Because the broadcaster isn’t actually in the network participating in the conversation, it’s akin to broadcast email or texting.  This is not genuine to me. I’ll cave to the fact that my definition of genuine in these networks is old fashioned in a traditional 2.0 sense, but right now, I still enjoy remembering when I’m on Twitter, that I am in fact “on twitter” participating in a conversation.  I enjoyed the illusion of seeing a tweet and thinking there’s a person IN this conversation with me.  NOT some social version of  ‘man behind the curtain pulling levers’ and hitting the “broadcast” button.

Help me see the light here. Right now, I’m not getting it (and have many friend using such techniques).  There are always exceptions. Give me some enlightenment here, please.

This disassociation has been afoot sometime and many of us suspected we’d get to this point. Not necessarily because of a bad definition, but more from the vagueness of it all. Social media/networking being one example. Also once you consider the history of online “social” networking you’ll see it’s been around a good long time (even before the Web).
When we established the “Social Media Expedition” we also secured “Social Expedition” as we knew at some point the “Media” would be going away. The seasoned will lead the charge in referring to it as “social” “___ technologies”, “_____ web”, etc…

Thinking deeper about it:

Social whatever is fundamentally a philosophy that, by default, maintains high credibility and respect for the people you serve (not just “customers” or “prospects”).

Something like that… Still thinking on it. What do you think?

One of favorite quotes from the post was “Broadcast Age”. love it!