Epeus' epigone

Google Plus admits they want fake names

2012-01-23T14:29:00.000-08:00

Today, after 7 months, Bradley Horowitz announced that Google Plus will accept some pseudonyms. Kinda. If you can prove you're already famous. And can convince their robot it looks like a name. However, Google Engineer Yonatan Zunger spills the beans in a comment on that thread:

First of all, you might ask why we have a names policy at all. (i.e., why we don’t simply go with the JWZ proposal) One thing which we have discovered, while putting some miles on the system, is that it is indeed important to have a name-based service rather than a handle-based service. This isn’t a matter of functionality so much as of community: You get a different kind of community when people are known as Mary Smith than when they are known as captaincrunch42, and for a social product in particular we decided that the first kind of community is the one we want to build. In order to do that, we want to establish a general norm that the names you put in to the system should be names, not handles.

So one thing that our name checking flow tries to catch is handles, which should normally be nicknames, shown in addition to a name. The other important thing it’s trying to catch is people who are creating individual accounts, rather than +Pages, for non-human entities such as businesses or organizations. The behavior of +Pages is deliberately restricted in the system, and we don’t want people to be creating fake human accounts to circumvent that. The name check turns out to be a very powerful tool to catch these.

Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don’t look like “your” name, but for things which don’t look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is “your” name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this.

There are two main cases where the name check screws up. One is false positives: people (such as you) who have unusual names which get flagged because they looked like handles. Being able to appeal via things such as drivers’ licenses is useful for this case, since it’s a simple “oh, we got this wrong.” The other case is people such as +trench coat, who are so well-known under this handle that it would be bizarre not to let them onto the system under this name. For this case, we allow appeals based on being well-known under the name: thus the ability to prove the “established pseudonym.” We’ve deliberately set the threshold for that latter case fairly high for now, but we intend to continue to tune it; the objective is that the frequency of such names should basically be the same as their frequency in meatspace.

So to answer your questions one-by-one:

(2) “Meaningful following” only applies to cases of established pseudonyms which do not look like names. The definition of “meaningful” is deliberately vague so that we can tune it, so that it behaves in a natural fashion.

(3) That’s correct; drivers’ licenses are for false positives, not pseudonyms.

(4) Unusual names will indeed hit friction, because of false positives. We’re trying to minimize that, but it’s going to take some trial and error.

(5) Google+ can absolutely be your first identity online. No matter what your language, no matter where you come from. The “established pseudonym” logic should apply to a very small subset of people. If some groups are seeing a higher false positive rate than others, that’s a bug, not a feature, and we have the data available to spot this situation and remedy it.

(posted in full, in case of subsequent retraction, and because G+ doesn't have permalinks for comments)

Yonatan admits what Bradley obscures:that this is an Identity Theatre issue. They don't want your name, They don't care if you have a forename in one language and a surname in another. Let me quote this exactly:

Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don’t look like “your” name, but for things which don’t look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is “your” name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this.

This is what I suspected when I wrote Google Plus must stop this Identity Theatre

Google+ is letting an algorithm decide what is a name and what isn't. You will be forced into it's Procrustean idea of what names are, or be harassed for it. You have to pass as normal, like call centre workers forced to learn to sound American.

You can create disposable accounts with fake names, as long as they look plausible to Yonatan's bot.

This algorithm has allowed people called 'panel heater' 'The Phoenix Rising' 'tous les mais du monde' and Mehr Decent , a bot with a well-known actress's photo posting links to a single website to follow me (and that's just in the most recent 30 I checked).

So Google continues to encourage fakers and discourage those who need a pseudonym for good reasons.

Could Apple make premium devices in the USA?

2012-01-23T02:14:00.000-08:00

After This American Life's disturbing episode on Apple's Chinese factories, the NYT wrote a defence of Apple, which said it was just too expensive to build their products in the USA:

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said.

For computers, phones and tablets, it's hard to make a real premium product, as the economies of scale work so well - Tim Cook's Apple has closed in on PC prices by a focus on costs and suppliers, and by building fewer models and relying on Chinese flexibility to ramp them up.

The Gold iPad 2 had a huge premium price, but also weighed more the 3 times as much as a normal iPad.

Instead, what if Apple made premium USA iPads, MacBooks and iPhones? They could have a distinctive look, so people knew they were US made, focus on the higher-end models, and charge a premium markup for the warm glow of supporting US jobs.

How much more would it cost? Hard to say, according to the NYT:

It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in the United States. However, various academics and manufacturing analysts estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $65 to each iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the company a healthy reward.
[...]
Another critical advantage for Apple was that China provided engineers at a scale the United States could not match. Apple’s executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufacturing iPhones. The company’s analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.

In China, it took 15 days.
[...]
A few years after Mr. Saragoza started his job, his bosses explained how the California plant stacked up against overseas factories: the cost, excluding the materials, of building a $1,500 computer in Elk Grove was $22 a machine. In Singapore, it was $6. In Taiwan, $4.85. Wages weren’t the major reason for the disparities. Rather it was costs like inventory and how long it took workers to finish a task.

Compared the the huge price disparities for other goods, these seem modest; for example, Timoni found a nice carry-on bag recently:

Couldn't find carryon I wanted. Then found a nice one: "This is good, I could get this." Price? $8,000. *doh*
— timoni west (@timoni) January 9, 2012

So here's my proposition for Tim Cook:
Reopen the Elk Grove Apple factory to sell top-line Apple products, designed for those who want 'designer' luxury goods, and are willing to pay more for exclusivity. Make the 'made in USA' a key argument for a premium price. that way you need fewer staff than in China, and paying them well just adds to the cachet of the devices. You could cover them in Jasper Johns Flag, visibly number them as a limited edition, or come up with something more creative. As a way of extending the product line to a new, higher price point, while quieting those who wish Apple did more in the US, it seems an a obvious move.

Translation from sanctimonious bluster to English of Chris Dodd's statement on the internet blackout protests

2012-01-17T17:55:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON —The following is a statement by Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) on the so-called “Blackout Day” protesting anti-piracy legislation:

Senator and CEO - let's lead with the revolving door promises to politicians

“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together,

Why are my former colleagues listening to their constituents about legislation? Don't they stay bought?

some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

Maybe if we keep saying copyright infringement is a real problem without evidence, they'll believe it.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services.

How dare they edit their sites unless we force them to under penalty of perjury and felony convictions?

It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today.

Tomorrow was supposed to be different, that's why we bought this legislation.

It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

Being the gateways and skewing the facts is our job, dammit.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.

I am high as a kite

It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”

What have the Romans done for us? Apart from instantaneous global communications, digital audio and video editing, the DVD, Blu-ray, Digital projection, movie playback devices in everyone's pockets and handbags...

How to fight this nonsense

(with apologies to John Gruber and Mark Pilgrim)

Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus shun HTML, causing the infographic plague.

2011-12-26T15:17:00.000-08:00

By choosing images over links, and by restricting markup, Facebook, Twitter and Google+ are hostile to HTML. This is leading to the plague of infographics crowding out text, and of video used to convey minimal information.

The rise of so-called infographics has been out of control this year, though the term was unknown a couple of years ago. I attribute this to the favourable presentation that image links get within Facebook, followed by Twitter and Google plus, and of course though other referral sites like Reddit. By showing a preview of the image, the item is given extra weight over a textual link; indeed even for a url link, Facebook and G+ will show an image preview by default.

Consequently, the dominant form of expression has become the image. This was already happening with LOLcats and other meme generators like Rage Comics, where a trite observation can be dressed up with an image or series of images.

Before this, in the blogging age, there was a weight given to prose pieces, and Facebook and Google preserve some of this, but the expressiveness of HTML through linking, quoting, using images inline, changing font weight and so on, is filtered out by the crude editing tools they make available.

Feeds and feed readers started out this way too, but rapidly gained the ability to include HTML markup. Twitter went back to the beginning, and added the extra constrain of 140 characters because of it's initial SMS focus. Now it is painfully reinventing markup, though the gigantic envelope and wrapper of metadata that accompanies every tweet. This now has an edit list for entities pointing into it, and instructions for how to parse this to regain the author's intent is part of the overhead of working with their API.

Image links, however — at least those from recognised partners — are given privileged treatment. Facebook and Google have emulated this too, leading to the 'trite quote as image' trope. The spillover of this to news organisations became complete this year, with blogs and newspapers falling over themselves to link to often-tendentious information presented in all-caps and crude histogram form.

So here's my plea for 2012: Twitter, Facebook, Google+: please provide equal space for HTML. And for authors and designers everywhere, stop making giant bitmaps when well-written text with charts that are worth the bytes spent on them could convey your message better.

Update: My son made a Rage Comic version of this post (with an explanation) why.

Our brains make the social graph real

2011-11-09T23:56:00.000-08:00

Brilliant web essayist Maciej Cegłowski of Two Steaks and Pinboard fame has focused his considerable insight on the area of web standards I've been involved with for the past few years. You should go and read his The Social Graph is Neither now.

Maciej is spot on in his criticisms:

This obsession with modeling has led us into a social version of the Uncanny Valley, that weird phenomenon from computer graphics where the more faithfully you try to represent something human, the creepier it becomes. As the model becomes more expressive, we really start to notice the places where it fails.
Personally, I think finding an adequate data model for the totality of interpersonal connections is an AI-hard problem. But even if you disagree, it's clear that a plain old graph is not going to cut it.

Clearly you can't model human relationships exactly in software. Keeping track of a few hundred of them in all their nuanced subtlety is why our brains are so huge compared to other animals. As Douglas Adams put it:

Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do.

It is an act of hubris to attempt to represent such vital things as human relationships in a database, and those who have done so often do resemble Maciej's Mormon bartender - Orkut Büyükkökten, Mark Zuckerberg and Jonathan Abrams do seem to have made what danah boyd has called Autistic Social Software.

The thing is, people seem to find these attempts helpful. As Maciej points out, we're good at forming subcultures and relationships even around the most primitive of tools. He pokes fun at opensocial.Enum.Drinker.HEAVILY, but when we were compiling the OpenSocial Person fields, we found a high degree of convergence between the 20 or so social network sites we reviewed. Despite their crudity, the billions of people using these sites do find something of interest in them.

People choose to model different relationships on different sites and applications, but being able to avoid re-entering them anew each time by importing some or all from another source makes this easier. The Social Graph API may return results that are a little frayed or out of date, but humans can cope with that and smart social sites will let them edit the lists and selectively connect the new account to the web. Having a common data representation doesn't mean that all data is revealed to all who ask; we have OAuth to reveal different subsets to different apps, if need be.

The real value comes from combining these imperfect, scrappy computerized representations of relationships with the rich, nuanced understandings we have stored away in our cerebella. With the face of your friend, acquaintance or crush next to what they are saying, your brain is instantly engaged and can decide whether they are joking, flirting or just being a grumpy poet again, and choose whether to signal that you have seen it or not.

As danah says:

While we want perfect reliability for our own needs, we also want there to be failures in the system so that we can blame technology when we don’t want to admit to our own weaknesses. In other words, we want plausible deniability. We want to be able to blame our spam filters when we failed to respond to an email that someone sent that we didn’t feel like answering. We want to blame cell phone reception when we’ve had enough of a conversation and “accidentally” hang up. The more reliable technology gets, the more we have to find new ways for blaming the technology so that we don’t have to do the socially rude thing.

So here's to approximate, incomplete social web standards.

'with Amazon' replacing 'with Google' on Android?

2011-09-26T17:17:00.000-07:00

Amazon is set to launch an Android Tablet on Wednesday. What if they license their code too? Android as experienced on phones is actually two separate software bundles - the Open Source core of Android, and the proprietary 'with Google' applications, including the App Market, Maps, Gmail, Talk, Contacts, Listen and other apps bound to Google services, and requiring a business development deal to ship with a device. Eric Schmidt explicitly discussed this strategy at Dreamforce.

Now there are already more Android devices than I can count that don't follow the 'with Google' playbook, including the Barnes & Noble Nook that probably inspired this response from Amazon, but there are hints of a broader strategy here. What if Amazon offered an alternative to Google's top half of Android? I think Amazon does not really want to be in the hardware design business, but wants to be sure that they can't be locked out of it or forced to pay extra by Apple, Google or any other potential competitor. As well as releasing their own 7" tablet, they could offer an Open Source or lightly licensed version of their stack to other hardware developers.

Why would Amazon do this? Because they are primarily in the shopping and media business. Apple has stopped them selling eBooks and media inside their apps on iPad/iPhone; Google has banned their App Store from the Google Android Market. Amazon could even offer a referral fee for anything bought via their store as an incentive for device manufacturers to ship it.

An even bolder step wold be to actually fork Android. Google has a delayed-open model for Android source, where a new version is released in public after a closed development process, without a clear way to send in patches to Google. Amazon could put their current version up on Github, accept patches, and treat Google's new drops as another source of possible patches.

Understanding each company's core business is what makes this likely. Apple is in the devices business, with the media business as a small side earner designed to make their devices more attractive. Google is in the Advertising business, with their Android business designed to make searching everywhere, continuously more likely. Amazon is in the shopping business, migrating from physical goods to media, with Kindle a way to drive this. A tablet that they can sell audio and video to as well as eBooks makes more sense to them if it as widely distributed as Kindle playback apps are now.

Is Netflix picking the right disruption?

2011-09-20T15:59:00.000-07:00

The decision to split Netflix into two companies, with the poorly-named Qwikster getting the DVD by post business and Netflix keeping the streaming business has caused a lot of fuss. Bill Gurley suggests that this is due to the very different licensing regimes the two businesses work under, and Clayton Christensen has praised this an a rare example of a company pre-emptively disrupting itself.

However, Reed Hastings gave rather non-plussed responses to those who complained about not having the two queues (DVD and streaming) integrated. As danah said,

It may seem logical to split the world based on business models from the inside of a business, but if you want your business to succeed, you should be focusing on understanding your users' mental models. And those aren't organized along business lines. They're organized around movies that they like, obtained by the means that is appropriate to the particular context of that user. People understand Netflix through its database of movies and the ratings that they've spent time providing, not its distinct queues.

Hastings clearly isn't thinking about this from our point of view - we want to watch something, and are much less focused on the particular medium. Instead of separating the two modes, Netflix should be uniting them further - help us book cinema tickets too, or buy Blu-ray discs. Encourage us to bring in information on favourite films and TV shows from Facebook, Amazon, GetGlue. They still could do this in an exemplary way by having Netflix and Qwikster share users' information through public APIs that others could use too. Activity Streams was made for this.

Being on the users' side in this way is another disruption, and indeed several startups at TechCrunch Disrupt had this mindset - what Doc Searls's VRM project calls '4th party tools' - ones that mediate between the customer and the vendor on the customers behalf. Cake Health mediate between you and insurers, TalkTo between you and local shops, FlickMunk between you and cinemas, and u4them as a way to donate to others medical bills.

The deeper currents of disruption of the film and TV industry are showing up in music. At SF Music Tech last week, turntable.fm was on everyone's lips, as the site that has got us all sitting round playing music for each other again, like the older label execs fondly remember from the 1970s. What it has done is apply the semi-overlapping publics and sharing models of twitter to listening to music together.

The other critique of Netflix that I saw was Megan McCardle saying that they were freeloading on the studios by only paying the marginal cost. Someone has to fund the creation, she pleads with us. Again, the answer was assumed at SF Music Tech, in the form of Kickstarter, which explicitly encourages people to fund production, and not just at marginal cost either. A key part of a successful Kickstarter project is widely spaced payment options, the special deals that are really about showing support with largesse. That these are power-law distributed seems odd at first sight - why would people pay more? But in fact it makes perfect sense. Income and wealth are power-law distributed in the US too, so people can pick the level of patronage that fits their income.

Independent artists like Pomplamoose and Zoë Keating are not served by the commodity pricing of Spotify - many are removing their songs from the catalog; they'd rather host them for download themselves. Zoë reports that her Bandcamp site, which lets you pay as much as you like for an album, has received payments of $8 to $500. Because they want to support her.

Cory Doctorow once said that "If big-budget movies might turn into opera, then long-form narrative books might turn into poetry." Opera has long understood the power-law distribution of wealth, and seeks donations in the same kind of structure.

In some ways, this power-law distribution of price is visible throughout commerce in the US. You can pay anything from $1 to $5000 for a burger, with price points inbetween, similarly for housing, transport, drinks, clothing, shoes, you name it.

The old economic choice between a commodity business that's all about margins, or a fashion business that is about competing for the most popular spot is finding a new accommodation. The discovery mechanisms like Turntable, Spotify, Pandora, and yes even Netflix, need to connect to these artist empowering patronage sites, as well as the commodity playback from the industrial aggregators. They need to lead people to Kickstarter and Bandcamp too. They need to be convenient, comprehensive and supportive of those creating art.

Update:Zoë Keating on Spotify, Apple and Independents (and lettuce)

Google Plus must stop this Identity Theatre

2011-08-20T05:42:00.000-07:00

Bruce Schneier in Beyond Fear coined a phrase:

one of the goals of a security countermeasure is to provide people with a feeling of security in addition to the reality. But some countermeasures provide the feeling of security instead of the reality. These are nothing more than security theater. They're palliative at best.

The Common Names debâcle at Google Plus is a variant of this, where the supposed protections are manifestly not working. Google's stated policy on this is that you should use your 'common name' - normatively defined to have exactly two words in it, in a naïve English speaking way, that fails in a huge number of common English cases, let alone other languages.

Vic Gundotra has said

he is trying to make sure a positive tone gets set here. Like when a restaurant doesn't allow people who aren't wearing shirts to enter.

so it is explicitly designed to exclude 'people not like us' from the space.

Early users can set the tone for a network, but one that has aspirations to include most people will need to support multiple different communities within it. If you want a positive tone, you have to work at it, and empower the tummlers to maintain it. Teresa Nielsen-Hayden put it well:

1. There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting that your front yard will automatically turn itself into a garden.
2. Once you have a well-established online conversation space, with enough regulars to explain the local mores to newcomers, they’ll do a lot of the policing themselves.

David Cameron should heed Douglas Adams and ORG

2011-08-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

Widely reported today are David Cameron's comments to parliament on riots and social media:

Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised via social media.

Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.

[And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.]

So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

I have also asked the police if they need any other new powers.

(the bit in square brackets was in his press statement, but not read in the Commons)

This particular line of reasoning was magnificently rebutted by Douglas Adams in 1999:

Newsreaders still feel it is worth a special and rather worrying mention if, for instance, a crime was planned by people 'over the Internet.' They don't bother to mention when criminals use the telephone or the M4, or discuss their dastardly plans 'over a cup of tea,' though each of these was new and controversial in their day.

I was encouraged recently when the UK Govt abandoned web blocking plans in the Digital Economy Act. Understanding that the internet is there for common carriage (a mere conduit, as the EU puts it) is important. Even on its own terms this threat makes little sense: if people are plotting riots on social media, that is surely exactly the evidence you need to convict them under the UK's statutory Conspiracy law. The telephone, the M4 and cups of tea are much harder to use as sources of evidence.

The Open Rights Group, has a typically measured and thoughtful response to this.

Cameron should be careful, or he'll look to posterity like William Cobbett ranting about the pernicious evils of tea.

Should 'Money' be an adjective, not a noun?

2011-07-24T20:40:00.000-07:00

I've been following Ben Laurie's thoughts on Bitcoin and now his new paper on An Efficient and Practical Distributed Currency.

He envisages a group of 'mintettes' that can agree on the distribution of coins, transfer them between individuals, and mint new ones, deciding between themselves how to distribute these. I like the idea of the different mintettes having different Public Good type ideas of where the newly created coins get assigned. The key here is to grow the coin supply at a rate that is lower than the growth of value held, so holders of your coinage get some appreciation, and distribute the new money to worthy causes, or to clients of that mintette.

In effect you're doing an end run around Gresham's law, in the same way that the Brazilian Real did - and not how the US Govt is doing with dollar coins. This is the bit that the libertarian summer camp got backwards - although they traded with gold, they set prices in US dollars.

We do have a precedent for this, and it is an encouraging one. In effect, each company stock is a private currency. The success of Silicon Valley has been helped by the ability of companies here to mint this money-like stuff, and distribute it to stakeholders and investors alike. The difference is that they create new tranches of 'coins' at board meetings, though stock option vesting is a bit like the smooth currency growth that Bitcoin and Ben envisage. Again the goal is growing the money supply at a rate below demand, so that those holding it are rewarded.

In effect we already have things that are more or less like currencies, and these new ones have some encouraging precedents.

Which Companion is the BBC treating us like this year?

2011-04-26T03:17:00.000-07:00

A while back I complained that the BBC's parochial attitude that was making Neil Gaiman furtively obtain Doctor Who - expat fans were being treated like Madame de Pompadour in The Girl in the Fireplace, only getting the Doctor on DVD, after waiting long enough to die.

They solved this problem for Neil by having him write The Doctor's Wife, so he gets to carry round the series on a flash key. It almost seemed like the BBC got the message, boasting in the New York Times that the US premiere will not be delayed. But that was like the promise to Amelia Pond that they'd be right back, while we pay iTunes or Amazon for the new series, and are left sitting on our suitcase in our nightie and wellies, while nothing downloads for us.

