I equated the title of this talk by asking which came first – the chicken or the egg? What I mean is did technology just show up – the chicken – or was there a thought process from where it hatched – the egg?

To understand where we are going it is imperative to understand how we got there. So are we shaping technology or is technology shaping us? And how did it all start?

I’m a very curious person by nature, so when the question is asked – How is social media impacting technology? – I seek to understand the very question.  I also seek to understand what our attitudes are towards social media and technology.

Let’s start with technology. What is technology?  A broad definition of technology is anything that is used to solve a problem, including a system or methodologies.  By that definition, a hammer at one point was considered advanced technology, so was an arrow head or an oxen driven plow.  These days we think of technology to solely mean computers and processing advanced electronic tools.

What is social media? Social media is any web/mobile based platform that turns communication into an active process (media here is information stored and delivered).  Social media is not Twitter, it is not Facebook.  However, Twitter and Facebook are social media sites.

So, what we are really asking is how are our active digital conversations changing our technological solutions? The question is a little different when you ask it that way.  It delivers a very much focused query rather than an otherwise open ended question susceptible to personal viewpoints and discriminations.

On the cover of the Atlantic (slide 4) we see the question: Is Google making us Stupid? Thankfully most people don’t think so – almost 9/10 thinks that the internet will make us smarter!  How is that possible?  The only thing that has given us the capacity to do things faster and better than humans thousands of years before is our access to information.  We are exposed to massive amounts of information in any single day that would take years, maybe a lifetime of humans thousands of years ago.  Implant anyone from the past in our current time and they will be as smart as us by being exposed to Google.  We are biologically no smarter than any human thousands of years before us; it is only our exposure to vast amounts of information that propels us.

Here are some numbers:

1. 107 trillion emails sent in 2010
2. 255 million websites
3. 152 million blogs
4. 88.8 million .com domain names
5. 1.97 billion internet users

These numbers are staggering.  More amazing are that these numbers are being fueled by regular people.  “Technology” is no longer a term endeared by geeks and IT folk.  Regular people (called “users” in IT departments) are catapulting this lead – and it all started with blogs.

I remember watching the Super Bowl in 2005 (uncensored version), and I said to myself “How come a domain registrar is advertising to the general public?” By the numbers given above the answer was obvious.  Blogs are the entry point to technology for users.  Through blogs they have become familiar with Content Management Systems, coding languages, DNS servers, API’s, software patch management, new technologies that improved their blogs such as Twitter, smart phones, plug-ins and the list goes on and on.

Technology no longer was intimidating – it was friendly, and solved problems.

People now carried their interactions into the enterprise, where traditionally IT dictated a department’s solution now found themselves servicing tailored requests and input from personnel.  The approach to marketing products changed as well.  Freemium models started to appear and put great value in the number of “users” supporting a product instead of the other way around.

If you missed evaluating how important social media don’t worry…social media is changing almost every industry in the world.  Money and finance are on the cutting board right now.  It started with Paypal giving users a little independence from traditional banks and credit cards.  Another step into the virtual wallet is now being heralded by Square.  Square is a little device that plugs into your smart phone and gives “users” the ability to accept credit card payments that deposit into their accounts, thus circumventing the entire banking industry.

Blogs have lowered the entry point to technology and have empowered people to take contributory roles.  Through social media we are making demands on technology to help serve our needs and improve our lives.  We have seen social media impact many fields from journalism, to politics, to the enterprise and now to our money.  Through the power of many we are seeing technology being democratized.  At first glance it may seem that technology has made this all possible, but what makes our technology unique is it being people driven…maybe it has always been that way, but now only more apparent.

The write up of what I said will come sometime next week.

Because people approach Social Media in a temperamental fashion, I feel the need to post this.  On Twitter, the amount of followers one has is a sensitive area.  Social media is such a fickle area that there are not many things concrete.  Social media is situational.

I hover around 10,000 followers and I follow about the same.  Some people accept that, some people don’t.  I’ve always approached social media as a means to an end, and not as a means to itself.  If you think that I’ve inflated my numbers just to appear like a gran jefe (big shot) you are dead wrong.

Below are both a long story and short story…

Here’s the skinny: On Twitter, I currently follow roughly 10,000 people and they follow me because I have my account set on auto-follow. I auto-follow people based on key words and I follow back anyone who follows me.

If we were in a court room, any good lawyer would try to corner me in stating the above without the explaining my position.  “Is it true that you auto-follow people, yes or no Mr Pagan?!? Yes or no?” Thankfully the democratic properties of social media keeps us unbound.

Here’s the long story…

When I started on Twitter, I wanted to hit the ground running and my approach was to throw a very large net to find as many relevant conversations about Latinos and Hispanics (two of the many key words I used) that I could find.   Thankfully, the same principles for networking applies to Twitter and I used what I learned in the blogosphere in order to grow very fast.  Same game, different tools.

