Speech Matters

I don’t know about you but the Arizona shooting scares the hell out of me. If people think that the way they talk and act doesn’t affect anyone or anything, then they need to have their collective heads examined. Speech matters. That’s why it’s so important to our country.

Right after the Arizona shootings a comment appeared in our state’s largest and most important newspaper, the Burlington Free Press. The comment was in response to an article in the paper about an upcoming Burlington city council meeting discussing the contentious municipal broadband company Burlington Telecom.

The commenter suggested that someone bring his “friends Smith and Wesson” to the meeting. The Free Press alerted the police and removed the comment. The police showed up at the meeting just in case.

Actually, these types of remarks aren’t surprising on the Free Press’ comment section. I should know, because the comments on various Op-Eds I’ve penned that ended up online are, well, mostly scary and bizarre. I don’t know why the Free Press comment section brings out the worst in some Vermonters. I usually tell people (jokingly) that it’s one of the most dangerous places in our state, the darkest alley in Burlington.

Which raises the question: Should the Burlington Free Press remove its comments feature? Recently they supposedly upgraded their system, but it doesn’t seem to have improved the debate there.

The idea that people can comment on articles and interact with each other is a good idea. It’s just not that easy or smart in practice. Monitoring everything takes time, and with all the cutbacks at newspapers, there aren’t a lot of people left to do this.

The biggest challenges the Free Press and others face with these types of comment sections are lack of involvement and transparency. One of the reasons things spiral out of control so quickly is that the people who are responsible for the news, journalists and editors, don’t participate at all once the article goes to press and online. The comment section is like a bunch of crumbs thrown to a starving readership. And readers respond with: We want more!! We’re going to fight over the biggest crumbs too!

In blog and news sites where authors participate things usually don’t get out of control so much. They get out of control at times, for sure, but the level usually isn’t as vile as the worst examples are. Here’s one piece of advice for newspapers: Participate! You want your readers to show up; well we want you to show up too.

The other piece that’s lacking is transparency. It’s easy to be obnoxious and even threatening when you hide behind a veil of anonymity. Newspapers should do everything they can to call out people who are out of line, not by turning them off, but by outing them. If someone makes the comment about Smith and Wesson, I want to know who. The papers should publish names, e-mail addresses and real addresses.

I think this would do a lot to turn down the temperature. It would ensure that we hold people accountable for their words. People shouldn’t expect privacy in this public setting.

We want discussion and interaction. News organizations like the Burlington Free Press are invaluable to our communities. Let’s use some common sense and act like people to make this work in a sane and productive way.

When is a Community not a Community?

From the American Heritage Dictionary
com˙mu˙ni˙ty  (kə-myōō'nĭ-tē)  n.

a. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
b. A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.
c. Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
d. Sharing, participation, and fellowship.

Social media touts itself on the ability to bring together communities. When this is people driven, people creating and populating the online community themselves with a vested interest in the survival and growth of the community, it tends to succeed. When a brand or organization builds a community (of customers, fans or groups which it might serve) the bigger question for me is: is this really a community?

I'm struggling with this question as I see groups of people with common interests and fairly common goals but who I don't see acting as a "community." As I put this through the lens of social media, my problem is that I define community as a combination of the definitions above, with the last (sharing) being critical. If people aren't really interested in interacting with each other, can we really call them a community?

The first definition of a community (not listed above) is people living in close proximity to each other. However, community comes from the Latin communitatem, meaning fellowship. The Fellowship of the Ring was about a common bond and goal.

As we talk about community today, we have that same meaning in mind. We want to bring people together in a fellowship, where they can help each other, and themselves. Just because I live next to someone doesn't mean I feel a bond of community with him or her.

Some brands and organization find that creating communities online to allow people to interact can lead to some very empty spaces. The intent is good, and the information they provide is valuable. But what many struggle with is to show how active participation in the community helps both the individual and the organization. If the organization provides valuable material to individuals, but doesn't depend on individual participation to make that material better, what's the incentive to participate? Obviously there needs to be a much clearer value transaction that being part of the community benefits the individual.

Take Apple or Dell's support forums, for example. The organization has a clear interest in solving peoples' problems. However, they've incentivized computer pros to participate by rewarding them with points and anointing them as gurus. The individual benefits personally from participation and the organization benefits by having customers help each other. It's a true support community.

Let me put it another way: In any relationship, one-way transactions don't build lasting bonds. If someone always gives and another always receives, it's not a healthy relationship.

Instead of rushing to build brand communities and hoping that everyone will participate with lots of energy, brands need to ponder whether they have a community or what kind it really is. If it's just people who live close to each other, brands shouldn't expect a lot in return.

If, on the other hand, they want sharing and fellowship, brands need to take the time to understand and deliver on the needs of its community members to make sure participation has its rewards. And it's not clear that a Foursquare badge or a Facebook fan listing is enough.