The argument over conversation ownership and fragmentation has taken another twist.
Rob La Gesse became unhappy that the conversation around his posts was happening on FriendFeed and so he removed his account from the aggregator. The only problem is that removing all these parent items also removes all of the comments associated with them – Scoble wasn’t happy and called Rob out on it.
Rob maintains that FriendFeed gave no warning that this would happen but others ask what did he expect? This raises a dilemma over the actual ownership of comments on FriendFeed and blogs and has also raised the question of whether we seek a conversation or an audience (a post for a different day perhaps).
Disqus
Compare the situation to what happens on disqus: you do not need to be registered to use the disqus system but there is a fundamental difference in the way your comment is handled if you’re not. Posting a comment as a logged in user leaves the ownership of that comment with them you so that even if the blog (conversation) owner removes it from their discussion you still have access to it on your own list at disqus. Make a comment as an unregistered user and the ownership transfers to the conversation owner and it will be removed permanently should they delete it from the discussion – fair enough.
FriendFeed is different as all posts are made by logged in, registered users – do they own their comments? Does the person who started the discussion? Does FriendFeed?
It is generally argued that the person who posts the comment has ownership but this introduces a conflict when control of the entire conversation is passed to the person who started it.
Need to address
This is obviously something that FriendFeed will need to address and maybe haven’t really considered up to this point. The FriendFeed business model is all about getting data in to the service – perhaps that focus has meant that little emphasis has been placed on managing deletions.
Yes, we should all be able to remove our content if we no longer want it appearing within the service for whatever reason but that’s the point: ourcontent. We should not have control over the content of others so it would seem that we have an issue with content management within FriendFeed.
The best solution – as has already been suggested within the discussion about this issue – would be for FriendFeed to replace top level items that have comments with a placeholder indicating that the item has been removed. The resultant conversation can often stand on its own so, with the issue of ownership hanging over it, should be left intact.
What do you think?
How should FriendFeed handle deletions? Who owns what? Or, is it just a lot of fuss about nothing?
Related Posts
Image by Seattle Municipal Archives.
Brandon Werner left a comment yesterday which, for me, really illustrates the need for us to know both ourselves and our audience. He says that he is a victim – like many others – of the problems we have with attention in modern society and on the web. He says that we have reached the point where you can only effectively get your point across in short ‘microbursts’ and that if he writes more than three paragraphs on the same topic he notices a difference in the traffic and comments on that post.
It would appear that his audience is either unwilling or unable to read a long post. He says himself that he skimmed my post to get the salient points and this is a worrying thought and an obvious sign of the times.
Now, if you are investing the time to make a comment on an item that to me indicates that you have an interest in the subject but if you feel that you haven’t got the time to read through the entire item then something is going very wrong.
Analysis
I am lucky enough to converse with a number of bloggers who are really thinking about the online environment that they are engaging in such as Hutch Carpenter, Rob Diana, Julian Baldwin, Steven Hodson, Alexander van Elsas, Louis Gray – there is a whole group now who strive to provide some comprehensive analysis rather than a couple of bullet points and let the readers sort it out for themselves. They are digging in to the heart of the matter and trying to provide some answers or, at least, lay the ground work and ask some pertinent questions.
As far as I am concerned, that is was online communication is all about. That is where we’re heading with FriendFeed rooms and what they are designed to achieve; the ability to dive in to discussions in the right environment. It is what I’ve been saying all along about Twitter being the facilitator and not just Twitter.
Sow the seeds
The global conversation is the breeding ground where we sow the seeds and ideas grow, we then have to take those ideas and transfer them to the best environment possible in order to expand upon them and take them to their logical conclusion. The blog is obviously a great place to do this as it is totally under your control. There are no restrictions on what you write – you can be as in depth or as brief as you need based on the subject.
But, if the whole social web is facing an attention crisis then we can’t possibly hope to resolve any issues. If all anyone can stand to read is three paragraphs how can you hope to convey all that you need to in such a short space. It’s a mirror to the argument over discussions on Twitter as opposed to those on FriendFeed. The 140 character restriction on Twitter prohibits meaningful discussion either due to the lack of space in a single post or because parts of the conversation will become spread out in the timeline.
Three paragraphs may be considerably more than 140 characters but it is the same problem. You cannot use such a short space to identify an issue, provide related links or information, assess that information and then provide any kind of resolution or ask relevant questions.
