Is social media becoming a vast wasteland?

Gautam Ghosh, one of my favorite Indian bloggers recently posted how much he and other fans enjoyed talking with popular Indian Ramayana series author Ashok Banker  via the author's blog, Twitter and FriendFeed. Banker responded in a comment saying he has stopped participating in social media.

What makes this so interesting to me is Banker's reasons for eschewing social media:

"There shouldn’t be writers and fans. We’re all writers on such
platforms and should be all equal. The moment there are writers and
‘names,’ it’s a failure of the system. I’m sorry but after seeing the
way most bloggers shamelessly abuse the medium to promote themselves and their work instead of genuinely writing something worthwhile, I realized that blogging and microblogging have also become tools to crass commercialism."

This comes one day after Darren Rowse's provocative post asking if blogging has lost it's relational focus, a post that has stirred nearly 60 comments so far, and a post that has had me thinking since I read it. My thoughts on the topic are blended into a book I recently completed, David Halberstram's "The Powers That Be,"  about American media in the middle of the last century.  Among other things, it showed how the incredible promise of pioneer broadcast media emerged to become what the late FCC Commissioner Newton Minnow called, "a vast wasteland," where viewers are fed pap to make them complacent enough to watch an endless supply of banal commercials.

There seems to be a growing sense that social media just ain't what it used to be that it too, is starting to emerge as yet another wasteland for product pushers and shameless self promoters.

Is this really the case? After it's first year of vision, promise and talk of egalitarian conversations, is social media going the way of TV, commercial music, talk radio and so many things that became so much less than they could have been?

I'm not sure. I don't think so. I hope not.

Let's look at evidence on two sides. First, the case for a social media wasteland. The body of evidence seems to be growing these days, in the yes of a good many observers. Celebrity bloggers seem increasingly aggressive, competitive and contriving in what they post. Online video is trending more to the entertaining and away from the useful content. The difference between popularity and influence seems to have become muddled. Commercialism is becoming rampant and the idea of getting closer with customers through conversations seems to be at odds with those who want to put messages into the faces of social media visitors, who turned to social media to get away from them.  Altercations are getting more frequent, more bitter and more personal. Spammers are automated in their assault on Twitter.

And so it goes. These trends concern me. On a bad day, I fear the visions of founding pioneers like Dave Winer and Doc Searls will be blurred by a new wave of camp followers and shysters who will distort the original thinking in a way that George Orwell would envy.

That is the view from the dark side. In that darkness, one can find true ugliness as Kathy Sierra, who was driven out of blogging by it can attest.

But there is another side, one that depicts a rosier view, one that says that social media will erode the power of those who wish to be in command and control and gives it to the masses who will use it with greater congeniality. It's the side that sent Laurel Papworth to Saudi Arabia  to help Muslim women start a social network; that inspired the unassuming Erik Hersman to help start a wiki during civil disturbances so that Kenyans could see where the violence was and avoid it; or Wael Abbas to post videos of Egyptian police brutality on YouTube. More than that, it is the everyday people doing everyday things in everyday places that keeps me believing that this current technological revolution will, over time, do more good than bad.

Blogs, wikis, podcasts, microblogs and other items on the growing list are, in themselves, neither good nor evil. They are just tools, like hammers, or telephones or email accounts. What is important is what people do with these tools. You can use a hammer to either build or bludgeon and the same may be true of some social media tools.

Some companies look at social media toolsets and see new channels for exporting old stuff like adds and spam and messages they want to insert into your foreheads. others see the ability to get closer with customers, or perhaps their partners or own employees.

I obviously prefer the latter to the former, but I do not get to choose. People choose and they choose by what efforts over time prove to be successful. If people embrace garbage like Pay per Post, it will succeed. If people embrace people who provide useful and interesting content, then that is what will succeed. And the outcome that will dominate in the end remains to be seen. It will remain that way for many years, or so it seems to me.

 

These days, many of us are seeing more crap in social media than was formerly the case. We are seeing egos that are swelling to the bursting point; personal and ugly confrontations and new and annoying forms of spam deception.

