Please join me at my new blog home: http://prakky.wordpress.com/

You'll find all of my old articles, as well as many more new interesting posts on current social media topics.

See you there!

There’s been a lot of media attention on the subject of cyber bullying and sexting. And some great resources like Cybersmart have been developed to help families and young people manage their presence online.

What I want to blog about today, is the pain of being a teenager in the Facebook generation.

I am so grateful Facebook wasn’t around when I was in my teens.

I was a diary-keeping gal. And a photo-taking gal. I have hundreds of photos of my girlfriends and I, in very bad acid wash jeans, perms and knitted jumpers. Wearing braces, sporting spots, holding up Midnight Oil tickets, reading Dolly magazine, drinking cask wine, and all the things you generally want to forget now ...

If Facebook had been around, I would have undoubtedly been growing up online, sharing every painful experience and gauche thought, stumbling through relationships and avowing to the world that I wanted to dedicate myself to saving the seals.

Instead, I’m 40 years old and have reluctantly accepted the friend requests of a few teenagers. And their status updates make me squirm. It’s natural for teenagers to struggle along through puberty, to feel hyper sensitive at times, or like they can’t do anything right. But somebody needs to guide them and advise them: YOU DON’T HAVE TO SHARE IT ALL ON FACEBOOK.

Let’s put together a 101 for teens. A 101 that will save them pain later on. Just as we do with career advice, or relationship advice. My top 3?

1.Less is more. Don’t give us a blow by blow – the highlights will do. Don’t post every photo, just the best one.
2.It CAN happen if it doesn’t happen on Facebook. Make sure you enjoy your time in the real world. Don’t get hung up on recording everything for your Facebook friends. Keep some things to yourself – it makes it more special. And you’ll look cooler. Not desperate.
3.Think of your Page in 10 years time. This is a digital record of your life that your future husband/wife/children/employers might read. Don’t argue with people online. Don’t wail at the world when your boyfriend dumps you. What seems like a disaster today will only be a blip in a few months time. Take a breath before you post. Write it down somewhere else if that makes you feel better.

What do you think? What would you say to the Teenage You?

I’d find it hard to be a journalist today.

Journalism is a fantastic career. I’ve got a BA in Journalism and played around in a role with the Rural Press for a wee while. Good journalists are inquisitive and energetic, and can be cynical and circumspect (which helps). Quite often, they’re eloquent writers who are passionate about communicating.

In other words, they like to be heard.

The reason I’d find it hard to be a journo, today? I don’t know if I could juggle the tug of social media with the demands of my media managers.

The world is changing for journalists.

In the traditional world of journalism, you get a story, write it up, submit to your editor, and if it’s good enough it’s published or broadcast. There’s a variety of means to distribute the news, and above all you always want to beat the competition.

But now we’ve got Twitter, right? It’s an instant broadcast medium. I’ve written on this blog before, that I’ve often received my newsbreaks on Twitter. Heck, people are taking it into their own hands now: this week Malcolm Turnbull announced his resignation on Twitter and Jim Carrey announced his divorce (not from Turnbull, but from Jenny McCarthey).

How do journalists feel about that?

Pretty darn frustrated and conflicted, is my guess.

How does it feel to sit on a ‘scoop’ while your story is edited, prepared for print or broadcast? You could easily share the news instantly on Twitter. But you have an obligation to your company, right? You need to follow their content model. Even if you have an online presence – say, an AdelaideNow – your story still takes more time to write up and post than a 140 character tweet.

This is just one of many issues facing journalism today – other vexing issues include paid/unpaid content, copyright, relevance and interactivity – all too complex for me to go into today! I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems to me that journalists need more forbearance and nouse than ever before.

What do you do, when you meet a ‘tweet’ pal for the first time In Real Life?

It’s a question that I wrestle with, because I regularly meet people face-to-face after first making a connection with them through Twitter. They’re not blind dates, but they’re pretty close in terms of how awkward you can feel.

In my experience, tweet-ups have been fantastic and I’ve not been disappointed with anyone yet (it’s true!) However I’ve come to recognise a few ‘dance steps’ and wonder if you have, too:

• Nervously wait at assigned meeting point
• Crane your neck, keep look-out for person who will resemble the thumbnail you’ve been communicating with for past weeks/months/years
• See someone vaguely resembling the thumbnail
• Wonder if it’s them
• Realise it IS them
• Wonder if it’s too late to pretend you’re not there
• Awkwardly start moving toward each other
• Think to yourself: do we shake hands? Hug? Cry and hold onto each other like reunited siblings?
• Go for an awkward hand shake
• Settle into warm and relaxed conversation

It’s the physical contact that I find most problematic. @Problogger recounted a story at the recent #cnow social media conference, about a follower who rushed toward him, embraced him fully, and cried onto his neck! She had been following him online for so long, she felt such a strong connection, that she was moved to make physical contact with someone who would ordinarily be a stranger.

