It was, in fact, what I call "being nice to people" and "making friends."
So I want to talk about buzzwords and (self-)marketing today. Specifically, the idea of networking as something we can possess and control and of the colossal failure of Google+'s YouTube takeover.
To make my point, I would like to combine a series of the videos we watched, particularly Anil Dash and Chris Anderson. Dash's idea of networking appeals immensely to me because, as a 20-something about to charge into the world-at-large, the idea that communication is changing in a way that invites - and demands- that I join the conversation is reassuring in ways brown-nosing a boss never will be. Dash's networking has less to do with sucking up than with confronting whatever makes you world less awesome. Want a faster web browser? Better vlogging platform? Freedom from foreign oppressors? Networking is raising your voice and letting people know you are there to be heard. Better still, Dash's networking is skill-based, largely without the threat of privilege superseding talent.
Add to this Anderson's idea of crowd-fueled evolution of business and society and you find yourself at the helm of a powerful current that is poised to redefine
Seth Priebatsch's idea that "the social building is done," is also of some interest to me, because it implies a backwards motion for most of the internet who are so intrigued by Tweeting, Liking and Re-blogging that they are largely disinterested at this point by the idea of moving on from those platforms. So this idea of evolution from social theory to game theory neatly connects my ideas about the hollow word of new-age networking, the deeper significance of true networking and the failure of Google+.
Google+ is a fine network.It function exactly as its supposed to and is conveniently located in the Google mega-plex of Chrome. Yet it has objectively failed at its initial goal: convince Facebook users to consolidate all of their interpersonal whining needs into one easy package. Why? The answer comes from all of the above argument. Google is a little late to the party and they did not bring anything new. They did nothing innovative to offer to new users and brought nothing new to the social networking conversation. Then, to top it all off, after failing to take off of their own, they installed themselves into the YouTube comments to bribe users of another site into using their product as the only way to make themselves heard. This, in Dash's example, is the exact opposite of how you network. This is note reaching out and building connections, but rather re-hashing a tired idea in the hopes of continuing the building of an online empire.
The dialogue is changing, as our videos for today showed. The price for not keeping up, apparently, is scorn from those who are at the forefront and confusion form other still behind you.
Also, for your viewing pleasure, a video on the ways we connect (or don't) with people using social media.
http://elitedaily.com/news/world/this-video-will-have-you-completely-rethink-how-you-conduct-yourself-online-and-in-person-video/
The thing that interested me most about Priebatsch's argument about the game layer was that it seemed especially targeted toward a business audience - and I mean like businesses would use the game layer to make people come more often into their stores and buy certain things. Gaming becomes a marketing tool (much as Facebook has already become and is increasingly becoming) and I think that is the reason that these networks can seem artificial or superficial. I don't know if adding the game layer would be anything new, either, seeing as Priebatsch stated that the beginnings of it are already there, he just wants to refine it and make it into a bigger industry.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'd like to see more of McGonigal's type of work happening in the game layer, I'm afraid that we won't see that (at least in the US) because we are too focused on instant gratification and less on more important topics and actually learning from games. We just want to enjoy, and we use games to clock out from the world and relax (even if its in an intense state of problem solving, its still a relaxation from reality).
The "backwards motion" you speak of (indicating the current trend of merely subscribing to same technology without pushing for advances in social media) is interesting to me because it implies that the way we view the internet is changing. Formerly, the web was seen as a tool through which we could connect with other users in exchange for various services: social media/email, news and academic articles, gaming, video etc. However, as you point out, the push to find the better and best forms of these is becoming less and less; people are becoming content with the current forms of technology. I would argue that this is less of a regression than we might suspect, instead I'd be curious to know if this means that people are starting to view the internet as less of a tool, and more of a location.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, the shift that occurred roughly a decade ago when users switched from MySpace accounts to Facebook accounts indicated that the former technology was less desirable than the latter, though the service Facebook offered was certainly eerily similar to Myspace, but with an easier user interface and more appealing layout. Today it looks like we're not searching for the "next Facebook", but rather new ways to use what we have. As Hannah mentioned Facebook is turning into a marketing tool instead of merely a way to "like" the witty remarks our friends have on life. In other words, websites are becoming locations and we're changing our minds about how they ought to be used. And that's fascinating.
It's interesting to think about why people are networking. I think when you are making friends and being a nice person, your motive is not self-serving. Networking has such a skewed connotation that seems political. Perhaps this is why there seems to be a dissonance between "social" media and networking. Social media implies community and friendship and all things introverts are scared of. What people don't seem to recognize is the fact that social institutions have just as much political and economic undertones.
ReplyDeleteIf we link gaming to the way people "network" in real life, we get the notion that everyone is playing a game. Yet, even the connotation of that is that it is fun, something a child would do with no real consequences. Yet, in the business world there are huge consequences in who is networking. Just like any game though, it goes in and out of style. This years Settlers of Catan will soon be someone's Cranium. It will be interesting to see how sustainable internet networking will be and how it will have to change to adapt to trends.