Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Marcia Conner
1,885 followers -
Resolving vexing problems. Creating worldchanging opportunities.
Resolving vexing problems. Creating worldchanging opportunities.

1,885 followers
About
Marcia's posts

Post has attachment
While I'm not expert on this topic, this is a fascinating argument! #ABetterWorld  

Post has attachment
Gorgeous. Inspiring. Perfect. With a brick-brack feel.

Post has attachment
To suggest that the most important economy is ‘yours’ is to appeal to the basest, most selfish ambitions of individual wealth creation. It suggests that ‘you’ (assuming you are the 1%) have your very own economy, one that operates independently from everyone else’s. It suggests the Thatcherite nightmare has come true, the one where the Iron Lady famously said, “There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals and families.”

In the words of Adam Smith, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” And John Stuart Mill: “The idea is essentially repulsive, of a society held together only by the relations and feelings arising out of pecuniary interest.” And finally, Friedrich Hayek: “We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of disributive justice.”

Post has shared content
In light of all the news this week, this is a fantastic post working through the ins and outs of the various social channels. Well played +Robert Scoble 
Mirror Mirror on the Wall, which social network is best to study breaking news on?

Over on Twitter we're having quite a debate. Started with this tweet by Lauren Lockliear: https://twitter.com/LaurenLockliear/status/499997133446328320

Which links to this article: https://medium.com/message/ferguson-is-also-a-net-neutrality-issue-6d2f3db51eb0 

Which then drew in Anthony De Rosa, who is editor in chief of Circa (a great news app). https://twitter.com/AntDeRosa

Then the debate went crazy. Which system is better than the other for breaking news. 

I say Facebook. He says Twitter. I get where he is coming from.

After all, if you have Twitter scrolling down the screen using either the Twitter app (I use the Mac one) or a good third-party app, like Hootsuite (which is what Anthony uses) then you'll see everything in real time, right? 

OK, let me take a deep breath and unpack several of the issues that came up here (see the original article linked to on this post over on Medium).

POINT ONE: Filters suck, they keep people from seeing the news over on Facebook.

That is both true and not true. On MY screen I'm seeing almost nothing BUT Ferguson discussed. Why? Because I have friended people who bring me great news. I have those people in lists. For instance, I have 534 tech journalists in this list on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lists/10150896044944655 I have a similar list over on Twitter, with 657 tech news folks: https://twitter.com/Scobleizer/lists/tech-news-people So I can compare both all day long.

I also have a list of Major News outlets on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/Scobleizer/lists/world-news-brands ) and I follow a similar news list on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lists/2363411216469

You will see news break just as fast on both. 

But the argument is that most news doesn't get through to the main feed. THAT is true, again, sort of. Most posts suck on Facebook (and on Twitter and on Google+ too). 

But lists show all, and in almost real time. Provably so, because I watch how fast things get posted all the time (it's my job to watch, especially in tech industry). 

This is why I did the video last week about why Facebook is running away with the game: https://plus.google.com/events/c54hhsqnoe29kvmbt6s64jbkl7c

But, let's dig in, because there are advantages to lots of different social networks for different reasons. 

TWITTER ADVANTAGES (clear wins):
1. You can search for news content. In real time. THIS IS A HUGE win for Twitter, and is one of the reasons I still keep it on my screen all day long.
2. You see all stuff that you follow (on Facebook you have to use lists to see all).
3. No news bias, because no filtering. (Facebook's filters are affected by a wide variety of things, including user behavior, which CAN induce bias).
4. Bias toward being public. On Twitter, the default is public. Yes, you can be private with your account, but most people aren't.


TWITTER/FACEBOOK TIES (not clear wins)
1. Scrolling content. Twitter scrolls, but not on mobile phone. In reality, I just keep a browser window open to Facebook (and another to Google+) and it auto refreshes. Yeah, you could say Twitter is seconds faster, but in reality that doesn't matter unless you are a news hound. Even there, Facebook, on my browsers, has a window over to the right where my friends' content scrolls in real time and that is NOT filtered.
2. 

FACEBOOK ADVANTAGES (clear wins)
1. Far less noise than Twitter, which makes it more likely to see news that will affect you.
2. Contextual news (I see news about where I live, because Facebook knows where I am. Twitter doesn't try to show me news about where I am.
3. More news for average users. Facebook will bring you news your friends are commenting on, sharing, or liking. So, even if you have five friends (who are active) chances are you'll see the big story of the day (when Robin Williams died I saw the news within seconds on both services, my wife actually saw it on Facebook before I even saw it on Twitter).
4. Better photos and easier to see what articles really have a lot of engagement. Facebook shows numbers of comments. I don't see numbers of replies on Twitter. (Compare how both lists look, that I gave above).

