I'd like to examine the word peer as it relates to the concept of social media. Not unlike the words "social media" or "community", the use of the word "peer" has both good and bad connotations and may or may not be over used to describe the many incarnations of what the Web 2.0 world is all about.
The Good: Peer Production captures the key reason some of the more visible corporate projects appear to be working - namely, that businesses are benefiting because they are enabling the many rather than the few to participate in projects. It's the wisdom and industry of the "crowd" that appear to be benefiting businesses because with large numbers of people - staff, customers and partners - working as participants, businesses are simply getting more than they were when only a few people were participating.
The Bad: The use of the word peer is obviously not original - therefore, there exists the potential to broaden its application. I am of course referring to the phrase peer production, which continues to gain in popularity among proponents who themselves need a simple way to describe the businesses benefits conferred by the crowd. But, there's a lot more that peers can do than just produce. (I guess this really isn't so bad)
The Ugly: Peer also captures one of the darker, less attractive aspects of social media; the fact that the adoption of social media, to some extent, has been driven by the desire to conform. This topic has been explored in a lot of places, perhaps most provocatively last spring in the popular post by Jaron Lanier in The Edge entitled "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism and even more recently in this follow-up Politics Central podcast with Jaron about Second Life and Digital Maoism.
The conformity problem is still posing challenges to organizations that are asking: "How can we get onboard this ship yet remain captain?"
Your thoughts?
link to original post