Instead, because they fret archaically about TV ratings, we're supposed to wait 13 hours after the UK sees it, and then, like Rose in Journey's End, we're stuck in a parallel universe with a pale imitation of the Doctor - BBC America's letterboxed, pillarboxed, advertisement-infested, scenes-cut-for-time version that I truly hope Steven Moffat, Russell Davies, Neil Gaiman, and everyone else who worked so hard to imagine these adventures for us, never gets to see. It's like the Dream Lord from Amy's Choice seized control of the Tardis from us.

So what can we do? We can be like River Song in the Impossible Astronaut, and fly the Tardis properly, sweetly warn of spoilers, and get the episode from BitTorrent instead.

If the BBC were smart about this, they'd offer the diehard fans a pay-to-download package that started downloading during the UK première TV showing. If they were even smarter they'd charge a super premium to get access the same time they do the press previews the week before.

RIP Elisabeth Sladen, like us fans in the 90s, dropped off in the wrong place, with just memories and a bad robot dog to keep us going, but we held out hope and saw the Doctor again.

Ev's identity map ignores what we say

2011-04-09T18:25:00.000-07:00

Ev Williams wrote a good blog post on identity yesterday, that I suggest you go and read. The odd thing is that he leaves out the publicly articulated thoughts that we use blogs, Twitter and other services to publish as an expression of our identity. Before I get to that, though, I'd like to connect his facets back to the open specs that represent these aspects.

Authentication

Ev mentions OpenID here, and is essentially correct that it is not helpful on its own. It was designed to verify URLs for blog comments. If all you do is use OpenID, you just replace logging into your site with logging into another, adding extra confusion without much benefit. However, once you have a URL for someone, you can then discover further information about them, by examining that URL and its links. Microformats can encode this directly in the webpage, or you can use related links to discover API endpoints for more.

The distinction between Authorization and Authentication is elided by Ev, and in practice OAuth has been winning out over OpenID as it is explicitly an Authorization APi that had Authentication as a side effect. The new OpenID Connect proposals try to remedy both these failing by using OAuth and by standardizing on how to list other endpoints.

Representation

Here Ev is looking for what is commonly called profile information. We have some mature standards for this - vCard is widely used by email clients, and is currently going through another standardization round to add modern features. The hCard microformat gives a simple way to embed profiles in web pages. Also, the rel="me" part of XFN makes it straightforward to link web pages together that represent different aspects fo your public representation. This is supported by Facebook, Twitter and Google, but sadly not by about.me whom Ev praises.

If you want a general data format for profile data, Portable Contacts is what you need.

Communication

Ev's emphasis on email addresses here illustrates the problem with them; they are primarily write-only; though we persist in using them for log-in IDs, they are not readily discoverable. The WebFinger spec gives a way round this - a way to go from an email to endpoints for other readable identity standards. Other communication standards have piggy-backed on email address, such as Jabber and Wave.

Personalization

This hints at the glaring gap in Ev's model, the expression of personal taste and preference. This is commonly done by reviewing, and we have the hReview microformat to express that, but it can also be useful just to track a history of media played or places visited to derive preferences over time. Here Activity Streams are an obvious fit, and it would be good to map such proprietary formats as Amazon purchases, Last.fm scrobbles, iTunes played songs and so on into a common format to derive this.

One model we can use for this is tagging - associating keywords with things. Many feed specs have tagging built in, and the rel="tag" microformat is a way of indicating these publicly.

Reputation

As Ev says, this is problematic, and also often highly contextual; I may trust someone's advice on restaurants without listening to them about which programming language to use. Reputation and trust are subtle, deeply human and very hard to model. The best answer here may be to rely on the power of faces and following; if we attach the face of someone we know to their public statements, we can decide for ourselves how much weight to give them.

Which brings me back to my opening point. When we decide who to pay attention to online, we tend to rely on what they say; if you get an @ reply on twitter, clicking on that person's name to see their most recent comments is hugely useful in deciding how much attention to pay to them. Similarly, the history of public blog posts, or their reviews of movies, music, books or restaurants arre other reasons we may follow them, and our identity is most strongly formed from the stories we tell and retell about ourselves. Feeds, whether in Atom, RSS or hAtom, and Activity Streams give rich representation of our thought, opinions and actions.

Whom we choose to associate with or follow is also an expression of our identity, and a useful signal when deciding how much attention to pay to someone, and XFN and Portable Contacts are both usefule in discovering these connections.

Dare Obasanjo also responded to Ev's Identity post, and added in payment as well as the friends as missed aspects. I'd love to discuss this further with both Ev and Dare at the Internet Identity Workshop next month, which is where many of the specs mentioned above were conceived and agreed. Maybe Ev can bring some others from Twitter with him too; their past contributions to OAuth were highly useful and there is plenty more to get our teeth into, as Ev's post shows.

How the w3c invented the ‘semantics’ logo

2011-01-18T12:52:00.001-08:00

Today the w3c launched an HTML5 logo, that includes sub-logos for different technologies included in or associated with the standard. Here's my parodic view of how the semantics one was made:

Jeremy is upset that they're using 'HTML5' to include CSS3, SVG, WOFF too. I've seen SVG and CSS3 versions of the logo - who's got a WOFF one?

Update: I made a version of the logo in HTML only for the purists.

Two faces of Android

2011-01-04T03:31:00.000-08:00

The most remarkable thing about Android is that it is the first widely adopted Open Source client operating system. It's long been clear that Open Source is the best way to preserve infrastructural code from the vicissitudes of corporate and governmental volatility, but using it for client applications has so far not taken off as well. There has often been a separation between an open source underlying layer and a proprietary user experience that is built atop it.

Android does follow this pattern to some extent - the underlying OS code is fully Open Source under an Apache License, so anyone can bend it to their own uses, but in order to get the "with Google" logo on your device, you need to conform to Google's Compatibility Definition Document. That has changed over time; for example the 2.1 version specifies that your device MUST have a camera and 1.6 requires telephony.

If you do this, you might then get access to what I call the top half of Android - the closed source Google apps that integrate the device closely with their web services - Contacts, GMail, Talk, Android Market, Google Maps, Navigation, Listen, Earth, Places and so on. However, this requires an explicit partnership with Google.

The fascinating thing here is that there is already a Cambrian Explosion of new Android devices going on in China and India. You can buy iPad lookalikes, things that look like a huge iPod, TV-based video game systems and more that run Android, often for under $100. I fully expect most digital photo frames and mp3 players being built this year will end up running some form of Android, with cameras following on too.

This means that more and more devices will be naturally web-connected, able to run browsers, and to plug into web publishing ecosystems naturally - the Android Intent model means that Apps can plug together neatly, and replace system features if desired.

However, a lot of the day-to day utility of an Android device is in the proprietary, partners-only layer - that you only get after doing a business development deal with Google of some kind. What we will start to see is alternatives for these Applications being developed. To some extent we're already seeing this from US carriers, but I think this year we'll see both an Open Source suite of apps to swap in many of these functions, and other proprietary offerings to compete with the Google upper half.

Who could build such a suite? Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft clearly have most of the necessary pieces, but how about Baidu, Tencent, Vkontakte or other companies with strong regional ties?

Now we have a truly Open consumer OS, a world of possibilities open up.

Firesheep, enterprise software and other broken models

2010-11-13T15:21:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of fuss about FireSheep, a browser plugin that show how easy it is to intercept packets on the internet, and masquerade as someone else. The idea is nothing new: EtherPeg—which intercepts wifi traffic and shows the JPEGs and other images passing by—is over 10 years old. Annalee Newitz wrote a Wired story on people packet sniffing in coffee shops back in 2004.

The underlying design of the internet means that you don't know who will be able to see any packets you send. If you care about not being snooped on, you need an encrypted connection from your computer to the one serving you at the other end. The best way to do this on the web is to use HTTPS, which all browsers support, and most servers support with configuration changes. It's not perfect, but it's good enough.

However, much of the advice following on from FireSheep was misleading or outright wrong. I saw several articles saying:

Avoid Open WiFi
Turn on WPA encryption
Use a VPN to tunnel the traffic into a server elsewhere

These techniques may protect for a while against those nearby you in the Café, but by not securing the whole connection, they just change who is able to intercept your communications.

The security model here is the firewall one - the notion that there are trusted networks and untrusted networks, and as long as you're inside a trusted one, you'll be OK. This is an obsolete worldview. When computers were large fixed physical entities with software controlled by a specialist, and networks were wires under their control too, this had some correspondence with reality, but it was always tenuous - others within the firewall could be running compromised machines; outbound connections could still leak data.

If you VPN into a company or service to mask your outbound connections, that endpoint is an attractive point of attack, as it has collected a set of people who think their data needs securing. There's a clear example of this in this NYT article about a hacker who lured his friends to use an FBI VPN to track them down and arrest them.

This worldview connects with two other themes. The US Government is trying to pass a law requiring ISPs to enable your communications to be intercepted. The UK government is also working on legislation on retaining all email and web traffic. Similarly, many companies monitor internet traffic within and leaving their secure networks for legal compliance and employee monitoring. Such mandated backdoors, like the VPN tunnel, become attractive targets for other bad actors - remember the Greek government being spied on through a legally mandated interception backdoor in the phones they used?

This week, I spent a couple of days at the Enterprise 2.0 conference, hearing how open standards like Activity Streams and OpenSocial are being used to bridge separate business information systems both within and between companies, with OAuth used to enforce corporate policy.

This seems anathema to old-line IT managers who assume that they dictate who gets to see what, but the pragmatic realisation that many business people have more powerful and connected computing devices in their pockets as phones than on their desks from corporate IT was in evidence at E2.0 at least.

This brought to mind the great conversation we had with Josh Klein on TummelVision last week, discussing his book Hacking Work - breaking stupid rules for smart results:

one of the most common hacks we found: jumping IT’s firewall and working around their restrictions and tools in open computing environments, then bringing the work back over the firewall and presenting it to bosses as if the corporate tools had actually been used.

Ben Horowitz's article on enterprise sales in TechCrunch today tries to justify corporate practices, even as he recognizes the inversion of the innovation flow.

What this misses is the underlying economic justification for the existence of a corporation in the first place - the economic theories that build on Coase's work saying that firms exist because transaction costs are lower within them than external transactions mediated by the marketplaces. Pettifogging internal purchasing rules should be subject to this test: does the internal transaction cost of approving and purchasing something exceed the value of the thing being purchased?

Reading Ben's explanation of how corporate salespeople help institutions negotiate their own labyrinthine processes, I couldn't help but be reminded of John Hagel's Big Shift model, (also discussed on TummelVision), which continues to show a declining return on assets for corporations.

The challenge we have on the web is to maintain the kinds of open-to-all interoperable standards that empower us to work round these creaking bureaucracies. If we delegate our online identities to a few firms operating proprietary APIs, that they can revoke access to, or decide who can call them for reasons of corporate strategy, the lowered transaction costs suddenly get very high again.

Doc Searls's work on VRM (this week's TummelVision) is all about making sure that we can retain agency over our own information. I expect to discuss this in depth at Defrag next week.

Geek Cinema: 'The Social Network' vs 'The Man in the White Suit'

2010-10-01T16:32:00.000-07:00

I recently watched a film that dramatically evoked the disruption caused by geeky inventors, the difficulties they have getting funded, and the forces that combine to oppose them in the name of the status quo.

Sadly, this wasn't at last night's showing of The Social Network, but watching the 1951 Ealing comedy The Man In The White Suit on my phone while flying home.

The Social Network has zinging dialogue, tilt-shift rowing at Henley, and has lawyers as its most sympathetic characters. Most of its humour comes from heavy-handed prefiguring of Facebook's eventual success; clearly you can't spoil the ending, so the trailer just recaps the whole film:

The opening hacking scene, dramatized almost verbatim from Zuckerberg's blog at the time, is perhaps the best 'using a computer' scene in a movie yet - Mark should get a screenwriting credit. But the mythical girlfriend who dumped him and his reactions to that - 'cyberbullying', seeking fame, plaintively hitting refresh on the friend request - that frame the film are a disappointing narrative touch that duck the chance to try to explain his real motivation. Apart from the lawyer, all the women in this film are purely sex objects - when Zuck is asked 'What are the girls going to do?' and replies 'Nothing', that's clearly Sorkin talking.

In contrast, The Man in the White Suit has Alec Guinness inventing a monomolecular fibre that can't break and naturally repels dirt. To do this he has to get to work into labs at textile factories under false pretenses, and when he eventually succeeds, provokes a hostile reaction from both the factory owners and the unionized employees, who want to suppress his work. If you haven't seen it, Amazon and Netflix have it.

Here, the motivation to invent something new and exciting is expressed well, and the technology behind it is plausibly explained. Guinness inspires Joan Greenwood with his idea, and she researches it and champions him to get his work funded. The women in this sixty-year-old film are well-drawn characters, with motivations of their own. They are peers and colleagues to Guinness's Stanley, not sex objects; indeed that is directly challenged. The film is stronger and more emotionally powerful for it.

Both films capture the ascetic geek intensity and focus well, but Sorkin and Fincher want to tear it down, whereas MacDougal and MacKendrick see the Innovators Dilemma clearly 45 years before Christensen did. As Lessig says, The Social Network portrays a legal system that preys on invention, not supporting it; the Man in the White Suit has the inventor's notebooks establishing rights that he needs to be paid for.

Conversely, to get his invention out to people, Stanley needs to convince the very industry he is disrupting to adopt it, whereas the existence of the Internet and it's open protocols mean that Zuckerberg was able to get his idea adopted by thousands with a small loan from a friend.

Technology has made a lot of progress in 60 years, but judging by this new film, law and women's roles have gone backwards.

The Slutsky vanishes - Google Instant has a smutty mind

2010-09-10T17:19:00.000-07:00

At the Google Instant Launch on Wednesday, I ran into my former colleague, the writer and internet famous video star Irina Slutsky. We sat together, and so naturally when we were trying out Google Instant during the launch, I tried typing her name in. And an odd thing happened - Google whited out the Instant search results.

Irina asked about this, and Johanna Wright of Google replied that they white out some words related to sex and hate speech, in case inappropriate results appeared for people who weren't expecting it. 'Slut' is one of these words, but it is not clear at all why 'Slutsky' is.

I already wrote about my concerns that Google's predictive words could narrow the range of searched-for terms into clichés - that as you type Google, in Stoppard's words, is

announcing every stale revelation of the newly enlightened, like stout Cortez coming upon the Pacific — war is profits, politicians are puppets, Parliament is a farce, justice is a fraud, property is theft… It’s all here: the Stock Exchange, the arms dealers, the press barons… You can’t fool Brodie — patriotism is propaganda, religion is a con trick, royalty is an anachronism… Pages and pages of it. It’s like being run over very slowly by a travelling freak show of favourite simpletons, the India rubber pedagogue, the midget intellectual, the human panacea…

At least these suggestions are based on integrating over the text of the web; the words that get the silent whiteout treatment seem to have been chosen by a committee though, and clearly an American one at that, as it whites out 'ass' but not 'arse, 'shit' but not 'shite', 'slut' but not 'slag' and so on (I didn't type every smutty British slang word in, life is too short).

However, the modern-day Bowdlers at Google don't white you out based on what you type, but on what they predict you're going to type.

If I type 'blue-footed' - it predicts I'm typing 'blue-foooted booby' and as 'boobies' is an Official Google Smutty Word, my search goes white (in fact 'blue-foo' is enough).

Similarly, typing 'turn again d' implies 'turn again Dick Whittington', and 'dick' is a an Official Google Smutty Word.

The same is true for Irina -so shocking is her last name that all you have to type is 'irina sl' and the Google whiteout erases her from results.

Weirdly, if you type 'who killed cock' it is completed to 'who killed cock-robin' with a hyphen inserted, which implies someone has edited the auto-complete list manually.

My worldview and sense of appropriateness is probably close enough to Google's committee that I'm not going to be too bothered by this, but I do wonder about them deciding what the norms of speech are for everyone in the world.

If Google predicts your future, will it be a cliché?

2010-09-07T17:56:00.000-07:00

I wonder if Michael Frayn saw the launch of Google Scribe today, and smiled to himself. In 1965, Frayn wrote a book The Tin Men, which featured a mechanism that wrote newspaper articles by joining together clichéd phrases through a small number of rules.

There's an explanatory extract from it in this discussion of why you should avoid clichés when writing Poetry.

George Orwell, in Politics and the English Language, described this way of writing:

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier—even quicker, once you have the habit—to say “In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that” than to say “I think”. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry—when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech—it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like “a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind” or ”a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent” will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump.

Clearly, Google Scribe has been trained on the vast corpus of English language text that is also used for Google Translate to come up with plausible sentence fragments. Equally clearly, that means it is bound to be plucking phrases that have been written before out of the web for you, and favouring those that have been said most often. It won't come up with a crisp, resoundingly clear phrase for you, unless it has already been said many times before.

The most likely words to follow “clocks were” now, according to Google, are “striking thirteen”. I hope Orwell would appreciate the irony.

Now, this is amusing in itself, but it is also indicative of a wider problem. If you've done much web searching for, say, home maintenance tips, you'll see a lot of prose that has either been written by a machine of this type, or by poorly paid human writers who use a very similar compositional process. We have a kind of mutated Turing Test going on all around us, where robotic writers are trying to convince robotic readers that they are human, and their stilted prose is worth presenting to the real people searching. Of course, the robots are searching too, to get the source material that is fed into their word mills to create this shambling facsimile of human prose.

It may be impressive that computers can now write bad prose like so many people do, but I do wonder about Eric Schmidt's grand vision of Google predicting what we will want to do before we think of it ourselves. Will it in fact be what we wanted, or will it be a mishmash of expected behaviours, that we'll regret on our deathbeds?

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
This was the most common regret of all. When people realise that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled.

A scene in Tom Stoppard's The Real Thing sums this up well:

He’s a lout with language. I can’t help somebody who thinks, or thinks he thinks, that editing a newspaper is censorship, or that throwing bricks is a demonstration while building tower blocks is social violence, or that unpalatable statement is provocation while disrupting the speaker is the exercise of free speech… Words don’t deserve that kind of malarkey. They’re innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they’re no good any more, and Brodie knocks corners off without knowing he’s doing it. So everything he writes is jerry-built. It’s rubbish. An intelligent child could push it over. I don’t think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you’re dead.

People are used to typing questions into a box on Google and getting a machine's suggestions. Increasingly though, they're typing emotions into a box on Twitter or Facebook, and getting a human response instead.

Welcome Apple, seriously

2010-09-02T12:46:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's update of iTunes added Ping, a music-focused social network. When I tried it out early in the evening, it had Facebook Connect enabled, and both imported friends from Facebook, and notified me when new ones joined. Shortly afterwards, Mark Zuckerberg joined, and shortly after that the Facebook connection was missing.
This morning, neither company is talking on the record, though Kara Swisher reports that Steve Jobs complained about 'onerous terms' from Facebook.

This naturally reminds me of the problems we had with Google Friend Connect, where Facebook's accusation of a ToS violation was never backed up by an explanation of what would not violate the terms, leading to the "Data Roach Motel" accusations at Supernova. The underlying issue is whether you should give another company veto power over your application. Last time I wrote on this, it was Apple's veto I was warning about, though at the same time Apple was trying to avoid giving Adobe veto power over their platform again.

The thing is, we have been round this cycle before, and the answer is known too - the way to interoperate with another company without having to have a business agreement with them is to use open standards, not proprietary APIs.

Apple knows this - they have helped lead development of HTML5 and WebKit, along with many other standards in the past, including podcasting and MPEG4. Facebook knows this too, and they have been strong supporters of OAuth and Activity Streams, and even of Portable Contacts, when it's them doing the importing.

Clearly it good for us as users to be able to delegate our contact lists to an existing source - this weeks launch of conference sharing site Lanyrd shows that. It's also in our interests to be able to propagate the actions of playing, liking and purchasing music, videos and anything else between sites of our choosing, so that we can share with our friends, and so we can get more useful recommendations for the future (at minimum, not suggesting things we already have).

This was the core of the discussion at the VRM Workshop last week in Boston - that we should control over who sees what about us, and I think that with these common standards we can solve both problems - the individuals get to save having to re-enter their information everywhere, and control what flows to where, and the companies get the ability to interoperate without bizdev and single source lock-in. Activity Streams (and the associated standards they build on) are our best hope for this.

Steve Jobs and the Curate's Egg

2010-06-07T00:35:00.000-07:00

The word 'curation' has become popular recently in the tech world to describe what I call mutual media - the way, by reading many things and passing on a few of them, that we mediate the world of information for each other. As m'colleague JP Rangaswami says, "Curators add to relevance by stripping away the irrelevant and the unneeded and the shoddy."

However, there is a move to co-opt this useful term into a new form of centralised control. Sarah Rotman of Forrester defines 'curated computing' as:

A mode of computing where choice is constrained to deliver less complex, more relevant experiences.

Given Forrester's background, expect this 'curated computing' idea to be used to justify IT departments preventing corporate users from using applications they choose any day now.

At the D Conference last week, Steve Jobs embraced this term, referring to a 'curated app store'.

