Why Are We Still Calling it “Social Media”?
“In this networked century, where access to technology is increasing exponentially, almost everybody is reachable. But more importantly, almost everybody has the ability to connect,” says Jared Cohen in a HuffingtonPost article. “This new ability to connect is leveling the playing field and breaking down previous age, gender, socioeconomic, and circumstantial barriers to who can emerge as a leader, activist, or grassroots agent for change. The power of technology today will be determined not by web traffic and viewership, but by its ability to strengthen and more importantly facilitate connections in real time.
Isn’t connection technologies–or ConnectTech–a term far better suited for the 21st century?”
Cohen’s article added to a conversation that I’ve been having with others who work with social media. We have been discussing how difficult it can be to define what we do in a neat and tidy elevator pitch. Each client that we work with has a different set of needs and many emphasize the use of a different set of social tools. Add to this the educators who are trying to sell their schools on the necessity of these tools, and it seems we need not just an elevator pitch, but an altogether clearer label.
I’m not necessarily advocating for Cohen’s proposed “connection technologies” or “ConnectTech”, but the term gives a better sense of what it is that social media actually DOES. Those of us who use these technologies aren’t so much utilizing them as tools but as extensions. I’m not speaking for just myself when I say that it’s becoming more and more acceptable and even expected to interact with our world two-fold: virtually and physically.
Pulling out our smart phones to get the Yelp ratings on a restaurant we are considering; scanning the night sky with our iPhones for an astronomy lesson; posting photos of a demonstration as it’s happening; looking up the definition of a word that our child wonders about while we wait at the grocery check-out…these actions create connections between us and the rest of the world. Small things that add up to a complex, beautiful web of instant access to each other and the knowledge that is becoming increasingly easier to share.
Our use of these “connecting technologies” has far surpassed the term “social media”. It’s not just about being social and it’s not limited to just media. It’s a way of living; of enhancing our lives; of augmenting our realities. What do you think – is it time for a new term?
9 Comments
Michelle Williams
Wednesday, 21st October 2009 at 6:54 pm
“almost everybody is reachable.” Its quite Ostentatious to comment about “almost everybody” in an international setting. What is true is the highly affluent communities of the US is not true globally at all. Most countries do not have the networks to sustain basic connectivity.
Your debate is good to have, if making labels is important. But claiming everybody is the same is not useful!.
Renee L. Robbins
Wednesday, 21st October 2009 at 7:21 pm
I don’t feel that the term “social media” needs to be changed because it doesn’t accurately describe the tools it represents, but instead because of the connotation that is attached to it. At their root, technologies such as Twitter, Skype, and Facebook are tools to promote the social interaction of their users. However, as you point out, parents, clients, and even educators sometimes classify “social media” as games, with missions to be played and prizes to be won. Until this stigma has been erased it will be very difficult for people to truly accept the possibilities these tools offer. If changing the way we refer to these tools will help, I’m on board.
Great post!
Scott Traylor
Thursday, 22nd October 2009 at 7:52 am
I wonder if the issue is not one of definition for a specific set of words. Because the term “social media” can mean many things to many different people, I’m thinking what we all need is a defined taxonomy of the different ways social media is interpreted and applied.
Chiara Esposito
Thursday, 22nd October 2009 at 3:38 pm
Not all countries lived in the same ours social,political and economics conditions.Most countries don’t have the networks and for this reason is impossible think that everybody is reachable.Almost everybody has the ability to connect but not possibilities.There is a lot of people that thinks to provide their own needs and don’t care to connect .
Kin Lane
Friday, 23rd October 2009 at 1:02 pm
I don’t think there is an all encompassing term for what social media is. I think its more important to establish common terms and understanding for which ever “micro” audience you are approaching.
The importance of your individual audience (classroom, client) understanding “social media” or “ConnectTech” is much more valuable then a single term.
They need to understand social media in context of how they’ve learned about the Internet and which tools are important to them.
So have an arsenal of terms….and use as appropriate.
Mike Lincoln
Friday, 23rd October 2009 at 8:47 pm
Hello all. I am a Computer Technology teacher in Pittsburgh PA. Four years ago I started to see the connection between student engagement and achievement with “Social Networking” technologies.
I have since developed and have been teaching a course that I titled “Communication Technologies (CommTech).” I have developed this course to provide my students with the skills and knowledge necessary to communicate in a way that expose the power of student devices (iPods, cell phones, digital cameras, PSPs…) with social networking resources like YouTube, SchoolTube, Facebook, Skype, Windows Live, and Google Docs. As a result, students are using CommTech devices in a positive and contagious way that makes learning fun and efficient.
Ok, so how does this fit in with this topic? The whole idea behind “social media” (like this blog), from an educational perspective, is to continuously grow from human interactions. In today’s schools, many school leaders view social networking and communication technologies as the new and improved “Computer Technology”, leaving little or no emphasis on production technologies such as MS Office and Google Docs. My question to those that believe this to be the case is, “Can students create and innovate, communicate and collaborate, research, acquire information fluency, think critically, problem solve, make informed decisions, develop a positive digital citizenship, and apply technology operations and concepts with “Web 2.0” resources alone? If so, go Web 2.0! Otherwise, lets not forget about the software application TRAINING and foundation skills our students will need to use in conjunction with Web 2.0 to be effective learners and leaders in the current century!