How do we get round it?
Is it because we are trying to do too much? Is it because there is too much noise and we are either not filtering it correctly or haven’t yet got the tools to do so? Where do our issues really lie? Louis Gray says that he lives in a permanent state of continuous parallel attention but not everyone can – or should – operate like that.
I know myself that I’ll sign up for all sorts of services to see what utility they offer and if they will help me in any way but if they don’t offer something to differentiate themselves then they can’t warrant my permanent attention. Why should I waste my time updating too many duplicate services when I can far more effectively concentrate on a limited set and make a much better job of it. It’s nice to contribute but we have to pick and choose where we will do so.
I like socialmedian for Jason’s efforts to really make it a global service with a good degree of user control to differentiate it from other news sharing services. Toluu again differentiates itself by not being just another RSS application. Mark Dykeman asked for a reason to use it instead of other feed tools – the reason is that it is a feed discovery service which works in tandem with Google Reader rather than being another ‘me too’ service trying to compete with it. These are the types of service that I feel I should invest my time in.
Reduce
We need to streamline and to simplify. By all means try things but don’t struggle on with them if they don’t work for you. We mustn’t be hung up on trying to be ever present on all services so must find a good base and which tools work for us. What utility they offer and what they allow us to do so that we can concentrate our efforts and really get the best out of them.
If we are not jumping between multiple services and duplicating our efforts we will have more time for reading, for research, for writing, and more time to concentrate on the important aspects rather than what tool we should be using or what site you will be hopping off to next.
This time is much better spent on planning what you want to say, what posts you want to comment on, how you feel you can contribute to the conversation. Just as Ryan posted in the second part of his communicating with integrity series, rather than jumping in with both feet as soon as we see a point we can relate to we have to look at all of the information. If it’s a long post take the time, and show the decency, to read the whole post; if there are supporting links then visit them as they will be pertinent to the arguments. Read the reference material and get a full understanding of what the author is trying to say – only then can you craft the proper response that the post deserves and add value to the conversation.
Conclusion
If your audience can’t (or won’t) spend the time to properly go through what you are writing then you are pitching to the wrong crowd. You need to either rethink what you are writing or who you’re writing it for. The intention is that we should all be writing for ourselves based on our passions and then find like minded individuals who will appreciate what you have to say – even if they don’t agree.
The value comes when we build on what has been said, whether we refute an argument and give reasons why or expand on an existing idea and spin them off in directions we hadn’t previously thought.
We need to be true to ourselves then find our place and find our audience.
Related Posts
Today I wanted to touch on another hot topic doing the rounds but look at it from a slightly different angle and that is the idea of a ‘Social Contract’ between users (or friends) on social networking services.
I mentioned before that while there was no contract between the blogger and the reader there is, perhaps, an implied promise as to what your blog will contain – that’s the reason your reader subscribed in the first place after all. Does the same principle extend to the connections we make in social media circles?
Birds of a feather
As a general rule we make connections with those of similar interests to ourselves whether it be to further the discussion about a particular subject or just to have some common ground in order to avoid the awkward silence. It is natural, therefore, for us to expect items of a specific type to crop up in our ‘friends’ streams but, with the breadth of services aggregated by sites such as Twitter, we must also be prepared to see items that may not necessarily interest us.
You will often get comments on blogs relating to personal posts saying that it is nice to see the person behind the words; the truth is that relationships have as a goal the aim to get to know the other person, find out who they are and what makes them tick – this has the added benefit of helping to understand why someone may write in a certain way or have a particular opinion. It has been asked “how personal is too much“ but this can only be determined in each case by the individuals concerned.
Filters
FriendFeed has the ‘Hide’ feature which helps us filter out the things we aren’t interested in (I now filter out all Last.fm items) but it probably doesn’t go far enough. Hutch Carpenter calls for full semantic filtering and I think it is only a matter of time before we head in this direction but the question being asked is not should we filter what we consume but whether we should have to filter what we produce and take our audience in to account. There are cases for both sides of this argument but I feel it is down to the individual to make their own decision on the information they share in ‘social’ circles.