This definition moves the idea of curation from democratic to hierarchical - our choice becomes take it or leave it. As Jobs said

Things are packages, of emphasis. Some things are emphasised in a product, some things are not done as well in a product, some things are chosen not to be done at all in a product.

This reminds me of the classic 'Curate's Egg' cartoon:
Bishop: "I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr Jones";
Curate: "Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!"

When choosing what features go into Apple Products, of course Jobs gets to decide this; it is indeed a great skill. However, when offering technology platforms for others to build businesses on, this is more problematic.

While talking about Flash on the iPad, Jobs said:

A more popular developer environment was HyperCard, we were OK to axe that[...] Hypercard was huge in it's day because it was accessible to anybody

Indeed it was - many people miss it; Dale Dougherty says he wants a HyperCard for the iPad. I don't think he does.

When Steve Jobs's Apple cancelled the HyperCard in QuickTime project, all the people who had built businesses on it could do was plead with Apple, to no avail.

As Jobs himself says, we have a platform to build on for the future - it is HTML5. It's an emerging standard that is not under the control of any one company, but is built on the Web as agreement. And even Steve Jobs can't stop it.

Dandelions and Viruses

2010-05-21T18:30:00.000-07:00

Last week, Betsy Aoki tweeted:

Sick visual around how content is passed around - organic=dandelion, and then the spam marketing campaign (cancery clumps) #w2eless than a minute ago via webBetsy Aoki
BAoki

This intrigued me, as I had used Dandelion and Virus analogies talking about the social web 2 years ago and used these pictures:

Organic dandelion versus virus

And here's Paul Yiu's slide Betsy was looking at (number 8 in this deck):

Looks like a case of metaphors converging.

Live Waving the Google I/O Keynote

2010-05-19T07:12:00.000-07:00

Google I/O starts today in San Francisco, but they've already exceeded the capacity of Moscone West, so even Google execs can't get in today. If like me you're watching remotely, here's the live stream. Me, Gina Trapani, Adam Pash, and Leo Laporte will be live-waving it here (and on their sites).

If you want to join in a free-for-all wave chat, try this one:

Jeremy Hunt hates the Digital Economy Bill - will he block it?

2010-04-07T03:46:00.000-07:00

I watched the Digital Economy Bill Second Reading debate yesterday, along with enough other twitter users to make #DEBill a global trending topic and many MP's names UK trends as we discussed it.

It was an interesting debate to watch, with good contributions from many backbench MPs who had clearly been listening to all sides of the discussion.

However, no amendments were moved - that happens today. Due to the 'washup' procedures in Parliament the Conservative front bench has an effeitive clause by clause veto over this bill. As David Hunt described the bill as:

"a weak, dithering and incompetent attempt to breathe life into Britain's digital economy.[...]We have examined this Bill clause by clause, and we agree with the hon. Gentleman that it could have been massively improved had this House been able to give it proper scrutiny in Committee. The Government have had plenty of opportunities to allow such scrutiny, and it is a matter of huge regret that we have not been able to provide it.[...]I want to say plainly to the Government that, while we recognise that some parts of the Bill will have to be let through if we are to avoid serious damage to the economy, other parts of it are totally unacceptable, and we will use every parliamentary means at our disposal to remove them.

Peter Luff put it more strongly:

Nevertheless, this is the most profoundly unsatisfactory constitutional process I have engaged with in my 18 years in the House. In his opening remarks the Secretary of State promised my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that he would write up a list of precedents, but I do not believe-I could be proved wrong-that there is a single precedent for giving a major and controversial Bill a Second Reading once a general election has been announced. It is a scandal that the House is being asked to agree that tonight.
I have given the matter careful consideration and I make this commitment: if there is a Division, I will support the Bill because, under a true constitutional process, it deserves a Second Reading; it does not, though, deserve what will happen to it thereafter. However, I broadly support the aims and objectives of the Bill and will vote for its Second Reading should there be a Division-but I shall do so under duress and protest, because I hate and loathe the process in which I am forced to participate.

Adam Afriyie summed up:

It has been a very interesting debate, with a single theme unifying the contributions from Back and Front Benches across the House-that the Government appear to be rushing through an important piece of legislation without due scrutiny in the House of Commons. After 13 years of digital dithering, this Bill is all they have to show on the digital front. It is a missed opportunity of massive proportions. Not only is it discourteous to rush such a significant measure through Parliament in the dying days of a failed Government, but it is also incompetent.

Now given these opinions, they should use their veto wisely to get rid of the muddled clauses.

The new clause 18 is most egregious and is simplest to remove - all it does is handwave about how the Secretary of State can make some rules that then have to go before Parliament anyway. It's making up a new process that is almost as complex as passing a bill properly, but with upfront constraints.
Dump it, promise a copyright reform Bill.

The existing clause 18 is clearly bonkers, as it doesn't define 'internet location' or any of its terms, and surely violates the 'mere conduit' principle.

Clauses 10-17 have mushroomed into a complex parallel court system, with a presumption of guilt, not innocence, and an appeals model. They now have (thankfully) added the need to pass a resolution through both houses for all regulations.

Jeremy Hunt, cut the Gordian (Gordonian?) knot. Drop these rococo clauses and propose a sensible copyright reform bill for the next Parliament that reforms copyright and the net sensibly.

The Statute of Anne, the Digital Economy Bill and the Red Flag Act

2010-04-06T01:07:00.000-07:00

This week marks the Tercentenary of the 1710 Statute of Anne - the world's first Copyright law. It also marks the first discussion of the Digital Economy Bill in the Commons. And in 1865, the Locomotive act was being discussed in the Commons too. How do they compare?

The Statute of Anne opens like this:

Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books;

In other words, its goal was to prevent those who have Printing machines from exploiting the creative Authors. Sadly, this aim went astray over the years, with Macaulay opposing extension in 1841 by saying:

At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouth of deserving men. Every body is well pleased to see them restrained by the law and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men of a character very different from that of the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?

The Digital Economy Bill is full of language designed to chill the self-publication that empowers authors online.

To me it most resembles the 1865 Locomotive Act, which attempted to protect the horse and carriage trade from meachanical locomotives by requiring that each one was preceded by a man on foot, 60 yards in front, carrying a red flag, and that speeds be limited to 4mph in the country and 2 mph in town.

The Digital Economy Bill, like the Locomotive Act, seeks to prevent what is in its title by constraining it to the limitations of pre-existing businesses that lobby the hardest. It should not pass.

The BPI's China-like clauses in the Digital Economy Bill

2010-03-23T17:59:00.000-07:00

In January, Bono from his self-described bully pulpit in the NY Times, called for China-style net censorship to protect 'over-rewarded rock stars':

[...]the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.
We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content.

Rebecca MacKinnon today released her prepared Congressional testimony on the effects of Chinese net-blocking - I recommend reading the whole thing, but as the British Phonographic Industry took Bono up on his challenge, and wrote internet blocking by BPI fiat into the UK Digital Economy Bill, I thought I'd look at the parallels. A previous draft of the Bill compared poorly to Magna Carta; how does it line up against Chinese practice?

Rebecca MacKinnon:

Filtering or “blocking:” This is the original and best understood form of Internet censorship. Internet users on a particular network are blocked from accessing specific websites. The technical term for this kind of censorship is “filtering.” Some congressional proceedings and legislation have also referred to this kind of censorship as “Internet jamming.” Filtering can range in scope from a home network, a school network, university network, corporate network, the entire service of a particular commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP), or all Internet connections within a specific country. It is called “filtering” because a network administrator uses special software or hardware to block access to specified web pages by banning access to certain designated domain names, Internet addresses, or any page containing specified keywords or phrases.

Digital Economy Bill, Clause 18:

18 Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement
In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert—
“97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement
(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.[...]
the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner’s costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider’s failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.

Note the insidious allocation of costs there, which is designed to ensure that ISPs block access or remove content on accusation, before an injunction is applied for. Here's Rebecca again on how this works in practice in China:

Deletion and removal of content: Filtering is the primary means of censoring content over which the Chinese government has no jurisdiction. When it comes to websites and Internet services over which Chinese authorities do have legal jurisdiction – usually because at least some of the company’s operations and computer servers are located in-country – why merely block or filter content when you can delete it from the Internet entirely? In Anglo-European legal parlance, the legal mechanism used to implement such a system is called “intermediary liability.” The Chinese government calls it “self-discipline,” but it amounts to the same thing, and it is precisely the legal mechanism through which Google’s Chinese search engine, Google.cn, was required to censor its search results.[7]
All Internet companies operating within Chinese jurisdiction – domestic or foreign – are held liable for everything appearing on their search engines, blogging platforms, and social networking services. They are also legally responsible for everything their users discuss or organize through chat clients and messaging services. In this way, much of the censorship and surveillance work is delegated and outsourced by the government to the private sector – who, if they fail to censor and monitor their users to the government’s satisfaction, will lose their business license and be forced to shut down. It is also the mechanism through which China-based companies must monitor and censor the conversations of more than fifty million Chinese bloggers. Politically sensitive postings are deleted or blocked from ever being published. Bloggers who get too influential in the wrong ways can have their accounts shut down and their entire blogs erased. That work is done primarily not by “Internet police” but by employees of Internet companies.[8]

The language of clause 18 reflects this implied goal of "self-discipline" too:

(2)(b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),
(c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,

(3) An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought and to the Secretary of State.
[...](4)(b) the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken,

The Chinese government has also used its control over the domain name system to block dissent. Here's Rebecca's summary again:

Domain name controls: In December, the government-affiliated China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) announced that it would no longer allow individuals to register Internet domain names ending in .cn. Only companies or organizations would be able to use the .cn domain.[16] While authorities explained that this measure was aimed at cleaning up pornography, fraud, and spam, a group of Chinese webmasters protested that it also violated individual rights.[17]
Authorities announced that more than 130,000 websites had shut down in the cleanup. In January a Chinese newspaper reported that self-employed individuals and freelancers conducting online business had been badly hurt by the measure.[18] Later in February, CNNIC backtracked somewhat, announcing that individuals will once again be allowed to register .cn domains, but all applicants must appear in person to confirm their registration, show a government ID, and submit a photo of themselves with their application. [19] This eliminates the possibility of anonymous domain name registration under .cn and makes it easier for authorities to warn or intimidate website operators when “objectionable” content appears.

Up to now, the UK registrar has been broadly neutral and independent of the Government, but Clause 19 of the DE Bill grabs new broad powers:

19 Powers in relation to internet domain registries
After section 124N of the Communications Act 2003 insert—
“Powers in relation to internet domain registries

124O Notification of failure in relation to internet domain registry
(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State—
(a) is satisfied that a serious relevant failure in relation to a qualifying internet domain registry is taking place or has taken place, and
(b) wishes to exercise the powers under section 124P or 124R.
(2) The Secretary of State must notify the internet domain registry, specifying the failure and a period during which the registry has the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.
(3) There is a relevant failure in relation to a qualifying internet domain registry if—
(a) the registry, or any of its registrars or end-users, engages in prescribed practices that are unfair or involve the misuse of internet domain names, or
(b) the arrangements made by the registry for dealing with complaints in connection with internet domain names do not comply with prescribed requirements.
(4) A relevant failure is serious, for the purposes of this section, if it has adversely affected or is likely adversely to affect—
(a) the reputation or availability of electronic communications networks or electronic communications services provided in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom, or
(b) the interests of consumers or members of the public in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom.
(5) In subsection (3) “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

In other words, the Secretary of State gets to decide what counts as misuse, and reputational damage. Clauses 20 and 21 give further powers to take over management of a registry and change it's constitution, again by fiat.

What else does China do? It selectively disconnects people from the net. Here's Rebecca again:

Localized disconnection and restriction: In times of crisis when the government wants to ensure that people cannot use the Internet or mobile phones to organize protests, connections are shut down entirely or heavily restricted in specific locations. There have been anecdotal reports of Internet connections going down or text-messaging services suddenly not working in counties or towns immediately after local disturbances broke out. The most extreme case however is Xinjiang province, a traditionally Muslim region bordering Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Afghanistan in China’s far Northwest. After ethnic riots took place in July of last year, the Internet was cut off in the entire province for six months, along with most mobile text messaging and international phone service. Nobody in Xinjiang could send e-mail or access any website – domestic or foreign. Businesspeople had to travel to the bordering province of Gansu just to communicate with customers.[20]
Internet access and phone service have now been restored, but with severe limitations on the number of text messages people can send on their mobile phones per day, no access to overseas websites, and even very limited access to domestic Chinese websites. Xinjiang-based Internet users can only access specially watered-down versions of official Chinese news and information sites, with many of the functions such as blogging or comments disabled.[21]

Clause 10 of the Digital Economy Bill makes Localized disconnection and restriction possible through 'technical obligations' imposed on ISPs:

10 Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation
After section 124F of the Communications Act 2003 insert—
“124G Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation
(1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to—
(a) assess whether one or more technical obligations should be imposed on internet service providers;
(b) take steps to prepare for the obligations;
(c) provide a report on the assessment or steps to the Secretary of State.
(2) A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or reducing infringement of copyright by means of the internet.
(3) A “technical measure” is a measure that—
(a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber;
(b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use;
(c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or
(d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

These clauses are in the Bill as it currently stands. They are not scheduled to be debated properly in the Commons. Harriet Harman, as leader of the Commons gets to decide if they are debated. The Open Rights Group has ways to take action, including writing to Harriet Harman and joining the protests in London on Wednesday 24th March.

Steve Jobs calls HTC Great Artists?

2010-03-02T10:29:00.000-08:00

In 1996, in Bob Cringely's documentary Triumph of the Nerds, Steve Jobs said:

Picasso had a saying, he said "good artists copy, great artists steal". We have, you know, always been shameless about stealing great ideas.

Here's the video:

Today, Apple's press release says:

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

Apple has suffered through many patent trolls over the years, and should understand how software patents limit innovation, indeed their consistent position on supporting Open Source Codecs in HTML5 has been that they are afraid of patent lawsuits. So this action can only be seen as an attack on innovation.

Twitter Theory applied to Google Buzz

2010-02-13T03:29:00.000-08:00

I wrote a post last year about Twitter theory, and presented on it too so I thought I'd compare how Google Buzz fits in with them or not.

Flow

Buzz is a flow but it does show an unread count, and it's in your email inbox so the implicit pressure to read is there. You're not cued to dip in and out. Also, all replies come to your main inbox, privileging them over the flow from those you chose to follow.

Faces

There are faces of people next to the root Buzzes, tapping into the subtle nuances of trust we all carry in our heads, but not by the replies, making those 'comments from strangers' even more alien.

Phatic

The phatic feel of Twitter is partially there, but at the launch there was much talk of Google 'hiding the irrelevant' so the social gestures where we groom each other may be tidied away by an uncomprehending machine.

The replies from faceless strangers flooding your inbox if you respond to anyone with a large following will put people off interacting socially. The feeling of talking intimately to those you know is replaced by something closer to the 'naked in the school lunchroom' nightmare.

Following

Buzz does pick up Twitters asymmetric following model, and indeed adds a way to create private Buzzes for small groups, both key features. However, these are undermined by the confusing editing process. The Follower/Following editing is only in pop-up javascript dialogs on your Buzz in gmail and Google Profile pages, and because of the auto-follow onboarding, rather opaque. The groups editing is in Google Contacts, but that doesn't show the Followers, Following, Chat Friends, Latitude or other subgroups. There is also no way to see just conversations with those groups.

The overall effect makes it feel more like a Mornington Crescent server than Twitter. I made a Mornington Crescent Buzz account; it seems to fit.

Publics

Twitter's natural view is different for each of us, and is of those we have chosen. We each have our own public that we see and we address.

The subtlety is that the publics are semi-overlapping - not everyone we can see will hear us, as they don't necessarily follow us, and they may not dip into the stream in time to catch the evanescent ripples in the flow that our remark started. To see responses to us from those we don't follow, we have to click the Mentions tab. However, as our view is of those we choose to follow, our emotional response is set by that, and we behave more civilly in return.

Buzz reverses this. The general comments from friends are in the Buzz tab, but anyone can use '@' to mention you, forcing the whole conversational thread into your inbox. Similarly, if you comment on someone else's Buzz, any further updates to the web show up in your main email inbox. The tragedy of the comments ensues, where annoying people can take over the discussion, and their replies are privileged twice over those you choose to follow.

This is the YouTube comments problem yet magnified; when all hear the words of one, the conversation often decays.

Mutual media

By bringing in Twitter,blogs, Google Reader shared items, photos and other Activity Streams feeds, Buzz has the potential to be a way to connect the loosely coupled flows those of us who live in the listening Web to the email dwellers who may left behind. By each reading whom we choose to and passing on some of it to others, we are each others media, we are the synapses in the global brain of the web of thought and conversation. Although we each only touch a local part of it, ideas can travel a long way.

If the prioritisation of secondary commentary and poking over collated ideas can be reversed in Buzz, this could be made to work.

Small world networks

Social connections are a small-world network locally strongly-connected, but spreading globally in a small number of jumps. The email graph that Buzz taps into may be a worse model of real world social networks that articulated SNS's like Facebook, but it could be improved if the following and editing models are fixed.

Buzz's promise is that it builds on Activity Streams and other open standards, so it could help encourage others to do this better.

Standards are the links of the Social Web

2010-02-08T22:19:00.000-08:00

Mike Arrington wrote a plea for better social software on Sunday:

The online social landscape today sort of feels to me like search did in 1999. It’s a mess, but we don’t complain much about it because we don’t know there’s a better way.
Everything is decentralized, and no one is working to centralize stuff. I’ve got photos on Flickr, Posterous and Facebook (and even a few on MySpace), reviews on Yelp (but movie reviews on Flixster), location on Foursquare, Loopt and Gowalla, status updates on Facebook and Twitter, and videos on YouTube. Etc. I’ve got dozens of social graphs on dozens of sites, and trying to remember which friends puts his or her pictures on which site is a huge challenge.

What enabled Google to solve the search problem was a common standard for expressing pages and the links between them, so that they could index the webpages and derive a metric for which ones were more important. They didn't do this by replacing the web with a structured database that they curated, they worked with the standards in use to make sense of it.

To solve the social conundrum we need the equivalent - agreed standards in widespread use so that we can generalize across sites. Fortunately, we have these. We have OpenID and OAuth for delegated login; we have XFN, other microformats and Portable Contacts for public and private people connections; we have Feeds and Activity Streams for translating social actions between sites.

This enabling social infrastructure means that we'll be able to have a new generation of sites that enhance our web experience through social filtering without our connections being centralised in a single company's database.

Once we get used to the experience of being able to delegate login, personal connections and activity updates, we'll look askance at developers who insist we create yet another profile and invite all our friends by email to experience their site; it'll be like a website without links.

iPad is the web made physical

2010-01-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

What I wanted from the iPad—a very high-pixel-density HD screen in a small device—didn't happen. But in the commentary of my techie colleagues like David, Alex and Tim, I'm seeing another disappointment. They're saying 'this isn't a computer like I grew up with'. It's not the generative machine that can be bent to our will to do anything, it's a display device.

Now this is true, but it reminds me of programmers complaining about the Web, as opposed to native applications. The Web is something that started out as a display medium, but is now the platform we all expect to build our applications on, precisely because it is an abstraction that comes between us and the particular hardware our users are running. The web is an agreement on how to phrase things.

The iPad picks up this agreement and delivers on it in a new form, but exceptionally well. When the iPhone was launched, I said that the web was the one standard even Steve Jobs can't ignore. This is reinforced by the iPad - it opens with web browsing, and the Book format adopted, ePub, is built on HTML.

I would prefer it if anyone could distribute native apps for the iPad, but we all can create websites.

The big difference the iPhone brought, and that the iPad builds on is the pervasive ability to zoom in and out easily. I think that this will lead to a change in how we think about user experience, with the deep zooming experience we are familar with from Google Maps and now Prezi becoming natural in more and more apps.

Audio, Video, HTML5 and standards

2010-01-26T18:13:00.000-08:00

The chaps at Mozilla, Christopher Blizzard and Robert O'Callahan reopened the HTML5 <audio> and <video> debate yesterday, with a spirited defence of their decision to support only the patent-unencumbered* Ogg format and Vorbis and Theora codecs in Firefox releases as part of their HTML5 support.

Now, I understand their motives here - back when I was at Apple, I spent a big chunk of time trying get permission to add support for Vorbis to QuickTime, but didn't manage to get it past Apple management's fears. However, all the browsers I use now claim to support HTML5 <audio> and <video>, so I thought I'd try it out. I made some simple test pages using mp3, .au and WAV files, to see how they were supported.

What I found was a bit disappointing - it seems that the way that the spec is written, you can support <audio> but no file formats or codecs at all (my Droid does this), and if you can't play the file you're not supposed to show the fallback HTML contents

This means that Firefox, Droid won't show the link to the audio file below:
Looking Up From Dystopia
though browsers that don't support <audio> at all will. Here's the markup:
<audio src="http://homepage.mac.com/kevinmarks/dystopia.mp3" controls><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/kevinmarks/dystopia.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> Looking Up From Dystopia </a></audio>

However, if I use a direct link or an embedded <iframe>, Firefox will use available plugins to play the file (both Flash and QuickTime happily play mp3's). Thus using <audio> give me less compatibility with current browsers.

