Perhaps I should title this post: "Why I post on social networks"... Or: "A note on what led me away from Facebook and Twitter, and on to Google+"... It will serve both titles equally.
Ever since Google+ launched I've been thinking about sharing things online - about why it is the thing to do these days, and whether this is simply the automation or "cloud-ization" of existing social behavior for most people.
The "why" is more perplexing to me than whether there is a real world analogue that we mimic every time we post something online...
Use Cases
Let's first get the obvious, and in a sense "niche", reasons out of the way: Journalists break news, Artists promote their work, Politicians promote themselves and their agendas, Celebrities nurture fandom, and so on. These are a given, and each of these use cases has real world analogues. The web, and more recently social networking, have simply made doing these things easier and removed geographic constraints. These people will use emerging channels and media as best they can to grab as many "eyeballs" as they can... As well they should, in an increasingly crowded and competitive media landscape.
Who and what I'm really thinking about is average Joe or Jill Nobody, age indeterminate, who post their daily activities (what they just ate/ read/ saw/heard), their thoughts, location, photographs, blogs, and content they liked from around the web for their few followers on Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare, Google+, and insert name here. We'll leave LinkedIn out of this because it isn't a social, but really a professional network with differing aims.
Usually these folks have at most a few hundred friends/ followers, with few strangers included. They will mostly share content privately. Their feeds/ walls/ streams need not follow a theme or a subject. They will post their thoughts about, say, the Star Trek Anniversary, 9/11, Obama, Adele's latest album, and Boeuf Bourguignon in the same stream, on the same day...
The vast majority of people on the networks named are consumers of information, not producers. Few are comfortable sharing their own content. Hardly any (say, 5%?) have truly original content to share. (I'm making any stats up as I go along, for the record.)
Just what is driving this minority? A minority I aspire to belong to, and think I do - if only sometimes!
While that last I hold in contempt (as I wrote in a prior Google+ post on the topic), all the other questions are exceedingly difficult for me to answer. I don't think I can bring any degree of objectivity to answering them, nor do I think everyone's answers to these will be the same. Why, you ask? Well, because these questions are only the tip of the iceberg of questions that will eventually lead to questions around personal identity.
Let's table those for now, and inspect the major social options I have and their unique propositions:
Choices
Facebook: I understand where Facebook and its symmetrical "friend" relationships are coming from. The heterogenus sharing and "friend" relationships are exactly what we do with friends and colleagues in real life, in restaurants and on dates, in social settings and at the water cooler. This is why it is the most accessible of the major social products for most people.
There is an asymmetrical use case and relationship type on Facebook with the fan page, but most people would understand that easily as well because there's a clear real world analogue. Besides, although I don't have many stats I'd guess people are on Facebook more to be connected to friends than to fan-follow or "like" brands.
Twitter: Twitter presents a different real world analogue, in that it becomes the social web equivalent of what news services, agencies, and newspapers used to do in the pre-web and web-without-social world. Once you factor in hashtags, we're looking at virtual communities instantaneously created around subjects of interest. Curious about or have something to say about what's happening? Look up/post using #hashtag! See what's trending in the public conscious at the moment (or this week, or this year). That is powerful!
Twitter also supports asymmetrical (fan) relationships relationships of course - and in a less impersonal way (I think) than Facebook does, simply because @ mentions and direct messages are more one to one than the wall commenting thing FB has going on. I think they were also the ones to pioneer it? I'm not a 100% certain.
Location-based Services: I can't say I've really used products like FourSquare and Gowalla, or Google Latitude or Facebook Places too much. Where Twitter is grouping people around trending topics and interests, I understand these services are grouping people by location. Call me old school, but that seems too arbitrary to me. I couldn't be bothered to check in wherever I go, even if the privacy issues weren't an issue with me, and I certainly don't frequent many places other than home and work to win badges, become Mayor or whatever!
Google+: After about two months on this service, I've found Plus to be a whole different beast. Yes, as many have noted, it supports both the symmetrical friendships and private sharing and asymmetrical relationships and public sharing/ following. However it has the potential to go beyond just what is being done on other networks.
The tech/ geek hangover it has inherited from its early adopters is undeniable, but I feel Plus follows a different organizing principle as compared to Facebook and Twitter. This network seems organized not around friends or followers, but around content creators. Identity is at the heart of the network and tying that back to opinion makers, reporters, bloggers, photographers, artists etc. means this becomes the gateway to discovering their content.
