The misnamed JustUnfollow

By deeharvey | Published: August 13, 2010

Recently I’ve been wishing for something that could tell me which of the people I follow were following me back. It’s something that Twitter deliberately don’t make it easy for you to find out.

I recently found out about JustUnfollow, a service that gives you a list of which of the people you follow follow you, and which of your followers you aren’t following.

Its name is inaccurate: the service is not just about unfollowing - you get two lists, one of which encourages unfollowing, the other of which encourages following. The bias in the tool is towards reciprocal Twitter relationships.

I have different expectations of different people I follow - some I just want to read, others I want to interact with. Of the ones I want to interact with, some I value enough to follow even if they don’t follow me back, others I am only prepared to follow if its reciprocal. It’s only this 3rd groups I’m interested in getting rid of using JustUnfollow.

I often follow people I come across in my Twittering - not famous or renowned people, just people that seem like they might be interesting. I tend to favour people with a follower ratio of around 1 and people whose twitter name is their name (rather than some kind of description of their job, such as BallyhaunisMechanic, SocialMediaMaven etc.).

I’ve found some really great twitterers this way that enrich my Twitter stream, but most of those are the ones who’ve followed me back and with whom I’ve gone on to have conversations. I follow some people in Idaho that I came across through some unremembered Twitter digression, and they are funny. It all started with @WalterHawn, and I now also follow some of his friends.

But as well as a few goodies, there are quite a lot of people in my stream that I follow and I can’t remember why and have never read anything good by them. I might consider keeping them if we have a reciprocal relationship, but if they don’t even follow me back, they’re gone.

I was very surprised to find out that more than half of my followers are people I don’t follow myself. I try to keep a ratio of around 1:1 and I had lazily presumed that mostly I followed the same people as followed me, but although that was true in my early Twitter days in 2006, as time has gone one things have changed.

So I’m going to start manicuring my unkempt Twitter follow list. I’m following nearly 400 people and I don’t think increasing that number is going to make my experience on Twitter better. Better is going to have to come from quality rather than quantity. That means more unfollowing. I’ll still pick up some randomers to see how they work out. But I’ll cull them if they don’t offer me something back in the way of either making me laugh, making me think, or at the very, very least following me back.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inflexible dealing

By deeharvey | Published: August 5, 2010

Marshall Kirkpatrick on Read Write Web was inspired by the recent Library of Congress decisions to write a post in praise of Fair Use. He argues that Fair Use is not just acceptable, but that is it essential for the future.

I tend to agree that there is significant value in it being easy and legal to have certain rights to use bits of copyrighted material in other works. If fair use is essential for innovation in creative industries, what does it mean for the UK that we are bound by the far more restrictive Fair Dealing doctrine?

Fair Dealing sets out specific categories for exemptions, but Fair Use sets out examples of the kinds of things that might be exempt. The words “such as” make Fair Use something that can adapt and change, as the context in which copyrighted work is created and used changes.

The more restrictive the legal environment for using bits and pieces of the existing cultural landscape to create and talk about new work, the worse for the creative industries.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Death of the throwaway comment

By deeharvey | Published: July 29, 2010

I read these articles from time to time about how people should be more aware that their online conversations might stop them getting a job sometime, e.g. Does Social Media encourage too much revelation?.

And I think: is the job thing really the biggest issue when we are now having conversations online that are both permanent and findable?

More and more of us spend increasing amounts of time online and the separation between “real life” and our online activities has all but broken down. The things we say and do online are stored indefinitely, and can be found easily by anyone.

What does it mean for social intercourse when the default setting is that interactions are both public and permanent?

This is a very recent development. People tend to be good at seeing the ways in which new things are similar to old things:
“this car is like a horseless carriage”
“this CD is like a record”
“this e-mail is like a letter”
“this Facebook is like a conversation with friends”

But there tends to be a lag before we manage to see the important ways in which the new things are different:
“this car is mechanical and so it doesn’t get tired and can cover far greater distances far more quickly”
“the media stored on this CD can be easily copied”
“this e-mail arrives instantly and can be easily used to have group conversations”
“this Facebook conversation is making information about me available to a lot more people than I am talking to and I can’t really take back anything I say”

Having to think about whom your message could reach, and how it might be interpreted far into the future is new. It is bound to change the ways we think about how we talk to one another. Along with that change we will get new tools that will make it easier for us to make smart and informed choices about how we say what we say.

danah boyd is wonderful on all things to do with online identity and privacy. She has just published a new article (with Eszter Hargittai) on Facebook privacy settings, which I’ll certainly be reading.

