Many people who read this blog my not know it, but I have another blog called All-A-Twitter that I use to talk about microblogging in general.
One of the ways that I get content for that blog is doing google news searches for Twitter, then if there is something interesting I summarize it and post it.
Today I found some really interesting stuff that I think directly relates to the social trust economy that human beings use that I write about here.
The first thing I read came from The Independent: Indy Blogs site, and it was written by Andrew Keen . This post / article talked about something called “The Law of the Vital Few” which is also known as The Pareto principle or (most commonly) the 80-20 rule. This law states that states that, for many events, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
The Keen linked to the second post / article that I found really interesting over on Silicon Alley Insider by Peter Kafka.
Both articles talk about how if a person went to Twitter for information on the world today they would have believed that Iran had shot down an American plane, and that there was about to be a mega shit storm as a result. The Kafka article which talks about the ways that epic level Twitter users can cause something called cascade effects by Tweeting things that are false, or not exactly totally true. Kafka states…
While Twitter theoretically treats all voices equally, some carry much more weight than others. Jason Calacanis, for instance, has nearly 43,000 people follwing him. So when he taps out “Breaking: US miltary plane forced to land in Iran after breaking air space. Just heard on France24 hour news. October surprise? Hostages?!” that has huge ripple effect in the Twittersphere.
After Calacanis Tweeted that this event happened it spread like wild fire, and became one of the most talked about things on Twitter. I can’t prove this but, I’m willing to bet money that many people (about 75-80% of people) believed the event had happened because they trust Calacanis as a source. After all, he has told them many things that are true in the past, he has built up a large amount of trust with people on the net.
Keen has some great insight on this as well…
There is only one problem with Twitter. When it comes to reliable information, the followed aren’t always very reliable. Today, for example, Twitter is abuzz with rumors about a US invasion of Iran. With most of our reliable newspapers on the brink of shutting down, where better to check for the latest global news than the massively popular Twitter. The problem, however, is that Twitter doesn’t have a bureau in Tehran. Thus, Pareto’s Law of the Vital Few kicks in and Jason Calacanis becomes the trusted source for news about the invasion. Now, I have the greatest respect and affection for Jason, but the one thing I don’t trust the Santa Monica based entrepreneur about is Iran.
Keen brings up a really good point, that no matter how much we trust the Jason Calacanis, and not matter how often he has been correct: It is possible for him -or anyone else who we trust- to be wrong.
I personally believe that people need to practice more empirical skepticism on the net, and in their lives in general. We need to get better at error detection and correction with in our social networks.
I’m not saying that we should not invest our trust (social currency) in other people. I am saying after we invest our trust we need to remember that even the most solid trust agent can be (and at some point will be) wrong. Also, when they are wrong that does not mean that we stop trusting them. Rather, it means that we (the investors of trust) and they (the trust agents we invest in) both need to learn from the screw up and move on as better smarter people.
-N