Sunday, February 08, 2015

How I juggle various social media platforms

Just a late note, on how I handle both the social media and blogs these days.
My tweets are forwarded automatically to my “” home page and to Facebook, except for those addressed to a specific party.  Facebook doesn’t accept forwards of tweets with embedded videos, so if I want those on Facebook, I have to re-enter them.  And Facebook may use discretion in how it presents these forwards in any Friend’s newsfeed, or my own.
My own videos do wind up on Google+, as do occasional comments on other YouTube videos (mostly music, some science). 

I haven't paid as much attention to LinkedIn as I should, because I'm not in the "conventional" job market as it was before.  
My followers and friends are quite diverse in interests, so no one tweet or post is likely to interest all ofo them.  I don’t present every sensational news item (or, for example, every legal case on an issue like gay marriage) that I encounter – it would be “rude” of me to expect followers to believe they should get all their “news” from me!  But I do present links that have more than average relevance to Internet free speech in some way.  I do present stories where I can (within the 140 character limit) present some unusual personal insights.  I do share photos that I take when there is something interesting to some of the followers.
My blogging is slowly moving toward closer relevance to the personal projects I’ve discussed here before (Nov. 2, 2014).  To maintain credibility, I still feel I have to “cover” everything that happens in some way. It’s obviously not useful to repeat every story about every same-sex marriage case, or every ISIS (or North Korean or even Putin) atrocity.  Again, I try to cover them by showing relevance of areas where I have more expertise or experience, like filial responsibility, implicit content, conflict of interest, downstream liability, and “free riding” (a suddenly big topic).  I still believe that most progressive “issue-oriented” groups tend to focus too narrowly on the immediate needs of specific constituencies (even if they see these needs creatively in terms of volunteer operations, for example), and overlook the significance of external threats, whether natural or from more distant or foreign enemies.
As I’ve noted, the news organization that most naturally extends what I started as an individual is Vox.  One person could not develop “card stacks” with the amount of detail as compactly organized as Vox has managed to create with legally or politically “dense” issues like same-sex marriage (“don’t ask don’t tell” got repealed just before Vox came along) and network neutrality, along with coverage of specific global conflicts (within Islam, with respect to Russia) and environmental and energy issues.   But the company has not yet developed these “stacks” in areas that are more diffuse like filial responsibility laws, population demographics, bigger existential terror threats, or especially self-censorship associated with the chilling effects of both overbroad legislation and of combative enemies.  The latter content area would include Jyllands-Posten, for example, which Vox gets started (here) but would have a long way to go (as with the material in the book by Flemming Rose, reviewed on my Books blog Feb. 3). 
Would I love to work with a news organization and become “legitimate”.  No question, that might reduce my “scope” but make me both more secure and more effective.  That’s a whole big discussion.

No comments: