Comments on: The Digital Mit-sein of Social Media http://caughtintheweb.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/the-digital-mit-sein-of-social-media/ a blog on media, culture, technology and other things by sam han Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:05:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: ADS http://caughtintheweb.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/the-digital-mit-sein-of-social-media/#comment-127 ADS Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:54:23 +0000 http://caughtintheweb.wordpress.com/?p=427#comment-127 Yo Sam- Good to hear your take on this, and I think the tie to Heidegger is really on point. I'm a fact checker at Wired, where Clive Thompson writes a monthly column, and I fc'd his column this month and had a chance to chat with him a bit about all this. What Clive's working on these days and the Heidegger reference speak to the increasing interconnectedness that has been brought about by Web 2.0, something that's been documented extensively. But I'd like to hear you take this one step further, both to explore where social media will take us and what effect it'll have on human society. Where do you see it headed? Increased human contact or weaker ties and weaker human relationships? I think we're going toward somewhat of a hybrid. If everyone has access to the same information, the ways in which we will interact with each other will be fundamentally changed. Check out Kevin Kelly's (Wired's OG) idea of the Hive Mind, and also EO Wilson's work on The Superorganism. Information that's disseminated across a whole group or society as opposed to within one person takes the emphasis away from the individual and puts it on the group. Personal actions will be influenced less by personal motivations and more by aggregate knowledge of what's going on with those around you, on a large scale. I think that's a good thing. I'm not about to start Twittering or IM-ing any time soon tho. Really could care less if homie is making a turkey or ham sandwich. -Dre Yo Sam-
Good to hear your take on this, and I think the tie to Heidegger is really on point. I’m a fact checker at Wired, where Clive Thompson writes a monthly column, and I fc’d his column this month and had a chance to chat with him a bit about all this. What Clive’s working on these days and the Heidegger reference speak to the increasing interconnectedness that has been brought about by Web 2.0, something that’s been documented extensively. But I’d like to hear you take this one step further, both to explore where social media will take us and what effect it’ll have on human society. Where do you see it headed? Increased human contact or weaker ties and weaker human relationships?
I think we’re going toward somewhat of a hybrid. If everyone has access to the same information, the ways in which we will interact with each other will be fundamentally changed. Check out Kevin Kelly’s (Wired’s OG) idea of the Hive Mind, and also EO Wilson’s work on The Superorganism. Information that’s disseminated across a whole group or society as opposed to within one person takes the emphasis away from the individual and puts it on the group. Personal actions will be influenced less by personal motivations and more by aggregate knowledge of what’s going on with those around you, on a large scale. I think that’s a good thing.
I’m not about to start Twittering or IM-ing any time soon tho. Really could care less if homie is making a turkey or ham sandwich.

-Dre

]]> By: SH http://caughtintheweb.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/the-digital-mit-sein-of-social-media/#comment-123 SH Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:16:45 +0000 http://caughtintheweb.wordpress.com/?p=427#comment-123 LOL, allow me to chastise you about the Putnam stuff: I always thought Putnam's argument was in the Tocquevillian tradition. It suggests that if people were more "connected" that the world would be better. That to me, smacks of the same type of misplaced optimism as the "social entrepreneurship" trend which uses market principles to undo injustices that were created by--ding ding ding!--market principles in the first place. What I dislike about Putnam's argument is its faith in human beings ability to form some kind of transcendental moral understanding of one another. Religion couldn't even do that in traditional societies; and what, now civic engagement can? We see that today's world, with such levels of technological "connectedness," still maintains the unequal ratio of the 20% of humans living the richest countries in the world earning 86% of the world income, and billions struggling with just 1% of it. So much for people... I love technology and know humans well enough to know that it won't solve those kinds of questions of justice. Bowling leagues don't exactly cut it... And in true academic left form, I have no answers though. LOL LOL, allow me to chastise you about the Putnam stuff:

I always thought Putnam’s argument was in the Tocquevillian tradition. It suggests that if people were more “connected” that the world would be better. That to me, smacks of the same type of misplaced optimism as the “social entrepreneurship” trend which uses market principles to undo injustices that were created by–ding ding ding!–market principles in the first place. What I dislike about Putnam’s argument is its faith in human beings ability to form some kind of transcendental moral understanding of one another. Religion couldn’t even do that in traditional societies; and what, now civic engagement can? We see that today’s world, with such levels of technological “connectedness,” still maintains the unequal ratio of the 20% of humans living the richest countries in the world earning 86% of the world income, and billions struggling with just 1% of it. So much for people…

I love technology and know humans well enough to know that it won’t solve those kinds of questions of justice. Bowling leagues don’t exactly cut it…

And in true academic left form, I have no answers though. LOL

]]> By: That Dude http://caughtintheweb.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/the-digital-mit-sein-of-social-media/#comment-122 That Dude Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:18:15 +0000 http://caughtintheweb.wordpress.com/?p=427#comment-122 Dolesky, I was looking forward to your take on this article even before I had finished reading it. I think the Heidegger parallel is right on in terms of the aggregate nature of digital social connections. I thought one of the more interesting points (though you might chastise it, and me, for being too mainstream sociological) was Thompson's drawing on Putnam's Bowling Alone; specifically his declaration that this newest of social phenomena is in some ways an answer to the growing lonesome nature of contemporary society. I think digital social networking certainly does address many of Putnam's concerns about civic engagement and social capital. However the techonology itself is not the answer, it never is. In this case I see it Web 2.0 as an enabler. Thoughts? Holla TD Dolesky,

I was looking forward to your take on this article even before I had finished reading it. I think the Heidegger parallel is right on in terms of the aggregate nature of digital social connections.

I thought one of the more interesting points (though you might chastise it, and me, for being too mainstream sociological) was Thompson’s drawing on Putnam’s Bowling Alone; specifically his declaration that this newest of social phenomena is in some ways an answer to the growing lonesome nature of contemporary society.

I think digital social networking certainly does address many of Putnam’s concerns about civic engagement and social capital. However the techonology itself is not the answer, it never is. In this case I see it Web 2.0 as an enabler.

Thoughts?

Holla

TD

]]>