Does the Internet deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

In case you missed this story like I did, the Internet has in fact been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. According to Mashable.com, “The nomination was made after a petition by the Italian version of Wired Magazine, which cited the Internet’s contributions to “dialogue, debate and consensus through communication.” Signatories include Iranian activist Shirin Ebadi, and organizers say the nomination will make for a legitimate entry.”

Two nights ago I stumbled upon a letter from Riccardo Luna of Wired Italy to Pete Cashmore of Mashable. He brought up some beautiful points about the internet’s new nature with the rise of social media. It’s like a living, breathing creature propelled by each individual user’s thoughts, hopes, comments and, let’s face it, rants. After reading Luna’s letter I started to feel completely differently about the Web. In my mind it has become like an ocean reef — it’s not in fact an inanimate object, or a Web site or an index of facts, it’s a new, super-human entity, created by us, which can immortalize us forever.

And as noted by Luna, Web access can now be considered a universal right. (After all, if Hillary says it, IT’S TRUE.) Our right to express ourselves on the Web makes its nature more human. Says Luna:

[The] Internet is not about computers, but living. It is the greatest social interface humanity has ever had. It is a weapon of mass construction. As we have put out in the official manifesto of the campaign, “digital culture is promoting a new kind of society through communication and education.” And communication and education are the roots of a peaceful world. One may not see it clearly now, but in the long run, new generations growing up in this increasingly digital world will bring ahead values of cooperation, sharing of knowledge, mutual respect.

The Internet has definitely been an equalizer among us, which I believe has brought a high degree of peace on our fair planet. But when considering whether the ‘net can really win this I question all the violent crimes and murders that have come about from creepy old men stalking young pretty girls through the same social interfaces that connect us all as one race. Can an entity really win the award when it also opens up a playground for pedophiles and killers?

World [wide web] War III: Google v. Facebook

I have concluded that I will witness World War III in my lifetime. Before coming upon this realization, I was always scared to witness the third World War. I was certain none of us would get out alive. But now that I’ve realized it will in fact be almost completely virtual and involve a minimal number of nuclear bombs, I’ve decided to sit back and enjoy the show.

In one corner, we have the veteran champion, Google. From its search engine to its e-mail to its incredible mapping system and documentation of our ENTIRE GLOBE, Google has consistently out-performed itself in the past decade.

Not only that, Google never shows its flaws. Google doesn’t pump the internet full of rumors for months, make a big fancy announcement of a product and then wait a few months to release it. (I’m looking at you, ya goofy iPad-releasing Apple execs!) Instead Google makes a small chink in the internet, and slowly trickles the information down just the way it wants the information trickled, from the utmost elite nerds down to the educated tech-savvys down to, oh, let’s say the tech-savvy people’s parents and friends. For the moment Google doesn’t need lowly AOL or Hotmail users. Not a good target market.

Google not only knows how to market, Google knows how to deliver. Apart from Google Wave, I’ve found most Google services to run flawlessly. The tone behind Google’s minimalist style and cutesy comments keep the company always friendly, always helpful, and always striving to provide the best of the best. For example, after Gmail chat is disconnected it returns by triumphantly announcing, “…And we’re back!” These little details win the hearts of users like myself.

In the other corner, there’s Facebook. Once a hero, the company has turned sinister and has unleashed its “Good guy gone bad” scheme into the world with striking terror. Facebook slowly gained a userbase among American college students, soon broadening the base to include high schoolers. I remember the outcry against such a move, and since that change Facebook’s objectives in staking claim in the social media world have morphed into an unidentifiable, power-hungry beast. The small online community (even in a campus of 60,000) created by my Texas network on Facebook really did work charmingly during my beginning years of college. Facebook helped us plan parties, organize photos of our friends, create groups for our dorm floor, create groups to perpetuate inside jokes and most importantly, post drunken wall notes after a night of bonding over jungle juice. Facebook was a community.

Now with more than 400 million users, Facebook is the internet. It’s the most common topic I overhear being discussed in my workplace. But the networking has changed — it’s almost non-existent. Groups are no longer a friendly spot with a few message threads and wall posts, they’re now formatted like a Fan Page that makes announcement after announcement with no real interaction — just announcements, related comments, and a number of thumbs up given to the post.

Facebook has become a one-stop shop for most of its users. It’s the shop around the corner that has everything — addictive games, information about every human being you deem to be an acquaintance, and even updates about products, businesses and public figures you adore. The problem? It’s cluttered with trash and the interface is buggy and, well, if you’re not careful your religious great auntie might see a post you wrote about women’s reproductive rights. I want all Facebook users to get this because I’m only going to type it once: in two years you won’t even want to speak Facebook’s name. It’s the Myspace of tomorrow and that’s final.

It’s only a matter or time before the anti-tweeters come around. They all came around to Facebook. They’ll come around to Twitter. And they will almost certainly find refuge in Google Buzz. I must admit Facebook’s foray into e-mail is a bit worrisome to me, but I don’t believe it will take off. Facebook can’t get chatting right and after the 12th redesign or so I just don’t care to relearn the navigation.

Facebook has turned into a public announcement fest — some say it has turned into Twitter, but I think that’s false. To me, Twitter is truly a conversation, a network with natural niches and webs built in. Facebook’s not cut out to defeat Google and it never will, because it just can’t deliver. So come on, Google Buzz, knock out Facebook so I can just delete that account already and move on with my life of buzzing and tweeting.

Send your SMRs to the masses, the journalists just don’t care.

I’m glad to see some discussion on a topic that could make or break my ability to bring home the bread and butter for the next few years: SMRs (Social Media Releases). Over at his Don’t Fear the Firehose blog, Paul Armstrong, introduced to me via @themediaisdying, has opened up the following question: Are SMRs worth the paper they’re printed on?

I work in an industry that sends out SMRs (we can also call them MNRs, Multimedia News Releases) in a similar manner as a traditional press release, only these are rich in multimedia and optimized for social media. In my opinion optimized actually isn’t quite the right word to describe these releases, they give you an option to optimize their product through del.icio.us or technorati, but really all the bells and whistles don’t do much to inspire a journalist to write about it. Here’s what some of Paul’s members of the Firehose Brigade had to say:

“If the story’s rubbish, no. If the story’s good, yes. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN PR. Social media is not a magical way in which to polish fecal matter.”
- Matt Muir / Hill & Knowlton

————————————————————————————————–

“Save the paper, shoot the bird. Tweet. Save the rest of us from reading your business jargon with no more than 140 characters.”

- Stephanie Yang / BetaWave

————————————————————————————————–

“SMRs seem to currently be dominated by wire services which get everyone awfully excited but offer poor value for money. Compared to building a personal relationship with a blogger or journalist, these wire services soon look expensive – who wants to pay a hundred pound for a hundred page views?!”

- Jonathan Welsh / Biss Lancaster

I couldn’t agree more with all three remarks. But let’s combine: come up with a twitter update that will leave your audience with no choice but to click on your link, and link to a page with such spellbinding content that your readers will simply die with laughter, get chills from inspiration or just think it’s a great tidbit of information to share. The content moves virally; the PR professionals get their word out successfully. Let’s be honest with ourselves here, word of mouth through twitter can have a much more powerful impact than a handful of journalists picking up your content and writing a piece in their paper.

It’s still always valuable to include multimedia content. I believe there are a few journalists out there who might be able to make use of it. But for God’s sake, it simply must be embedded in a page beside the text. What’s the point of including a video that’s only represented by text? The same goes for images. They can’t be linked. They’ve gotta be embedded.