Michael Beddows - Latest Comments

Re: “Mass Sentiment” analysis

Michael Roberts — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:10:03 -0000

It is my opinion social media is the most powerful weapon of internet marketing. Liked your blog and will subscribe.

Re: Online and offline reputation

Michael Beddows — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:01:04 -0000

Thanks Jos, you raise a good point! If Southwest Airlines had used such a device, perhaps they would have reacted differently to Kevin Smith...

Since I wrote this post, I've been thinking a lot more about celebrity, influence, and relationship capital. In the past, being a celebrity was enough to have significant influence. We're moving to the point, if we haven't already, where influence is measurable and can easily take you to celebrity status. What concerns me is that I believe neither celebrity nor measured influence should lead to special treatment.

I'd like to see a world where reputation does lead to special treatment, but where reputation is measured by one's positive contributions to the world. Hard to measure, for sure.. But I can see that day coming quickly..

Re: Online and offline reputation

masternetwork — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:50:56 -0000

Today the stores have scanners at the exits to see you have not stolen anything. In future they will have scans at the entrance to scan your online ID, reputation and number of followers. They will subsequently act accordingly. ......

Great article.
^Jos

Re: Make blogs (or tweets), not war

Nora Femenia — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:15:02 -0000

With so many interests competing in the market, YES, we need to yell for peace...otherwise other pettier interests will take over the focus and direct people to self-interest issues and we will again forget that peace requires a focus on the common good, above and beyond petty individual interests.

Re: Make blogs (or tweets), not war

Michael Beddows — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:21:02 -0000

Hi, thanks for your comments! I had initially considered "people to people" as the primary level of analysis, although "government to government" certainly comes into play. And then there's "people to government" that you allude to in describing reconciliation.

After having more time to think about this issue, it has subsequently occurred to me where the breakdown may lie. There are many (most?) situations where government is simply unresponsive to the will of the people. Perhaps it is a "macho factor". I'm also thinking that governments act in the short-term self-interest of their people. I like to think that the system has our best interests at heart, but one can never be sure with systems - they tend to take on a life of their own.

Rwanda comes to mind, where people on the outside request their governments to act, but nothing is done, simply because there's nothing to be gained by doing so. I'm starting to draw a parallel between this situation and the documentary: The Corporation.

Does communication make a difference? Sure, if it's loud enough. But we shouldn't have to be yelling for peace, should we?

Re: Make blogs (or tweets), not war

Nora Femenia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:32:22 -0000

As you can say, the free flow of information facilitates dialogue, mutual understanding and reconciliation....Let's have the concepts straight here, as I do with my students first day of class: Which level of analysis are we talking about here?
1) People to people
2) Government to government

If you look at popular movements towards reconciliation (and I can recall two efforts for reconciliation between argentines and Falkland Islanders, separated by the '82 Falklands War) they can prosper up to a certain point. It get to a moment when, regardless the amount of people mobilized, that never is enough, everybody is looking up to state level decisions that need to me made to oficialize such peace process.
Governments are always behind and there is not a "Ministry of Reconciliation" ready to act, but State and country level interests uphold. Little to discuss here, but reconciliation is always derided as a "soft" process with no immediate results, and who wants to be associated with a process whose results will be seen after the long term?
In my experience, there is always a "macho factor" in the resistance to yield to peacemaking processes that can't be marketed as a "win" for the ruling group. As long as we have this mindset, simple citizens will have to begin tearing down the Berlin walls with their own hands to send the message to their own governments that times have changed and that they have to accept a person-to-person; people to people wish to make peace.