Skip to content →

Author: cgerrish

Unemployed philosopher

Continental Congress: Notes From the Bearhug Underground

Published September 2, 2008 by cgerrish

First Continental Congress

I’ve been trying to organize my thoughts about the terrain unfolding around the politics and technology of real-time microblogging. Here are my notes from the underground.

Sun Tzu said:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

1.0 Gillmor and Winer have called for a meetup, a camp, to bring the conversation about microblogging into the open.

1.1 As Winer noted, the users are ahead of the developers and product owners at this point in the timeline. That’s a unique opportunity.

1.2 Twitter prototyped an experience of the real-time web, giving us a glimpse of the power of IM and Track. It was withdrawn to attempt to insert a business model and reconfigure their infrastructure to support high volume real time messaging.

1.2.1 Track is the ability to follow keywords rather than specific people. This allows for vision into both sides of conversations happening outside a directed social graph and the ability to discover new relevant connections. When combined with a real-time feed it allows for the discovery of current events and conversations happening right now.

1.3 Previously, Twitter recognized the value of Track by purchasing Summize for a 10% stake in its future valuation.

1.4 When IM and Track were withdrawn, Twitter substituted an illustration of a whale for a user dialogue. Users were locked out of the dialogue and potentially about to be locked in the trunk.

2.0 Identi.ca begins to build a decentralized microblogging model that re-instates the real-time web, when combined with Dustin Salling’s Spy extensions.

2.1 Of the two services, only Identi.ca offers up the full XMPP stream to enable real-time Track. For the moment, this gives Identi.ca (Laconi.ca) the superior feature set.

2.2 To the extent that Laconi.ca deviates from Twitter’s interaction model it will destroy itself. With the exception of decentralization and Track, it has no advantages over Twitter.

2.2.1 It’s about users and network effects, not software features.

2.3 The addition of new features outside the current Twitter interaction model will not create growth. It will create confused users trying to understand the difference between Twitter and Identi.ca.

2.3.1 Some users are confused about the role of Open Source in the competition for users between Identi.ca and Twitter. If Identi.ca manages to grow to critical mass, it will have nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source is a good way to produce and maintain software; it doesn’t motivate users.

2.4 A bridge was extended across the divide between Identi.ca and Twitter. Messages, and half conversations pushed through into the Twittersphere, pointing back to the real-time web.

2.5 A two-way bridge would have the effect of flooding Identi.ca with Tweets and sucking the conversation back over to Twitter.

3.0 Twitter adds the “refers to” meta-data element. This is the piece of the puzzle that begins to radically change the shape of conversations unfolding through the Network. Tweets and Dents now addressable as URIs on the Network. Conversations potentially can be aggregated across platforms.

3.1 Gillmor proposes a three-party system including Twitter, Identi.ca (and other Laconi.ca installations) and aggregation and Track in the client (Twhirl, Gchat, etc.).

3.2 If Twitter has its own brand of Track and Identi.ca has its own brand of Track. Twitter demolishes Identi.ca. Only a three-party system will preserve Identi.ca and the ecosystem.

3.3 If neither Twitter nor Identi.ca have Track and real-time messaging. Twitter demolishes Identi.ca. Identi.ca’s highest priority has to be maintain its real-time Track advantage over Twitter. That window will close soon.

4.0 If you’re wondering why Twitter is winning, it’s because they don’t have to care about establishing a multi-party ecosystem for micro-blogging. They can simply wait until their competitors destroy themselves. (See quote by Sun Tzu at the top of the post)

4.1 All Continental Congresses start as a brawl. But as with Internet Identity, once the vendors understand they can’t, and shouldn’t own the space, cooperation is engendered.

4.2 Winer called Twitter a Corral Reef. Now we’d like the whole micro-blogging ecosystem to be a Corral Reef. It’s an opportunity happening right now in real time.

4.3 A strong bear hug at the right time, with the right players and the right conversation could create a solid foundation, a Corral Reef.

3 Comments

Switchboard Operators of the Network: Dropping a Link into the Stream

Published September 1, 2008 by cgerrish

Switchboard operator

In reading the profile of economist Austan Goolsbee in the October 2008 issue of Technology Review, there are a lot of things that stand out. I’d like to focus on one quote in particular.

