Disqus - Latest Comments for JustinKownacki

Re: Twitter Lists – Separating Ego and “Influence” From Genuine Utility

JustinKownacki — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:49:36 -0000

Your social media reputation is built not on what you do or what you say, but on how many people SEE what you do HEAR what you say. As such, it doesn't matter if no one ever follows the lists you're on, because merely seeing that you're on so many lists means other people think you're relevant, so newbies MUST think you're relevant too, right? ;)

Slightly less cynically, it actually doesn't matter if anyone follows the lists you're listed on. That's a measure of the influence of the people who MADE the lists, not the people who are on them. I might think all 600 of the lists you're on are crap, but I can still choose to follow you personally.

True relevance is not a numbers game.

Re: Barrett Garese, Y'All Stupid: 3 Ways Language Is Tearing Us Apart (& How to Fix It)

JustinKownacki — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:28:27 -0000

My bad; maybe my original comment seemed absolute. What I meant was, we'll see a return *in popularity* of rustic values, and probably a re-integration of handmade work into our daily lives. Not a complete rejection of technology (or science) by any means, but a more even balance between tech and nature.

As for the "second Dark Ages," we've had asinine political and theological constraints for centuries, but we've never allowed them to stop the continued spread of logic. If communism (and McCarthyism) couldn't send the world back to caves and ramparts, I doubt Sarah Palin or the Taliban will. (Except for the people already living in caves in Afghanistan, but I digress...) There's too much money to be made by ensuring that the population remains smart enough to want the things we're capable of making.

Re: Barrett Garese, Y'All Stupid: 3 Ways Language Is Tearing Us Apart (& How to Fix It)

JustinKownacki — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:41:18 -0000

I don't think it's a case of information having "no value," but a case of MISinformation being so ubiquitous that it's impossible to prove which information *is* valuable. For every fact or claim, there's an equal and opposite reaction on the Internet that uses spurious logic and doctored claims to refute the original. See enough of those and you start to distrust ALL information.

I've been considering this recently, and I have a prediction: within the next century, we'll see a return to rustic living and "making things with our hands." Why? Because once the majority of the public gives up on being able to tell truth from lies, they'll search out something provable that provides them with a reliable structure for their lives. You may not be able to convince anyone that global warming does (or doesn't) exist, or what its effects may (or may not) be, but you understand a potato when it comes out of your garden. Once the noise ratio drowns out the signal, we'll experience a massive scaling-back and starting-over of our culture, and of the values we decide cannot be misconstrued.

Re: Your Competition Doesn’t Exist

JustinKownacki — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:53:28 -0000

It's a matter of managing expectations, but it's also a matter of understanding what your own expectations are in the first place. You can't compete until you're competent, and you won't be competent if you're not producing something people are willing to pay more for than it cost you to make it.

Before you can outwit the big fish in your market, you need to swim. And if swimming is what makes you happy, there's no need to allocate unnecessary resources to being the best; just be the one who can stay afloat.

Re: (input please?) G20 Protestor use of Twitter leads to arrest.

JustinKownacki — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:51:17 -0000

As someone who thinks we already have too many laws, I would normally agree with you entirely. But I'm still stuck on the Poplawski comparison from earlier. Obviously, in that hypothetical case, anyone helping to coordinate attacks on police would be at least partially guilty for any resulting homicides, correct?

I'll agree that disseminating publicly-available information can't be a crime. But just like there's a difference between owning a gun and using a gun to kill someone, there's a difference between disseminating information and doing so with the intent of aiding criminals. In this specific case, you may be correct that the legality is questionable, but is the next logical step to find out where that grey area becomes black and white or is it to blur the lines further?

Re: (input please?) G20 Protestor use of Twitter leads to arrest.

JustinKownacki — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:10:04 -0000

Free speech? Sure. Do that. But using Twitter to help criminals evade the police? That makes him, at the very least, an accessory to the crimes those protesters were alleged to have committed. In this particular case, you may be on the lawbreaker's side, but as your other commenter noted below, using the exact same tools to aid murderers, drug dealers and other offenders doesn't suddenly make the act itself wrong; the act itself is legally wrong to begin with.

