Being Amber Rhea

Clearly I’M not in the corporate world!

Dan Greenfield commented on Toby Bloomberg’s “Atlanta Women In Social Media Marketing” post from yesterday (the one I’m in) and that reminded me of something.

In the post, I mentioned the anecdote of the guy who was completely condescending and dismissive toward me at SoCon07 and seemed to view social media as the realm of silly young-uns who haven’t entered the real world yet and when they do, they’ll leave childish things behind so they can be taken seriously. Surprise! He showed up at SoCon08, only this time he was a “social media expert” running a “digital consulting company.” (I see now he is also calling himself a “brand therapist.”) That experience is never far from my mind as I view the glad-handers keen on building their personal brands with a wary eye.

SoCon07 wasn’t the first time some “professional” know-it-all looked down their nose at me, and it wouldn’t be the last. For example, the one I remembered after seeing Dan’s comment:

About two years ago, Rusty and I went to a Social Media Club Atlanta meeting (this was when SMC-ATL was in its first incarnation). I didn’t mention it in the post, but the guy, Mike, who I talk about in that post? I remember him saying something exasperatedly to me about how, “Well, those of us in the corporate world don’t have time for all this stuff!” I was so fucking pissed off. Look at those assumptions. I didn’t try to conceal my irritation when I told him, “Hi, I’m in the corporate world, too. Why would you assume I’m not?”

I remember he was visibly surprised. I guess he assumed I just spent all day in my pajamas, maybe had a part-time job at Starbucks. People and their stupid assumptions.

Social Media Club reflections

Thursday night, I led a discussion at the January Social Media Club Atlanta meeting. The topic was Online Identity and Buzzword Bingo – and yes, there was a real Bingo game. I was pretty proud of the cards, if I do say so myself; although I realized yesterday I left out a good one: “folksonomy.” Rusty did the design in Photoshop and I just love it. Note the iPhone-style letters at the top, and the Beta violator as the free spot. Here is J’s winning card:

The markers, btw, are magic beans which, if planted, will sprout a series of tubes leading to Robert Scoble’s house. Hardy har har.

The first two people to arrive at the meeting were new to Social Media Club, and one of them asked me if the Buzzword Bingo thing was a joke or for real. I said, “Well, it’s all in good fun, but yes, I really did make Bingo cards.” The point of the Bingo cards was to hopefully give everyone a self-referential laugh while at the same time getting people to stop and think about some of the language we use when we talk about social media. As I explained at the beginning of the meeting, one of the biggest problems I see with these conversations (G-47!) is that people use these words but we don’t have a common understanding of what the definitions are. It’s the same problem my BlogOrlando session addressed. I’ve seen similar problems happen in feminist circles when there isn’t a commonly-accepted lexicon (e.g., words like “objectification” and “degradation” can mean any number of things to different people). If we don’t share a common definition and just assume the other person knows what we mean, we end up talking past each other.

After explaining the Bingo game, I started by reading an excerpt from Sarah Dopp’s totally completely absolutely awesome post, “Why I Write About My Life On the Internet.” Here’s the part I read:

I write about my life on the Internet because it creates a space for these connections. What else could make a complete stranger feel safe emailing me to say, “I’m queer, and I can’t tell anyone, but I wanted to tell you“?

I’ve been writing about my life on the Internet for about nine years now. I’ve learned by trial-and-error what works and what doesn’t, and I manage my presence in a way that nourishes me. Sometimes I make mistakes and have to face negative consequences, but they’ve never come anywhere close to outweighing the benefits.

…

I write about my life on the Internet because it changes the way I connect with my own experiences. In order to write down a story, I have to sort through all of the details and focus on the ones that made it significant for me. I believe our stories shape us – the way we remember something affects who we are and how we relate to the world. Writing things down empowers me to consciously decide how I want to remember something, and to me, that’s an act of personal revolution. Then, when details get echoed back to me in someone else’s words – either through a comment or another blog post – my way of seeing things gets a little bit stronger, and my voice gets a little bit more steady.

Later, in response to something a participant said, I read this part as well:

I’ve worked through some very hard stuff through blogging, and I’ve made some powerful connections in the process. People have thanked me for telling stories that opened doors in their own lives that they didn’t know they were missing out on. Other bloggers have done the same for me.

I believe in telling stories, I believe we’re more powerful when we’re connected, and I believe in telling fear to f*ck off.

I couldn’t read the hyperlinks, of course, which just goes to show part of what is great about social media – the social aspect!

What motivated me to read the second part was a guy who seemed to be having trouble with the idea that forming relationships and deep connections is a valuable thing. I tried my best to hear him out and see where he was coming from, because I really cannot conceive of not seeing that as a valuable thing. I was trying to suss out whether he was confining it to just social media, and I pointed out that this really isn’t something that’s limited to social media – it’s what humans have been doing for millenia. It’s about socializing and connecting. I truly cannot understand how someone would not see that as valuable, but I acknowledged that even though I don’t understand it, I can grant that it’s possible. (It still boggles my mind, though.)

Something I really want to get at in these conversations is that the questions being raised are not new, or unique to social media. They’re the same issues we’ve always grappled with: What, and how much, do we share with whom? How do we make that decision? What if someone finds out something about us that we don’t want to be public information? The difference now is simply that social media is giving more people the tools to speak their truths candidly, to whatever degree they want. At the meeting I mentioned the transgressive potential of social media, how it can enable members of traditionally marginalized groups to speak without a filter. I said that’s something we need to always remember, instead of just falling into the trap of replicating existing power structures online. This was met with a lot of blank stares and I was afraid people were either bored or lost, so I stopped. But I really feel passionately about this.

As I said on Joseph’s blog, it frustrated me how much of the conversation focused on business, as these conversations often do. The topic of my BlogOrlando session was directly related to the concept of “professionalism,” but the idea behind the SMC-ATL meeting was more general. Certainly, business plays a huge role; but there are other reasons people self-censor as well. I think some of those deeper reasons need to be examined, because it seems like sometimes people use business as a go-to excuse (“my boss might see!”). I do get the sense, whenever I facilitate a discussion like this, that a lot of people really do feel held back and as if there’s something putting a gag on them. I see people really yearning to break out of all that and speak their truths. I see an internal battle happening because often these same people are defending compartmentalization, using words like “professional,” and bringing up red herrings such as not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings by writing something mean about them. But I can see the struggle in their eyes. I know that sounds really corny, but it’s true.

In a new post entitled “New Brand World: What’s Your Brand?”, AV Flox says:

Image matters. How other people perceive you is as important as what you’re actually doing.

I have to take issue with this. I think there are two very different issues being conflated here. For example, you might think you’re Jesus, but everyone else knows you’re a crazy person; in that sense, I completely agree with her statement. But it’s the other issue that bothers me: that we should measure our success or failure by what other people think. Don’t you remember hearing, back in grade school: “Don’t worry about what others think of you. Be yourself.” That’s sage advice, and again, this is nothing new to social media. When people start basing their identity on external perceptions, it’s a dangerous road to go down. Surely we can all agree that basing your self-worth on something other than external validation is a good thing.

It’s also part of being a grown-up. Children and teenagers seek external validation, and teenagers in particular are in the process of forming their own identities, and as such take a lot of cues from external feedback. Or, in layman’s terms: they’re awkward and self-conscious.

But as you get older, you start to get more self-confident, and you realize other people’s perceptions don’t matter and if you spent all day worrying about them you’d be exhausted. It’s why the 18-year-olds in the locker room hide behind their towels and surreptitiously change inside their clothes while the 50-year-old women walk around stark naked without a second thought.

I have a negative reaction to all this “personal brand” business on a very fundamental level, and I think AV Flox’s statement gets to the crux of it. Saying “how other people perceive you is as important as what you’re actually doing” leaves out the essential question of, which people? I did not spend 10+ years in therapy working through this shit to see high school rehashed on the web among a bunch of adults. And yes, everyone deals with self-consciousness from time to time, or feeling discouraged by what someone said about them; to pretend we live in a vacuum where we’re not at all affected by others’ opinions would be foolish. But that is a far cry from giving precedence to what other people think over what you know. Because, as my favorite therapist once said, “You are the expert on you.”