On phone browsers, odder things happen - iPhone gives a clickable button for the <audio>, but auto-loads an <iframe>; Droid ignroes iFrames, Palm Pre doesn't have <audio> but <iframe> behaves like the iPhone.

Smarter behaviour with declarative audio would be nice here.

*Submarine patent trolls keeping periscopes down may exist.

Publics, Flow, Phatic, Tummeling and Out-groups - New Words You Need to Know to Understand the Web

2009-11-21T18:09:00.001-08:00

Kevin Marks
Originally uploaded by O'Reilly Conferences

Last week at Web2expo I gave a 10-minute keynote on the new vocabulary needed to understand where the web is going - most of this comes from sociology and anthropology. If you've been following my blog, you'll recognise this inculdes ideas from my Twitter in Theory post, from the Flow Past Web, from one on Digital Publics and of course from the Tummler post. Here's the video:

And here's the presentation, which uses Prezi's mindmap-as-presentation software:

We'll be Fruitful, Virile and Fertile, they can keep Viral

2009-11-02T14:22:00.000-08:00

This weekend, Adam Penenberg wrote a post at Techcrunch Let’s Kill “Viral”: It’s Time For a New Word in which, after being ridiculed by radio hosts over the title of his book 'The Viral Loop' he says:

The problem, I think, is the word “viral,” which comes from biology and was retrofitted to cover the phenomenon of word-of-mouth—or on the Web, so-called “word-of-mouse”—dissemination of ideas. I propose we kill it and replace it with something better.

Now this is a topic I've spoken and written about before, but I think Adam is missing the point again.

As I said then, if you behave like a disease, people develop an immune system. I don't think changing the name is enough - we need to change practice too. Viruses are exploitative - they hijack normal reproduction to propagate their genes at the expense of the host. This is an accurate metaphor for the kinds of scammy social applications that Mike Arrington described in his Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem Of Hell post this weekend, aimed at the same app developers I was talking to originally in 2008.

When I read Adam's interview with Caterina Fake it was obvious that Caterina's expert Tummling was key to Flickr's growth, and it didn't fit Adam's 'Viral' framing. Caterina says:

But a game built for adults, where communication could come more freely, would mean the social interactions would be much more fruitful.

They also have this exchange:

Penenberg: There's both a good and bad side to virality. Products with viral hooks that are so strong they coerce people to sign up--in order to achieve a huge initial viral rush--are obviously bad. Not only do they alienate users, they don't lead to a sustainable business. On the good side, you have organic growth, which comes as a natural byproduct of something that spreads simply because people like it--eBay, Hot or Not, and Flickr. I can't think of an antonym for it.
Fake: How about brute force growth?
Penenberg: That's good. Maybe we should trademark the term.

Clearly Adam is struggling with his stale metaphor here, trying to come up with better terminiology. When I mentioned this on twitter, Caterina responded with

Things on the internet grow fungally, not virally. The metaphor is completely wrong.

and

I was a former member of the SF Mycological Society. Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of mycelia, underground...

Which fits perfectly with my organic reproduction metaphors.

So lets keep the term 'viral' for explotatative applications that violate trust to reproduce against the interests of their hosts, and we can use organic terms like 'fruitful', or if we insist on alliterative euphony, 'virile videos', 'fertile films' and maybe even 'philoprogenitive photographs'.

Baron Mandelson and Magna Carta

2009-10-30T21:05:00.001-07:00

Almost 800 years ago in 1215, a group of Barons pinned King John down and got a written list of rights, some of which are still British Law. This week, by contrast, Baron Mandelson plans to revoke rights by government fiat. Lets compare. Magna Carta:

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.
(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
(61)[...]We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

The Digital Economy Bill is not so clearly written, but:

(1) This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that—
(a) a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner’s copyright by means of the service; or
(b) a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner’s copyright by means of the service.
(2) The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so.

Which sounds like it's 'own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it' to me.

124H Obligations to limit internet access
(1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—
(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under section 124G; or
(b) any other consideration.

Not 'lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land' or 'proportional' or 'assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood', just 'any other consideration' the Secretary of State feels like.

302A Power to amend Part 1 and this Part
(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend Part 1 or this Part for the purpose of preventing or reducing the infringement of copyright by means of the internet, if it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur.
[...]
(5) The power may be exercised so as to—
(a) confer a power or right or impose a duty on any person;
(b) modify or remove a power, right or duty of any person;
(c) require a person to pay fees.

Again, the Secretary of State can make anyone do anything, or pay anything, without due process, preserving livelihood, lawful judgment. It's the exact opposite of the 'anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished' being 'null and void and we will at no time make use of it' clause.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take the drafting of Geoffrey de Mandeville and the other 24 Barons from 1215 over Peter Mandelson and Sion Simon.

For a thorough legal discussion, read Lillian Edwards post, then sign the petition and join the Open Rights Group.

T-mobile's Contacts Roach Motel loses them all

2009-10-10T14:33:00.001-07:00

I've had a Sidekick since 2004 when I was at Technorati - it's great keyboard and integrated support for web, email, instant messaging and the built-in app store that meant I could add an SSH terminal was perfect for being on call to fix servers while commuting by train.
Another great innovation was storing all contacts, calendars, emails etc in the cloud, so upgrading phones—even to new models—meant that you just turned it on and it quickly synced up.
When I switched to Android last year, I kept the Sidekick contract (and my wife's) because the info was there. It didn't have an export option, and I put a 'write a GreaseMonkey export for t-mobile's website' on my to-do list, but never quite got to it.
Now, they say we've lost all of this data. The moral of the story is not to trust data Roach Motels that only import and don't export. Demand that your contacts store supports the Portable Contacts API, or at minimum vCard export. Check it today, before you lose yours.

in reference to:

"Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger's latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device - such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos - that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. That said, our teams continue to work around-the-clock in hopes of discovering some way to recover this information. However, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely low"
- Sidekick™ - T-Mobile Forums (view on Google Sidewiki)

Tummling, SideWiki, Twitter and the Tragedy of the Comments revisited

2009-09-27T17:27:00.001-07:00

Says Marshall Kirkpatrick in Twitter is More Likely to Be Meaningful Than TV

In one of those conversations, Kevin Marks (formerly of Technorati and Google, now at British Telecom) told me the following: he believes that Twitter is more likely to be interesting than television because we opt-in to particular streams of other peoples’ updates that we find interesting. That creates a positive feedback loop that encourages us to contribute something interesting in return and thus the ecosystem trends towards higher quality content. Do you agree with that?
Marks also said this was an advantage that Twitter and other opt-in subscription-stream formats have over things like YouTube comments. What of the “I don’t care what you ate for breakfast” critique of Twitter? Marks says that’s just people who have an antiquated view of what belongs “in public,” based on a time when content had to go through expensive publishing processes before being broadcast to the public and thus had to be unusually important to be worth it.

I had a great conversation about RealTime and attention with Marshall, but I think he has coalesced two separate thoughts of mine into one here, in an interesting way. I do find Twitter more interesting than TV, but I realise that may not be a common view.

The first point I was making was that 'realtime' is a mistaken emphasis - what is really interesting is the interplay between the formerly required-realtime technologies like radio/TV and telephony that are now able to be buffered, and the formerly delayed response media like writing, blogging, emailing that are now moving to lower-latency modes. I discussed this in The Flow Past Web

My second one was that the other thing that Twitter makes obvious is the value of semi-overlapping publics - that we all see a different web, and that the default assumption that everyone should read every comment on a forum is an idea that fails at scale too, as one troll or disruptive person can spoil everyone's reading - the Tragedy of the Comments.

Twitter's 'Following' model is powerful here for both its first-order and second-order effects.

The first order effect is that by default we see interesting and friendly comments from people we have chosen to follow, which makes us more likely to want to read on. That people favour and retweet and repeat what they find interesting helps us expand our circles of trust outward to new people.

The second-order effect is that as what we see is mostly interesting, funny, polite and so on, we respond in that vein too (assuming that is what we are reading; certainly there can be self-reinforcing intolerance too, but it is more contained).

Conversely, it is possible to have intelligent and thoughtful conversations in a public, read-everything space too, but for this to work there needs to be someone there setting the tone and establishing the norm - being a Tummler. This week Heather Gold, Deb Schultz and I piloted a show on Leo Laporte's podcast network called Tummel Talk about this important skill and phenomenon, with Jerry Michalski as our first guest. We'll be talking about the idea some more on Social Media Hour with Cathy Brooks on Tuesday 29th September

The skill of Tummling is important, and we need to hold it in mind as we build social tools on the web. Which brings me back to Google SideWiki.

At it's heart, SideWiki is yet another blogging tool, where the blogposts happen to be hosted on your Google profile page. However, as it is deployed inside Google Toolbar, you can see the posts attached to the pages that they are written about as you browse to them.

Google attempts to show the 'most important' comments first, using a combination of voting and other ranking algorithms, but it is still attempting to show everyone the same comment ordering, not taking personal 'following' into account. For SideWiki to succeed, I think this will need to change.

Sidewiki does another interesting thing - it matches comments to the same words elsewhere on the web. For example, my comment on Douglas Adams excellent 1999 piece also shows up in SideWiki on JP Rangiswami's blog where he quotes Douglas Adams too.

This hints at a greater possibility for SideWiki - to weave the web together by better by showing commentary across the web from all places that quote and cite each other, correlating by textual quotation and adding annotated links to the commentary from people we trust most.

This is a way Google could use it's scale of indexing to weave a better web for us to read, through our own chosen trusted sources, rather than funneling commentary into being hosted on its own pages.
(original Google Sidewiki comment)

In 1999, Douglas Adams got it right

2009-09-23T09:19:00.001-07:00

"How to stop worrying and love the internet" is a prescient essay on how the web has evolved since, because it gets to the heart of the transition back to interactivity from mass media. It touches on the nature of trust and how that is realised on the net, and how the net makes clear that the institutional shortcuts to trust no longer hold.
What we need is to connect what is said on the net to people. If we see a face next to a comment that we recognise, we can apply the trust models in our brain to it, which is far more subtle than anything a computer can decide for us, and is also unique to each of us.

in reference to:

"Because the Internet is so new we still don’t really understand what it is.
We mistake it for a type of publishing or broadcasting, because that’s what
we’re used to. So people complain that there’s a lot of rubbish online, or that
it’s dominated by Americans, or that you can’t necessarily trust what you read
on the web. Imagine trying to apply any of those criticisms to what you hear
on the telephone. Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web
anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or
in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why
is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do.
For some batty reason we turn off this natural scepticism when we see things
in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which
we can’t easily answer back – like newspapers, television or granite. Hence
‘carved in stone.’ What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we
read on the internet on trust – of course you can’t, it’s just people talking
– but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in
the newspapers or saw on the TV – a mistake that no one who has met an actual
journalist would ever make. One of the most important things you learn from
the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of
‘us’."
- DNA/How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet (view on Google Sidewiki)

Pear Analytics Study Missing the Phatic Wood for the Qualitatative Buckets

2009-08-16T23:49:00.000-07:00

A while back we embarked on a study that evolved after a having a debate in the office as to how people are using and consuming Analytics. Some felt it was their source of news and articles, others felt it was just a bunch of self-promotion with very few folks actually paying attention. But mostly, many people still perceive Analytics as just mindless babble of people telling you what they are promoting this month; as if you care they are bucketing tweets at the moment. (See our last post on Analytics: Is Anyone Paying Attention?).

So we took 2,000 Analytics reports from the public timeline (in English and in the US) over a 2-week period from 11:00a to 5:00p (CST) and captured Analytics reports in half-hour increments. Then we categorized them into 6 buckets:

News, Spam, Self-Promotion, Pointless Babble, Conversational and Pass-Along Value.
Results

The results were interesting. As you may have guessed, Pointless Babble won with 40.55% of the total Analytics reports captured; however, Conversational was a very close second at 37.55%, and Pass-Along Value was third (albeit a distant third) at 8.7% of the Analytics reports captured.

Conclusion

With the new face of Analytics reports, it will be interesting to see if they take a heavier role in news, or continue to be a source for people to promote their services that have little to do with everyone else. We will be conducting this same study every quarter to identify other trends in usage.

Since Analytics reports are still loaded with lots of babbling that not many of have time for, you should check out the Twitter filter, following people you trust, and linking to great blogposts.

How Twitter works in theory

2009-08-14T17:00:00.000-07:00

It is said that an economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders whether it works in theory. Twitter clearly works in practice - and if you want practical advice, watch Laura Fitton's Tech talk at Google, or read her Twitter for Dummies. I've learned a lot from talking to her and others about this phenomenon, and I wanted to write about some theories that help me understand it.

Flow

At it heart Twitter is a flow - it doesn't present an unread count of messages, just a list of recent ones, so you don't have email's inbox problem - the implicit pressure to turn bold things plain and get that unread number down. Instead, you can dip in and out of it, when you have time, and what you see is notes from people you care about.

Faces

Indeed, what you see are the faces of people you know with the notes they wrote next to them. This taps into deep mental structures that we all have to look for faces and associate the information we receive with people we decide to trust, through what we feel about them. This is also why automated tweets not by them are so obtrusive, as they break the trust. Using friends' faces in ads is even more pernicious, as ads are by definition recommendations from people we don't trust.

Phatic

The key to Twitter is that it is phatic - full of social gestures that are like apes grooming each other. Both Google and Twitter have little boxes for you to type into, but on Google you're looking for information, and expecting a machine response, whereas on Twitter you're declaring an emotion and expecting a human response. This is what leads to unintentionally ironic newspaper columns bemoaning public banality, because they miss that while you don't care what random strangers feel about their lunch, you do if its your friend on holiday in Pompeii. This is something it shares with Facebook and other social networks, but this brings me to another key difference, which is asymmetric connections.

Following

Historically, web fora were open to anyone, leading to the tragedy of the comments, where annoying people showed up and spoiled things.

Social network sites changed this by requiring mutual agreement on friendship, thereby making a natural in-group area where you only saw your friends' comments. This also created a venue for the phatic behaviour, but it was rather self-limiting, as you ended up with piles of friend requests from vaguely unfamiliar people that it feels rude to ignore, creating another inbox problem.

This is analogous to the pre-web hypertext systems that insisted every link would be bidirectional, thereby preventing the power-law distributed link structure that builds a small-world network to connect the web and provides the basis for Pagerank. Being able to link to something without it having to give you permission by linking back is what enabled the web to grow.

Making following asymmetric is similarly freeing for social relationships - it means you can follow authors or film stars without drowning them in friend requests, and get the same phatic sense of connection with them that you get from friends.

Publics

The idea of Following means that the natural view we see on Twitter is different for each of us, and is of those we have chosen to hear from. In effect we each have our own view of the web, our own public that we see and we address.

The subtlety is that the publics are semi-overlapping - not everyone we can see will hear us, as they don't necessarily follow us, and they may not dip into the stream in time to catch the evanescent ripples in the flow that our remark started. However, as our view is fo those we choose to follow, our emotional response is set by that, and we behave more civilly in return.

For those with Habermas's assumption of a single common public sphere this makes no sense - surely everyone should see everything that anyone says as part of the discussion? In fact this has never made sense, and in the past elaborate systems have been set up to ensure that only a few can speak, and only one person can speak at a time, because a speech-like, real-time discourse has been the foundational assumption.

Too often this worldview has been built into the default assumptions of communications online; we see it now with privileged speakers decrying the use of anonymity in the same tones as 19th century politicians defended hustings in rotten boroughs instead of secret ballots. Thus the tactics of shouting down debate in town halls show up as the baiting and trollery that make YouTube comments a byword for idiocy; when all hear the words of one, the conversation often decays.

Mutual media

The alternative model is one that is less familiar, yet is all around us - the spontaneous order that emerges from people communicating in parallel. We know this from market pricing, from scientific consensuses, and from human language, and are starting to see it harnessed in projects like Wikipedia that present a dynamic cultural consensus. What shows up in Twitter, in blogs and in the other ways we are connecting the loosely coupled web into flows is that by each reading whom we choose to and passing on some of it to others, we are each others media, we are the synapses in the global brain of the web of thought and conversation. Although we each only touch a local part of it, ideas can travel a long way.

Small world networks

This seems counter-intuitive too—we're used to the idea of having an institution tell us what is news—but that is really a left-over anomaly from 20th Century mass media. In fact, social connections are a small-world network, that has the Six Degrees property that it is both locally connected, but can be traversed globally in a small number of jumps. Although online social networks are often not good models of real world ones, they share this feature, and Twitter amplifies it with both a low propogation delay and the enforced brevity that makes both writing and reading rapid.

As we are working to generalise the ideas seen in Twitter and similar sites through the Activity Streams work, I find it helps me to think about these underlying theories.

The Flow Past Web: even better than the RealTime thing

2009-08-07T11:54:00.000-07:00

The 'RealTime Web' may be a name we are stuck with, but it is still a misleading one. Real-time software is a well-defined field where computing has to complete or fail cleanly by a deadline, because latency is paramount. A two-way phone conversation is an example - if the delay between parties exceeds a few hundred milliseconds, normal conversation becomes impossible, and people have to formally take turns. This is because a true verbal conversation is a flow state, where you are both engaged and responding.

With text, the latency requirement can be relaxed - historically conversations have been conducted by exchanges of letters with latencies in weeks. What's happening is that all kinds of media are having their latency domains expanded.

Technological constraints used to make buffering audio or video prohibitively expensive, so they only domain they could work in was real time, hence Telephony's interruptive call model, and Radio and Television's 'one way to many people at once' model. As storage has got cheap and ubiquitous, these give way to answerphones, TiVo's, iPods and YouTube.

At the same time, the latency of text has been moving the other way, from newspapers' and mail's daily cycles, to hours for webpages, minutes for blogs down to seconds for SMS, Twitter, Facebook and other activity streams. However, as audio and video have added persistence, text hasn't lost it - we do have the ability to review and catch up with the past of our flows, or to re-point people to older points in time, as well as marking out times in the future.

Text's natural parallelism means we are seeing new kinds of public flow states that we have become used to as private ones - hence the "Twitter is public IM" explanation; but the other addition needed to make this stable and not a cacophony is the semi-overlapping publics that mean we don't all see the same flow, but that it is mediated by the people we choose to pay attention to.

Much of the supposed 'Real-Time' web is enabled by the relaxation of realtime constraints in favour of the 'eventually consistent' model of data propagation. Google Wave, for example, enables simultaneous editing by relaxing the 'one person can edit at a time' rule in favour of reconciling simultaneous edits smoothly.

As Robert Hof says:

"Real-time" is actually a bit of a misnomer. Most of this activity doesn't truly occur in real time, the way talking on the phone does, and social gestures such as sharing links with friends are just as important a part of the appeal as immediacy

Instead, we should think about a web that flows past, a web where the flow is important, as well as its past. The Flow Past web.

Apple's fussyness shows the real platform - the web

2009-07-28T18:42:00.000-07:00

Recently, there have been public tussles between companies I used to work for. Apple has blocked Google's Latitude and Voice products from being in the iPhone App Store, for reasons they haven't disclosed, though it is speculated because they compete with built-in applications or carrier plans.

The iPhone App Store has gathered so much buzz recently, that it has obscured the underlying effect of the change that is happening due to the iPhone and its imitators. An iPhone is not so much a phone, as a good Web browser in your pocket that works everywhere. By incorporating the excellent Webkit browser, iPhone tipped the pocket net experience from email-like to fully web-like. As I said at its launch, even Steve Jobs can't ignore the Web.

As iPhones, iPods, Androids, Palm Pre Chrome, Safari and some Nokia phones now run Webkit browsers, the growing part of the Web browser usage is in a browser that supports HTML5 and the geolocation, video, vector graphics and local storage APIs that that implies. So Google Voice's website UI can work on iPhone, Android et al and make calls, as can other web applications that make calls.

The real platform that everyone can build on is still the web, and attempts to enclose or limit it will continue to fail. The Open Web Foundation, which I'm proud to be a member of, is working to keep this true and make it easier to grow new web standards and agreements.

Could Amazon deKindle returned books?

2009-07-28T01:04:00.000-07:00

When I buy a physical book from Amazon, they helpfully offer to sell it second-hand for me:

For Kindle editions, there is no First Sale Doctrine, and no physical book for me to resell, but they can make it go away and give me a refund. So how about Amazon learns from its newly-acquired Zappos's 365 day return policy and lets Kindle users return books they don't want? That could justify keeping the remote deletion feature on the Kindle.

Celebrities - social objects or fake friends?

2009-06-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

With the prominent celebrity deaths this week flooding our many publics, friends are pushing back. Doc writes:

obsessing about celebrity is unhealthy for the single reason that it is also unproductive. Celebrity is to mentality as smoking is to food. (I originally wrote “chewing gum” there, but I think smoking is the better analogy.) It is an unhealthy waste of time.

Mary responds:

Michael Jackson and other celebs are the replacement for that sort of seriously time consuming difficult religion, because media and post-modernism make it easy [...] If nothing is more important than the individual, but he/she needs to follow something bigger than the self [...] you have the perfect primordial soup to grow the MJ, etc worship replacing organized religion we see now.