People are (at least in this initial period) more active here than on other sites. Most people I've interacted with on other networks appear to feel free to comment, and share more within their defined circles than they did on Facebook "out in the open". This could be an early adopter thing, but I intend to enjoy it while it lasts...
Clear Differences
"Serendipitous discovery" is something Plus has in common with Twitter, but does better. Strangers follow you and you can rest assured they can only see what you share publicly or with a circle you put them in (Twitter has them seeing everything you post, or nothing). I discovered content more rapidly than on Facebook, simply because you don't have to follow them back to see their public posts (using the Incoming feed). Unlike Twitter, because there is no organization around the topic of their posts (via hashtags) you may start following someone for the photos they share, and end up discovering a great article on Astronomy that they also liked, and the recipe for a dish they said they loved at a neighborhood restaurant!
Photo sharing is amazing on Google+ - and at least for Android users in this age where the phone is everyone's primary camera, Instant Upload is a fantastic feature. From the sharing interface to the incipient but already thriving community, you are likely to find it a lot more appealing than most other platforms, perhaps barring Flickr. This was evident in a recent (unscientific) poll conducted by Thomas Hawk, one of the more popular photographers on Google+.
Then there are Hangouts, which are a killer app in their own right. Within days of joining, we'd attended web-casts of Hangout concerts, hung out with some friends, and so on. It is early days yet and of course hangouts promise to evolve - I'm especially excited to see if it becomes a full-scale collaboration platform a la Webex.
This combination of factors and features and admittedly, the novelty and existing and proposed tight integration of Plus with other Google products (notably Android and Picasa) meant that I definitely want to join and use Google+; and until the novelty of the launch had worn off a little, I felt like I could maintain a presence on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ without much issue.
This just isn't true.
What Led Me Away from Facebook and Twitter?
Twitter offers nothing Google+ doesn't, and that ridiculous 140 character limit just isn't my thing. The pace of update and noise is also insane on Twitter, especially if you start following people that are very active. It is a network with ADD and I'm a long-form kind of guy (the length of this post being evidence in support!)
But Facebook? With its latest round of changes, it is arguably a lot better at privacy than it used to be, although I still think of it as a shifty company I can't fully trust. My friends and family and acquaintances are already there, and before Google+ came along, there was a reasonable amount of interaction and engagement going on there. Surely, I should stay on?
Except, there are only 24 hours in my day, and to be engaged on a social network eats up time. The more networks there are, the more time that is. I found myself in a quandary where the content I really wanted - the fresh, original, new, geeky stuff - was on Google+, and the people most likely to comment on what I post/ share were on Facebook.
In the end moving off of Facebook came down to that key question I alluded to before: What am I using the social network for? I ended up having an internal dialogue that went something like this:
Q) Am I really deepening/ affirming existing real world relationships by using Facebook?
A) Only in a very few cases, and these are ones I should/ could nurture outside of the web anyway. Being friends on Facebook is more like being aware of someone day in, day out. For me, it hasn't ever translate into more interaction or more depth of conversation in any way identifiable as unique to Facebook. I can probably get what I need off of a blog + Google+
Q) What is my primary use of social networking? Am I looking to air what I write/ think?
A) Yes.
Q) Is it worthwhile to only put it up for people who know me?
A) Probably not. They'll either agree with me or not, but my thoughts don't really get broadcast beyond my 'social horizon'. I need to send them out there more, into the aether! Also, those that really care will follow me on Plus/ follow the blog...
Q) What then is the USP/ potential of using Facebook to engage, if you had to choose between FB and Google+?
A) *crickets*
And lo, the choice is made.
In Conclusion
I have moved to Google+ in my capacity as a consumer. As a producer of what little original content I generate however, I must use any and all platforms I have to air my content. This means my Twitter feed and Facebook posting will also continue, if only to post substantial content I come up with like blog posts. It behooves me to engage with those who comment on what I post in those channels.
It also means that I will not know when my pals from college post a photo from their latest trip, or if one of the many Groups I was a part of have some interesting activity. I will not know what people think of the latest thing on TV or in the news... and that's OK.
Leaving Facebook and the relatively "more aligned to real life" connections there is sort of like moving away from your home town. Sure, you feel nostalgic once in a while, but in the end it is the act of moving away that broadens your horizons. It is exciting and a learning experience.
I will still remember to send my Facebook peeps postcards from wherever I go of course... : )
Ever since Google+ launched I've been thinking about sharing things online - about why it is the thing to do these days, and whether this is simply the automation or "cloud-ization" of existing social behavior for most people.
