LinkedIn definitely offers a solid platform for professional networking and I agree that it's a good place for doctors and other healthcare professionals to stamp their web presence. Just on a practical note: I echo the call to avoid automatically importing all tweets into LinkedIn. Why? Because the LinkedIn updates get diluted with tweets that have nothing to do with the professional context of LinkedIn. Always ask yourself: "How would this look from the other users' perspective?" There is an option in LinkedIn to import only selected tweets by using the hashtag #LI - that way you can take advantage of updated LI from Twitter without deluging your LI colleagues with a mess of irrelevant tweets. @PhilBaumann

Well, you're right about the ubiquity of fakery in traditional marketing, but I hope you're not arguing that just because it was done that way in the past, it's not as unethical to do it now. Why give people who use fakery a an easy pass? If giving fake medications was something we accepted as a practice of bad people that doesn't mean we should acquiesce? No, there isn't any room in healthcare for this sort of practice - language corrupts, and corruption doesn't know its limits. Furthermore, a question: is setting up a fake page necessary? It's just so uncreative, unimaginative and cheap. There are plenty other ways to market a product and these new media just create a new set of conditions that need to be understood before just jumping in without fully knowing how their work (or don't work). It's unethical to use fakery to market healthcare products and services. Period.

You raise a good question. It's an open question - nobody should own it. But I suspect career-interests will motivate some to make power and attention grabs. Here's the thing: there's no one single silver bullet approach to "healthcare social media". Why? Because Health Care is so huge and we can define it in so many ways. The fact is, people right now are doing things online who don't pay any attention to the conversations on Twitter or elsewhere. Most of the focus on social media in health care has really been about Web literacy and awareness. The healthcare industry usually lags behind in web media. One concern I have with movements like SXSH, for instance, is that it's trying to piggy-back on SXSW. But here's the thing: SXSW is already fading past its glory. This year's SXSW already has many fans writing posts as if 2010 may have been SXSW's Altamont moment. I hope the emerging leaders of health care media adoption don't pay too much attention to the first-generation of voices in new media. It would be rather unfortunate if the conversations revolving around health care and social media tire into repeated streams of unsubstantiated platitudes. More providers need to enter and start their own conversations. Ultimately, nobody owns the conversation. It's not about Ownership. It's about Leadership. @PhilBaumann - http://Twitter.com/PhilBaumann

Bryan - so glad you made it down there. [Warning: long, laborious comment here.] I see SXSH is another layer in the ongoing and evolving efforts by various parties who are interested in integrating emerging media and technologies into the entire spectrum of health care, from wellness to death. There have been HealthCamps going on for some time to. And I'm glad that #RNchat (http://RNchat.org) was given the opportunity to present via Skype as well. I've been developing the community of nurses, because honestly nursing is the one profession which answers the question: "What is the effect of all these events that transpire during health care on the human being?" That's an important question - it's fundamental in any discussion about social media in health care. You know me: I'm rather I express a certain "contrarian" voice in this discussions. It's not enough to port in the philosophy of Chris Brogan and Tim O'Reilly into health care social media. That SXSH is trying to be an SXSW analogue is a welcome first step. But I would argue that we must be cautious about replicating the "Web 2.0" Kool Aid (not all of it is Kool Aid, but I've been seeing a trend). For instance, @LiveStrong claimed the following about social media changing healthcare forever: 1 - Social media is free 2 - Social media is real-time 3 - Social media is patient-centric. At some level, this is sort of true. But I have to strongly disagree. I would make the opposite claim: 1 - Social media is *not* free 2 - Social media is *not* real-time 3 - Social media is *not* patient-centric. What do I mean? 1 - Social media is not free. Why? Nothing is free. There are opportunity costs and risks inherent in everything. And public social media is not ubiquitously accessible. There are risks concerning information integrity which should not be taken lightly. 2 - Social media is not Real-time. It's instant, yes. But real-time is completely different from instant. Instant is just that: immediate messaging. But real-time is this: the right, relevant information delivered at the right time in the right context. Building that kind of software is immensely challenging. And yet it offers us a truly powerful means of connecting people with important information. Tweets and Facebook statuses are nice for an ambient intimacy and serendipity - but they aren't what should be called real-time. 3 - Social media is not patient-centric. The Web had no Centrality, no central authority and no central perspective. By definition it isn't anything-centric. Yes, the Web is opening up ways for patients to seek information, connect, network and reach out to providers. But patient-centricity is something that requires the efforts of the entire health care process. So far, this just isn't the case with the Web. Anyhoo, these are my off-the-cuff thoughts. I'll be at the next SXSH and look forward meeting the wonderful people and organizers and linchpins who will lead us to new land. Until then, I appeal to voices of reason and critical thinking on Twitter and blogs and everywhere else on the Web. @PhiBaumann ( http://Twitter.com/PhilBaumann )