I also got a bit flustered when, as I was talking about this very thing, Dave mentioned something about how you have to aware of how your actions and words affect other people. Well, YES, of course! I was flustered because to me that’s such an obviously, completely different thing. Yes, self-awareness is a GOOD thing and is part of what it means to have basic social skills. For example, if you identify as gay, you probably won’t explain the detailed mechanics of gay sex to your conservative Christian grandmother. Know your audience. However, that’s a very different thing than being in the closet and being afraid of your sexual orientation being “found out” because someone might be made uncomfortable. (I admit it’s a clumsy analogy but hopefully it gets the point across.)

Finally, one thing I tried to make painfully clear at the meeting was that I would never judge someone negatively for the choices they make in what information to share or not share online. That is each person’s call to make for themselves. I know I probably got repetitive with this at the meeting, but I wanted to make sure there was absolutely no misunderstanding. As I said to Nikki a while back, the point is not to mandate that people must have a certain level of openness online, but rather for all of us to respect each other’s choices and boundaries without prejudging. That means that if I don’t prejudge you because you don’t write about sex, you also don’t prejudge me because I do.

At one point Dave brought up the different (mostly inadequate) methods of restricting online content to only certain people, and he mentioned that I’ve written some password-protected blog posts. After addressing the technical side of things, I talked about how I’ve been dismissed as a hypocrite because of my password-protected posts – and why that dismissal doesn’t parse for me. Yes, I am fairly open with what I write; but that doesn’t mean I don’t have boundaries. The failure of some people to grasp this, and instead their insistence on a black-and-white view, confounds me. I mentioned that a lot of my password-protected posts were about my dad’s death. It’s simply not something that I want to be available for public consumption. That’s my choice to make. Someone else might prefer their writing on their father’s death to be available for all. That’s their choice to make. Both are equally valid.

Thanks to everyone who came out to the meeting and helped make it an interesting discussion. People weren’t talking much at the beginning and I was worried the topic was a flop. But eventually people got warmed up and the discussion really got going. I wish I could’ve stayed all night to talk about it! These are not questions that have easy yes or no answers or problems that can be solved and done away with; we’ll continue to deal with this stuff as social media trends evolve, just like we’ve been dealing with it forever.

Social Media Club ATL January meeting

One week from today, I’ll be here; will you? (note: link is a Facebook page)

SMC ATL: Online Identity and Buzzword Bingo

When: Thursday, January 8, 7:00pm – 8:30pm
Where: Manuel’s Tavern – North Avenue Room

Thanks to Amber Rhea for leading the conversation and bingo game! Bring your bingo dauber and POV on these identity topics!

• Is your online identity different from your IRL identity?
• What does it mean to “manage your online identity”?
• Are there any off-limits topics on blogs? Who decides?
• Rethinking the personal/professional dichotomy and tearing down the walls of compartmentalization: yea or nay?

If you would like to add to the topics or join Amber in a panel format – please contact Peter or Tessa about your interest.

January sponsors needed! Please contact us if you can offer event food and beverage support.

Like the description says, if you’re interested in doing a panel-ish format, get in touch w/ Tessa or Peter (or me!) in the next day or two.

Quick social media thoughts

I’ve just come from the December Social Media Club Atlanta meeting and am feeling both discouraged and motivated at the same time. Discouraged because social media has reached that tipping point where people are just trying to cash in on it but losing the original spirit of what it’s all about (and those same people scoffed at it 2, 3 years ago – and yes, I have specific individuals in mind), and because yet again tonight some dude tried to tell me I’m “too open” online and “guys are jerks.” Hello, how is this my problem or my responsibility?? As for blogging losing its original spirit, see also Cecily and Tiffany. And me, over and over again.

