Hello, I can't really agree:
When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information > that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social > media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the > proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of > disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from > the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. > Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). > how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as > players of equal measure, > Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came <https://twitter.com/The_People_Came>. Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers Isabel - semi-professional lurker -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
