RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Social Networking’

Playing with the Real-Time Web

08 May

Since I left Facebook, I’ve been working on a little project to take its place as an aggregator, or a central hub of all me-related activity on the internet: Planetoid.

Right now, if you’ve got the patience to get it up and running without documentation, Planetoid is just a run of the mill, particularly ugly feed aggregator. It’s built on Django, and it has a cron job that well pull in updates from all your feeds. (You edit the list of feeds in the Django admin.)

But that’s boring.

This is just the platform I needed. Now, I want to make it real-time.

The first step is implementing Pubsubhubbub subscriber support. Then the cron will only be necessary for feeds that don’t push update notifications.

The next step is where things get interesting: both the cron and pubsubhubbub subscriber will push notifications using Redispubsub feature. Node.js, running in parallel, will subscribe to the channel in Redis and will provide the server half of a Comet/long-polling setup, the rest of which will be implemented on the client side.

Then I just need to enable pubsubhubbub in a few places, and anyone sitting on jamessocol.com should see things like blog posts in real-time, and everything else automatically with a small lag.

Real-time and the tools to do it are very, very fun.

 
Comments Off

Posted in Articles

 

Farewell, Facebook

06 May

On Monday, I deleted my Facebook account. A day before I hit the button, I posted a note letting people know where they could find me online if they wanted, and promising more of an explanation: here it is.

I’m a control freak. I run my own web servers, mail server, IRC server, CI server, SVN server, so I have control. If I could afford the colocation, I’d run them on my own hardware. Hell, if I could afford the bandwidth, I’d install a rack in my closet.

But most importantly, I want control of the data. My data.

Facebook recently made two changes to their service that signal a significant and frightening shift in their position on data—specifically who owns and has control over data. They automatically linked interests to public pages, and they introduced “Social Plugins and Instant Personalization.”

Until now, even if I decided to be permissive with my data, I still felt like I was in control of them on Facebook. With the new “connections” feature, as the EFF says, “Facebook users now face a Hobson’s choice between the new Connections and no listed interests at all.” I no longer have the option to share my data with the subset of people I know: either I share them with everyone, in particular advertisers, or I don’t post data at all.

I mention advertisers because they are most likely consumer of the vast quantities of aggregate data Facebook is creating with the new connections feature. Surely no individual will gain anything from knowing that several million people share their interest in Lady Gaga.

And until now, I had the ability to whitelist the applications with which I shared data. I routinely hit a wall as I browsed my friends’ activity, where I would be asked to choose between sharing my data with an application or not seeing its content. More often than not, I chose not to share, and live without the content.

This makes three things about the Instant Personalization onerous: the presumptive sharing with third parties; the shift to a blacklist, where I must specifically opt out; and the willingness to share data even if I have opted out in general.

  • Facebook has decided that Yelp, Microsoft’s Docs.com, and Pandora should have access to my data. I was not part of that decision.
  • If I opt out and turn off Instant Personalization, Facebook will still share my data with these third parties, if my friends choose to use their services. Again, I am not part of that decision.
  • In order to prevent Facebook from sharing my data with them, I have to manually block each application. That’s annoying, but manageable when it’s just three applications, but it’s not scalable.

This is all scary. Facebook could not have made these changes if they honestly believed that I own my data, and they have access with my permission. These changes indicate that Facebook believes they own my data, and will do with them what they please, unless I go out of my way to ask them not to.

I’ve always had mixed feelings about the protest groups that form on Facebook after every major change. Sure, Facebook staff are more likely to notice a Facebook group with 100,000 members than 100,000 individual blog posts, but in our socio-economic system, the real way to signal displeasure to a business is to stop using that business—the online equivalent of “voting with your wallet.”

So, like a few others, I’m taking my data and going home.

I’m willing to share my data with Facebook as long as I ultimately feel in control. It’s possible that I’ll come back to Facebook if they’re willing to not only fix these particular issues but also make it clear that I am ultimately in control of my own data. That doesn’t seem likely.

What do you think about Facebook, these changes, and your data? Let me know in the comments.

Facebook served as an aggregator of my activity online, and now all those aggregated feeds are alone and disparate again. I’m looking at turning jamessocol.com into a lifestream/aggregator to make up for it. I looked at Planet Venus but wasn’t thrilled with it. If you know of any cool software for that, let me know. Otherwise I’ll write something and play with things like Redis, Node.js, Tornado, and/or other neat stuff.

And yes, I know Tornado is from Facebook.

 
13 Comments

Posted in Articles

 

Communities within Communities

24 Apr

There is an op-ed floating around Twitter today: As a social network, Twitter is a dud. Is it ironic that an article deriding Twitter is being spread on Twitter? Irony is so ill-defined.

Twitter is not for everyone, and I respect that, but the author, Alex Groves, seems to be basing his entire point of view on Ashton Kutcher. Alex claims (and this may well be true; I don’t know since I’m never on Facebook) that “[t]he only problem with all this twittering by celebrities and politicians is that they are on Facebook much more often.”