I have been tweeting @Jadecraven for quite some time, she’s a fantastic Twitter pal. We met at #cnow for the first time and – knowing we live in separate cities and may not come face to face ever again – I rubbed her arm as we laughed and sighed with relief at finding each other. Later, we hugged goodbye, but when we first met IRL it still felt too forward to hug. (Though I reckon we should have, Jade!)

In many cases, your Twitter pals are your emotional crutches. They listen to you when you vent. They provide helpful information when you tweet a question. They LOL at your mishaps. They endorse your TGIFs. When other friends, or family, are absent or asleep or disinterested, there’s always a tweep available to fill the void.

So it makes sense that they’re pals IRL, right?

Or does it?

Photo by @idrewthis , with @markgamtcheff @missbiancab and @ashsimmonds at a #socadl tweetup.

This is my second blog about the positive power of Facebook.

To me, Facebook isn’t a ‘place of evil’ or ‘destroyer of young minds’ as some traditional media would have us believe. It connects people, resurrects friendships, reminds you of great times and helps you look forward to new ones.

Today I’m blogging about charities on Facebook.

Charities use all sorts of communications channels to tell us about their causes. For years, their efforts have been supported by direct mail, telemarketing, fundraising events, sponsorship and so on.

But Facebook has allowed charities to set up shop in a community environment, where people can connect with them and easily share their favourite charity with their social circle. When was the last time you deliberately set out to visit a charity’s official website? Then consider how often you come across a charity (or cause) on Facebook.

Here’s some good examples:

Australian Red Cross

UNICEF

World Vision Australia

McGrath Foundation

Of course, Facebook application 'Causes' has enabled many not-for-profits to share their cause on Facebook. It's an app specifically designed for mobilising the power of Facebook to support worthy causes, and is used by millions of people around the EVERY MONTH.

Do you have a favourite charity or cause on Facebook? Has Facebook enabled you to learn more about that cause and get involved? Tell me about it – see the Comments link above.

Yes, you read it right.

This is a pro-Facebook article.

It's not something you'll see every day. Nowadays, we’re used to media coverage blaming Facebook for most of society's ills: it's been blamed for everything from teenagers being distracted from their homework, through to increasing the incidence of syphilis. (Note: everything distracts teens from their homework - Facebook, TV, snacks in the fridge, a fly buzzing past the desk .. don’t we remember what it’s like to be a teenager? It’s hardly news).
I’m sick of it. This is the Facebook Fightback.

I’m going to start regularly featuring alternative examples of the world of Facebook. I’m going to publish a Facebook ‘happy story’ to remind us that it’s not all bad. And I hope you’ll contribute your examples too.

Here’s my first one:

March 2010 Facebook-is-Awesome-Example
I grew up in Whyalla, South Australia. There’s a Facebook group for current and former residents that allows us to share stories. Many of the posts are lengthy, with eloquent and colourful details that bring the town to life and even make readers emotional.

For those with a connection to Whyalla, this group – with its recall of local characters, the streets we grew up in, the schools we went to, the trouble we got into - broadcasts some powerful stuff.

There’s a Discussion called “The street you grew up in” which is nothing if not poignant. Here, you have people recounting their movements from house to house in Whyalla, and then coming across old neighbours. They can ask each other questions, sing out ‘I remember you!’ and piece together their funny stories.

Here’s some examples posts:
I remember Loring Street the most. I used to walk to school at Scott Street Primary and my brother and sister went to Stuart High. I remember walking to One Stop to get an icy pole in 40° heat and getting fish and chips on a Friday night.

I too remember walking to the corner shop ... with my empty coke bottle to get a big bag of 20 cent lollies ... and at the end of the street in those days was the bush, endless days out looking for sleepy lizards and bearded dragons and building cubby houses......sigh.....

I must certainly say that just the mere mentioning of Whyalla brings a lot of memories and feelings back. Whyalla, for me, was the entrance door to Australia, it was the first place/city I resided in, and also the place where I got married (Ada Ryan Gardens)... Now I have jumped to and lived in so many cities and countries that is hard to keep track of all the places, but Whyalla will always have a special place in my heart...

It's great reading these posts. My mum is in Adelaide too and she always runs into someone from Whyalla ... The town doesn't make the people, it's the people that make the town.

