Social media isn't socialism

If you've started blogging, photosharing, or tweeting to any extent, then you've witnessed firsthand the "social" nature of social media.  Individuals post opinions and ideas, share emotions, and exchange thoughts on topics ranging from mundane to profound.

As for me, I love LOLcats as much as I love social psychology.  Socializing increases the value of content.  The channels may have a feedback mechanism, but they're worthless unless put to use.

However, socializing shouldn't be confused with socialism, although some principles seem to apply.  For example, social computing has facilitated a transfer of power from traditional media institutions to a widely distributed base of smaller beacons, typically individuals.

But individuals need incentive to participate.  And the incentive they seek is typically not monetary.  It's more often activation of the feedback channel - that others agree, disagree, share, favorite their content.  The system requires individual ownership and authorship to work effectively.

When someone plagiarizes content, the social system breaks down.  Individuals who plagiarize seek to claim credit for themselves.   Social media is already social and a Robin Hood-style redistribution of value isn't required.  But credit and attribution remain key to socializing and increasing the value of content for everyone involved.

So, political scientists, where does social media end up then?

• We share ideas in the commons, but seek individual credit, which isn't communism.  Not all blogs are created equal.
• We participate in content aggregators like Alltop, Social Media Today, and Social Computing Magazine, but retain personal ownership, which isn't quite socialism.  
• We compete with others by publishing individual blogs or photostreams, but also distribute freely and encourage others to share, remix, and improve upon the original, which isn't quite capitalism.

What I can tell you is that it's important to give credit where credit is due.  And while we may find ourselves in the midst of a power shift from institutions to individuals, social media may thrive on socialization, but it isn't socialism.

Tweet

Comments

[Lucretia Pruitt]

You mean intellectual property is still property? Even though we might choose to let other people benefit from it? [/cheekiness]

Brilliant post Peter. Being put into my "Link it rather than re-explain it" folder so I can just send people this way when they start mistaking the two.

[collin douma]

Socialism isn't communism. In the same way that capitalists are not totalitarians, or that libertarians are not anarchists. There are extremes in your example that go well into communism. However your point is well made.

Somebody once said that social media is punk. I agree with that approach. Social media is much more libertarian than it is socialist.

[Sam]

I did. I just never confused social media with socialism. It was an attempt at light humor.

[Peter Kim]

Lots to think about here, Barbara. I'd like to believe that social media is good for more than a new advertising channel, but point taken, so far it's not delivering quite the revolution that evangelists have hyped.

A few thoughts come to mind:
- The idea of "conscious capitalism" which required new relationships, not necessarily social computing
- Social media has created new classes of elite; is this a natural societal tendency?
- Change is difficult. Few companies, if any, are embracing new modes of operating

My company is working on a concept of business transformation that requires not just new technologies, but fundamental organizational shifts of the tangible and intangible as well. I believe a new world of work lies close at hand and the collective "we" can make it a reality.

[Barbara French]

You're touching on something here that I've been thinking about quite a bit - hope this rant isn't too far off topic...

I think that our expectations for social media are rooted deeply in our disappointments with the early days of the so-called "information age".

The information age was supposed to carry the promise of individual empowerment and better living conditions through unprecedented access to information.

However, the reality has been quite different.

So far, the information era has continued to favor the elite -- the centralized governments, the multinationals, the wealthiest individuals. It has provided little (if any) additional benefit to the lower economic classes / lesser political entities than they had in the "industrial era". If anything, conditions may be slightly worse, just as they were for the legions of farm workers who moved to cities to become factory workers.

And this shortfall in delivering on the dream of the information age seems to cross all socio-economic models -- capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.

So, when we look at social media today, we bring along some serious baggage. We want to find evidence that the lofty promises of the information age are coming home to roost at last. We want to see evidence that social media is the turning point, where the information age begins serving the greater good. Where we break free of the top-down bondage handed down from the landowner era through the industrial revolution and into the information era.

I'm not convinced that social media -- or any technology platform that currently exists -- is up to that kind of challenge. I think we need to realign our expectations of social media, starting with our assumptions about the what, why, when, and how.

[Peter Kim]

You totally didn't get what this post was talking about, did you?

[Peter Kim]

Did you understand the post, Sam? In the context of your role as a company founder, I don't understand your comment.

[Webconomist]

Excellent points!

I think Social Media has taken off and will continue to grow based simply on the fundamental fact that as humans we love to socialize - this very basic drive inside us is what has brought us to where we are as a society today (it's far from perfect but...) and will help us to grow...

[Sam]

And I thought I was uniting with my fellow workers.

[Daria Radota Rasmussen]

AMEN! very good post turning our attention in the righ direction. Social media doesn't equal socialism. IMHO anyhing social can be socialism. This is the system who uses and abuses individuals in the name of masses aka noone. Social media are about individuals expressing themselves and connecting with others. Great post!

[Peter Kim]

The title of the post is "social media isn't socialism." So, no.

[Aryan]

Socialism and communism are two different terms that you may have used interchangeably in at least one sentence above. Socialism in one phrase can be defined as collective ownership, isn't social web something like that ?

[shel]

Isaac Mao, one of China's best-known bloggers told me, "social media isn't Communism. It's "sharism" and there is an enormous difference.

[Sandeep Arora]

Hi Peter,

I totally agree with you. We are social beings - and web2.0 has given us a platform to be connected.

We define Social Media as the "Fusion between web2.0 technology and social behavior".
Take a look at out Flash Animation on Social Media for our view.
http://vizedu.com/2008/10/social-media-explained-visually/
I thought you might be interested.

BTW - we love your list http://www.beingpeterkim.com/2008/09/ive-been-thinki.html
and have passed it along to a lot of people who have benefitted from it.

Thanks

[Derek Forrest]

Businesses want to know how they can take advantage of Social Media to reach out to potentially new or existing customers. Social Media is going to, and already is, playing a big role in every facet of our society from leisure to business activities. In our capitalistic society, networking is crucial to success in business or any other collective endeavor. Social Media enhances people’s ability to expand their networks like never before which fits in perfectly with Capitalism.

[Michael Wilson]

Looking forward to breakfast tomorrow.