Flatness, Equality, Social Media and Communism

Last Friday we had some great discussion on the idea of a “Flat Social Media Earth“. In the above video, I’m just bringing a few more thoughts to the table, but first, I just want to recap what was said in the comments:

Jeroen Hoekman said, quite radically, that,

“it is impossible for social media to be flat. Unequality is intrinsic to Social media. People have so many “friends” or “followers”, because they want to feel popular, feel like a celebrity. Make people equal and you might kill social media.”

I thought that was exceptionally interesting. There is not ‘equality’ because all the Web 2.0 and Social Network services are clearly displaying our friends/follower/update/badge/item counts.

Robin Dickinson took the discussion in a whole new direction when he turned it around and said:

“The real issue for me is not whether technology has made the world flatter, but now that the world is flatter, are we humans going to behave in ‘flatter ways’?“

I think this is critical. Flatter communication is only half the battle -- we must behave in flatter ways. Our behaviour is the bottle neck.

Sophy Norris brought the biggest impact to the debate with getting to the real core:

“but how can it be flat when the distinction between rich and poor is wider than ever before, when millions live without electricity let alone the internet, when we live in a world where people -- even in our own “enlightened” country have no hope of escaping the circumstances into which they were born.”

What else can you say to this? She is so right, and it slaps me out of the stupor of playing Social games and rather thinking about Social change.

Al Banks noted that a flatter world also means that it is easier for people to abuse the opportunities:

“I also think its worth noting that although many seemingly untouchable people are very good at responding via SM channels, a great many still are not. They seem to see tools like Twitter as a one way channel to drive their ego’s and don’t engage -- nothing makes me more mad! Rant over ”

What I’ve Learnt From The Debate

In my video I explain that I’ve discovered that some things are flat, and somethings aren’t. Communication has become flatter -- yes. But this does not mean that we have greater equality, greater individual potential for a voice that will be heard, nor is our value flat and equal.

Thinking about this flattening effect, I’ve really had to be honest with myself, and have drawn some radical conclusions of my own.

First, I do think communication is flatter. Agreed.

Second, I think flatness cannot be applied beyond there. I think flatness in the Social Media world is almost becoming a communist word. It strikes everyone with the same stick of supposed equality, but we are not all equal in the first place. Let me explain:

1. Each of us, whilst equal in our intrinsic value as human beings, are not equal in the value we impart to others. We all impart varying levels of value depending on the audience.
2. We are not flat in who we are. We are all different. Flat perhaps means that we seek to complete each other rather than compete each other. I don’t know. But I do know we are not the same!
3. The idea that everyone should have the same voice and equality of voice is complete trash in my opinion, based on point 1. Yes, everyone should have the possibility to share their voice, but there is a time and a place. More on this later this week from me.
4. This idea of total equality is touted by those who actually want to push their own agenda in my experience, and reminds me of dictators who hide behind a communist manifesto.

Radical I know. But I’m totally prepared to be wrong, ready to be corrected, and keen to go deeper.

It seems the liberal ideas of equality, democracy, flatness are linked quite strongly to the Social Media world -- probably indicative of its users. But I wonder if this is starting on the wrong premise?

The fact that there is a radical kick against people being successful with Social Media, whilst at the same time people seeking fame with it, says to me that this is just like every other platform known to man that builds upon word of mouth - people will use it how they want to use it, and the more people that use it, the more varied the uses become.

Finally, I’ve kept thinking about what Sophy said. We’ve got to act. We’ve got to do something. Are we all equally responsible to do something? Or are those with more resources under a greater responsibility? We also say that ‘celebrities should donate more’, which points to a relative idea of equality and flatness and not a absolute one. And inevitably, only a handful will act on it. I think this is a living example to prove that much of the thinking on flatness is flawed.

Leading Question

• What is flat, what isn’t flat, and should things be flat at all?