In my journey to learn more about the possibilities and the direction of the internet, I’ve come across a lot of blogs that talk about social media, social networks, social conversations, social media campaigns, social behaviors, etc. I am astounded by the sheer volume and depth of discussions about the topic. [But, of course, I am one of them, sort of.]
Anyway, I see posts like:
“…the scale of our social networks and connections, the velocity with which news and media travel and the impact this has on our relationships both 'offline' and online.” [read post]
and
"New types of web experiences are enabling people to go beyond just creating content; they’re allowing them to broadcast their personal context too. These “situational lifestreams” are a realtime flow of personal metadata, and it’s time to start thinking about how to design great experiences with them." [read post]
Pretty high-level smarty pants talk, right?
Then I read a post like Scalzi’s, How to Irritate and Annoy People in the Name of Blogging, and it gets me thinking. He has turned this fascinating world of intellectual blogging into something dirty. Well, to be fair, he thinks that many bloggers are simply “starfucking” to get more attention on their own blogs.
Truthfully, I loved this post. I “get” his angle. His words encourage me to write honesty and remind me that I have undertaken this blogging journey because I am passionate about learning.
But you know what? I eat this stuff up. Both the “starfuckery” speak (aka market speak) and the in your face talk. I think it is fascinating and I can’t get enough. I try to read as much as I can hopefully remember the good stuff.
True, I wouldn’t mind seeing less of words like buzz, change agent, and on-line/off-line, but keep the discussions coming.