I use FriendFeed as an example here as that is where most of the debate is centered and it must be remembered that hiding has different options. It is common for users to hide items of a particular type that have no likes or comments – the implication being that for someone to make the effort to ‘flag’ it in either of these ways that it is considered of interest. An item may be ‘liked’ as a way to mark it for your own reference but by doing so you may also be forcing items into the stream of others; perhaps FriendFeed needs a favouriting system for your own benefit rather than just replying on likes and comments.
Who is our audience?
Robert Seidman made a comment on FriendFeed that we “look at the world through a very, very different lens than most people who use the Internet” and as such, are the discussions we have relevant or the points we make true for most people. This leads us to ask who our intended audience is.
As early adopters we do have a specific view based on our point of reference and we communicate this accordingly. Our current peers will be ideally placed to understand our opinions but this again fuels the argument that we are living in an isolated bubble – the echo chamber. Are we becoming too self absorbed or is it a natural process for the early adopters to keep moving on and discussing the way ahead rather than focusing on educating others to the present.
As can be seen in the many conversations recently, any social media enthusiast is hopeful that social media services – or at least the concept of social media – will go mainstream (be that 33%, 50% of internet users or whatever metric you want to apply) so the discussion turns to the future of the social web. Once this occurs then the current conversations will become a lot more relevant to a greater number of people so should we hold ourselves back in the short term or prepare for what’s ahead?
Where does our value lie?
Ryan of Tilling the Soil commented on “Evolution of the social web” saying that the post (and those related to it on other blogs) had lead him to contemplate about how we actually add value to these conversations. He says that we need to rethink not just what we communicate but how we do it so that the social web does not become a “system full of noise” with everyone just shouting their opinions at each other. He’s probably right. In the first of series of posts he says
“I think that many of us have lived for so long just talking without a specific purpose in mind that it is an easy rut to fall into. If we take the time to be intentional in our communication, the conversations that take place will be significantly richer and have the potential to impact far more people.”
We are growing to used too shouting to be heard over the noise which is why I suggested that for anything meaningful to be achieved there would be the need to take elements of the conversation away from the public eye. Doing this will enable us to communicate more effectively and allow us to give what we truly owe: our properly considered opinion and our honesty.
What do you think?
Related Posts
Image by felipe trucco.
Alexander van Elsas wrote an incredibly thought provoking post about the future of the social web, if you haven’t yet read it then I would advise heading over there before continuing here.
He defines the web 2.0 era as being that where “every user can be a public figure” due to the relative ease in which we can broadcast ourselves and our personal brand to thousands via the various social networking services we have available.
He argues that the changing habits of new generations – who seem to prefer to keep their information private except for their closed circle – will shape the way services in the social space will operate in future. Rather than services aiming to meet the masses he says that there will instead be smaller communities but with more intense interactions resulting in a need for business models which scale down instead of up as at present.
So, will the next wave of services counter the rush towards a global village and instead concentrate more on local, more personalised agendas?
My thoughts
I can agree with Alexander’s ideas to a point but I can see the focus in the social web splitting and going two ways – there will be a bipolar existence but the extremes will not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
Julian Baldwin has said that Web 3.0 will beget a ‘larger conversation’ as new bloggers will benefit from the links we provide to the ‘established audience’ and that those newcomers will be able to build a following much quicker than anyone in the web 2.0 era. While this may be true to a degree I feel that the shift will occur because of the continuing ease with which technology allows us to produce our own ‘Truman Shows’.
Web superstars
Rather than die out, the global conversation will continue to grow; there will always be ego-warriors or web superstars but as it continues to get easier to build a presence we will have a greater number instead of an ‘elite’ group of A-listers. There will be more people with greater access, greater penetration and a greater public profile as the technology to create and distribute the content that we create becomes ever simpler.
Not only is our ability to produce content enhanced but the next generation has an immediate advantage over us; they are growing up with the tools and services as part of their everyday lives. Unlike those of us who have had to adapt to life in the web 2.0 – or even web 1.0 – age our children will be increasingly more comfortable, and familiar with the technology at their disposal allowing for better use to be made of it. There will be less time wondering about the ‘how’ and more spent on the ‘what’.
Downsizing
On the other side there will be, as Alexander says, an increased focus on smaller, more specific communities – maybe for discreet functions, jobs, localities or interests. These smaller dedicated networks will allow a much greater depth of interaction and immersion as they seek to use the benefits of the social web to address specific issues or needs. This is already occurring with services such as Ning but the facilities, uptake and opportunities will increase dramatically.
