LJ?

[ironphoenix]

I've stuck with LJ for a lot of years now; I don't really do much on GooglePlus or LinkedIn, and I'm not even on FaceBook, Tumblr, or Twitter. Yesterday was the Church's " 48th World Day of Social Communications", celebrated on the occasion of the memorial of St. Francis of Sales, patron saint of communicators. Pope Francis' message has a paragraph which expresses what I want to see more of again here in LJ-land:

It is not enough to be passers-by on the digital highways, simply 'connected'; connections need to grow into true encounters. We cannot live apart, closed in on ourselves. We need to love and to be loved. We need tenderness. Media strategies do not ensure beauty, goodness and truth in communication. The world of media also has to be concerned with humanity, it too is called to show tenderness. The digital world can be an environment rich in humanity; a network not of wires but of people. The impartiality of media is merely an appearance; only those who go out of themselves in their communication can become a true point of reference for others. Personal engagement is the basis of the trustworthiness of a communicator.

Most social media encourage shallowness; I hope to keep more depth here.

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

LinkedIn are unrepentant spammers, aggresively sending bulk commercial email to non-subscribers. As such, LinkedIn are assholes and people who use LinkedIn are assholes. So you should not feel bad about not using LinkedIn, and you SHOULD shun and punish people who use LinkedIn because LinkedIn are spammers.

For the rest, I can't really help you: The main thing about livejournal (even more than G+ or Twitter) is that the more content you add, the more responses and reactions you get. And there's a critical mass of responses past which the responses themselves produce more content.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Depth. It's needed. Well put.

[ragnhildr.livejournal.com]

I also appreciate LJ for the potential for depth, at least.

I have been remiss of late. I have been reading LJ, but not posting much, even to respond to other posts. I hope to do better.

[khall.livejournal.com]

As a former communication major, I have to say...all media are value-equal. There's definitely some situations where one form achieves a specific purpose better. A picture is worth a 1000 words, a hand-written letter from mom goes straight to the heart, etc. But...all values, beyond that, on communication are purely cultural. A screen is not innately inferior to a book, or a video, or an audio file or a scroll, for that matter. They're all just data. People who put extra value on out-dated technology worry and concern me. I like books. I love books. I like a book I can touch and feel and pick up and lay down and carry around. A e-reader doesn't feel the same. However, that's purely personal. Reading 'the classics' or the bible, for that matter, on a kindle isn't any different value-wise. Same data, same transmission method.

K.