Clash of the titans: Email v social media

bramhall · 25 Nov 2011, 03:39 PM

Email is dead. Oh no, it isn't.... Yet another exchange of opinions on this subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15856116

drew · 26 Nov 2011, 05:23 PM

It all depends on needs I guess.

Some are all for SMS texting instead.

Them do have email in their smartphone but them send SMS texting
instead due to the ease and that their friends expect such more likely
than getting an email? But I know too few people to get any good way
of knowing what the trend says among those that I know.

Tsunami · 27 Nov 2011, 08:41 AM

Depends what one means with social media, but in my opinion social networking sites are a waste of potential. Things like Facebook or Twitter would be great if they were used to exchange information rather than being commercialised. Now they are filled with nonsensical statements few are interested in, pointless apps and games, ... so the real info that is useful is like looking for a needle in a giant haystack. On top of that, these networks can be potentially dangerous because it is a very rapid way to organise things such as mass protests, violent actions, and other things that are illegal and disrupt public safety and order.

I would prefer email anytime ; it is more like old fashioned communication. In the old days you had post and telephone, now there is the added option of email. It remains a communication between two or more people, without the whole world looking over your shoulder and without polluting the web. For exchanging letters with friends, email is fulfilling all needs. There is no need to use social networks for that ; why would you want to share your letters (be it in electronic format) with the rest of the world anyway?

The idea of social networks is good, but the commercialising of it has made it a waste of potential. Maybe though that can be said of the whole internet. It would be great if it were like it was intended when it was invented for the academical world. Exchanging information. Providing information. Like a huge public encyclopaedia. The commercialisation of the web has made it prone to abuse for bad intentions. And for pointless things as well, when we discuss social networks.

I guess it's easy to say that just abstaining from using them makes it something one should not be concerned about. However, services like Twitter have been used for organising violent clashes and gatherings that ended up disrupting order in public places. So it's not like simply not using those networks leads to never being bothered by it.

Also, some websites I used to like now are polluted with Facebook apps and some sites go as far as allowing comments on articles only via your Facebook account. Since I don't use social networks, I decided to stop participating in those debates. A sad evolution of some sites that were really good until the whole world seems to want a Twitter and Facebook presence, thereby undeliberately forcing it onto those who wish to abstain from it.

I don't want to generalise though, since there's always the exceptions. The likes of HospitalityClub and Couchsurfing for example are fantastic set-ups. They are monitored very well generally, and have succesfully brought people together without having seen their sites being used for pointless messages. These sites realise exactly what they were created for: bringing people together and exchanging useful info. They are generally not considered as social networks, but if you'd count them in, they're the exceptions where social networking has proven very useful.

Anyways, whoever said email would soon be dead was simply promoting their own product as the big alternative. I doubt Zuckerberg himself was believing his own words when saying anything remotely close to that. Because in the end, some information is not for the world to see so people will use a more private method of communication. Businesses may more and more seek a Facebook preference, but communication with co-employees or with customers usually still goes with email and it would be quite inconvenient to replace that.

drew · 14 Dec 2011, 08:26 PM

Tsunami, I guess it is partly about different things.

Emails are more official and have a long tradition of
allowing more formal exchanges and are in that way
more like snail mail that is on real paper.

Social communities allow shorter chat like exchanges
that is more like post cards and not as spelled out as
real mail would be. On a post card you write short things
like you also do on chat so the social media is a faster
way to do exchanges. Emails are more like your post here.

So them have appeal to different audiences?

