<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Social Media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/social_media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 13:20:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>I, Luddite</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/i_luddite/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/i_luddite/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12789731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Growing up, I thought it was cool to shun technology. Now, at 33, that attitude is ruining my life]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was having a cigarette with a 23-year-old bartender named Marty when we started talking about social media.</p><p>“I just use Facebook to meet up with friends or to know what’s happening next week,” he said. “My parents and older people abuse Facebook. They put too much out there.” Like a lot of young adults, Marty doesn't have much use for email, though he uses it with his cousins “as a way to tell longer, more involved stories, mostly about how out of it our parents are.”</p><p>I'm considered part of Marty's generation, despite our 10-year age difference. But the only common ground we had in that conversation was the Phillies and smoking a cigarette in the parking lot of a bar. When it comes to technology, I might as well be his granddad.</p><p>Born in 1978, I’m a millennial in name only. I’m really a Luddite. I don’t get technology, and for a long time I tried to convince myself I didn’t want to get it. My view on the latest cyber advances was lack of interest and occasionally hostility. I imagined that this rejection marked me as an iconoclast or a rugged individualist. A real man listens to Led Zeppelin and doesn’t listen to Led Zeppelin on iTunes -- that sort of thing. Now, thanks to that mulishness and vanity, I feel like a clamshell of a man, outdated and struggling to communicate with the rest of my cohorts’ fancy smartphones. At the age of 33, I've been left behind.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/i_luddite/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/i_luddite/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Franzen doesn&#8217;t get Twitter</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/franzen_doesnt_get_twitter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/franzen_doesnt_get_twitter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Franzen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writers and Writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12588951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The author calls it "the ultimate irresponsible medium." But he doesn't understand why people actually tweet]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In some ways, we’ve brought this on ourselves; it is a slippery slope. First you wonder what Angelina Jolie had for breakfast because she was so great in that one movie or whatever and then you’re buying cereal and thinking, “Does Oprah eat Raisin Bran?” Eventually, you even start to give a damn about what famous writers think about the weather or, say, social networking, and someone like Jonathan Franzen revels in his dislike of Twitter and other means of social networking from his Important Writer perch and we respond because if Franzen hates Twitter, does he hate us too? The angst is unbearable and yet it’s all sort of inevitable.</p><p>Franzen’s A Great American Writer and all but I don’t give a much of a damn about his opinions on anything (see: Edith Wharton obvi). Or I do. Is it really surprising that Franzen doesn’t care for Facebook or Twitter? His overall comportment does not suggest an affinity for the levity of social networking. I can’t really say I love Facebook, myself. It has become increasingly hard to make sense of the interface and I keep getting invited to parties and readings in Bali and Temecula and I don’t live in those places, so the experience is, at best, fragmented. At the same time, I don’t need to proselytize my dislike unless I’m on Twitter. Who cares? My opinion doesn’t matter nor does Franzen’s, though he is Very Fancy, so in the calculus of mattering, his irrelevant opinion is less irrelevant than mine. Math.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/franzen_doesnt_get_twitter/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/franzen_doesnt_get_twitter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>62</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t ignore Facebook&#8217;s silly-sounding policies</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/dont_ignore_facebooks_silly_sounding_policies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/dont_ignore_facebooks_silly_sounding_policies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12406051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A leaked manual reveals the shadowy and powerful role social media sites play in shaping public discourse]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week, <a href="http://gawker.com/5885714/">Gawker received a curious document</a>. Turned over by an aggrieved worker from the online freelance employment site oDesk, the document iterated, over the course of several pages and in unsettling detail, exactly what kinds of content should be deleted from the social networking site that had outsourced its content moderation to oDesk’s team. The social networking site, as it turned out, was Facebook.