Meanwhile, if these protesters were legitimately violent, would we be as supportive of the guy who was helping coordinate their efforts to cause additional property damage?

If someone has an issue with this particular case, maybe s/he needs to act at the political level and work with city council or the state to hammer out a bill that more clearly defines the instances in which social media may or may not be used to aid and abet criminals. Maybe the push should be for decriminalization of specific activities, rather than a broad defense of a vast grey area.

Re: Could You Help Me With a Project

JustinKownacki — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:38:46 -0000

Saw it. Beware, Violette has a future in game shows.

Re: The Funny Thing About Goals

JustinKownacki — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:25:03 -0000

I think two reasons people are opposed to goals are:

1. Setting a goal means you're working instead of playing / experimenting / exploring, and that change in mindset can rob a person of the joy s/he previously derived from the experience.

2. Once you define success, by default, you've also defined failure. And failure is something no one flirts with willingly.

I think goals are incredibly important for improving yourself, your craft or your standing in life, but there's also a time and a method for setting goals that won't work against you. Too little risk and you'll never grow, but too great a challenge and you'll never surmount it.

Who knew personal growth required an understanding of your own capabilities?

Re: Something To Be Desired

JustinKownacki — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:57:38 -0000

Thanks for the compliments! Lord knows we've improved since our first episode (which you've linked to), so I always shudder when I realize that might be someone's first impression of what we've done for 6 years. But we all start somewhere...

I also wanted to mention that you've linked to the wrong Blip feed -- ours is http://stbd.blip.tv/

STBD has been on hiatus since I moved to Baltimore and the cast did not. However, we'll endeavor to remain "consistently good" in whatever we come up with next.

Re: The Audacity of Free – by @chrisbrogan

JustinKownacki — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:42:40 -0000

Thanks for the compliment, though I know many people who would argue otherwise. ;)

To elaborate on your point #4, stories themselves aren't necessarily worth anything. It's the telling of the story, or the embodiment of that story within a product or a physical transcription, that people are willing to pay for. A story without a vessel is still just an abstract concept -- if you can't hold it or experience it, you can't negotiate its worth.

Re: The Audacity of Free

JustinKownacki — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:32:39 -0000

As with most controversies, this is a problem of perception. People want things, and they want them for free, but they don't register that if someone isn't paid to make those things, those things won't get made. Everything has to be paid for by someone at some point in its production cycle or it ceases to exist. And to presume that what's free today can and should always be free is to believe in an altruism that cannot be supported in a capitalist (or communist, or socialist) economy.

That said, it's also in each individual's best interests to get as much as he / she can for free. If others are willing to undervalue (or invalidate) their own work, so be it. Every penny counts, and one more in my pocket is one less in yours. And even if your freebies won't last forever, someone else's will come along to replace them. The freeloader always comes out ahead.

Re: What Kanye West Teaches Us About Corporate Social Media

JustinKownacki — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:26:09 -0000

If being social online didn't affect the bottom line either way, would anyone still do it? Sure, because it's fun and it feels good. Not everything in life is done for fiscal profit.

Businesses might not use it much because they're forever finding the most cost-effective ways to maximize profits, and anything that doesn't impact their bottom line is merely a distraction. But whether or not businesses choose to use social media *marketing* doesn't invalidate social media *as a field*.

Re: What Kanye West Teaches Us About Corporate Social Media

JustinKownacki — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:05:52 -0000

Being social online certainly isn't a necessity, and although it *can* affect the bottom line for better or for worse, there aren't nearly enough case studies with verifiable numbers to prove social media's impact one way or the other (yet).

I think the whole "join the conversation" idea was powered by people who were already having conversations online, and expected that everyone else who joined in would do the same. But people who are natural conversants forget that not everyone else is, or wants to be, or is capable of adding value even if they did want to be. Hence, lots of people think that simply agreeing or attacking is enough to qualify them as participants in The Conversation, when what it's really doing is creating white noise that drags down the experience for everyone else.

Like your mother always told you: if you don't have something relevant to say, don't say anything at all.

