Medium is Not a Publishing Tool?
As often as anything else on Medium, it seems, I see posts from Founder Ev Williams or one of his cohort with a windy explanation of what Medium is or isn’t. The latest (as I write this) is that Medium is not a publishing tool, but a network, presumably meaning a social network.
It has come to the point where I start to regard Medium partisans not as publishers, but a cult-like cabal trying to will today’s vision of the product into being (if that sounds harsh, I originally wrote “apologists” instead of “partisans;” I am capable of only so much moderation).
<obligatory Star Wars reference>
Maybe it’s a Jedi mind trick: “This is not the publishing platform you are looking for. This is a network.”
</obligatory Star Wars reference>
Maybe it’s an attempt at mass hypnotism: “This is not a publishing platform. It is now a network. Now, it’s a chicken. Now take off your pants and dance around the room.”
Anyway, I don’t quite understand how Medium works as a network. I go to it when I see a link form a friend or the Medium Daily Digest email, and often find some good content published there. I do not find shares and comments up-front as part of the content, nor do I find it easy (compared to Facebook and Twitter) to connect to other subscribers, comment, and share content within the platform; my latest attempt to comment resulted in the screenshot above.
So- for me, Medium is a publishing platform, with all the good (great content) and bad (it’s not the authors’ owned platform) that implies – until, of course, the platform gets a radical makeover.
Social Media is Not Broken, but Your Ability to Twist Logic without Breaking it is Admirable
Speaking of good content I found via Medium, this post trying to explain why social media is “broken” does a much better job showing how publishers work hard and produce good content to rise to the top of your attention than it does proving its point. Still, worth a read. And the dots look cool. I liked the yellow ones best.
Twitter Posts are About to Get Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very long.
Twitter, which is not “dead” or “dying,” (sorry, kneejerk social media gurus), is apparently considering a radical change: increasing the character limit to 10,000 characters (about 1,500 words or more). So, basically, it would be a blogging platform. Or a Medium. Or a Facebook Notes.
If this happens, is it a surrender of Twitter’s uniqueness, or a bold transition to attract and retain people through better content (and does it compete with Medium, founded by Twitter’s Ev Williams)? If the initial presentation is 140 characters, that would ease the transition. If they retain that presentation, perhaps that is enough to retain what keeps Twitter unique- the ability to trdae quick messages but with the added ‘read more” ability. It will be interesting to see.
My former colleague Chris Thilk at Voce Communications has some thoughts on the proposed change on their blog. Also, InformationWeek raises the important business angle: more engaging content to keep people on Twitter may create better advertising/revenue opportunities (“conversational ads?”).
While confusion over what social media posts are really paid endorsements or enthusiastic fanliness, continues, the “they should know better” school of disclosure extends beyond marketing pros to “journalists” as well. Should ESPN jock-jockeys disclose that their Domino’s Pizza tweets are ads? Yes; yes, they should.
Request for my twitter handle. Was I being rude?