Hugh Macleod, author of Gapingvoid, wrote this:
Earlier today I told everybody on Twitter and Facebook, that I’m leaving Twitter and Facebook.
Why?
Because Facebook and Twitter are too easy. Keeping up a decent blog that people actually want to take the time to read, that’s much harder. And it’s the hard stuff that pays off in the end.
Besides, even if they’re very good at hiding the fact, over on Twitter and Facebook, it’s not your content, it’s their content.
The content on your blog, however, belongs to you, and you alone. People come to your online home, to hear what you have to say, not to hear what everybody else has to say. This sense of personal sovereignty is important.
And as I’ve said many times over the years, Web 2.0 IS ALL ABOUT personal sovereignty. About using media to do something meaningful, WITHOUT someone else giving you permission first, without having to rely on anyone else’s resources, authority and money. Self-sufficiency. Exactly.
Ironically, I got this piece from Yvette Carnell, fellow blogger/writer of BreakingBrown, who posted this on her Facebook page. There has been a thoughtful conversation about this all day on Facebook, which to me is part of the problem. But nevertheless, I added my two sense:
I've been thinking about this alot - ALOT!!!! Everything we write on FB/Twitter becomes their property.And they are getting rich off your rants, post and pics. Fuck that!!! I think I give away too much content and entertainment (thus making them money) when I need to be using my talents on my own space. Yes, this is the push needed.
And after careful consideration, not only does MacCleod have a point but I think I'm going to take him up on his challenge - if only for one week.
And it is not about disliking Facebook and Twitter or any other social networking site for that matter. Hell, I love them. Social networking has proven that every thought is indeed blog worthy. I love posting about my weekend and work adventures, the films I saw, and what funny or unusual thing my dog Coltrane did today. And I love posting links about political and social topics, sharing my thoughts on them and hearing what other folks have to say. Facebook and Twitter are great for that. But they are a little too great and a little too convenient. And just like the MacCleod, social networking has made me lazy and neglectful to the perfectly good space I have created for myself here at People, Places & Things.
Not to "toot-toot, ah beep-beep" my own horn but I'm a pretty good social networker. Particularly on Facebook, where I can find an article, post it along with something witty in the share box and generate dozens of comments in the matter of a day (somethings a few hours). Basically I feel that I made available so much content on their platforms that I have ultimately robbed PP&T both in intellectual property as well as in page views, clicks and comments. Meanwhile these social networking sites are making a lot of money, mostly via advertising, based upon the off of what I, along with others, say and post on their platform. I'm not hating (truly I am not) as for many of writers and other artists, these sites have been viewed as great promotional venues for their work. Yet, this model, I believe, has also contributed to why so many online news generator sites, who have embraced the social networking interface, are able to get away with not paying writers. After all, they are giving writers and other artist exposure and free promotion too.
But it's not all about money or page clicks. It's about the limitations that we place on ourselves as writers, and other artists, in this sphere. Like having to limit your thoughts to 420 characters (Facebook). Like having your thoughts, words and posts filtered so that you are not offending any of the more than a billion people in your circle, who might stumble across your post. Like, writing about things that we feel will be most responsive to those in our social networking circles, as oppose to writing about what you feel is most important to you. A lot times bloggers will post their content via Facebook and Twitter first prior to posting it on their own blogs. It's a way sometimes to test interest in a certain topic before spending time writing an entire post about something that we feel nobody doesn't read. However, this has ultimately limited us. Mainly because we rely on the core group of followers, who probably were amassed based upon one particular common interest to dictate what thoughts should be. And that, in my opinion, limits writers and makes their work more dogmatic than thoughtful. Writing should be about more than marketing oneself to the affability of the masses, it should be about challenging yourself and others. And even if you can generate a nice buzz for a topic through a social networking site, by the time you have written it for your own site, the conversation is pretty much dead and you are unlikely to have page clicks, views and even comments.
So does this mean that I'm turning my back on Facebook and Twitter all together? No not exactly. Unlike MacCleod, who is doing a total boycott of social networking sites, I believe the reality is that the success and user-friendly interfaces of many social networking sites, including one-click posting, make it virtually impossible to ignore. But there has to be a balance here. Perhaps, just by sharing my content first on my own platform, linking it to one (or more) of the social networking sites but refusing (or turning off) the comment section will force some folks, who are interested in engaging me on a topic to do so on my own site.
So in short, if you see me posting a bunch of random shit (more random than anything else I have on my blog) this week, it is because I am having Facebook withdrawals. And I don't know how successful I'll be building a mini-community around PP&T but it is worth a try.