Omg Allison, reading your post is like reading verbatim my childhood and teenage years!!!

Jeez, weren't we so carefree, safe and happy in them days, as poor as we were.

I have had the best time reading all these memories.

Click 'Comments' above to post links to any Facebook groups or page that have made you feel warm inside. If you’re a Facebook fan, join the Fightback!

On election day in South Australia, I take a last-minute look at what political candidates have been doing on Twitter.

This is a follow up to my ‘Politicians and Twitter’ blog a few weeks ago ...

Premier Mike Rann hasn’t tweeted for past two days. Too much to do, to tweet? I would’ve thought using your own direct broadcast channel and conversing with the electorate was more important now, than it ever was. Would have loved to see tweets from the Premier sharing insights like:

• What’s it like, the night before the election?
• How does he feel, going into the polling booth?
• Is he glad election day has finally come?
• What’s his message to the electorate today?
• What party does he have planned tonight? What happens if he loses?

The Premier’s Twitter account did contain a few Twitpics recently – not terribly insightful – and he also attempted to start a #premiermikerann hashtag that didn’t turn out to be too popular.

Opposition Leader and Premier-hopeful Isobel Redmond hasn’t tweeted for the past three days, and the last tweet seems to be clarifying a policy. In fact, her last few tweets are attempting to clear up what’s she’s called “incorrect” media reports. Not a good look to leave on your Twitter page. Why not some positive announcements and tweet interaction with your voters, going into election day?

On the plus side, Ms Redmond did respond to some tweet queries from others, and used the #saelection hashtag – fantastic way to be part of the community stream on the topic. (I’d love to see her team load a branded Twitter background for her, though. You’ve got to use every opportunity to brand yourself, people!)

Michael Wright continues to be largely a conduit for the Premier’s tweets (why bother – I guess he’s playing it safe?); Mark Parnell hadn’t tweeted for the past four days.

Jamie Briggs has been tweeting regularly throughout the election period, including today, commenting on a “great feeling”. He’s had a consistent tweet theme : “rann's time is up and redmond is ready” .. did you notice?

Best examples include Kat Nicholson for Gamers4Croydon regularly tweets, replies, uses hashtags and posts twitpics. And Dr Jane Lomax-Smith continues to communicate to a high standard, today sending out a few tweets about what she’s doing on election morning and feeling “buoyed by level of support today” .

What I’d like to see happen on Day 1 of the new government:
The communications team sits down and starts to work out how to best use social media to engage with the people who put them there.

What have you seen happening on Twitter during the #SAelection?

Businesses and not-for-profits are increasingly adopting social media as part of their communications programs.

This isn’t a blog about how ‘social media has become mainstream’. What I do want to ponder is: who’s best suited to manage these social media strategies?

Is it an organisation’s:
• marketing department
• public relations team
• advertising team or
• (if an organisation is lucky enough to have it) its digital marketing department
• a multi-disciplinary team?

I tweeted the question recently and received a variety of responses, but little agreement. It reminds me a little of the great website debate of 10 years ago: who owns the company website? Corporate? IT? Marketing? [Sadly, some companies still haven’t resolved this.]

So where does social media sit? This is a real issue for me.

I work within the public relations field, and the social media campaigns I help manage often delve into the world of marketing. I’ve got a BA in Journalism and Masters in Communication Management ... I don’t have the energy to become a marketer, too. But I know the marketing discipline would add definite strengths to some social media projects.

But do marketers care enough about regular two-way conversations with stakeholders? Probably not as much as PR bods, who are charged with caring about what all audiences say about their clients, wherever they say it.

Social media and PR work well together.

A PR professional can see where social media fits within a business’s overall communications strategy. Good PR bods recognise the need for two-way communication within an organisation, and social media is today’s key to two-way communication tool. PR professionals are also focused on outcomes, on reaching the right audiences in the right place, with the right message. We won’t play with social media just for the sake of it.

As Lee Hopkins has said (and said often), it’s about strategy. Who’s best able to steer your social media strategy for you? It’s not just about opening a Facebook page, boosting membership numbers, and blasting followers with regular marketing messages. There’s got to be a rhyme and reason to all this. If you’re not asking that question yet .. believe me, your followers soon will. Consumers are becoming more savvy and selective: they won’t follow everyone forever.

There needs to be a long term view. What’s going to happen to that Facebook page in a year, in two years? What does the organisation want to achieve? What does it believe in? What type of relationship does it want with its stakeholders?

New ‘Social media specialists’ who are setting up shop specifically to push organisations onto platforms like Facebook need to take a chill pill. They’re membership factories ... with a finite membership. It’s a recipe for disaster.

