Right on, I say!
Or, rather, I’d say that the internet can be a blessing to others (depending on how it’s used) and be a means of blessing.
But perhaps that’s all semantics. But check out this Jedi-level verbiage:
“The impressive development of social networks, of content and information exchange, of the desire to comment on and intervene in every discussion of every topic, tells us that the internet has given rise to an omni-directional flow of transversal and personal communications, the scope of which was unimaginable until very recently.”
This is great stuff. But, there are a few points that I’d disagree with:
“We need to develop a structural capacity to respond clearly and competently to the questions that arise – and that takes manpower, time and money.”
First, I think this is relatively impossible at the macro level. Take too much control and you get a 95-Theses type revolt. In addition, manpower, time, and money are readily available through the power of the social web.
Finally, money is not so much an issue anymore with Open Source Tech.
Otherwise, great article. Thanks Eric for the pass!
What do you think?
[Image from T.Blue]
Blaise Alleyne says
I'm not sure that "developing a structural capacity to respond clearly and competently to the questions that arise" means trying to control anything. The verb was respond. Isn't this something we should be encouraging — companies and institutions paying attention to, participating in and responding to social media?
human3rror says
But perhaps you've missed the fact that it's an “institution” that's writing the responses? It's not so much the institutions but the people now.
Blaise Alleyne says
Wait… the Internet isn't a place for institutions? Or a response should be written by an individual, instead of an institution? I'm assuming you meant the latter, but… wasn't it Father Fredrico Lombardi you quoted? Isn't he an individual, speaking on behalf on an institution?
I'm not sure what you think the proper response would be…