Earlier today I told everybody on Twitter and Facebook, that I’m leaving Twitter and Facebook.
Why?
Because Facebook and Twitter are too easy. Keeping up a decent blog that people actually want to take the time to read, that’s much harder. And it’s the hard stuff that pays off in the end.
Besides, even if they’re very good at hiding the fact, over on Twitter and Facebook, it’s not your content, it’s their content.
The content on your blog, however, belongs to you, and you alone. People come to your online home, to hear what you have to say, not to hear what everybody else has to say. This sense of personal sovereignty is important.
And as I’ve said many times over the years, Web 2.0 IS ALL ABOUT personal sovereignty. About using media to do something meaningful, WITHOUT someone else giving you permission first, without having to rely on anyone else’s resources, authority and money. Self-sufficiency. Exactly.
Ironically, I got this piece from Yvette Carnell, fellow blogger/writer of BreakingBrown, who posted this on her Facebook page. There has been a thoughtful conversation about this all day on Facebook, which to me is part of the problem. But nevertheless, I added my two sense:
I've been thinking about this alot - ALOT!!!! Everything we write on FB/Twitter becomes their property.And they are getting rich off your rants, post and pics. Fuck that!!! I think I give away too much content and entertainment (thus making them money) when I need to be using my talents on my own space. Yes, this is the push needed.
And after careful consideration, not only does MacCleod have a point but I think I'm going to take him up on his challenge - if only for one week.
And it is not about disliking Facebook and Twitter or any other social networking site for that matter. Hell, I love them. Social networking has proven that every thought is indeed blog worthy. I love posting about my weekend and work adventures, the films I saw, and what funny or unusual thing my dog Coltrane did today. And I love posting links about political and social topics, sharing my thoughts on them and hearing what other folks have to say. Facebook and Twitter are great for that. But they are a little too great and a little too convenient. And just like the MacCleod, social networking has made me lazy and neglectful to the perfectly good space I have created for myself here at People, Places & Things.
Not to "toot-toot, ah beep-beep" my own horn but I'm a pretty good social networker. Particularly on Facebook, where I can find an article, post it along with something witty in the share box and generate dozens of comments in the matter of a day (somethings a few hours). Basically I feel that I made available so much content on their platforms that I have ultimately robbed PP&T both in intellectual property as well as in page views, clicks and comments. Meanwhile these social networking sites are making a lot of money, mostly via advertising, based upon the off of what I, along with others, say and post on their platform. I'm not hating (truly I am not) as for many of writers and other artists, these sites have been viewed as great promotional venues for their work. Yet, this model, I believe, has also contributed to why so many online news generator sites, who have embraced the social networking interface, are able to get away with not paying writers. After all, they are giving writers and other artist exposure and free promotion too.
But it's not all about money or page clicks. It's about the limitations that we place on ourselves as writers, and other artists, in this sphere. Like having to limit your thoughts to 420 characters (Facebook). Like having your thoughts, words and posts filtered so that you are not offending any of the more than a billion people in your circle, who might stumble across your post. Like, writing about things that we feel will be most responsive to those in our social networking circles, as oppose to writing about what you feel is most important to you. A lot times bloggers will post their content via Facebook and Twitter first prior to posting it on their own blogs. It's a way sometimes to test interest in a certain topic before spending time writing an entire post about something that we feel nobody doesn't read. However, this has ultimately limited us. Mainly because we rely on the core group of followers, who probably were amassed based upon one particular common interest to dictate what thoughts should be. And that, in my opinion, limits writers and makes their work more dogmatic than thoughtful. Writing should be about more than marketing oneself to the affability of the masses, it should be about challenging yourself and others. And even if you can generate a nice buzz for a topic through a social networking site, by the time you have written it for your own site, the conversation is pretty much dead and you are unlikely to have page clicks, views and even comments.
So does this mean that I'm turning my back on Facebook and Twitter all together? No not exactly. Unlike MacCleod, who is doing a total boycott of social networking sites, I believe the reality is that the success and user-friendly interfaces of many social networking sites, including one-click posting, make it virtually impossible to ignore. But there has to be a balance here. Perhaps, just by sharing my content first on my own platform, linking it to one (or more) of the social networking sites but refusing (or turning off) the comment section will force some folks, who are interested in engaging me on a topic to do so on my own site.
So in short, if you see me posting a bunch of random shit (more random than anything else I have on my blog) this week, it is because I am having Facebook withdrawals. And I don't know how successful I'll be building a mini-community around PP&T but it is worth a try.
RSS Feed