IN SUMMARY: social media is turning into a specialist role for people with multi-disciplinary skills. The ones who rise to the top will be those who respect other specialities, ask for advice, and follow a STRATEGY.

I was staring at my PC screen recently.

Staring at an owl wearing a hard hat. Hootsuite was down for maintenance and it was darn annoying.

It brought home the fact that I rely on Hootsuite a great deal to manage multiple social media accounts. Many of us do it now – we’re using Hootsuite, Tweetdeck, Seesmic, Facebook, YouTube, FlickR, YouTube, Blogger – for business.

When our telephone line goes down, we call our phone provider. If the electricity fizzles out, we call the building manager. If the newspaper doesn’t get delivered to the office on time, we can call the newsagent and ask what’s going on. They’re all being paid by us. They’ve got service agreements with us. And there are consequences to those services being unavailable.

But when happens when our free online tools fall over?

Not much.

Services like Hootsuite, quite rightly, do not promise they’ll always be there for you. In its terms, owner Invoke Media states in part:

“Your use of the Service is at your sole risk. The service is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis ... Invoke Media does not warrant that (i) the service will meet your specific requirements, (ii) the service will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free, (iii) the results that may be obtained from the use of the service will be accurate or reliable, (iv) the quality of any products, services, information, or other material purchased or obtained by you through the service will meet your expectations ...” http://hootsuite.com/terms

But it’s no fickle matter if these services are unavailable. Increasingly, we’re relying on free social platforms as main communication channels. We’ve all read about major companies like Pepsi, Coca Cola, Ford and Holden devoting more resources to sites like Facebook, rather than official sites. When these online tools are gone, it’s an interruption to our services.

Imagine a world where social media is ‘taken away’ (hideous, isn’t it?) The Social Media God decides the experiment is over, and we all need to go back and play on our standard dotcoms.

Boom! In an instant, you’ve lost your thousands of Fans – their names, locations, likes and dislikes. You’ve lost all the comments you’ve been gathering, all the interaction you’ve built up. You’ve lost photos and videos. Not to mention search engine listings.

That’s why it’s important to back up that information. How many of us do that? When was the last time you archived a social media account? (I’m making a mental note ...)

What better time to take a look at state politicians’ tweets than now - at the official beginning of the South Australian election period?

It’s fantastic that some pollies have delved into social media, using platforms like Twitter. This means they get it – right?

Er ... maybe not.

Taking a cursory look at some SA politicians tweets, it appears they use Twitter as a broadcasting platform rather than as an opportunity for conversation. They broadcast messages about themselves and only seldom do they publicly reply to followers, or retweet others.

Now, I’m not sure whether the pollies are only direct replying (DM) to their constituents. So I can’t categorically say they’re using one-way communication on Twitter. But to the general public, that’s how it appears.

This means most SA politicians haven’t really grasped what Twitter is about – that it’s a conversation. It’s not an opportunity for them to spout their views / tell us where they are / have a go at the opposition and then log off.

Let’s look at a few examples:
http://twitter.com/premiermikerann
There’s very little two-way interaction from South Australia’s current Premier. His Twitter account is full of paragraphs about what he’s doing, but you have to trawl thoroughly to see a single Reply to anyone else.

If you use search.twitter.com and look for @premiermikerann you will see that others are tweeting the Premier, asking him questions and sharing their opinion. Does he respond directly and privately? Or not at all? Who knows?

http://twitter.com/isobelredmond
The would-be Premier and Leader of the SA Liberal Party appears to be relatively new to Twitter. Similarly to Mike Rann, there is little interaction and conversation with followers on her Twitter account. And again, if you go to search.twitter.com it’s easy to see that people are asking her questions and trying to interact.

The following MPs have scant public interaction with followers on Twitter (at least over past few days .. I have not done an exhaustive search over the week):

http://twitter.com/MichaelWrightMP
Few replies – he does retweet the Premier quite often.

http://twitter.com/MarkParnellMLC
I had to travel past 23 tweets before I saw a reply – and that was to a Senator.

http://twitter.com/DavidWinderlich
At least he’s trying to start a hashtag - #davidteam . This MP interacts at least within every 10 tweets, but doesn’t always appear to be David tweeting, as it’s been written in the third person, ie

"... thanks mate, check out David's website at www.davidwinderlich.com thanks for your support #DavidTeam"

Michael Pengilly has protected his tweets. http://twitter.com/MichaelPengilly What’s up with that? Is he following only? Why use Twitter if you don’t want to chat with others in a public forum? (ps Michael, change your colour design! Ouch).

