Fast forward to today, and we know that Pokémon was pretty much a fad—a sorry part of our history like the Macarena. When ex-Pokémon fiends are pressured to talk about their Poké past, most offer a sheepish grin and say “It was the thing to do back then”.

Well the thing to do nowadays is to collect a whole new set of badges. Foursquare badges. And instead of children, it’s adults that are clamoring to Catch’Em All! These badges instead of being gained by battling creatures are earned through usually mundane task: To gain the Barista Badge…go to Starbucks. Get the Gym Rat Badge…by going to the Gym… a lot.

My main question on all this excitement over Foursquare is: Is Foursquare sustainable? Specifically, is their “badge as a reward” system sustainable?

History says no.

Pokémon, Digimon, Yu-Gi-Ho! and any other highly structured games that involved collecting badges, etc. enjoyed tremendous engagement and buzz, but eventually went away like the dinosaurs.

So how long will it take for Foursquare fanatics to lose interest in collecting badges? All it takes is for one person to realize the cost-benefit analysis of hoofing it to a location for a jpeg.

However, I realized there is a set pattern to the information on “social media” that I find on the web. I realized there are two things you can expect on a majority of presentations about social media…

1)      The information is generic    “…it’s all about community”

2)      Abuse of industry buzzwords   “integration” “communication”

In other words social media “talking points”..[Examples of some of the slideshares I come across]

But does the Dalai Lama really need a Twitter account? Does it make sense for him to join? It’s too soon to tell if the Dalai Lama’s jump into the twitter fray will help extend the Dalai Lama brand…or help with his world peace effort.

So as news begin to pour in on any incremental updates on the Dalai Lama’s Twitter account and tweets, here are some potential hurdles to consider:

• People are expecting the voice of His Holiness to carry through in the tweets. Of course, it is unrealistic that the Dalai Lama himself would take the time to craft messages—nor should he. He has very important things to do. But his face is in the Twitter profile and his followers will want him to tweet.
• Following the Dalai Lama is like having a spiritual guru on speed dial. The Office of His Holiness will most likely be bombarded with DMs and @replies all wishing the Dalai Lama well, and potentially asking for “fortune cookie” tweets (140 characters of wisdom, advice, and prayer).
• The Dalai Lama is considered an “enemy rebel” to the Chinese government. And as stories of Chinese-based hacks on U.S companies flood in, it’s not hard to imagine Chinese hackers (or at least a pimple-faced computer whiz in the U.S.) attempt to shut down his twitter account.

With all these potential hurdles, does it make sense for the Dalai Lama to have a Twitter account? Is it practical?

It’s not surprising, Integration of social networks, or what Yan Shikhvarger , VP of RFI , calls commoditization means that social networks can lure users in with timesucking features and apps from other popular social networks.

This is hardly news. We’ve already seen empowered consumers embarrass established brands with a single comment or video. And the latest brand to feel the wrath of a customer’s scorn is Southwest Airlines. This weekend, cult-icon filmmaker Kevin Smith sent a series of tweets to his followers claiming that Southwest Airlines kicked him off a flight for being “too fat”. Southwest Airlines’ response to Kevin Smith’s tweets was predictable, as the airline profusely apologized for any inconvenience and insured its Twitter followers that this would never happen again.

However, I can’t shake off this lingering thought of how consumers who know they can bring about a brand’s destruction via social media, will abuse the medium and ultimately raise their expectations of customer satisfaction to unrealistic levels.

It may be the case that like children learning they can get what they want from their parents by crying louder, consumers have found a way to get “great service” by threatening to “brand bash” online.

While the U.S. and U.N. sputtered to acquire resources for quake relief efforts, companies born out of Web 2.0 or took advantage of social media were able to galvanize support and collect donations in break-neck pace. The Red Cross has already raised $5 million for earthquake relief through $10 donations via simple text messaging, and Google has contributed a $1 million donation of its own.

Other Internet big-names have seized on the crisis and have updated their services to go towards helping the cause. For instance, Zynga has raised $1.2 million using virtual goods in its games like Farmville, while Skype has sent $2 vouchers to customers in Haiti, allowing them to call their loved ones in the U.S.

Facebook, Google, and other tech giants are showing us they can create and galvanize global communities, take advantage of simplified distribution channels to acquire large amounts of money, and spark global discourse all for an issue, cause, or charity.

What these social media giants have seized upon is the concept “Good Social,” flexing social media capability for ethical and philanthropic efforts, but more importantly (yes, they are businesses after all) brandish their social media might on a global scale.

By helping out, social networks ultimately help themselves by portraying themselves as thought leaders in global community discourse, and all things social. Or so says my marketing background.

During these past few months, I’ve noticed Rob and most of my unemployed friends spending more and more time on Facebook. How do I know? Because my Facebook feed has been inundated with minute by minute updates on my friends’ games and quiz results.

Now for the record, there’s nothing wrong with playing a few games or answering silly quizzes on Facebook once in a while. For the most part, it’s enjoyable to do and I even find that it relieves stress on those hectic workdays. But I knew Rob was too engrossed in Facebook quizzes when I found out he would make a fine “Hitler” by participating in “What Dictator are You?”

Like some of you, I’ve bought into the idea that Facebook was more than just a site for college students to upload pictures of them hanging out and being “cool.” I believed users would use Facebook as a platform for job placement and professional networking, especially during the recession.

However, what I find is that Rob and most of my unemployed friends are using Facebook to pass the time and satiate the boredom that comes from unemployment.

So beware young recessionites! Spend most of your time on Craigslist searching for jobs and spend less time on Facebook. Instead of being a fictional character and racking up fake money, wouldn’t you rather be what you majored for and start receiving a real salary?

Of course, those familiar with China’s policies of restricting unapproved information and communication will not be surprised. Just two weeks ago, the central government had already banned access to most Google services, including Gmail, Google Apps, and Google Talk, claiming Google’s search engine spread “vulgar” content.

The people of Iran face a similar struggle. After Ahmadinejad’s much contested victory, riots broke out across town centers and suburbs. The Iranian government responded pretty much the same way as their Chinese counterparts did. Authorities blocked foreign websites, dissidents’ blogs, Twitter, and Facebook or anywhere criticisms of Iran’s political leaders may arise.

The situation on the use of social media is much different here in the U.S.; we have access to all social media tools, like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We can freely contribute content on websites and blogs. We can search for information that may be critical of our government, institutions, and ourselves. We can socialize and connect with whoever we want, whenever we want.

However, that same “whatever we want, whenever we want” mentality seems to diminish the importance of social media. Our free access to all things digital has turned us into modern-day Caligulas. On a whim, we can see babies and cats dancing on YouTube, or read up on celebrity non-news. We participate in the most narcissistic of activities like “25 things you didn’t know about me” letter on Facebook, not to mention MySpace is a personal shrine dedicated to ourselves.

Do we deserve social media when our intent of use seems much less noble than our Iranian and Chinese counterparts? Do we deserve Twitter when we tweet about that state of our clothes, as opposed to the state of a nation? Is social media a right or a privilege?