2010 Prediction: many people will continue to not get it

Funny post Tim. Besides the fact that she hasn’t explored or is even involved with any of the social networking sites she’s mentioned. The people going to some of these gatherings or religious events probably first found out about them on sites such as Facebook, or email groups (which is probably one of the basic forms of social networking).
But wait these people are socially isolated, so then how would they have known?There must have been a hidden message somewhere or a religious figures face appearing on a candy bar encouraging people to come back to the real world.

I despise these arguments for so many reasons, not the least of which is I have so many more face-to-face meetings and conversations with fantastically interesting people because of the internet and social networking sites than would have been possible beforehand. Someone should just send her Russell’s post: http://russelldavies.typepad.com/planning/2009/11/the-internet-isnt-killing-anything.html

http://russelldavies.typepad.com/planning/2009/11/the-internet-isnt-killing-anything.html

Worst thing is that there already is plenty of academic research bringing evidence that the more you socialize, the more likely to use the Internet for social purposes; and the more you use the Internet for social purposes, the more likely to engage with others.

It’s not that some people don’t get it, it’s that they just do not read.

I was put in exactly the same frame of mind after reading this last week. Not sure what the Guardian is up to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/trouble-twitter-social-networking-banality

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/trouble-twitter-social-networking-banality

To be honest Mike, I totally dodged the religious angle. I actually couldn’t work out how it was connected to her concerns about the effect of social networking at all!

I know. Me too. It’s hilariously ignorant. I might start a collection of the most idiotic examples. Have a look at the one Mike has posted below. Again, from the Guardian. This time it’s “The trouble with Twitter”.

Please send links.

I’d quite like to see any research that says you’re more likely to be well-adjusted, healthy, happy, balanced etc etc if you can maintain a big network of all sorts of real and virtual relationships. I’d love to know if you’ve come across anything that proves social networking, or using lots of digital services in general, is good for you in any way.

Ta

So many people continuing to not get it…

“Far from delivering a ‘wisdom of crowds’, social networking sites have created only a deafening banality”

And the evidence for this is…?

And what the hell is he talking about with this??:

“One of the most embarrassing features of recent British political life is the unseemly haste with which our politicians and their wonks have chased after the latest modish ideas book.”

Morons

There are times in this life when change is discontinuous. And a lot of people think they can negotiate it away.

Coming from a turbulent part of the world, I’ve watched the process often. I think the only choice is to lay out the options. This is how you can join in. This is what you benefit. This is how you know you are welcome.

We can’t let people blackmail us but equally we shouldn’t be using change to settle old scores. I fear often the problem is that we haven’t laid out a road map as clearly as possible and fear leads the ‘old guard’ to try to blackmail.

Maybe a little abstract for this discussion. Social media may seem trivial compared to wars of liberation but it upsets the pecking order as much as it was a war of liberation.

I wouldn’t be too hard on her, since there’s plenty of credentialed research backing both side:.

It’s bad for you: http://bit.ly/6PD9gq
It’s not so bad for you: http://bit.ly/4OBBGx

http://bit.ly/6PD9gq

http://bit.ly/4OBBGx

I continue to wonder why the old media sees social networking tools as binary as if you give up so called ‘real-life social interaction’ just because you go online. Why can’t Julia Neuberger and her like see social networking either virtual or otherwise an extension of one other? We all do.

Nice post Tim.

“It’s as if we’ve partly left the real world for the virtual. And it damages us. It certainly damages those less adept at using the technology.”

I think she’s missing the point that social networks don’t replace real life – they add to it. We now have the ability to share more things with more friends quicker than ever before. And just because she doesn’t get it and is frightened by the speed of the change, it doesn’t necessarily make it dangerous or damaging.

Next up she’ll want to ban rock and roll music. It’s the devil’s work, I tell thee.

I just can’t think why Julia didn’t come round to my house and tell me face to face what she thought, instead of writing all that stuff in a newspaper. So impersonal! It’s as if she’s partly left the real world…

Haha, very good.

Absolutely right. It’s like we can’t be trusted to exercise the same kind of self-control that stops us from sitting at home all day watching telly, reading books instead of meeting up, or talking exclusively to people on the phone.

Doing any of these things to the exclusion of one’s health and well-being, family and relationships would also be harmful, but somehow digitally mediated experiences and social networking in particular are held up as the latest aspect of modern life that is bad for us.

We’ve managed to negotiate every single new distraction we’ve ever (as a species) added to our lives. I don’t understand why this one should be any different, particulalry as its an evolution of lots of things that most grown ups seem well able to cope with.

It’s hysteria innit?

I think it’s because (a) they don’t use it or understand it, and (b) because it’s massively disruptive and therefore threatening