Corante

Authors

Clay Shirky
( Archive | Home )

Liz Lawley
( Archive | Home )

Ross Mayfield
( Archive | Home )

Sébastien Paquet
( Archive | Home )

David Weinberger
( Archive | Home )

danah boyd
( Archive | Home )

Guest Authors
Site Search
Monthly Archives
Syndication
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0

Many-to-Many

Monthly Archives

June 29, 2004

Roller Coasters vs. Driver's Seats: Design and the Concept of Situational Control

Email This Entry

Posted by Nancy White

Seb here: We are delighted to welcome a new guestblogger in the person of online community expert Nancy White! (Nancy’s recent debut in the world of blogging was reported here last month.)

(Hands the mic over to Nancy…)

In an online discussion today, someone was commenting on the lack of functionality of the discussion threads in use. He suggested that the designer could have done it better/differently. I replied that we each experience the interface differently, have different preferences and that the designer probably designed for their preference and perspective.

Then I saw this article by Rashmi Sinha. Roller Coasters vs. Driver’s Seats: Design and the Concept of Situational Control. It planted the seed of the idea about doing more thinking about situational control (and more generally about control itself!). Here are a few quotes that caught my attention:
“…much of what we know about human cognitive behavior tells us that there is a tendency to over-attribute the role that individual agency play in shaping our behavior, while under-attributing the role that the situation plays in our behavior.”

“What are design strategies for dealing with lack of situational control? The typical response is to vie for attentional focus (always a challenge in todays era of sensory overload). There are bad ways of grabbing attention e.g., (like flashing banners and pop-ups). More benign ways might be to make the application or the content engaging. If the New York Times article I am reading holds my attention, then suddenly the lack of situational control ceases to matter. My attention is completely focused on the paper in front of me. The coffee can get cold, the cell phone gets turned off, and everything else recedes into the background. Situational control does not matter, because the design artifact has my attentional focus. Such a state of focused attention and intrinsic enjoyment has been referred to as flow (Hoffman & Novak, 2000). Making the experience immersive by using more realistic graphics is another way of gaining attentional focus. Storytelling can be another way of engaging the user, of gaining their attention.

These questions are important because the design challenge and possible solutions are shaped accordingly. They also impact how designers define their work.”
I wonder what would happen if you analyzed the situational control elements for a group before you configured software for them? Can you design software to respond to those situational and control issues?

P.S. It is a kick in the pants to be able to blog here at M2M. Thanks gang, for inviting me!
Also posted at OnfacBlog

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests

Gmail Fever Hits China Social Networks

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

Kevin Wu from Pacific Epoch said “Thousands of Chinese Internet users are queuing for Gmail accounts up on a BolgChina bulletin board called “Googler.” Despite the fact Gmail users have to hang in limbo for a couple of day, the site has seen hundreds of applicants roll in. A group of Chinese Gmail account holders started the forum to spread Gmail invitations on regular basis. Users who receive invitations are then encouraged to send invitations to fellow bloggers. A number of local social networking sites, including UUzone, have also opened Gmail communities to get the ball rolling. “

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests

June 28, 2004

Amplify: Social pages

Email This Entry

Posted by David Weinberger

Amplify launched its toolbar today. It lets you pull together and publish pages composed of online snippets you encounter; it’s like a favorites list turned into a Web page, except nicer looking than that. At their site you’ll find sample “amps” about free wifi-spots, Scarlett Johansson, game cheats, and why you should avoid AOL. “Amps” are rated by users and by the staff of Amplify, and every amp has a discussion board. (I have not downloaded the toolbar, so I don’t know how well it works.)

It’s free. Their privacy policy looks pretty good - they collect aggregated data about what you add to amps but are not tracking your clicks when you’re not amp-ing stuff - except
that they may include crapola from Infospace that does watch your every click.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 26, 2004

Friendster is desperate; viral marketing failed

Email This Entry

Posted by danah boyd

Friendster realizes that it has lost the attention of its earliest adopters. This morning, Friendster sent a message to a select number of people that they labeled as “SuperFriends.” It’s a usability survey where they are asking for users’ advice on an email campaign. There are four different potential emails that they sent out as screen shots. Here’s a sample one:

Subject: Friendster Now

So you’re working. Who cares? You have a lifetime to work. What you’ll really regret coughing and wheezing on your deathbed is not looking up all the old high-school friends, college buddies, summer camp alums, Burning Man acquaintances and ex’es who are just hoping you reach out and find them. And discovering new hiking partners, book groups and jam band fans. And setting up that person you really would date yourself if you were single. There’s oh so much to do.

Seriously, you should go to Burning Man. It’s pretty cool. The jam band stuff we understand if you’re not into. We just needed an example there.