Computermensch
Friday, 6th November 2009 at 12:13 am
I worked as a researcher with R&D with a major sw infrastructure vendor and participated in building service oriented architecture infrastructure from 2001.
At the time we like any others researched across problem domains. The long term perspective and primary reference frame for the infrastructure is “naturally” automation. That also implies (global) optimization which may also be like self-guided development, robots and stuff.
Anyway, in the short term one may see different uses coming up. The nice thing about the infrastructure is not really the “world” being observable to “an instance” or object (or that you can connect and use the world). It the instance or object that becomes observable anywhere. Take a webpage – is can actually represent ifself in several locations at any moment ideally becomming instantly available. So carrying a mobile, a laptop, “socializing” (from the individuals perspective) – is not the messaging etc. becoming instantly available to you – but you becoming observable anywhere and “instantly” available to others. However, a human is not like an automated service that can simulated exclusive availability to anybody observing he or her. Its still like mobile phones or emails trying to CONNECT YOU as a service to others tnat wants to observe you in their own context.
So people can use facebook as an replacement representing them as observable in muiltiple locations.
Is it valuable? Well, may be some think so. However, when you have 2000 “human services” in your network it matters as little as 2000 links to webpages or whatever service.
What you need is alternate representation. That is more or less why people need to use Google or search … really a filter supporting a still primitive form of alternate representation modifying data or potential observations into information and ideally effective observations.
When the semantic web or real optimization comes about you will simply uses a natural interface like your voice in the room and system interactions in generel will provide you with the face building the facebook page automatically across the entire public net – and possibly private networks as well (as web services allow). The alternes can even be in context. May be even intrepretive presentations and an automated editor and author helping you write a book. So theres is room for composition thus delegation of responsibilties between actors – where one may or may be not a human.
So the net is still used for publishing – however eventually publishing will disappear. You just tell the mach what you need. Hopefully at one point we can do the same in Nature when physics will allow us to implement system interactions there. Thats a primary goal for computer science. Then you can have bread out of dirt.
Any other perspective is just short term and an short intermediary step.
BTW When we worked the infrastructure we already knew newspapers would be very likely to die out. The date lifted by many at the time was around 2012. When news paper go away you can have the machine write a automated newspaper. We’ve already seen intermediaries like RSS (RDF potential) and free newspapers (changes in syndication and branding).
Same goes for books. Interesting to see to TV – they did a lot to conserve traditional publishning, however when going on net and systems can interpret packet streams and even alternate TV like remixing. That could also mean reusing IP rights for new programs modifying themselves like games, however still a movie.
So it is mainly because of semantic web stuff … like ontologies and classifcation inluding concept mapping for evolving machine based strategies using optimization … however the infrastructure work slowed down a bit to allow for more research.
Anyway, hopefully all this goes down under the hood and we can go back to a physical nature where we can call for automated services like magic without “surfing” networks.
Nobody surfs the telephone network these days … at one point it is just there.
At one point we will learn not to be hypnotized or brain washed starring at it. I sometimes still cry when watching a movie however mostly now I remember when watching that it is not real. Boring, may be? However, we now live in a world where every one seems to want to push your feelings. I prefer to be rational the best I can and develop the feelings interactively.
Computermensch
Friday, 6th November 2009 at 12:47 am
So may be you could call people in facebook and other tag clouds helpers tagging data in net. They interact with the systems and the pay is that they can interact more efficiently with each other as automation grows while trying out prototypes for the alternate Internet (not about publishing). Of cause you cannot earn money from people tagging or applying properties to data while deploying the data. Its like voluntary work facilitated by the perspective for automation.
May be some could earn money advertising before all that data automation labour? But that is not an innovative business model. Innovation will be based on automation eventually. Who gets to build the first slaves (robots) … and do robots need protection (i.e. transhumans … humans degraded so their nervous systems can be used for machines) … so ethics for slaves or robots is on the move … transgene is going on in bioinformatics – i.e. in GB bleding human genes with other genes i.e. animal to cross breed … then you get a human in an animal body and can call him a computer … is happening because that the reason to allow the experiments in the first place … not a human but transgene … so must automation is just a step towards global optimization and artificial central nerveuos systems … and when they perform like an insect … someone will want the rational thought of the human mind in the machine … inbetween we could see animals being upgraded to PC’s … then your “laptop” can walk beside you. Hopefully it will not happen if we keep moral standards a bit high here.
Computermensch
Friday, 6th November 2009 at 1:06 am
So a final comment :o)
Social media is only indirectly about human interactions (they don’t really meet up) … but about human-machine or machine-human interactions. Its the machine or prospects of automation that is considered efficient. Additionally, the point of being simultaneously observable in multiple locations is also effetive (for others) … if they can share you.
The last pont can be overstated by imagining that you could be pshysically on earth and a planet in another galaxy at the same time. However, you loose implied singularity like being at one place at one time concerned with one thing. Instead you become imaginary in any one place and observable (useable?) untill you “dematerialize” being less observable going to imaginary. That may be well for physical matter but is it relevant for humans (we want the singularity and special concern in humans that sets us apart from machines … i.e. focus, family, love etc).
Leave a Comment