Is social media a Games changer?
The best event I've been to in the past couple of weeks - leaving aside Arsenal v Spurs last Sunday - was a debate staged as part of Social Media Week.
We were talking about how Facebook and Twitter and the rest will change these Olympic Games; and the headline is - we believe they will have a significant influence on what will be, inevitably, the most digital Olympics to date.
Our panel included gold medallists Zac Purchase and Mark Hunter, along with Gail Emms - who combines her sport background with reporting these days - and James Pearce who's firmly on the journalism side. They're all Tweeters, as am I, @rogermosey. But social media sceptics may wonder why the ability to send short messages to a few thousand friends represents a change in the way we report Olympic Games, or why it is that pumped-up athletes bother to post on Facebook ahead of the most important moments of their sporting lives.
Twitter gives athletes like Sir Chris Hoy a direct line to the public.
The most obvious point is that these new media networks provide stories for the traditional broadcasting outlets. Reporters can tune in immediately to everyone from Joey Barton and Rio Ferdinand in football to star Olympians like Chris Hoy as well as Zac and Mark. The control formerly operated by press officers or teams is much weaker, whatever the guidelines that are put in place to remind them that this is a public not private activity.
It also allows the athletes to talk direct to their fan base - thus sometimes bypassing the 'old media'. If you can reach 1.3m people via Twitter, as Joey Barton does, then you have less need to be filtered through the Daily Bugle or Radio Borsetshire with what some sports stars see as a negative spin from journalists. (It would be wrong, though, to conclude that proper reporting isn't still needed to sort the wheat from the buckets of chaff.)
And crucially, it gives the public greater access. They can not only get the insights from the people they're following but they can talk back too - which is mostly a bit of fun and mutually beneficial, though we can see a darker side when that crosses a line into nasty, anonymous criticism.
All of this points to what will be the most "connected" Games to date - one in which everyone with a mobile or a laptop can get involved in ways that were simply unknown in Athens and only starting to become popular in Beijing.
That said, there are limits we should recognise. I've always said these Games will also be the first mass HD Olympics, in that HD is now mainstream in a way that wasn't true four years ago; and the single most important thing we'll be doing is putting the sport onto a TV screen somewhere near you. Television is still the biggest beast in the jungle by some distance.
And there was an intriguing moment in the social media debate when I asked for a straw poll of the audience on whether they wanted Tweets and similar content to feature in our peak-time output on BBC One. Bearing in mind this was a crowd of people with a strong interest in social media, the result was surprising: an overwhelming "no" by a margin of maybe five or six to one.
But it reflects, I think, the reality that enjoying the main event comes first, second and third; and the digital add-ons are still enjoyed by people on a second screen - their mobile or tablet - rather than having them plastered over the main screen on BBC One.
So we will embrace the opportunities that new platforms give us - and, just as this blog has always welcomed interactivity, it's something a lot of people simply expect. But we'll also bear in mind it's not a game everyone wants to play; and some values, like editorial judgement and a sense of proportion, are pretty important too.