Anyway, let this kick off the great debate. I wrote this post very quickly, so probably missed a whole lot. I'll link to this from both Twitter and Facebook. 

Let the debate begin!

UPDATE: you all know where I stand. I like Facebook better.

Post has attachment
What if health data were a way for newspapers to make an encore? What if communities measured their behaviors as closely as those who track their own every move?

"NEW YORK – I have written previously about the Quantified Self movement – individuals equipped with the tools (monitoring devices and software) needed to measure their own health and behavior (and, by doing so, to improve them). This movement is not quite sweeping the world, but it is making a difference. So-called Quantified Selfers are monitoring their blood pressure, sleep cycles, and body mass. At least some of them are using that information to improve their health and live more productively."

Post has attachment
"“I’m rich and I’m obnoxious and I’m not eating this stuff,” Esther Dyson says of the sugar-filled yogurt being served for breakfast during the recent DLD conference in New York City.

Dyson, a venture capitalist, digital age guru, and trained cosmonaut who, in golf shirt and jeans, comes across as neither rich nor obnoxious, makes the statement in an interview with Techonomy to help illustrate the challenges most Americans face in maintaining a healthy diet. “Imagine living in a small town where there are only a bunch of chain stores. Normal people with normal lives are not going to ask for sugar-free yogurt. They just take the stuff with sugar in it.” She looks forward to a day when you won’t seem obnoxious if you insist on healthy options wherever you go.

Post has attachment
"Fewer than half  of American workers were satisfied with their jobs in 2013, according to a new survey from the Conference Board.

In almost every individual measure—from wages and retirement plans to vacation policies and commutes—workers are less content with their jobs than they were in 1987, when the research group started tracking the topic. Back then, 61.1% of workers said they were satisfied with their work.

The decline suggests a steady erosion of trust and loyalty between employers and employees, said Rebecca Ray, leader of the organization’s human capital research unit.

“Certainly, the employer contract is dead for the most part,” she said, noting that benefits such as pension plans, 401(k) matches and robust healthcare coverage, which once glued employers and their employees together in a long-term relationship, are disappearing.

Among the areas with the largest gaps between satisfaction then and now, according to the survey: job security, health coverage, and sick leave policies. While some of these measures have returned to pre-recession levels, the longer trends are decidedly negative.

The only measures on which workers were happier compared with 1987 were the physical environment and quality of equipment at their workplaces. Also, those working 41 to 50 hours are happier now than they were then."
"

Post has attachment
"If you set out to design from scratch a system to deliver compassionate, high-quality health care and do so in a cost-effective manner, you would probably change everything about American health care. #WayToWellville  #ABetterWorld

Post has attachment
If the past month has told us anything, it’s that there are thriving start-up hubs in literally every corner of the earth. But besides nurturing some of the biggest businesses of tomorrow, what impact can these hubs have on our lives? #ABetterWorld

Post has attachment
Terrific post from Joshua Ellis well worth reading:

"It didn’t used to be like this when I was a kid. I’m not getting nostalgic here, or pretending that my adolescence and my twenties were some kind of soft-focused Golden Age. Life sucked when I was young. I was unhappy then too. But there was always the sense that it was just a temporary thing, that if I stuck it out eventually the world was going to get better — become awesome, in fact.

But the reality is that the three generations who ended the 20th century, the Boomers, their Generation X children, and Generation Y, have architected a Western civilization that’s kind of a shit show. Being born in 1978, I fall at either the tail end of Gen X or the beginning of Gen Y, depending on how you look at it. I became an adolescent at the time Nirvana was ushering in a decade of “slacker” ideology, as the pundits liked to put it. But the reality is that I didn’t know a whole lot of actual slackers in the 1990s. I did know a lot of people who found themselves disillusioned with the materialism of the 1980s and what we saw as the failed rhetoric of the Sixties generation, who were all about peace and love right until the time they put on suits and ties and figured out how to divide up the world. I knew a lot of people who weren’t very interested in that path."

[The conversation on Reddit about the post is pretty good too. http://redd.it/2cfmft]
Wait while more posts are being loaded