</p><p>The antiseptically titled “Abuse Standards 6.1: Operation Manual for Live Content Moderators” (along with an updated version 6.2 subsequently shared with <a href="http://gawker.com/5885836/">Gawker</a>, presumably by Facebook) is still available on Gawker. It represents the implementation of the Facebook’s <a href="http://www.facebook.com/communitystandards">Community Standards</a>, which present the social media site's priorities around acceptable content, but stay miles away from actually spelling them out. In the Community Standards, Facebook reminds users that “We have a strict ‘no nudity or pornography’ policy. Any content that is inappropriately sexual will be removed. Before posting questionable content, be mindful of the consequences for you and your environment.” But, an oDesk freelancer looking at hundreds of pieces of content every hour needs more specific instructions on what exactly is “inappropriately sexual” — such as removing “Any OBVIOUS sexual activity, even if naked parts are hidden from view by hands, clothes or other objects. Cartoons / art included. Foreplay allowed (Kissing, groping, etc.). even for same sex (man-man / woman-woman" (sic).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/dont_ignore_facebooks_silly_sounding_policies/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/dont_ignore_facebooks_silly_sounding_policies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My Facebook angst</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/18/my_facebook_angst/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/18/my_facebook_angst/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12372991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The social network site kicks up so much anxiety and embarrassment for me. But that doesn't mean I want to quit it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few days ago, my friend Elizabeth posted an item to Facebook. I wanted to comment but held back, though not exactly because I had plenty of work to do. Instead I sent her a text: “Sometimes do you want to say something or post something or like something on FB, but then you think of all those unanswered emails and texts and silence yourself, so people won’t see you ‘wasting’ time when you could be responding to them?”</p><p>“Sometimes?” she replied.</p><p>“It’s called Twilt, that feeling,” I answered, laughing, having coined the term on the spot.</p><p><strong>Twilt</strong> <em>(n):</em> the particular brand of guilt or self-reproach that results from posting, liking or commenting on items on Facebook or Twitter while simultaneously not responding to emails, text messages, phone calls or other types of personal communication with the knowledge or anxiety that the specific message senders will notice your public offerings and question your lack of private ones. Twilt, while related, is not the same as the guilt that results from general Internet-specific procrastination such as browsing blogs or online shopping, which, though it may result in its own brand of self-disgust, generally has no public shame component.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/18/my_facebook_angst/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/18/my_facebook_angst/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The latest Twitter revolution</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/the_latest_twitter_revolution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/the_latest_twitter_revolution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12285911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Long-haul truckers gather in Mississippi to learn social media skills, burnish their image -- and fight regulations]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rich Wilson is telling a roomful of truckers how to sound less like, well, truckers. “Intelligence, not ignorance,” he instructs. “If you have to, Google a few words. Refrain from words like ‘ain’t,’ ‘gonna,’ ‘y’all’ or ‘you-know-what bureaucrats.’”</p><p>Wilson, himself a former truck driver, is speaking at the first-ever Trucking and Social Media Convention, and he's trying to get those assembled to formally register comments on a federal transportation site in response to new regulations. That these phrases he tells them not to use are all direct quotes from previous comments will not dampen his determination. “Until we learn where to start, we’re just going to end up with that angry attitude,” Wilson says. “But let’s fight the bureaucrats with bureaucracy!”</p><p>So it’s not the fieriest of rallying cries. Most of the 170 drivers and advocates gathered at the Gold Strike Casino in Mississippi’s second-tallest building (31 stories) are plenty fired up already: at new federal regulations and local traffic enforcement, at big carriers, at the perception that despite their toil, truckers don’t get any respect. Post-deregulation realities and the decentralized nature of their jobs have largely left them without a seat at the table. That leaves Twitter.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/the_latest_twitter_revolution/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/the_latest_twitter_revolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Losing my husband, 140 characters at a time</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/losing_my_husband_140_characters_at_a_time/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/losing_my_husband_140_characters_at_a_time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coupling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12204151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After Kevin got cancer, all my rage and isolation went onto Twitter. Was I embarrassing myself, or rescuing myself?