Re: What Kanye West Teaches Us About Corporate Social Media

JustinKownacki — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:15:36 -0000

This also speaks to the difference between alleged outrage and proven actions. People can claim to be "outraged" by Kanye's classless behavior... but they still buy his media by the millions. People can claim that Whole Foods -- or L.L. Bean, KFC or Wal-Mart -- are worth boycotting due to objectionable business practices... but they're still multi-billion dollar corporations.

In "Starbucked," author Taylor Clark debunks a lot of the supposed facts about Starbucks, including the effects of local protests on their bottom line. Even in extreme liberal, anti-corporate locales like Portland, OR, the same protesters who would be railing against the arrival of Starbucks could be seen drinking lattes there a week later.

All the social ire in the world couldn't stop people from drinking Starbucks, including the very people who were protesting them. It took an economic hiccup to get people to rethink their coffee consumption habits. But Kanye doesn't produce media that would be directly affected by an economic downturn, either. When you, the person, *are* the brand, nothing can stop you but you.

No wonder "personal branding" is all the rage...

Re: Something To Admit

JustinKownacki — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:40:37 -0000

What would define "meaningful connections" in your situation? Once you know what kind of community you'd like to create -- and what you and everyone else would like to learn / take away from it -- you can evaluate the steps you're taking toward making that happen and see what's working and what isn't.

Also, find examples of the types of communities you'd like to be involved with, and ask the people in them how they helped cultivate their collaborative culture. See if any of their experiences apply to your situation.

Good luck!

Re: Something To Admit

JustinKownacki — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:44:47 -0000

Tara: You're right that you can achieve all of the above with a one-on-one conversation. But community allows you to receive more, and more varied, feedback faster than a series of one-on-one conversations would. What you lose in specificity, you make up for in consensus. (Or, in other words, 10 people might give you 10 different reasons why your new idea isn't so hot, but pitching it to a community of people whose opinions you already trust will snuff out the ideas that are most -- and least -- likely to gain traction much faster than a series of 1-on-1 evaluations that come to the same general conclusion.)

Meanwhile, few people are multitalented enough to accomplish every aspect of what they're pursuing by themselves. At some point, collaboration is inevitable. And people who can interrelate within a community will have a much higher chance for success than people who lack the ability to navigate group social dynamics.

I'm not suggesting that anyone *stop* having one-on-one conversations. In any group I've been a part of, there have been a few people I develop a close connection with and many more in ever-widening "outer circles" of influence. So while the bulk of my interaction obviously takes place among those in the group that I feel closest to, even those whom I consider personal outliers can have valid insights that I would miss if I weren't open to their POV.

Believe me, I'm a loner by nature. I'm completely content to live in my own head for years at a time. But I can't provide myself with everything I need to live a fulfilled social existence; I need occasional interaction, and I need both supporting and conflicting viewpoints in order to better understand -- and sometimes amend -- my own preconceptions.

Re: Something To Admit

JustinKownacki — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:36:07 -0000

That depends on which values you're seeking. Do you need to collaborate with people? Do you need to bounce ideas off others to gauge the coherence (and potential success) of your own plans? Do you derive satisfaction from helping other people solve their problems, or find relief when they help you solve yours? Do you enjoy venting your frustrations -- or celebrating life's pleasant surprises -- with your peers?

If you don't need any of those things, then you're more self-sufficient than most people I know, including me.

If you *do* need any of those things, then the next question is: who can provide you with meaningful interactions? Not all communities are created equal, and not every random group of people can give you the feedback / interaction / information you desire. The more groups you take part in, the easier it is to detect which ones are most likely to be beneficial to you in some capacity and which ones are most likely to drain your spirits and drive you crazy.

Personally, I've found value in PodCamp (although I've been co-organizing one for 4 years), Tweetups, other social media gatherings, freelance / entrepreneurial meetups, and organized recreational sports. I also engage with 3 or 4 different "groups" (or different types of conversants) on Twitter, so I can keep multiple streams of thought flowing at once that don't necessarily overlap. Each group provides a different amount of value in a different way, and if I ever feel like I'm not getting what I need, over time, I take part less and less until I've moved on completely to something else.

