What about me. Twitter can be a great communications tool. It’s been great for me personally and professionally. Caveat: knowing that everyone’s not using Twitter. Knowing who’s using a tool is equally as important as knowing who’s not. Don’t forget who isn’t here to contribute to the conversation – they may have something amazing to contribute, but are voiceless.

And it’s not just Twitter. There are plenty of platforms and tools where folks are missing. For instance, Facebook, yes, there are millions upon millions of users, but who’s missing. For example, me. I don’t have a Facebook account (…really, I don’t). I might have something valuable to say.

Aligning audience and means of communication. Are there voices being left out of the conversation that could add exponential value to your organization, goal or community? Twitter can be used in the execution of a portfolio of communication means to tap into a range of audiences, but that should only happen once audiences have been identified. Have you taken a moment to determine who your audience is – and where they are?

Who’s making the decision. What happens when you don’t take the time to identify where your audience plays, well, you miss an opportunity. Someone misses the message, the chance to be engaged or an invitation to participate (either physically or virtually). Case and point, my ten year high school reunion, the reunion invitation was only sent via Facebook. As I said earlier, I’m not on Facebook. Meaning, I found out about the reunion only after it took place. The point isn’t that I missed the reunion, it’s that I never got a chance to decide for myself if I wanted to attend or not. The means of communication decided for me.

Take the time, do the work. Don’t let voices go unheard or leave communities ignored just because you missed the mark. Take time to understand your audience and then communicate to them in the space where they play. Why should they come to you? If they are that important, then you should go to them. In time, that may reverse, but you have to reach out and cultivate the relationship first.

Tools are going to change, audiences will change too – and where they intersect is going to change. What shouldn’t change is critical thinking around how best to link the two.

Remember, 80% of Twitter accounts are inactive. That’s whole a lot of people not paying attention to those thoughtful, value-filled, community building tweets you’re spending hours crafting. Make sure your audience is where you’re focusing your attention, before you start trying to get the attention of an audience that may not even be there in the first place.

[Image: The empty playground #1 courtesy of soulholder, Flickr]

• What Web 2.0 applications do you use? Use the most?
• What do you see as the benefits (personal, professional) of using Web 2.0?
• What are the challenges. restrictions, downsides to Web 2.0?
• Where do you think Web 2.0 is headed?
• How would you recommend a business make use of Web 2.0?

The exercise of responding was cathartic. It was reminiscent of one of those “What the 4th of July Means to Me” essays that were so popular in fifth grade. Oh you know the ones – with complimentary drawing that used a haphazard mix of crayon colors [usually whatever hadn’t yet been snatched up] to depict stick figure families, hot dogs and fireworks.

The point being that everyone drew the same picture – they all wrote the same thing.

They created what was expected – what they thought they were supposed to draw. To me, it sounds all too familiar. Web 2.0 or social media [whichever is your preferred term] is being depicted in a similar fashion. By now, most folks are working diligently to create what looks like the same picture perfect social media strategy. Facebook fan pages, check, Twitter, check, digital video, check, …

Too much thought is going into what appears to represent a “good” social media strategy. It’s not coming back to the audience. Yes, I’ll be the first to tell you that you should not ignore social media, but it can’t be hastily implemented in a disconnected, tool centric fashion.

Get social. Get messy. Don’t give them what you think they want or expect from you. Listen. Wait. Participate. Then give them what they ask for – in innovative new ways. If there was ever an opportunity to color outside the lines this is it.

Heck, break out the finger paints!

Create your own way. Definitions, frameworks and rules aside. Remain mindful of the fundamentals, but be creative and innovative. Time is precious – for both the creator and the audience. It should be fun. As a creator you want to be challenged to provide value in new, unique ways. As part of the audience, we want our attention grabbed. We don’t want the same templated execution, but rather something that doesn’t fit the model – provide bright excitement and raw honesty.

What Social Media Means to Me – by Vanessa Rhinesmith
Please note: this is raw and unedited [grammatical savvy is out with this one]

What Web 2.0 applications do you use? Use the most?
Right now, Twitter, my blog [WordPress] and I’m a HUGE fan of Delicious [social bookmarking is far from dead for me]

What do you see as the benefits (personal, professional) of using Web 2.0?
This is a loaded question. It depends on the company and/or the person. Either way it can be a great way to connect and collaborate with others – remember it’s about collaboration.

What are the challenges. restrictions, downsides to Web 2.0?
The challenges and restrictions are human centric – not everyone wants to listen or participate in the conversation – nor do folks have the means. Remember that not everyone has a computer or access to the internet. The additional downside, is too much hype around Web 2.0 – people aren’t thinking it through they are too wrapped up in the buzz word…[I'll get off my soapbox now].

Where do you think Web 2.0 is headed?
It will become Web3.0, Web4.0…until it’s replaced with a new word. Seriously though, Web3.0 – it’s going mobile and don’t think that virtual is dead. It’s not, oh, and cloud computing.

