Conversation Agent - Valeria Maltoni - Should Comments be Portable?


Book Reviews

  • Recommended Books
    Conversation Agent participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program.

As seen on

Advisory Boards

Comment Policy, Social Guidelines

  • Critical discourse is welcomed. I reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments. See my social guidelines.

« What Would you Give up to Get Back? | Main | Corporate Social Media Evangelists »


No matter where anyone comments, the words are theirs. Even in anonymity, in kindness and in wrath, so to speak. Individuals may choose not to hold themselves accountable - or to think they aren't - at the end of the day, they are anyway ;-)

Technology changes, humans don't (this is borrowed from Deb Schultz). Thank you for joining the conversation.

On the other hand, whenever we state something in public - we relinquish control over the fate of those words. Various politicians have, belatedly it seems, come to realize that.

If you allow RSS feeds, and someone comments on that feed- it's not for the blogger to object. A ne'erdowell might as well express frustration at a newspapers' depiction of him!

I was wrong.

Once it's out there, anyone can comment on "your" words. If they're courteous, they'll do you the favor of visiting your blog - and if they're really polite, comment there. But, otherwise - they'll comment where their friends and online pals can read their reactions.

It really is a nebulous world, and sometimes it's not always obvious (at this time of night!) to see the connection between the "old" and the "new". But what really strikes me: the "old" way of doing things hasn't changed, but the venue and reach has.

I'm quite happy to have discovered I was wrong. :-)
Carolyn Ann

Thanks, Loius. I sort of get your points, but you do seem to contradict them, in your post. You applaud the technology, but at the same time decry it, because it's influence and result isn't quite what you expected? I am unsure if you had any expectation, in the first place, however?

The essential point is that the "conversation" is changing - it's become this amorphous "thing", that exists in neither time nor space. Which is fine, even if it is a bit nebulous. [Sorry... Couldn't resist.] I don't regard it as "good", although I am quite certain I will be in the minority. I often find myself in that group, needless to say!

Is it good that this never-ending, rarely-focused, conversation occur in the aether our computer screens are connected to? I used to think that the "conversation" remained the conversation; it didn't change, even if its venue did. Now, I'm not so sure - the venue has become the least of any conversational concern; the actual format of the conversation is assuming a shape and form that, I fear, promotes - not hinders - conformity and punishes those who don't subscribe to the vogue view.

Crowds may contain wisdom - but I'm quite sure they an also stifle the individual. I can't help but think that we should all beware of what we wish for - because we just might get it.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my obvious skepticism, Louis. And thank you, Valeria, for the forum, or venue if I may, for exploring these ideas.

Carolyn Ann

The comments to this entry are closed.