Yesterday, I asked where the sex, drugs and rock & roll are in social media. Nobody else knows either, but two of your responses may explain why we can’t find any of it in the first place.
“narcotics, alcohol, sex, criminality and backstabbing” are (arguably) not fun activities to do alone. You can’t share a beer or pass a joint through a computer screen… You need physical presence for the shared experience, which social media will always lack. And I agree it’s lacking in that department and maybe in emotional attachment altogether.
Until one person stands up, speaking eloquently about their rage at being throttled, inspiring angry mobs to form across the country, to storm Comcast, or TimeWarner offices and hog-tie the creatures in charge… I don’t think that age has arrived. Until they achieve a “nuclear following” (capable of the utter destruction of a major corporation at will), I believe social media is still in its infancy.
Both are valid comments, and each highlights a separate problem: social media suffers from a lack of a physical “scene” and a lack of passion that’s transferable to the masses.
(And before anyone reminds me about things like PodCamp and BlogHer, I’ll ask you: what cultural revolution ever started at a corporate-sponsored conference held in a hotel ballroom? These events are useful, but let’s not confuse them with Woodstock.)
What We Got Here Is… Failure to Communicate (Anything Meaningful)
Why do people want to become rock stars (besides the sex, drugs and money)? Because of the thrill that comes with creating music that directly affects the people who hear it, changing the way they feel and becoming a touchstone in their lives. Film works the same way, as does photography, painting and design (minus the top-shelf contraband).
But social media is a “revolution” in the least visceral way. It’s a change in distribution, which is functional, but the general public doesn’t get all hot and sweaty over paradigm shifts in a corporate business model. They get excited about media that means something to them.
Social media is still locked in the hands of the technophiles and the marketers, who focus on mechanical and business applications. They’re either unwilling or incapable of creating true cultural change, seeking instead to find practical ways to use these tools for financial profit. And that’s functional, but it’s not the kind of sociological earthquake that’s going to define a generation — unless we become defined as the generation who’d rather consume than create.
Where are the makers? Where are the insurgents? Where are the people who have something vital to say? Or have we all become so dazzled by what’s possible that we naturally assume someone else will make it happen?
Have you heard about #nofilterfriday here in Portland? It's a growing cause, but it stands for something more than just using social media to complain about work or let everyone know what you're eating: http://nofilterfriday.com/
Ross
Once in a while, someone shines a different light on a subject that everybody looks the same way. This is such a post. Simple and brilliant.
We Need a Rebellion
Yesterday, I asked where the sex, drugs and rock & roll are in social media. Nobody else knows either, but two of your responses may explain why we can’t find any of it in the first place.
First, RiftFisher said:
Then Nicholas Cincinat (aka @SexCpotatoes on Twitter) said (in part):
Both are valid comments, and each highlights a separate problem: social media suffers from a lack of a physical “scene” and a lack of passion that’s transferable to the masses.
(And before anyone reminds me about things like PodCamp and BlogHer, I’ll ask you: what cultural revolution ever started at a corporate-sponsored conference held in a hotel ballroom? These events are useful, but let’s not confuse them with Woodstock.)
What We Got Here Is… Failure to Communicate (Anything Meaningful)
Why do people want to become rock stars (besides the sex, drugs and money)? Because of the thrill that comes with creating music that directly affects the people who hear it, changing the way they feel and becoming a touchstone in their lives. Film works the same way, as does photography, painting and design (minus the top-shelf contraband).
But social media is a “revolution” in the least visceral way. It’s a change in distribution, which is functional, but the general public doesn’t get all hot and sweaty over paradigm shifts in a corporate business model. They get excited about media that means something to them.
Social media is still locked in the hands of the technophiles and the marketers, who focus on mechanical and business applications. They’re either unwilling or incapable of creating true cultural change, seeking instead to find practical ways to use these tools for financial profit. And that’s functional, but it’s not the kind of sociological earthquake that’s going to define a generation — unless we become defined as the generation who’d rather consume than create.
Where are the makers? Where are the insurgents? Where are the people who have something vital to say? Or have we all become so dazzled by what’s possible that we naturally assume someone else will make it happen?
Possibly Related Posts:
Tags: audience, comments, history, pop culture, Social Media, Sociology