A solution for how to ethically handle decentralized comments or conversations occurring away from the original posting location of any new media content will be considered a milestone of achievement in what may someday be called, the Digital Copyright Reformation Period.
Alex van Elsas and Duncan Riley have spoken passionately on the reasons why comments surrounding a particular piece of new media should remain decentralized. Erick Schonfeld plays devil advocate in the eyes of Elsas and Riley who want the conversation to evolve synonymously to the real world.
I agree with both positions and can justify reasons to support either campaign, however, I feel the best solution is a combination of both philosophies. My personal belief is online conversations should reflect real life properties of how conversations spread organically and exist decentralized by nature.
On the other hand, I believe calling into question - How far should online conversations deviate from real world conversations? - is appropriate for this discussion. Technology can undoubtedly alter humans instinctual and collective social dynamics beyond an undesirable point, a truth not everyone is going to agree on or admit is possible.
We need to preserve all conversation on the web. The best procedure for fulfilling this basic need of social media will meet the following two requirements - granular and patient. In my opinion, the first move should aim to fix a problem faced by all active social media participants.
There is no efficient manner to view in aggregate and in privacy the decentralized conversations surrounding a particular piece of new media. The ability to respond to several conversation hubs from behind one interface would improve the productivity and visibility of individual social media participants.
Would this create millions of small brothers who monitor conversations having anything to do with their original thoughts? It may, but would also leave the native locations of conversations unchanged while allowing only the content creator to extend their voice as deep as the threads go.
You might think I’m disagreeing with myself. I assure you I’m not. Conversations will still grow organically and remain decentralized by nature. The difference is content producers would be able to interact with a wider audience more frequently.
I think this could work for several reasons. The content producer is not going to spam conversations that assist an increase in the visibility of their recent original ideas. No member of the community would be able to view another persons conversations in aggregate unless given permission by the content creator, who would then have to hand over their password or access code. which is an unlikely event.
Social media is improving the ways we converse with people around the world in recognizable strides. It is to our benefit to respond to the ecosystem we’re manipulating by pushing aside differences. How do we preserve conversation on the web and judge rightful amendments to the founding philosophy of online conversation?
In the mean time, we should at least permit content creators to reach more conversations, people, opinions and point of views. With patience and granular control over increased interaction between content creators and content viewers, we will better learn how far social media participants will comfortably deviate from real life conversations, an inevitable response provoked by technology.
We’re only beginning to ask the types of questions that will become more frequently asked as technology evolves and humans fight to preserve their origins. Let’s lead the process off on the right foot.
What are your social media basic needs? How is technology challenging your philosophies on life? Are we going to respond to the ambiguity intelligently and collectively?