PS In the UK there are restrictions on what information a prospective employer may gather, as well as a requirement that the applicant is made aware of what information about them is being collected. The Information Commissioner’s website has relevant documentation.

Posted in networks | Leave a comment

Social watching

By deeharvey | Published: July 21, 2010

Rupert Howe started a conversation on the videoblogging list the other day about a post Clintus McGintus made on his blog called The Videoblogger is Dead.

In the discussions on the list and on Clintus’s blog there is (among some people) a disappointment that videoblogging hasn’t turned out to be the rewarding social experience it once promised to be.

In 2005-2006, when web video was just starting to get easy to do I was very interested in what it would mean for how people would communicate with one another, and how online video would become a social medium. In fact, that was what my ITP final thesis project was about - the creation of short videos (recorded on a phone and sent to the web) to communicate with groups of friends. What I imagined was something like video twitter - short messages in video form sent to groups of friends.

Another ITP student, and a friend of mine, Eric Fino, worked on a thesis project that suggested a social tool for use when watching videos. People could watch a video together online and chat about it. It was a great project.

Four years later it turns out that Fino was right, and I was wrong. The ways in which people are social with video are all about the watching. In fact, while everyone was saying how TV was about to die, the real-time web came along with Twitter and made scheduled video that is piped into almost every house compelling again.

When I worked on my thesis I concentrated on how people would create and post video and not so much on how they would see it talk about it - how the message would be sent, rather than how it would be received. What I had worked out by the end of that project was that in order for video to be social you needed to make it easier to engage with it socially, not just easier to put it up there in the first place.

Sites like 12seconds.tv and seesmic are working on the watching and talking. I think that’s where things are going to get really interesting - when someone finally gets it right, truly social video is going to have a big impact on the ways in which we connect to one another.

I think the effort needs to go into the watchers. For all the talk of “the people formerly known as the audience”, they are often just assumed to be there, full suite of media tools at the ready, just dying to get involved. In fact their involvement doesn’t require media tools, it requires online video tools that lend themselves easily to rich social interactions. Of which, more later.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Great minds

By deeharvey | Published: July 15, 2010

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

Eleanor Roosevelt (supposedly)

Where did this piece of codology come from? Surely nobody as well-respected as Eleanor Roosevelt would have said something as dumb as this out loud?

First of all, even if you accept that what people discuss (rather than the perspicacity with which they discuss it) is an indicator of how intelligent they are, surely the order is wrong. It should be

  1. ideas
  2. people
  3. events

in descending order of things thick people talk about. Talking about things that happened (or are happening, or will happen) seems to me to be just above “4 - things you might like to buy” in such a list.

Second of all, discussions of both ideas and events tend to be more interesting when people are part of the discussion. Events tend to be significant, and ideas important, because of their impact on people.

But most of all, the thing that annoys me about this little quote is the idea that there is a hierarchy of importance in things people talk about. Some of the most pointless, self-indulgent conversations are often about the supposedly profound, while some of the most well-judged and significant can be small talk. As in so many other things in life, context is everything and variety matters.

In early 2009 Jay Rosen decided that he was using Twitter in a way he called “mindcasting”, which he explained as answering the questions “What are you thinking?” rather than the standard “What are you doing?”. What he was really doing was being clear about what you would get if you followed him - he would use his own network to find stories he would link to and comment on related to his area of interest.

His neologism contains two crucial concepts:

  1. mind
  2. casting (as in broad)

Subsequent discussion of his idea focused on the first part of the idea and juxtaposed it with another idea he had made up to describe what he didn’t do - “lifecasting”. Lifecasting is often described in terms of lots of people talking about what they are eating, but that is shorthand for people talking about inconsequential details of their lives that nobody else could possibly be expected to care about.

Keith McArthur explained in a blog post of the time about the value judgments usually implied when the terms mindcasting and lifecasting were used.