**CyberSmurf** · 15 Dec 2011, 10:24 PM

moderator: A non-english post by key_key, and the discussion about it, have been split off into a seperate thread.
http://www.emaildiscussions.com/showthread.php?t=63571

Chipper · 25 Dec 2011, 10:54 AM

A company in France has a zero e-mail policy:

http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/30/f...-email-policy/

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/7sdhsdu

25 Nov 2011, 03:39 PM	#1
bramhall Essential Contributor Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 369	Clash of the titans: Email v social media Email is dead. Oh no, it isn't.... Yet another exchange of opinions on this subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15856116

27 Nov 2011, 08:41 AM	#3
Tsunami The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: in between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown Posts: 2,618	Depends what one means with social media, but in my opinion social networking sites are a waste of potential. Things like Facebook or Twitter would be great if they were used to exchange information rather than being commercialised. Now they are filled with nonsensical statements few are interested in, pointless apps and games, ... so the real info that is useful is like looking for a needle in a giant haystack. On top of that, these networks can be potentially dangerous because it is a very rapid way to organise things such as mass protests, violent actions, and other things that are illegal and disrupt public safety and order. I would prefer email anytime ; it is more like old fashioned communication. In the old days you had post and telephone, now there is the added option of email. It remains a communication between two or more people, without the whole world looking over your shoulder and without polluting the web. For exchanging letters with friends, email is fulfilling all needs. There is no need to use social networks for that ; why would you want to share your letters (be it in electronic format) with the rest of the world anyway? The idea of social networks is good, but the commercialising of it has made it a waste of potential. Maybe though that can be said of the whole internet. It would be great if it were like it was intended when it was invented for the academical world. Exchanging information. Providing information. Like a huge public encyclopaedia. The commercialisation of the web has made it prone to abuse for bad intentions. And for pointless things as well, when we discuss social networks. I guess it's easy to say that just abstaining from using them makes it something one should not be concerned about. However, services like Twitter have been used for organising violent clashes and gatherings that ended up disrupting order in public places. So it's not like simply not using those networks leads to never being bothered by it. Also, some websites I used to like now are polluted with Facebook apps and some sites go as far as allowing comments on articles only via your Facebook account. Since I don't use social networks, I decided to stop participating in those debates. A sad evolution of some sites that were really good until the whole world seems to want a Twitter and Facebook presence, thereby undeliberately forcing it onto those who wish to abstain from it. I don't want to generalise though, since there's always the exceptions. The likes of HospitalityClub and Couchsurfing for example are fantastic set-ups. They are monitored very well generally, and have succesfully brought people together without having seen their sites being used for pointless messages. These sites realise exactly what they were created for: bringing people together and exchanging useful info. They are generally not considered as social networks, but if you'd count them in, they're the exceptions where social networking has proven very useful. Anyways, whoever said email would soon be dead was simply promoting their own product as the big alternative. I doubt Zuckerberg himself was believing his own words when saying anything remotely close to that. Because in the end, some information is not for the world to see so people will use a more private method of communication. Businesses may more and more seek a Facebook preference, but communication with co-employees or with customers usually still goes with email and it would be quite inconvenient to replace that. Last edited by Tsunami : 27 Nov 2011 at 08:51 AM.

15 Dec 2011, 10:24 PM	#5
CyberSmurf Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: British Columbia Posts: 4,098	non-english post moderator: A non-english post by key_key, and the discussion about it, have been split off into a seperate thread. http://www.emaildiscussions.com/showthread.php?t=63571

26 Nov 2011, 05:23 PM	#2
drew The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,626	It all depends on needs I guess. Some are all for SMS texting instead. Them do have email in their smartphone but them send SMS texting instead due to the ease and that their friends expect such more likely than getting an email? But I know too few people to get any good way of knowing what the trend says among those that I know.

14 Dec 2011, 08:26 PM	#4
drew The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,626	Tsunami, I guess it is partly about different things. Emails are more official and have a long tradition of allowing more formal exchanges and are in that way more like snail mail that is on real paper. Social communities allow shorter chat like exchanges that is more like post cards and not as spelled out as real mail would be. On a post card you write short things like you also do on chat so the social media is a faster way to do exchanges. Emails are more like your post here. So them have appeal to different audiences?

25 Dec 2011, 10:54 AM	#6
Chipper Master of the @ Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Greenbelt, MD (USA) Posts: 1,279	A company in France has a zero e-mail policy: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/30/f...-email-policy/ TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/7sdhsdu