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 Redis‘ pubsub 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Good. What came up?

Look at the first page of results and ask yourself these questions about each one:

1. Is it really me?
2. Did I create this?
3. Do I control this?

You need to be able to say “yes” to all of these for at least the top two or three results. (As I write this, the RSSmeme page repeating my Google Reader shared items has crawled above my blog, and I’m upset about it.)

Creating Identity

I’m lucky. My last name is very rare, so even if you Google just “Socol” I come in second—only to my father, and ahead of Wikipedia. You may not be so lucky, saddled with a name like Jones or Smith or, even worse, you might have the same name as a celebrity. You may have an uphill battle.

People with common names need to get creative. It can be as simple as adding an initial—my friend became Alec R. Johnston to distinguish himself. Something a little more creative—Lisa Bettany named her blog Mostly Lisa. Or you can geek out, like Ben Lew, who uses the name n0s0ap. (Those are zeros.)

Ben uses the name n0s0ap on del.icio.us, flickr, Last.fm, Digg, Twitter, etc. Lisa uses a combination of “MostlyLisa” and “LisaBettany.” I use a combination of an old name, “UrbaneExistance” (I know it’s spelled wrong) and “JamesSocol” for all new registrations.

But all of us, Alec, Ben, Lisa, and I, make sure our real names are linked to our identities. It’s no Clark Kent: n0s0ap is Ben Lew, with the glasses on or off.

Owning Identity

Do you own your own domain name? Why not? Go buy it. Now. Go!

I have this conversation with friends all the time. Would you want someone signing your name on paper documents? Of course not, so why would you let them do the same thing online? I own jamessocol.com, jamessocol.net, and jamessocol.org, just so no one else does. Even if you do nothing but have it redirect to your social network of choice, you should own your name.

If your name is taken, reread the last section and get creative.

Now, about those social networks. You don’t need to be on every one, but get on a few, build a profile, and put your name on it. You can create and control your own Facebook and MySpace pages without knowing a single HTML tag. Once you’ve got a name, whether it’s your real name or something else, use it. last.fm/user/you. twitter.com/you.

Controlling Identity

The best way I’ve found to control what the web knows about you is to start your own propaganda campaign. Put your name on a lot of things, preferably with links back to your own site.

An easy way to start is by commenting. Blog comments help the most, since you spread that influence around the whole internet, but within MySpace or Facebook posting real, meaningful, interesting comments on profiles and walls will make sure people think of you when they hear your name.

If you have the time, try blogging. There are a lot of blogs with great advice, but you can always just “write what you know.” Once you find your voice, the writing flows.

What else? It depends what you like. If you take pictures, get a Flickr stream. Last.fm is a great way to share and find music you like. GoodReads is a similar site for books. Twitter is great for finding people with similar interests and building connections. LinkedIn is a professional social network, particularly good for people in marketing or new media. Blogger, while not the best blogging platform, has some good community features. There is a lot out there.

Be Yourself

Don’t let someone else be you! Own your own identity and be proud of it. It will help you build authority and when a potential employer or client googles you, they’ll get a good idea about you from the first page of results.

What else, 2.0-savvy readers? What did I forget?

Twitter lets you change your user name, so I did. Instead of the very long and misspelled “urbaneexistance,” I am now @jamessocol.

Shorter, easier to remember, more meaningful.

If you were following me, Twitter says you still should be, no worries. This is one 2.0-mistake I can correct easily.

“It troubles me greatly to hear that people see me as an expert or an authority, and not a fellow amateur.”

“There is absolutely no reason any of you should listen to me.

But somehow, I have 75,000 RSS subscribers and over 50,000 page views/day.”

Assuming a moderate amount of overlap, there are probably 100,000 people reading and listening to Jeff every day. If you had 100,000 people listening to him speaking out a window, you’d call it a successful rally.

I don’t really think Jeff Atwood is an Italian dictator.

Jeff is, however, an authority. When Jeff gives advice like “Don’t Go Dark,” thousands of people are likely to follow that advice.

Wikipedia has been the biggest source of contention on what makes an “expert” or “authority.” Does someone with 10,000 edits have more say than someone with a PhD? If the article is about medicine, probably not, but if it’s about social networking or wikis, experience and research can both bring value.

Technorati defines your “authority” as the number of blogs linking back to you in the past six months. Twitter proudly displays your number of followers. LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace all tell you how large your network is, and want you to make it bigger.