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a time when I kept private journals, chronicling stories of time with my husband as if words could nail down a life and build strong, warm walls around us. That was before cancer. A kind you’ve hopefully never heard of, a sure, slow killer. Once we’d slogged through a couple of years <em>there,</em> I logged into Twitter and didn’t grapple with whether or why. Rather than holding us together now, I was a spectacle of flying apart. Twitter unleashed my inner ranting-woman-on-the-subway. You know the one — no inhibitions, breaking the code of civilized silence.</p><blockquote><p><em>Obsessed with idea of being alone in a room w/old unwanted glassware &amp; crockery, obliterating things till satiated, then someone else sweeps </em>7:25 AM Aug 3rd, 2009 from web</p></blockquote><p>Consider the supermarket sagas. It was a place I spent a lot of time, both because I had young children to feed and because that’s where the pharmacy was. I would wait in line to pick up the narcotics and antiemetics, trying not to look at the varied pleasure-enhancing condoms. If my husband Kevin hadn’t “followed” me, I would have whipped out my phone to share some bitter thoughts about ribbed strawberry rubbers. But when I wheeled my cart away after begging for one or two pills to get him through a Sunday night, I did tweet:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/losing_my_husband_140_characters_at_a_time/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/losing_my_husband_140_characters_at_a_time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Army is reading your Bradley Manning tweets</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_army_is_reading_your_bradley_manning_tweets/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_army_is_reading_your_bradley_manning_tweets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bradley Manning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WikiLeaks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12027751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Military public affairs officials in WikiLeaks case use software that specializes in tracking Twitter]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>(UPDATED BELOW)</strong></p><p>Politico’s Josh Gerstein <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/army-bradley-manning-coverage-negative-but-balanced-110292.html">reports</a> on the extent to which the Army’s public affairs office is interested in public and media opinion of the Bradley Manning case, noting that P.R. staffers prepared daily summaries of the coverage of the ongoing legal proceedings. This bit jumped out at me:</p><blockquote><p><strong>The Army used a commercial service called VOCUS to track traditional and social media coverage of Manning's hearing</strong>. The Pentagon pays close attention to the volume of tweets about the U.S. military during high-profile incidents, like the Air Force One flyover that distressed New York City residents in 2009 …</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/120105_paosummary.html">Here</a> (.pdf), via Gerstein, is the Public Affairs Office media coverage summary that refers to “1,045 social media conversations about the hearing.” It also notes that “the VOCUS media site listed most of the coverage of Manning as negative, the majority of the coverage about the hearing remains balanced and factual.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_army_is_reading_your_bradley_manning_tweets/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_army_is_reading_your_bradley_manning_tweets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Klout is bad for your soul</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/klout_is_bad_for_your_soul/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/klout_is_bad_for_your_soul/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justin Bieber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Klout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10191938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The social media tool is being taken up as an actual measure of value and influence. And we should be wary]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You've heard of Twitter. Twitter is the contemporary canary in the coal mine of world events. A coup? An outrage? A celebrity death? Twitter gets the news out fastest, even mourning the loss of leading figures before they themselves hear they're dead (sorry about that, <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/facts-and-arguments/i-didnt-kill-gordon-lightfoot/article1481522/" target="_blank">Gordon Lightfoot</a>).</p><p>You may not have heard of Klout -- not yet.</p><p>But that doesn't matter. If you're on Twitter, or even Facebook, Klout has heard of you. And Klout has ranked you, with a single tidy number meant to sum up your influence and engagement in the social media sphere. <a href="http://klout.com/" target="_blank">Klout.com</a> is a social media analytics company based in San Francisco. Three years ago, it began ranking Twitter users according to the splash their links and witty repartee made among their followers. Since then, it's grown to include activity across social media platforms, and has established itself as a major arbiter of influence in social media circles. Klout, in effect, has clout.