Clunky Flow

O’REILLY CAPTURES IT IN A NUTSHELL

Conference blurbs usually drop me into a coma with their schmarketing speek. But not from O’Reilly Media for the Web2.0 conference.

Web 2.0 technologies are empowering us in ways we could only have imagined even just a few years ago.
We’re able to… connect more, have more fun,…and do it all faster.
But as the pace…accelerates, separating signal from noise, useful from annoying…becomes increasingly challenging.

How can we provide a more meaningful experience … have a positive impact on the world we live in?…deliver relevant information…increase conversation and collaboration?

Right on the money. And a word perfect context for explaining…

What MAKES RELEVANT MEDIA UNIQUE in the Web2.0 ecosystem.
In a nutshell:
Relevant Media works ‘with reality’.
Rather than working with ‘models of reality’.

All existing social tools begin by capturing something of real life into a model of some sort. Social networks, for example, try to create an online model of your real world social network. Recommendations engines create a model of what to recommend based on the expression of your tastes by you and your friends.

The problem with models:
The problems with models is that by definition they only capture aspects of the real thing

And this in turn leads to instances where the model and the reality clash. For an example you can take any problem peculiar to online social networks. And I include all those problems related to breakdowns of privacy, reputation, identity and trust. All result from incidents where there have been unanticipated breakdowns or clashes between the model and the reality.

Reality bites:
What is needed are tools and platforms that support, merge and coevolve with the dynamics of social reality

Relevant Media’s tools and platforms couple and coevolve with the emergent and dynamic characteristics of real life social interaction as opposed to trying to capture reality and shoehorn it into a model of the real thing.

This is what gives us a unique ability to better answer all those questions raised by O’Reilly for the upcoming Web2.0 expo.

If you are there, make sure to look me up here on Crowdvine and come over for a chat.

No Comments »

via Valleywag:

After he left Facebook, Nipon Das wanted the social network to erase his personal information from its servers. Eventually that happened. But only after two months, a lengthy email exchange and — ultimately — threats from a lawyer. “It’s like the Hotel California,” Das told the New York Times. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” Facebook PR flack Amy Sezak claims the company is doing users a favor by making it easy to come back to the site after they quit. 6,000 members of the Facebook group “How to permanently delete your facebook account” don’t seem grateful.

Jean Burgess is deleting her account partly because of all these facets of her identity are collided together in an unnatural and unmanageable way on facebook. Which illustrates the point that faceted identity does not scale well and on facebook many people have discovered that it has been stretched uncomfortably out of shape.

Too many worlds colliding, too many invites to vampire garden pirate fishtank zombie kissing applications, and yes, I ended up with kind of too many friends from too many different spheres of my existence (not that I don’t love them all, really) for it to be non-complicated and fun.

And check out what your facing if you want to really remove yourself from Facebook…

Oh, and by the way, in order to delete your Facebook account, apparently, you have to not only deactivate it, but also delete every single item you have contributed to the site (messages, wall posts, posts other people have written on your wall, photos, links to contacts, profile information) and then email customer service and request they delete your account completely. Oh, and also, in order to delete absolutely everything, I’d also have to re-add every single one of the applications I’ve ever had installed, and then go through and remove the content, and then delete the applications again. Because when you delete an application, guess what? Your data is still stored there somewhere.

That’s not just meanness, but I’m pretty sure it’s also not just to be helpful in case you’re quitting in a fit of pique like this one and might decide later that you want to come back. It’s also because of the way the business model works: Facebook and all the marketeers who sail in her pretty much just want you to visit as many ad-bearing pages per visit as possible (that’s what all those applications and invites are for), and having lost your eyeballs, they’d quite like to keep the data that can be mined from those activities. So they’re going to make it as difficult as possible to scrub that data out of the system. Can you guess how much that softens my heart toward the company?

Mark Evan’s compares his relationship with facebook as a kind of ‘amour fou’ that has run its course.

At first, the romance was hot and heavy…It was a lusty, unhealthy affair that made me crazy but you know how lust consumes you…You know that awkward feeling when you’re dating someone, and the romance starts to fade? …I feel that way about Facebook these days…Truth be told, I’ve found someone else - younger, sexier, more streamlined: Twitter. Yet, I’m not as enraptured with Twitter as I once was with Facebook, which is a good sign.

No Comments »

Much as I love this cartoon, I think it distracts from the more interesting (and ultimately) more important story arc that applies to Google: Are we disdainful yet?

Right now. The answer would seem to be yes. 

Eric Schmidt recently

• dismissed the refusal of social networks such as Facebook to let Google scan their content as a “transient” phase.

This remarks demonstrate

• a peculiar disdain for peoples’ natural desire to maintain some privacy with respect to their social interaction
• an apparent blind spot to the fact that a natural desire for privacy means that monetizing personal interaction is a fundamentally different business to monetizing search

and

• suggests that Google maintains a curious belief that it will soon be able to publish all the data it wants over and above what the producers of that content want. And be justified in doing so.

To put these remarks in context, we have to remember that Google is a company who’s business relies on internet search. Internet search has been the killer app. of the web and Google have been the most successful company at delivering and monetizing that service. However, search has recently been superceded by social interaction as the new killer app. of the web.  Internet users now spend much more time and energy engaged in social interactions mediated across the web than they do in searching for content.  And this social interaction is occuring within walled gardens that exclude Google from accessing its contents in order to protect the privacy of it’s attendees.  

Given the context, it would seem that Google

• is getting tetchy at being excluded from a party it considers itself ’entitled’ to attend.

Continue Reading »

6 Comments »

At etech 2006, danah boyd gave what Kathy Sierra called an astonishing talk.  It ended with this definition of an intriguing problem.  

Is anyone aware of any solutions to this problem going public in the last year or even in the near future?

Provide the cultural environment where people can accidentally connect with strangers over meaningful things without being forced to face everyone on the system. Let users privatize or wall off access to only certain people for their own needs. Let users see the values of being public. Of course, balancing privacy needs with public possibilities with the lack of interest in dealing with the *whole* public is quite tricky. Anyone who can solve this design challenge with a robust system will win the hearts of users and investors.

2 Comments »