Do 9000 people follow @chrisbrogan because he’s an authority, or do people consider him an authority because he has 9000 followers?

My wishy-washy answer is, of course, “both.” Chris and Jeff Atwood both produce intelligent, well-written material and provide valuable perspectives. Chris is an experienced marketer and Jeff an experienced programmer. But consistently large audiences make both authoritative. After all, why would so many people listen if they didn’t know what they were talking about?

Humans are social animals. We’re not particularly strong, or fast, but we are very good at forming groups and working together. When we see something or someone that is valued by a large group, we attribute value to it.

Don’t believe me? Fine, then explain why Paris Hilton is famous.

Authority does not make you an expert, but expertise can help you gain authority. You get followers on Twitter by sharing good links and starting good discussions; you get readers and subscribers by producing quality content and offering something of value.

Then something happens: followers retweet you, readers send links, bloggers write about you, friends-of-friends friend you. Your audience reaches a point where it begins to grow by itself. That audience makes you more authoritative to new readers, new followers. They jump on your bandwagon. It’s the same reason you see “Best Seller” on book covers.

So is Jeff Atwood an expert? As much as anyone in his field. An authority? Definitely.

All the Twitter users I know have learned about it through word of mouth and been very confused initially. But everyone I know who joined has organically started to discover just how useful it is.

I typically see people go through three stages:

At first, users are tentative. They don’t know what to post, or why they should. They may discover some friends or family on Twitter and follow them, more out of friendly courtesy than genuine interest. Posting is slow, irregular, and primarily through the web site.

A small tipping point happens when the user starts following people they don’t know personally. Maybe a blogger or another content producer, but someone who is interesting, not just familiar. This person probably posts links, and the burgeoning tweeter may start sharing a few links of their own. They discover tools like TinyPic and s.hort.cc. Posting becomes a little more frequent and regular. They may start using a client like Twhirl, or may stick to the web.

Now they start following more and more people. Some go too fast and are flooded with noise. Most end up unfollowing at least a few users fairly quickly. I followed @nytimes for a few days before realizing they posted dozens of things I didn’t care about.

The real tipping point comes when new tweeters discover messaging. They might have used it but there is a moment when Twitter becomes more about multi-directional communication than about posting your own status. Now they’re posting frequently, having discussions, responding to questions and asking their own. They almost definitely use a client or IM (when it works).

There’s no common time frame, as far as I can see. It took me three months to hit the first tipping point, and another five to get to the next. You can see the shifts in my tweet history.

My father (@irasocol) seems to have jumped all the way stage three in less than two months.

How long did it take you? If you’ve watched people start tweeting, what kind of progression did they go through? What about you?

(It was also a good excuse to write a short post since I’m still recovering from some wrist strain.)

So what did I find in the past week or so, and where did I find it? Twitter, unsurprisingly, has been the best source, though not always directly. Second best is what I’ll call “secondary finds,” when I visit one project and then follow to the author’s other projects. Blogs were a close third.

I should admit that I didn’t keep notes or stats, but I’m fairly good at keeping track of things like this, so I trust my own numbers.

CheckYesOrNo.info is a nifty, Twitter-friendly site for yes-or-no poll questions like “Will you participate in Mozilla’s FF3 Download Day June 17th?” (Yes.) Found it when @benrasmusen tweeted a question.

Issuu is a publishing social network. They have some kinks to work out but I see definite potential here. Found it when my cousin tweeted a link.

Twingly is like Technorati reborn, a new, more focused blog search tool. Chris Brogan blogged about it.

LaterLoop helps you store sites to read later. Very popular on Twitter.

TimeToMeet.info is from the same people as LaterLoop, and is a very slick multi-timezone meeting planner.

These are just some of the highlights of this week. I’ve perused quite a few little projects here and there, some good, some bad. I think there are three things that lead to discoveries like this:

Keep your eyes open. When people link something, check it out (or use LaterLoop and do it later).

If you see a link like http://checkyesorno.info/93, try getting rid of the “93″ and visit the site itself. Visit the site, not just the page.

If you like a site, scroll down and look at the footer. Most projects, particularly by independent developers and small companies, have links to the developer’s site, which probably has links to other projects. Look at their other projects. If someone had one good idea and put it together, odds are they’ve had others.

Any more ideas from out there in the blogosphere?