But I’m also motivated, because I like encouraging people to think about things, really examine them. That’s why I enjoyed my BlogOrlando session so much. I could really (but not literally!) see the wheels turning in some people’s heads. Every time someone would use a buzzword, I’d stop and say, “Let’s define what we mean by that.” Because without a common understanding of definitions, there’s no way to have a productive conversation. And too many people use buzzwords as verbal shortcuts, effectively saying nothing. And there were so many buzzwords tonight. I lost count at some point. But I talked with Tessa, and she’s open to the idea of me leading a meeting and focusing on this. People really need to deconstruct some of the stuff they say. It’s the same reason I asked the question tonight about, sure we all sit here and talk about monetizing and tools that integrate with Twitter and etc. etc., but really, would you WANT your Twitter stream to be full of that? You, as a person, who uses it on a day to day basis – not as the figurehead of a company or god forbid a “social media expert.”

I’m just dashing this off before bed, so I’m sure it doesn’t make much sense, particularly if you weren’t at the meeting tonight. But I hope to be able to write more tomorrow or this weekend.

Being “artistic”

Last night’s Social Media Club meeting was certainly better than last month’s! It was a smaller group – six of us – and I feel like we started to make some progress on investigating the issues of new media vs. traditional media (including, of course, the question of whether it has to be one versus the other) – but there’s a lot still to unpack. The thing that struck me the most last night was the use of certain terminology to both disparage new media and prop up traditional media. The word in question last night was “artistic.”

A guy named Mike, whom I hadn’t met before, criticized vloggers/vidcasters by saying they aren’t professional, they aren’t trained… etc., etc., all the usual stuff… but then: “Professional videographers know how to find the art in a shot.”

So, videographers in traditional media are artists, not just amateur hacks. And that’s a good thing.

But – remember last month’s meeting? – bloggers are artists, and that’s a bad thing. Real reporters are much more serious, you see. They’re not just artistic. They’re professional.

Honestly, I am baffled by this.

“Artistic” is, at once, a compliment to certain people, and a dismissive wave of the hand to other people. Bloggers are unprofessional, irresponsible, unreliable, amateur hacks – and part of the problem is that they’re too artistic. But, vloggers/vidcasters are also unprofessional, irresponsible, unreliable, amateur hacks – and the problem is that they are not artistic enough.

I mentioned this disconnect to the meeting participants, but the discussion ended up going in a different direction, and I never heard an explanation of why artistic is sometimes good and sometimes bad in media. I wonder if people just say these things without really thinking about what they’re saying. I’m not sure, which is why I would’ve liked to discuss it further. Interestingly, Mike and a few others seemed to get very defensive when I asked the question. I don’t think I asked it in a confrontational or accusatory manner; I was honestly curious. Like I said, I think there’s a lot to unpack here. And yeah, it might get uncomfortable at times, but really, that’s part of the point.

I don’t want to just write it all off as, “Well, old media types are scared, and they say reactionary things, using whatever terminology suits at the time.” Because I really do think there’s more to it than that (although certainly, there’s quite a bit of that, too). I think it’s worth exploring in more depth.

Other quick thoughts from last night:

• Why the continued emphasis on drawing and maintaining lines between “bloggers” and “journalists?” Why is the divide so important?
• How and why do certain bloggers (e.g., Michael Arrington, Arianna Huffington) come to be known as journalists, not “just” bloggers? What is the tipping point? Why are labels important, anyway?
• I’m tired of being discussed as a third-person concept. Bloggers this, bloggers that. HELLO. I am a blogger, and I’m sitting right here. Instead of making a bunch of grandiose generalizations about bloggers, talk to me. And listen.
• Frankly I’m getting pretty tired of being verbally kicked around and talked about in dismissive ways because I’m “just a blogger.” Well, I’m a person. It’s really not cool to sit there and talk about how stupid and unimportant a large, diverse group of people is, when a bunch of them are in the room – and expect them not to notice or not to mind.
• Why do some people see “bloggers” as a monolith? Is it honest ignorance (just not knowing much about blogging), or willful ignorance? Again, why is it important to maintain this monolithic view, and the distinction of “blogger” and “not a blogger?”
• Somebody said last night, as if it were a bad thing, “We could’ve been having this conversation in a bar” – ostensibly to lament that there weren’t more people, or it wasn’t more structured, I guess. But I was thinking, “Yes, we could – and that would be awesome!” I love having conversations like that, at a bar or anywhere else – let’s just leave the egos, the stupid little power trips, the weird superiority complexes, all the rest of it, at the door.
• When managing online communities, don’t start from a place of condescension or assumed superiority. It puts people on the defensive and (rightly) pisses them off. Also, people rise to the expectations set for them.

