You know….oh forget it. I’ll let someone else say it.

Happy wiping!

@Eric- the funny thing is, I forgot to quote your anti post in this one. When I wake up tomorrow, I will do just that. (You think I’d put out a horrible ANALogy like this and not expect crap from you?)

A unique analogy, to be sure. I can see where you are coming from though. I wouldn’t stay anywhere without a wireless Internet connection nowadays, and once social networking becomes that integrated into the functioning of our daily lives… if some hotels offered that ability to connect compared to other places, yeah, I know where I’d lay my money during my travels.

Unpleasant analogy. And, sometimes serendipitous conversations occur when waiting to share a resource. Yes, for usability, conventions are appreciated time-savers, but I also like a bit of originality within my social network and will often take more time to review something that uniquely strikes my fancy. Don’t be snobby, social networkers, please. S-O-C-I-A-L

haha! yup! It’s kind of good if you extrapolate the most positive aspects of social networking in that if everyone had equal access to social media outlets, and can read and write, they could participate in democracy as never before.

Imagine each town having a free internet connection built around it’s own hub with local polling and news etc.

The things you think of at 2am …

Led Zeppelin, brother, Led Zeppelin.

Wow. I never get tired of seeing how your mind works.

I think you’re right about having to make choices based on features. Think about when you’re out & about in a city, and a public toilet is nearly impossible to find. Or when you enter an establishment that claims “No restroom facilities” or “Restroom for customers only.” That sends a message, loud and clear, that you’re not welcome (or that you’re welcome only on a conditional basis).

Odds are that as this area continues to develop, we’ll have plenty of options and we’ll be able to take our business or our attention to the sites that have everything we require. I hate to say it, but the places without toilets will simply crap out.

I think its a fairly apt analogy - Utility ultimately trumps glamour with the core audience.

And I’d much rather have a useful toilet than a pretty one.

Ok, I have to admit I saw the analogy and thought of hostels and a place in Santa Cruz where lots of students rented called the bordello. (It used to be a bordello now it is just housing, assuming it still stands.)

I think a bed and power is sort of the bare minimum for a rental/hostel. In the really low end of housing you may have shared bathrooms and shared phone.

Does this mean that social media will be ubiquitous but at the low end of the scale access will only be through a shared medium (e.g. shared terminals at the library.)

Or is it likely that even at the low end access will be available on an independent means?

I’m with Amy, it is all about functional rather than flashy. The more new social media sites come on the scene the more we expect them to be better than the last. They have to have the basics for sure. The analogy works for me.

I agree with Li–social networks will be where we need/want them to be. But will we need/want them? I think that depends.

I think for some, your toliet analogy will apply. However, your analogy is sorta geared toward a specific population. Namely, those who have access to technology on a regular enough basis to find such things essential.

We still live in a world where there’s a technological divide. There’s a very real chasm between the haves and the have nots. There are still kids in our country who can’t even read. Many school districts don’t have quality computers. We are failing our kids in every possible way. If things change in this arena, then sure…this could happen. Will it? I don’t know.

I think technology is indeed necessary in our “modern” day and age. However, we can’t forget that there is an entire population of people who don’t have access to it–and haven’t incorporated it into their lives. They are left behind–to some degree. But some would argue otherwise. We lived for many years without it, certainly. It makes things easier–but is it really essential for our survival? Of course, we could say the same about toliets.

Maybe, then, the difference here is in how much of an impact technology has on someone’s day to day life. Modern essentials like toliets blend seamlessly into our lives. Few people have strong opinions about them (they might have thoughts about the use of such things, but usually not the thing itself…it’s a great invention).

Social technology is much more invasive and dividing, I think. There is such a thing as information overload/fatigue. It may be possible to be constantly connected, but do we really want that? If we did, vacations wouldn’t be so popular.

Personally, I think there will be more of a push to equal the playing field. We’ll have higher standards for the things that are available and how we use those things.

Chris,

From the title I thought you must have a fever or something, because I thought the guys who’s all about Social Media was going to describe how much of your time you can flush away on various communities!

Just one more reason… be careful what you wish for. :)

Regards,

Kelly

Hi Alma– I think you’ve got some great points in there. I think that there are ways that this technology gives voice to the “little guy” but you’ve also got a point that it can inundate us and swamp the boat, too.

Food for thought.

[…] Brogan has an interesting response to an article in the Economist, where they lament the “walled gardens” that social […]