OpenKollab

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab/topics

• What Is The Power of The Internet? [1 Update]
• A Virtual Currency Initiative… [1 Update]
• Digest for openkollab@googlegroups.com – 14 Messages in 2 Topics [2 Updates]

Suresh Fernando <suresh@radical-inclusion.com> Mar 25 01:09PM -0700 ^


 
This post
<http://www.google.ca/reader/view/?tab=my#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.harvardbusiness.org%2Fharvardbusiness%2Fhaque%2F>by
Umair Haque has got me thinking…
 
I think that he is right about a lot of what he says, but I don't see this
as any reason to be disillusioned by the possibilities that the Internet
provides for positive social change… In particular he is right about the
meaninglessness of most online 'friendships', and the fact that, if we are
not careful, one becomes distracted by the interests of others at the
expense of looking inward and getting to know oneself….
*
The opportunity lies in Emergent Collaboration, and it's the notion of
emergence that I will be reflecting on and expanding on in the coming days,
weeks…*
 
This infrastructure has yet to be built, and is the infrastructure that I
have been making a case for.
 
 
 
 
The Social Media
Bubble<http://feeds.harvardbusiness.org/%7Er/harvardbusiness/haque/%7E3/OjpTmjmCGzg/the_social_media_bubble.html>
from Umair Haque<http://www.google.ca/reader/view/feed/http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.harvardbusiness.org%2Fharvardbusiness%2Fhaque%2F>
by
Umair Haque
16 people liked this
 
I'd like to advance a hypothesis: Despite all the excitement surrounding
social media, the Internet isn't connecting us as much as we think it is.
It's largely home to weak, artificial connections, what I call thin
relationships.
 
During the subprime bubble, banks and brokers sold one another bad debt —
debt that couldn't be made good on. Today, "social" media is trading in
low-quality connections — linkages that are unlikely to yield meaningful,
lasting relationships.
*
Call it relationship inflation.* Nominally, you have a lot more
relationships — but in reality, few, if any, are actually valuable. Just as
currency inflation debases money, so social inflation debases relationships.
The very word "relationship" is being cheapened. It used to mean someone you
could count on. Today, it means someone you can swap bits with.
 
Thin relationships are the illusion of real relationships. Real
relationships are patterns of mutual investment. I invest in you, you invest
in me. Parents, kids, spouses — all are multiple digit investments, of time,
money, knowledge, and attention. The "relationships" at the heart of the
social bubble aren't real because they're not marked by mutual investment .
At most, they're marked by a tiny chunk of information or attention here or
there.
 
Here's what lends support to my hypothesis.
 
*Trust.* If we take social media at face value, the number of friends in the
world has gone up a hundredfold. But have we seen an accompanying rise in
trust? I'd argue
no<http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/trust-declining-in-all-institutions-other-than-the-military/>.
Now, perhaps it will take time for gains to be visibly felt. But social
networks have already been around for half a decade, and society seems to be
little better off.
 
*Disempowerment.* If social tools were creating real economic gains, we'd
expect to see a substitution effect. They'd replace — disintermediate —
yesterday's gatekeepers. Yet, increasingly, they are empowering gatekeepers.
Your favorite social networks aren't disintermediating PR agencies,
recruiters, and other kinds of brokers. They're creating legions of new
ones. The internet itself isn't disempowering government by giving voices to
the traditionally voiceless; it's empowering authoritarian states to limit
and circumscribe freedom by radically lowering the costs of surveillance and
enforcement. So much for direct, unmediated relationships.
 
*Hate. *There's this old trope: the Internet runs on love. Equally, though,
it's full of hate: irrational lashing-out at the nearest person, place, or
thing that's just a little bit different. Read any newspaper web comments
sections lately? Usually, they're giant puddles of bile and venom. Check out
these emails to Floyd
Norris<http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/do-i-deserve-a-refund/>.
Far from fueling meaningful conversation, today's "social" web is a world
full of the linguistic equivalent of drive-by shootings.
 
*Exclusion. *Hate happens, at least in part, because of homophily: birds of
a feather flock together. The result is that people self-organize into
groups of like for like. But rarely are the gaps between differences
bridged. Yet, that's where the most valuable relationships begin. To be
"friends" with 1000 people who are also obsessed with vintage 1960s glasses
isn't friendship — it's just a single, solitary shared interest.
 
*Value. *The ultimate proof's in the pudding. If the "relationships" created
on today's Internet were valuable, perhaps people (or advertisers) might pay
for the opportunity to enjoy them. Yet, few, if any, do — anywhere, ever.
Conversely, because those "relationships" aren't valuable, companies are, it
is said, forced to try and monetize them in extractive, ethically
questionable ways<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/03/do_you_trust_yelp.html>.
That's because there's no *there *there. I can swap bits with
pseudo-strangers at any number of sites. "Friends" like that are a commodity
— not a valuable, unique good.
 
What are the wages of relationship inflation? Three cancers eating away at
the vitality of today's web. First, attention isn't allocated efficiently;
people discover less what they value than what everyone else likes, right
this second. Second, people invest in low-quality content. Farmville ain't
exactly *Casablanca <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/>*. Third, and most
damaging, is the ongoing weakening of the Internet as a force for good. Not
only is Farmville not *Casablanca*, it's not Kiva <http://www.kiva.org/>either.
One of the seminal examples of the promise of social media, Kiva allocates
micro-credit more meaningfully. By contrast, Farmville is largely socially
useless. It doesn't make kids tangibly better off; it just makes advertisers
better off.
 
Let's summarize. On the demand side, relationship inflation creates beauty
contest effects, where, just as every judge votes for the contestant they
think the others will like the best, people transmit what they think others
want. On the supply side, relationship inflation creates popularity contest
effects, where people (and artists) strive for immediate, visceral
attention-grabs — instead of making awesome
stuff<http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/09/is_your_business_innovative_or.html>
.
 
The social isn't about beauty contests and popularity contests. They're a
distortion, a caricature of the real thing. It's about trust, connection,
and community. That's what there's too little of in today's mediascape,
despite all the hoopla surrounding social tools. The promise of the Internet
wasn't merely to inflate relationships, without adding depth, resonance, and
meaning. It was to fundamentally rewire people, communities, civil society,
business, and the state — through thicker, stronger, more meaningful
relationships. That's where the future of media
lies<http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/07/the_nichepaper_manifesto.html>
.
 
Now, this is just a hypothesis. Feel free to disagree with me, challenge me
— or to extend and elaborate upon it. Next time, I'll discuss what we can do
about it.