The "why" is more perplexing to me than whether there is a real world analogue that we mimic every time we post something online...
Use Cases
Let's first get the obvious, and in a sense "niche", reasons out of the way: Journalists break news, Artists promote their work, Politicians promote themselves and their agendas, Celebrities nurture fandom, and so on. These are a given, and each of these use cases has real world analogues. The web, and more recently social networking, have simply made doing these things easier and removed geographic constraints. These people will use emerging channels and media as best they can to grab as many "eyeballs" as they can... As well they should, in an increasingly crowded and competitive media landscape.
Who and what I'm really thinking about is average Joe or Jill Nobody, age indeterminate, who post their daily activities (what they just ate/ read/ saw/heard), their thoughts, location, photographs, blogs, and content they liked from around the web for their few followers on Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare, Google+, and insert name here. We'll leave LinkedIn out of this because it isn't a social, but really a professional network with differing aims.
Usually these folks have at most a few hundred friends/ followers, with few strangers included. They will mostly share content privately. Their feeds/ walls/ streams need not follow a theme or a subject. They will post their thoughts about, say, the Star Trek Anniversary, 9/11, Obama, Adele's latest album, and Boeuf Bourguignon in the same stream, on the same day...
The vast majority of people on the networks named are consumers of information, not producers. Few are comfortable sharing their own content. Hardly any (say, 5%?) have truly original content to share. (I'm making any stats up as I go along, for the record.)
Just what is driving this minority? A minority I aspire to belong to, and think I do - if only sometimes!
- Is it adulation we're seeking, or affirmation?
- Are we hungry to get in touch with like-minded people?
- Do we want to appear cool, or belong?
- Do we share only to test who "gets it"?
- Are we sharing so as to be exposed to other points of view and to find strengths and flaws in our own?
While that last I hold in contempt (as I wrote in a prior Google+ post on the topic), all the other questions are exceedingly difficult for me to answer. I don't think I can bring any degree of objectivity to answering them, nor do I think everyone's answers to these will be the same. Why, you ask? Well, because these questions are only the tip of the iceberg of questions that will eventually lead to questions around personal identity.
Let's table those for now, and inspect the major social options I have and their unique propositions:
Choices
Facebook: I understand where Facebook and its symmetrical "friend" relationships are coming from. The heterogenus sharing and "friend" relationships are exactly what we do with friends and colleagues in real life, in restaurants and on dates, in social settings and at the water cooler. This is why it is the most accessible of the major social products for most people.
There is an asymmetrical use case and relationship type on Facebook with the fan page, but most people would understand that easily as well because there's a clear real world analogue. Besides, although I don't have many stats I'd guess people are on Facebook more to be connected to friends than to fan-follow or "like" brands.
Twitter: Twitter presents a different real world analogue, in that it becomes the social web equivalent of what news services, agencies, and newspapers used to do in the pre-web and web-without-social world. Once you factor in hashtags, we're looking at virtual communities instantaneously created around subjects of interest. Curious about or have something to say about what's happening? Look up/post using #hashtag! See what's trending in the public conscious at the moment (or this week, or this year). That is powerful!
Twitter also supports asymmetrical (fan) relationships relationships of course - and in a less impersonal way (I think) than Facebook does, simply because @ mentions and direct messages are more one to one than the wall commenting thing FB has going on. I think they were also the ones to pioneer it? I'm not a 100% certain.
Location-based Services: I can't say I've really used products like FourSquare and Gowalla, or Google Latitude or Facebook Places too much. Where Twitter is grouping people around trending topics and interests, I understand these services are grouping people by location. Call me old school, but that seems too arbitrary to me. I couldn't be bothered to check in wherever I go, even if the privacy issues weren't an issue with me, and I certainly don't frequent many places other than home and work to win badges, become Mayor or whatever!
Google+: After about two months on this service, I've found Plus to be a whole different beast. Yes, as many have noted, it supports both the symmetrical friendships and private sharing and asymmetrical relationships and public sharing/ following. However it has the potential to go beyond just what is being done on other networks.
The tech/ geek hangover it has inherited from its early adopters is undeniable, but I feel Plus follows a different organizing principle as compared to Facebook and Twitter. This network seems organized not around friends or followers, but around content creators. Identity is at the heart of the network and tying that back to opinion makers, reporters, bloggers, photographers, artists etc. means this becomes the gateway to discovering their content.
