[...] piece of the Human Cloud is about the democratization of media. But, it’s not the whole thing. Web 2.0 technologies have played a huge part in enabling [...]

[...] that decry the loss of Twitter’s innocence have a very clear option. Stop crying about the presence of real stars in social media, and start looking at what you are doing [...]

[...] is that it comes off as egotistical at first glance, especially where Kutcher is concerned, as this analysis from Nieman Journalism Lab notes. But underneath the “let’s see if I can beat a [...]

A few weeks ago a friend suggested that perhaps they and some other Hollywood and sports types might have been hired by Twitter to generate buzz. And certainly the apparently well-orchestrated Kutcher/CNN/billboard advertising/Oprah campaign seems to suggest that some effort has gone into pumping up Twitter.

That’s fine, too.

Where I get hung up is any talk that Twitter itself has somehow given people power to overthrow mass media or that it is revolutionary.

(1) Mass media has played a major role in this, with publicity on TV and in print. And Oprah and Ashton have fame because of old media.

(2) Tweets are too short to cover a story, so a lot of what Twitter provides are links to blogs, YouTube, news sites, etc. Twitter wouldn’t be much of a news source without places for people to go for more info.

(3) People have been publishing their thoughts and communicating with each other since I’ve been online, starting in 1993. And I know people were doing it before then. So Twitter is today’s form of BBSs, usenet, mailing lists, IM, etc.

(4) Celebrities may now have more direct access to their fans via Twitter, but they are still publishing to a large group of people like they have been doing on their websites and in their newsletters. The delivery system has changed a bit, but the dynamics are still the same.

(5) Because people can only converse with so many people, they either choose to follow relatively few people on Twitter, or they miss or ignore a good chunk of the messages they get from Twitter. I am following about 800 people and I read all of their posts (not just the ones directed to me personally). It takes me hours a day to do that. When Ashton sends out a message to his one million followers, he is using a one-to-many delivery system. By definition, that’s mass media.

Twitter is fun and has been helpful as a networking, marketing, and publishing tool, but the bigger it gets, the more people will put up their walls and filters. How is Twitter going to outlast all the other forms of online communication we have had over the years? There will be something else before long.

[...] stunt to reach a million followers on Twitter wouldn’t mean a whole lot if he weren’t comparing himself with CNN and pointing out that an individual today can have as wide a reach as a huge news network. [...]

[...] from being just an egotist who wants to take advantage of a medium to promote himself,” Kutcher has something to teach us about the evolution of media: As a celebrity who is in the public eye almost all the time, he also has a somewhat unique take on [...]

The part that ticked me off had to do more with Twitter itself. The fact that they inhibited the unfollow functionality for both Kutcher’s account and the CNN account ticked me off. I was getting a bit tired of this whole thing and just wanted to stop following (yeah, guilty) and I couldn’t, at least until I found Rafe’s article which explained how to use the “off” command. To me, it was a cheat to ensure that Kutcher or CNN hit the 1 million goal and I don’t recall them telling anyone that this was what they were going to do. I even Tweeted Ev and Biz to express my displeasure at this (they’ll probably get to that Tweet around 2015, but still…)

Oh, and apparently Oprah Winfrey used Twitter yesterday, too, but that seems to have been overshadowed a bit… ;)

Maybe all that Ashton teaches us is that there are a whole range of influencers and gatekeepers and filters now — even two-bit TV actors — instead of just the traditional ones we’ve gotten used to.

So it was with that in mind on Thursday that I pointed Josh to Kutcher’s tweet:”Today we decide if we want gatekeepers for social thought or democratization of media.” I found it ridiculous, and still do. But then again, when Josh went to view the tweet, he noticed another one from Kutcher about how John Madden had retired, which was news to both of us. So, yeah, the Ashton News Network FTW. —Zach

Granted, he has more power as a celebrity, but social media, particularly Twitter, can help even the little guys get their voices heard.

Consider the recent #amazonfail campaign. People on Twitter — using that hashtag — criticized Amazon.com for LGBT books disappearing from the best-seller’s list because Amazon was dubbing them “adult.” (Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/afterword/archive/2009/04/14/the-fallout-of-amazonfail-continues.aspx)Amazon blamed a cataloging glitch.

Or consider the #motrinmoms campaign last fall, where moms were upset about Motrin’s commercial about baby-wearing (slings to hold an infant.) Their angst went viral on Twitter, and Motrin pulled the offending commercial.

Going into the interview, I was thinking that Twitter could be in danger of being perceived as just another “cool” but useless tool for kids, gawkers and celebrities to chat. Not a good image to have, especially when you are looking for ways to monetize your business.

Kutcher’s comments shed some light on Twitter’s greater possibilities. In fact, he did more than Twitter co-founder Evan Williams who failed to take advantage of a great opportunity to talk about Twitter’s greater uses.

I love Twitter for the market and web 2.0 intelligence it provides me everyday. We all know there are thousands of other great uses as well. Twitter needs to do a better job of talking these up to make sure it doesn’t get pigeon-holed as a great tool for seeing shots of Demi’s ass – which is one great use :-)

Regards,
George

[...] Không tính đến các vấn đề khác của cuộc cuộc chiến “truyền thông chính thống” và mạng xã hội – social media, cái mà nhiều chuyên gia truyền thông cho rằng: chẳng có gì gọi là Social Media cả, bởi vì Media không có các khái niệm, công cụ, và phương thức này, hãy nghĩ tới mặt tích cực mà một cá nhân có thể làm được trong việc lôi kéo cộng đồng vào hoạt động xã hội và làm những việc có ích, và thật tốt nếu đó là một người nổi tiếng. Có người nói Ashton đã dạy cho chúng ta về cách mạng trong truyền thông. [...]

[...] a recent blog post on NiemanJournalismLab regarding the recent Ashton/Oprah/Twitter [...]