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/klout_is_bad_for_your_soul/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/klout_is_bad_for_your_soul/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intelligence agencies step up the Twitter and Facebook trawling</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/04/intelligence_agencies_step_up_the_twitter_and_facebook_trawling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/04/intelligence_agencies_step_up_the_twitter_and_facebook_trawling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10161890</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security works to catch up with the CIA in the social media monitoring department]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A couple of days ago, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2QncVujJYeKvVMAwzSqq5eSaSLA?docId=d607e3efe1324adeb54d3fd505e1feb1">the Associated Press reported</a> that the Department of Homeland Security claims not to be "actively monitoring" social media networks like Facebook and Twitter. Lest you worry that status updates that present a threat to national security are going unread, the <a href="http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111104/ap_on_go_ot/us_cia_social_media">AP today reports</a> that the Central Intelligence Agency <em>is</em> actively monitoring social media networks.</p><p>The story in the earlier article was that our sprawling intelligence and national security apparatus was caught off-guard by social media-fueled uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, and that they were going to take steps to be better prepared in the future.</p><p>DHS Undersecretary Caryn Wagner said the department was still trying to figure out how to use Twitter and Facebook information for law enforcement purposes. <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2QncVujJYeKvVMAwzSqq5eSaSLA?docId=d607e3efe1324adeb54d3fd505e1feb1">And they seem to be starting completely from scratch:</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/04/intelligence_agencies_step_up_the_twitter_and_facebook_trawling/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/04/intelligence_agencies_step_up_the_twitter_and_facebook_trawling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Chomsky is wrong about Twitter</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/why_chomsky_is_wrong_about_twitter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/why_chomsky_is_wrong_about_twitter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10134049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the linguist claims that social media is "shallow," he isn't very deep or convincing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Noam Chomsky has been one of the most important critics of the way big media crowd out “everyday” voices in order to control knowledge and “manufacture consent.” So it is surprising that the MIT linguist dismisses much of our new digital communications produced from the bottom-up as “superficial, shallow, evanescent.” We have heard this critique of texting and tweeting from many others, such as Andrew Keen and Nicholas Carr. And these claims are important because they put Twitter and texting in a hierarchy of thought. Among other things, Chomsky and Co. are making assertions that one way of communicating, thinking and knowing is better than another.</p><p>Chomsky, of course, is a left-wing icon. As an accomplished linguist, prominent political activist and perhaps one of the most important public intellectuals of the last half-century, people pay attention to what he has to say, especially since he has been so pointed in critiquing mainstream media. But is Chomsky himself "crowding out" social media at the expense of voices that ought to be heard?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/why_chomsky_is_wrong_about_twitter/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/why_chomsky_is_wrong_about_twitter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>174</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is my Facebook page a liberal echo chamber?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/is_my_facebook_page_a_liberal_echo_chamber/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/is_my_facebook_page_a_liberal_echo_chamber/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10130688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After I defriended an old acquaintance, I had to wonder: Why have I grown so intolerant of any dissent?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few months ago, for reasons I don’t quite understand, I thought it would be a good idea to become Facebook friends with some people I knew in high school. Nostalgic, bored, procrastinating, emotionally unguarded after wrestling the kids into bed, Facebook’s algorithmic magic produced these old classmates’ names and before I knew it, I’d reached out to them with a click.</p><p><em>Why?</em> I wondered almost immediately. These were people to whom I hadn’t spoken in more than 15 years, people I hadn’t much liked at the time, people with whom I’d had little in common besides geographic proximity and attendance at the same underperforming high school in central Virginia. I regretted it instantly, but tried not to worry. After all, I’m Facebook friends with plenty of people I don’t know well or like much, second cousins in south Florida, random playgroup moms, people I’ve met on planes or at Starbucks. What did it really matter -- having a few more virtual strangers in my life. That was what I thought. Then, a day or two later, I read one of their posts.