And now we come to the exception to the rule – Dr Jane Lomax Smith, tourism and education minister, who’s been using Twitter for quite some time. http://twitter.com/DrJaneLS

Dr Lomax-Smith often responds and interacts with followers, shares more personal information, (such as what she’s looking forward to for dinner tonight), funny anecdotes and blunders and shows personality:

“ Can't stand reading tweets from fitness fanatics about rides runs and swims while bothered by calf injury and sulking around house”.

Of course, she also talks politics and spruiks what her government is doing. But she gets points for replying to followers and being real. Dr Lomax-Smith needs to grab her colleagues and run a Twitter workshop.

What have you noticed from SA pollies on Twitter? I’m especially interested to know if they’re direct-replying rather than publicly replying.

If they are DM-ing, why? If they have something to say to a constituent, surely they want to share that information with all of us?

Note: since publishing this blog, I've received numerous tweets to say Premier Mike Rann used to interact and reply to followers, but this appears to have dropped off during recent weeks. [23 Feb 2010.]

On the back of all commentary about “the internet killing mainstream media ...”

.. consider how Twitter encourages live TV viewing.

Have you ever sat back in front of the tele, relaxing in your favourite armchair, with your mobile phone open to Twitter?

If you answered Yes, you’re not the only one.

I’m increasingly enjoying watching live TV with a gang of friends – on Twitter.

While some people may have been doing this for some time, it only recently kicked in for me during My Kitchen Rules, the Channel 7 ‘reality’ series pitting passionate cooking couples against each other. I’ve been enjoying tweeting comments about the show and sharing views with others. We tweet about what the Kitchen couples are like, how the food looks, and how hot the celebrity chefs are. All brought together under a hash tag (one of the superior evolutions of Twitter).

On any given night of the week, you’ll find similar hash tag debates bringing Australian lounge rooms together: #spicksandspecks #cougartown #lost and much more. Longer show titles get a shortened version, such as #mkr for My Kitchen Rules or #sytycd (So You Think You Can Dance).

So, what are TV stations doing to capitalise on this?

I must admit I was surprised to see Daryl Somers gloating about Hey Hey It’s Saturday being a trending topic on Twitter some months ago, when Hey Hey had a comeback special. Still not sure he knows what Twitter is ... but besides this, have you seen many TV corporation references to Twitter?

Free to air television is finding its environment increasingly competitive, with audiences being pulled toward downloading content, DVDs, and viewing on demand without commercials in general.

Now, its strength just may be in encouraging audiences to watch alongside pals online as the show airs in real time, enjoying the show in an interactive forum they’ve never been able to experience before.

Last night, I tweeted about My Kitchen Rules for the entire program. And you know what’s really interesting for TV channels – and their advertisers? I tweeted about the commercials during the show. So did my tweet pals. We critiqued the commercials, the advocates featured in them, the creative used and how we felt about them.

There’s some real audience connection, market research and advocacy going on.
Let me know if you’ve seen TV stations encouraging social media take up anywhere.

Interesting articles:

Live TV's Alive as Ever, Boosted by Social Media

TV and Social Media Engagement

We’ve all heard this maxim about websites: you’ve got less than 10 seconds to impress (or is that 6 seconds, or 3? It all depends on which blog you read). But have you ever stopped to think that websites aren’t alone in this?

First impressions count. We all have seconds to make an impact before a) interest wanes b) a person makes assumptions about you or c) a person falls in love with you(according to Hollywood).

This maxim occurred to me again recently, as I wandered in and out of clothing stores. It took only seconds for me to recognise whether a store had any merchandise that appealed to me.

Sure, I might politely wander around for a few more seconds, say hello to the shop assistant, touch some fabric - but I would know almost immediately whether I was going to spend any money there.

On websites, when visitors leave quickly it’s often called your site’s “bounce rate”. How long they stay can be referred to as a site’s “stickiness”.
I haven’t worked in the retail sector, but I’d love to know if there is research on their stores’ stickiness. I’m sure there is.

In supermarkets, they do try to influence this. They stock the essentials right at the back of the store, ensuring you spend more time there as you traverse your way down the aisles. (Think about where the milk, eggs and bread is stored in your local supermarket).

Websites clearly shouldn’t be burying their useful information. But what lessons can websites take from supermarkets – if any? “Dressing your storefront” to appeal to customers is an obvious one.

Websites have one clear advantage over the physical stores. Website analytics. It’s easy to show how many users leave after a few seconds. I wonder if shop assistants are taking any notes?

Have you ever worked in retail? Any stories to share?