I think there are two other components to this - celebrities function both as Jyri's Social Objects the cultural touchstones and shared ideas that we use to bridge our publics, as I have said:

The small number of highly-connected entities that fulfil the role of social objects are sometimes people. If you think about celebrities, they clearly fit- being able to discuss Brad and Jen and Angelina's latest shenanigans binds you in, and shows like American Idol are designed to draw on this need, giving the Faustian bargain of fame in exchange for objectification.

This week, research was published confirming this:

"The very experts who could kind of inform everyone else don't. They actually keep feeding them the information they already know because that helps establish a connection," Nathanael Fast says.
If this whole argument seems circular, that's the point. Prominent people stay popular for longer than they ought to because they serve as conversational fodder, which in turn drives more media coverage.
"Take Paris Hilton, somehow or another she became well known and now people are more likely to talk about her," Fast says.

This supports Duncan Watts's experimental work on self-feeding fame.

But there is another component to this as well - that we perceive celebrities as part of our social group - they take up one of the slots we have available for modelling and keeping track of other people. My first experience of this was when I worked at BBC Elstree, and said hi to some oldish chap I recognised in the corridor, later realising that he didn't know me at all - he was Arthur from EastEnders. (Now I've done a bit of public speaking this happens to me in reverse now and then - people who've seen me speak somewhere later on come and say hello, remembering it as a conversation). danah's classic Fakesters discussion touches on this too, with Friendster's symmetric Dunbar assumptions confounded by users wanting to connect through the famous; whereas MySpace and especially Twitter have embraced the fundamental asymmetry of who pays attention to whom in this way.

My take is that while Doc is right about the time-sink of celebrity for it's own sake, which may be an example of losing a useful person-slot to a synthetic creation. Mary's implication that there is a God-slot there is perhaps supported by Robert Wright's argument that the God as human-like role model can have good influences on us.

Certainly, being aware of our own choices of 'fake friends' to act as role models is likely to be better than having to choose them from a limited 20th century media model.

Farewell to Google

2009-06-22T11:59:00.000-07:00

I'm no longer working for Google. I had an interesting time there and worked on lots of fascinating projects with great colleagues, so this is a small look back at some of them.

My first taste of Google was to work on orkut, before starting the project now known as Google Profiles, which was first launched in Google Maps, and is now seen across Google and the wider web. I then worked on the engineering side of OpenSocial, before its launch. Realising that Google had thousands of engineers, but very few comfortable speaking in public, I became a Developer Advocate, working to bridge external and internal developers, explaining the Social web to Google and OpenSocial and more to the wider web community.

I've spent most of my time working on building and promoting open web standards, both inside the company and out. I helped launch the Social Graph API, promoted OAuth and OpenID, helped converge Portable Contacts with OpenSocial, and explained how the Open Stack fits together. I helped promote Microformats within Google and without and am very pleased to see them showing up in Rich Snippets in search. The Activity Streams effort continues this web-wide work to build social infrastructure to make the web more social.

I'll still be working on web standards through the groups above, the Open Web Foundation, the Open Rights Group, and more. Professionally, I'll be coding, writing and speaking on the social web via several new projects. I hope to see many of you this week when I'm talking to the SFAMA on Thursday night, and hosting the Microformats 4th Birthday party on Friday.

If you want to get hold of me, I'm kevinmarks on most social networks, domains and of course Twitter. Or just google me.

Faces call the trust code in our brains

2009-05-31T08:32:00.000-07:00

Brad and Dave have been writing about the power of faces in user experience, but are missing the reason they are so powerful. As I said in The Social Cloud, and stressed again last week at Ignite I/O, Douglas Adams got this right 10 years ago:

Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do.

Trying to model these trust relationships in the computer is fraught with hubris and failure, but what we can do is associate information with people, and display the information from people we know, with their pictures (and names) next to it. Then, our brains can apply the subtle modelling of trust relationships that they have evolved to do so well.
Making faces bigger onscreen lets us blend the two modes of computation smoothly, and filter and understand the world better through our nuanced understanding of trust.

Press Release Use Causes "Serious" Brain Damage, Media Expert Says

2009-05-14T07:21:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK, NY (MMD Newswire) May 13, 2009 -- Social media expert and author David Seaman claims that frequent Press Release use causes the "equivalent of brain damage".
"We're seeing thirty and forty year olds acting like overly emotional teenagers on MMD Newswire," Seaman said. "It's not all that healthy."

Press release use also takes complex ideas and boils them down into "overly simplistic soundbites" according to Seaman.

"Basically, press releases have some good uses, but they're making us all a bit stupider."

WSJ dubbed internet parasite by WSJ editor

2009-04-07T00:35:00.000-07:00

COMPANIES that publish mainstream people's interviews without paying a fee are the "parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet" and will soon be challenged, Robert Thomson, the Australian-born editor of The Wall Street Journal has warned.

Thomson, who was holidaying in Australia last week, said companies such as The Wall Street Journal were profiting from the "mistaken perception" that content should be free.

"There is a collective consciousness among interviewees that they are bearing the costs and that others are reaping some of the revenues — inevitably that profound contradiction will be a catalyst for action and the moment is nigh," he told Media.

"There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet."

Thomson, a former editor of The Times who was appointed editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of The Wall Street Journal last May, said consumers must understand why they were paying a premium for content.

"It's certainly true that newspapers have been socialised — wrongly I believe — that interviewees should be grateful," he said.

"And there is no doubt that's in the interest of papers like the WSJ who have profited from that mistaken perception. And they have little incentive to recognise the value they are trading on that's created by others."

Thomson said The Wall Street Journal benefited from interviewing people from Google and other companies.

"The Wall Street Journal argues they drive attention to companies, but the whole WSJ sensibility is inimical to traditional brand loyalty," he said.

"The Wall Street Journal encourages exclusivity — and shamelessly so — and therefore a significant proportion of their readers don't necessarily associate that comment with the interviewee.

"Therefore revenue that should be associated with the interviewee is not garnered."

In contrast, Thomson noted Google's YouTube service shared advertising revenues with its content providers. "The model is entirely different and certainly proper," he said.

Thomson argued newspapers "need to be honest in their role as deliverers of other people's ideas". And as those sites were exploiting the value of mainstream business thought, "we have to be at least as clever as they are in understanding the value of our own filler".

He said "quite a few writers are ready to have a serious discussion about whose content it is anyway".

Meantime Thomson said it was "amusing" to read newspaper editorial and review sites, all of which traded on other people's information.

"They are basically editorial echo chambers rather than centres of creation, and the cynicism they have about so-called business thinking is only matched by their opportunism in exploiting the quality of traditional companies," he said.

Thomson also said it was incumbent on content creators to make their own websites compelling for readers. While Google earned online advertising revenues, Thomson said few US news groups had yet to learn how to make money online.

"Papers should look at what their assets are -- is it their people? What is their role in any given society? And how do those assets play on the web? So how do we create an experience for readers using those assets which is clearly a premium experience?

"And if you think that through starting from first principles rather than from an existing business view, there are opportunities. But I'll leave it to others to figure out what they may be."

A load of Thunderer

2009-02-23T06:15:00.000-08:00

Feel the need to tell everyone everything what to think all of the time? Then a newspaper column is for you

Launched in 1821, The Sunday Times is the inescapable, old tech product. It boasts 1.2m readers — teeny compared to the BBC World Services's 183m — but its audience has slumped in the past year.

Right now, the Australia-based company that owns The Sunday Times is valued at $29billion, even though, in start-up argot, it is “pre-revenue”. Despite the big losses and the ennui swirling around his product, Murdoch (who also coined the term “Digger”) has admitted many are bewildered when they first encounter The Sunday Times. “We’ve heard time and time again: ‘I really don’t get it — why would anyone read it?’ ”

It’s a fair question. What kind of person shares opinion with the world the minute they get it? And just who are the “readers” willing to tune into this weekly news service of the ego?

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. “Being quoted in the Times stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would talk to them if they had a strong sense of identity.”

“We are the most narcissistic age ever,” agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. “Being quoted about something you don't use suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.”

For Alain de Botton, author of Status Anxiety and the forthcoming The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, the Sunday Times represents “a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive. It’s like when a parent goes into a child’s room to check the child is still breathing. It is a giant baby monitor.”

Is that why columns are often so breathtakingly mundane? Recently, the writer Giles Hattersley filed one saying: “unless my mother has been keeping a dark secret, I am not Roy Hattersley’s son” Who wants to tell the world that? “The primary fantasy for most people is that we can be as connected as we were in the womb, a situation of total closeness,” says de Botton. “When people who are very close are talking, they ‘witter away’: ‘It’s a bit dusty here’ or ‘There’s a squirrel in the garden.’ They don’t say, ‘What do you think of Descartes’s second treatise?’ It doesn’t matter what people say in their columns — it’s not the point.”

“Columns are really just a series of symbols,” says Lewis. “The person writing it just wants to be in the forefront of your mind, nothing more.” Which makes it very unappealing to marketeers.

“Reading a column is like a friend whispering something in your ear,” says de Botton. “We all want people to whisper secret messages to us. Children like to play ‘I have a secret to tell you’. It’s great fun, but what they say is often not very important.”

“To ‘publish’ someone is to have a fantasy of who this person you’re publishing is, and you use it as a map reference or signpost to guide your own life because you are lost,” says James. “I would guess that the typical profile of a ‘publisher’ is someone who is old and who feels marginalised, empty and pointless. They don’t have an inner life,” he says.

“It makes us look decrepit. And that is a high-status position in this society,” says de Botton. “Perhaps closeness is not always possible, or desirable. Being a rent-a-quote gives us another option. It says: I want to be in contact with you, but not too much. It’s the equivalent of sending a postcard.”

OpenSocial WeekendApps

2009-02-20T22:13:00.000-08:00

I spent the evening at the opening of the OpenSocial WeekendApps tonight, and gave the opening talk, a 15-minute summary of the State of OpenSocial. Here are my slides:

The event looks very full of energy, and I wish I could stay all weekend, but I'm off to BarCampMiami on Sunday.

Mark Cuban's Big Lie

2009-01-28T00:56:00.000-08:00

Mark Cuban assumes that Live Video - everyone forced to watch the same thing at once - is the goal. But Live TV is dead.
This is old media thinking writ large. People pay for products - Tivo, DVRs, iPods, TV series DVDs - that turn streams into files they can watch when they want to.
We've solved how to send video over the net many times already.

The rare cases where millions of people want to watch the same thing at once — Presidential Inaugurations or faux Gladiatorial contests like American Idol, the World Cup Final or the Superbowl — are great uses for broadcast TV or satellite, and lousy uses of the net. What works is watching the event with friends on IRC or Twitter or a social network, sharing comments. That's what you need to stream over the net with low latency.

Cuban is conveying the last gasp of the self-important TV broadcast mentality that dreams of intoning "here we are, live to the nation", and all we can do is listen. But we can all talk back in parallel now, and build our own narratives with our own publics. That's what the net is for. As Douglas Adams put it last century:

I expect that history will show ‘normal’ mainstream twentieth century media to be the aberration in all this.
‘Please, miss, you mean they could only just sit there and watch? They couldn’t do anything? Didn’t everybody feel terribly isolated or alienated or ignored?’
‘Yes, child, that’s why they all went mad. Before the Restoration.’
‘What was the Restoration again, please, miss?’
‘The end of the twentieth century, child. When we started to get interactivity back.’

Notes on Charlene Li's Future of Social Networks SF AMA talk

2009-01-23T16:18:00.000-08:00

Last night I went to an interesting talk by Charlene Li at the SF American Marketing Association -here are my twittered notes. See also, Charlene's slides.

says @charleneli: Theme is "social networks will be like air" - her better phrasing of my "Social Cloud" idea
says @charleneli: in future we'll say "wasn't it quaint that we had to go someplace to be with our friends"
says @charleneli: "I want Amazon to have a 'friend's reviews button on there - or anywhere else they could be"
says @charleneli: we'll have a feed of the presedential debates with our friends tweets on - like I did in 2004: http://bit.ly/IRCdebate
says @charleneli: universal login with OpenID lets you tie your IDs together, and sites can import friends from your networks
says @charleneli: I had to friend my co-author Josh 35 different times on different sites - Portable Contacts should save us from this pain
says @charleneli: Profiles where they are useful - eg LinkedIn profiles showing up in Lotus Notes via email
says @charleneli: your friends activities in context with GetGlue.com's plugin - Iron Man wikipedia page and IMDB page shows friends reviews
says @charleneli: 2 sets of standards exist Facebook's own protocols and the OpenStack backed by Google, MySpace, Plaxo, Yahoo and more
says @charleneli: advertising has evolved - content targetting for demographics; Search marketing for intent; behavioural targetting
says @charleneli: how many of you have gone to a social network site and remember seeing an Ad? or clicked on one?
says @charleneli: Who wants to be a fan of FiberOne on Facebook?
says @charleneli: people want to tell each other about things they care about - need new ads for this
says @charleneli: examples of new Ad types - branded virtual gifts, shown to you as your friends gave or received them
says @charleneli: SocialVibe has profile sponsorships that donate to your favourite charity eg colgate ad to leukemia
says @charleneli: the Tipping Point argued that there are influencers that can make a product go viral [I disagree see http://bit.ly/watts ]
says @charleneli: social graphs and interests, culture of sharing and online and email behaviour can create context for ads
says @charleneli: vendors who identify influencers include 33across, lotame, media6 degrees, unbound technologies
says @charleneli: network neighbourhood modelling in interesting - homophily is a good predictor for clusters - you are like your friends
says @charleneli: Google tracks who I email most - very useful to me: "In Google I Trust" http://bit.ly/BtvV
says @charleneli: Media6 identifies you by profiles you view on SNSs - shows ads to your friends based on your purchases
says @charleneli: Media6 gets 3-7x increase in response rates on banner ads through this homophilic targetting - no PII involved
says @charleneli: Influencer strategies are a misnomer, btu clustering works
says @charleneli: People will demand greater contol over when, where, how profiles + friends are used. Detailed permissions - a UX nightmare
says @charleneli: remember when people didn't trust callerID? Now if you turn it off, people won't take your call
says @charleneli: setting up lists of who can see your pictures is a pain - have to categorize people - reclassifying is hard
says @charleneli: there's a need to better articulate and detect sub-groups of friends so this is less of a chore
I pointed out the power of asymmetric friending eg http://bit.ly/publics and @charleneli and audience agreed that it reduces awkwardness
says @charleneli: people will pay real money for virtual gifts
[ChrisSaad @kevinmarks asymmetic is good, the term friending is not great. I prefer follow or subscribe ]
@ChrisSaad agreed "following" is a better term for this
Audience: when will people profit from us using their profiles? @charleneli says we all have our own CPMs
[clynetic @kevinmarks What is CPM?]
@clynetic CPM is marketingspeak for 'cost per thousand' - I suppose CPA ( cost per action) is better
says @charleneli: don't give up your social capital for short term gain me: don't be the Amway guy at the party
says @charleneli: behavioural targetting is often faulty, as behaviours change
says @charleneli: social media advertising experiments are waiting for turnaround
says @charleneli: GYM (Hotmail for M) will test social media integration with webmail
says @charleneli: Facebook Connect and Open Stack gaining traction with media co's
says @charleneli: Social shopping experiments start - we want our friends recommendations
says @charleneli: identify where social network data and content shoudl be integrated in your sites
says @charleneli: leverage existing identity and social graphs where your audience is
says @charleneli: get your privacy and permission policies aligned with an open strategy
says @charleneli: find your trust agents - in google I trust? do you trust facebook?
says @charleneli: the media buyers are still trying to buy demographics or content, not better targetting

Hold your breath while Googling to save the planet

2009-01-11T12:17:00.000-08:00

The Times and Telegraph have picked on some rather dubious stats on Google energy use:

a typical search generates about 7g of CO₂ Boiling a kettle generates about 15g

but

Wissner-Gross has also calculated the CO₂ emissions caused by individual use of the internet. His research indicates that viewing a simple web page generates about 0.02g of CO₂ per second. This rises tenfold to about 0.2g of CO₂ a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.

So client-side, a search costs 0.02g/s - to get to 7g you look at it for 350s, or nearly 6 minutes. But hang on:

A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy, puts the CO₂ emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not. Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g per hour, he says. of CO₂ Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes’ computer use).

He's using it for 15 minutes per search? That gives 0.01g/s, or half the other chap's estimate.

Google's data centre's are carbon neutral, so it is only the client end you do have to worry about. However, breathing generates about 6g of Carbon every 10 minutes. Or about as much as they estimate computers do.

So I suggest you hold your breath while you search Google, to offset your carbon use. As searches return in well under a second, whatever these newspapers say, this shouldn't be any hardship. Or search from your Android or iPhone instead.

Update: Urs Hölzle gives some actual figures for searches energy use

MacWorld wishlist

2009-01-06T02:25:00.000-08:00

John Gruber says "all Mac-related web sites must publish pre-Macworld Expo predictions regarding what Apple may announce at the show."

What I have is not so much predictions as an "I hope they've been thinking along the same lines I have" wishlist.

An HD or better laptop. 17" if you must, but I'd like a 15" or smaller. The iPod Nano has 204 pixels per inch and a beautiful display. A 1920x1200 screen at that density would be 7" diagonal, or at iPhone's 163 ppi it would be 8.8" - there's plenty of room. You could get the 30" display's 2560x1600 into a 13" screen at iPhone ppi.
Come to that, a 7" diagonal HD iPhone/ iPod Touch would be lovely too. Not just for video, but for reading the web and facing-page PDF's on. Give it Bluetooth keyboard support.
Obviously, a new Mac Mini. I have a big shiny Sony HD TV and I want a little Mac to drive it (are you getting the HD theme here yet?)
Separate out the phone crap. I don't like phones, and holding screens to my ear is daft anyway. Make the earpiece separate naturally. Come to that, negotiate me a data plan without a calling plan with your carrier buddies. Amazon did it for Kindle. And for goodness sake ship iChat for the handhelds. Put a camera on the top of the screen like the Macs all have.
Drop DRM already. For videos too. And HDCP.
Extend your lovely bluetooth keyboard to have a trackpad too. Make it work with iPhones and the new 7" HD iPod too.
one more thing - Phil Schiller, stop charging for QuickTime Pro. Admit the mistake you made ten years ago and make video editing natural again.

My twittered notes on the Leweb Social panel

2008-12-10T01:51:00.000-08:00

Platform Love: Getting Along - Panel 
Panelists: 
David Glazer - Director of Engineering, Google
Jeff Hansen - General Manager, Services Strategy/Live Mesh, Microsoft Corporation
Dave Morin -Senior Platform Manager, Facebook 
David Recordon - Open Platforms Tech Lead , SixApart
Max Engel, Head of Data Availability Initiative, MySpace

Moderator: Marc Canter - CEO, Broadband Mechanics

Watching the 3 Davids, Max, Marc and Jeff talk social at LeWeb
says Marc Canter 'open is the new black' - and asks about the Open Stack
says @daveman692 google, yahoo, microsoft all building on the open stack - won't FaceBook become the underdog when openness wins?
Canter suggets OpenID will be the brand that ties the Open stack together
max of MySpace "what we're doing with these standards is moving the web forward - when the web hits a roadblock it routes round it"
max of MySpace:"90% of our users think of themselves as URLs so OpenID is a natural fit for us"
Dave Glazer: the goal is to let users do anything they want to, with others, anywhere on the web. OpenID lets you log in anywhere
Dave Glazer: openSocial solves a different bit of the puzzle - JS APIs to run the same app in different social contexts REST APIs web to web
says @daveman692 the web is designed to be distributed, and the Open Stack fits this model
Jeff of Microsoft: live mesh is built on symmetric sync - supports Open Stack, OpenID shipping, OAuth looks good, support PortableContacts
Jeff of Microsfot: we're evaluating the OpenSocial gadget container
Marc canter "we're putting all our balls into ev williams vice"
Jeff: we offer lots of languages. Marc: lots of ways to put our balls in your vice
Max: we support OpenID, Oauth, OpenSocial but you can too
Marc: anything good for the Open Web is good for Google
Marc Canter wants a URL for each Gmail? DG: each one does have that, but only you can see it
Dave Glazer: there are 3 classes of information: Public, Private and Complicated - users should never be surprised by who can see what
says @davemorin facebook wants people to have a social context wherever they go
says @davemorin FaceBook had to create a Dynamic Privacy model for FB Connect @daveman692 calls shenanigans - LJ had those in 1999
asks @daveman692 of @davemorin why are you giving microsoft access to all our email addresses wihtout asking permission?
Max of MySpace - we've shown that security and openness work together by using OAuth, and can revoke them from in MySpace
Dave Glazer: need to separate the technical levers from the social customs. technology can't stop people putting your bizcard on the web
says @techcrunch "call bullshit on facebook" - broke integration with google. FB don't want an open stack, they may be forced into it
says @tommorris how can MS be on the panel after the debacle of Office OOXML which wasn't open or XML?
says @dave500hats could we get contacts with certain features eg tennis fans?
Dave Glazer: there's an open spec process to define new attributes in the spec - if you want to add one go and propose it

Cycling to new layers of freedom

2008-12-08T01:35:00.000-08:00

Dave Winer used the public beta of Google Friend Connect to reflect on tech industry cycles:

A new generation of young techies comes along, takes a look at the current stack, finds it too daunting (rightly so) and decides to start over from scratch. They find that they can make things happen that the previous generation couldn't cause they were so mired in the complexity of the systems they had built. The new systems become popular with "power users" -- people who yearn to overcome the limits of the previous generation. It's exhilirating! [...]
The trick in each cycle is to fight complexity, so the growth can keep going. But you can't keep it out, engineers like complexity, not just because it provides them job security, also because they really just like it. But once the stack gets too arcane, the next generation throws their hands up and says "We're not going to deal with that mess."