Re: Something To Admit

JustinKownacki — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:33:12 -0000

Me too, in part. I'm more in favor of communities that actually create value for me personally, or which I can feel good about being a part of, rather than the mere existence of a "group." Life is too short to be surrounded by people to whom I feel no specific reason to be connected.

Re: Pittsburgh: Post Gazette & PG+, you’re doing it wrong!

JustinKownacki — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:46:05 -0000

Alas, I think they have it backwards.

While it's likely that the PG+'s paid blogs will find a close-knit commenting community -- since everyone who can access them will have paid to do so (and that number is smaller than those who'll read the news for free) -- a cozy community won't be fiscally rewarding enough keep a potentially pricey secondary offering like this afloat. Plus, if anything the bloggers say is of actual value, their readers will find a way to redistribute that content online for free on their own blogs, thus eroding the walled garden.

A more cost-effective (and technologically reasonable) approach might be to cease distribution of the physical daily newspaper, keep the ad-supported web version free, and bundle the analysis and insight of their expert journalists into a weekly newspaper that charges like a magazine. That way the "prime" content would still be paid for, the people who cling to the physical distribution method would have something to hold, and the rest of us could retransmit their wisodm electronically.

I do give the PG credit for experimenting with new revenue streams. I'm just not sure that this particular approach will be effective or relevant. We shall see.

Re: Why Free Thought Is Sexy But We Hate It

JustinKownacki — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:49:54 -0000

The comments on this post are quite ironic, because you have:

A) Someone who believes she's a free thinker (because, really, who DOESN'T believe he or she is a free thinker?)

B) Spam, which targets the masses

C) Consensus, and

D) Someone who used your point about social media being exactly like every other social system to validate their dislike of social media -- aka, their dislike of every other social system.

Oy.

Social media (and life in general) will get a lot more interesting when we all start thinking (and acting) more independently. But since we all need to cannibalize each other in order to become popular / make a living / validate ourselves, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Let's crack the fishbowl, shall we?

Wait... Don't agree to that.

Re: Social Media Banned from College Stadiums

JustinKownacki — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:12:29 -0000

This has nothing to do with "not getting" social media, or the threat of shaky phone-cam footage. This has to do with the SEC / CBS controlling and protecting their own media assets.

Sure, you might turn on the game because you read a tweet about it, and that's great. But what if someone in the stands films a better angle on a major play than the official cameramen do -- and THAT'S the angle the news outlets choose to use (and pay for)? Or if a fan's recording angle proves that an official's call was incorrect? Or if fans start tweeting the opposing team's signals / formations? Etc., etc., etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for social media at the stadium. But don't expect the powers-that-be to so eagerly adapt to new realities they themselves can't control.

Re: Arguing against your limitations

JustinKownacki — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:54:01 -0000

We make our own limitations, or we buy into other people's labels of us. Getting past that is the key.

Side note: in case you're wondering why you might have this problem in the first place, here are 5 Reasons You're Not Awesome:

http://www.justinkownacki.com/2009/08/11/5-reas...

Re: Free is just too high a price to pay

JustinKownacki — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:33:40 -0000

When I was in college, we had a power outage during a timed computer assignment. It only lasted a moment, but it wiped out everyone's unsaved changes -- in some cases, their entire projects.

Our instructor refused to grant us the extra time to start over and stuck to the original deadline. His lesson: now that you've done it once, you can re-do it faster. My own takeaway: backup constantly, BUT be prepared to lose anything.

Relying on free services may be just the kick in the ass the web economy needs to shift toward a for-pay model across the board.

Re: My Pledge to You

JustinKownacki — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:57:14 -0000

Thank God. I, for one, am sick of reading anything other than declarative sentences. I also think comedy should be banned from theaters, because not everyone understands irony or sarcasm, and we don't want to upset the people who feel confused.

Re: Sponsored Tweets Launches: The End of Twitter As We Know It?

JustinKownacki — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:29:20 -0000

Thanks! I can't take credit for my name, but the sterling logic is entirely mine... Nonetheless, I think reducing this issue (or anything else) to an "either-or" case is too narrow; everyone uses tools like Twitter differently, and what works for one end might not work on the other.