Comments RSS 
“What You Should Do” The Rules of Social Media
April 25th, 2008 · Filed Under: How to Twitter
The market has taken over.
The illusion that companies can control us is disappearing. Mass production, distribution and media homogenized us in the 20th Century, allowing us to have the means to exercise our power to choose and segment the market.
That’s my view.. what’s yours?
Should there be rules and SOP and governing bodies for what you “should do”
A section in Twitter Handbook will quote Twitter users (the real rulers).
Post your tweet or Twinterview (140 words or less)
I’ll ask (but never assume I can set the rules) that you NOT respond to my ideas.. rather, state your case about the idea of rules and policing the Twitterverse here.
Thanks for your input.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
More governing bodies? Heavens help us.
No, the use of social media should be controlled by the owners of every individual social media site. Some will be more lenient than others.
It’s like inviting people over for a barbecue. There shouldn’t be a Barbecue Governing Body, but the hosts should be able to say what goes on their property and what doesn’t.
Best regards,
Dewald Pretorius
http://twitter.com/dewaldp
April 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Just as with the days of the USENet, social media is largely shaped by those using it.
It’s not “mob rules” nor is it “anything goes.”
Some think they are anointed cops and others act as caring mentors towards those who test a line within a Web2.0 circle.
In the end, most successful sites seem to gravitate towards the Golden Rule.
Dave Saunders
http://www.twitter.com/nemock
April 25th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
There are no official rules. Just the Invisible Hand of Social Media. If you try to manipulate, spam or abuse, people will ignore. Your success depends on the value you bring to the society. Do not ask what social media can do for you, but what you can do for social media.
@hjortur
April 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Much controversy surrounds what constitutes a useful ‘tweet’ and what isn’t. Says who? You’re not hurting anyone, right? So go ahead, say what you want – it’s OUR Twitterverse!
http://www.twitter.com/Riquochet
April 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The last thing we need is a regulated Twitterverse. If you don’t like someone’s tweets stop following them. It’s that simple. One area of concern is when spammers start bot tweeting in masses. They usually find ways of ruining a good thing.
@alanpetersen
April 25th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Less government more empathy is how I feel too. The more rules there are to know about the more it inconveniences those who will not break them. For those who break the rules, no governing rule will stop them.
So long as we can block contact from spammers most other people are just that - people. Some are respectful and nice, some are brash and abrasive, some are ignorant of how they ’should’ act, and some know how to act but feel that the prospect of a sale gives them the right to ignore it. Either way control over messages should be at the discretion of the person receiving it.
From my current viewpoint twitter has it just right.
Its simple and fast. You can follow but need to be followed back to message. If you receive messages you don’t want you can block them by un following. People on twitter ignore people who just promote themselves. They have the choice of privacy, or multiple followers. If multiple, they have to visit a profile to follow it, which slows the process down. Mass approve might be more convenient but single approve means they have the chance to choose to approve.
The legalese is a necessary protection, but the more you have the more you complicate life for the good guys.Let the user decide, its what makes the internet and social sites fun.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Governing bodies? Social Media Police? Doesn’t that go against the idea of “Free Speech?” Last I checked, in the USA there’s a provision in the Bill of Rights protecting that…
And the Twitterverse is part of the WorldWideWeb, which is just that - worldwide!
It’s free and open communication among people who want to send and receive messages. Don’t want a post or message? Don’t open it, read it, or connect with that person. Remove them from your “following” or “friends.” You have that ability to police what you want for yourself.
Etiquette? YES. That’s mandatory. But let the individual site owners set the rules. What don’t people understand about the right to OWN something? Don’t they get it - “site OWNERS?”
If you spam me with lots of self-serving stuff and no useful content that adds to the conversation, then I’ll simply remove you from my list. I can do that. Not “police” have a right to restrict it, though. It’s between you and me.
I like the invites. I like new friends. It’s not stalking to say “Hi, I’d like to get to know you” or “I’d like to follow you, because I find you interesting.”
And I like the personal @ responses. They encourage, build relationship, answer questions, or are useful to let my own followers get a link or tidbit that was sent to me and which I consider worthy of sharing. Many are intended to edify the @person. That’s a nice thing.
Just please, don’t use profanity. That’s worse than discourteous, disrespectful, and demeaning of YOU. The skyways and airways are too full of fog, smog, and filth already, literal and figurative.
But that’s not for “police,” for when will censorship end? Only when you never let it in through a crack, no matter how correct that initial blockage might be. In for an inch, in for a mile. Set precedent… and before long, all freedoms are lost. (Look at what’s happened in the USA especially in the 20th century.)
But site owners can have a no-profanity rule for their own site. That’s their option. On my site, that’s my rule and my option. That’s morally correct and socially responsible.
Enough of my rant. Bottom line -
No external “police” for private sites. Let site owners decide what they want and communicate it, hopefully being sensitive to the interests and intents of the members of their community. Without the members, there would be no community and the site owners would have nothing, nada.
But please, site owners, be fair. Don’t arbitrarily ban someone. If you have a problem with something they are doing, give them a warning, explain what the problem is and how to correct it, and give them a chance. Being a part of community is precious - and it’s unfair to rip that out without a “fair hearing,” warnings, a chance to make amends. Thanks!
April 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
140 character response: Our Twitter page is our 1st Amendment protected space. You don’t have to follow. Let’s all play nice! If not, we are the TwitterPolice, too!
April 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Speak up Before
Your Voice is Silenced.
Site Owners are the
Governing Body and
Community Members will
Eradicate the Garbage.
Embrace and Support
Net Neutrality before the
Media Moguls choke us off.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Governing bodies? I hope not. Have online communities not run themselves rather successfully over the last fifteen years?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
As a rule ~_^, I’m not fond of rules & find myself typically unwilling to follow them.. They make even less sense in a self-moderated environment like Twitter. The only ‘rule’ [read as request ^_^] I put forth in life is, in turn, the only potentially useful one for the Twitterverse: consideration.
(|_|*cheers*|_|) http://twitter.com/coffeesister
“Consideration for others is the basic of a good life, a good society.” ~ Confucius
April 25th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
140 character poem - the new haiku?
Live by principles, not rules!
Players in the Social Sphere
quickly weed out the rude & the fools -
those who do not engage, energize, serve
April 26th, 2008 at 10:16 am
[...] “What You Should Do” The Rules of Social Media 4.25 [...]