Social Web 3.0

I commented on Denise's blog a while back, and she responded with a post of her own. Most of my own comment was bashing on the record industry, but also criticizing how she didn't leave much room for good content to come from individuals. I figured since the discussion is still out there, I could add to it a little more.

Crap or worthwhile? Or somewhere in-between?

I agree with the sentiment that most of the individual content released on the web is simply crap. That's the problem with giving people unlimited publishing options. It's not surprising though, and can even be entertaining. I'm not a big fan of American Idol, but when I have watched it, its to watch the auditions. There are so many terrible vocalists that come on the show convinced they're great, and no one can tell them otherwise—its hilarious. At the same time, bad self published content either doesn't go far, or does because it's laughably bad. And the good self published content might not be discovered, but if it is, it will probably be noticed. Either way, only entertaining content is reaching the mainstream. If I knew how, I'd love to trade it so that the undiscovered good content got the recognition that the laughably bad content got, but there's more luck there than anything else.

The really interesting content to me is the content that's neither bad, nor good. There's a song that's been circulating around the internet called “Chocolate Rain” by a guy named Tay Zonday. What makes that specific song so interesting to me is that it gets something right and then repeats it until it's not so great anymore. Another part of it is that he looks 15-years-old (He's really 25) but has such a deep voice; it adds a little interest to him singing. This is someone that could possibly be developed into a good artist, which is something the major recording companies aren't doing anymore.

What's wrong with the music industry

The music industry wouldn't develop Tay Zonday; there's no immediate money in it. Today's music industry is all about what they can make the most money on right now. I realize that this isn't the case for everything, but the majority of the pop and rap genres have fallen victim to this.

Self publishing makes it interesting again

Back to Denise, she had taken it that I am for restrictions on content on the web. This isn't the case; My opinion is that content on the web is naturally filtered. Worthwhile content gets passed on, and the rest is left alone. What's great about self publishing is that it lets us be in charge of filtering the content, and not executives worried about a quick buck. Since we are the ones that consume the content, it makes sense that we are the ones to decide what is worth publishing. Like I said, that encourages people that lack talent to publish as well, but in the end I think that having the ability to decide for ourselves what is worth consuming is the most important.

There's been a lot of talk about social networks and their influence on society lately. This isn't surprising; Social networks are widely popular. It's common for youth particularly—but even possible for any age group—to have either or both a MySpace and Facebook account. Speaking personally, I have a Facebook on which both of my parents1, my pastor, etc. are friends of mine; I even just added my boss as a friend. I add this just to show that my Facebook account is on display to just about any source of authority in my life. With that out of the way, I want to address the idea of privacy on social networks and disciplinary actions that result from these types of web site.

Who would be so stupid?

I have to ask the question, “Who would be so stupid to publicly broadcast something they don't want known?”

Students post pictures of themselves holding cans of beer and bottles of liquor—even when they're underage. They pose suggestively wearing little—sometimes no—clothing. Some appear to be smoking marijuana in bongs or joints, even holding firearms. They openly write nasty comments about each other or their teachers and coaches online.2

Who are we kidding?

There's another side to this argument; People have been committing objectionable behavior long before they've had a social network account, and to some extent, we know this. People under the age of 21 have been illegally drinking for a long time now—most likely for as long as there has been a law against it. The difference is that there's more proof of it now. I think people need to actually evaluate these objectionable activities and be clear on the punishment.

I've held jobs that commonly make it known to the employees that they “want you to be able to share anything” with them, without consequence. It sounds like a great idea, and they really do mean it, but it doesn't work like that in practice. More often a policy like that means that whoever is in charge really wants to know what problems there may be, but won't hold true to the “no punishment” side of things. My point is that there's always going to be things going on that the authority is unhappy with, and they need to either be clear what the consequences are for it, but at the same time fully expect that consequences easily lead to secrecy. The other side is to really hold to the ideal of having no consequences and limiting their ability to respond to something the find objectionable.

Let me sum this up.

To sum up my opinions more simply, people need to realize that if something is at all public—shared with anybody—it can easily spread to anyone. At the same time, most objectionable behavior isn't that uncommon. Underage drinking happens whether you can prove it or not, and that isn't a very surprising concept to anyone. We need to evaluate what battles we're going to fight; Is punishing someone's objectionable behavior worth never having access to the rest of their behavior?