But in the end, I remain as I always have, an optimist that more good than bad will emerge from a new phenomenon. I think Darren misses how much relationality is occurring every day all over the web, because the ugly stuff casts such a long shadow. I want to tell author Ashok Banker to come back, there is more going on here that he may have witnessed and so very much of it is for the good.

Comments

[Mike Prosceno]

Shel, how odd - I'm writing a post now that invokes the great Newton Minnow and the wasteland speech. Only I'm doing that in the context of Shirky's Cognitive Surplus topic. Post coming soon(ish.)

[Nancy Stall]

Boy I hope it doesn't become a wasteland. But I do have to agree. I see a lot of crap on my twitter. I don't care if someone just woke up or did 38 pushups. Add something worthwhile or don't waste space -- please.

[Annie Heckenberger]

I'm someone who works in the "commercial" industry yet loathes "being sold" (does that make me a self-loather? maybe. or maybe I just want you to speak with me, not sell me). That said, I work in this industry because I'd rather be a positive agent of change. Speak with people on behalf of products and services, educate them, learn more about what people WANT - and not sell lemons.

[Lewis Green]

Shel,

If readers (consumers) are in charge, they will decide who is read (listened to or watched) and who isn't, and by doing so they will shape the face of social media.

I came out of journalism and, of course, read Minnow. Then and now, I think it is arrogant to critcize what one chooses to read, watch or listen to by calling it a vast wasteland. So, I can't buy into the premise that such a wasteland exists.

I believe readers and consumers are in charge. I trust they will make decisions that keep them happy. If we don't like the decisions they make, we still should live with them. One person's pap is another's Rembrandt.

Excellent post.

[Matt Rissell]

Shel - nice job... The subject of "Disappearing Bloggers" is becoming frequent. As a newcomer to the arena I've had several personal discussions with the 'vanishing', I think popular bloggers are tired of being popular but financially broke.

Matt

[Kyle]

Shel, great post and insightful. I think in this area I'm actually optimistic (unlike the rest of my outlooks). I agree with Lewis...we are more in charge today than ever before, that is what Social Media is all about. Just last week I went through and removed dozens of folks from my Twitter feed, my RSS feed and FriendFeed. Next week I'll add a bunch. I control who I listen to, who I talk with, who I stop from attacking me and ultimately what I get out of all of these social media/network/tool/widgets.

It's empowering and humbling at the same time and it is why it is not as bleak as some make it seem at times.

/kff

[Wade Dorrell]

So basically, social media wants to be commercial media, and there is a new social media. Isn't that the basic pattern of media throughout US history?

[shel israel]

Actually, no Wade. Social Media is just media and doesn't WANT to be anything because it has no heart and no soul. People are another story.

[Douglas Karr]

Vast? Yes! Wasteland? No! Sometimes you have to travel through a desert to get to the oasis. I believe that it's simply a growing medium, and sometimes it takes a little more time to find what we need, want or enjoy.

And when we do, it's absolutely fantastic! 'Micro' is my word for 2008... when the behemoths of the Internet begin to fade away and the niche or geographically-centered networks begin to stand out.

It's an amazing time!

[Ari Herzog]

Call me naive but as long as people engage in messaging via cellphones or computer chat systems, social media will remain alive.

[Ignacio Escribano]

Great post Shel! I´ve read all the comments. Very interesting all of them too.
But, most important, this is a perfect example that harmony in diversity is possible.
I celebrate that!

[Eric Rice]

social = people, and where people exist, so shall their behaviors, for better and worse.

[Gunner Sykes]

Like television, social media will cater to the mundane, not through any sort of nefarious plot, but because people are enamored of the mundane. One person's pap is another person's Rembrandt? One may infer that pap and Rembrandt are of the same value.

Social media empowers pap.

[Franz]

I think that social media are a virtual projection of all human activities. In that sense, it's normal that in social media there are represented all the human attitudes, including the willingness to have power over other people (take - as an example of this attitude - the new order imposed by Berlusconi in Italy, just yesterday... no one can touch him, now!)

I agree with those who say that social media and the web are enabling such progress in human kind (e.g. the women social networking in muslim countries) and for that reason I hold with social optimists: there are many
ways to use well the social media.

Indeed, we must admit that the Internet is mainly a sales channel, the newest but not the last one (and even not exploited like it should be).