Would write more, but gotta get going for now. Looking forward to more conversations like this – some at bars, some in conference rooms. :)

ETA: This Gaping Void cartoon makes me laugh. I thought it was somewhat relevant to, well, not really last night’s meeting in particular, but just a general type of conversation that tends to go on at social media events and unconferences.

Round-up of posts about SMC event and CL story

These two things represent pieces of a larger picture, so naturally they are being discussed together.

For your reference, here’s a bunch of posts and such! I know you’re so excited. (Actually, this is mostly for my reference, so I don’t have to keep clicking around looking for all the different threads.)

• Moi: Mainstream media splatters here and there
• Rusty: A strange confluence of negativity and More on the latest kerfluffle
• Grayson: Pretend Voices Carry, What Planet Did I Land On?, Blogger 24, and Things Change
• Ranty Mostly ITP episode w/ Grayson, Rusty, and me: Thoughts on the Social Media Club meeting
• Dave: Reflections on SMC Atlanta Event
• Griftdrift: Feel The Snark!
• Soon-to-be-expat (*sniff*) Doug: Andisheh does the blogs — including this one!
• Metroblogging Atlanta: top blog?
• j. brotherlove: Atlanta Bloggers Who Matter – Who’s to say?
• Buzz Brockway: Atlanta bloggers meet with Big Media Officials…
• Joeventures: Crying bloggers, a slow news week, and a simple(?) suggestion
• Mingaling: Blogosphere says huh?
• Joseph G: Train-Wreck: Atlanta Blogs vs. OldSkool Media
• Thomas: Everybody’s Talkin’
• James: this whole creative loafing blog-o-sphere thing.

I’ll update this post if people write new stuff.

Mainstream media splatters here and there

What Grayson said, about the Creative Loafing “five shining swallowed pennies in the overflowing toilet bowl that is the Atlanta blogosphere” story:

This piece was just wrong on so many levels, Andy. But essentially, you missed the ENTIRE story. To single out a few blogs (and they’re all great blogs… that’s not the issue here) and give the readership the impression that those five blogs are somehow BLOG FUCKING ATLANTA is such a slap in the face to the entire social media community here.

The many bloggers, academics in citizen media like Leonard Witt at PJNET.com, podcasters, the techno entrepreneurs, videobloggers like Amani Channel for instance, who have worked long and hard, and those who have helped organized social media events and conferences like PodCamp Atlanta and SoCon07 were reduced to five blogs you want to make a teen style, MySpace style list over. You and Ken should be ashamed of yourselves for trivializing and reducing an entire new direction in media to five blogs with this “starter piece” on social media.

It’s just lazy, uninspired journalism really. Just look to the state of the music industry to see how long you have to “get it.”

While we’re on the subject of traditional media, I should mention that Rusty, Grayson, and I went to the Social Media Club event last night where a guy from the AJC and a guy from WSB were there to, ostensibly, converse about how they’re embracing social media. (Har har.) You can listen to our podcast review of the thing, if you’re so inclined.

And I didn’t even mention all the sexism. We tried to keep it to about a half hour. This was after the full-on rant session at Central City Tavern… be glad you got the “toned down” version. (Yes, it’s all relative.)

It’s hard to say what my favorite part of the night was, but I think I’ll have to go with WSB’s Steve Riley saying to me, “What you’re doing seems more… artistic.”

…

*blank stare*

Obvious notes: 1) he has no idea what I’m doing; and 2) artistic? the hell?

Clue Phone ringing… it’s for you, Mr. Riley!

On a completely unrelated note, the next time I hear some asshole ask plaintively, “What crime is not a hate crime?” I’m going to verbally eviscerate them while assuring them that no, don’t worry, this is not a hate crime.