Thanks.

www.friendster.com

Oh, to make sure you keep getting these vaguely sarcastic emails, please add Friendster to your email address book now. If for no other reason than it will look cool to have Friendster in your address book.

The tone of these messages is desperate, begging for attention of the original early adopters - the ones that Abrams told me were ruining his system. One focuses on Burning Man types; one mocks the old Power Point COO; one charges non-users with harming children; one is a desperate love poem. They’re hyper American-centric, SF-centric, white collar, wannabee hipster, intentionally attempting sarcasm (and clarifying that below) and complete with 80s references.

I guess Friendster isn’t happy with the majority of its users being young and from Asia. Does this mean that Friendster has its tail between its legs about its early egotistical behavior? Apparently, viral marketing isn’t working well enough anymore.

Anyhow, you have to read the full message that these SuperFriends got. It has had me ROFL for hours.

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 25, 2004

Autistic Social Software

Email This Entry

Posted by danah boyd

At Supernova, i gave a talk entitled “Autistic Social Software.” For those who couldn’t attend, i uploaded a crib of my talk. The premise of this talk emerged from my post from MPD to Asperger’s.

I reflected on the connection between sociable media, science fiction’s human psychology and the mainstream media discussion around mental illness. I also discuss why it is essential for developers to understand what their (potential) users do. Finally, i channel Douglas Adams’ How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet.

It’s an imperfect talk, but i’d love feedback.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 24, 2004

blog research issues

Email This Entry

Posted by Liz Lawley

During the several hours that Seb, Jill, Clay, Alex, and I spent in the coffee shop at the RIT library before our panel at MEA, we talked a bit about our frustrations with current academic approaches to social software, particularly blogs.

My first experience with listening to an academic take on blogs was at AoIR in Toronto last October, where Alex had put together a wonderful panel on weblogs. The first set of speakers included Alex, Cameron Marlow (of Blogdex fame), Matthew Rothenberg, and Thomas Burg—academic bloggers, all. They had some wonderful insights into weblogs, and they left me feeling very excited about the potential for interesting research in this space.

Unfortunately, that initial glow faded fast—the rest of the presentations related to blogs that I saw at AoIR were given by people who had little or no personal experience with blogs, and who were clearly unfamiliar with the nuances of the form, This most often manifested itself as a tendency to lump all blogs together as a single form—as I pointed out in our MEA panel, that’s about as useful as trying to lump all books together as a single form. Sure, you can make some general observations about books—they tend to be made out of paper, to have page numbers, to have a cover and a title page, etc. But those descriptive elements are hardly the stuff that interesting and useful analysis is made of.

I had an overwhelming sense of “blogger as other” in the presentations at AoIR, which was echoed at the MS symposium I attended. There’s some value, of course, to an outside perspective on the “culture” of blogging and bloggers—that kind of ethnography is done all the time in social science research. But when anthropologists and sociologists study a “foreign” culture, they generally make a significant effort to understand their subjects—not just to take a series of snapshots from afar, but to live amongst them, participate in their daily activities, observe the cycles and rhythms and rituals of their lives, and identify the differences as well as the commonalities. I haven’t seen that same level of immersion in the blog studies that have emerged thus far.

So, what do I wish was happening instead?

...continue reading.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 22, 2004

Wikipedia reopened to Chinese Internet users

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

After being inaccessible for about 48 hours, Wikipedia opened up to mainland Chinese users again on June 17. During the ban, Wikipedia’s founder, James Wales commented on the event to Chinatechnews with following words: “By policy, Wikipedia is not a political site in any way. We are a general reference encyclopedia with a strong neutrality policy. Articles are carefully researched and reviewed by Chinese people in Taiwan, Hong Kong, as well as mainland China. Therefore, Wikipedia is an excellent test case. When Wikipedia is blocked, it can not be claimed that only lies or propaganda are blocked, because we are neither. When we are blocked, it is information itself that is being blocked.”

Thanks to Greg Puhl for sending me this article.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests

June 19, 2004

BlogOn: The Business of Social Media

Email This Entry

Posted by danah boyd

UC-Berkeley will be hosting BlogOn: The Business of Social Media. An all-star cast of speakers are coming to talk about blogs, social networks, syndication and whatnot. Basically, it looks like a great gathering for those interested in social media.

