Archive for the 'Web 2.0' Category

Page 2 of 12

Food for Thought (Sorry for the Silence)

Hey folks.  I’m back after a long day-job-driven haitus.  Things have been hectic, and the best way to jump back in seems to be some quick-blogging of items I’ve found intriguing over the past few weeks.

David Roberts at Grist offers a great primer on power grids, including the important distinction between a wide grid: “a new high-voltage backbone, with lines spanning the length and breadth of the country, able to carry electricity from anywhere it’s generated to anywhere it’s needed” and a smart grid: a transmission system that allows for distibuted production (think rooftop solar panels) and is capable of adjusting in real time to compensate for heavy usage, increased production, etc.  This is a recommended read to get a basic grasp of what David describes as two key power grid issues:

[O]ne grid issue is getting more power (transmission lines to new places) and one is using power more efficiently(smarter distributions systems). The politics around those two issues are quite different

Related, also courtesy of David: here’s a list of articles on my to-read list related to smart grids.

Jason Calacanis sent a long and thoughtful email about the ways in which anonymity online can be harmful to the extent that it erodes our empathy for other people. Jason goes so far as to call this trend a “disease”–”Internet Aspergers Syndrome”:

This disease affects people when their communication moves to digital, and the emotional cues of face-to-face interaction–including tone, facial expression and the so called “blush response”–are lost.

In this syndrome, the afflicted stops seeing the humanity in other people. They view individuals as objects, not individuals. The focus on repetitive behaviors–checking email, blogging, [and] twittering…–combines with an inability to feel empathy and connect with people.

This is a provocative thought, and it does seem to me that the next big trend online (web 3.0?) will be authenticated identities driving the social media we’ve taken for granted.  Calacanis mentions that social networks in South Korea require a social security number to sign up.  There will inevitably be a tension between the norms that have developed in the web’s infancy and the changes that will be necessary to combat what is moving from a medium where goodwill and trust could be taken for granted toward an anything-goes medium where accountability is virtually (pun intended) nonexistent.  How we choose to make that shift–requiring social security numbers, for instance, might be a bit invasive by American standards–is unclear, but I think many of us are starting to feel fatigue with unaccountable spammers and trolls ruining the web for everyone else.

I’ve come across a fair amount of criticism recently of URL-shortening services (like tinyURL, bit.ly, Digg, others).  As TechCrunch explains:

Nobody really likes [URL shorteners], but they are a necessary evil. How else are you going to share links on Twitter without having the URL take up half the message?

The criticisms focus on a number of issues:

  1. URL shorteners obscure links, which opens unsuspecting users to spam attacks;
  2. shorteners, to quote the founder of del.icio.us, “add another layer of indirection to an already creaky system” and slow the web;
  3. some shorteners, like Digg, deny direct traffic to sites by using a frame instead of directing clicks to the original material (Facebook users will find this familiar, since shared items are framed in a similar fashion);
  4. all shortened links are dependent on the continued existence of the proponderance of shortener start-ups AND the perpetuity of their terms of service (in other words, the guarantee that your tinyURL will not be reassigned or disappear)

I worry about the Digg/Facebook model gaining traction, since “link juice” for original material is what feeds the web’s content producers.  But I think in the future you’ll see more of this type of functionality: an interim landing page where visitors will see a full URL before continuing to the source material.  If content aggregators (I’m looking at you, Digg) can add value by previewing pages and layering social rankings or other features, this could be a win-win-win proposition: People clicking shortened links are protected from spam; the URL shortening service has an opportunity to advertise and lure visitors to other material; the content provider receives a direct traffic boost.

That’s all for now, though I should be blogging regularly again next week.

How Twitter Content Can Be Simple and Compelling

Jarred and I are proud alumni of a small, prestigious liberal arts college in North Carolina named Davidson.  As soon as we left, the college eliminated loans in financial aid packages, the men’s basketball team made a storybook run to the Elite Eight, and the notoriously underwhelming Spring concert suddenly became a venue for one of our favorite bands (though, to be fair, Ben Folds and Bob Dylan’s band both rocked).

For further proof that Davidson is improving by leaps and bounds without me and Jarred around, one need look no further than the college’s latest use of social media.

Davidson’s application for admission is notoriously extensive.  In addition to the common application and long essay, prospective students must solicit teacher and peer recommendations, write essays on topics ranging from the college’s honor code to characteristics of Davidson that inspired the individual to apply, and provide a list of books they’ve read the past year.  The admissions counselors I’ve known at Davidson have often commented that these application portfolios are often a source of inspiration, humor, wisdom beyond the applicants’ years, and tremendously interesting stories.

Now some of these nuggets of wisdom, humility, hilarity, and inspiration have found a home on (where else, for nugget-size wisdom?) Twitter.  Here’s a sampling from @DCAdmission, a Twitter feed compiled by admissions counselors quoting quasi-anonymous applicants from around the country:

Continue reading ‘How Twitter Content Can Be Simple and Compelling’

Newspaper Is Not The “One Medium To Rule Them All”

Reminder: I speak for myself and not for my employer.

Late last month, the New York Times ran an op-ed by David Swensen and Michael Schmidt called “News You Can Endow.” It begins with this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right. [...] And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.”