“In 1910,” Goolsbee says, “If someone could have gone back and told people then how many phone lines would exist today in the U.S., they’d have responded that that was physically impossible, because every American would need to be a telephone exchange operator. That few switchboard operators exist today, nevertheless, isn’t a sign that all those people are unemployed.”

Goolsbee is talking about the process of creative destruction with regard to jobs. Job types are constantly being destroyed and created in a dynamic economy. And given the state of maintaining the Network as it existed then, switchboard operators were key to keeping data flowing and connecting through the Network.

But the thing that struck me was the similarity between the job of the switchboard operator and the process of consuming multiple microblogging streams, and other media and lifestream feeds. We can look at the current state of human-computer interaction around micro-blogging, and the real-time web, and say this could never grow because every American would need to be a highly skilled switchboard operator. But maybe it’s easier than we think.

Today the Network is filled with switchboard operators who keep information flowing and inspire discovery as thought objects radiate out through the rings and circles of microcommunites on the Network. Whenever you drop a link into the stream; whenever you pick one out of the stream and follow it; whenever you’re inspired to drop a new link to connect two thoughts; you’re running a new kind of switchboard. New jobs are being created, and the Network is hiring.

Comments closed

Passing the Hat through the Network

Published August 31, 2008 by cgerrish

Passing the hat

I recently heard Doc Searls talk about his interest in developing a method to send money to musicians, radio progams and other forms of streaming entertainment. If you like something, you should be able to show it by putting your money where your mouth is. It’s a thought provoking idea that challenges the underlying fundamentals and economics of a well established industry.

Presumably some kind of name space would need to be developed for the recipients of payments– a URI that could be addressed from a distributed set of listening contexts. The basic idea is that the listener can set the terms of the transaction, in some ways it’s like the traditional tip jar or passing the hat. I’m not clear if the intention is to link to existing micro-payment systems or to develop new ones, but presumably there would be more than one transaction mechanism.

Much like Wikipedia and other social projects, the idea of creating a real economics for musicians based on voluntary payment has been met with skepticism. Kevin Kelly draws the boundaries of the economic system in his post 1,000 true fans. The gist of the contention is:

A creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson, performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author – in other words, anyone producing works of art – needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to make a living.

A “true fan” is someone who will buy everything an artist produces. Obviously to yield 1,000 true fans an artist may need ten or twenty times as many regular fans. Kelly’s post attracted a number of responses, including one Kelly noted from Jaron Lanier:

Jaron claims that he has not found a single musician that meets this definition. In other words, he claims that there are no musicians who have risen to a successful livelihood within the new media environment. None. No musician who is succeeding solely on the generatives I outline in Better Than Free. No musician born digital, and making a living in the new media.

Kelly followed up with two posts: The Case Against 1,000 True Fans and The Reality of Depending on True Fans.

Doc Searl’s proposal would shift the responsibility of developing payment modes from the artist to a payment system. This is a key friction point for artists, they’re good at making music not managing micro-payment systems. But for me, another question emerges: if I like the song “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” what are my payment options?

  • The Beatles
  • George Harrison
  • Eric Clapton, for that guitar solo
  • George Martin, as producer
  • Prince, for that guitar solo (RRHOF version)

Who owns which part of a performance? Can they be addressed separately? What about multiple versions of the same tune? What about cover versions? Can a performance be addressed as a complex network? Can we make it easy to pull that one thread from the cloth? Is there a viable Buddhist Economics that can emerge from this confluence of efforts?

The framing of a performance contributes to its total value. This would be true of a performance encountered somewhere on a distributed Network as well. Virtuoso violinist Joshua Bell recently played unannounced in a subway station. That venue, as opposed to a concert hall, altered the audience’s perception of the value of his performance.

Joshua Bell made $32.17 as a busker. He commented:

“Actually,” Bell said with a laugh, “that’s not so bad, considering. That’s 40 bucks an hour. I could make an okay living doing this, and I wouldn’t have to pay an agent.”

2 Comments

Twitter Scrabble

Published August 30, 2008 by cgerrish

Twitter Scrabble

Now the Scrabble dictionary doesn’t seem to think that the word “OK” is legal. But some would argue for its acceptance. Gavin Rude, an english teacher, makes a gallant attempt in this PDF. However, given the current politcal climate around online scrabble– Kevin Marks and Brian Oberkirch could be viewed as colluding to play team scrabble through Twitter without permission from the Hasbro corporation.

I’m expecting take down notices all around.

Comments closed