Furthermore, they have discounts for bloggers and i’m very psyched to announce that they have scholarships for students and economically-disadvantaged bloggers. I wish more organized events recognized the importance of getting bright minds involved who don’t have the economic freedom to usually participate in these conversations.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

The "Invisible" Control Mechanism in Chinese media

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

Social software is spreading out in Chinese cyberspace。 But the interplay between state censorship and the free flow of information and free expression reaches far beyond just the area of technology. In an earlier post I introduced Professor Perry Link’s article on this subject: how “fear” works in China’s censorship mechanism. Another penetrating analysis on this subject is given in this essay “Changing the Subject: The “Invisible” Control Mechanism in Chinese Media”. The author is an American who works for China Central Television. “Ann Condi” is a pen name.

Despite this deep rooted fear, there are more and more Chinese who do speak the truth. Here are two examples: one is Jiao Guobiao, a journalism professor in Peking University, the other is a retired military doctor Jiang Yanyong who was the whistle blower who revealed the SARS epidemic in China.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests

June 18, 2004

Re-ID

Email This Entry

Posted by Ross Mayfield

After calling RSS opt-in authenticated Email, Doc takes up the issue of RSS as a substitute for email:
Obviously, RSS isn’t e-mail. But what might it bring to email that isn’t there now? In a word, relationship. Now think about the relationships supported by what RSS provides: notification, subscription, syndication. The first two give new meaning to the third, when you think about what can be done to make email as personal as mail was in the first place. I would gladly subcribe to writers whose correspondence is accompanied by an RSS notification. I would gladly syndicate my willingness to relate with people who know me, within the context of an email system that respects the meaning of the verb relate.

He goes on to relate email and RSS to Andre Durand’s three tiers of identity. The suggestion is that a combination of email and RSS could make Tier 1 (Personal) and Tier 2 (Corporate) obviate the need for Tier 3 (Marketing). More on this train of thought in Doc’s presentation to Identity World.

There are a number of ways to look at relationships. One is ties in a social network. If you plotted a graph of directional ties using email and and one using RSS they would be different, perhaps even the opposite. Email ties would point from Sender (A) to Receiver (B), a Push Model. RSS ties would point from B to A, a Pull Model. If enough positive message flow exists between A and B you can imply a confirmed tie with either Email or RSS which is an indicator of a relationship.

Both message formats are simply conduits that get stuff between A & B. They share a common problem of writers thinking their words are more important than reader’s time (my ego is doing this to you right now and you are wishing I could give you a simple bullet point for your mental outliner). But there is something different about the Pull and Push Models.

Push Models have higher transaction costs because risks and costs are not evenly distributed. It costs nearly nothing to compose and send a message and costs practically nothing to send an additional copy to someone. Costs are borne by readers, something well known and the cause for spam, the burden of processing messages coming to you without your control. Risks are borne by the Receiver for having an address alone. The real costs are incurred when the Receiver tries usurp control over costs. It could be cost of filters or the opportunity cost of false positives, but that only addresses commercial spam and is relatively nominal. The larger problems are the tax of interruption (albeit less than IM) and addressing occupational spam by coordinating preferred etiquette with Senders. Any message requesting a change in behavior puts your relationship at risk and will likely result in a costly back and forth negotiation. Coordination risks could be reduced by having a manager give the offending Sender a good talking to, but getting managers to address communication effectiveness isn’t the easiest politics to pull off.

Contrast this with Pull Models. The difference is the Reader chooses and can control whom they want to subscribe to and when they want to be interrupted. Risk is borne by the Sender with every message they put out and the quality, albeit with a low bar and informal culture, they are consistent with. Costs are controlled by the Receiver. They choose what to subscribe to and more importantly unsubscribe from, on average less than 150 feeds, an expected group size. The transaction cost for unsubscription is clicking a button, which hold message volume at a relative constant.

But there is something still missing from both models and Pull is beginning to fulfill. Nested feedback, at a low threshold and cost. Adina puts it thus:

But signing up for an RSS subscription isn’t a “relationship”, any more than signing up for a magazine is a relationship. If the information flow is one-way, then it’s publishing or marketing, not a “relationship.”

Today if you write a post you get great feedback when you write something great in the form of links, referrers and traffic. You can follow links to understand the context of a post to a reader. What’s missing is greater visibility into RSS subscriber patterns, over half of the traffic of a blog. When do people unsubscribe? I’m usually quick to condemn people (mostly Radio users who have an integrated aggregator/blog tool) who cross post your content without any value add or annotation. But when a person makes a conscious decision to amplify your meme its really good feedback. Its often said that blogging is writing for writers. Not everyone is going to be a writer, and tools like that provide insight into readership will be rewarded.

Re-ID

Identity and messaging are deeply intertwingled. Right now, email has the identity of Receivers and syndication has the identity of Senders. Doc points out that the combination may allow us to circumvent tier 3 identity. But assume for a moment that Sender ID becomes adopted, perhaps even before the next Exchange upgrade cycle. Then email gains end-to-end identity. Its doubtful you will see a similar push in RSS/Atom unless transport begins to leverage Atom’s API functions for tangental benefits to transmission.