When building a community you do not want to miss an opportunity to connect with others…thus the auto following and key words.  (I am aware that some artificially inflate their numbers just to showcase they have a large following.  Be careful not to believe the hype on some of these individuals as they only seek to deceive and wield their influence, which has  never been my intention.  By the way, I have a track record for building something and then leaving it once it is self-sustaining or are in capable hands of others.  This has nothing to do with leaving things undone or incomplete follow through, but are rungs on the ladder until I reach my goal – it’s all part of growth and a destination.  This has kept me very honest when dealing with social media.)  Any organization or company who does social media right monitors it for relevant key words.  They have the resources – I’d hope – to evaluate the validity of such leads and choose the best way to engage them, or not.  Unfortunately, I do not have the time to evaluate each connection. This is the other half of the main reason on why the auto-settings stuck – lack of time.

Another reason that I auto-follow back is because some people get very personal when you don’t follow them back and unfollow you later.  Again, it’s about the big net and not missing out on opportunities to connect with others.

There are a couple of approaches on networking when you are an organization or a company.  My approach to building a Latino community on Twitter took on a personal signature, meaning I used my own personal account for what I believed in.  This approach was the one that I felt would work best.

There’s a quality vs quantity issue here and this is where some BIG divisions on what is the right way to use Twitter or not.  Many people have their opinions on what is the right way and what is the wrong way.  I’d say show me the results of what you’ve done and that should be enough to make a decision on what works or not.

Going Forward

After re-evaluating the auto-settings on my account (you should always re-evaluate your social media approach every 3-6 months b/c attitudes and perceptions change over time), I am going to clean up my account and do a mass un-following over a period of time and removing the auto-follow and key word settings.  It served it’s purpose and that’s that.  The fruits of labor is the validation.

Subtitle: Get to the core of the matter

Here are a couple of examples of technology simplified:

Facebook. One of the most popular social media application on the planet. All it is really is an advanced message board.

Twitter. Hailed as Cadillac of micro-blogging and one of the most popular social media applications sitting alongside Facebook.  At it’s core it’s an advanced text messaging platform.

Yes, their innovative.  Yes, their useful and relevant to much of what we do.  And yes, they work. Strip away all the bells and whistles, and look under the hood to gain an intimate understanding.

I can go on for days like this…can you come up with one?

Thanks to Cindy E. Rodriguez to sharing this article with me (re:Serfs).

In light of the Huffington Post’s recent deal, we are fooling ourselves if we believe that we are making other people rich from our direct efforts as opposed to when we are not actively engaged, such as watching television (aka, spare time).

Some background

The Huffington Post recently sold for over $300 million.  It’s a prestigious site fueled by a community of blog-Serfs. The question of late is should we cry foul?  Will people tolerate incurred fortunes from the labor off of other people’s backs?  What does Mayhill think?

“I really don’t care that Arianna made all that money,” said Ms. Fowler. “More power to her. The original premise was not that we would get paid, so I didn’t expect to. But after the election and the fact that they nominated my work for a Pulitzer, I thought that might change. I talked to Arianna about getting paid for my work, and she strung me along for two years and then it never happened.”

The above quote is why I’m so guarded about my content being concentrated on my blog.  There is no doubt that Mayhill Fowler is an exceptional writer and should have profited from her work (not necessarily the Huffington Post, but elsewhere).

What is it with giving away our efforts for free these days?  I’m sure we are not wanton about who we affiliate ourselves with, and align ourselves with creeds that are close to our hearts.  Wired magazine’s article “Cognitive Surplus” sheds light on the popularity of unpaid collaboration:

Television was a solitary activity that crowded out other forms of social connection. But the very nature of these new technologies fosters social connection—creating, contributing, and sharing. When someone buys a TV, the number of consumers goes up by one, but the number of producers stays the same. When someone buys a computer or mobile phone, the number of consumers and producers both increase by one. This lets ordinary citizens, who’ve previously been locked out, pool their free time for activities they like and care about. So instead of that free time seeping away in front of the television set, the cognitive surplus is going to be poured into everything from goofy enterprises like lolcats, where people stick captions on cat photos, to serious political activities like Ushahidi.com, where people report human rights abuses.

Back to money

Why do we feel chided when someone makes a profit off our labor vs. not profiting when we don’t participate?  Is there a difference?

Not all the time.

It’s obvious that when we are uploading our work to a social silo that we put in a lot of effort in the end product – even if it’s posting pics and comments on Facebook.  Usually we equate effort with work and place a value on it, thus we expect to be compensated either by recognition or monetarily.  So, it’s no wonder we feel “jipped” when someone else profits.

It is not so obvious that when we are watching TV and are not exuding any effort that we are STILL making other people rich.  Television is a programmed entertainment medium filled with shows bent on ratings to only then sells spots to companies to show you commercials.

In all actuality, television only exists just to sell you products or services via commercials.

You are watching TV to watch commercials.  By sitting passively in front of the TV you are making everyone else rich from the writers (okay, maybe not the writers) to the actors, the producers, the stations, the companies and advertising agencies that are selling you their products.

