Update: I've just received a Tweet from guardian tech @guardiantech linking me to this speech on YouTube.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/mar/...

It appears that it's something of an Internet sensation, despite not being picked up and publicised in the broadcast or printed media at the time it was delivered.

I guess that this answers my earlier question about whether the speech would ever reach an audience where it could make a difference then! All power to those people who choose to circulate this sort of stuff on the Internet.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next. Will it get a critical mass enough to make mainstream news or, even, to draw comment from the government? Will it just fade and die? What factors affect the likelihood of either of these outcomes taking place?

Shameless self publicity warning:
This links to my blog question - Does public outrage have a half life? http://johnwheeler.tumblr.com/post/90014036/thoug...

(I'm still interested to hear why you think the speech is outstanding, by the way.)

Interesting post, if only for its brevity.

I'd love to know more about why you feel that this is an outstanding speech?

Perhaps you feel this way because of the facts that the speech contains or the actual delivery of the speech, the timing of the delivery, the audience to whom it was delivered, the circumstances leading up to the creation / delivery of the speech, the effect that it has had on events to follow or for some other reason altogether?

For what it's worth, I think that it was a well crafted speech, filled with many impactful points (that I generally agree with) but it was delivered to an audience of fellow Europhiles and a person (Gordon Brown) who was powerless to reply in that forum. I wonder whether the repercussions of the speech will be felt in an area where they actually make a difference?

Interesting post here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/mar/09/w... about the ways in which tech companies may be able to arrest the decline in real journalism.

The other interesting thing is that I wouldn't have found it had it not been sent to me via Twitter!

Edited username in original post following advice from Polina in http://polinainclass.tumblr.com/post/84731180/twi...

Thanks v much. I will henceforth be known as @johanvee then!

Perhaps there's a distinction between getting jobs and making enquiries about jobs through social networks? Career services and other experts like Daniel Porot suggest that >75% of jobs are never advertised and are found by leveraging the power of your personal network.

Of course headhunters would only endorse their own services and would rubbish the prospect of using a social network. Remember that in the current market conditions, headhunters are interested in servicing the needs of their scarce resource - clients with jobs. Candidates are two-a-penny to them right now. That said, all headhunters have fully paid up subscriptions to LinkedIn to search for our details there. I don't think they'd hesitate to use Facebook the same way if a) they could and b) there was enough job related information present for them to leverage.

Thankfully, we have extra knowledge about our friends and can approach even the most distant using the power of weak tie attraction in order to make enquiries about anything we like. Right now, I feel that it is wise to look for all possible routes into as much of the the job market as possible. Social networks is certainly one viable option.

Of course, tapping up your Facebook mates for a job runs the same risk as Facebook placing adverts on their site. Each could be seen to be abusing the trust of people who have shared information on the site. Time will tell whether both of these activities become socially unacceptable.

I think that while Facebook and Twitter remain private companies (albeit VC / PE funded) and Myspace represents only a fraction of Mr Murdoch's empire, I don't think we have to worry too much about the bubble effect in an economic prosperity sense. Frankly I won't shed too many tears if any of those investors lose a few dollars. Neither would they, most likely.

If your questions is whether social networking companies are a passing fad then my answer is, 'It depends' (I learned that from my lecturers). It depends whether the public will accept advertising targeted at personal information as a monetising vehicle or whether these companies can find some other way of making money.

If I was a betting (or speculating) man, I'd keep my money in my pocket right now.

I absolutely agree with your point 2. I think that many people are really using the power of social networks to try to get their next job. Great idea, if you ask me.

By the way, are there any jobs going at your place right now? ;-)

Yes, strangely a little egg on face probably doesn't actually hurt Google too much. In fact, the idea that Google isn't a perfect company consuming everything it's path is probably a good thing right now. It counters some of the negative press that's leaking into the blogs and newswires these days about Google's overly-dominant market position. I don't think that they do these things on purpose but they're in a good place to make the best of all circumstances.

Hi Polina

What's the etiquette for quoting my Twitter username either inside or outside of Twitter? I notice that you've prefixed yours above with an @ sign. Or does your username actually contain an @ sign?