The one area I could see this happening is as browsers become aggregators. My favorite scenario is Mozilla offers aggregation first and second pre-emptively adopts Alchemy. That second step is somewhat science fiction, but they did build in their own Google Toolbar. For now, its just fun thinking.

But the deepest question I am wrestling with on identity is in social networking. When a composite identity is formed in a network without your participation. Your friends upload your contact information to make you a node in the network, your emails with them and information scraped off the web builds an identity that you don’t own or control.

A Composite Identity isn’t Personal, Corporate or Marketing. I asked Doc about this and he thought it may fit into Corporate identity extended to individuals as corporations. Eric Norlin of PingID define Corporate for me as “identity that takes place in a shared context.” But there are individuals intermediating with the corporation to form the identity. The individual being identified isn’t sharing this context. There is re-course to the corporation hosting the network that will allow you with some effort to have your node removed. Marketing identities are abstracted from data gained and put you into segments, but this is networked marketing and relationship-based. I believe that a Composite Identity represents something new, potentially scary, that fits somewhere between Corporate and Marketing identity, perhaps a fourth Tier.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category:

June 16, 2004

TribeCast: when YASNS meets blogrolls

Email This Entry

Posted by danah boyd

Did you ever stop to think that blogrolls are awfully similar to YASNS friends? Apparently Tribe.net did too. They just released TribeCast where bloggers and anyone else who owns a website can display their Tribes or Friends. This is a fantastic bridge of two bodies of software that are quite similar.

Of course, the first thing that i did when i saw my image amidst Mark’s list of friends was change my photo on Tribe. The picture was so out of place in that context. I’m not sure how i feel about seeing my picture, location and number of friends re-broadcasted. With a little effort, this data is very accessible, but there’s something different and more peculiar about seeing it published on someone else’s blog. Why should my login habits be displayed there? It’s a complete context shift and it makes me feel awkward. Collapsed contexts… Somehow, i want to be in control of how my image is displayed around the web, even though i know that’s not feasible. But when i signed up for Tribe, did i assume that i signed up to be re-broadcast everywhere?

Anyhow, i’m not completely sure how i feel about this, but i thought i’d throw it out there for others to ruminate.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 15, 2004

MT Licensing vs Weblogs.com Shutdown

Email This Entry

Posted by Liz Lawley

I’m confused. Really. Like Michael Pusatieri, I just don’t get it.

Last month, Six Apart changed the terms of their software licensing, for a new product. Public reaction was swift and scathing. Hundreds of users tracked back to Mena’s announcement of the changes, most of them outraged by the lack of warning, and the impact on current users. (I was one of those who expressed concerns.) From what I can tell, SixApart has been working hard to address the problems in the proposed licensing, and I’ve heard rumors that some significant improvements are about to be announced. And, as many people pointed out, their announcements had no effect on existing sites, which continued to run under the original license.

In contrast, this past weekend, Dave Winer pulled the plug on ~3,000 weblogs that had been hosted on the weblogs.com server. He did this with no warning to the writers involved. All links to those sites now point to this page, which has only an audio file from Dave to explain the reasoning decision—meaning it can’t be quoted or searched (or even accessed at all by those who are deaf, hard of hearing, or unable to listen to sound files on their computer). The response from the blogosphere has been less than deafening.

So, why the differing responses? I suspect that part of it is the difference in the scope of impact. The MT changes affected several more than an orders of magnitude more bloggers than the weblogs.com decision. And the MT changes directly affected (and caught by surprise) some of the highest profile bloggers using the software, while Dave cleverly exempted the highest profile blogger on weblogs.com, Doc Searls, from the unannounced shutdown.

(I suspect that another factor is the differing behavioral expectations that the blog community has of the Six Apart crew versus Dave Winer; no one who knows all the parties involved needs much explanation there.)

The important lesson to be carried away from all this, however, is something that’s been said many times before. Don’t put all your data in someone else’s basket, no matter how much you like or trust the person (or company) holding the basket. Use your own domain name, keep your data in a form that can be repurposed, and always (always, always!) keep a regular backup of that data in a separate location. As Jerry Lawson of netlawblog.com says, “plan for success,” and build your infrastructure to support that by reducing your dependence upon the kindness of strangers.

Update: Brad deLong has a nice musing on the expectations issue:

it’s a free service, a free gift that he gave, and he has no obligation to provide notice or warning or anything beforehand before discontinuing it.