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/is_my_facebook_page_a_liberal_echo_chamber/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/is_my_facebook_page_a_liberal_echo_chamber/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>147</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Our misplaced faith in Twitter Trends</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/our_misplaced_faith_in_twitter_trends/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/our_misplaced_faith_in_twitter_trends/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10127666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#OccupyWallStreet probably isn't being censored, but it's time to stop worshiping algorithms]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The interesting question is not whether Twitter is censoring its Trends list. The interesting question is, what do we think the Trends list is, what it represents and how it works, that we can presume to hold it accountable when we think it is "wrong"? What are these algorithms, and what do we want them to be?</p><p>It's not the first time it has been asked. <a href="http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244374/data-reveals-that-occupying-twitter-trending-topics-is-harder-than-it-looks">Gilad Lotan</a> at SocialFlow (and erstwhile Microsoft researcher), spurred by <a href="http://theconversation.edu.au/did-twitter-censor-occupy-wall-street-3822">questions</a> raised by participants and supporters of the Occupy Wall Street protests, asks the question: Is Twitter censoring its <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/trends">Trends</a> list to exclude #occupywallstreet and #occupyboston? While the protest movement gains traction and media coverage, and participants, observers and critics turn to Twitter to discuss it, why are these widely known hashtags not trending? Why are they not trending in the very cities where protests have occurred, including New York?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/our_misplaced_faith_in_twitter_trends/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/our_misplaced_faith_in_twitter_trends/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When mourning goes viral</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/digital_mourning/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/digital_mourning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Jobs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2.5 million tweets after Steve Jobs' death prove just how profoundly social media have transformed mourning]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Soon after news of Steve Jobs’ death emerged Wednesday, millions of hashtags, posts and YouTube videos erupted on Facebook and Twitter to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/technology/jobss-death-prompts-grief-and-tributes.html">memorialize his life and express sadness</a> for the loss of a technology visionary. Twitter alone was overrun with <a href="http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8206489-25-million-tweets-on-steve-jobs-in-12-hours-after-death">2.5 million tweets</a> about Jobs in the 12 hours after he died. As someone who revolutionized the digital world, it seems eminently appropriate that mourners took their grieving online -- especially since social media has, in many ways, helped reinvent the way we approach death in modern society.</p><p>First, it gives people who have something to say an unprecedented audience that’s both instantaneous and quintessentially democratic. The eulogy is no longer the preserve of the great and the good. Online, anyone can be a broadcaster, a commentator or a curator of news and information.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/digital_mourning/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/digital_mourning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook&#8217;s enraging status update</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/facebook_annoys_users/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/facebook_annoys_users/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[How the World Works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works//2011/09/21/facebook_annoys_users</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The social media network annoys its users, again, with a confusing revamp. There must be an agenda here, somewhere]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like, oh, around 750 million other users of Facebook, I logged on to the world's biggest social media network this morning and was immediately annoyed. Facebook had changed its user interface, <em>again.</em> Gone was the "Most Recent" button, which allowed users to see what their friends have posted in a simple, straightforward, chronological order. Now Facebook was indulging, <em>again,</em> in outright effrontery: employing its own secret algorithmic sauce to highlight what it considered the most important "top stories," while mixing in other recent posts far below.</p><p>Facebook also added a "Ticker" at the top right hand side of the page, which provided a real-time Twitter-like stream of status updates from all my friends. When I first checked it, it was packed with complaints about the new interface change. Judging solely from comments from <em>my</em> friends, people don't want Facebook deciding what's most important, Facebook's suggestions were wrong, irrelevant and insulting, and why oh why oh why can't Facebook leave a good thing alone?</p><p>Oh, and people hate change. And, goddammit, they're switching to Google+ (which conveniently opened its doors to the general public today), or Twitter, or giving up on the Internet altogether.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/facebook_annoys_users/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/facebook_annoys_users/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>56</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anonymous hackers to launch mystery social network</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/18/anonymous_plus_google/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/18/anonymous_plus_google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/07/18/anonymous_plus_google</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Spurned by Google+, the infamous "hacktivists" are developing a no-holds-barred alternative]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The faceless hive-mind Anonymous, responsible for attacks on some of the world's preeminent companies, has now set its sights on the Internet's biggest name: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/faster-forward/post/anonymous-shunned-by-google-plus-to-launch-its-own-network/2011/07/18/gIQAstfuLI_blog.html">Google</a>. And its strategy takes a left turn from its modus operandi, branching the group into territory traditionally reserved for enterprising Silicon Valley start-ups.</p><p>Here's the story:&#160;Over the weekend, several Anonymous members were banished from the Mountain View search giant's buzzy new social network, Google+, apparently because content they hosted on their accounts violated the service's community standards. You might expect that the Web marauders -- responsible as they have been for high-profile hacks of <a href="http://techland.time.com/2011/06/10/anonymous-warns-nato-this-is-not-your-world/">Visa, Amazon, Pay Pal</a>&#160;and, most recently, the <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/booz/">U.S. military</a> -- would retaliate with a full-out assault on Google. That isn't the case, though. Instead, they've decided to fight fire with fire. They're aligning with another organization called <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/faster-forward/post/anonymous-shunned-by-google-plus-to-launch-its-own-network/2011/07/18/gIQAstfuLI_blog.html">Presstorm</a> to start their own social network:&#160;<a href="http://anonplus.com/">AnonPlus</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/18/anonymous_plus_google/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/18/anonymous_plus_google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thanks, Google+, for my digital meltdown</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/16/tyranny_of_google_plus_digital_exhaustion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/16/tyranny_of_google_plus_digital_exhaustion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2011/07/16/tyranny_of_google_plus_digital_exhaustion</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was excited when I scored an invite to the buzzy social network. But even if I could figure it out, do I want to?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not cool. My husband is not cool. But like a pair of nags that has somehow managed to produce thoroughbreds, we have cool children. So cool, in fact, that the older one managed to secure for himself an invitation to Google+ -- Google's new social networking space and would-be Facebook killer -- on the first day it launched.</p><p>Because we have taught him to be compassionate and take pity on the uncool, he shared a Google+ invitation with me. The moment was the digital equivalent of his preschool days, when he'd arrive home to proudly gift me with a handmade object of unknown utility. "This is lovely," I'd say, my heart swelling as I considered the lump carefully, trying to figure if it looked more like a candy dish or a paper clip holder. "What's it for?"</p><p>When I ask the 17-year-old version of that boy what Google+ is for, he says -- texts, actually -- "its pretty sick, there're a lot of cool features thatll be awesome once more people get on. like better chatting and you can really control who sees what."</p><p>Alrighty then. Feeling positively hip, I head over, activate my invitation, upload a good-hair-day picture and type in a few simple words for my profile that seem to fit well with the spare, airy Google interface: "Writer, editor, public school advocate, parent, lover, friend, walker of dog." So far, so good.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/16/tyranny_of_google_plus_digital_exhaustion/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/16/tyranny_of_google_plus_digital_exhaustion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google+ shuts down invites &#8230; for now</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_explained/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_explained/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/06/30/google_plus_explained</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is the latest social network playing hard to get, or just worried about more privacy lawsuits?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Tuesday, Google opened up its doors for users to try out Google+, <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/social_media/?story=/tech/feature/2011/06/30/facebook_google_opportunity">a new social networking platform</a> available to those smart enough to find the tiny red button on their homepage. Since Wednesday night, those with a Google+ invite were allowed to share the invitation with several of their friends. By this morning, all invitations had been put on hiatus, due to an "insane demand" and Google's "need to do this carefully, and in a controlled way," <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/06/google-invites-halted-due-to-insane-demand.html">according to social networking overseer Vic Gundotra</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_explained/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_explained/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Google+ does better than Facebook</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/facebook_google_opportunity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/facebook_google_opportunity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2011/06/30/facebook_google_opportunity</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new social network's selective "circles" actually reflect the complexities of real connections]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Way back when I joined Facebook I was under the impression that it was the social network where people play themselves. On Facebook, you were supposed to be "real." So I figured: OK, this is where I don't friend everyone indiscriminately; this is where I only connect with people I really know.