I feel obligated to respond, since you kindly linked my article here (thank you).

Mostly, I agree with Shey's points about Steve Gillmore and FriendFeed. But further, I was dismayed because he was listed as a suggested person to follow on the service, thousands of people followed him, and had active, positive conversations on his syndicated tweets.. without any apparent interaction with the man himself. I was dismayed that he was missing out on these interactions.

As it turns out, he may not have been missing out, he did comment on the original article and said that just because he didn't reply in FriendFeed didn't mean he wasn't watching. He did not go so far as saying he was involved, just that he wasn't not involved. I suppose I could say the same thing about God.

That said, upon reflection I would say I don't have a problem with people using FriendFeed (or any other social media service) as a pure aggregator. That doesn't mean I would call them fully-engaged, though 'poser' has connotations that don't make it the best word.. let's say 'placeholder' for those accounts.

Plus, if I think further about Steve's strategy in the media, is it to interact with everyone that has something to say to him? Hardly. Conversations are happening, on FriendFeed and other service, due to his influence. Although he may not be directly involved, people are learning from each other based on his influence.

So, if the tables were turned and I suddenly had the radio show and the newspaper column and the popularity, and I was called a poser, could I refute it? No. By my own definition I'm probably a much bigger poser (outside of FriendFeed) than him. Would I care? Probably not.