But people using weblogs.com—and people using other free and open-source internet services—may have different expectations about persistence and warning and notice and graceful shutdown, expectations that may well be very naive. But without those expectations of persistence and warning and notice and graceful shutdown, it’s hard to see how anyone can justify building a system around free and open-source components. An internet in which open-source and free software are routinely used as building blocks is one in which expectations of persistence and warning and notice and graceful shutdown have to be validated. An internet in which you can expect persistence, et cetera only if you pay for it is a quite different animal

One Last Update
James Grimmelman on LawMeme has written an insightful essay on expectations, obligations, and credibility. Well worth reading.

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 14, 2004

Chinese Wikipedia is blocked

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

Mike on techdirt said “it looks like the Chinese government is fed up with the idea that politically neutral content might be available online. They’ve now start blocking Wikipedia , the popular community-built online encyclopedia that is careful to enforce a policy that entries remain politically neutral. ”

More on this, please click here to see Greg Walton’s post on China Digital News.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (5) | Category: guests

June 13, 2004

Many-to-Many Censorship?

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

Call it state censorship M2M model: Chinese government just launched a new website for people to report on what officials describe as illegal or unhealthy information on the internet. A China blogger called this "a crackdown that employs a public open-ended architecture" and asked "Isn’t that just inviting random, pornographic, illegal, and inappropriate comments?"

My view is actually this form of censorship can be quite powerful. This strategy is complimentary to, yet much more effective than simply controlling internet use through law and regulations, and blocking access to foreign sites. It goes together with the governments other efforts such as forcing ISPs and ICPs to show what it calls self discipline and using internet police units to monitor online activity, including people surfing in the many thousands of internet cafes.

The Chinese authorities are once again using a strategy which mixes intimidation, uncertainty, and divide and conquer techniques to create fear and distrust among people, therefore forcing internet users to censor themselves online. (If one wants to know more about how censorship works in Chinese society, you can read an excellent article written by Princeton professor Perry Link.)

However, in the long run, I am optimistic that the growing demands for free expression among Chinese netizens will ultimately topple any censorship regime, including this "M2M" type.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests

June 11, 2004

Collin Brooke Summarizes the MEA Panel

Email This Entry

Posted by Seb Paquet

The panel on weblogs took place this afternoon. Collin Brooke has a faithful write-up on his blog. Thanks Collin! The illustrated post Lilia Efimova offered yesterday on weblog networks as social ecosystems complements the picture we gave very nicely.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 10, 2004

M2M Authors on Parade

Email This Entry

Posted by Liz Lawley

Well, maybe not “on parade,” exactly, but three of us are speaking as part of the same event tomorrow.

Those of you in the Rochester area might want to attend the panel on “Weblogs and Cross-Disciplinary Communication” being held Friday from 4:30 - 5:45 on the RIT campus (it’s part of the Media Ecology Association Conference.)

I’ll be chairing the panel, and the other participants include fellow M2M authors Clay Shirky and Seb Paquet, as well as Jill Walker from the University of Bergen in Norway, and Alex Halavais from SUNY Buffalo.

It will be held in RIT’s Liberal Arts building, room 06-A205.

Hope to see you there!

(Campus Maps | Directions to Campus)

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

Internalizing socialization

Email This Entry

Posted by David Weinberger

In Stowe's column, discussed by Ross, Stowe says: "...the tools that we will use to make sense of the world must be far more socialized than today's solutions..." I believe from the context that Stowe is referring to social tools, but it raises an interesting question: Are individualistic tools adding social components, and are we using those components? For example, Word lets you do a bunch o' social things with documents, but what sort of uptake has there been? My guess - and, as always, all facts I mention are guaranteed to be wrong - is that the most widely used social tool in Word is rev tracking, and that's only social serially. Am I wrong yet? (Do we count "Save as HTML" as a social tool?) Photo albums and editors are a class of tools likely to move rapidly from individual to genuinely social for two reasons: Photos often are about shared memory, and by sharing them we can distribute the too-onerous task for tagging them with metadata so they are findable and understandable. What else?

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category:

Stowe on Social Tools

Email This Entry

Posted by Ross Mayfield

Our Corante neighbor Stowe Boyd's latest Darwin collumn is on The State of Social Tools. In it, he lays out his four Co's:
Communication: instant messaging, e-mail, Web conferencing, streaming video and voice tools, and other messaging solutions Coordination: calendaring, task and project management, contact management, and related technologies Collaboration: file and application sharing, discussion, wikis, blogs and other shared-space technologies Community: social networking, swarmth (digital reputation, also called karma or whuffie), group decision and other explicit community supports.
Note the difference with the old Lotus Bible on the three C's:
  • Communication - rich electronic messaging;
  • Collaboration - facilitating a rich, shared, virtual workspace; and
  • Coordination - adding the structure of business processes to communication and collaboration, so as to implement an enterprise's policies.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 8, 2004

