A tech conference appears to have marked yet another shift in the use of social tools to wrest control and flatten the playing field.
Dan Fost of Fortune calls it Conference 2.0 but I prefer the term (which Dan also uses): The Unconference Movement. (I prefer it because anything with 2.0 in it implies money; calling it a movement makes it sound more like people doing things because they want to.)
Dan summarizes what is being billed as a pivotal moment: an 'interview' session where columnist Sarah Lacy faces a growing discontent of the audience for her interview with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg. (You can see the interview here, and the comments are worth reading.)
Jeremiah Owyang pulls it altogether and tags it as a Groundswell, which happens to also be the name of a forthcoming book by his Forrester colleagues. A Groundswell, he says, is "a social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions."
Shel Israel sees it as "revolutionary in the same way that American colonists wrested power from the British; that Gandhi did it with homespun cloth and boycotting British-supplied salt and in the same manner that students attempted to do it in America of the 60s."
What's interesting here is this:
Twitter has changed, at least for some people, from a presence/status tool ("doing the ironing in my underwear") to a communication tool ("@burlesque you were right to slap him. where's the altavista party?")
I must confess I haven't caught up with this trend. When I complained to a geek friend that tweets were no longer entertaining and now more likely to feel like eavesdrops on other people's conversations, he said that was the point. But it's not eavesdropping: these conversations are public and, by definition, open to including others.
Indeed, that's how, at SXSW, a lot of the parties and gatherings evolved: one tweet offering a party in an empty bar attracted 100 participants in minutes.
But we need to recognise this isn't for everyone. Twitter tools work great for people who share the same interests, or inhabit the same area. And the difference with Facebook here is instructive: Status messages are just that, while postings on friends' walls can be seen by other friends, which makes those messages social (while messages can't).
Which is more social? Facebook is a walled garden of trusted friends; Twitter is an anarchic network that allows users to hunt down new friends based on what they're talking about. In a way it's more like music taste-sharing sites like Last.fm than Facebook: I join a service like that not because I only want to hang out with the people I know, but to meet people I'll draw value from via a shared taste and interest.
So what else is worth noting from this 'Groundswell'?
Is this revolutionary? For those of us who have nodded off in presentations and dull panel discussions that could, for all the lack of connection with the audience, be on another planet, this can only be a good thing. Allowing the audience to participate is clearly a must, and any interviewer or moderator in that format who denies that is wasting a key resource: the audience.
That was always true, but the audience is not passive anymore: They have the tools to discuss and organize among themselves, and, in the case of the Facebook session, to fight back. It can get ugly (at times the video felt more like a mob lynching than a 'Groundswell', but after 45 minutes of poor questions, maybe my patience might have snapped too.)
I am not sure this is a revolution on the par of Shel's comparisons, but there are lots of things happening here. Destructive as it may appear on the video, this is actually an example of collaboration, however chaotic, and alliance-making, however brief, that is social media at its best. A group shared a technology that allowed them to communicate, and they collaborated. The mood of the room could be felt by those present. But the mood defined itself on the backchannel chat ("Am I the only one here who is finding the questions boring and irrelevant?") and then expressed itself vocally--one individual, initially, but supported by the applause of others in the face of the interviewer's defensiveness.
I'd love to think that audiences, with their collective knowledge, enthusiasm and, let's face it, investment in being there, can turn the traditional format of dominant speaker/moderator and appreciative but docile mass on its head. If that's a revolution then I'm up for it.