And then, ominously, the authors declare:

“Today, we are dangerously close to having a government without newspapers. [...] If Jefferson was right that a well-informed citizenry is the foundation of our democracy, then newspapers must be saved.”

I’ve done enough LSAT logical reasoning questions to recognize a broken argument when I see it.  I could hash it out, but I much prefer passive aggressive analogies.  Let’s say that Jefferson also wrote that the basis of commerce is the efficient movement of goods.  Today, however, we are dangerously close to having an economy without carriages.  Oh noes!  If Jefferson was right that excellent transportation is the foundation of our economy, then carriages must be saved!  Dunno about you, but I’m pretty sure the CEO of FedEx would disagree.

Swensen and Schmidt go on to argue that turning newspapers into non-profit organizations funded by endowments “would enhance newspapers’ autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down.”  In other words, they believe that because newspapers are not surviving the market economy with their current business model, they should — instead of adapting to consumer demand and concentrating on moving their operations online — forgo a business model altogether and become self-sufficient institutions that are immune to the desires of their audience.  I’ll give you a few seconds to apply and enjoy the carriage analogy here.

Of course, as Michael Masnick at Techdirt points out, Jefferson wasn’t really talking about newspapers as a medium, but newspapers as an implementation of journalism (just as — if my invented quote were true — he would probably have been talking about transportation, and not just carriages).  Doesn’t Jefferson’s quote really imply that, if anything, a citizenry who could be informed frequently, and even in real time, would be better off than one who only received news in a single, diurnal, static form?  To put it simply: wouldn’t Jefferson have been in favor of ditching newspapers for online news?

Continue reading ‘Newspaper Is Not The “One Medium To Rule Them All”’

Kiva.org Matures Into The First True Social Giving Platform

Yesterday, Kiva.org (which we profiled here) announced that it was creating a developer community and releasing a set of APIs.  With this bold stroke, Kiva transforms itself from microfinacing product to microfinancing platform.  This is very exiting, and I’m going to do my best to tell you why without losing you over too many technical details.

You may have heard Taylor or me mention the term “API” in the past, but I don’t think we’ve done a very good job of explaining what it means.  An API (which stands for Application Programming Interface) is essentially a set of computer commands and protocols that allows one piece of software to request information from another.  In short, the API is the language of software: the requesting software calls for information, and the source software delivers it.  Each program has its own “dialect” that the requesting software must employ in order to get the information it needs; when a company “releases” an API, then, it is essentially publishing the dictionary and grammar guide for that program’s language.

For example, if you are using a Windows PC, every program running on your computer right now — from AIM to Chrome to iTunes to MSWord — is making use of the Windows API to access resources from Windows XP or Vista.  Web applications often release APIs as well: Google and Facebook have APIs that allow developers to call for information from their services — whether it be search results, map tiles, or your social graph — and employ it in their own web applications (see my post on mashups).  By releasing numerous and robust APIs, companies essentially turn what were once simple products into foundations that can be built upon by those willing to learn and use the language.  The product evolves into what is called a “platform.”

Transitioning from web product to web platform is a sign of not only a product’s success and confidence, but also its maturity.  The release of an API shows that the service itself is structured and strong enough to handle not only its own traffic, but also an unknowable number of outside requests.  It carries a guarantee of a certain level of reliability of the service, as well — that it will suffer minimal downtime and will return clean data for every request.  But perhaps most importantly, the movement from product to platform signals an realization by the company that its mission can not be achieved in its own walled garden.  Whether your goal is to connect the world together like Facebook, or to organize the world’s information like Google: if your ambitions are lofty, then you have to open up yours doors so that others can leverage your resources for unique and innovative applications.

Continue reading ‘Kiva.org Matures Into The First True Social Giving Platform’

Defending Social Media

Reader Jared (not Jarred) left a lengthy comment on my post about what I feel is our growing need and ability to create and share content.  In short: our attraction to social media.  I want to pull out what I think is the essence of Jared’s concern, because it merits a more complete response:

Dig[ital] interconnectedness, to me, connotes an element of dystopic irony, a warning that we might not end up getting what we want out of this, and someday find that while social media was created and driven by a fundamental desire and longing for connection…it left that behind at some point in the past. [...]

The more data and content we create, the more noise. We keep finding more noise, more noise, more noise everywhere. White noise. [...]

It’s good stuff, this Internet….as long as we know what we’re getting ourselves into.

The issue of useless “white noise” comes up a lot.  The fact that the web is for all purposes infinite, and the information online limitless, makes the idea of constant content creation by an ever-expanding group of people seem completely overwhelming.  “I can’t even find time to read all the online articles in the NY Times every day” we think to ourselves; “My Google Reader is up to 4,000 unread items!  I don’t need MORE content–I’m barely keeping up with what I’ve already chosen to follow!”

Questioning whether the social media we use and follow will allow us to connect and grow in meaningful ways is almost completely tied to the issue of noise.  After all, absent the noisy distractions that Jared describes, the Internet would be an incredibly useful place.  Anyone who skims through the comments section of any popular YouTube video (a phenomenon captured brilliantly by XKCD) understands the limits of the current social web: when everyone speaks with equal weight and access, a lot of useless and ignorant crap is published online.

But let me argue that the proliferation and widespread adoption of social media–even in the midst of more noise–will be a good thing for a few reasons:

Continue reading ‘Defending Social Media’