[Tom Shelleyf]

Technology is neither good nor evil, it reflects people, and people are both.

[No Name]

Fascinating and insightful post. Even though I'm referred to, and apparently triggered off the post, I'm searching as hard for the answers as anyone else, more so, which is why I'm now one of the invisible. But I do feel a certain regaining of individuality after becoming anonymous, because now I'm not saddled with the baggage of who I'm supposed to be and what people expect me to be and say--which, being social animals, pressures us all whether we accept it or not. Ultimately, I believe that the beauty of online media is the ability to be anonymous, so it is the thought, the word, the image, the insight, the factoid, the scoop that matters, not who wrote it.

[shel israel]

Ashok,
It is obviousoy you who left an anonymous comment. Thanks for joining a conversation you indirectly triggered. But, as you withdraw from blogging & other social media, I wish you would use you name instead of going anonymous. I usually take down anonymous comments as well as those with weird aliases. I prfer to have my conversations--even my arguments--with real people. I like to know where they are coming from.

[David Dalka]

becoming? that implies it never was.

[Martin Edic]

As Gene Roddenberry famously said:

"People tell me 90% of TV is crap. I tell them 90% of everything is crap."

Don't see why it wouldn't apply to social media. Its just the nature of what we do that a lot is mundane, unimportant or short-lived. Given the use of the conversation metaphor in social media, I think a lot of it is small talk. The big talkers will rise to the top.

[C.H. Low]

Maybe what you describe is just normal life cycle.

Sometimes even a good thing/species have take a turn for the worse before it evolves to become stronger species/form!

I am optimistic that now that you have succintly described the problem, someone in the software business will begin to work on the opportunity to create some possible solutions to filter the crap for us! I might even give it a try :).

[Mads Kristensen]

This discussion reminds me of the online vs offline discussion. When it become possible to be online, the cool people wanted to be online. When everybody went online, the cool people wanted to go offline to send a message of superioty and control.

I agree that social media is basically a set of tools, and its utility is decided by how we use them.

How about starting to unsubscribe from a lot of 'friends' on Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed et al and cut it down to a meaningful number of contacts, you actually find intellectually interesting and dive deep into conversation and sharing with them. I think that might reduce the amount of waste a bit.

[Deepa]

Shel, I normally enjoy reading all your posts and this is no exception. But the topic of people leaving or joining social networks is a reflection of their work and personality and not so much a feature of the tool. Saying it is useless or useful is contextual. The hammer/tool analogy is appropriate. IMO, I do feel that 'market forces' determine how anything evolves. Some people may use the word ecology instead of market forces. To me both are pertinent. In a global neighbourhood, my blog is my living room and I invite people into it. Twitter is (for me at least) akin to putting my head out of a window and listening in/joining in the conversations. On other days, like being at a party (where everyone's invited). I use the term window as it is relevant to the cityscape where I live. It is similar to saying, over the hedge.

[Ashok Banker]

Shel,

Here I am. I've since decided to stay on in the 'wasteland'. Not because I changed my mind but because I think it's vast enough to accommodate even my 'alternate' viewpoint. I do believe this is a great place and a wonderful opportunity and I'm going to try to use it for good in a positive way rather than simply withdrawing. I don't know if I'll succeed, or if there's any clearcut yardstick for 'success' but I've decided it's worth the attempt. Part of the motivation came from people like you who actually understood what I was protesting against and wishing for, that gave me hope. Thanks.

Non-anonymously,

Ashok Banker!

[shel israel]

Ashok,
I am honored to find you here under your own real name. I have found that the blogosphere is very much like real life. You can find the wasteland here, but you can find and share so many wonderful things as well. Plus it can helpo your business. Now that we are talking, I am going to have to go to Amazon and buy one of your many books. Got a recommendation?

-S.

[Benito Castro]

Dear Shel

I think social media are a bunch of tools and you can use them in a way or in another, as you say, but with some changes. Media themselves are different depends on their own kind of structure. TV or papers are: one talk and the rest listen to or read. And social media are more balanced in between writers and people, when at the same time people become writers if they want.

So the way old and new media works, make more differences than just the good or bad, suitable or unsuitable use of them.

Benito Castro. (Sevilla, Spain)