The "Social Media" Thing is Not About Technology, It's About the Mind : Cities Are Social Medias Too

I've just came across a post by Ben Carr, "It's time We Define Social Media", an invitation to clarify what we mean by "social media". I must say I don't totally agree with his definition of social media, but it's a nice starting point. Here is it :

" Social Media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the purpose of sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings in more efficient ways."

I'm probably too Sociology-focused but there's something crucial missing there : the nature of human interactions. According to my humble definition, cities are social medias as well and what's happening with the web already happened with the emergence of metropolies to some extent.

Sociologist Georg Simmel wrote a very nice text in 1903 called "The Metropolis and Mental life" in which he notoriously defined the notion of blasé. But more interesting, he claimed that cities reshaped social interactions and had an impact on individual minds. Indeed, anecdotal things such as seeing hundreds of faces everyday, not knowing your neighboors, being anonymous, changed our perception of life, of others...and the way we think about action.

Now, that's also what's happening with the web. The web modifies social interactions and ties. Following your friends on Twitter and reading their status on Facebook stimulate your nervous system in radically new ways. It's changing the way we think about others.
We're just so aware of what everybody's doing it's insane.

So, Ok, the web is a technology, a city is not a technology. But both are Social Medias.

Let's try a first definition of my own :

A Social Media is a set of rules shaping social interactions both quantitatively and qualitatively. It defines the emotional or physical "distance" between each of us. Social Medias have an impact on the way we think about others and thus collective actions.

According to this definition, both cities and the web are Social Medias.

If you want to know more about Urban Sociology, check out the Chicago School on Wikipedia.

The Second Dot-Com Bubble = Bankers don't know anything about Web 2.0

Recently I've been reading some articles about the second dot-com bubble for a paper I'm writing. I studied just a bit of Economics and I'm clearly not an expert in that field, but I wonder if statisticians are the right people for speculating on the web 2.0. Of course it's not my money but still... The profitability of social medias for investors rests on advertising and marketing and this is my industry.

To me "speculating on web 2.0" means trying to answer the question "will mankind really go digital?", and this sounds more like an anthropological problem.

I use a tag I called "limits" on my Delicious account and this is for collecting data that tend to cool you down when you're one of those dreaming of a new world derived from the cyberspace.

The most obvious limit to digitalisation is probably the time it takes to really use social medias (see this article from Sarah Perez). More and more companies tend to forbid access to Facebook because it makes them lose tons of money. Hehe. So what's going on ? Are we all going to wake up with a hangover ? Are we high ? I think it's something you should be interested in if you really want to understand what the web will be like in 10 years.

It's a possibility (among hundreds of others) that Internet addicts are avant-guardists after all, people so involved that they warn us of what it could be like if we all go digital. That's why I try not to forget what my first mentor used to tell me : "the web is designed to help people meet in real life". I don't totally agree, as I have some 100% digital good friends but he made a point.

Actually one of them is taking a PhD in Clinical Psychology in Lyon. We chatted about Facebook last week. He thinks Facebook is fundamentally dirty, exploiting obvious flaws of humans such as perverted narcissism (going to a party just to be shot by a camera just to be able to post a pic on my profile) and voyeurism (spying on your friends and friends of friends). This is well-known.

I don't mean that digital is bad, because I breathe digital, but there are issues to watch carefully.

My point was just that I really don't understand why major firms invest so much money in web 2.0 on basis of mere quantitative data. Well, they probably get in touch with people involved in Anthropology or Psychology but do they really care? ... What do you think ?

Intrusive Marketing is not always Dirty : What about this "Happening" ?


Christophe Bruno is a net artist. His experiment is intrusive. People don't opt-in, it's a "happening". But what he does has nothing to do with spamming or boring you with a bloody pop-up.

He calls it "poetry advertisment" and I must admit I like it very much. He bought adwords and spoiled the economic and cold mechanisms of Google. In this experiment, if you typed "money", the message "Arrghhh ! Don't do that again !" appeared.

See more details here : adwords experiment (christophe bruno)

So, is that intrusive ? yes. But it's worth. Now, why ? Actually it's difficult to justify. Just because he's an artist, standing on the margins, and more able to reveal underlying issues I guess (oh, yes, i forgot to mention, he's French).

He's just here to remind you were typing "money" or "sex", or both, in Google...

But, more interesting, I think he tried to tell us that Google is not something merely "useful". What we type in Google is sometimes irrational.. We expect big answers from big questions..

Google is also like a hole, an universal psychoanalyst where we all type our hidden desires..
Google, tell me what's the meaning of life... !

The firts adword he bought ? "Symptom"

I wonder if "happenings" can be used in advertising, and under what circumstances... I'm not sure we really have to be obsessed with "opt-in advertising". But, for sure, to be intrusive, you have to be more than excellent... What do you think ?