SocialMediaBust

I see there's some semi-organized attempts to have me removed from Twitter, so I thought I'd share with readers, one of the criteria I use to assess whether I'm doing the job I've chosen to do as a columnist/online writer. That, by the way, is a different role than the one I typically play in my books, and that why the writing in my books is so much more "peaceful" than what I do as a columnist.

It's pretty simple, really. The more ignorant, simple minded people become angry at me, the more I know I'm doing my job. Now, on the other hand, if really smart people get angry with me, then I'm probably not doing my job, and of course I get to judge these things, but I try to make a reasonable assessment based on each person's contributions and whether they show any depth of thinking.

Mostly, on social media, and particularly on Twitter, they don't. Sadly, although Twitter may not make people stupid, the 140 character limit makes people look stupid and simple-minded.

I have another criteria which connects up with this. If you post something, and I make factual comments on it and you engage me, then we're good. Really good. If you blow up, and simply repeat yourself, well, guess what? You fall into the "hope they get really mad at me" category.

It's not that I enjoy having people mad at me. I don't. I have chosen to stand against the arrogance of ignorance and the people who refuse to be informed by facts, and would prefer to remain ignorant. If that's you, I hope you can't stand me.

If you think that you can post simple minded, ignorant things and never ever be challenged by facts, I hope you can't stand me. Or, maybe realize you shouldn't run from information you can learn from.

If you think that dialogue and learning is all about retweeting platitudes, the quotes of other people, I hope you cant' stand me.

There are lots of you out there, and you get along fine, hangin together and that's good. But somewhere there has to be a few of me, to expose some of the smug confidence in limited thinking and lazy knowledge gathering.

It's kind of interesting. Today I had too sets of interactions, one with @katenasser and one with John @hornbeck, both involving my disputing their rather simplistic tweets about customer service. In terms of abruptness or rudeness of my responses, if you prefer that term, probably about equal.

One person responds with mindless repeating of her point, and doesn't even bother to address the facts I presented in a rather detailed post. Not a single bit of interest, even. John, however, suggested maybe we could Skype today and I suggested we interact on the question on my Customer Service Blog. John did an outstanding job of presenting a logical thoughtful argument about his position and we are currently having an excellent conversation.

One approach leads to learning (for both of us). THe other lead to...I don't know. In any event I'm glad that John hung in and engaged, and I'm disappointed that Kate, who talks all the time about engagement, either can't or won't.

So, I've done my job both ways. John is clearly a very bright guy, more knowledgable on a number of important topics than I am, and someone I can learn from, and maybe he'll learn something from me.

Kate, I hope you hate my guts, because when people like you start to like me, it's time to retire.

Ok. So that's one kind of writing. There are many other kinds, and you need to develop your "voice" for each kind of writing you dive into, whether it be the objective journalist role, advocate role, regardless of publishing method.