicapped (this was found on the Official WindowsVideos channel) can create/use/maximize them. Now, we can link together our computer, gaming system, Blu-Ray player, television and stereo into one large network, streaming video and audio both ways to every device in our house, with all of the content coming from the net. Cable TV should be bracing themselves for a big change.

In undergrad, having not the money to subscribe, the time or energy to walk across campus to my tiny mailbox to pick up a stack of paper with day-old-news, I made the jump to an almost all-online news consumption habit a few years ago. I can't remember the last time I sat down with a mainstream paper to read about the news. In the past couple of years, almost all of my news consumption is online as even the slowest newspapers have finally begun to realize that this internet thing may be for real and as a result, have digitized their content for internet reading. While I can enjoy and sympathize with the nostalgia for the good ol' days of newsprint, I'm not sure its continued existence is as important as some of the Armageddon forecasters seem to think it is. Journalism will be ok without newspapers: there are enough journalists that care deeply enough about their craft and jobs that they'll figure out a way to make it work and even the most skeptical folks will come around eventually.

I am guessing that I'll be using mobile devices a great deal more to consume my news. As smartphones continue to evolve and tablets become more prominent, mobile users will be in heaven. You'll be able to consume your news wherever you go. Even now, you can watch live sports on the go with the correct subscription. This idea of mobile content is where we're headed. It's nice to sit at your computer watching streaming video. It'll be cooler to do it while walking down the street.

What Now? What Comes After Newspapers?

Going off of Colin's prompt, there are three things that need to be addressed in the wake of newspapers demise:

1. What do YOU see in [their] place?

2. What are YOUR content consumption habits, at that point?

3. What role do you see yourself playing, possibly even as a content creator?

I'll take them one at a time:

1. What do I see in [their] place?

Blogs, Social Networks, News Aggregators, Tech still TDB.

For starters, I get as much of my news from blogs today as I do from more traditional news outlets. In fact, anything cultural, I'll get from a variety of blogs that I've rounded up and read regularly. Film, Music, TV, etc. are all better covered by bloggers and internet only journalists than they are by any mainstream newspaper (NY Times Film section aside. AO, you're the man! But I actually think your internet-only material is better than some of your print stuff, brilliant!) The news is quicker and more personal (After art is best covered from a subjective opinion. There is nothing worse than objective art coverage). As film critics get the ax across the country, the blogosphere is filling with film writing that is really excellent: informative, insightful and passionate.

Social Networks already have cemented themselves as invaluable tools for news coverage. All you Twitter haters need look no further than the Iran Elections and the Mumbai terrorist attacks for the reason why Twitter must exist. At a time when, in Iran, the government had widespread censorship over what could be reported about the uprisings surrounding the elections, leaving, in the process, the mainstream press in the dark, Twitterers across the country became THE source for news. What followed was a tremendous amount of unfiltered, unedited information revealing the real truths behind what was happening. Combined with grainy, pixelated YouTube videos, these brave activists/citizen journalists risked their own lives to shed light on the ugly conditions of a country fighting to reclaim itself.

There is no reason to think that Twitter has seen it's peak or even, it's entire potential. This is a service that will continue to mature and evolve. The Twitter train is leaving the station and you can either choose to acknowledge its growing importance and get on board or get run over. It's not stopping once it's fully on its way. I'm not sure that Facebook will have the same importance as a news source. As the more innovative Twitter has grown in popularity and importance, Facebook has merely copied it. The new news feeds are directly modeled on Twitter's platform and as long as Facebook continues to focus on useless, time wasting apps like Mafia Wars and Social Interview rather than truly innovating as a worthy news platform, it'll stay as a nice way to stay in touch with friends but nothing else. I'm a fan of Facebook for what it does but it isn't Twitter and doesn't have the same level of excitement surrounding its potential.

News Aggregators have already established themselves as a vital and fun portion of the 'net. As newspapers bite the dust, they'll only continue to grow in importance. Rather than having to wade through pages of stories one isn't interested in (which may actually be a good thing), one can search for a single news item and get a range of coverage (which may actually be a better thing). No longer is someone forced to rely on just the Courant's (or AP's) coverage of an item. Now, you can see more coverage than anyone could possibly know what to deal with. If you're not looking for a single item, head to Google News' main page and you've got yourself the front page of a region-less, multi-sided newspaper. It'll take an adjustment for readers who like folding newsprint but it's not an impossible leap.

Finally, by 2014, who knows what'll be around? Let's take a look at five years ago. In 2004:

-Facebook was just being founded. Now, it's a widespread phenomenon that has 300 million users in 5 years.
-Digg was founded. Now it's one of the most popular social news networks on the planet.
-A small email service was launched. Gmail now has 146 million users despite being in "beta" for much of the five years.

