There was an amazing, emergent effect at the AlwaysOn conference this week. Although the conference was set up in the “traditional” conference format (talking heads on stage, audience in neat, supplicating rows), there was a balancing factor between the two groups. Perhaps, actually, it was more than a “balancing” factor…it turned the “balance of power” in favor of the participants.
Take a look over at Denise Howell’s photo over to the right. See the HUGE screen, stage left? That was a live text chat, consisting of people both inside the room and from around the world who were “participating” in the conference via the streamed webcast. Sometimes the commentary, floating above the heads of the folks on stage, was civil. To whit:
Chris Heuer: a bad strategy – mostly because we are bad at storytelling and getting the people behind our casue – but this is changing with the blogosphere
mike symmetry: NOW WE’RE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!!!
Lisa: ok – so this is what I was talking about in tems of being disatisfied with having my options limited by the entertainment chain of power
Ed Daniel: everyone should read Lawence Lessig’s the future of ideas
disrupter: THIS IS SMART PAY ATTENTION(from here)
Then again, sometimes the chat was less-than-civil. This, from the opening panel on Wednesday night that went awry:
Chris Heuer: you know, we could always start talking about innovation between ourselves and not get into flamable conversations
PA: change the questions!
Tom: yet we wont attacck North Korea will we?
Doctoro: Please bring up subjects common to silicon valley and uncommon to cable news.
x: innovation summit?
whats going on:: okay..if on politics..
Allan: Wait, wasn’t Shock and Awe(TM) innovation?(from here)
By the second day of the conference, the chat became as much of a participant in the conference as the individuals on stage and seated in the room. And, wisely, Tony and the moderators chose not to control it, but instead embraced it.
As expected, some of the very public comments were spot-on, many were snarky, some were downright rude. But they were there, a part of the event. The Fourth Wall had been not broken, but obliterated.
One challenge with the chat, however, was that it was pseudonymous (was that really Ray Kurzweil asking Bill Joy a question via the chat window? If it was a good question, does it matter? What if it was asked by Ramona?). This seemed to allow more incendiary ranting than would have taken place in a face-to-face situation, or even in a situation where someone needed to stand by their words in perpetuity (say in the case of a blog by a named author). Although some of the comments were perhaps inappropriate, the words on the wall added an element of reality to the conference, a check-and-balance that wasn’t afraid to call B.S. when the folks on stage were perceived to be acting below-board. (The folks on stage knew this was happening when the chuckles would roll through the audience in response to a particularly sharp riposte on the screen.)
And, judging by the number of people commenting on this, I hope this meme continues to spread, and becomes integrated into conferences across the board. Web 2.0, indeed.
