Are social media here to stay or is that a dumb question for the NY Times to ask?
It’s surprising to me that the New York Times even asks the question in its Room for Debate column this morning, inviting six guest authors and the Twitter community to weigh in. Suggesting that Facebook’s “worrisome IPO” begs the question, the headline is a bit misleading as you’d be hard-pressed to find even a hint from the guest opinions that the phenomenon is a fad.
Most of the writers reiterate much of what we already know or have seen and read from countless other sources over the past few years. The positive: New levels of interaction that transcend geographic isolation. A transfer of power from the few to the many. A voice for people previously excluded. An easy way to stay constantly connected. The benefits of instant answers. And the negative: concerns about privacy and who ultimately has access to all of our online content and at whose discretion. Our increased inability to focus as we jump from one intrusion to another. The long term ramifications for teenagers who create public online identities before they’ve developed their real identities.
Perhaps the Times feels compelled to cover a worn out topic because its readers are a year or two behind social media’s early adopters or the blogs that cover them. But is that possible when there are nearly a billion people on Facebook? Maybe it’s just that it’s hard to fill up an online newspaper when bits are endless and social media is still a hot enough topic to attract readers. Or better yet, the Times might just be practicing its own version of social media by giving others a voice, a say and a way to participate. There’s a hashtag #socialRFD if you want to join in.
I think the Times knows the answer. Of course social media are here to stay. Not because of the technologies or the platforms. Rather because Facebook and Twitter and Instagram allow us to resume the kinds of interactions that always defined human relationships until they were interrupted by the post industrial age when we moved to the suburbs, lost our sense of neighborhood and turned to TV for our solace. Thanks to all the new digital platforms on our iPads, phones and laptops, we can once again connect, albeit digitally, with people who share our interests, passions and concerns, maybe even meet and discover new virtual neighbors. (Granted, the fact that we tend to connect with people just like us, reinforcing existing beliefs and opinions is problem of which we should all be cognizant.)
The real question the Times should be asking is: “How else can we use social media to accomplish something good — make college education more affordable, increase cross-cultural understanding, invite new ways to serve our communities, or simply identify better topics for Room for Debate.”
The question isn’t whether or not social media are here to stay. It’s whether or not we continue to find really meaningful ways to leverage them.
Comments
Pretty amazing that they're asking this of their readers, even if they *do* think it's pertinent to their audience, who may or may not be behind the times. Whether or not specific companies are here to stay is a slightly better question, but you're right -- social media, in one form or another, isn't going to go away, at least until it morphs into some blinding technological leap in our distant future. I'm amazed they'd run this, and not a question that's a little more nuanced, like you suggested.
My latest conversation: The Campfyre • Twitter Chats 101
annedreshfield The question of what companies are here to stay might be a better one. Though FB would have to royally screw up to be gone in five or 10 years. MySpace and Friendster aside, 800--a billion active users and real revenue despite the questions about efficacy make it the real deal. I am hoping, however, that social behavior, more than social media, will evolve and perhaps encourage the kind of interaction that solves real problems.
Conversation from Twitter
@wizwow I still think this "Internet" thing is a fad. Been waiting for it to blow over for 15 years now.
@edwardboches "allow us to resume the kinds of interactions... until they were inte by the post ind age" That is such a beautiful sentence.
@jvillegasUT why thank you. Truth is often beautiful. Appreciate it.
@edwardboches Besides beautiful it presents a great defense of SM. Technology used to recapture what we lost in the pursuit of modernity.
@PernilleT Social media is as much a fad as conversation. Will it survive the next ten years? ;-)
I worked for a publisher who described the Internet as a fad. RT @mathewi NY Times asks is social media a fad? http://t.co/FSY8uToJ
@stevebuttry @mathewi Me, too! I don't believe he's still in the biz, tho.
@chrismontgomery @mathewi The publisher I was referring to is retired. But not soon enough.
@stevebuttry @mathewi Never forget. Any one of these things could be the CB radio of our time. When you figure out which, jump. Good buddy.
@ignatova Exactly. In fact reaction to the Times piece is the answer.
@edwardboches very much agree. but did they aim to prove a point? kind of like the Economist directing behavior http://t.co/6E32QZkb
@ignatova bad link. but I think they are just looking for filler on the room for debate column. have to be better topics.
@edwardboches think u r right. FYI unshortened link i was trying to send u. http://t.co/0TE5NjTX
Whether or not specific companies are here to stay is a slightly better question, but you're right -- social media, in one form or another, isn't going to go away, at least until it morphs into some blinding technological leap in our distant future.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like