That's just three services that are now synonymous with the larger internet. Impressive to say the least. Now, what comes in 2014? Who the hell knows and really, who the hell can guess? Was Twitter predicted in 2004? Certainly not by the just-launching Facebook, which had no newsfeed. Certainly not by a large portion of the Facebook audience who flipped their collective shit when the news feed was introduced (now, almost all of which, I'd be willing to bet, spend 90% of their Facebook time gleefully scrolling through their feed, while cursing the hand that fed them, Twitter).

My guess? Probably something along the lines of Google Wave, an even-more-instant-than-Twitter real-time-service that somehow gets news to millions in a blink of an eye. That'll actually be it's name: EvenMoreInstantThanTwitterRealTimeServiceThatImprovesOnTheIdeasOfGoogleWave. Google Wave users will hate it.

Best Way to Use Twitter?

Just as a start to my week's posts (I'm a Twitter believer), I think the easiest way to look at the difference between the Facebook Status Update Feed vs. Twitter's feed is that Facebook's is designed to keep track of people you know. The beauty of Twitter lies in it's ability to follow people you don't. As a result, where Facebook is a way to keep tabs on your friends and their activities, Twitter is much more a true news feed from around the world. It is entirely user-generated and operated.

Some people were complaining last night that they didn't have enough people to follow to make Twitter worthwhile. I'm not sure Twitter is meant to just check in on friends. It is easy, however, for people you want to hear more from (sports figures/writers, movie/music critics, industry leaders, stars) to broadcast their thoughts. I don't necessarily "know" or need to know ESPN's Adam Schefter but I "know" the Twitter Adam Schefter, who has the best breaking news on the NFL around.

Facebook, Malls and Greens

I like Matt's thoughts on Facebook, especially his comparison of Facebook being most like a mall. I had never really thought of the site in this manner but given the time and consideration, I'm surprised at how much those ads seem to grab my attention. Now, I don't necessarily click on them but they certainly divert my eye at times when I'm clicking through the site. However, I'm not sure that the mall and town green need to be mutually exclusive or in some respects, if they are even inseperable today.

As society has become increasingly materialistic, the mall has become the defacto meeting place for people of all ages for all reasons. Some get together specifically to shop for a certain item. Others, to shop for the sake of shopping. Others (I'm thinking teens here) seem to get together at malls just because it's a place to get together and hang out. My friends and I did it as teens as the prospect and idea of walking around a mall seemed far better than sitting in a basement.

I can't remember the last time, if ever, my friends have ever decided to get together at a town green (and I lived in Boston for a couple of years, decidedly underutilizing the Common). This wasn't due to any aversion to the outdoors (as a group, we're fairly adventurous) or really, anything specific. However, we would go to the mall in order to shop, eat, get out of the house. My question is then, has the mall become the new town green? Does the Facebook-as-mall idea change the site's intent or potential at all? I'm not so sure. If people are now using the the more capitalistic mall instead of the town green to meet, who's to say that Facebook can't do the same?

Facebook and Profit

While I agree with mostly everything that Courtney asserts here, my question lies with the last sentence, the comment that Facebook is now about profit. Hasn't it always, to an extent, been about profit, from the first time it took money from an individual or a venture capital firm? Surely these companies were not throwing Zuckerberg money out of the goodness of their hearts but out of the promise of future funds returning to their wallet.

Journalists and Social Networking

While reading the Nieman Reports piece on the role of journalism in social networking, I was struck by the idea that the social networks are not mere tools that we now use, but they are the world in which we use additional tools. As more and more internet users turn to networks like Facebook and Twitter for their breaking news tidbits, these sites are quickly changing the game.

In the past, one would have to wait for the media source to digest and then spit back out the information. Even with so called "breaking news", TV and radio networks were forced to first turn inward and decide how exactly they should at least begin covering the story. This is not to suggest that they would have to understand the end point of their coverage, but at least the beginning with which to take the air with. However, with the social networks continuing their rise in power and popularity, they are, in a way, cutting out the middle man that was the major media outlets in the days of yore.

Nowadays, users can turn to their feeds and see instantaneous updates about a situation. Hell, even the major networks utilize Twitter as a source of information. Take the Iranian election protests earlier this year, or the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008. These were events that were largely being reported on by the participants, literally as the events were occuring, allowing the citizens of the world to have unfettered and unobstructed access to the events as they were unfolding. No longer were people forced to turn to the major corporate networks in order to gleam information. The trade off here was that the users (and the consumers of the news) were forced to understand and decide what to trust, on their own. Ultimately, however, that's what we trust our news organizations to do. This process just cuts out that middle man.

