digital optimism

Recently, I realized that I was totally sucking at keeping up a baby book for Tommy. Scrapbooking has never been my thing. And while I love printed pictures of the people, places and things that I love, I just don’t get around to actually printing pictures on a regular basis. Taking photos and uploading them, though- that’s another story. I do that like it’s my job. So instead of filling in the blanks of a preconceived baby record that was essentially started by someone else, I decided to create my own online using Posterous.

I’ve kept it updated since I started it (unlike this blog, sadly) and have loved every minute of it. I will admit that it was difficult at first to open up the way I have. That’s not something that comes easily for me. But all of these thoughts I have are so genuine that I felt Tommy should know about them one day. I think every parent, to some degree, wants their children to share in the experience the feelings that come with starting a family. So I’ve kept it open to the public in hopes that others will enjoy it and maybe even do it for their own kids.

I’ve received some amazing compliments and feedback which has really made me feel wonderful. I truly appreciate the comments people have sent to me (mostly in private) and hope that people really do enjoy it as much as they say. Being a mother is something I’m very passionate about and while I didn’t want to be a “mommy blogger,” I wanted to mix a few of my passions to create something meaningful. In this case I chose technology and parenting. So far I’m happy with it, having fun with it and thinking of new ways to make it even better.

So in the spirit of digital media and community, I’d love to hear your thoughts and ideas regarding Letters to Tommy. And in the spirit of the holidays, thanks for reading this blog, or any of my other “online properties,” and just simply being a part of my life.

This post was inspired by a tweet or two from Cydney Wuerffel about using quotes from Twitter in research papers. Cydney asked a great question- whether or not these quotes from Twitter would be acceptable in academia. Initially I thought, “hm, not sure about that.” Then I reconsidered; why wouldn’t a tweet be fair game for a quote? This brought up a bigger question. What is it about digital media that creates a sense of informality?

For whatever reason, communications via Facebook, e-mail, Twitter, etc. are perceived as less “acceptable” than traditional forms of media. I’m making a rather large generalization by saying that, but personally I’ve gotten that sense from myself and others. This is especially visible inside of organizations, where leaders often believe the only people on Facebook are college students posting their drinking pictures. I see blogs being received as less authoritative in comparison to a newspaper, or even an online edition of a newspaper. I recognize that the writing is generally more conversational in blogs and on social networks, but why would that make the information less valid? If Albert Einstein were (alive, and…) posting theories on a blog? What is it about digital that makes conversations less real? Is it the lack of face-to-face interactions and, if so, will video change that?

Photo credit: umbex (Flickr)

Anyone following me on Twitter knows how I feel about direct welcome messages. Auto-DM me, and you are auto-unfollowed. My apologies for being so judgmental, but 90% of the time they turn out to be someone whose use of Twitter bothers me anyway. If it’s a welcome message that doesn’t ask me to visit their blog or claim my free gift, I will still keep them on board- even if it is obviously automated, at least that’s less irritating.

On the other hand, personalized messages are just fine. Especially when they come from your favorite beer.

Thanks, Newcastle. I love you.

The difference in standards online vs. offline are of great interest to me. Somehow, certain things are acceptable in cyberspace that are not (normally) accepted in the real world. A friend once sent me this video rendition of how Facebook would be in real life. And it’s funny for a reason:

Why is it that some actions are not only easier, but often commonplace, in an online social setting? For example, following the lives of complete strangers on Twitter. Please don’t get me wrong; I have met amazing people and learned so much from being active on Twitter, and if you read any other posts of mine, you know I praise and enjoy this network, among many others. What I’m really looking at now is peoples’ real-life reactions to online behavior.

I really enjoyed this article from Newsweek by Steve Tuttle in which he explains why he is quitting Facebook. His daughter was very seriously upset about his jumping on the Facebook bandwagon. Perhaps this isn’t as far-fetched from reality as I originally thought; after all, no self-respecting teenager would ever let their parents be present in their social life offline. A co-worker told me his daughters laughed when he told them he was on Facebook. I know my parents hesitate to “friend” my friends on Facebook. I wonder: Why shouldn’t they? They are friends offline, aren’t they?

It seems like there are a set of unwritten standards for how to interact on Facebook and other social networks, and nobody has really talked about them in depth, but they are there and everyone knows about them. In a conversation with Adam Metz about social media strategy, we talked about how potential business prospects would be offended if contacted via Facebook. But LinkedIn and Plaxo are fair game? Now there’s another set of standards for how to interact on different networks?

This really does make sense to me. What’s interesting to me is how online seems to be a reflection of life in general. Facebook is happy hour with your friends. LinkedIn in a professional organization or industry conference, and Twitter is… some sort of platonic speed dating? Book club, maybe? Life online is almost a catalyst for discussing reality.

Random thoughts of mine. Please feel free to share yours. I think this would make a rather interesting conversation. Thanks for reading.