It was a first time experience for me to watch a webcast with any kind of intent... I'm typically fairly comfortable with technology based, um, connecting, but this was a disconnecting experience I think. As the chat conversation began drifting away from the irl (in real life), I was initially a bit distressed, but participated, and then it didn't take long before I wasn't even listening to the irl much. I'm still very glad I was virtually present for much of it, though.
This initial thought connects to a bit of the conversation which revolved around the usefulness (or not) of Facebook, in particular, as a connecting tool. I would love to see more conversation assessing the pros and cons of the various social media options. (this is my first connection to ning). we seem to accept the evil of being in less than adequate social networks because it's "incarnational" (you need to be where the people are), but we don't do much more than make jokes about how lame the depth of connection is... ie. we don't really take seriously the potential negatives (perpetuating lite communication, addiction to the voyeuristic surf through other's lives: "Crackbook", etc)
anyway, I would love to see someone with more experience assess the top ten social media tools (subjective, I know), and then assess their strengths and weaknesses from a more Kingdom perspective... Thomas maybe?
This was a great first go at this kind of connecting. It was nice to listen in but really wish the moderator (was there one?) would have interrupted the conversation at regular intervals to ask those attending the laptops and those of us in cyberspace what questions or comments we had. If the goal it to include a broader range of folk than could make it to the house that night then there needs to be more intentionality at including us in the conversation. I also had a difficult time with the sound at first. Part of that was on my end and part on end where the discussion was being captured. One final thought, it would be nice to have slightly brighter lighting or a camera that renders better in low light.
These are all basically technical things but do also address the topic at hand. Social media, in order to be effective in mission, needs to make it easy to be included, help people connect by making sure they are "being heard", and needs to make sure it really takes advantage of the technology at hand so that it provides an environment people will want to come back to. What does it mean to be "incarnational" when it comes to social media? Is it truly possible?
I like the ability to "participate" in these discussions at MSA even though I'm living in Hong Kong at the moment. To be able to connect even more effectively on a global scale could add a great deal of diversity and depth to the conversations there and will also go a long way in developing this particular social network as we seek together to live more fully into God's kingdom purposes. (Yeah Tom, I put that line in just for you!)
h, yes. a number of years ago i was the pastor of a methodist church which was itching to put me on the radio. i resisted, saying that disembodied voices are not what the incarnation is about. "but, brother dale, don't you think that jesus would use radio (facebook, ning) if he were alive [sic]now?" at that time my answer was that he could have become incarnate now when there is television, and gone on air, if such had been the "fullness of time." instead, he walked from place to place, talking directly to people, touching them, smelling them, seeing them.
oh my. now i do e-mail and facebook and ning and never notice. so i am happy to be reminded that these "social utilities" are indeed anti-social and disencarnational. it is fascinating that in what is touted as a sort of post-gutenburg universe, we are left only with words. we can trade them fast, but i can't watch your eyebrows as you hear them. in fact, you never hear them. you only read them.
so, is there a coffee shop in seattle where you guys hang out?