Does tweeting lead to more action or less?

So at last night's Third Wednesday we discussed social media for social activism. Or, more accurately, if doing things like joining Facebook groups or tweeting about a cause even counts as activism.

The discussion was kicked off by some great points by Allison. She suggested that, well, tweeting is lazy and it doesn't really accomplish much by itself, but it's better than nothing.

The discussion was fairly animated, with lots of different points and points of view.

Here's where I stand, and I'd love to hear what you think:

Ala Clay Shirky's points about social media and action, I think that the more people you make aware, the more people you'll have actually do something. This is because you're always only ever going to have a small percentage of people willing to get off their asses. But, if you make tons and tons and tons of people aware (like, by tweeting) that small percentage will amount to a fairly large number of people. So, if only 1% of people who are aware will take action, it's better if there are tons and tons of people aware. So, in that sense, tweeting can help.

BUT: '"Announcing your plans to others satisfies your self-identity just enough that you’re less motivated to do the hard work needed," writes Derek Sivers, the founder of CD Baby. "Once you’ve told people of your intentions, it gives you a 'premature sense of completeness.'"' Link.

So, does tweeting count as doing something or talking about something? Does this mean that some or many of the people who tweet about a cause have made themselves less likely to actually do something, because now they feel like they already have?

But wouldn't people who are likely to get off their asses feel that tweeting isn't enough even if they do send out a couple just to tell other people?

I think I'd still suggest that more awareness could likely lead to more action. Yes, talking about something might make some people less likely to do something, but it would probably make a larger group more interested in taking action. Yes, I just used the words, think, likely, might, and probably.

What do you think?

Image from flickr user Petteri Sulonen

My interview about unfriending and unfollowing

I was interviewed earlier today over at Haligonia.ca about unfriending, unfollowing, and managing your social network contacts. Please check out the video here.

Thanks for having me on the show, Giles!

HOW-TO Remove Twitter Followers

Just a heads up, if you try to get people to stop following you, you might get accused of being a “Twitter snob.” But frankly, that’s a risk many of us are willing to take. Social media tools are just that, and it’s entirely acceptable to use these tools however you want to.

So, basically, if you want to stop people from receiving your updates unless you allow them to, just go into your Settings, and check the box at the bottom to protect your updates. You’ll be able to approve/deny people who try to follow you.

If that’s a little too proactive and not retaliatory enough (someone of us like a little spite), go into your list of Followers and block the ones you don’t want following your updates anymore.

That’s all there is to it.

Your Social Networking DNA

So I'm at the AIM Conference and I just heard a presentation by the General Manager of Yahoo! Canada talk about Social Networking DNA.

His point was, basically, it's unreasonable to expect social networks to continue to operate as they do now, because currently they're the only space where people of all ages interact together. He gave the example that if he started shopping for clothes where his daughter shops, she'd throw away her clothes.

Sure, that makes sense.

And I agree that it's weird and probably unsustainable for Facebook to draw people of every demographic.

And I agree that the future is going hyper local. Everyone will have their own networks where they can interact with the people they want to interact with, when they want to. There will still be Facebook, where everyone is, but there will be smaller, more niche networks, where you can talk to specific groups of people with whom you have a specific connection.

But I do not agree that people will have a single profile, a single "you" that will get carried from network to network, saving you from creating new profiles and logins everywhere you go.

Why? Because you're not the same "you" on every network. Your Facebook "you" is different than your Twitter "you" because your Twitter messages are broadcast to everyone. You're just not the same person everywhere you go.

And if someone steals your one, single social networking identity, that could be as damaging to your business and reputation as your real, actual identity.

Having a single "you" is as bad as being forced to use biometric information to gain access to physical locations or computer data. If someone steals your credit card and your identity, you cancel the card and you contact the police and the government, because you'll be able to prove through all your other "profiles" that you're the real you.

If someone steals your fingerprint, or gets the data from your iris and manages to steal your identity that way, how could you possibly prove you're the real you?

If someone steals your one, single social media DNA, you're in the same boat.