After several attempts to trying to understand these conference twitter gigglers ‘n video remixers, I’ve been quite disappointed if social media is being promoted this way: there seems to be enough doubts, justified prejudice and almost fear when moving towards being a social media user – no need to cumber this with arrogance, “virtual backstabbing” or whatever you call it. If someone ask a question or have doubts, calling her/him “stupid” only might portray what you present.
But fortunate: there been arising some(tu?) interesting discussion about this – and could be interesting to see more, especially in english.
In these discussions I found at least three ways, how e.g microblogging is or can be used in conferencing – tools are the same, premises and objectives seem to vary quite lot:
- Live reporting: using Twitter, Qaiku, etc. for reporting conferences “as-is”, who is talking, about what, etc. At least now I start to respect many of these fellows which are able to describe these sessions. This really gives addedd value, are you in the actual session or not: it’s great, big applause for all those altruists who do this for us others. I think that these conventions are interested in “sharing“.
- Collaborating: some kind of participating instead of mere observing, this is a two-way-addition to the previous, where tools are used to comment, ask, elaborate, focus, share, bring out own – various aspects and opinions. Proactively, real-time. This can develop different conferences and presentations in a new level. There are challenges in arranging back channels visible for “presenters”, etc. but maybe the biggest challenge is (as a participant) to bring out own questions, opinions, contradictions etc. to the frame. What if I ask “stupid questions”? Take the risk. This format includes a great promise of development. I think these conventions are interested in “sharing” also, but “dialogue” and “development“, too.
- “Giggling” (sic!): using microblogging etc. for criticising the conference, presenters without real criticism, (assumably) for entertaining, because that’s what always been done. Of course, no-one and nothing is out of criticism – but nothing should not be left outside. In this, open social media (or vice versa, I dunno) faces some challenges. Especially, due it openness and the challenges of arguments, respect and trust. You can’t have all without losing some or more. I was just wondering if IRC is so passe, that – even it would be better as it is more closed – it is more trendy to use Twitter on this. But now there seems that all the jokes are not taken as only jokes. Arguments for this relate to “getting the pressure out”, “presenters (which are seen as ‘rockstars’, my dear lord) are like celebrities: prepare for anything”, “Twitter (and other tools) are so restricted that argumentation cannot be done”, “messages relate not to persons (even they relate to some persons) personally”, etc. Biggest differences to the two previous ones seems to be the total lack of proactivity and (in many cases) constructivity. I have always thought that even if we present creative views, the timing and contact is also essential: your points should reach the object and the message should look somehow relevant. But if these (constructivity, proactivity, relevancy) are not even the objectives of this, why bother. Why bother to even do so? But when using social media on this, we shall not be so naive claiming for closedness, moderation, intimity or anything else after you’ve personally just misused all these. Right? This kind of communication is mainly interested in ???.
I am not against development. I am against suppressing develoment. Tools are just tools: what matters, is the ways that we use them. Creating nothing or regression? Or enriching our world in a brand new way. It’s quite funny to notice, that e.g. Pekka Himanen has brought us thoughts about innovation, creativity and more which relies upon and is being relayed with trust, respect and other.. well quite difficult and challenging things.
These things are a lot of connections – quality of connections?