How to Be Authentic on Twitter and Other Social Networks

I recently wrote an article for uTweet.it, the UK social media (and more) blog, entitled Fakery, Authenticity and Spotting the Twitter Pretender.

While I had to use the first part to get in some shots at twitterfakes and gurus and autotweeters (wow, I hate those guys), the second part is a message about authenticity that I think is pretty valuable.

Here's an excerpt:

Say what you think. Don’t hold back out of fear of losing a follower. I’m not advocating saying hurtful things that drive people away, but if you censor yourself because you’re afraid the truth might not be popular, you’re only a hop, skip and a jump away from fakesville.

Being authentic makes you interesting. It makes you valuable. It makes you a member of a real community, instead of a player in a meaningless game. If you simply “be yourself,” people will follow. Maybe not tens of thousands or thousands or even hundreds, but how much artificial validation do you really need?

It is absolutely possible to form real connections and even friendships on Twitter. But that’ll never happen if you don’t let people see the real you.

Be yourself, follow people who are interesting and real, talk to them, post and retweet things you think others might like to see. This, my friends, is the “super duper Twitter secret to success.” Nothing more.

What side do you come down on? Do you find it easy to be yourself on Twitter? Or are you playing a numbers game just to get more followers?

On Friendship and Social Media

Is it possible to make real friends on Twitter and other social media sites? How do you distinguish between real friends and "twitterfriends" or "facequaintances?" Is it ever okay to claim friendship with a celebrity who follows your updates on Twitter?

These are a few of the questions I took on in my new post for uTweet.it.

After a long rant against the banal douchebaggery of people claiming to have intimate connections with celebrities on Twitter, I come down on the side of those who believe that yes, it is possible to form real friendships on social networking sites.

How those friendships are defined, how they rate against friendships based on face-to-face interaction, these are important questions. The answers may shape the landscape of friendship in the 21st century.

My Take on Buzz in Five Points (now with added fantasies of married life with Pete Cashmore)

A confession first. I love Pete Cashmore. Makes me totally weak in the knees. Thus, I am predisposed to liking things he likes. And he likes Google Buzz. But as much as I want to marry Pete and live on a desert island with him, four pugs -- Puglet, Pugly, Miss Pugglesworth and Mister Wigglebotham -- and a houseboy named Jesus, I can't say I'm a fan.

I seriously doubt Buzz will supplant Facebook or Twitter. Here are the five reasons that came to mind:

1. Most people are like me, in that I e-mail one group of people, tweet another and facestalk -- I mean Facebook -- yet another. Sure, there is some overlap, but I don't need to "network" further with any of those people. I'm already networked with them to the extent that I want to be. I do not need a social mashup "when worlds collide" service. Let me keep my twitterfriends and facequaintances. I'll use e-mail the way God intended -- to talk to my family without having to talk to my family and to let my boss know I'm going to be late for work.

2. People use e-mail in a wholly different way than they consume social media. You check your e-mail; or, more likely, you receive an annoying notification on your phone that lets you know you've inherited millions or that you've won an iPad. You don't visit your e-mail. You don't follow people on e-mail. You certainly can't -- or shouldn't -- use e-mail to stalk former classmates, co-workers you have a crush on, or fauxlebrities. That's what Twitter and Facebook are for.

3. Wait three seconds until the spammers and the phishers and the Farmville freaks sink their diseased talons into Buzz. I can put up with the static on social networks, at least to a certain extent. I choose to visit them, and it's the risk I take. But a "social inbox" full of spammy, hammy, oversharing nonsense and "chain letters 2.0" will send me screaming back to Hotmail in a second.

4. Almost every Google product is hideously, hives-inducingly ugly. I mean, come on. Is there a single designer in Mountain View? Were they all killed or rendered blind by some horrible disease? Some engineer back in the '90s confused the terms "retro-Web geek-chic" and "just plain janky" and nothing has been done about it since. Seriously. Urk.

5. The level of discourse on Buzz is, well, unevolved. It has rapidly become a haven for teabaggers, birthers, climate denialists, racists, homophobes and rightwing nutjobs of the worst stripe. While I am sure Twitter has more than it's fair share of tincup teabag tyrants, it's very easy to ignore them. Unfortunately, Buzz shows you not only the posts of people you follow, but the inane ramblings of the mouth-breathers who view it as a forum to air their vapid, self-righteous blatherings. In short, Google Buzz is becoming the Fox News of social networks.

Ultimately, Buzz is a nice way for Google pretend it isn't scared witless about Project Titan. Guess what, it is scared. And it probably should be. Titan is the elephant in Google's parlor at the moment, and we'll all have to see how this one plays out.

Please visit uTweet.it for a more detailed discussion of why I hate Buzz (but want to marry Pete Cashmore anyway)

Aaaand another thing ...

Straight from the horse's mouth. This blog is by Michael Owen Hill, about Michael Owen Hill and for Michael Owen Hill.

Follow me on Twitter @michaelowenhill