This is both an exciting and disconcerting notion. While in the right hands of responsible intelligent consumers of the news, this is a huge boost in access and power. No longer are we forced to listen to Reporter X drone on about an event that happened hours ago. Now, we're able to (hypothetically) hear from the person who started said event. That's the beauty of Twitter. Where Facebook is best (and most efficiently) used as a means of keeping in touch with people whom you know, Twitter doesn't necessarily provide that same service. Rather, Twitter allows you to follow people you've never met yet trust as a source of news (Hello, Bill Simmons!). It allows me to track down the participants in the controversies in Iran rather than having to hear Brian Williams tell me about those participants. Exciting stuff.

On the other hand, in the wrong hands (read: unintelligent and irresponsible news consumers), this leads to a dangerous means of spreading rumors. The situation with Michael Jackson, mentioned in the Nieman article, is just such an event. While many of the early people reporting his death turned out to be correct, this is the type of Tweeting that starts rumor riots. If one listens or follows a single feed, they will be misinformed (although one could also argue, fairly easily, that if one only watches/listens to a single news channel, they'll be just as misinformed). If one takes the time to broaden and listen to many feeds, Twitter opens a new realm of news coverage, one that ultimately leads to the question: Do we still need professional journalists or will citizen journalism emerge as the de facto means of receiving and reporting on news (I only half kid)?

The Impact of Social Networking on Annie Le

"Maybe it is the legal system, and not the Internet, that should be adjusting to the new order of things."

The above quote, taken from the MediaLite article by Robert Quigley, strikes me as being the most adept moment of the piece. It's easy for people to complain about the new obstacles that Web 2.0 presents to tried and true institutions. It's another for them to actually attempt to change and adapt with the changing times. Technology has always and will continue to frighten people who don't understand it. History is littered with people who struck against what they felt was the unstoppable wave of change. However, I can't help but feel that the struggle that these people feel is all for not. Technology is moving forward. Ultimately, one has to as well.

Does the advent of new social networking systems change a great deal of our society? Absolutely. Is it for the worse? I'm not so sure. While there are some definite issues that have arisen from the rise of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., these aren't necessarily issues with the services themselves but rather with the people who use them. I find that people spend their time blaming the problems they may have with these services on the service themselves. They feel their privacy is violated, that it can lead to an all-too-quick spread of false information. Yet, these people typically use these apps in a way that adds to the problem. I suppose my point here is that as technology changes with the coming times, it's ultimately up to the people to change with the technology as past generations have. It's not the technology's job to change with the people, but to push the people forward.

The Annie Le case is certainly more high profile than some small town killing. That is undeniable. Still, it comes down to individual restraint as to how people act in regards to the use of technology. Does this mean that it will be impossible to find a juror who hasn't heard of the internet rumors regarding the case? Absolutely not. Quigley says that "If this past week’s coverage is any indication, whatever trial springs out of the Le case will be a media circus, and the temptations will be even greater." Once again, that may be true. But it's foolish to blame the internet for a juror's inability to follow the simple, straightforward rules set forth before him. It comes down to personal responsibility and tact. Decry the lack of that in our society but don't blame a budding technology as the reason for it. Society hasn't started it's media downfall since the popularization of Facebook began. It was happening well before that, without any help from Twitter.

Facebook, Twitter and Profitability

Much has been made over the past week about Facebook's supposed even running when it comes to cash flow and for the most part, it's big news. Some of the big internet startups at the end of the tech bubble were having issues with monetizing their site, i.e. creating a way for it to turn a profit for investors. Facebook went the way of advertising, hoping that enough traffic plus enough ads would provide them with enough money to offset their operating cost, thus providing their investors with some sort of return on their investment.

However, Twitter's profitability is still in question. One thing that you'll notice on every twitter page is a complete lack of ads. In fact, there is a complete lack of editorial control. Twitter, unlike Facebook, which features apps, a controlled look to each page and ads, is a site wholly controlled and molded by user-content. If everyone stopped using Twitter today for an hour, the service would literally be dead for that 60 minute span. With no new updates, Twitter's bread and butter, of reporting news literally as it happens sometimes, would be destroyed. It's a service based on what's happening right now, not yesterday or the day before. Rather, if Twitterers don't provide new information, Twitter is stagnant.

Facebook, due to it's much larger scope and content, doesn't face this issue. If everyone stopped updating their statuses (a sub-par, direct rip-off of Twitter's service), Facebook still provides the users with loads of old pictures. Facebook is what it's creators want it to be, Twitter is what its users want it to be. For me, that's ultimately why Twitter is a more fascinating and interesting service, with loads of more potential. Twitter's a continually evolving beast, not because of what its programmers and creators want it to be, but because of what it's users desires. As the service matures and continues to find its footing, it will continually adapt to the changing climate as it changes. Facebook is still reliant on it's programmers to move with the curve.

Still, the question of profitability remains. If Twitter can't figure out a way to make money, what's to say that its private equity investors won't jump ship. Rather, than throwing good money after bad, they could feasibly move onto the next hip app or service. Personally, I'd love to see Twitter figure out the answers here because its potential is much more exciting than it's social networking counterparts.