This is a blog about South Australia’s new internet commentary laws. For background, you might want to read this article on AdelaideNow .

Myth 1:If you’ve got something to say, you should be brave enough to put your name to it

Guess what. We’re not all brave, chest-beating types prepared for the wrath of family, friends and colleagues based on what we’re written.

There are legitimate reasons for people to want to blog anonymously. Take these scenarios:

· Government is proposing new laws on child abuse. A woman has been abused as a child; she wants to take part in the debate but doesn’t want to let her partner know of her past just yet. She writes an anonymous blog. Outlawed under SA censorship law.

· Government proposes new immigration laws. Man wants to support them, but is afraid to share his name and address because of the ethnicity of the community he lives in, where there is high sensitivity to the issue. He outlines his well-thought out comments in a blog without using his real address. Outlawed under SA censorship law.

· Married couple decides to write a story (let’s face it, that’s what forms many blogs) about their experience living in the same street as a bikie gang, also debating anti-bikie laws. They decide not to publish their name and address because they don’t want a Molotov cocktail thrown onto their front lawn or Harley Davison’s riding past at all hours. Outlawed.

· A man’s employer has made it clear where he stands on the subject of a new local development. The employer is overbearing and petty. The man feels differently – he wants to protect his local park. He writes a blog to share with other community members, but doesn’t sign his name in case his employer can identify him ... outlawed.

It’s okay for journalists to use confidential sources. And anonymous columns (particularly political) have been a media stalwart for centuries. How so? We need to recall the reasons for this, to understand what is so wrong with the new SA censorship laws.

Journalists use confidential sources so that source can speak without fear. Anonymous columns are published for great debate to be shared rather than hidden. Which brings me to my next myth ...

Myth 2:Bloggers only want to share outrageous, defamatory comments

Mr Atkinson has said he wants people to stop calling him outrageous names. In an email to me, he said it’d be nice if people refrained from calling him a ‘kiddy-fiddler, paedophile, douche bag ..’
I can’t begin to outline how paranoid and self centred the laws are.

I’m a blogger. I’m not interested in calling Mr Atkinson any names. And yet the new laws would have affected me.

Many bloggers are eloquent, cautious people who take time to think through debate. They may or may not like to use curious pseudonyms. They have their own readers and followers. They usually allow comment on their blogs, and are ready to debate on their blogs. They are also governed by the same defamation laws as the rest of the public.

Believe it or not, there are bloggers who like to write about issues; their world doesn’t revolve around anonymously defaming politicians.

Myth 3: “I’m not interested in what you have to say unless you put your name to it"

Really? Content is king – and for my money, I reckon you’ll read great content whether it’s signed or not. It’s human nature.

‘Anonymous’ is one of the most prolific, funny, sarcastic, witty and pertinent writers of our time.
If we didn’t like to read comments unless they had the name and address of the author, the many ‘Diary of a ...’ publications would never be read.

In election periods, I would have thought the veracity of the debate, the genius behind the ideas, were always more compelling than whether or not it’s signed.

The most boring pieces you’ll ever read? Those signed by a politician, with their profile picture published alongside. And why is that? They’ve got their name attached, so they’re scared to say anything of substance ...

Myth 4: Bloggers are the 17-year-old ‘net generation’

Attorney General Michael Atkinson – and some mainstream media commentators – has contributed to the myth that the censorship laws were overturned to meet the needs of the ‘blogger generation’. Mr Atkinson even went so far as to say he consulted his own children, who helped attune him to the expectations of ‘young bloggers’.

Young people aren’t bloggers. They aren’t even microbloggers (that is Twitter by the way).
By and large, they focus on Facebook, SMS and email. They want to talk to their friends, not debate policy with strangers. This has been backed up by published research this week.

The people up in arms about the censorship laws and most active are 30+ and, dare I say 40+.
Anyone with a real interest in public debate should hook into Twitter, the ultimate debating forum. In my Twitter stream over the past week, it’s been people in the 30+ age bracket who have been up in arms over Michael Atkinson’s actions.

I’m 39. I have ethical standards. I am sensitive to others. People opposing the censorship laws were most decidedly not young ‘net gens who imagine they can get away with anything online, in some abstract new brutal netiquette age.

Myth 5: The new laws are all about honesty

The new laws are all about protecting politicians.

If they were about honesty, they’d exist outside the election period.

The laws are completely politician-centric. Mr Atkinson’s comments about the names he’s been called confirm this. Some people want to debate policy and social change and guess what –sometimes this can be achieved without mentioning a single politician’s name!

