Disruptive media technologies: SiliconValleyWatcher versus BusinessWeek

David: I don't think the problem is finding a new term for a stilted conversation, but that 'conversation' is misleading when applied to social media because it's about something that is much more exciting and amazing. Conversation is a red herring when it comes to understanding this next phase of the Internet...

I beleive that the nomenclatures may be what's failing us.

None of our current lexicon really fits exactly:

A CONVERSATION is really an exchange of ideas, with each response being dependant on the other and with the overall context...

A DISCOURSE is more of a formal debate.

I agree with your bounds on what constitutes non-conversation, but somewhere in between is conversation. Ten to fifteen comments is often quite interactive. There are also side conversations that can happen in those large comment streams you mention. I've particularly seen this in some buzz threads.

Personally, I think "conversation" works quite nicely, but I'd guess I'd define "conversation" more expansively than you do. Actually, I kind of like the WordNet definition: "the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc." (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conversation), which fits what we're doing on/with social media.

I love the McLuhan quote.

If you read the comment streams on blogs, it's usually not a conversation.

It's usually what an old boss of mine used to call "parallel independent conversations" which is very much in line with the notion of two-way publishing.

Question for me is: is it sufficient and to the greatest benefit for legal frameworks to simply consider social media as publishing, or should they adapt to consider a new category - something like a 'permanent conversation'?

The Microsoft deal with Facebook included an advertising deal--the $240M was for a share of the company and for the ad deal.

Thus, saying they bought at a valuation of $15B is significantly inaccurate.

George, sarcasm sometimes gets lost in translation, my apologies.

The Chinese governement has this stigma attached to it, basically don't mess with them. If google is mad enough to take them on, I wouldn't put it past them buying google and sacking the moron who made the decision.

And that significant lead will result from...adding something Apple has already added?
And that make sense to you?

Eric, What's wrong with making a reasonable profit as a news organization? I agree with you that there is a race to the bottom going on because the econopmics of online news continue to worsen.

Gabe: You should get a press pass and if you don't, you should ban SXSW stories from Techmeme. (SXSW gets very noisy, you'd be doing us all a big favor :)

Money is neither noble or ignoble. It is value-neutral.

Danny: I agree... But press passes aren't free this year. They cost $299. Gabe can afford $299.

Eric: What's so noble about a non-profit status in regards to news organizations? What's so noble about relying on handouts from billionaires to produce local news?

If we can develop profitable news business models then we will have competition, and that is good for news, good for everyone.

While I'm no fan of the way the BANP has acquitted itself thus far, your comment that "There's plenty of 'non-profit' media businesses around, the largest local one is the San Francisco Chronicle." is glib to the point of meaninglessness.

Free the Gabe 1! The Techmeme 1?

Seriously, if there are any TV editors getting passes, then Gabe should. Press isn't just defined by writing stories.

It is "underground" now because the consultants are pretending Social Media is a big "secret" worth $22K/ day (see my post on this - Is Chris Brogan Worth $22K?http://micurl.com/wpFeo)

I think many PR/communications professionals are still getting their heads around the new media world order. What's surprising here is this happened at SXSW.

Judy, yes, it is a new mdoel but is it already broken? One of my contacts told me that there is a lot of social media marketing going on but that it is underground. I thugh that the point is for it to be seen, rather than be 'underground.'

Ted: Yes, I agree, some big roll ups on the way. Every week I'm introduced to yet another successful ad network I've never heard of, with tons of people and VC money. They have the upper hand right now, but ad networks are not a sustainable business long term, imho.

I agree re the sophisticated news consumer. Note that this consumer is probably more likely to respond to the news in some way as well.