The thing is though, that it is not just that there are important people telling everybody about their profound thoughts and silly eejits telling everyone about their nonsense. There are not just the serious “mind” people and the trivial “life” people. As well as the people who conceive of themselves as “casters”, there are also the people who behave as though they are part of a conversation, rather than in charge of a stream of information.

Not that Jay Rosen is not using Twitter well. On the contrary, he uses it very well and quickly saw how he could best use it to his advantage and the advantage of people who followed him (of which I am an admiring one). But he is a well-known journalism professor, who is likely to have far more followers than he can follow or interact with. He is famous on Twitter and so the mathematics make it impossible for him to chew the fat online about silly and funny things that might occur to him. Being in charge of a stream of information and adding his own insights is the best he can offer.

But it does not follow that that is the best that anyone can offer, or that Twitter would be better if we all concentrated on sending out 8 tweets a day with links to our current obsession,

One of the best tweets I’ve ever read is by @Eamonn_Forde - “There is a man walking up Kingsland Road carrying a mini trampoline on his back. Like a bouncy snail.”

That’s poetry. It’s an observation on life (an “event” in the limited terms of the Eleanor Roosevelt epigraph) that could only have come from the mind of the man that made it. Pure genius.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is Looking for Attention the new Paying Attention?

By deeharvey | Published: July 8, 2010

I have not got much patience with often-repeated phrases, even ones that made sense the first time I heard them. You often hear these days about how “passive consumers” have been replaced (as if by magic) with “active producers”.

Now, quite apart from the tautological ugliness of the assignations (wouldn’t producer and consumer be sufficient?) I find the implicit approval for the active, and the disdain for the passive, troubling.

This is partly because I feel that often the words “active” and “passive” have been redefined. Using the consumer/producer model, it is considered passive to listen, or to watch, when in fact listening is an active verb, while hearing is its passive equivalent, watching is active, while seeing is passive.

Here are a few examples of what I’m talking about, but it’s everywhere, so these are just some samples that came quickly to hand:

I’m pretty sure the second example there, the blogger who saw Clay Shirky speak, has a more nuanced understanding of this issue than “producers = active = good, consumers = passive = bad”. I know that is not an argument that Clay is likely to be making.

But that simplistic argument does seem to have some currency, particularly when children are the target audience. Do we really want to be teaching our children that passive activities like listening and watching are a waste of their time? The old adage was that you should listen twice as much as you speak, the idea being that wisdom came from paying attention, not from looking for attention.

These days attention is bankable and, more importantly, measurable. It is easy to see from someone’s online presence how much attention they get, far harder to know how much attention they pay to what is going on around them.

My own particular area of interest is online video, and I read all the time about how new tools make it easy for people to film themselves and put their videos online. But surely the opportunity to watch videos made by other people is just as important as the ability to make some yourself? In fact, unless you think so, and act so, the producer/consumer dichotomy isn’t broken at all, it’s just fragmented into two billion tiny pieces.

If the response to the Internet and its ability to connect us to one another in new ways is to think “brilliant, now I can make my very own TV show and put it on YouTube”, then that’s pretty depressing and very limiting. If we’re all a little bit less consumer and a little bit more producer, then in fact we’re all something else entirely. It’s not what you produce (or consume) that matters so much as how you connect with other people and what use you put those connections to.

Posted in networks, video | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Linking to comments

By deeharvey | Published: June 30, 2010

Earlier this evening I was reading on Mark Rayner’s blog about a new version of Rock-Paper-Scissors with 5 elements - monkey, pirate, ninja, zombie, robot.

I always read the blog comments and have often been justly rewarded for this effort, as I was today. Far down the page, a poster called HB invents his own 5 element game - Rock-Paper-Scissors-Steak-UriGeller.

Rock-Paper-Scissors-Steak-UriGeller is hilarious. Go and read it yourself and you will laugh. I want to share it with my friends on Twitter and on Facebook. This isn’t the first time recently I’ve wanted to link to a blog comment or a post on a bulletin board, so I’ve been linking to the URL and then giving instructions for finding the right post (similar to what I’ve done above).

What I want to do is link directly to the comment itself, but I don’t know how to do that, unless I can edit the page the post is on, which is not the case for most of the pages on the web. It is inconceivable that there isn’t a way to do this.

Weirdly I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone send me a link to a particular comment in this way. It’s as though you’re either part of the comment conversation, or you’re not. People tell their friends about the article, but rarely one or more of the comments. Which is weird, given how good some comments are.

