Two posts today, one by Steven Hodson and his Chris Messina-ness that got me thinking about two specific aspects of social media that I think bear pulling out of the conversation and highlighting: “social” means something different, and “it takes a village.”
Social Features
A lot of time, when we’re talking about “social” media and “social” networks, we really mean the software features and workflows that enable social interaction. Steven Hodson mentioned that the word is being co-opted from the original meaning, which deals more with the organization and behavior of humans in groups. This isn’t bad, to make the distinction.
Think about BEFORE social features. I remember the first time my local computer bulletin board system went from being a 1:1 connection between me and a server, to that day when a chat room opened up with people all over the world. It was a rudimentary version of Internet Relay Chat. Beyond that, and before that, using the Internet was a very 1:1 experience. Sure, there were emails, and after a while, we had the AOL chat room thing.
But it all felt very linear. Everything was 1 then 2 then 3. And for whatever reason, it was exhilarating, this new stuff, but it still felt a little disconnected.
Look at now. Look at the difference between using iPhoto and Flickr. Think about how different Twitter has made your web working time different, even in a world where instant messaging exists.
So, in the case of social media and social networks, the word “social” talks more about the features that enable interactions than about the nature of engaging in real world societal experiences. And yet, the way *I* have experienced the web, it feels very social in the traditional sense to me.
It Takes a Village
I am frequently asked by people how I can manage to interact with an online community of 1400 people on Twitter and another (different, mostly) 1200 or so on Facebook. One easy answer is that not everyone comments or talks at the same time. For instance, on a blog where about 1200 people stop by on a given day, I get around 20 comments on a good post, and 3 or 4 on a less-engaging post. That’s easy to manage, right?
Some folks ask why I should want over 1000 contacts on ANY of my networks. The answer is that it takes a village. What I mean is this: if you are my friend, and you need to reach someone else who knows something about database administration, I know someone who does this. I might not know them well. I might not remember their kids’ names. But I know them enough to pass you, my friend, on to this connection of mine, such that you both get what you need.
And so it goes. There are always situations where I can reach out and ask someone in my social networks for help, either for myself or more often, for others. It’s this reason that lets me say yes to every request. It’s this reason that lets me feel comfortable sharing myself with people I don’t especially know very well.
My True Friends
I have three categories of friends:
1.) Friends from the old days that I don’t see very much.
2.) Online-mostly friends that I might have met in person, or might have not.
3.) Real, deep friends, who I can call when I’m happiest or sad, and who I can count on when I need them.
Category one doesn’t do much for me, but I still like them. Category two is the majority, and I spend a lot of time and energy with them. Category three is smaller than I wish, but makes sense for a guy who does social media and social networking for a big part of his life.
All of these types are people I’m happy to know, and for different reasons at different times. Sometimes, my “real” friends get frustrated, because I don’t see every Twitter they send, or don’t respond to their “Super Poke” request. But they know I’m there via email or phone. I publish all the ways you can reach me. Everyone else seems okay reaching me on whatever network they find.
But do you see why the village becomes important, even if I’m mostly interacting with a smaller subset?
What do you think?
And if you’re enjoying this blog, please consider subscribing for free.
Photo credit, Julien Harneis