Social media talking points coming to us via NPR Radio’s Talk of the Nation Science Friday with Tim O’Reilly, one of the Godfathers of social media. O’Reilly, the founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media who is also known for coining the phrase “Web 2.0,” looks back at the role of social media in 2008 and gives predictions for the future.
Here are some paraphrased nuggets of social media goodness pulled from the 23:47 minute discussion:
Looking Back, The Meaning of Web 2.0:
Web 2.0 (short definition): “Designing systems that get better with the more people who use them” -O’Reilly
THE NAME
The name was simply a reflection that everybody thought the web was dead after the first bust and O’Reilly’s group took the position of “no, the web will be back and there will be a second coming.”
THE CONCEPT
The essence of what they argue is the thing that distinguished the companies that survived the bust and the new breed of companies that were coming up is that they really understand the power of harnessing the network effect. They understand how users add value which is the very essence of success. They looked at that from Google to Amazon, who were the survivors of the first generation, and then knew that new companies coming up like Youtube, and Wikipedia, or Myspace and Facebook, now Twitter – are all an exploration of connecting people on the Internet and deriving value through them.
Google — A Social Media Company
Two kinds of social media: explicit and implicit. Explicit usage is blatantly obvious and it’s typically the first thing that comes to mind when you think of social media (e.g. Myspace, Facebook). The important thing to understand is that social media is not just when people explicitly share information about themselves online, instead how companies are able to mine data about people’s implicit behavior.
“Google realized that there is a kind of social graph that they could exploit in the way people link from one site to another which they can use, enabling them to get better search results. People don’t think of Google as a social media company and yet, it is.
Another great example is Google’s recent announcement of Google Mobile App with voice activated search. They actually built their search database with a service called Google 411 which allowed them to collect millions of samples of people giving common searches in many accents, vocal styles, and then they are able to apply and match these searches to this other user generated database.
Both those applications are user generated content used to build a HUGE database, allowing them to do things that you just couldn’t do before. In the future we’re going to see new kinds of applications that are driven by user generated databases but not necessarily explicitly social.”
Twitter — A More Personal Connection
Followers: Two kinds of people who follow O’Reilly on twitter (timoreilly). People who don’t know him well and probably not interested in hearing him talk about brushing his teeth. Then there are those who follow him professionally and they’re more interested in what he’s reading or thinking about.
“Once people start to follow me, they’re interested to know that I split wood, I make jam, that I take walks with my family and saw this amazing sunset, because it creates a more personal connection.”
Following: O’Reilly uses Twitter to follow a small number of people who are his eyes and ears for intelligence (e.g. people in the financial community, the technical community etc), and that’s where he gets the stream of data that he passes on to his followers. He also follows his family. “I see for example my wife’s reaction to something we just did together. It creates something called ambient intimacy (see reference to presentation by Leisa Reichelt).”
“Ambient intimacy is about being able to keep in touch with people with a level of regularity and intimacy that you wouldn’t usually have access to, because time and space conspire to make it impossible. Flickr lets me see what friends are eating for lunch, how they’ve redecorated their bedroom, their latest haircut. Twitter tells me when they’re hungry, what technology is currently frustrating them, who they’re haivng drinks with tonight.” ~Leisa Reichelt
O’Reilly describes Twitter as a light weight mechanism used to broadcast information.
“The nice thing about twitter is the architecture of visibility. Email is invisible unless you reach out to someone directly. With Twitter, anyone can follow you and this is one of the big changes that was really introduced by Flickr, was this wonderful idea that you can follow somebody without their permission. Recognizing that relationships are asymmetrical, unlike facebook where we have to acknowledge each other otherwise we can’t see each other.” ~O’Reilly
O’Reilly admits that keeping up with 20,000+ followers on Twitter can be a little bit of an issue, referencing the dunbar’s number (a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships), however, stating “there is this feeling on Twitter that you don’t have to keep up. It’s just a river flowing by and you can dip in when you want.”
The Future of Social Media and Computing
For the last decade O’Reilly has giving us the consistent message that the future of the web is in collaboration and the idea that the network is the platform. The shape of the future has always been “the network” and now that the era social media is finally here, O’Reilly points out that the big changes ahead of us will come from innovations around the mobile device becoming a sensor that will drive applications. (Example: user generated content on Twitter created via SMS during the Dubai terrorist attacks).
O’Reilly sees the major trend in social media being the need for one inner operable social network.
“In social media the value for users of having one inner operable social network is so great, that it’s very hard to believe within the next year or two of not having a fairly complete inner-operability and visibility across social networks.”
O’Relly on computing:
“We are definitely reaching the end of the personal computer.”
There is “no question” in O’Reilly’s mind that the phone or other ubiquitous devices that can take computing out into the world and connect back into the system is the future of computing.
This concept of computing and incorporating these communication devices deeper into our lives reminds me of my new favorite quote from my friend Richard Binhammer at DELL (aka RichardAtDell) when he recently described getting together in a physical sense (i.e. a meeting/visit)… He described it as “making online offline.”
Translation pertaining to this post: Devices that “make online offline,” is the future of computing.
Feedback Requested
(Thoughts, feedback, comments, questions, etc?) Please share via the comments section below, or via Twitter (I’m D_rey on Twitter):
- Do you see Twitter as a “river this is just flowing by” and you can dip in when you want?
- Do you want ONE inner-operable social network? (spelling? Interoperability? I choose inner-operable to quote O’Reilly throughout this write up. fyi)
- What utility would your mobile device need in order to take over your computer as the dominate tool for computing and communication?
- Thoughts on implicit equity being built behind the scenes of user generated content? Do you see specific applications that will come from this in the near future?
Wow. Impressive post and blog!