</p><p>I stuck with that for a little while. But there were two big problems.</p><p>First, I was bombarded with friend requests from people I barely knew or didn't know at all. Why? It soon became clear that large numbers of people weren't approaching Facebook with the reality principle in mind. They were playing the usual online game of racking up big numbers to feel important. "Friend count" was the new "unique visitors."</p><p>Then Facebook started to get massive. And consultants and authors started giving us advice about how to use Facebook to brand ourselves. And marketing people began advocating that we use Facebook to sell stuff and, in fact, sell ourselves.</p><p>So which was Facebook: a new space for authentic communication between real people -- or a new arena for self-promotion?</p><p>I could probably have handled this existential dilemma. And I know it's one that a lot of people simply don't care about. It bugged me, but it was the other Facebook problem that made me not want to use the service at all.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/facebook_google_opportunity/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/facebook_google_opportunity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s the buzz on Google+?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_buzz/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_buzz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/29/google_plus_buzz</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The search giant debuted a new social media service yesterday. Here's what the experts are saying]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After three failed attempts at starting its own social media tool (including the much-maligned and privacy-challenged <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-google-buzz-has-a-huge-privacy-flaw-2010-2">Google Buzz</a>), Google has launched one more, ambitious effort to steal Facebook's thunder: Google+. The new service, now in test trials and available to a limited number of Google users, boasts some intriguing features that have the blogosphere a-buzzing, including Circles, which lets users choose exactly which groups of friends they want to communicate with; and Stream, an analogue to the Facebook "News Feed"; and Sparks, a social-ized Google News.&#160;Most notable, however, is that Google will bill the tool as an alternative for <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/google-facebook-privacy/">Facebook-wary consumers</a> who worry about that network's use of personal data.&#160;</p><p>Opinions on the service run the gamut. Here's a look at key early reaction:</p><p>The New York Times' <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/technology/29google.html">Claire Cain Miller</a> notes that Google's difficulties in the realm of social media have already taken a toll on its status as "entry point" to the Internet, and wonders if Google+ can really help make up for lost time:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_buzz/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/google_plus_buzz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>News Corp sells MySpace for $35M mostly in stock</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/29/us_news_corp_myspace_sale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/29/us_news_corp_myspace_sale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Murdoch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/29/us_news_corp_myspace_sale</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Murdoch's media conglomerate had purchased the social network for more than $500 million]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>News Corp. has sold struggling social networking site MySpace for $35 million, mostly in stock, according to a person familiar with the matter. The deal values MySpace at a fraction of what News Corp. paid for the site six years ago.</p><p>The sale to online advertising network operator Specific Media is expected to close later Wednesday, a day before the end of News Corp.'s fiscal year. News Corp. will maintain less than a 5 percent stake in the company.</p><p>The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.</p><p>News Corp. bought MySpace for $580 million in 2005, but users and advertisers have fled the site for other hotter social networks like Facebook and Twitter.</p><p>Specific Media confirmed the acquisition but not the terms of the deal Wednesday.</p><p>"There are many synergies between our companies as we are both focused on enhancing digital media experiences by fueling connections with relevance and interest," said Specific Media CEO Tim Vanderhook, in a statement. "We look forward to combining our platforms to drive the next generation of digital innovation."</p><p>Specific Media, based in Irvine, Calif., was founded in 1999 by brothers Tim, Chris and Russell Vanderhook.</p><p>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/29/us_news_corp_myspace_sale/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/29/us_news_corp_myspace_sale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

