I’m sure the extra exposure wouldn’t hurt since I have the content. I just want to not like it. I kind of equate Facebook / Twitter with the Microsoft / Apple thing. I’m a die hard Mac person (for twenty plus years) and it’s kind hard to go over to the “evil empire.”

Thanks for the time and attention, Rick.

LinkedIn is a bit of a puzzle for me. I agree that it is relatively passive, but I’m not sure why. I’ve got almost 300 contacts on LinkedIn and most of them don’t post anything. In fact when I’ve ask some of them why not, they say that they can’t think of anything to say. These are people whose opinions I value. I know they’ve got something to say. So the medium most not be right for them.

I used to feel the way you felt about Facebook, but I’m warming to it for two reasons. First, I’ve gotten more responses from Facebook “friends” to my blog posts than LinkedIn “contacts”. My sample isn’t all that large, but it makes me think that Facebook is more about communication and community than LinkedIn. As you said, LI is passive, but it doesn’t have to be. Hence, a puzzle.

The other reason I’m warming to Facebook is its “page” feature. Check out https://www.facebook.com/ChildrensHospitalBoston
They’ve built a community of hundreds of parents and children who share a common interest in helping sick kids get better. Children’s Hospital also uses the page to link to related content. It’s a real medical resource. (I’m no MD…just think it’s interesting how this one site leverages Facebook.) LI could do this with its Groups function, but it’s not happening on LinkedIn, and it is happening on Facebook.

And, finally, I agree with you about Twitter being a fantastic way to listen and learn. I’ve found lists and hashtags to be invaluable in sorting through the clutter. My reason for down-playing it in this particular post has to do with the energy required for people to get something out of it. It’s analogous to where the internet was before browsers were invented. The cost benefit is out of whack, except for geeks (and people like you and me, who may be geekier than we’d like to admit). Cheers.

I agree with LinkedIn, even though the participation level there is relatively passive. If nothing else it’s kind of an online portfolio. This may may be just my preference, but I disagree with Facebook. It’s alright to maintain a profile, but I don’t believe it’s effective platform to make a quality impression. I can’t see much happening there besides keeping up with old and current friends.

I like Twitter. First, it’s so much more than a vehicle for your identity. It’s a learning experience, not a source … but an experience. Anyone you want listen to you can. And if you want that person to listen to you, it’s up to you to impress them enough for them to follow you. Whatever discipline you wish dwelve into – you can, and to what depth you want.

Personally I use Twitter for my news, my initial contact vehicle and the platform to broadcast what I’m doing and writing about in my business and blogs. Twitter isn’t easy though. It’s both an art and science. And the more time and synaptic energy you put into it – the more will come from it.

These are just my thoughts, though. Take what you can from it.

“Thanks for the great post, Rick. I especially like the distinction you make: social media mastery vs. navigation. It really brings in a strategic element that helps me think about how I am using/leveraging social media – for myself and for the good of others. The picture again brings in distinctions that I have not thought previously, linking tools to strategic intent such as involvement, discussion and motion. Perhaps, most important, I appreciate your position on aligning your values with what you are writing/speaking about. Bringing that level of integrity contributes to making social media a valuable expression. Thank you!”