Derek I see you’ve been busy. Curious to know why you didn’t mention what you at Technorati have in terms of “implicit equity.” Knowing you and your blog search, I’m really curious to see what ‘behind the scenes’ utility you might be working on…?
Welcome back to the blogosphere! Glad to have you.
Haha! You’re absolutely right (whoever this is). We sit on the largest mountain of data pertaining to the blogosphere (i.e. the link graph, tag graph, categorical index) but we’re no 12,048 lbs gorilla that can pop out social applications every other day (i.e. Google). Nevertheless, 09 will be a big year for us. Thanks for the kind words!
Hi Derek - Wow, made me think this morning!
- Do you see Twitter as a “river this is just flowing by” and you can dip in when you want?
For now, yes. Swimming in Twitter right now is pretty much at the surface - the space limitation confines depth. You have to break out of twitter via tweeted links to get your “more.” What if Twitter were the ocean instead? Or is there already an ocean as you allude to below with the ONE? Maybe what I’m currently doing with Triiibes, LinkedIn, and a couple of other smaller specialty networks is playing in bays or inlets?
- Do you want ONE inner-operable social network? (spelling? Interoperability? I choose inner-operable to quote O’Reilly throughout this write up. fyi)
My concern would be scaling the vastness toward a comfort level that works for me, or even getting up to speed to dive as deeply as I might.
- What utility would your mobile device need in order to take over your computer as the dominate tool for computing and communication?
I’m not using a mobile, haven’t found one I just had to have (not even the I-phone or the Storm). I’m liking the netbook idea, but I’d like a turbo app that would power up memory if I wanted to add functions beyond a 512k RAM capability. Maybe portable RAM drives? I’m very much not a techie, so perhaps that’s a dork suggestion. What I don’t like is transitioning between devices, like my laptop vs the desktop at the office, for example. This is probably a dinosaur’s example.
- Thoughts on implicit equity being built behind the scenes of user generated content? Do you see specific applications that will come from this in the near future?
I first wonder about “ambient intimacy” within the nuclear relationship core. I don’t want ambient intimacy with my husband, for example. With him I want direct, but I may want more a.i. with my children - who, as young adults, don’t want to or can’t communicate with me on that level because of physical improximity (is that a word - non-proximity, maybe).
Implicit equity (the concept) gets into the conversation about capitalization going on at HarvardBusiness.org and other places. There is speculation that values will be assigned and capitalized/traded on current non-products, much like information is valued and monetized as a derivative of tangible product capitalization. So…what to value? What to market and sell?
Hi Betsy! Good morning and great feedback! Thank you.
Your reference to Twitter being an ocean vs. a river, is interesting. O’Reilly’s usage was more relating to “flow” of a river but I like how you’ve brought this into a comparison between depth, surface, and overall size of Twitter.
How are you using Tribes and Linkedin? (please share with us…)
Also, if your phone had all the attributes of the “netbook” device that you mentioned, wouldn’t that be your optimal device for mobile computing? The next wave of innovation will focus on solving this exact problem.
Lastly, great input on “ambient intimacy.” I agree. This type of relationship might not be what we want for our nuclear relationships (well for most of us I’d assume) but it is a great way to share a massive amount of information with a large group of people. AND from that group of people I think nuclear relationships can be created. This is also a great environment for brands to connect and develop relationships as well.
Overall, ambient intimacy is a is a catalyst for community, conversations, and people connecting to one another. I’m really excited to see what impact Twitter and some of these other “connecting tools” have on our lives.
Hi Derek - This convo is a blog post incubating. I’m going to see what further I can do with it, if you don’t mind. To continue here, though:
I’m not using LinkedIn as much as I might be, and I’ve committed to change that in 2009. So far, I’ve amassed connections, benefited from secondary exposure at a contact’s event, and was available to be found by a colleague from long ago. I haven’t been much of a “giver” with LinkedIn. So I’m going to be engaging in regular off-line meet-ups with connections. Most of the time I work alone, so I need to get out more.
Triiibes has been good for my soul’s brain. The exchange of brilliant and positive energy has been so liberating. By golly, there are smart people thinkin’ about stuff besides what’s for dinner out there! Transitioning from thinking to actually doing is what’s next for Triiibe-sters. It’s really been a privilege to be there. Instead of perhaps feeling constrained by hearing other/negative messages from wherever - the sky is falling - we’re all gonna die/be poor forever/get killed by terrorists, etc., the positivity there is key. Keeping it small has been part of that, and even with only less than 4,000 people, mini-tribes have been formed within. That’s something I had hoped would come to pass - the groups within groups. Bays and inlets in the ocean, or maybe the Great Lake, of Triiibes.
Yes, if a phone/netbook/computer could be an all-in-one and almost weightless, it would have me at hello. Maybe someone could invent one and call it the Everything? And please, Santa, make the screen big enough for an old person to actually read?
On nuclear relationships and ambient intimacy - I don’t know how you scale those toward a cast of thousands? Isn’t a nuclear relationship by its very nature your immediate circle of intimates? Like those who (should) know you best? Is this redefining macro relationships into a more micro perception, or the reverse? I don’t want someone appropriating my ambient intimacy for evil purpose (like subliminal advertising, etc). So, how do we layer permission into ambient intimacy?
Okay, gotta go percolate on this all. Thanks, Derek.
Oooohh. I really like the last question you brought up, “So, how do we layer permission into ambient intimacy?” That is a great question. Is it simply an on/off switch of “too follow” or “not too follow?” Do advertisers simply open their doors and offer their message to anyone who has opted-in to hear it? Hmm. Interesting… Also, what permission do we give someone when we choose to “follow them?” — All this follow/not-follow is pertaining to Twitter of course.