These smaller networks will focus less on the individual but more on facilitating connections within the group and on the actual ‘output’ – the results achieved by the group, the cumulative effort.
Despite the radical differences in approach between these two extremes there will not necessarily be a separation of the two spheres – there will always be crossover. People will not want to become isolated and retire exclusively into their small networks but there will be a necessity to withdraw to these think tanks in order to achieve the required results.
The global conversation will be the melting pot where ideas form, themes are created and trends emerge; these ideas will be taken back to the subject specific groups where they will get chewed up, reworked, refined and spat back out to the global conversation. The smaller groups will focus on those things that would otherwise get lost or diluted amongst the global conversation, their output will then supply and maybe even re-influence and direct the larger conversation.
Best of both
I feel we are therefore looking at an amalgam of both Alexander and Julian’s ideas but people will drift between the global and local conversations as needed. Perhaps the way the conversations are held will change but the two streams will still exist and both get ever more prevalent.
Because of the juxtaposition of the two spheres of communication I would disagree with Alexander when he says that the next generation will move away from the want to have a public appearance but not in the way you would expect me to disagree.
The ego-warriors in the global sphere will always want to be in peoples faces and making names for themselves - that is just human nature. The fact that more people may be putting themselves in this position, however, means that less emphasis will be placed upon those who do. We only have one Robert Scoble in our web 2.0 world (some may say thank goodness) but in future there will be many with this type of exposure and penetration – it will no longer be such a novelty.
In the local sphere I imagine public appearance to become of even greater importance but not in the exhibitionist way we are currently used to. Instead, the emphasis will shift to the ‘public‘ further encouraging us to take our online relationships offline and increase the actual face to face interaction almost as a backlash to the virtual world we are currently inhabiting.
The shift to more focused, smaller communities will allow this to happen as you will only be trying to organise meetings with a finite group improving the relationships within it, but it will not be at the expense of the global conversation.
Your thoughts
Is it impossible to predict where online interaction will take us? Where do you see yourself contributing?
Image by Crystal.
UPDATE: now there is a better way. Benjamin Golub has created ‘FF to go’ which gives you the ability to like and comment on items like the MojiPage widget but whilst also showing you what’s already there. See this post from Louis Gray for more details.
I recently called for a mobile interface in my post “A static FriendFeed is a worthless FriendFeed” which generated a bit of discussion. Loic Le Meur also called FriendFeed out on this via a direct post on the service itself.
After my post I started looking for other options as the FriendFeed page will not allow me to post to the service or add likes and comments to items thus taking away the whole social aspect of the service.
A few people have been using the FriendFeed widget on MojiPage which is a custom start page for mobile devices. MojiPage lets you add a number of widgets to give you functionality from a range of sites all in one place. The FriendFeed widget does let you post likes and comments but has its own limitations: you can only see the title of each entry (no text, comments etc.) and cannot post a direct message. Flicking between the FriendFeed site to read items and then MojiPage to comment on them is incredibly unweildy and frustrating but the only solution we have at present for commenting on existing items – having two browsers installed on my phone does it it a little easier as I have one page open in each.
While MojiPage does enable some sorely lacking functionality it still does not solve the problem of not being able to post messages directly to the service – cue moblf.
FriendFeed via SMS
moblf (mobile life) is a service which let’s you interact with Twitter and FriendFeed via your phone using SMS. Now, Twitter already has a comprehensive mobile setup via the web and text messaging so that side of things is a bit redundant but the ability to post direct messages to FriendFeed from your phone is presently unique.
How it works
Once you are signed up to the service you follow the moblf Twitter account. By sending direct messages to this account via SMS you trigger certain functionality such as getting the next 5 updates on Twitter. Sending a message with your FriendFeed username and remotekey lets you enable FriendFeed interaction via the moblf gateway and are then free to send direct updates to the site service straight from your phone. Full details of the commands can be found on the moblf blog.
The facility is still not available to share items, only to post a message, and it is of course dependant on Twitter being available but it is currently better than nothing.
While these solutions are not particularly user friendly and are still lacking in functionality they do illustrate that direct interaction with FriendFeed from a mobile is achievable. With ever increasing numbers connecting from their mobile devices we need either the FriendFeed team to develop their own web based solution or for someone to combine all these elements in to one site or remote client.
Related Posts