The State of Email

Email This Entry

Posted by Ross Mayfield

I'm not one to give an address on the state of email (leave that to Eric Hahn), but I can address how the state of email is changing after participating in the INBOX Event last week. Since 1973, when it was 73% of Arpanet traffic, email has been the dominant application on the network. A simple open method with a message format and receiver addresses to push it to, was relatively too simple during the boom compared to the amount of investment the web received. Email service providers like Critical Path being the exception. During the bust, people kept using email, of course, but it was a victim of its own openness. Combating spam and viruses became cause du jour, creating the Spam Bubblet of Summer 2002, the last gasp of the boom. The Compliance Economy, marked by security and regulation with the economy largely stimulated by the government, fostered many a startup. Its nice wihen the government doles out requirements and the value proposition of fear is compelling. Sarbanes Oxley alone led to a raft of companies with a simple mandate -- you must comply. The net effect is the email industry is doing fine, thank you. Well funded startups solving spam, viruses, security and compliance. Service providers and enterprises committed to support a now standard modality with coffers open for anything that can institute control over rising costs. You have heard the stats before, email volume is growing at 40% per year, spam at 65%, etc. Fundamentally, spam is an economic problem -- low cost to send in volume, high cost to receive. Spamware costs $30 and provides 40k open relays and proxy servers to exploit with a wizard for idiots. Bonded sender programs are starting to bear fruit, but extracting a direct financial penalty only applies to senders you can identify or solutions that require unfeasible scale. New approaches like Pre-solved Computational Proof may create direct hard costs for senders. That said, vendors are declaring a modest victory over spam -- best of breed solutions have spam at a constant. But this protection is only afforded to a handful of power and enterprise users. Consumers are waiting on economic, legal and technical solutions to take hold. Sender ID, a new standard approach for authentication will not be adopted in a reasonable timeframe. I've already wasted enough space talking about spam, a topic that self-propogates and ends up with people sharing their personal agnst, so I'll stop. Steve Gillmor already covered some of the issues of the Compliance Economy and how RSS presents an alternative and I wrote up the cost of control in the enterprise. Bottom line is that users will arbitrage around restrictions to use their own tools which has a bottom line consequence. So lets get to how the state is changing. Dave Crocker rightly pointed out that email wasn't designed, for its present scale, costs or applications. Its these costs (average Fortune 1000 employee spending 4 hours a day in their Inbox, and counting), that are forcing change in some cases -- and at the least opening people to new alternatives. An opportunity for new developments like RSS and Atom. This is where the Email is Dead thread comes from. Why we are watching the rise of alternative modalities. Time to talk about Email 2.0. Media adoption theory holds that the rise of one media seldom means the complete replacement of the old. But unlike previous media, email creates negative externalities that I believe test the theory. Costs well beyond the burdens advertising and congestion has placed on us before. For the record, email isn't going to die, I just don't think we have history to inform models -- and its state is going to change. Esther envisions an Email 2.0 that blends with the cloud:
...More fundamentally, as the world becomes more real-time and connected, the virtual and increasingly the actual configuration of the system is changing. There's a rich, complex, shared data store in the cloud, and mail is simply the passing of notifications and alerts that tell you to pay attention to/download specific items in the cloud that are new or changed or that someone wants to share with you. this creates huge challenges in version control, updating and permission management....
Esther also pointed out at the conference the increasing challenges in attention management. Let's consider three aspects attention management : Search, User Control and Network Structure. Part of the problem is we view email as something we have to consume when we get it. The marginal value of a message exponentially decays because there isn't confidence in retrieval (Bloomba and Gmail are addressing this with deep search and usable metadata). We force ourselves to pay attention to every interruption and live in our Inbox, suffering an interruption tax of 15 minutes to fully recover to the cognitive state we were in before the ping (this is why I believe IM is due for a cultural shift, and we already see signs of it with interrupt flow largely being top-down in organizations...be careful interrupting your boss, its not convention). RSS, Atom, Blogs, Wikis and Workspaces represent a Pull Model model of attention management that lets users control what the subscribe to AND when they want to receive it. Email, by contrast, centers on an Inbox beyond your control. Once someone has your address, at least your gateway will be bombarded. You have control over your subscriptions in your client. If someone starts to spam, you loose trust and unsubscribe. Reputation has some value in feed selection, but if it fails you have recourse. Occupational Spam, email sent out of context characterized by CCs, is 30% of corporate email. You know this problem and are a part of it. You want to keep people informed and you want to be informed. The problem is email wasn't designed and its best use is for one-to-one communication. Enter Workspaces, which in our latest case study dropped group email from 100 messages per day to practically zero. The efficiency for information flow gained is similar to moving network structure from point-to-point to a hubbed architecture. But beyond the network structure, greater transparency allows people to be informed when they have time for peripheral attention. Workspaces are designed for Many-to-Many interaction, where group communication should occur and with the right email integration it doesn't demand up front change in behavior. In the future, everyone will be Larry Lessig for 1500 messages a day. All addresses will be exposed and everyone has a global constituency that will ping you. You have a choice of declaring Email Bankruptcy or shifting to other modalities. Use Social Networks as your whitelist and a web of trust for new Senders. Use public blogs for open broadcast. Use Workspaces for group communication. It may be interesting to note that Communities Tied to One Technology pattern applies less to strong ties, but social networking services and a public identity as a blog will keep you in touch with weaker ties. In the end, they are all messages -- and email and the web are blurring as a platform to give you greater control and choice.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 5, 2004

