digital natives and the elevator twitpitch

i read this plea to ban employers trawling Facebook some time ago via a link through danah's blog, and while yes, i agreed to an extent, i didn't really think long and hard about it until elevator (twit)pitches arose.

now, i do think twitpitches can be useful. i like the simplicity, the conciseness, the mandate for effectiveness and efficiency. it does not allow for fluff but instead lets the work (ie, a link) do the talking. this is, on the whole, a brilliant idea--especially when aimed toward those who know well enough to craft themselves online; those who know and expect their online 'persona' to affect their working world.

but what about the up-and-coming folks, the "digital natives" as the phrase goes? they were not considering the twitpitch (and all that follows) when they were journaling online at age 13, sneaking into frats at 16, or generally doing "self-exploration" that they may not later wish to admit to (especially when some sites, like Facebook, make it so hard to delete the tracks later on).

as the article i first link to states,
“A world where even a 14-year-old has to think twice before posting an adolescent poem suddenly looks very unappealing and increases the pressure on children and young people to conform to a set of tightly focused adult norms.” (excerpt)

i recently asked my twitter followers this question;
@luckthelady was nice enough to respond, saying that:
To a degree, certainly. I definitely wouldn't hold it against a girl if she got drunk at a frat party, but...
If she's considered to be dishonest, a repeated flake or someone with a bad reputation, it would definitely affect the offer.

do you agree? disagree?
what do you take into account in your employment decision when "e-searching" someone? how well do you expect them to "cover their tracks" (or do you expect at all)? do you think this is unfair to begin with and puts digital natives on an uneven playing field with their more-crafted, older brethren?

and, my question also: how do you determine if someone is a "repeated flake" (for example) online? ie, what if they simply don't check Facebook in particular a lot? or how to measure this over the span of 4 years on Facebook? at what point is social media, aimed at friends, no longer about personal facts but professional representation?

i have questions. i'd be interested in any answers.

hey facebook: speaking of "liars."

so, the kids that recently got pwned by AdRants got me thinking. i started reading their community blog, Our American Shelf Life, which is basically blog posts updating their personal use and thoughts surrounding social media (facebook, twitter, even 'old school' stuff like aim and msn. icq anyone? oh no.)

anyway, this post got me thinking. i don't perceive there being a huge age gap between myself and those bloggers; i think i am older than some, and younger than at least one. point being? is it a year-gap thing... or were my friends just jaded from the get-go?

let me back up.

it's established, both in academia and in digital sense, that we choose to craft ourselves online. sometimes to reflect ourselves 'more accurately' than in the day-to-day, and sometimes to recreate according to what we'd like to be. (more, if you didn't already agree? danah boyd)

what makes you think Facebook is not an extension of that?

i allow that due to popularity, friends might keep other friends 'in check' if one profile is too inauthentic, too 'crafted'--too fake or untrue to the person. yet that only applies if the friends themselves aren't in on it, or don't also find it amusing. (communication and procrastination, the lofty goals of social networks.)

case in point, Facebook dating, as described in the ASL post.

except, my school was one of the first 50, if not fewer, to be added to Facebook. i'd wager 20, but my memory isn't that good. when we got to put up that much revealing information, we were all a bit taken aback. skeptically, we asked ourselves why we would want to declare whomever as our significant other. ...didn't we--and our friends--already know that?

this gave rise to many hilarious antics. fake profiles, real profiles with fake dates... people were 'married' left and right--and not even to people they were truly dating! often, to people it would have been 'funny' to date. my best friend (hetero, in a relationship at the time, actress) was Facebook wives with our stage manager friend (who is a lesbian) because it had been a theater joke.

Facebook marriage, and, consequently, Facebook dating status, became a farce in many of our minds. i don't know exactly when this changed, but i can speculate:

i think it had to do with the live feeds.

before, only people who visited your profile actively knew who you were dating. with live broadcast, things became more serious. people you barely knew who followed your updates could start asking why you and X broke up, or how mean you were for doing it, or how sad they were--when you weren't even truly dating X. the awkwardness abounded. it forced into truth so at least you had answers when stalkers came knocking--or you took your marital status down altogether.

so to the kids who take it seriously and wind up finding out their relationship has been "cancelled" before their partner informs them face-to-face: ...man, i'm sorry. lighten up, go 'marry' your hs gym teacher's daughter.

stop txting me pls. (!)

subtitle: i have an adcrush on danah boyd.

if you don't know about her yet, what's wrong with you? love her or hate her but you need to know. she's doing ethnographies that are incredibly relevant to the shifts of emphasis in the ad biz. so listen up. i know some of you are, and i love you for it. [brief rundown? Agency Spy rocks my socks.]

anyway. long story short? stop texting me.
i know that email won't remain the best way to get in touch with my generation in the future, but that doesn't mean you need to turn to text messaging. as we all know, my generation is increasingly more public with our information on the internet, regardless of how we craft ourselves. key words? on the internet.

if your spamails aren't working out for you, text messaging surely won't. i would be more annoyed receiving texts (and being charged for them by my service provider!) that are unwanted than emails. not to mention, you can't opt-out of text spam like you can unsub from emails. that results in me getting cranky with my carrier.

cell phones? personal and business. spam has taken over email. if it takes over text messaging, that will a) be less productive than intended because of the unwanted setting and b) will only decrease in effectiveness.

! but i'm not all bitch and no suggestions here, folks.
you want to utilize text message spam so badly? how about you do this crazy thing called... respect. i know that means very little on the 'net these days, but it's something that might be considered over phrases like friendly stalking and privacy invasion.

why don't you offer people the ability to subscribe to text messaging for products they like? some commercials advertise this ability. because that changes the game. that means i am interested in what you're trying to sell me. you want me to subscribe to a DriveThru Records (or any other label for that matter) text messaging feed in order to tell me what concerts are now up and when tickets go on sale? GO FOR IT, i'm in.

it's all about relevance, which is what the lovely danah boyd and others keep trying to express. you can't just throw up an ad into a Facebook setting and expect people to suddenly love you and be loyal to your brand. engage with them. become relevant. i know the movement is toward mobile, but can't you be respectful about it?

a la miss danah:
"I think that most brands make mistakes because they don’t understand the social dynamics. Think of MySpace/Facebook as a public hangout space. When is it socially acceptable to go up to a group of friends hanging out at a pub or having a picnic in the park? If you treat it that way, the boundaries are much more logical. If you have something relevant to add to the conversation, you might be asked to pull up a seat/join the mat. If not, you will be seen as sketchy and annoying. You are always welcome in the backdrop, but don’t expect to be included just because you’re there. And be careful.. there’s a fine line between being an active participant on an SNS and being seen as a spammer. You’re often better off being a legitimate participant (a.k.a. buying ads) than trying to coldcall folks."

take home message: if i WANT your spam, i'll ASK FOR IT.