The new laws are about making it more difficult for party stooges to enter debate anonymously. But in trying to protect pollies and make political hacks more accountable, they’re reducing safety for the general public. We need to err on the side of safety for the rest of us; politicians have entered the political fray, they’re protected by defamation laws, and need to ‘take their lumps’ as Mr Atkinson would say.

Why do I blog?
Please don't debate about blogs or social media if you don’t understand them.

Why did I choose to write this as a blog?
· This text wouldn’t fit in a Letter to the Editor
· I can publish my own blog – maybe other publishers wouldn’t consider it fit to print
· I can share my views with my connections
· It helps me think through my views – and indeed, debate myself

As always, I’d be glad to read your comments.

It's no surprise what was hot on Twitter this week: the official launch of Apple's new iPad.

When I woke the morning after Steve Jobs had shown the world his new baby, my Twitter feed was full of iPad references and little else. What happened to Haiti? Or everyone whining about a new work day?

While on Twitter, I bemoaned the fact that nobody seemed to want to engage in any other topics. But miraculously, by that afternoon, the iPad buzz had worn off. In my friend list of some 300 tweeters anyway.

That surprised me. While there are still occasional tweets about the iPad as more people muse on what it might do for us, it seemed to quickly die down.

Is this a symptom of the new communications world? We'd already been talking about Apple's imminent new tablet. Then, we were treated to plentiful analysis, following the launch. So much information was available: were we simply sated? And would this have occurred, say, three or five years ago?

I'm not sure if it's a symptom of social media communications, or the iPad device itself. But over coming weeks, I'll be looking at this and also the phenomenon of 'early adopters'. Because I suspect that there are more early adopters out there these days, spurred on by the interactions and encouragement they receive online. There's less privileged information, and people are sharing their expertise with the masses. For marketers, it's a dream come true.

Here's some more reading about the iPad online frenzy:

Mashable: Haiti, iPad and Obama (who incidentally think people will still be buzzing about the iPad a week from now ... but as I've said, I think this will peter out until they're in store and we get our hands on them).

Yahoo News: Cyber Crooks Cash in on iPad frenzy

Mobile phone etiquette used to be all about whether to take a phone call during a meeting or restaurant meal.

It was good fodder for late night comics and ammunition for disgruntled spouses at the dinner table. We debated when you should ignore a call, whether to turn your phone off or onto silent mode, how loud you should speak while on the phone in a public place and more.

Now, as we use our mobile phones in more ways, putting them away is like holding your breath for 2 minutes. Tricky and uncomfortable.

Today's mobile phone offers you a window onto the world and it can be tricky to shut that window down. Our phones are our media portals, networking spaces, event listings, maps and more.

And when we’re socialising at nightclubs or restaurants, we’re so used to being ‘social’ via our phones that it’s doubly hard to turn our back on them. What if a friend is trying to find you? What if they’ve sent a tweet and you missed it? Did you remember to check in on Foursquare? Has someone sent you a text?

Then of course, your phone is a powerful camera. You need to take it out, to record the fun you’re having. And you may as well share it instantly, so you visit your favourite app to upload that fresh image to your favourite social media space …

In the end, there may seem to be more reasons TO use the mobile phone than not to.

My thoughts? It depends on the company you’re keeping. If I’m dining with my husband, I know he wants me to look at him, not my Nokia screen. But if I’m with some girlfriends, it’s acceptable for us to have our phones in our palms, to share what’s in our tweet stream, to check in on Foursquare, and to upload ridiculous pictures of each other.

Our mobile phones are part of a fun, easy atmosphere where we share tips for social media alongside gossip about acquaintances. It’s all interconnected. And while we may be having a drink with four or five gal pals, we know there are plenty of other friends on the other end of our phones, tweeting from wherever they are, able to arrange to meet us, or discuss recommendations for our next pit stop.

Judge your audience and have respect for them. It’s simple.

Speaking of audiences: who can forget the episode when Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig had their theatre performance interrupted by a mobile phone in the audience?

It’s essential to turn phones off in cinemas and theatres. I’m also in favour of enjoying a rock concert without filming the whole thing on your mobile. Mosh pits are for dancing and absorbing the moment, not for viewing hardworking musos via a tiny screen. Get real!

I'm constantly impressed by some of the pithy, droll and sarcastic bios people write for their Twitter profiles. I thought it was worth sharing a few of my favourites:

@derekandkong: Born at a very young age I realised almost immediately that I knew very little.

@keithpitt: web developer (Ruby on Rails), geek, gamer and robot from the year 2143

@TheBloggess: I have friends in spite of myself.