Now, I may be a few years behind Dave, but I think he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or the stack out with the cycle here. Back when I started out, to get my computer to generate sound, I had to make my own D to A converter to attach to the parallel port, and for non-character graphics, my hardware hacker friends swapped the character generator ROM for RAM, and I had to code in assembler to swap the display data in time.

Now my son thinks nothing of mixing 10 polyphonic Midi tracks in an afternoon or editing hi-def video (and yes, it's on an OS I helped to make capable of that).

Dave's revolutionary impulsiveness has a germ of truth, but what really happens is that successful technologies become invisible infrastructure for the next things that build on them.

I no longer need to write assembler, heck I no longer need to write C code. Dave's very URL - scripting.com - shows how we have built up layers of utility to work upon.

HTTP, HTML, JSON, Atom and Javascript are infrastructure now. Our deepest role as developers is to build the invisible infrastructure for the next generation to take for granted, so they imagine new abstractions atop that. Dave did it with feeds.

What we're doing with the Open Stack — OpenID, OAuth, PortableContacts and OpenSocial— is part of this evolutionary cycle too. We're combining building blocks into a simplified whole that makes sense to people who want their websites to become social.

It comes down to what you can take for granted as the baseline to build the next exciting cycle on.

OpenSocial’s birthday today

2008-11-13T15:57:00.001-08:00

OpenSocial Reach chart
Originally uploaded by Kevin Marks

Just over a year ago, we launched OpenSocial to the web, with a few example applications and a lot of potential. Now, a year on, over 600 million social network users can use OpenSocial applications in their preferred social network sites.
Then, applications had to be embedded in sites as gadgets, which makes the social context clear for users, but means developers have to write some Javascript, and can only run code when the user is looking at the site.
With OpenSocial 0.8 rolling out, the REST APIs mean that developers can integrate with social sites using server-side code directly, potentially delegating user registration, profiles and friend relationships to an already-trusted social site, and feeding activity updates back into them.
To do this, we are building an Open Stack, based on OpenID, XRDS-Simple, OAuth, PortableContacts and OpenSocial. By composing open standards in this way, we can make each one more valuable. The advantages of OpenID over email login in itself are not that obvious to users, but if the OpenID can be used to bring in your profile and contacts data - with your permission via OAuth - suddenly the added value is clear to users and developers alike. This connection was one of the exciting discussions at the Internet Identity Workshop this week - here's a video of myself, Steve Gillmor, David Recordon and Cliff Gerrish talking about it.

Missing the point of OpenID

2008-11-08T23:18:00.000-08:00

I'm puzzled by Dare's post on OpenID, as he is wilfully misunderstanding its advantages at each stage, and I know he's smarter than that. He gets it right that OpenID is a way to confirm that a user owns a URL, without the rigmarole required to do so for an email address.

However, the then uses his unmemorable Facebook URL http://www.facebook.com/p/Dare_Obasanjo/500050028 as an example, rather than any of the memorable ones he actually uses and people refer to, such as http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/ or http://carnage4life.spaces.live.com/ or http://twitter.com/Carnage4Life

DeWitt Clinton did an excellent job of clearing up some of Dare's other innaccuracies, but he then rhetorically exaggerated thus:

URLs make fantastic identifiers — for the 0.1% of the web population that understands that they “are” a URL. Fortunately, the other 99.9% of the world (our parents, for example) already understand that they have an email address.

This is missing the huge population of the online world (our children, for example) who consider email a messy noisy way to talk to old people, or to sign up to services when forced to, but are happy using their MySpace or Bebo or Hi5 or LiveJournal or Blogger or Twitter URLs to refer to themselves.
As I said in URLs are People Too:

The underlying thing that is wrong with an email address is that it's affordance is backwards - it enables people who have it to send things to you, but there's no reliable way to know that a message is from you. Conversely, URLs have the opposite default affordance- people can go look at them and see what you have said about yourself, and computers can go and visit them and discover other ways to interact with what you have published, or ask you permission for more.

Where I see OpenID providing a key advantage is in it's coupling with URL-based endpoints that provide more information and save the user time. The OpenID to PortableContacts connection as demonstrated by janrain can add your friends (with permission) from an OpenID login directly via OAuth.
This makes the OpenID login instantly more useful than an email one, and by connecting to an OpenSocial endpoint too, you can couple activities you take on the wider web with the site you trust to be a custodian of your profile and friends data, so your friends can discover what you are doing elsewhere, and come and join you.

I'm looking forward to talking through these issues at Internet Identity World next week in Mountain View.

Blogging's not dead, it's becoming like air

2008-11-07T22:15:00.000-08:00

One thing I learned at Technorati is that one sure-fire way to get linked to by bloggers is to write an article about blogging. Sure enough, The Economist and Nick Carr have, with their 'death of the blogosphere' articles, garnered a fair bit of linkage.

Their curious obsession with the Technorati Top 100 is missing what is really happening. As JP points out, the old blogging crew are still around, they're just blogging less that those paid to do so a dozen times a day. Not because they are less interested or engaged, but because there are now many new ways to do what we used blogs for back then.

In 2001, if we wanted to share brief thoughts, we used a blog; to link to others’ posts, we used a blog. If we wanted a group discussion, we made a group blog.

With Technorati, and trackback and pingback, we built tools to follow cross-blog conversations, and learned that we are each others’ media. As I wrote in 2004:

The great thing about weblogs is when you discover someone. Someone who makes sense to you, or someone who surprises you with a viewpoint you hadn't thought of. Once you have found them you can subscribe to their feeds and see how they can keep inspiring or surprising you.
You can even start a blog, link to them, and join the conversation

A year later I reiterated:

By tracking people linking to me or mentioning my name, Technorati helps me in this distributed asynchronous conversation (thats how I found Mike and Dave's comments, after all). However, as I've said before, "I can read your thoughts, as long as you write them down first". In order to be in the conversation, you need to be writing and linking. Perforce, this means that those who write and link more, and are written about and linked to more, are those who most see the utility of it.

What has happened since is that the practices of blogging have become reified into mainstream usage. Through social networks and Twitter and Reader shared items and Flickr and HuffDuffer and all the other nicely-focused gesture spreading tools we have, the practice of blogging, of mediating the world for each other, has become part of the fabric of the net.
This may be the first blogpost I've written since August, but the many digital publics I'm part of have been flowing media and friendly gestures to and from me all the time.

Social Disease, or making magic?

2008-08-04T00:11:00.000-07:00

Suw is musing thoughtfully on the overtones of describing something as ‘social’:

Monica thanked me for the explanation, saying that she was glad I had elaborated as she had thought, and I hope she forgives me for paraphrasing, that 'social software was something awful, like social workers'. That really made me think, and I haven't quite got to the end of where that throwaway comment has led me.
Is 'social' the problem with social software? Certainly in the UK, 'social' has some rather negative connotations: Social workers are often despised and derided as interfering, and often incompetent, busybodies. Social housing is where you put people at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap. Social sciences are the humanities trying to sound important by putting on sciency airs. Social climbers are people who know how to suck their way up the ladder. Social engineering is getting your way deviously, by using people's weaknesses against them. Social security is money you give people who can't be bother work for themselves. Socialism is an inherently flawed system that is prone to corruption. Social disease is venereal.

This reminds me of early in the Social Sofware story:

The SSA meeting was fairly chaotic - perhaps reflecting the diverse meanings of 'Social'. Clay Shirky did not show up (or if he did, did not speak up); Dave Winer later poured scorn on the efforts, implying it was all about social climbing.
Friedrich Hayek famously said that the word 'social' empties the noun it is applied to of their meaning. Hayek goes on:
...it has in fact become the most harmful instance of what, after Shakespeare's 'I can suck melancholy out of a song, as a weasel sucks eggs' ( As You Like It , II, 5), some Americans call a 'weasel word'. As a weasel is alleged to be able to empty an egg without leaving a visible sign, so can these words deprive of content any term to which they are prefixed while seemingly leaving them untouched. A weasel word is used to draw the teeth from a concept one is obliged to employ, but from which one wishes to eliminate all implications that challenge one's ideological premises.

Perhaps the problem is that the social realm is the realm of trust, so saying things are social is asserting "trust me". As Adam Gopnik writes on magic in the New Yorker:

But the Too Perfect theory has larger meanings, too. It reminds us that, whatever the context, the empathetic interchange between minds is satisfying only when it is “dynamic,” unfinished, unresolved. Friendships, flirtations, even love affairs depend, like magic tricks, on a constant exchange of incomplete but tantalizing information. We are always reducing the claim or raising the proof. The magician teaches us that romance lies in an unstable contest of minds that leaves us knowing it’s a trick but not which one it is, and being impressed by the other person’s ability to let the trickery go on.[...]
I saw, too, that David Blaine is absolutely sincere in his belief that the way forward for a young magician lies not in mastering the tricks but in mastering the mind of the modern age, with its relentless appetite for speed and for the sensational-dressed-as-the-real. And I thought I sensed in Swiss the urge to say what all of us would like to say—that traditions are not just encumbrances, that a novel is not news, that an essay is a different thing from an Internet rant, that techniques are the probity and ethic of magic, the real work. The crafts that we have mastered are, in part, the tricks that we have learned, and though we know how much knowledge the tricks enfold, still, tricks is what they are.

Open Source and Social Cloud Computing

2008-07-31T13:12:00.000-07:00

Tim O'Reilly has written an excellent review post on Open Source and Cloud Computing which says, among other things:

The interoperable internet should be the platform, not any one vendor's private preserve.
So here's my first piece of advice: if you care about open source for the cloud, build on services that are designed to be federated rather than centralized. Architecture trumps licensing any time.
But peer-to-peer architectures aren't as important as open standards and protocols. If services are required to interoperate, competition is preserved. Despite all Microsoft and Netscape's efforts to "own" the web during the browser wars, they failed because Apache held the line on open standards. This is why the Open Web Foundation, announced last week at OScon, is putting an important stake in the ground. It's not just open source software for the web that we need, but open standards that will ensure that dominant players still have to play nice.
The "internet operating system" that I'm hoping to see evolve over the next few years will require developers to move away from thinking of their applications as endpoints, and more as re-usable components. For example, why does every application have to try to recreate its own social network? Shouldn't social networking be a system service?
This isn't just a "moral" appeal, but strategic advice.[...]
A key test of whether an API is open is whether it is used to enable services that are not hosted by the API provider, and are distributed across the web.

I think this API openness test is not strong enough. As I wrote in An API is a bespoke suit, a standard is a t-shirt, for me the key test is that implementations can interoperate without knowing of each others' existence, let alone having to have a business relationship. That's when you have an open spec.

The other thing I resist in the idea of an internet operating system is that that the net is composable, not monolithic. You can swap in and implementations of different pieces, and combine different specs that solve one piece of the problem without having to be connected to everything else.

The original point of the cloud was a solved piece of the problem that means you don't have to worry about the internal implementation.

Thus, the answer to "shouldn't social networking be a system service?" is yes, it should be a Social Cloud. That's exactly what we are working on in OpenSocial.

Here Comes Everybody - Tummlers, Geishas, Animateurs and Chief Conversation Officers help us listen

2008-07-28T18:08:00.000-07:00

Bob Garfield's de haut en bas attack on web commenters upset two very skilled conversational catalysts, Ira Glass, and Derek Powazek. The false dichotomy of 'we choose who you get to hear' and 'total anarchic mob noise' was dismissed by Jack Lail too. At the same time, Ben Laurie explained how the IETF's open-to-all mailing lists can be hijacked by time-rich fools, talking about the Open Web Foundation.

At Supernova last month, listening to Clay Shirky talk about the problems of collective action reminded me of a small nit I have with his excellent book Here Comes Everybody (which you should all read). He talks about the deep changes that ridiculously easy group forming online has wrought, but he also explains that most of these groups fail, in various ways.

The key to this is finding people who play the role of conversational catalyst within a group, to welcome newcomers, rein in old hands and set the tone of the conversation so that it can become a community. Clay referred to Teresa Nielsen-Hayden, who is a great example of this, and I have had the privilege to discuss this with Teresa, Amy Muller,Christy Canida and others at the Troll Whispering session at Web2Open, and heard very similar stories from Gina Trapini, Annalee Newitz, Jessamyn West and Jeska Dzwigalski at The Users Are Revolting at SXSW.

The communities that fail, whether dying out from apathy or being overwhelmed by noise, are the ones that don't have someone there cherishing the conversation, setting the tone, creating a space to speak, and rapidly segregating those intent on damage. The big problem with have is that we don't have a English name for this role; they get called 'Moderators' (as Tom Coates thoroughly described) or 'Community Managers', and because when they're doing it right you see everyone's conversation, not their carefully crafted atmosphere, their role is often ignored.

In other languages there are words closer to this role - Suw and I thought of geisha a while back, whereas Teresa suggested the Yiddish Tummler - both Deb Schultz and Heather Gold liked that one. In French animateur has the broader connotations of discussion, leadership and guidance needed, but in English we are stuck with enervated latinate words like facilitator. Even an eloquent and charismatic presidential candidatehad a difficult time explaining what a 'Community Organizer' does, around the same time that Bartlett was resorting to card tricks.

Which brings me back to Clay's book - in it he gives an account of the #joiito chatroom that completely misses the rôle that JeannieCool played there, making her sound like a n00b. The software tool, jibot, that has helped keep that conversation going for 5 years, was built to support Jeannie's role as conversational catalyst. I do hope he gets a chance to correct this in the next edition.

The broader issue is one that we are still working on - building rules for who gets to speak where and when, re-imagining the historic model of a single hegemonic public record that print Journalism still aspires to, from its roots in the coffeeshops of London into the many parallel publics we see on the web, and how legal precedents designed for a monopoly of speech make no sense here.

In the meantime, if your newspaper, social media initiative or website isn't working right, you need to find your tummler, geisha, animateur or conversational catalyst, but you should consider giving them a big name title like 'Chief Conversation Officer'.

Shortening URLs, or getting inbetween?

2008-07-08T23:44:00.000-07:00

With the rise of short message systems like Twitter, there is a growth in URL shorteners (as each one's namespace gets full, others get shorter). Today bit.ly launched to big fanfare in the blogosphere.

I took a closer look. What I noticed is that the older generation of these - tinyurl.com and xrl.us use a 301 Moved Permanently redirect, whereas bit.ly and is.gd use a 302 Found redirect, which means 'don't cache the redirected URL, keep checking the original'.

In other words, these services are saying in their HTTP responses that they may change what the short URLs point to in future, putting browsers, indexers and caches on notice that this may happen.

I also noticed that bit.ly, like tinyurl.com, allows you to pick a custom label from their namespace, but if you do it returns two 302 redirects in sequence (once to a more cryptic bit.ly url, then to the external one you chose). I pointed bit.ly/k at this blog, so you can check it yourself with curl:

$ curl --head http://bit.ly/k
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://bit.ly/fwNKA

$ curl --head http://bit.ly/fwNKA
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://epeus.blogspot.com

Apart from the extra delay this introduces, this is also telling your browser and web crawlers not to cache this, as they may change it in future. Compare tinyurl.com:

$ curl --head http://tinyurl.com/kevinm
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://epeus.blogspot.com

Google's advice for webmasters is to use 301 for redirects, as this signals the preferred URL.

Google as a restaurant? Watch Gordon Ramsay

2008-06-30T14:03:00.000-07:00

Jeff Jarvis says he's writing a metaphorical application of Google principles to running a restaurant. Over the last few weekends, while sorting out stuff at home, I've been watching Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares which BBC America seems to be playing continuously at weekends. If you haven't seen it, do watch some - each episode, Ramsay spends a week at a failing restaurant in the UK and tries to help them turn it around.

After seeing a few, there are recurrent themes that Ramsay comes up with: simple menus, built on good ingredients that local people understand, served promptly. Which fits well with Google's ten things - simple frontend, low latency results, user-focused. How he tries these out involve analogues for user testing, A/B experiments, and profiling under high load.

Of course, Google does run restaurants - so Jeff can read how they get built and tested directly.

I'm with the stupid network

2008-06-14T09:31:00.001-07:00

I'm with the Stupid network
Originally uploaded by Kevin Marks

I'm looking forward to the Supernova conference next week, because Kevin Werbach always brings together an interesting group of people who care about the Internet and its future. We don't all agree on everything, which makes for some interesting debates, but we do tend to back the Open Web and the Stupid Network. It was the tenth anniversary of David Isenberg's 'Rise of the Stupid Network' paper this week, so I came up with this t-shirt design idea.

How not to be viral

2008-06-08T23:49:00.000-07:00

Graphing Social Patterns East is on tomorrow, and I'm sorry not to be there, though m'colleague Patrick Chanezon will be. However, reading the schedule I notice the word 'viral' is still much in evidence.

If you behave like a disease, people develop an immune system

At the Facebook developer Garage last week, I heard a developer say: when I hear 'viral' applied to software I replace it with 'cancerous' to clarify. A few months back I wrote that social Apps should be Organic, not Viral, and at Google I/O last week I expanded on this with m'colleagues Vivian Li and Chris Schalk. Here's an overview of the alternative reproductive strategies to being a virus that we came up with:

r-Strategy - scatter lots of seeds

Break free
Originally uploaded by aussiegall

Some plants and animals, like dandelions and frogs, rely on having huge numbers of offspring, with the hope that a few of them will survive - this is known as an r strategy. In application terms this is like wildly sending out invitations, or forcing users to invite their friends before showing them useful information. It may help you spread your seed, but most of them will die off rapidly.

K-Strategy - nurture your young

Proud mama
Originally uploaded by debschultz

Mammals take the opposite strategy; they have a few young, and nurture them carefully, expecting most of them to grow up to adulthood and reproduce themselves. This is known as a K strategy. This translates into software by following Kathy Sierra's principles to create passionate users who will share your application through word of mouth. Another way to nurture your users is to encourage them to use your application before they have to install it, as Jonathan Terleski describes.

Fruiting - delicious with a seed in

help yourself
Originally uploaded by *madalena-pestana*

Many plants encourage their seeds to be spread more widely by wrapping them in fruit, so that animals or birds will carry them further, eating the fruit and helping the seed to propagate. The analogy here is in making sure your invitations aren't just bald come-ons for your application "a friend said something - click here to find out what" - with a forced install on the way, but instead are clearly bearing gifts to the receiving user, so they will want to click on the link after seeing what is in store. This is one of Jyri Engström's principles for Web 2.0 success with Social Objects.

Rhizomatic - grow from the roots up

Sweetness / Dolcezza
Originally uploaded by WTL photos

Another reproductive strategy that many plants, including strawberries and ginger use is to send out runners or shoots from the roots, so that they spread out sideways, from the bottom up, known as rhizomes or stolons. The analogy here is for social applications that spread through appearing in users activity streams and via entries in application directories, growing outwards through the 'grass roots' runners that they send out as part of their normal usage.

Being dumb gets low CPMs

A lot of the debate around viral applications reminds me of a David Foster Wallace quotation:

TV is not vulgar and prurient and dumb because the people who compose the audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests.

Social networks aren't like TV - everyone sees something different in them. If you want to gather engaged, inspired, interested and indeed valued users, write an application that speaks to their refined and aesthetic and noble interests, and see how they will spread it through their social networks to find the others who share their interests.

It was interesting to see Slide redirecting away from virality today. GSP West was on at the same time and place as eTech, and I heard some eTechies refer to it as 'Grasping Social Parasites'; I hope that the growing realisation that a disease is not a good model to base your business on means that tomorrows conference will spread a better reputation for GSP East.

Miasma theory - wrong in the 1840s, wrong now

2008-05-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago I wrote:

My generation draws the Internet as a cloud that connects everyone; the younger generation experiences it as oxygen that supports their digital lives. The old generation sees this as a poisonous gas that has leaked out of their pipes, and they want to seal it up again.

Bill Thompson and Nick Carr are worried about governments interfering too:

In the real world national borders, commercial rivalries and political imperatives all come into play, turning the cloud into a miasma as heavy with menace as the fog over the Grimpen Mire that concealed the Hound of the Baskervilles in Arthur Conan Doyle's story.

Except, if you have read or listened to Steven Johnson's excellent The Ghost Map, you'll know that the miasma theory of disease was a fatal error for urban England in the 1840s - the real problem was not the bad smells in the air, but the diseases in the water. The fault, dear governments, lies not in our clouds but in your pipes.

An API is a bespoke suit, a standard is a t-shirt

2008-05-26T17:51:00.000-07:00

Brad is calling for APIs, and even the NYT is proposing one, but there is a problem with APIs that goes beyond Dave's concern about availability.

