Does twitter make us lazy? (some limits of social networking)

is it just me, or does the social networking cause relational passivity?

I am speaking as a user, not an outside critic but as a user so slow that I just realized something the critic probably complain about all the time.

I know... we think that, because it brings us into connection with hundreds of people, social networking ties us together (which it does on a certain level, especially if I have something to promote). However, I have noticed on facebook, the blogs and especially through twitter, an allowance for relational passivity. No longer do we (the Imperial we?) call a friend to see how they are doing and tell them something important. Heck, we no longer even email people. Instead we update each other via twitter, which is fine for those following us, but not for deep friendship. I like knowing what Billy Joe in NYC that I read daily is up to and he should not email me (or even DM me) about his impending marriage.

However, there are some things my former roommate from college and best man in my wedding needs to tell me in person (or via phone/ email). Yes, we can use twitter and fb for personal messaging, but I don't want to tell the world in general that I have a disease or someone close to me died (neither of which have happened) before sharing it with those whom I value for their personal connections, those I am loyal to and are loyal to me. they deserve personal attention.

Along these same lines, people think that a mention of you in a posting is as good as a personal thank you, apology, phone call or email. This is relational laziness. Eventually people notice (kinda like the open letter).

However, my biggest issue as a twitter user for a while is this. It makes us passive and lazy relationally when we are in need of help, advice or support. Too many times I have seen on twitter a need/ want just laid out there with no context (how can we give context in 140 characters? I know this).

Her is how it works: I need an answer to a simple question, so I tweet and someone gives me the answer. Awesome for me.

or, I want to know how to solve a problem, so I tweet and someone give me an answer. Awesome for me.

or, I need a ride to the airport, so I tweet and someone says, "I will take you." Awesome for me.

But, all of this makes me passive and lazy. I have a need, desire or want and I do nothing relational. I put it out there and wait for you to contact me with an answer or salvation for my problem. You, as the one with the help have to do the work and I get all the benefit.

I must say, I do not like this equation, especially as a follower of Christ. It is not good for personal relationships.

Does this mean I will no longer tweet? No. But, it may mean I will pick up the phone or email someone when I need something, before I get passive and let everyone else come to me with the answer... and I may not fall into the trap of affirming and enabling such relational passivity. It may also mean that I don't just use social networking when I have a need, or when I want something done. I may try to connect with people for the purposes of getting to know them, not just using them.

But, probably not.

Wall-E Irony

Like anyone that is not a agenda driven nincompoop we thoroughly loved Wall-E when we saw it last week. After an initial bout of rebellion from our daughter due to the intensive preview (Eve blows something up loudly), it was all systems go and no one left disappointed, least of all the parents (of course, we think all Pixar movies are made for mom and dad).

However, isn't the thought of buying any of this authorized merchandise just a little too ironic in face of the film's premise? Of course, tell that to a 5 year old.

Great Commercial

quite simply one of the coolest commercials I have ever seen. It was banned due to "violence." Of course, this is the kind of violence of 8 year old boys.*

If this had been on during the Super Bowl, people would have been talking about it for days (and copying it). Have fun.



thanks Huffington Post for the link and a list of other commercials.

* if your pacifism or anti-consumerism keeps you from laughing, you are no longer a pacifist. you are fundamentalist.

Buy (Less) Crap- Give (More)

From Mother Jones comes this tidbit on the Red campaign led by my favorite Saint, Rock Star, Activist Bono...

Bad news for Red, the Bono-inspired, star-studded ad campaign to sell Gap t-shirts, and—oh, yes—raise some money for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Despite all the hype, its total contribution to the Fund so far has
been a paltry 18 million. A Global Fund spokesman explains to Ad Age that this was to be expected: "Red has done as much as we could have hoped for in the short time it has been up and running.... The launch cost of this kind of campaign is going to
be hugely frontloaded."

Translation: Most of the money raised has been blown on ad budgets by Gap,
Motorola, Armani, Apple, and other companies that are taking a cut from selling
Red stuff. To give you a sense of just how big the corporate cut is, for every
special edition Red iPod nano sold, Apple donates just $10.

This isn't the first time an altruistic corporate campaign has been
revealed to be too good to be true—we collected some other examples in our November issue. But there's an easy way to not get snooke(red)—cut out the middleman and give directly to the GlobalCFund. Visit buylesscrap.org to
find out how.

Click on the links above. they are each worth following, especially Buy (Less) Crap which reminds us that shopping is not a solution for human suffering (while I believe the market is wonderful way to promote ethical behavior and change things- it is probably not by buying useless things we do not need which give very little money to important charities).

just because it says "fruit" on the box...

In case you lived in a happy dream world in which you believed advertisers, marketers and packaging, this recently released study will come as no surprise. And, if you have children it will come as no surprised that marketers attempt to take your money and your children's health by appealing to parents with the words "fruit" and kids with the sugar and images on the boxes.

If you have ever tried to explain why Clifford Crunch, which is organic and has Clifford on the package is not disgustingly repulsive, yet Scooby-Doo Cinnamon Marshmallow Cereal which is also promoted by a cartoon character is very bad for your child, you know it is not an easy task.

If you have ever had to explain why the fruit rollups the other kids take to school are bad for them, without declaring those children's parents "bad" or "unhealthy", while the apple and celery you sent are good (yet don't make you a "better" parent) you know this is not easy.

Hopefully schools, churches and others declaring their interest in good parenting and healthy children will publicize studies such as this and attempt to educate parents on healthy food choices for kids. Of course, step 1 for parents is taking the extra moment in the grocery aisle to actually read the ingredients on the package.

Where's the Fruit study

Website