What about the debate about social computing within the realm of social media

Recently I stumbled upon – no, I didn’t use the service, I just ended up there anyways – a post from the Chief Execute Provocateur (CEP) of the blogosphere, Peter Kim, in which, among other things, he rants about all the ‘me too’-posts cluttering his RSS-feed.

Crippled by language barriers, after all English is not my mother tounge, as well as newbishness I did have severe difficulties following the post (and I could probably be instapopped for misinterpretation)

However I believe it to be targeted towards the A-list bloggers. If you dwell in the lower layers of the blogosphere you can happily continue to distribute and re-blog posts.

The origin of the post is Steve Rubel’s post ”The Lazysphere and the Decline of Deep Blogging” dating back from early 2008 where he encourage the more prominent bloggers to get a grip and start writing about something interesting and original.

I hope most people would agree upon the importance to keep writing about – well – say Twitter from every possible aspect. After all there are newbs entering the arena all the time and I think we should embrace that and welcome them into the community rather than being elitistic and excluding.

At the same time there is a risk that the I-can-kill-you-with a-single-thought-leaders loose their acuity writing about what has already been written. On the other hand, who doesn’t want a million readers and what could presently be more attractive than a juicy all-you-ever-need-to-know-about-twitter-post or a how-to-become-king-twitter-in-no-time?

We’ve all got our own KPI:s and we’ve all got our own incentives to blog in the first place. It may give you a job, it may give you a keynote or it may eventually sum up to content to a book, you may teach someone something or you may pull the development of social computing, social marketing or social business in a preferred way.

In the case of Peter Kim’s RSS-feed I suppose one answer could be that the publishers are growing old and tired. They go for the short cuts. Little effort, high output, which is really rather human and which eventually will replace most of all the subscriptions in that RSS-aggregate. I guess that’s what Chris Anderson is talking about in his post about passionate amateurs and bored professionals.

Then again, who could come up with a killer thought per day anyways.

What I’d like to ask for is more debate amongst the A-list bloggers themselves. Surely they can’t agree upon everything that is written within their community and while you may see a comment here and there, often there is no debate.

Naturally it could be the case that they sport a very aligned mind set or that they are niched in a way which allows them to steer clear from each others. But would that benefit the pursuit of the perfect post or, for that matter, the development of social computing, or whatever you prefer to call it, in itself?


  1. Peter Kim says:

    Hello Stefan – I believe you’ve understood the ”echo chamber” part of the post quite well. Anyone who’d consider themself an expert, guru, or evangelist should be familiar with prior work and strive to push everyone’s thinking forward. People should blog about what they feel passionate about and interested in – not necessarily what will increase page views or subscribers most. At least that’s what I believe. As you say, everyone has their personal KPIs. Great point.

  2. Stefan Deak says:

    Hi Peter and thanks for dropping by. I’ll consider that thoroughly.


Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>