People are (at least in this initial period) more active here than on other sites. Most people I've interacted with on other networks appear to feel free to comment, and share more within their defined circles than they did on Facebook "out in the open". This could be an early adopter thing, but I intend to enjoy it while it lasts...
Clear Differences
"Serendipitous discovery" is something Plus has in common with Twitter, but does better. Strangers follow you and you can rest assured they can only see what you share publicly or with a circle you put them in (Twitter has them seeing everything you post, or nothing). I discovered content more rapidly than on Facebook, simply because you don't have to follow them back to see their public posts (using the Incoming feed). Unlike Twitter, because there is no organization around the topic of their posts (via hashtags) you may start following someone for the photos they share, and end up discovering a great article on Astronomy that they also liked, and the recipe for a dish they said they loved at a neighborhood restaurant!
Photo sharing is amazing on Google+ - and at least for Android users in this age where the phone is everyone's primary camera, Instant Upload is a fantastic feature. From the sharing interface to the incipient but already thriving community, you are likely to find it a lot more appealing than most other platforms, perhaps barring Flickr. This was evident in a recent (unscientific) poll conducted by Thomas Hawk, one of the more popular photographers on Google+.
Then there are Hangouts, which are a killer app in their own right. Within days of joining, we'd attended web-casts of Hangout concerts, hung out with some friends, and so on. It is early days yet and of course hangouts promise to evolve - I'm especially excited to see if it becomes a full-scale collaboration platform a la Webex.
This combination of factors and features and admittedly, the novelty and existing and proposed tight integration of Plus with other Google products (notably Android and Picasa) meant that I definitely want to join and use Google+; and until the novelty of the launch had worn off a little, I felt like I could maintain a presence on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ without much issue.
This just isn't true.
What Led Me Away from Facebook and Twitter?
Twitter offers nothing Google+ doesn't, and that ridiculous 140 character limit just isn't my thing. The pace of update and noise is also insane on Twitter, especially if you start following people that are very active. It is a network with ADD and I'm a long-form kind of guy (the length of this post being evidence in support!)
But Facebook? With its latest round of changes, it is arguably a lot better at privacy than it used to be, although I still think of it as a shifty company I can't fully trust. My friends and family and acquaintances are already there, and before Google+ came along, there was a reasonable amount of interaction and engagement going on there. Surely, I should stay on?
Except, there are only 24 hours in my day, and to be engaged on a social network eats up time. The more networks there are, the more time that is. I found myself in a quandary where the content I really wanted - the fresh, original, new, geeky stuff - was on Google+, and the people most likely to comment on what I post/ share were on Facebook.
In the end moving off of Facebook came down to that key question I alluded to before: What am I using the social network for? I ended up having an internal dialogue that went something like this:
Q) Am I really deepening/ affirming existing real world relationships by using Facebook?
A) Only in a very few cases, and these are ones I should/ could nurture outside of the web anyway. Being friends on Facebook is more like being aware of someone day in, day out. For me, it hasn't ever translate into more interaction or more depth of conversation in any way identifiable as unique to Facebook. I can probably get what I need off of a blog + Google+
Q) What is my primary use of social networking? Am I looking to air what I write/ think?
A) Yes.
Q) Is it worthwhile to only put it up for people who know me?
A) Probably not. They'll either agree with me or not, but my thoughts don't really get broadcast beyond my 'social horizon'. I need to send them out there more, into the aether! Also, those that really care will follow me on Plus/ follow the blog...
Q) What then is the USP/ potential of using Facebook to engage, if you had to choose between FB and Google+?
A) *crickets*
And lo, the choice is made.
In Conclusion
I have moved to Google+ in my capacity as a consumer. As a producer of what little original content I generate however, I must use any and all platforms I have to air my content. This means my Twitter feed and Facebook posting will also continue, if only to post substantial content I come up with like blog posts. It behooves me to engage with those who comment on what I post in those channels.
It also means that I will not know when my pals from college post a photo from their latest trip, or if one of the many Groups I was a part of have some interesting activity. I will not know what people think of the latest thing on TV or in the news... and that's OK.
Leaving Facebook and the relatively "more aligned to real life" connections there is sort of like moving away from your home town. Sure, you feel nostalgic once in a while, but in the end it is the act of moving away that broadens your horizons. It is exciting and a learning experience.
I will still remember to send my Facebook peeps postcards from wherever I go of course... : )
No comments:
Post a Comment