What is also missing is a convention for doing this kind of linking, so that you could type something like “>HB” after your link to indicate that you were really recommending the comment by HB, rather than (or as well as) the entire article.

Actually I don’t believe there isn’t such a convention already. There must be, and it was invented in 1998 and I just still haven’t heard of it.

Posted in networks | Leave a comment

Sharing videos privately

By deeharvey | Published: June 23, 2010

The New York Times has an article about A Site for the Videos You Don’t Want Everyone to See. The site is called VidMe, and the idea is that you can use it to share videos with the people you know and love rather than with the entire world, as is normally the case with video sharing sites.

Well actually it is normally the case that video shared online is shared with people you know and love, the entire world is vanishingly unlikely to be watching clips of your family picnic along with your Ma and Da. But they could, should they choose, and that might matter.

In the comments on the NYT article the objections to this service seem to mainly be
1 that it is not possible to make anything on the web truly private
2 that you already can limit who can view videos using existing video sharing sites

Objection 1 is a well-rehearsed argument about online privacy being a pointless endeavour. I disagree with it, but that’s not really what interests me here.

One of the sites mentioned in support of Objection 2 is SmugMug. Now you may very well be able to upload private video to SmugMug, but what it promises is that “You Look Better Here”.

Compare this to VidMe and its question “Tired of sharing everything with everyone?”.

SmugMug’s upfront offer is:

  • Unlimited photos
  • No ads or spam
  • Gorgeous galleries
  • Stunning HD video

VidMe’s is:

  • Privately share videos with only those you want
  • Always see who has access to each of your videos
  • Easily remove anyone’s access to any video instantly
  • Take control of your online sharing

As Clay Shirky would have it, these services are making different, in fact contradictory, promises - the first is promising to make your media look professional and slick (presumably in order to impress people) and the second is offering to hide your media from all but the people you choose to share it with (presumably to communicate with people you know).

You could post video online before YouTube promised to let you “Broadcast yourself”. The fact that is has long been possible to restrict viewing of your videos doesn’t mean that it isn’t important when someone thinks it’s worth launching a service based specifically around doing that.

This is a service offering (a clunky and inconvenient) way to use video not to broadcast yourself but to talk to your friends. Few enough of existing video sharing sites are about that. The idea of broadcasting yourself has become the main way of conceiving of online video, even personal video. This is different.

Posted in networks, video | Leave a comment

A Woman’s Instinct is Always Right

By deeharvey | Published: June 16, 2010

A lot of claims are made for the usefulness and trustworthiness of female intuition (whatever that might be). I was recently party to an online conversation where someone claimed that a woman’s first instinct was always right.

It’s such an extraordinary thing to think, never mind say, but what has really started to obsess me slightly is the idea of living it.

What would a (female, presumably) life look like if you behaved as though your first instinct was always right?

Who would your friends be (if anyone)? What job would you do? In fact, never mind a job, would you ever be able to get anything done?

Maybe I’m wrong to equate “instinct” with “first thing that pops into your head”.

Posted in networks | Leave a comment

Nooner

By deeharvey | Published: September 14, 2008

Last night we watched High Noon.

It’s interesting on pacifism. Is pacifism just a lazy way of not having to ever make a stand for anything?

What kind of morality can there be in standing up for what you believe in if you put your own life and the lives of people you love at risk?

But what kind of world do you live in when people only consider the safety and well being of their own and refuse to stand against the (inevitable?) bad guys when they come?

I get kind of frustrated sometimes with the idea that there should never be war because of how terrible war is. Well OK, war is terrible. But if you’re not prepared ever to go to war over anything then what do you stand for?

Of course the main example of a just war is WWII and the supposed fight against fascism. But of course neither Britain nor the USA went to war with Germany to save the victims of the Nazis. Any saving of the innocent that went on was basically collateral benefit rather than the goal of involvement.

I guess I’d be a pacifist myself if it wasn’t for a nagging voice that tells me that in my case I’m just doing it for the easy life. I’m like the townsfolk who thought Will Kane was crazy. I’d rather just let the gunmen ride into town.

Coward? Probably. Pragmatist - I’d like to think so. But there’s nothing idealistic about my distaste for war or violence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment