The Value of Obscurity
Clive Thomson wrote an interesting post for Wired last month in defense of online obscurity.
He describes the downsides of having a large online audience, where social networking breaks down. The key insights: large networks can hinder conversation and stifle the exchange of ideas, because socializing doesn’t actually scale.
“After all, the world’s bravest and most important ideas are often forged away from the spotlight — in small, obscure groups of people who are passionately interested in a subject and like arguing about it. They’re willing to experiment with risky or dumb concepts because they’re among intimates.”
It’s an interesting problem. How do you structure your network such that you stay broadly connected, yet feel safe enough to actually use the network to get feedback? When online audiences get big, contributors get stage fright. Thomson:
“Not only do audiences feel estranged, the participants also start self-censoring. People who suddenly find themselves with really huge audiences often start writing more cautiously, like politicians.”
Makes sense, and we hate worrying about getting noticed, anyway. Read the whole article here.
| Tagged with: | Obscurity, Social Networks, Twitter |
Post a comment
Want to know more?
You're reading BlogLESS, a daily blog about the ethics of advertising, branding, design, social media and business. We are also fans of zen, although this itself is perhaps not so zen.
No Comments