When a site designs an API, what they usually do is take their internal data model and expose every nook and cranny in it in great detail. Obviously, this fits their view of the world, or they wouldn't have built it that way, so they want to share this with everyone. In one way this is like the form-fitting lycra that weekend cyclists are so enamoured of, but working with such APIs is like being a bespoke tailor - you have to measure them carefully, and cut your code exactly right to fit in with their shapes, and the effort is the same for every site you have to deal with (you get more skilled at it over time, but it is a craft nonetheless).

Conversely, when a site adopts a standard format for expressing their data, or how to interact with it, you can put your code together once, try it out on some conformance tests, and be sure it will work across a wide range of different sites - it's like designing a t-shirt for threadless instead.

Putting together such standards, like HTML5, OpenID, OAuth or OpenSocial or, for Dave's example of reviews, hReview, takes more thought and reflection than just replicating your own internal data structures, but the payoff is that implementations can interoperate without knowing of each others' existence, let alone having to have a business relationship.

I had this experience at work recently, when the developers of the Korean Social network idtail visited. I was expecting to talk to them about implementing OpenSocial on their site, but they said they had already implemented an OpenSocial container and apps using OpenID login, and built their own developer site for Korean OpenSocial developers from reading the specification docs.

I'm looking forward to more 'aha' moments like that this week at I/O.

Talking about OpenSocial all over the place

2008-05-07T12:26:00.000-07:00

I've been travelling a lot to conferences in recent months, and been interviewed by a lot of different journalists too. Here are a few links to them.

For more in-depth details on OpenSocial, come along to Google I/O on May 28th-29th in San Francisco

Portable Apps, not data?

2008-05-06T02:30:00.000-07:00

Brad Templeton has a post on Data Hosting not Data Portability that fits in neatly with the VRM proposal I discussed yesterday. In fact, what he describes is a great fit for OpenSocial.

He says:

Your data host’s job is to perform actions on your data. Rather than giving copies of your data out to a thousand companies (the Facebook and Data Portability approach) you host the data and perform actions on it, programmed by those companies who are developing useful social applications.

Which is exactly what an OpenSocial container does - mediate access to personal and friend data for 3rd party applications.

This environment has complete access to the data, and can do anything with it that you want to authorize. The developers provide little applets which run on your data host and provide the functionality. Inside the virtual machine is a Capability-based security environment which precisely controls what the applets can see and do with it.

This maps exactly on to Caja, the capability-based Javascript security model that is being used in OpenSocial.

Your database would store your own personal data, and the data your connections have decided to reveal to you. In addition, you would subscribe to a feed of changes from all friends on their data. This allows applications that just run on your immediate social network to run entirely in the data hosting server.

Again, a good match for OpenSocial's Activity Streams (and don't forget persistent app data on the server).

Currently, everybody is copying your data, just as a matter of course. That’s the default. They would have to work very hard not to keep a copy. In the data hosting model, they would have to work extra hard, and maliciously, and in violation of contract, to make a copy of your data. Changing it from implicit to overt act can make all the difference.

The situation is worse than that; asking people for their logins to other sites is widespread and dangerous. I'd hope Brad would support OAuth as a step along the way to his more secure model - especially combined with the REST APIs that are part of OpenSocial 0.8

If you're interested in these aspects of OpenSocial, do join in the linked mailing lists, and come along to the OpenSocial Summit on May 14th (just down the road from IIW).

Mixing degrees of publicness in HTTP

2008-05-05T15:26:00.000-07:00

At the Data Sharing Workshop the other day, we had a discussion about how to combine OAuth and Feeds, which I was reminded of by Tim Bray's discussion of Adriana and Alec's VRM proposal today.
The session was tersely summarized here, but let me recap the problem.

When you are browsing the web, you often encounter pages that show different things depending on who you are, such as blog, wikis, webmail or even banking sites. They do this by getting you to log in, and then using a client-side cookie to save you the bother of doing that every time. When you want to give a site access to another one's data (for example when letting Flickr check your Google Contacts for friends), you need to give it a URL to look things up at.

The easy case is public data - then the site can just fetch it, or use a service that caches public data from several places, like the Social Graph API. This is like a normal webpage, which is the same for everyone, returning a HTTP 200 response with the data.

The other common case is where the data is private. OAuth is a great way for you to delegate access to a web service for someone else, which is done by returning an HTTP 401 response with a WWW-Authenticate: OAuth header showing that authentication is needed. If the fetching site sends a valid Authorization header, it can have access to the data.

The tricky case is where there is useful data that can be returned to anyone with a 200, but additional information could be supplied to a caller with authentication (think of this like the social network case, where friends get to see your home phone number and address, but strangers just get your hometown). In this case, returning a 401 would be incorrect,as there is useful data there.

What struck me was that in this case, the server could return a 200, but include a WWW-Authenticate: OAuth header to indicate that more information is available if you authenticate correctly. This seems the minimal change that could support this duality, and much easier than requiring and signalling separate authenticated and unauthenticated endpoints through a HTML-level discovery model, or, worse, adding a new response to HTTP. What I'd like to know from people with deeper HTTP experience than me is whether this is viable, and is it likely to be benign for existing clients — will they choke on a 200 with a WWW-Authenticate header?

HTTP does have a 203 response meaning Non-Authoritative Data, but I suspect returning that is more likely to have side effects.

Digital publics, Conversations and Twitter

2008-04-29T02:13:00.000-07:00

Last week, I left the Web 2.0 conference to listen to Mimi Ito, danah boyd and their colleagues talk about their research on Digital Publics.

Now if you haven't been paying attention, that plural of 'public' there may throw you. Surely things are either 'public' or 'private'? As danah explains:

Just as context is destabilized through networked publics, so is the meaning of public and private. What I learned from talked to teens is that they are living in a world where things are "public by default, private when necessary." Teens see public acts amongst peers as being key to status. Writing a public message to someone on their wall is a way of validating them amongst their peers. Likewise, teens make choices to go private to avoid humiliating one of their friends.
Yet, their idea of public is not about all people across all space and all time. They want publics of peers, not publics where creeps and parents lurk.
Bly Lauritano-Werner (17, Maine):
My mom always uses the excuse about the internet being 'public' when she defends herself. It's not like I do anything to be ashamed of, but a girl needs her privacy. I do online journals so I can communicate with my friends. Not so my mother could catch up on the latest gossip of my life.
Properties of technology have complicated what it means to be in public. We are all used to being in publics that don't include all people across all space and all time. Many of us grew up gossiping with friends out in public and stopping the moment that an adult walks over. This isn't possible when things are persistent. And it's really hard to be public to all peers and just keep certain people out. So teens are learning how to negotiate a world where the very meaning of public and private have changed. Again, this is a good thing. They're going to need these skills in the future.

The day before, at Web2Open, I had heard something similar in the Troll Whispering session. Christy Canida explained that when someone posts something trollish or otherwise dubious on her site, they get put in a state where only they can see their posts, but no-one else can (except Christy and the other conversation monitors). This damps down the flame responses until Christy and co have time to review, and maybe release them, but in their view the post is on the site, but no-one is responding.

This varying view of the web, depending on who you are, seems odd at first, but it is in fact a recognition in code of what actually exists in human attention. We don't all read the same web, we see our own reflections in what we seek through searches or filtered by our homophily-led reading.

Which is where Twitter comes in. Like Jeff, I've been twittering more than blogging recently, and while immediacy is part of it, a far stronger thing is that I have a sense of public there - a public of people I choose to follow and who chose to follow me. Everyone who uses Twitter sees a different, semi-overlapping public, which maps closer to our individual idea of the digital public we are speaking to, and listening to; one that maps more closely what the socialogist and theorists have been describing for a while.

Comcast's Bialystock and Bloom Business Model?

2008-04-16T23:02:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, the FCC is holding a public hearing at Stanford on Broadband network management practices. With striking timing, Comcast today managed to announce a 'Internet Bill of Rights' without inviting any users, and simultaneously cut off Dave Winer's net connection for exceeding their secret usage limits. I can't link to Comcast's policy because their website mungs the text in via javascript - here's what they say:

Excessive use means data usage that is not characteristic of a typical residential user of the service as determined by Comcast.[...]Comcast currently identifies well less than 1% of Comcast High-Speed Internet customers as excessive users each month. [...]Many excessive users consume more data than a business-class T1 line running at full capacity in a month. [T1 is 1.5 Mbit/sec - Comcast claims to offer 12 Mbit/sec for PowerBoost, and 6/8 Mbit/sec standard] [...] Currently, each month Comcast identifies the top bandwidth users of its High-Speed Internet service by determining aggregate data usage across its entire customer base nationwide.

What they are saying is that they use a crude averaging model, and penalize you if you don't fit, for example by using the connection capacity they promise more than 10% of the time. Now, this could be called Procrustean, but it reminds me of The Producers, where Bialystock and Bloom sold a hundred people 10% shares of the show, assuming it would fail. Sadly for Comcast, people like Dave are finding new uses for the net's bandwidth, and not just checking email sporadically any more.

Conventional internet service user models are based on users downloading more then they upload, from common big media sites that can be easily cached. However, as Odlyzko pointed out, citing Lesk's now decade-old work, the dominant form of data creation is photographs. Now all these photographs are actually digital, and we want to share them so others can see them. Because we aren't allowed to run our own servers by the likes of Comcast, we have to upload them to Flickr or Photobucket or Picasa to share them. This gives us an 'upload more than you download' network flow, as we send them up at full multi-megapixel resolution, but browse a few of each others' at thumbnail or reduced size. And that's before we even consider video uploading (which I've noticed Comcast throttles at 0.4 Mbit/sec for me).

Comcast hit the news before by sabotaging Bittorrent transfers by faking reset packets, but what Bittorrent is really doing is arbitraging around the asymmetric network bandwidth delivered by these outdated user models.

Bob Briscoe recently wrote an interesting proposal on handling congestion by TCP signalling to reveal the costs of congestion. This was spun by George Ou as an attack on P2P protocols, but the underlying principle of penalising those who cause congestion is an interesting one. The question I'd like answered is that if I have a gigabit network at home, and the internet backbone is multi-terabit, when Comcast throttles my uploads to 400 kilobits, aren't they the ones causing the congestion?

Be Organic, not Viral

2008-02-19T22:44:00.000-08:00

I just got back from the VLAB Multi-platform Social Networking event, which I thought was very interesting overall. Jeremiah Owyang did a great moderating job, and Jia Shen, Sourabh Niyogi, Ken Gullicksen and Steve Cohen brought lots of different viewpoints to the discussion. Growing and deriving value from Apps within Social Networks is still full of lots of unknowns, but it was good to hear some basic shared principles come through - my summary of one point was 'before you think about a Business Model, make sure you have a Pleasure Model'.

Another point well made by Steve Cohen of Bebo was something I've been thinking for a while too - the hunger for 'Viral' growth is a mistake - what you really need is 'Organic' growth. Just as we distinguish between Organic search results and bought or spammed ones, social network sites and their users are distinguishing between the viral apps that are essentially parasitic, using their hosts as a means to their propagation, and the ones that organically become part of the social ecology, making both the site and the users richer by their presence.
I spent the last weekend fighting off a flu virus, partly by eating lots of organic fruit. I expect social networks and their users will continue to do the same.

The Social Cloud

2008-02-11T05:11:00.000-08:00

My talk from LIFT is here for you to watch below (20mins, needs flash):

The others are up at the LIFT Video site

LIFT Conference starts

2008-02-07T00:33:00.001-08:00

Geneva Sunrise
Originally uploaded by Kevin Marks

I'm in Geneva for the LIFT conference, watching Bruce Sterling riff on Carla Sarkozy as a black swan. The photo is what the sunrise looked like over the Alps at breakfast.

Sheet music redux

2008-01-26T01:43:00.001-08:00

I've long been involved with amateur theater and music performance (my boys are performing in a Schumann recital tomorrow with the rest of their piano teacher's pupils), and I grew up seeing double bass cases plastered with Musicians' Union "Keep Music Live" stickers around the place, but I always thought this was a luddite rearguard action against the tide of recorded media that began flowing about a century ago.
But this week, the news was that Rock Band had sold 2.5 million downloaded songs for you to play along with (it comes with 58).
Having researched this thoroughly with my boys, the fun of this game is more in the playing than the listening — the 'guitar' playing is clearly simplified, though the drumming is pretty close to reality, and the less said about my 'singing' the better.
Looking at this in the longer view, it can be seen as the return of sheet music in a new form; before recordings took over, sheet music sold for amateur performers was the dominant form. Here's Douglas Adams again:

during this century we have for the first time been dominated by non-interactive forms of entertainment: cinema, radio, recorded music and television. Before they came along all entertainment was interactive: theatre, music, sport – the performers and audience were there together, and even a respectfully silent audience exerted a powerful shaping presence on the unfolding of whatever drama they were there for. We didn’t need a special word for interactivity in the same way that we don’t (yet) need a special word for people with only one head.

I expect that history will show ‘normal’ mainstream twentieth century media to be the aberration in all this. ‘Please, miss, you mean they could only just sit there and watch? They couldn’t do anything? Didn’t everybody feel terribly isolated or alienated or ignored?’

‘Yes, child, that’s why they all went mad. Before the Restoration.’

‘What was the Restoration again, please, miss?’

‘The end of the twentieth century, child. When we started to get interactivity back.’

Fear of the new - the Internet, Tea, and MapReduce

2008-01-18T12:20:00.000-08:00

Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 said:

“Al-Qa’eda has prospered and as it were regrouped largely because of the energy and effort it has put into its propaganda, largely through the internet.”
Sir Richard added that the internet had become the main channel for “radicalisation” and coordination between al-Qa’eda cells. He said: “In dealing with this problem, there is no alternative to imposing significant controls over the internet.”

This is what I call the "cup of tea" problem, after Douglas Adams:

Newsreaders still feel it is worth a special and rather worrying mention if, for instance, a crime was planned by people 'over the Internet.' They don't bother to mention when criminals use the telephone or the M4, or discuss their dastardly plans 'over a cup of tea,' though each of these was new and controversial in their day.

Some people have been surprised that tea was controversial, but William Cobbett's 1822 'The evils of tea (and the virtues of beer)' had this to say:

It must be evident to everyone, that the practice of tea drinking, must rended the frame feeble and unfit to encounter hard labour or severe weather, while, as I have shown, it deducts from the means of replenishing the belly and covering the back. Hence, succeeds a softness, an effeminacy, a seeking for the fireside, a lurking in the bed, and in short, all the characteristics of idleness, for which, in this case, real want of strength furnishes an apology. The tea drinking fills the public-houses, makes the frequenting of it habitual, corrupts boys as soon they are able to move from home, and does little less for the girls, to whom the gossip of the tea-table is no bad preparatory school for the brothel. At the very least, it teaches them idleness.

Which brings me to the attack on MapReduce today, which spectacularly misses the point by attacking a programming technique for not being a database and contains the striking line:

Given the experimental evaluations to date, we have serious doubts about how well MapReduce applications can scale.

(MapReduce is what Google uses to run complex data-manipulation problems on lots of computers in parallel to do things that databases fail at, like building an index for all the webpages it has found, or rendering map tiles for everywhere on earth in Google maps).

OpenSocial Hackathon next week in SF

2008-01-09T00:59:00.000-08:00

OpenSocial Hackathon hosted by Six Apart

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:00 PM - 11:00 PM

Six Apart 548 4th St,San Francisco, California

Find out the latest news about OpenSocial's 0.6 release and what Shindig and Cajoling can do for your next web application
Work with developers of OpenSocial Social Networks to get your applications up and running.
What to bring:

Your laptop
Your web application code or your social networking idea

What we provide:

Wifi and power
Help getting into OpenSocial 0.6 sandboxe
Developers from at least Google, MySpace, Hi5, Plaxo, and Six Apart
and don't forget pizza!

Hosted at Six Apart's 4th street offices, it's a short walk from Caltrain and indeed the Macworld Expo.
Six Apart's post
RSVP at Upcoming

Identity Theft is not a crime

2008-01-07T23:47:00.000-08:00

Fraud however, is.

Jeremy Clarkson scoffed at the UK Government data leak debacle, and published his bank details in The Sun:

"All you'll be able to do with them is put money into my account. Not take it out. Honestly, I've never known such a palaver about nothing," he told readers.

But he was proved wrong, as the 47-year-old wrote in his Sunday Times column.

"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he said.

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.

"I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake."

Police were called in to search for the two discs, which contained the entire database of child benefit claimants and apparently got lost in the post in October 2007.

They were posted from HM Revenue and Customs offices in Tyne and Wear, but never turned up at their destination - the National Audit Office.

The loss, which led to an apology from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, created fears of identity fraud.

Clarkson now says of the case: "Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."

I'm amazed that the normally combative Clarkson has accepted this feeble excuse from his bank, when they have just handed out a huge sum of his money to someone else against his wishes, revealing that they are failing in their primary purpose of keeping money safely.

That their security process can fail spectacularly in this way, enabling fraudsters to siphon off money, is sadly all too common.

What is notable is that the banks have spent enormous sums of money promoting the concept of 'identity theft' through clever TV adverts, diverting their customers' attention from their security cock-ups, despite the fact that they are liable for the fraudulently dispersed funds. I don't understand why the banks continue to use "mothers maiden name" as default password, and enable debits this way, then hide behind data protection legislation when their error is pointed out. Clarkson should be railing at the idiots at his bank, too.

Update:

Thanks to Kerry Buckley in the comments for this excellent comedy sketch that sums it up perfectly:

memes, dreams and themes

2008-01-03T23:30:00.000-08:00

Cameo pointed me at this dada album cover meme today:

The first article title on the Wikipedia Random Articles page is the name of your band.

The last four words of the very last quotation on the Random Quotations page is the title of your album.

The third picture in Flickr's Interesting Photos From The Last 7 Days will be your album cover.

Use your graphics programme of choice to throw them together, and post the result.

I got the following via this flickr image (which I hope counts as fair use - Suw uses CC images instead)

I just found out via Twitter that my colleague from (mumble mumble) years ago, Nikki Barton, has a blog; she's wise - read her.

Rosie asked me "Was there a Solar eclipse in Yorkshire in 1967?" - the answer was No, but I found this great NASA site, which reminded me of my Astronomy tutor at Cambridge from 1987, who at the time had booked a hotel in Cornwall for the 1999 total eclipse (I hope the clouds lifted for him). I'm re-reading Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle at the moment, so I am tickled that I can look up an astronomical ephemeris this easily.

Finally, the Edge question this year is What have you changed your mind about? - a lot of food for thought there.

URLs are people too

2008-01-02T23:22:00.000-08:00

There is an assumption buried in the collective mind of developers that is hard to remove, and it is that people are best represented by email addresses. Go to almost any website to sign-up, and you are prompted for an email address and password. Signing up usually involves digging out the site's reply from your spam folder and clicking on a link to get confirmed, then giving it a password. Sometimes you get to pick a username too, from whatever stock of namespace is left at the site.

Elizabeth Churchill and Ben Gross looked into this and found out that people find it easier to remember passwords than usernames, because they use the same passwords everywhere, and they end up with multiple different email accounts to handle the problem of having handed them to to all these sites and getting spammed by them.

Meanwhile, over here in the blog world, we've been using blog URLs to refer to people for years, and social network sites have proliferated URLs that are people. I have several that refer to me, my events, my music, my twitters and my photographs linked from the sidebar here. We even have XFN's rel="me" to connect them together, and OpenID to allow them to be used as logins elsewhere, instead of emails.

The underlying thing that is wrong with an email address is that it's affordance is backwards - it enables people who have it to send things to you, but there's no reliable way to know that a message is from you. Conversely, URLs have the opposite default affordance- people can go look at them and see what you have said about yourself, and computers can go and visit them and discover other ways to interact with what you have published, or ask you permission for more.

So, developers, remember that URLs are people too.

Update: This tension between email-as-identifier and email-as-way-to-be-spammed is what makes Scoble's attempt to extract 5,000 people's emails from Facebook for his own use less defensible than it appears at first. Dare Obasanjo recognises the tensions, but strangely dismisses the OpenSocial attempt to abstract out this kind of data into a common API.

Tardy blogging

2008-01-01T23:58:00.000-08:00

Between Twitter and my Reader shared items, my blogging impulses have been diverted elsewhere recently; I'll try to rectify this in the new year by writing here more often, but do follow those two links if you want to hear more of my brief observations and recent reading respectively.

Do not fold, bend, mutilate or Kindle

2007-11-20T01:04:00.000-08:00

I had some hopes for Amazon's e-book device - after all I buy paper books from Bezos via Amazon Prime weekly, I buy Subterranean Press's splendid editions, and I even end up susbcribing to the Folio Society's offers each year. I spend 8-12 hours a day reading screens and 1-4 reading paper books; I should be right in their target market. So I'm really sorry that KIndle is doomed.

I'll keep this short. Kindle requires DRM. DRM destroys value - it makes things do less and cost more, and means they will break suddenly without warning when the service inevitably goes bust.

If you have $400 to spend on a small gadget to read outdoors on, buy yourself an OLPC and give one away to a child elsewhere too. If you are still tempted by the Kindle swindle, read Mark Pilgrim's literary dismissal of it.

Open Rights Group - Happy ORG day

2007-11-19T12:24:00.000-08:00

I'm proud to have been involved with the Open Rights Group since it was an idea at a conference, and to be on the Advisory Board.

Today, the two year report was published.

