Comments on: Twitter and Goliath http://mprcenter.org/blog/2009/04/14/twitter-and-goliath/ The psychology of technology and emerging media Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:12:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Aya http://mprcenter.org/blog/2009/04/14/twitter-and-goliath/comment-page-1/#comment-605 Aya Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:49:26 +0000 http://mprcenter.org/blog/?p=405#comment-605 Keep up the good work. Keep up the good work.

]]> By: Jenifer Olson http://mprcenter.org/blog/2009/04/14/twitter-and-goliath/comment-page-1/#comment-598 Jenifer Olson Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:03:07 +0000 http://mprcenter.org/blog/?p=405#comment-598 Pam, Good answer! *nodding* :-) Jenifer Pam,

Good answer! *nodding* :-)

Jenifer

]]> By: Dr. Pamela Rutledge http://mprcenter.org/blog/2009/04/14/twitter-and-goliath/comment-page-1/#comment-597 Dr. Pamela Rutledge Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:46:51 +0000 http://mprcenter.org/blog/?p=405#comment-597 Hi Jenifer, Thanks for your comment. I don't know for a fact that this was intentional on Amazon's part. What I do know is that some books did have their rankings removed and the widespread perception was that this subtle form of censorship was not uniformly applied. In some cases, reality becomes less important that the perception since it is the belief about Amazon's behavior that triggered the response. But to your point about wielding power: I don't think social media is how an individual exercises individual power. Social media does connect common voices that might never have heard one another. This changes the psychology from individual to a group dynamic. It validates the issue and creates a collective energy source and identity in the groundswell reaction. Just like companies can't control their brand, an individual can't control if a complaint becomes a social upheaval. Common themes will emerge in both cases, for better or worse. What social media does is lower the threshold for the energy necessary for an idea to take hold. Pam Hi Jenifer,
Thanks for your comment. I don’t know for a fact that this was intentional on Amazon’s part. What I do know is that some books did have their rankings removed and the widespread perception was that this subtle form of censorship was not uniformly applied. In some cases, reality becomes less important that the perception since it is the belief about Amazon’s behavior that triggered the response.

But to your point about wielding power: I don’t think social media is how an individual exercises individual power. Social media does connect common voices that might never have heard one another. This changes the psychology from individual to a group dynamic. It validates the issue and creates a collective energy source and identity in the groundswell reaction. Just like companies can’t control their brand, an individual can’t control if a complaint becomes a social upheaval. Common themes will emerge in both cases, for better or worse. What social media does is lower the threshold for the energy necessary for an idea to take hold.

Pam

]]> By: Jenifer Olson http://mprcenter.org/blog/2009/04/14/twitter-and-goliath/comment-page-1/#comment-596 Jenifer Olson Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:20:32 +0000 http://mprcenter.org/blog/?p=405#comment-596 Maybe. But I'm not completely convinced this was an intentional ranking change. What advantage would Amazon really gain? Why would they want to disenfranchise part of their loyal customer base? For what purpose? Call me cynical, but unless it's somehow financially beneficial to Amazon, I don't see a conspiracy. And if it is indeed financial, then it's something else entirely. I do think you're right about the power of social media to act as a catalyst for social change. But while this is an example of how the viral process works, I really don't think it's a good example of how to wield that power. Just my perspective so far... Thanks! Maybe. But I’m not completely convinced this was an intentional ranking change. What advantage would Amazon really gain? Why would they want to disenfranchise part of their loyal customer base? For what purpose?

Call me cynical, but unless it’s somehow financially beneficial to Amazon, I don’t see a conspiracy. And if it is indeed financial, then it’s something else entirely.

I do think you’re right about the power of social media to act as a catalyst for social change. But while this is an example of how the viral process works, I really don’t think it’s a good example of how to wield that power.

Just my perspective so far… Thanks!

]]>