How to show you’re a loser on Twitter and in social media

ghost-twitter Everyone is in an uproar today (gee does anyone smell a bitchmeme in the works?) over a post by Noam Cohen at the New York Times about how <gasp> all those famous people on Twitter might just be ghosts of themselves. Gee do you think – what a conclusion to come to.

I’ve been saying since the beginning of this whole follower or friend malarkey that anyone who thinks that people like Barak Obama or any one of those fancy ass stars are actually writing those messages need to check their grasp on reality.

Stowe Boyd has a great post on the whole thing but he was a lot politer than I could be

In essense, Guy is saying that when you see something under his byline on the web may not be actually penned by him. He is more like Newsweek than a person, and that’s ok, but should be made very very clear.

From my perspective, his personal identity has been hollowed out into a brand, like Colonel Sanders or Aunt Jemima: there may not be a person there at all.

But don’t worry, he says, its the content that matters: content is king.

Uh, sorry, Guy. Content isn’t king, except to media mogul types who are invading the edge. Connectedness is king: it’s social media, right? The social is supposed to equate to real live human beings communicating with each other. Not ‘bots, and ghosts, and things that go bump in the night. People.

I’d be more inclined to say something like your rep just hit the toilet (where it belongs)

curious cat

But here’s the thing.

If you are hiring someone to pretend to be you – whether you disclose the fact or not – and con people into following you on all these suddenly cool social media site then I am sorry – but you are nothing more than a social media

loser

16 Comments

  1. 27/03/09 at 16:39

    Sorry Steven, this is one of the rare times I don't agree with you (and neither with Guy).
    Not context is king, not context is king and not connectness. Conversations is king ;-)

  2. 27/03/09 at 16:39

    Sorry Steven, this is one of the rare times I don't agree with you (and neither with Guy).
    Not context is king, not context is king and not connectness. Conversations is king ;-)

  3. 27/03/09 at 19:39

    Uhm. This isn't a shocker. Didn't Guy just admit to spamming people?

  4. 27/03/09 at 19:39

    Uhm. This isn't a shocker. Didn't Guy just admit to spamming people?

  5. 27/03/09 at 20:08

    Conversation is king but as long as who the other person in the conversation is the person you are wanting to have the conversation with – not some paid shill

  6. 27/03/09 at 20:08

    Conversation is king but as long as who the other person in the conversation is the person you are wanting to have the conversation with – not some paid shill

  7. 27/03/09 at 20:10

    Basically he did admit although I am sure he wouldn't use the word spamming. As for it being a shocker .. not to me but the post was just me expressing my opinion on the whole nonsense.

  8. 27/03/09 at 20:10

    Basically he did admit although I am sure he wouldn't use the word spamming. As for it being a shocker .. not to me but the post was just me expressing my opinion on the whole nonsense.

  9. 27/03/09 at 20:22

    Didn't mean to down your post. I think it was definitely something that needs to be said.

    On the one hand, you have those that actually believe social media is social and that they are engaging and interacting with actual individuals. The other side of it is those using all types of tricks to make you *think* there is an individual there just so that they can sell you something. What they're selling you may not even be a product, but an idea. The idea that someone you respect actualy gives a crap about what you have to say.

  10. 27/03/09 at 20:22

    Didn't mean to down your post. I think it was definitely something that needs to be said.

    On the one hand, you have those that actually believe social media is social and that they are engaging and interacting with actual individuals. The other side of it is those using all types of tricks to make you *think* there is an individual there just so that they can sell you something. What they're selling you may not even be a product, but an idea. The idea that someone you respect actualy gives a crap about what you have to say.

  11. 28/03/09 at 0:51

    Funny picture. I don't have a problem with people having ghostwriters. And if you're gonna be President one day, then I don't even EXPECT it to be you.

    I only have a problem with someone implying or stating that it is them. Disclose and chances are I won't care anyway. Regarding Guy, it was him enough of the time to satisfy me, (I'll just say I've had enough direct contact with him to know it was when he responded to me) but I wish I had known that sometimes it wasn't.

  12. 28/03/09 at 0:51

    Funny picture. I don't have a problem with people having ghostwriters. And if you're gonna be President one day, then I don't even EXPECT it to be you.

    I only have a problem with someone implying or stating that it is them. Disclose and chances are I won't care anyway. Regarding Guy, it was him enough of the time to satisfy me, (I'll just say I've had enough direct contact with him to know it was when he responded to me) but I wish I had known that sometimes it wasn't.

  13. bbluesman
    28/03/09 at 7:09

    I'll give you a different finger Steven-thumbs up!

  14. bbluesman
    28/03/09 at 7:09

    I'll give you a different finger Steven-thumbs up!

  15. 28/03/09 at 14:42

    This hold true for any form of media a major name or celebrity touches most is either handled or written by PR, and assistant. According to MTV, NY Times, Huffington post 50 cent, Obama, Ron Paul and Britney Spears all have ghost writers.

  16. 28/03/09 at 14:42

    This hold true for any form of media a major name or celebrity touches most is either handled or written by PR, and assistant. According to MTV, NY Times, Huffington post 50 cent, Obama, Ron Paul and Britney Spears all have ghost writers.