By using web tech to gather reasoned responses to digital rights issues, ORG has got a lot done in the UK, from helping persuade the Gowers review of intellectual property that copyright should not be extended, to sensibly evaluating and opposing the blind use of e-voting and e-counting equipment in May 2007's ballots, to clearly explaining to the All-Party Parliamentary Internet Group that Digital Rights Management is a huge mistake.

You should sign up to support more good work from ORG.

OpenSocial and Social Software history

2007-11-02T01:25:00.000-07:00

In the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, danah boyd and Nicole Ellison have written a very thorough history of Social Network Sites.

Over at the OpenSocial API site we've written what we hope could be their future. Let me know what you think.

All bloggers are above average

2007-10-18T08:22:00.000-07:00

Chuq and Joseph are pondering 'active' blogs. Chuq says:

As of today, my feed readership is between 550 and 600. My Technorati authority is 117, my rank is 54,800ish. All things considered, my blogs are small, very much personal.
Yet, do the math. 100 MILLION blogs, and mine is the 50,000th largest in the world?
Or do your own test. create an empty blog, register it with technorati, post a couple of test messages, and do nothing else. Don't advertise it, don't point to it, don't create content. you'll likely find that Technorati will throw it somewhere around 1mm in authority.

He goes on to challenge Technorati's count of 100 million blogs because of this. What is really going on? Well, links to blogs follow a Long Tail distribution. You can debate whether it's a power law or an exponential, but it isn't a gaussian. Here's a 2005 links vs rank log chart, and here's a 2006 one (if Technorati want to run my old script that generates these we could have a 2007 one). Technorati's 'Authority' is the number of inbound links in the last 180 days. So, as Chuq notes, if you have a new blog with no links to it, it is ranked about 4 millionth, tied with every other blog with no inbound links. So yes, everyone is above average - they're all on the 96th percentile.

But what happens when you start getting links? I have a couple of old blogs that have a few. With 2 links, my rank goes up to 2.6 Millionth; with 3 to 1.9 millionth, with 5 to 1.2 millionth, up to this blog with 141 inbound links ranked at 44,734. This is a very easy hill to climb in percentage terms, though clearly getting into the top 100 is still relatively hard.

So what of Chuq's contention that the other 96 million blogs with no links are "abandoned, stillborn, or some kind of spam blog" ? A lot of blogs are made for specific events, and don't need further posts adding (and so may not have been linked to in the last 180 days), and a lot have a low posting rate, sure. But, as Dave Winer once said, by that measure every book and magazine article is abandoned. Not all blogs are interested in links - many are personal journals or for a small group of friends to read, and achieving those goals well.

So Chuq's accusations of "playing fast and loose wiht the numbers" are really his misunderstandings of Long Tail distributions. In the Blogosphere, like Lake Woebegon, everyone really is above average.

AtomPub is an RFC

2007-10-09T00:13:00.001-07:00

The Atom Publishing Protocol is now an IETF RFC standard. RFC stands for Request For Comments, but if you have any comments, it may be a ittle late. You could add them to a comment feed using AtomPub though

Bladerunner and Middlesbrough

2007-10-07T02:31:00.001-07:00

Steelworks
Originally uploaded by andy martin [interzone]

Ridley Scott on Bladerunner:

I don't think all directors do, but I certainly draw from personal experience — sometimes I remember things, sometimes it will come out from the back of my head and I'm thinking, I never knew where that came from. And then I can analyze afterwards and realize that's what it was. Funny enough, the beauty in industry, which is probably killing us, but actually nevertheless is beautifully like Hades, is one reason why you start to feel the beauty in the godawful condition of the red horizon and the geysers of filth going into the air. I used to go to art school in West Hartlepool College up in the north of England, which is almost right alongside the Durham steel mills and Imperial Chemical Industries, and the air would smell like toast. Toast is quite nice, but when you realize it's steel, and it's probably particles, it's not very good. But I'm still here. So, you draw back on that. And to walk across that footbridge at night, you'd be walking fundamentally above, on an elevated walk on the steel mill. So you'd be crossing through, sometimes, the smoke and dirt and crap, and you're looking down into the fire. So, things like that are remembered.

See this one too

Storytelling and performance

2007-10-07T00:41:00.000-07:00

Alice Mathias in the NYT points out that public profiles are a kind of performance:

Facebook did not become popular because it was a functional tool — after all, most college students live in close quarters with the majority of their Facebook friends and have no need for social networking. Instead, we log into the Web site because it’s entertaining to watch a constantly evolving narrative starring the other people in the library.
I’ve always thought of Facebook as online community theater. In costumes we customize in a backstage makeup room — the Edit Profile page, where we can add a few Favorite Books or touch up our About Me section — we deliver our lines on the very public stage of friends’ walls or photo albums. And because every time we join a network, post a link or make another friend it’s immediately made visible to others via the News Feed, every Facebook act is a soliloquy to our anonymous audience.
It’s all comedy: making one another laugh matters more than providing useful updates about ourselves, which is why entirely phony profiles were all the rage before the grown-ups signed in. One friend announced her status as In a Relationship with Chinese Food, whose profile picture was a carry-out box and whose personal information personified the cuisine of China.

This is of course what danah has been saying for years:

While some early adopters viewed Friendster as a serious tool for networking, others were more interested in creating non-biographical characters for playful purposes. Referred to as Fakesters, these Profiles represented everything from famous people (e.g., Angelina Jolie) and fictional characters (Homer Simpson) to food (Lucky Charms), concepts (Pure Evil), and affiliations (Brown University). Some Fakesters were created to connect people with common affiliations, geography, or interests. The most active and visible Fakesters, however, were primarily crafted for play. [...]
Fakesters had a significant impact on the cultural context of Friendster. In their resistance, their primary goal was to remind users that, “none of this is real.” They saw purportedly serious Profiles as fantastical representations of self, while the Testimonials and popularity aspect of the Friend network signified the eternal struggle to make up for being alienated in high school. Through play, Fakesters escaped the awkward issues around approving Friends and dealing with collapsed contexts, mocking the popularity contest. Their play motivated other participants to engage in creative performance, but at the same time, their gaming created a schism in the network resulting in a separation between playful participants and serious networkers.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Sanderson is explaining the art of video storytelling, and how to stop short of lèse majesté:

I want to write about fakery in television, because there's something odd going on. None of these 'scandals', from naming Socks the cat to having someone stand in for competition winners when the phone line goes dead in the full glare of live transmission, is particularly shocking to anyone who's made videos. Not worked in broadcast, note -- made videos. When I get a bunch of 14 year-olds to make their first short film, they'll frequently assume they can fake stuff, cheat, and generally bend the resulting video to their will.
Now, all it takes is for me to stare at them for a few moments. The light will go off in their heads and they'll say 'Oh, right. OK, yes. Fine. We'll do it for real.' But the natural human affiliation with cheating is sufficiently powerful, it's often the first assumption.
Later in the day, when the same group is putting together their sequence, they'll find me and say 'If we change the order like this, the film makes more sense. But... that's faking, isn't it?'
...which is, of course, the crux of the matter, because all video is faked to some extent or other. Everything you do up to the point where you start editing is just collecting raw material -- your film is made, crafted, shaped, in the edit suite, not in front of the camera.
It has to be this way, because real life plays out excruciatingly slowly. The responsibility and skill in making films, then, lies in telling stories more quickly, and more engagingly, than real time. Which requires that you leave bits out, which in turn requires judgement about which parts are important.
Telling stories honestly is an aspiration, but not a requirement -- the temptation to cheat and edit the material in order to tell an even better story even more quickly is always there. If the story's better, and more people watch, that's a success, right? If teenagers hacking away in iMovie in a school lab face these sorts of dilemmas and compromises, you can imagine the discussions that happen in chic Avid suites in Soho.

We all live in the minds of others through telling them stories about ourselves, but we also live in our own minds that way too - the research on memory shows how we readily confabulate extra detail to flesh out a story, and that every time we remember somethign we reify it further, combining it with new experiences both real and confabulated, so that the tale grows in the telling.

As danah notes, the persistence, searchability and replicablity of these digital environments belie our self-constructed memories with awkwardly concrete virtual histories. Massively Multiplayer Online Truth is an interesting game, and one where we are still working out the rules.

iPod progress

2007-09-14T00:58:00.000-07:00

I got an new iPod nano for my birthday yesterday. I considered the iPhone and iPod Touch, but their poor keyboard won't replace my Sidekick, and they omitted the most important features.
Specifically, iPhone lacks instant messaging, and both iPhone and iPod touch have Wifi, yet unaccountably don't support iTunes song sharing.

A bit of context here — back when we were pitching Wifi and Zeroconf to Steve Jobs at Apple, the killer demo was the iTunes + QuickTime sharing of music and videos — Macs in the same room finding each other and making their music libraries and videos mutually available, whether you have a router or not. The underlying protocol here is called DAAP, which is just some conventions for using HTTP 1.1 to play remotely and update the song list.

However, the edition of iTunes this went out in was unfortunately the same one that added the iTunes Store. From our developer point of view, the fact that there were 4 separate open source interoperating implementations of DAAP within a week was a big burst of validation for our efforts, but this caused huge confusion among the Record Labels that Jobs had invested so much time in schmoozing to set the store up. Eventually, after too many arguments with Label execs where he tried to explain "but the songs bought from iTunes Store won't be playable remotely, just the CD-ripped ones", he insisted the protocol be changed, which it was, several times.

The social sharing of music via iTunes is still a new and lovely feature of offices, campuses and coffee shops everywhere. But the iPhone users are left out in the cold. They can't see iTunes libraries, they can't share their own songs. Watching the launch of the "buy the song playing in Starbucks" feature, my immediate thought was "Steve, do you want to change the world, or do you just want to sell sugared coffee to kids?"

That said, I am a big fan of the 206 dpi screen on the new iPod nano. I did the maths, and that implies a full HD screen (1920x1200 with room for a controller bar) that is about 9.5 inches by 6 inches - sounds like a nice new Apple subnotebook for MacWorld January. Three and a half years ago, I pointed out the very rapid growth of storage per buck. I now have an iPod that is half the price, a tenth the weight and volume, and that plays video as predicted.

Bubbles and Facebook

2007-09-10T09:44:00.000-07:00

A few days back, danah asked:

I am utterly confused by the ways in which the tech industry fetishizes Facebook. There's no doubt that Facebook's F8 launch was *brilliant*. Offering APIs and the possibility of monetization is a Web 2.0 developer's wet dream. (Never mind that I don't know of anyone really making money off of Facebook aside from the Poker App guy.) But what I don't understand is why so much of the tech crowd who lament Walled Gardens worship Facebook. What am I missing here? Why is the tech crowd so entranced with Facebook?

This made me think of my sure-fire bubble indicator:

When expensively educated, fashionable young graduates start showing up in your field, you're in a bubble.
[...}The trouble with this indicator is that if you aren't looking for it it seem like the natural order of things - of course having personable young things hanging on your every word is to be expected - finally you're getting the recognition you deserve!
In practice, however, the finely-tuned herd instincts that get selected for in the Ivy League or the posher UK universities make them flock to the latest bubble

By this measure, we are well into a bubble in the Valley, (Google being the top company of choice for MBA's is one example), but Facebook has a perfect conjunction here - growing out of Harvard and the Ivy League, it started out with the very crowd of high-achieving conformists that danah called hegemonic teens, who make up my leading indicator, so when they connected with the tech crowd the mentos hit the coke.

Journalists slumming online

2007-09-04T11:16:00.000-07:00

I've realised why I got quote so cross with Andrew Keen and the way he portrays the net as 'corrupting'. Pagan Kennedy's essay on MySpace reminded me, and Tom's passionate defence of his blog against PR slummers who want to use him as a mouthpiece confirmed this thought. There is a temptation online, and that is to go slumming - to pretend that you can abuse people's trust and emotions without fear of personal consequences, that people online are somehow not real and so you can toy with them and remain above it. A while back at Making Light, Lucy Kemnitzer explained this well:

Slumming isn't going to a seedy place. Slumming is taking your superior attitude and your certainty that the world is your Disneyland in with you. It's looking at the people who work there as performing monkeys putting on a show for you. It's being cushioned by your privilege. It's thinking that if the place is raided, surely you will be passed over because you're not one of those people. It's running a narration in your head where you are the normal observer, and those guys are the freaks.
You can do it almost everywhere. I've seen people do it on an ordinary residential street in a city, going into a corner restaurant or working man's bar as if it were the Exotic And Dangerous Gangsta Exhibit at a Los Vegas theme hotel. I've seen people do it at a flea market in an ordinary rural town. Or at the weekly get-together of a community, where they danced and sang and gave each other presents (a pow-wow). I saw people doing it at my college, thanks to a former Governor and President calling it a cross between a hippie pad and a bordello.
Here's a clue about how not to go slumming when you enter a place: shed your privilege and your pretensions to superiority. If they play music that isn't to your taste, maybe it's because they hear something in it that you don't, so listen. If they're presenting an image you find disturbing, maybe you're not looking at it right. If you can't get out of your own skull while you're there, maybe you belong somewhere else.

When Keen (p76) cites Michael Hiltzik and Lee Siegel (both journalists who got caught in sock-puppetry online - posting hagiographic comments about themselves through pseudonyms), it is not their perfidy he condemns, but the Internet as enabler. In fact, it is their slumming and condescension that is the problem - their longing for freedom from consequences of their actions that led them astray. Keen himself is a knowing troll, trying to be the Simon Cowell of Web 2.0, and behaving like a pantomime villain to get web conferences to boo him. The ultimate example of this kind of slumming was Michael Skube's polemic against blogs, profoundly rebutted by Jay Rosen. Pagan Kennedy's tone is dancing around the edges of slumming - she starts out with "OMG drunk teenagers", but the article comes to realise that people online are human too, and makes fun of her own original attitudes.

abi sums it up:

The girls in question would not have been slumming if they had been going to drink the drinks, chat to the patrons, or see the dancers. They weren't. They were going to watch themselves drink the drinks, chat to the patrons, and see the dancers. It's like Kundera's definition of kitsch - the last layer of self-observation determines the definition.

Will botnets compete with Amazon S3?

2007-09-02T08:13:00.000-07:00

Reading about the Storm Worm's botnet being bigger than supercomputers I was reminded of a prediction I've been making for a while. Spamming and phishing and other bad behaviour relies on overwhelming miniscule conversion rates through huge volume, so it has to free-ride on others' resources to actually make money. However, large distributed computing is being commoditised, by Amazon's S3 and E3C and others. At some point the botnets will realise that they can make more money by competing with Amazon or Akamai to store data in their stochastic cloud of compromised computers. A variant of memcached with a redundant hashing algorithm, or maybe an adaptation of Freenet would be obvious places to start; for all I know this already exists.

Best advice on scandals ever from TNH

2007-08-31T22:21:00.000-07:00

In the Making Light thread on the SFWA's debacle where Andrew Burt used a bot searching for 'Asimov' to issue DMCA takedown notices willy-nilly, sideswiping Cory, Teresa Nielsen-Hayden gave the clearest, most compact advice on handling net PR disasters ever:

Get out there and say something, fast.
Acknowledge that there have been screwups. Avoid passive constructions.
Explain what you're doing to help fix the problem. Be telling the truth when you do it.
Give up all hope of sneaking anything past your listeners. You've screwed up, the internet is watching, and behind each and every one of those pairs of eyes is a person who knows how to Google.
Corporate-speak will do you more harm than good. Instead, speak frankly about what's going on. React like a human being. Talk like one, too.

Also, James D. MacDonald said:

While one should not attribute to malice anything that is adequately explained by stupidity, any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

Update: Teresa made it a post, so now it has it's own intelligent comments.

Lunar eclipse tonight

2007-08-28T03:29:00.001-07:00

As I was up anyway, working on some code, I stayed up to watch the lunar eclipse and took some photos.

Update: A lovely composite photo taken by Matt Onheiber.

Actually, in-video linked ads date back to the 80s

2007-08-23T14:20:00.000-07:00

Mike Arrington has been stirring it about YouTube's new in-frame ads but this idea is something that dates back years, way back to the late 80s. In 1989 my colleagues Max Whitby, Nikki Barton and Chris Prior made a documentary with Douglas Adams called "Hyperland" looking at hypertext and the interlinked video future. Here's a snip where they explain 'micons':

What they went through back then to make all those overlaid animated video loops doesn't bear thinking about. I remember it involving Macromind Director and early 8-bit video capture cards and writing out to framestores one frame at a time...

Bacn and mushrooms

2007-08-22T13:16:00.000-07:00

The term bacn for

email you receive that isn’t spam… And isn’t personal mail. It’s the middle class of email. It’s notifications of a new post to your Facebook wall or a new follower on Twitter. It’s the Google alert for your name and the newsletter from your favorite company.

is a handy word for a new phenomenon, but it looks like it should be an acronym. Boring Automated Computer Notifications, perhaps?

Also, we need another word for the kind of bacn that doens't tell you the notificiation, but is just a way to get you to click on a link and generate a pageview for someone like Evite or Facebook. I suggest we call these 'mushrooms', as they keep you in the dark and feed you dirt. Also, because that gives me an excuse to link to Andrew's Bacon movie again.

De Vermis, by Mike Ford

2007-08-16T23:04:00.000-07:00

The worm drives helically through the wood
And does not know the dust left in the bore
Once made the table integral and good;
And suddenly the crystal hits the floor.
Electrons find their paths in subtle ways,
A massless eddy in a trail of smoke;
The names of lovers, light of other days —
Perhaps you will not miss them. That’s the joke.
The universe winds down. That’s how it’s made.
But memory is everything to lose;
Although some of the colors have to fade,
Do not believe you’ll get the chance to choose.
Regret, by definition, comes too late;
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate.

from Making Light

Stardust - best movie of the year

2007-08-11T23:38:00.000-07:00

Before I go into details, let me say that you should go and see Stardust tomorrow. Take friends and loved ones; you'll thank me for it later.

We watched Edward Scissorhands in San Jose's St James Park on Friday night, which has a magic realism of it's own, what with the light rail passing either side of the park, the planes and nightclub searchlights in the sky, and the audience mixing the homeless who sleep in the park with a throng of our friends picnicking. I called Edward Scissorhands a geek parable before, but its screenwriter Caroline Thompson describes it as a fable - a story you know isn't true but care about anyway. It takes a fantastic character and brings him into the mundane world to try to cope.

Stardust is in some ways the opposite of this - Tristan escapes from his conforming world to a fantastic one, a world of danger that tests him. That he can't resist returning to show himself off is a pivotal moment in the plot; the world of Stronghold has a very sharply drawn medieval conflict over succession, that echoes and parodies many we have seen. Tristan's lovestruck quest is pithily skewered by Yvaine, the star who is its object. It is a picaresque story, but Vaughn brings some of the English subcultural texture from Snatch and Layer Cake to it too, with archetypically English small time crooks and fences represented.

What is different from those works, and which owes more to Gaiman than Vaughn, is the underlying morality of the story. I have been strongly impressed by this current within British fantasy work recently - the revived Doctor Who is exemplary this way, as is the Dangerous Book for Boys, and even Christopher Hitchens can see it in Harry Potter.

In each case there is an acknowledgment that there is evil in the world, but a consistent message that it is best fought through love, through integrity and through striving to transcend our recognised flaws. Though secular in tone and style they echo for me the sublimated Anglicanism of Lewis and Tolkein; doing the right thing for the sake of this world, not the next.

I happen to have Mr McLuhan right here

2007-08-08T20:29:00.000-07:00

The other day I was joking about some abstruse aspect of XML and I said "I happen to have Tim Bray right here", in reference, of course, to Woody Allen's devastating cinema queue put-down in Annie Hall. Now I was only half joking - Tim Bray was on IRC with me working through the Atom Publishing Protocol interop at the time - but the deeper point is that through the web we do have access to people and their works in a way that was pure comedic fantasy in 1977. I can find copious examples of Tim Bray's or Marshall McLuhan's work, searching them for the citation I need, I can talk to Tim, or see how the authors of books I like feel about their movie adaptations.

It seemed as if the joke was on me, as the chap I was talking to had never seen Annie Hall. But I happen to have Mr Allen right here:

Heck, I even have the strange Dada website pitching direct debits I remember from the UK in 1996 here.

Andrew's Film Bee Aware - public screening

2007-08-06T23:50:00.000-07:00

Andrew and Christopher have been making videos since they were 5, but this summer Andrew got the chance to go to Camp Cinequest, a summer camp for young filmmakers at San Jose University, organised by the Cinequest Film Festival. He told the local paper all about it (PDF version). Now there's a public showing under the Cinema St James festival - come along!

Bee Aware and Edward Scissorhands at Cinema St James

Friday, August 10, 2007 7:30 PM - 11:00 PM

St. James Park

First Street and St. James Street
San Jose, California

Unwind by taking off your shoes, kicking back in your favorite lawn chair with a cool glass of beer, and watching a great flick under the stars. Cinequest provides Maverick short films, tonight featuring "Bee Aware" and "The Seed" before the main fature, "Edward Scissorhands". Bring the rest of the family for a night out in the park! Seating available starting at 7:30 p.m. , pre-show begins at 8:00 p.m. and the films begin at dusk. All screenings are FREE.