Salon's article about blogging in China

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

Mat Honan started his long piece on today's Salon.com with this sentence: "On the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown, blogs are booming in China. But are they making any difference?"

The full article is here. Read it online because it contains many hyperlinks which put the story in context. Registration is required, but non-subscribers can get a free day pass.

Ross add's Xiao's comment in the article...

"You also have to watch who are the people using the Internet," says Xiao, "the demography. It's not just average Chinese people. It's still a very particular kind, usually young, anywhere from teenagers to early 20s. Hardly anyone over 35. They are usually probably being wild in China, whether working at a good job or in college, and have a lot of opportunities. They are not the ones who suffer. They are not the poor workers, they are not the overtaxed peasants. They are not revolutionary. They are not the ones advocating the overthrow of the government. The government is counting on that; the Internet users are their power base. And I think they are basically right."

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests

June 4, 2004

Fifteen years after Tiananmen massacre, will the Internet be the new hope?

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, David Callaway from CBS MarketWatch wrote a op-ed piece entitled "Tiananmen hangs over China boom" Here are some quotes from his article:

"The idea that a booming economy will push the hard line government into suddenly deciding to release its grip on power in exchange for some pre-IPO shares of Google and a bunch of lifetime golf club memberships doesn't hold much sway given what's already happened to the economy in China in the last few years.

In fact, the economic excesses we've seen have probably further entrenched China's rulers. So chances are that when real political reform arrives -- which will happen -- it will come suddenly and violently rather than gradually or through some giant national party, like the collapse of the Berlin Wall. "

I hope David's prediction is not true, and the political transformation in China will go through peaceful and smooth process, instead of a violent one. Can the Net play a role in helping China create a peaceful transition to democracy? Will social software that we are discussing in this forum, and other technologies, help gradually release the political tension in Chinese society? Or will the mobile, pervasive, many-to-many communication technologies be powerful tools for the next explosive social uprising, especially if there is an economic downturn? I certainly do not have answers for all these questions. But I have no doubts that the Net is speeding up the death of the old regime in China. In the words of poet T.S. Eliot:
"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
"

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests

June 3, 2004

Wiki for Group Communication

Email This Entry

Posted by Ross Mayfield

Just published a case study for how the 1UP.com division of Ziff Davis media used a hosted wiki for group communications. The results are a pretty compelling value proposition:
"We used to have over 100 group emails per day. Now it's rarely one per week, we've saved a month in a four-month software project, and everyone is on the same page...saved us 25% of the time of a four month project," said Tom Jessiman. "We couldn't have done it any other way. Otherwise we would have been stuck in endless meetings, trying to keep track of decisions with printouts and lost emails. We always know the latest version, and had archives of older versions. If there was any debate about something, someone would always say -- go look at the wiki."
100 group emails per day add up to over $1M in soft costs. Part of my email is dead(kinda) rant. More on the business side of wikis in BusinessWeek and eWeek over the last week.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 2, 2004

Aggregator in development

Email This Entry

Posted by David Weinberger

Pito Salas, the technical architect of eRoom, one of the better pieces of corporate social software, is hacking away, writing an aggregator that so far he's leaning towards open sourcing. He's blogging the process, with lots of opportunities for the rest of us to comment on features, tech issues, licensing, etc. Pito is wide open to ideas about what would make his aggregator a truly useful tool.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

Who owns a weblog's content?

Email This Entry

Posted by Seb Paquet

For a year or so the Invisible Adjunct weblog has provided a forum for academics to (mostly) discuss issues relating to campus politics and working conditions in academia. Last March the anonymous author decided to leave the profession and sign off from her weblog. The only problem is that over time a real community has gathered around that weblog, and those people clearly want to continue talking - as the 200-odd comments on the sign-off post attest. I figured some of them would rather switch boats than go down with the sinking ship, so I created an Invisible Adjunct channel on the Internet Topic Exchange to aggregate relevant posts from members of the community. Much to my pleasure the channel has been put to good use by interested parties: about a hundred posts have appeared on the channel so far. But another threat is looming on the horizon - the IA is planning to take down the site a week from now. This means all the content will vanish. The site hasn't been indexed by the Internet Archive since June of last year. (Ironically, the last post that shows on the Wayback machine is precisely about the loss of archives!) And the IA hasn't allowed mirroring. Of course many participants wish to preserve the memory, but it is unclear who's calling the shots at this point. Who wrote the site? Granted, the IA wrote all the front page material by herself, hundreds of posts. But there are also thousands of comments in there that have been contributed by readers. A commenter raises the issue in those terms:
I believe the comments form the bulk of the site overall (correct me if I'm wrong), and that much of the value comes from the conversations that took place under IA's supervision. In some sense she's not the "author" of the site, but rather the caretaker of an online community.
I have no idea what's going to happen to that content, but I guess the moral here is "use caution before you invest significantly in a site that you don't control". A lot of commenters might now find themselves wishing they had commented on their own site so that their words wouldn't go down with the rest.

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

June 1, 2004

The backchannel and conference design

Email This Entry

Posted by Clay Shirky

The use of attendee backchannels at conferences, a a favorite theme here, is part of a larger trend, towards ad hoc organization, or even ad hoc creation of value.

You can see the context backchannels are happening in by looking at the Users create the schedule process for this weekend’s 2004 Planetwork conference.

Anyone can propose a topic, anyone can create a login to rate a topic, and the half-hour speaking slots are given to the top ranked topics. To get such a slot, a talk needs to be both highly and broadly rated. (In subsequent passes at this method of selection, organizers will have to work against gaming-the-system options, of course, but the current style is fine for now.)

Interestingly, the Planetwork folks have handed out the first 3 half-hour slots, and are going to do 3 more on June 2nd, and 3 more on June 3rd, meaning that the conference emerges over time. It also might let voters optimize the slots over time, as they see unaddressed topics and vote related proposals up.

I say might, because it’s not clear how coordinated the voting can get in this framework. One class of risk in this system is ‘slashdot risk’, named after the reflexive stance on slashdot in favor of Linux, making even well-meaning criticism of that OS much less popular than even the most vapid pro-Linux boosterism. Groups have a hard time selecting topics or speakers who violate their cherished assumptions, so the interface could in certain groups amplify existing prejudices.

The emergence of new classes of risk, however, is inevitable (as with ‘clique risk’ that happens in backchannels) because the weakness of the current conference form is so great that new ways of handing power to the users, however beset with problems, will be preferred by the users themselves.

The social dilemmas of a conference are many, but most of them can be grouped under one heading: social loss. At a large, topic-specific conference, there are several obvious forms of loss

  • the conference schedule not matching the interests of the attendees (which Planetwoirk is trying to address)
  • speakers and panelists not being asked to address hard questions (“So, tell me Bob, just how good is your proprietary product?”)
  • members of the audience can have more knowledge than the speakers (as with Alan Kay being lectured to about object oriented programming)
  • members of the audience preferring to speak with one another, in groups, alongside or instead of listening to the speaker (In-room chat as a social tool.)

Conference organizers will object that these new styles of arranging and participating in conferences will do more harm than good, and in many cases that will be true, but it won’t matter, because the real change here is not that technology is allowing new forms of participation, but rather that it is allowing new forms of creation — a conference has heretofore been an artifact, crafted by a small group for a large group, and as usual, the small group has found many ways to justify its existence (and I say this as a veteran of conference planning.)

The ace in the hole, though, was capability — the small group model is required because the coordination cost for the involvement of a large group is simply too high. Whatever arguments there might be for involving attendees directly run aground on the difficulties of actually doing anything about it.

Until now. Because of its plasticity, because of the tech-savvy nature of the road warrior clan who make up the core of its attendees, and because the “money for value” equation is quite direct, the conference form is an early warning of the pressures other social forms, better but not perfectly insulated, are going to undergo as social software continues to blow back through existing institutions.

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software

Chinese Wikipedia

Email This Entry

Posted by Xiao Qiang

PC World reported the Chinese wikipedia story today. An informal group of Chinese volunteers has been working on this project since May 2001. According to Hong Kong Scholar Andrew Lih, the Chinese language Wikipedia (http://zh.wikipedia.org) is still relatively small, with just over 6,500 articles, and ranks as the 12th largest just behind Esperanto and Italian (as of March 1, 2004). It only recently gained attention in the Chinese press and I certainly believe that this persistent media will draw more and more participants in Chinese cyberspace.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests