> <mailto:
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> . It is
>
> interesting to notice how the semantics of FB features differs
> from the
> intended semantics, as people use it in more and different ways.
>
>
>
>
> Interesting point Mike. I have avoided fb and twitter for a while,
> until one day some marginal utility came about on one occasion, then
> all these people came up that I had met one time or other, and
> ended up signing up to all of them (still havent signed up to
> tripit but guess will do sometimes)
>
>
I use them to keep in touch with everyone with minumal effort, and
> today I feel that they are a great life support, especially
> considering that we dont have the resources to
> nurture every single personal relationship we would like to. I
> have reconneccted with old acquaintances, and made new ones, very
> important: I exchange very valuable knowledge on the fly, with
> minimal commitment
>
> (I dont distinguish between personal and professional sphere that
> much anymore, I don mind my work contact seeing my holiday snaps,
> but some still do)
>
> Your mention about the semantics is really interesting.
>
> One day i was thinking loud on my twitter about 'its okay to be
>
dysfunctional sometimes' and within hours I was followed by some
> improbable connections, whose
> only semantic relation to my profile was that we both had the word
> dysfunctional' somewhere in our respective web resources . that
> was really fun thing to watch
> I later received an invitation to the 'mental health festival in
> my neighborhood, but not sure if that mention or something else I
> said was the connection.
>
> it happens all the time, that I use a word in a tweet (echoed in
> my fb) and multiple connections appear that associate that word in
> a different context, and of course
> I do get some of spammers who target my social networks profile
> mainly to promote their stuff, rather than to
cultivate a social
> relation of sort
>
> It is also distracting to have all these inputs, so that
> periodically I have to switch everything off and try to concenrate
> on the one thing I am trying to do
> but not more distracting than having 100 television channels,
> with the difference that these social media are highly interactive
> - its not just some broadcaster shoving stuff down my channel, its
> total interaction all around, exchanging clips, links, music,
> news, etc
>
> It adds enourmously to the infoglut, but overall for me the
> balance is positive, I gain massive insights from a digital
> ecosystem point of view
>
> I signed up to the fb, wheres the
linkedin?
>
> cheers
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> Peter Yim wrote:
> > Thank you, Doug. Point well taken.
> >
> > Charley and I were discussing this too, and he specifically
> intended
> > for this (Facebook presence) to be more of a "funnel" to
> provide us
> > exposure, rather than another "workspace" or "work
> environment" that
> > we want to delve into. I think he has a point. If exposure
> is
our
> > principal purpose, we could (should?) even try doing on more
> just just
> > Facebook.
> >
> > I should also take the opportunity to recognize the fact
> that back in
> > April 2007, Ed Dodds did point out to me (offline) that
> there were
> > already over 150 Ontolog members on LinkedIn (I have to
> admire his
> > data-mining skills!) and suggested we take advantage of the
> "Linkedin
> > for Groups" feature that creates some sort of affinity group
>
among
> > members of this community. ... Regretfully, I did not take
> him on
> > then, nor put it up for discussion.
> >
> > ... I guess, this is as good a time as any.
> >
> > Thought, comments, ... anyone?
> >
> > Best regards. =ppy
> > --
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Doug McDavid