Based on this, Alex argues that Twitter is an “unnecessary” alternative to Facebook walls and warns that “[b]y spending more time on social networks and the Internet than we need to, we enable ourselves to become reclusive, sheltered from family and friends.”

What Alex is ignoring is that most people are not (just) following celebrities. If we look at the number of “following” relationships—even relatively inactive people often follow 30 or 40 others—the 1 million “follows” of Mr. Kutcher seems much, much less impressive.

What occurs to me, the more I see Twitter on newspaper websites and on the Today show, is that there are multiple communities within a larger community like Twitter.

On the very smallest scale, you may have a “community” of family and friends that are mostly following each other. You may have a TweetDeck group set up for them. That kind of mutual relationship leads to what Clive Thompson of the Times called “ambient awareness“. I would encourage Alex to read Mr. Thompson’s article, it might answer his question: “How does one know if his friends are OK?”

Now, Alex is absolutely right that spending too much time on the internet can take time away from other meaningful activities, like “enjoy[ing] a crisp, clean-smelling spring morning.” (With my allergies, I don’t think I have ever “enjoy[ed]” that.)

But the same could be said about almost any aspect of life. Too much time at work causes you to lose time with the family. Too much time away from work can make you lose your job. Too much time using computers can give you carpal tunnel.

On the large end of communities, I think you could classify several, such as “people interested in social networking,” “people interested in marketing,” “people interested in programming” (I’m in all three of these communities) “people interested in celebrities,” “people interested in news,” “people interested in <insert your special topic here>.”

I would argue that these communities reflect real-life relationships the same way the small communities do. A person who is more likely to read Us Weekly is probably more likely to follow more celebrities. A person who enjoys Britney Spears’ music is more likely to follow her. Just as I am more likely to make a joke about the word “const” on a construction sign, I am more likely to follow John Resig.

Alex asks, “[w]ith all the good we can do online, including disseminating information and spreading knowledge, why do we become obsessed with Britney Spears tweeting about playing with the boys on tour?”

I contend that the people Alex is really criticizing (surely many of the newest users) are the same people snapping up People at the checkout lane and watching TMZ in the mornings. Furthermore, he fails to recognize the rather large community of users that uses Twitter to share information and resources, follow the lives of people who may be emotionally, but not physically close, or generate other types of value.

The complaints he levies could—arguably should—be equally directed at Facebook, MySpace, several websites, magazines and TV shows. Alex is confusing “Twitter” with a culture of “celebrity worship.”

I argue that the people creating value off Twitter (and Facebook) are the same people creating it on Twitter. If all you follow on Twitter are celebrities, you obviously aren’t contributing much to that community’s conversation. On the other hand, if your community is broad, and includes peers, friends, family, then you have a unique opportunity to both benefit from, and provide benefit to, that community.

Fortunately, the way Twitter works, I don’t need to follow those celebrities. And neither do you, Alex.

 
 

Oh the Humanity (of Twitter)

11 Nov

Twitter creates a powerful opportunity: no matter who you are, or how big your business, you can put a human “face” on Twitter.

Comcast (@comcastcares), JetBlue (@jetblue), Biggby Coffee (@biggbybob) and Starbucks (@starbucks), even Britney Spears (sorry, I refuse to link that one) have all shown up on Twitter with very real, human exchanges.

I’m not sure, behind the scenes, whether there are several people or one incredibly busy person at each of these companies, but they’ve decided to drop the corporate suit and engage their followers. They aren’t using Twitter as a broadcasting medium, but as a networking and conversation tool.

They get it.

Here is one of my favorite examples:

threeofus: @Starbucks Who actually types the tweets for Starbucks?

Starbucks: @threeofus Hi, I’m Brad, I work in the online team. How are you?

So what’s the trick? What did Starbucks/Brad do right?

  • Use the First Person. “I,” “me,” “my,” all make your tweet feel more personal. No real surprise there. “We,” “us,” and “our” work, but not nearly as well. You sound like a spokesperson, instead of a person.
  • Own the Conversation. By introducing and naming himself, Brad is taking ownership of the interaction. Even if Starbucks has 10 people reading and responding to tweets, threeofus can feel like she’s talking to one person.
  • Engage. Read and respond to other users, especially @-replies. Read, retweet and share. If you’re only sending information one way, you aren’t part of the community. You can also use tools like Twitter search to find and respond to users talking about you or your company.
  • Show Emotion. “This is so cool,” “Wow, long day” or even just “:-)” are all things that a person would say, but a press release never would. You don’t need to wear your heart on every tweet, but let some of your feelings come out—at least the good ones.
  • Be Active. For most of us, Twitter is ambient information. You need to update regularly to get in to that stream.
  • Don’t “Always Be Closing.” Don’t make every tweet a pitch or a request. That doesn’t mean you can’t pitch: I link my blog posts on Twitter, my friend @alecrj mentions his shows. But if every tweet sounds like an advertisement, then you sum up to an infomercial.