How would you recommend a business make use of Web 2.0?
First ask, are they ready to LISTEN to their customers and/or employees. Secondly, are they ready to JOIN the conversation in a transparent and collaborative way? Can’t even bring in the tools if you don’t know the actions.

Box of crayons photo courtesy of turbojoe via flickr

You are working at the edges of a lot of this stuff, and your experiences, reflections, and wisdom is very important to share. The currency of human relationship is really evolving here. Its possible to know a gazillion people online, but how does this impact our truest sense of community and our deeper desires for authentic connections and real relationships. I would love for you to say more about why you chose to do this now in this way, and your observations of what has changed for you since making this shift.

There are several pieces to which I wanted to publicly respond, starting with the statement, “the currency of human relationship is really evolving.” Human relationships are evolving. The greatest question that arises is how do we define the currency of human relationships: is it reflected in the quantity of those relationships or is it found in the quality. Right now it would appear that quantity is the preferred currency with individuals being judged by the number of connections via Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn.

If quantity is becoming the universal measure, or currency, then we may in fact be looking at the de-evolution of human relationships. To me quantity of online relationships alone is shallow and hollow. It lacks the substance critical to a sustaining relationship. It forgoes true community and lacks authenticity. Though this is largely an argument based on perception it does in fact resonate with the way most of us approach our physical relationships, but not always synonymous with our digital ones.

The evolution of community, relationship and communication lies in quality. It’s about the blending of technology and fundamental community/relationship building. The web, and our online connections (ten or ten thousand), aid us in achieving impact of that quality, whether personal, mission or business centric. All of which are therein rooted in an association with a community that can be represented in something as simplistic as an online community/website (such as Etsy) or a brick and mortar institution like the Berkman Center. By the nature of our online habits, many of us are associated with communities even if we don’t recognize or vocally associate with that community.

I chose to define my personal online presence to live what I believe. I was being spread way to thin across the web and all incarnations of my relationships were feeling the strain. Concentration of my efforts and connections to my more intimate relationships can in fact have a far greater impact. I think this is key. Concentration of intention – the ripple will be huge. This is where I love the web, it enables the ripple to be manifested in a wide range of mediums, inclusive of both digital and physical means.

Doyle asked me about my observations, “what has changed for you since making this shift.” Personally, I feel lighter. I’m able to take the time to process and refocus my attention and energy. Professionally, I feel refreshed. I’m able to further develop an understanding of what’s needed in order to achieve the goals of both the organization I strive to support and the community I work to nurture.

Intellectually, I feel calm. I’m able to observe and digest the sociological shift in a way that focuses in on the foundation of such a technological revolution. Too soon do we forget that it’s about mindful, intentional and quality implementation of technology – and that community and authentic relationships require nurturing beyond the paradoxical limitations of the internet.

As I noted in a previous post (space: public v. private), I’m not only juggling my online presence and relationships, but also my physical ones. I’m trying to wrap up the semester, check in with my mother about various holiday related items, squeeze in coffee with a friend and have dinner with my husband.

For me, intentionally is key in all of my relationships, virtual or other, which means at some point I’m going to reach my personal quota and will be forced to reassess. This is what I’m doing now, and this is what more and more folks will do as new online opportunities and social engagements fight for their attention. As a consumer, participant and human how do we decide what activities are important to us? As a organization, website or producer how do we ensure that our objective provides the most value, community and experience that it’s worth spending what little time we have?

Seth Godin perhaps sums it up best:

The internet isn’t full, but we are.

Take Facebook, in some ways it is very easy to control how I navigate within this space – I control who I friend, which requests I accept and the options that are selected for the account. However, I am aware of my responsibility as a participant and am mindful of how I want to be perceived within the space. Though it should be noted that I am slightly more aware of my online rights and responsibilities then most.

Like the physical divvying of space, the virtual definition of space should ultimately be left in the hands of the participant, but this is not always the case, as certain sites predefine or default these decisions. Ultimately the question that remains is, how do you make the case for, and  enhance, digital literacy to ensure folks are not only educated, but empowered to control their virtual participation with the same thoughtfulness that they impart on their physical  lives each and everyday?

Social Activism 101 – Web 2.0 Style
via Leigh’s Blitherings

It’s ironic that a lot of the people who tout the principles of Web 2.0 have a tendency to forget one of the basic tenants…The power shift from companies to community.

Leigh’s also posted an interesting article today entitled, Zuckerberg Shrugged: Man Vs. Ecosystem, that critiques Zuckerberg’s “classic command and control approach” to his ecosystem management.

Green Marketing on Social Networks
via Marketing & Strategy Innovation Blog

For green marketers, social networks provide a compelling channel to communicate with consumers that have an affinity for green or are at least open-minded enough to listen. Today, those users can be found across a wide variety of social networks, including both general interest and vertically focused networks that connect those interested in social responsibility or, more specifically, in the environment.

