The Myth Of Online Conversations: Lots Of Chatter But Not Much Discourse . . .

By Tom Foremski - April 26, 2009

On the eve of the NewComm Forum in San Francisco I've been thinking about how our new media technologies are being used, and the unique two-way nature of our communications.

Internet 1.0 meant we could publish to any computer screen be it mainframe or pocket. Now we are in Internet 2.0 and that means that any computer platform, be it mainframe or pocket, can publish back. We now have a two-way Internet, an Internet on steroids.

But what is so striking about the online world is how little conversation takes place, how little two-way communication happens. One comment to an article is not a conversation. 300 separate comments on an article is not a conversation. If you look, these interactions peter out within one or two exchanges -- is that a conversation?

There's a lot of 'preaching to the choir,' which doesn't encourage conversation because the choir agrees with the sermon. I rarely see an online conversation that moves beyond one or two exchanges, or that doesn't degenerate into name calling. [Here is one example of a great (rare) online conversation that is well argued, reasoned, and fascinating: Goodbye Dubai | Smashing Telly - A hand picked TV channel.]

Twitter: not much conversation going on because it's not set up for that. Facebook, has a little more room for conversations but I rarely see much. All we have in social media is all still very much a "broadcast" media/communications channel. Yet we hear so much about "conversational marketing" and so on. But it doesn't (yet) exist.

The next phase of the Internet is when we have lots of conversations, that's Internet 3.0. (That's the real semantic web.) We don't have it yet because we're not yet used to it. Our most recent media communications paradigms are all broadcast based.

With Internet 1.0 we complained about information overload. Wait until we, most of us, complain about conversation overload.

- - -


« The Cloud Over Sun's Cloud Computing | Main | Newswatch: Global Audiences and the International Paradox -NYTimes »


                   

Posted to New Rules Communications

April 26, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Subscribe to SVW

Comments (6)

One important reason may be that the kind of online conversations you describe often require an editor or moderator of some sort to keep the flow going. As any successful conversationalist knows, this art form requires great listening skills, timing, and a feel for the rhythm of back-and-forth, point/counterpoint, when to ask a question, when to drop in a useful factoid or two & etc. Journalists often develop this skill set, thus I see a bright future as they figure out how to make a living by bringing these skills to from print into socialmediaspace where they can provide the kind of structure and interaction required to sustain substantial & meaningful discussions.


Tom Foremski:

Doug, yes, you are right, not an easy skill. Also, it seems as if we are in the realm of micro-blogging and thus micro-conversations...


A key element of any good conversation involves the ability to ask questions. Questions that advance the topic, open up areas to explore, amplify as well as challenge. While people seem more than comfortable talking at each other and giving out advice, the ability to ask questions that reflect genuine interest is not something that a lot of people have yet mastered.
To Doug Millison's point, journalists ask questions as part of their skill set so let's hope this is a media legacy people want to keep. Maybe then we can really converse instead of browsing and breezing on to something else.


Tom Foremski:

Harriet: interesting observation. I think people will appreciate the work of journalists when they are gone. Then we will have to reinvent the wheel ( a couple of wheels). But, that's what happens when your industry is caught within the track of a disruptive technology.


Tom,

Do you think we need to have a better platform to facilitate online conversations. Am I reading your comment about micro-blogging correctly - not a good choice for online conversations?
And I do agree with the previous points made regarding the role of some kind of moderator or community manager if you will...

Thanks!
@glfceo


Tatyana: That's a good question. I don't know. It could be a cultural thing. Maybe we are still just getting used to this environment.


Post a comment