Here’s a comparison: Lansing’s alternative paper recently started twittering at @CityPulse. Right now, the biggest words in their tweet cloud are their URL, “city,” “pulse,” “check,” “out,” “pick,” and “up.” Every tweet is trying to drive me to their website or pick up a copy of the paper. They’ve sent no @ messages, used the word “I” once, and have gone a week at a time without updating.

And despite following almost 300 people, they’ve only got 100 followers.

This is what confuses traditional marketing about Twitter: the community won’t listen to you until you listen to the community.

Of course, there are robots on Twitter, too, and some are very popular, like @nytimes and @BarackObama. They are broadcasters, not community members. They perform very specific roles and are backed by very unique content. They add enough value that they don’t need to engage the community.

And yet, if they did, they would be even more powerful.

So do you and your company get it?

 

Does the Web Hate School?

23 Sep

Full Disclosure: I am employed at Michigan State University’s College of Education as a web designer and application developer. The opinions I express on this blog are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers or clients. Particularly this post.

Education generally falls behind every other sector in computer technology integration and internet use. A typical fast food employee uses a computer more during the day than a typical middle school student. (What are cash registers but custom computers?) At almost any business you can expect employees to use networked computers for everything from sales and inventory to customer service to internal work and communication.

But beyond simply using the box, private companies in every sector generally have up-to-date, professionally designed web sites that (at least try to) provide useful information or services to customers. Been to your or your kid’s school web site lately? Universities are usually “OK,” but they get worse as you go down.

In any other sector, you are likely to find online collaboration tools, meeting planners, digital resources for employees, use of messaging tools like internal e-mail (Exchange servers), private IM, Yammer/Laconi.ca, internal wikis, public and private blogs… you get the idea.

But not in education.

Education is part of the problem, but it is not the whole problem. Many people talk about how teachers and schools fail to use computers and the internet well in their classrooms. Many schools treat the computer itself as a goal, rather than as a tool to do new things, or do old things better and faster. Teachers generally fall behind the private sector in computer literacy. Yes, all these things are true.

But we, we the tech sector, the web 2.7.4 crowd, we are part of the problem, too.

How often does a new tool support education? Offer suggestions or support for teachers? Provide educational pricing? Provide the EULA and Privacy Policy education legally requires?

The people who become teachers are often the people who did well in school, who see no reason to change anything because, to them, it works. In the tech world, “where did they drop out of school?” is a legitimate question. Your typical programmer has at least one degree in Computer Science, but the real success stories—Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg—the ones who made real money, are drop outs. School didn’t work for them—for us—so what do we owe school?

When Yammer launched, they gave a simple business plan: for companies that wanted to “claim” and control their networks, they would charge $1 per month per user. A small start up might pay $5 to $20 a month. Even a big company is probably paying only a few hundred dollars per month. A university, on the other hand, could be stuck paying tens of thousands of dollars per month, or skipping the service entirely. Which do you think they’re likely to do?

What was Yammer’s response? “Our product [...] is not geared toward educational institution [sic].”

Many schools have prohibitions against using Google services for anything work-related because, if you don’t pay for use (update: Google Apps for Education is free, my bad) their educational services, their Terms of Use (read Section 11) could allow them to share sensitive student data.

You’re a school? You don’t matter. Only cool people matter.

Let’s change. Let’s remember that the community of “tech-savvy” users, while growing, is still a minority. Let’s encourage teachers and schools to use the tools we create, so people come out of school ready to use these tools.

It is possible. Ning is experimenting with education. But how do we make tools ed-friendly?

Fix your EULA and Privacy Policy, or provide a second one for education. Don’t be the next Google Chrome. (Frankly, everyone should be reconsidering their EULA right now. Why do some people need so many rights to my content?)

Offer suggestions to teachers. I know: it’s not really a priority. You’ve got bug fixing, paying customers, searching for VC, coming out with the next version. But it’s not terribly difficult. Got a user forum? Add a section for education. Got a wiki? Add an education page. Blog? Throw up a post for teachers once in a while, or better, get guest posts from teachers who use your tool.

Provide educational pricing. Schools have less money every year. If you can work out a deal to make your product free to schools, do it. But it’s not hard: just charge schools less. Think of this as an investment. If they use your product as students, they may well want to use it when they graduate and have to pay.

Or, provide an ad-free version to schools. This is the Ning method. If your business model doesn’t involve charging directly, be aware that schools often take issue with displaying ads to students. It’s the same investment as above: hook them young.

Schools lag on the internet because there is resistance on both sides: educators are reluctant to integrate new things into their curricula, and the new tools rarely give a damn about schools and students as users.

Changing the tech side won’t solve the problem. Schools need to adapt, too. (Where would you look for a Windows 95 computer if you needed one today? I’d check the local elementary school. It’s probably in a lab, or hidden in the back of a classroom.) Schools need to treat computers like tools, and the internet as a tool, and the tools we build on the internet as tools, and use those tools effectively. That will take time.

In the meantime, let’s try to reduce the resistance on our side, so when they come around, educators feel welcome.

Edit: I need to proofread better, even with angry rants.

 
4 Comments

Posted in Articles