How Your Creepy Ex-Co-Workers Will Kill Facebook

Columnist Cory Doctorow describes how Facebook and other social networks have built-in self-destructs: They make it easy for you to be found by the people you’re looking to avoid (courtesy of Information Week).

If there was any doubt about Facebook’s lack of qualification to displace the Internet with a benevolent dictatorship/walled garden, it was removed when Facebook unveiled its new advertising campaign. Now, Facebook will allow its advertisers use the profile pictures of Facebook users to advertise their products, without permission or compensation. Even if you’re the kind of person who likes the sound of a benevolent dictatorship this clearly isn’t one.

Many of my colleagues wonder if Facebook can be redeemed by opening up the platform, letting anyone write any app for the service, easily exporting and importing their data, and so on (this is the kind of thing Google is doing with its OpenSocial Alliance). Perhaps if Facebook takes on some of the characteristics that made the Web work — openness, decentralization, standardization — it will become like the Web itself, but with the added pixie dust of “social,” the indefinable characteristic that makes Facebook into pure crack for a significant proportion of Internet users.

For example I have been able to tackle discussions regarding online issues with my family, friends and/or classmates (who have varying levels of technical knowledge, awareness and interest – or lack thereof), but do have an understanding of the basic concepts and controversies surrounding Facebook. Thus the perfect bridge is constructed for venturing into the larger conversation, and that conversation takes on a shape of its own based on the individual with whom I am engaging.

Part of what sparked such a self discovery was Doc Searls post entitled, Making Rules, II, it’s an entertaining and meticulously presented post that I encourage you to read.

That’s why yelling doesn’t work. What we need instead is to make tools that work for us, and not just for them. We need to invent tools that give each of us independence from vendor control, and better ways of telling vendors what we want, when we want it, and how we want to relate — on our terms and not just on theirs. As Neo said to the Architect, “The problem is choice”. That problem will be with us as long as that axe is in our heads.

Doc’s post fostered me to grasp what’s truly at play in regards to consumerism, the web and the rights we endlessly seem to surrender – and with that openned my mind to the greater contextual connections at play. So thank you!

Building Walls in Facebook

There are, of course, still millions of college students who post anything and everything to their profile, with no qualms about who sees it. Call it negligence, call it expression, it doesn’t matter. What does matter, and what interests me, is the growing group of students who have taken control of their digital identity by using granular security settings; ones that allow you to control who sees what, on a per-person and per-item basis. Potential employers have been prowling Facebook for at least a couple years, so why the change now? It’s simple: they’re out of the shadows.

Do You Trust Your Facebook Friends?

As any Digital Native can tell you, the term “Facebook friend” has a meaning distinct from simply “friend,” and where you may care about the purchases of a real friend, it’s not the same with a Facebook friend. The second piece is about privacy, from both a legal perspective and in principle. Is there something uneasy about how Social Ads puts your face and name to advertise a product, even one you legitimately bought or proclaimed to be a fan of?

More about the Digital Natives Project:

The Digital Natives project is a collaboration between the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and the Research Center for Information Law at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland. Digital natives, a term made popular by Marc Prensky, are young people whose use of technology is completely ingrained in their lives -they have grown up always-on and constantly-connected. Unlike those even a little bit older, these Digital Natives didn’t have to learn to “be digital,” they learned in digital the first time around.

I’ve been mulling over this issue more and more – especially since reading Anna Papadopoulos’s article, “There’s a Reason it’s Called “Social” Media” via the Huffington Post.

Privacy groups are at it again. This time they are going after social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, filing complaints about the network’s new social-targeting advertising platform. Essentially, Facebook’s Social Ads allows consumers to endorse a brand and then have their names and photos displayed along with an accompanying advertisement on their friend’s profile page. A friend is classified as someone who belongs to his or her network. Consent is done through the terms and conditions consumers agree to when registering for the site under the TRUSTe privacy regulations, which include the passage below and can also be found here.

There is a general apathy for such privacy agreements – especially as they pertain to online involvement. I agree that as users we need to be more mindful of where we are participating and what level of information we’re providing. But it would be refreshing to have an application available that offers a safe space to interact and communicate without fear of how our content could potentially be exploited. And maybe it’s not an issue of privacy at all, but rather of awareness and an increasing need for digital literacy across a very broad spectrum.

Ironically, I noticed this morning that Facebook has posted a short note regarding updates to its Terms of Use (only after excessively promoting it’s new “fan of” widget).

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing (read full Terms of Use).

It’s a challenging read to say the least. While the responsibility may be on the participant to take the time to read such a document there should be a halfway point. A point where the application owner makes such a critical document digestible to the greater public. Maybe even an abridged version that outlines the recent changes and summarizes the items of importance. But then again, an informed participant could be a dangerous one – with the onset of awareness, active disagreement and a call for change may not be far behind.