While at New Media Atlanta last week I was introduced to a new tool toy.  BackNoise.  I think the easiest ways to describe it are as follows... 

Back Noise: baak_noiz,  1. Useful tool to gauge reactions to speakers or other aspects of an event, allowing event participants to freely exchange information with each other during the event.  2. A cross between twitter and a convention of hecklers, often snarking just to snark.

Please note, it is often rude, and the language might make a sailor blush. 

But that doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool.  It just needs to be understood for what it is...  And I probably saw it differently than most of the people that were watching it at New Media Atlanta.  Most of the viewers were the hecklers event-goers.  A much smaller group were the targets actual presenters.  Since I spent much of the day in the Rockstar Lounge... where the speakers gathered... I was able to listen to the speakers conversing as they read the BackNoise (I just checked and the conversation has expired... so I can't link to it). 

Some were a bit nervous about what would be said.  Others ignored it.  Yet more watched it unfold ravenously.  Chris Brogan put it up on the screen behind him and occasionally addressed the noise during his presentation.  I would say that Chris did two very important things by embracing it and publicizing it... 

• He was obviously confident that his presentation would go well... allowing the detractors to share the stage.  It kind of removes the power from the snarking.  It also helped establish Chris as a real "Trust Agent" because of his transparency.
  
• It was live feedback...  It was the first time he had seen this back channel in operation, and he was able to use it on the fly to adjust his presentation... 
  

So, it gave the event participants the power to change the flavor of the presentations in front of them.  Like a comedian on stage, there was instant feedback.  A presenter that chose to accept the feedback could use it to make their presentation better... keeping the snarkiness in perspective. 

There is one other thing...  The snarkiness came largely from anonymous posters.  They could jab without revealing who they were...  Many participants did share their identities, but the most virulent didn't.  One can make two arguments...

1. If anonymous posting were removed, the conversation would certainly be friendlier.
2. If anonymous posting were removed, the conversation would be less honest.

I actually agree with both of these statements.  But... I come down on the side of the second camp.  The conversation is often rude and crude, but there is raw honesty.  By removing the anonimity, people would tend to be more polite rather than more honest.  While it would get rid of the comments about a speakers clothing choices for the day (which really don't matter) it would also lose some of the real criticism of the event or the presenter. 

Snark has a place... 

Could you imagine a politician having a back channel during a speech?  I think THAT would be the hallmark of a politician that was truly transparent.  If they made a false statement, the back channel would publicize it immediately...  Fun thought...