How’s that for compensated effort?

Unless your spare time is filled with activities that benefit you directly, you are a contributor to other people’s wallets.  If you want to make money create a business model, don’t look at the web (the web being different than the internet).

At least with posting your work on sites like Huffington Post, you are reaching a large audience and contributing value, and that’s always better than not doing anything at all.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of going down to Google offices in NYC, to hear a very lively and sometimes funny discussion with Josh Harris, Douglas Rushkoff with Erick Schonfeld on some disturbing (or not) trends in our use of social media.

The take away: Are we being programmed by social media, or being its creator are we programming social media?

(I’ll write more on this later.  I’m very interested to hear any opinions on this topic in the comments.)

From Social Media Week’s event page:

Instead of connecting to one another, we are increasingly connected to and friended by the same old brands and institutions that the Internet once stood a chance of upending. And worst of all, we the people are getting into the act, learning to sell our friends to the highest bidder. Whether it’s a Zynga game inviting us to turn over our address books for points, or an advertiser offering us a chance to win a prize for “friending” them publicly, we are now in the business of marketing our friendships to those who hope to exploit the bonds we have created with others.

In doing so, we reduce the real value of those bonds, as well as the entire potential for peer-to-peer connection. The real opportunity of social networking looks a lot more like Burning Man and WikiLeaks than it does like P&G’s word-of-mouth campaign or whatever Twitter is hatching in its new analytics lab.

We are building the social organism together. That’s all the Internet has been doing from the beginning. But it seems as soon as we develop a new tool or strand of connectivity, it is hijacked by business, robbed of its power, and then replaced by mechanisms that connect us to things, rather than people.

Will social networking finally accomplish the Internet’s real goal? We have yet to see. But in the meantime, how we use it — and what we think it to be — will go a long way toward determining its fate.

Recent events in Egypt revived the debate of the power of social media and activism.

There’s a very good article over at the NYTimes that captures a lot thoughts on this topic.

– Please make sure you read about Malcolm Gladwell’s article (and his article yourself): Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted (The New Yorker) –

Still, I’m not sure why Egypt decided to shut down internet access including mobile.  Maybe it had to do with social media being a viable tool or maybe because social media is largely owned by U.S. companies and there may be a conspiracy-like fear of American sourced agenda stirring the pot.

What I do know is that even after shutting down internet access the protest continued.  To me this is a clear sign that social media does not provide an alternate path toward activism or revolutions, but serves as a tool.

If anyone ever starts to hint that social media is a replacement for anything – heck, the TV never replaced the radio – make sure you run for the hills.

For each one, there is a quick, surefire method of reaching them almost immediately. Then there is the slow and wait until they respond method.

For instance, I know some individuals that can be more easily reached via a Facebook message as opposed to an email, then I know some others where the opposite is true. Interestingly, enough some individuals can be easily reached on Twitter, and yet a DM (direct message) on Twitter can be slow. Still, others are best reached via a phone call.

There are many reasons for this. It may be due to preference; they may have easier access to one method over another, and therefore are more available; they may have set up alerts on one site than another (mobile phone may chime); or whatever other reason.

I’ve experienced some very prominent people who are notorious for not promptly getting back to others. Priority, I guess has a lot to do with this. Habits are hard to change, especially when it’s other peoples habits. You’ll have to figure it out.


And that’s for people you know! What about people you don’t know – how do you reach them??? Here’s a very good article on that topic.

Let me know if this was helpful.

Fight Club.

Tyler Durden: You’re not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your fucking khakis. You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

Self-importance – a pompous  facade to simply try and save face.

If Tyler was talking about social media:

You’re not your blog. You’re not how many Facebook friends you have.  You’re not the amount of your Twitter followers. Your not who retweets you. You’re not your fucking Klout score.  You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the internet.

We’ve all heard the statements:

• There are more Latinos in social media than non-Hispanic Whites

• Mobile internet access is highest among Latinos

• Hispanics purchase more electronic devices than anyone else:

* Digital cameras: 21% vs. 18 %
* Video gaming system: 21% vs. 12%
* MP3 player: 19% vs. 12%
* Advanced cell phone: 19% vs. 13%
* Digital cameras: 21% vs. 18 %
* Video gaming system: 21% vs. 12%
* MP3 player: 19% vs. 12%
* Advanced cell phone: 19% vs. 13%

Around the time the latest mobile report came out touting Hispanics as the largest mobile internet users, I became wary and began to ask: What’s the difference between Latinos and non-Latinos use of the web? From the above, the majority is entertainment.

More questions:

• Is mobile internet access the great equalizer?

• Are Latinos spending more time in entertainment or activities that they can improve their lives?

• What are the youth doing and how will this impact their adult life?

I hope in 2011 we make a second pass on internet statistics, and consider the above.

Better, what companies or organizations will embrace this conversation and spearhead a long term relationship with the Hispanic community? I think this conversation is already happening in many places.