I notice you haven’t posted any podcasts recently after a pretty regular schedule. And then I noticed not a lot of comments here either.

Don’t think that’s because you’re not doing something awesome. Sometimes it takes awhile for people to recognize it.

I admit: I didn’t respond/comment as much as I should have. But you (and the Beancast and MarketingOverCoffee) are constant companions when I work out. Not as often as I should maybe, but I’d hazard that I’ve listened to all 85 episodes of MD. For real.

So if you’re not putting up new episodes because you think no one’s listening – that’s not true. Your podcasts are/were great and I love hearing them. I don’t want to get too sappy, but I’ve been feeling a little like no one was out there and I didn’t want to have that same thing happen to someone who I personally respected.

Anyway, happy new year dude! I hope you’re just taking a little hiatus and get back into the podcasting in the new year. Hope all’s well up there.

DJ

Thanks, your point is well taken. I was using the (somewhat) common terminology of natives and immigrants to help draw in the Dances With Wolves example. Those terms are often used within discussions on this topic, which is to say I didn’t invent them, but I totally agree they are imprecise in exactly the way you outline.

However, I do think that technology, or not even technology really, but the conditions of the world you grow up in, impact your expectations of everything including privacy. My point is, when people are judgmental about what younger folks post on Facebook because “they should realize it’s there forever and everyone can search it” when the very people making the criticism did the same or worse at the same age, just minus Facebook. Just because it CAN be searched, does that mean employers SHOULD? Don’t we actually EXPECT people in high school and college to have a certain degree of bad judgment, isn’t that part of how we learn? I don’t think most of us could have lived up to the standards being imposed on younger people in many cases, nor should we be expected to. That’s really my main point.

I think the analogy of “natives” and “immigrants” regarding the tech you’re referring to (or any tech, for that matter) isn’t entirely appropriate. I’m now speaking from our generation’s point of view rather than our parents’, but even that may still may hold.

Your use of the term “natives” implies that they’ve had the tech all along throughout their lives (which is true), but calling our generation “immigrants” suggests that we’re coming into a world that’s already been established, where, in fact, it was our generation (and the one before) who invented all the tech you’re talking about. So we learned it as it came out (some adapted better and faster than others).

It’s a teenytiny semantic difference, but “immigrant” and “native” suggests Native Americans and Europeans (exemplified by the Dances with Wolves reference), whereas I think our connection to tech vs the next generation’s is more like the whitewashed version of history: we were pioneers forging the land and our kids grew up having everything we worked for and developed.

I’m just making the distinction (a tiny one, as your point is still understood), because the differences in attitudes toward privacy, etc. have more to do with generational differences than with the tech itself.

How could we have guessed we’d be communicating online in this fashion when recording those “radio shows” twenty years ago? Your own daughter’s generation will be experiencing something we can only speculate about at this point.

Now I’m just rambling.

Anyway, this isn’t an admonition (and I certainly don’t mean to imply that the terms are offensive in any way), just yet another semantic distinction: “pioneers and (?)” vs “immigrants and natives”

Still, point taken, and another interesting post.

Thanks,
m.

I think it’s an increasingly important thing to think about as we beyond the fascination of being able to talk to people all over the world… it’s great and wonderful that we can connect with people in Lapland or our favorite grade school bully, but what does it get us? I know the Facebook and other folks are thinking a lot about the ’social graph,’ who we interact with, as key to our behavior and potential our ability to find useful information and things. But I think that’s only part of the picture. I go back to the idea of social semantics, tying things together through shared interest that might not even be openly expressed. I go back to my last.fm neighbors, a completely different group from my last.fm friends — my friends are the people I ‘know’, whereas my neighbors are the ones I’ve been grouped with based on similar habits. It’s great to get a recommendation from a friend, but frankly it’s even better to get a recommendation about music from 50 people who like similar music to you. THAT’S just part of the power of semantic organization.

Anyway, yes, there’s still tonnes to think about and talk about with this stuff, for sure!

We spend a lot of time talking about sharing, and building communities, and trust, and relationships, and not nearly enough time talking about the future – which is structured data, and the semantic web. The web is not only linking people, it’s linking information. It’s providing context to the content. Information is the next big thing on the web, after we get over talking about all this social media stuff.

Thanks for starting the conversation. Let’s keep talking.

Suze

Thanks

I’ve got to listen to “Permission Marketing vs. Inbound Marketing” next… it sounds like a conversation we were having last month!

Keep up the good work!

Penn’s presentation from PAB is up on his site now, definitely worth checking out for thoughts on this: http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/06/22/i-was-on-a-boat-called-pab09/