@Cathie_Tranent: I am a wife I am a mother I work I blog I photograph I design tshirts I'm tired

@Wang_Wang (panda) : Black and white bear. Omnivore. Likes travel, eating bamboo and origami. I'm endangered, but I party like a rock star.

@bludgingwriter: Trying to finish writing a book while the TV brings up the three kids

@teedubya: ... SEO Jedi. Uber bullshittapotomous. Social Shaman. Pompous Windbag. I'm kind of a Medium Deal.

Unfortunately, we don't always notice these bios, as we visit Twitter.com less, instead using tweet tools such as Hootsuite. These tend to disconnect you from the bios, background images and other individual touches that people use to represent themselves. It's worth checking in to Twitter.com now and then to take a good look at your tweet pals.

Have you ever noticed that on social networks the spelling can become, well, a little sloppy?

What does this mean to you? Does it tick you off? Or do you believe that it’s part of the fast-paced, casual atmosphere of the social media environment?

With tweets, I can forgive a typo – particulary if it’s from a mobile application. Those tiny keys on your mobile aren’t always your friend, are they?

But it’s absolutely unforgivable if somebody creates a Facebook group and has mistakes in the group name. So I’ve very happily joined the Facebook group: I’d join your group but there are spelling errors in the title.

Now, I’m no grammar queen. I’ll leave that to my good friends at Leviathancomms. Heck, I know I shouldn’t have started a sentence with ‘but’ (as I did earlier in this blog).

But spelling when you’re creating something, when you’re promoting a business online, when you’re writing about yourself and building your own personal brand? Come on!

I’ve noticed that age makes no difference. I looked up a former colleague on Facebook and read her profile. She had listed her children’s names without capitalising them. She’s in her 50s. What had possessed her? She wouldn’t have let happen in an office document. Why let it slip through on the internet, where people search for you and, frankly, judge you?

It gets worse when texting lingo and shortcuts enter the fray. A family member’s status updates are barely decipherable. Take these examples:

Wld lyk 2 know wtf....happend 2 my hotmail n facebook accounts, it said username/p-w unknown..lyk wtf...so i had 2 reset em both

OMFG..Im getting SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO frustrated, trying 2 load a pic bt its taking 4 eva cuz everytym I load a pic frm my dig. Camera its huge..YYYYYYYYYYYYYY????????

One final thought: social media is about sharing. You’ve joined in because you’ve got something to say. If you want people to read your message, slow down and get the spelling right.

I’m getting a kick out of using Foursquare, a social network newly available in Adelaide. Foursquare has been another phenomenon in the US, but only recently added Adelaide to its list of cities (read Foursquare Goes Global).

Foursquare is so new, when you Google it, the first page of search results contain references to the old schoolground game.

Foursquare is for mobile phone users who like to get out a lot. Every time you visit your favourite coffee house / restaurant / shopping centre or other venue, you can ‘check in’ there on Foursquare. It gives you points for your check ins, and you can become ‘Mayor’ of the spots you frequent the most.

Your friends on Foursquare (who you find like you did when starting out with Twitter or Facebook), can see where you are. If they’re at that same spot, you’ll both know via Foursquare.

You can add tips about your favourite places, building up a wealth of shared information. (For example, I let people know that Kwiksticks in North Adelaide has ‘kids eat free’ nights every Tuesday).

So it’s part game, part locator, part status update, part venue review.

It launched in the US last year and had an estimated 100,000 users in November 2009.

It’s been called “addictive and slightly creepy”...

Using Foursquare
Here’s some good advice from Jason Moffatt, in a recent review of Foursquare vs Gowalla: if you want to avoid ‘stalkers’, check in on Foursquare as you’re leaving a location. (And remember – when you check in, you don’t have to share with friends at all. You can gain points by checking in, but untick the normal friend feeds that disseminate the updates).

What’s in it for me?
Personally, it’s only week one on Foursquare for me, so with these fresh eyes it’s too soon to judge whether a) I will quickly grow tired of it and let it lapse or b) I become so addicted my family arranges an intervention.

For the application itself, people are really talking up its potential. And why wouldn’t you – for an application that encourages people to get out and about, invite their friends and write reviews? If user numbers grow, it will be of obvious interest to countless industries.

“So far, about 200 venues, as diverse as bars and frames shops, have promotions offering discounts and other perks to Foursquare users in the system … “ read more.

Get on board, give it a go. Oh, and apparently it’s already overtaken Gowalla in terms of user numbers. Available in iPhone app, Blackberry app and on m.foursquare.com

More good Foursquare articles:

Why Foursquare Might Matter

Now you can play Foursquare anywhere