Please Let’s Have No More Unfriendly Comments About FriendFeed

While it may not have carved out the giant slice of the social media pie that Twitter has, FriendFeed  has something truly exceptional: The individuals who make up the FF community. It is a community that is largely comprised of  good-hearted, wicked-witted and fierce-brained souls who are deeply loyal to each other.

That FriendFeed is special is something I firmly believe — even as a former member of that particular community. (A status revealed in the interest of full disclosure. Similarly, it should be noted that my reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the service or the other folks using it. If you have a year where two people to whom your family is close die in rapid succession, you too might consider spending much more time connecting with those important to you face-to-face as opposed to screen-to-screen.)

But that community is also one that has been feeling more than a little worried ever since Facebook bought up FriendFeed, a feeling perhaps best summarized at the time it happened in this witty yet wise post by Louis Gray.

Thus, it is completely understandable that the community took some offense to Robert Scoble’s comment on the current state of FriendFeed the other day. If someone hurts your friends, you get angry. You defend your friends. Simple as that. And that’s just what people did – some eloquently and some in a more brusque manner. But the reactions to Scoble’s comment that can be glimpsed below the initial post demonstrate what is best about FriendFeed – it is an excellent forum for rapid interchange and discourse rather than just a way to broadcast your own “look at me, look at me!” message. (I’m looking at you Twitter.)

It seems unlikely that Scoble realized quite how disrespectful the tone of his comment seemed or how massive the impact of one of FF’s foremost cheerleaders seemingly turning on it would be — though he almost certainly has an inkling of it now.

Consider the impassioned and articulate response to Scoble crafted by FFer Lindsay Donaghe:

“<plea>
Please, Robert, I know that you’re disappointed in what has happened to FriendFeed and you feel like you need to take out your frustrations on something, but it’s time to take your own advice and leave quietly if you’re going to leave. FriendFeed may not serve your particular needs anymore but your needs seem to be very specific, decidedly not mainstream, and difficult to comply to. That doesn’t mean that FriendFeed is not a valuable service to others with different needs. You don’t have to leave, but there’s no point in making things harder for the rest of us who support the service by trying to hammer the nails in the coffin while we are still pushing up the the lid for air.

You are actively fulfilling your own prophecy by chasing people away from FriendFeed and inciting people there to unsub and block you so that your feed is less and less interesting. And then you are insulting the rest of us by declaring that all the geeks have left when it’s your own efforts in sabotage (or lack of in pruning your feeds) that are making your experience worse, while claiming that you’re trying to spur someone into action to be FriendFeed’s new hero. But we don’t have that knight in shining armor to champion for FriendFeed and return it to its former glory. If anything, you were the most likely candidate. Now we just want to be left alone to use FriendFeed the way we are comfortable to using it. It’s time to stop the abuse.
</plea>”

How many other online communities would inspire commentary with that much depth of feeling and intelligence behind it?

Only Connect…Or Only Collect? The Whole Follower Question

“Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect…”

E.M. Forster

INTRODUCTION

While it is probably unwise to begin a blog post by quoting superior writer, it’s a mistake I’m going to repeat twice, because it was the brilliant Corvida Raven, whose thoughtful musings served to kick start my little grey cells and nimble typing fingers. She asked the following question in terms of social media networks:

Everything is about connecting to others, but have you considered the type of connection you’d like to have with people?

FIRST A DISCLAIMER:

I’m not going to tip-toe through the minefield and muck of “suggested Twitter users” – dangerous territory already well covered elsewhere- like here for a start.

MOTIVE IS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION

Hopefully the most common answer to Corvida’s question is ” a meaningful one.”

But from where I sit, the type of connection a person has with someone on a social media network such as Twitter can depend on their motive for engaging with and being engaged by that network in the first place. Are they trying to connect – connect to ideas and increase your knowledge? Connect to people with whom they can discuss shared passions or debate differing outlooks? Or are they looking for something else entirely?

I SHALL LEAD YOU ?

Are they looking to boost their ego? More and more there seems to be a sharp increase in people simply looking to amass numbers – be elected electronic prom queen so-to-speak – rather than actually connect. A sort of  “Mine’s bigger than yours” mentality- only this time having to do with numbers of Twitter followers.

It’s a mindset that’s been encouraged by tools like twittergrader.com – something that was meant to be helpful in measuring marketing reach (itself a dubious prospect in terms of what these networks were designed for) that has instead somehow been twisted into a popularity meter for many a person.

You know you’ve seen those tweets – “I’m ranked number __ in the city of Oz.” And frankly it’s disheartening.

BUSINESSES TOO

And that’s just regarding individuals, that says nothing about the unfortunate new inroads spammers and unscrupulous marketers are trying to take.

It’s getting worse too. If you don’t believe me, take a look at more expert opinions – such as the one tweeted by PurpleCar (who writes quite a bit about online behaviour and does it very well)  yesterday when speaking of www.tweepme.com, an “opt-in group” to help rapidly build a base of followers.   “this is a total travesty” she tweeted, followed by “what’s the point of tweepme after a while? Mainstreamers will realize you can rig the system and not use twitter. Follow rates lost value”

EFFECT OF COLLECTORS

It seems to me that trend of collecting has had a tremendously negative impact, having lead to all kinds of dubious services and narcissistic behaviour. Collectors will pander, flirt and provoke shamelessly just to raise their numbers. This kind of tactic is very seductive but ultimately cheapens whatever “connection” there might be. How meaningful is your connection if you are one of thousands?

The truth of this is hammered home if you take into consideration a recent, beautifully crafted commentary on Posterous concerning Dunbar’s number.

In it Melanie McBride sagely noted:

“there are only so many people we can treat reasonably and thoughtfully given the fixed capacity of the human OS and available relationship RAM.“

IN THE END

If you are in fact considering the type of connection that you want to have online, if you want to have meaning, doesn’t it seem better to focus on quality than quantity?

Ironically, given his massive legion of followers, Robert Scoble may have best summed up why it is best not to be a collector and not to focus so much on the size of your following:

If you define yourself by who is following you you’ll always feel inadequate. After all, you can’t control your followers and any idiot can follow people. But, define yourself by who you are following and you can really build something of high value.

In other words, isn’t it best for the tenor of these social networks and your experience on them that people try — really try — to connect and not just to collect?

FriendFeed: Trolling for Trouble?

Social media can be a wonderful experience.

As anyone who looks at this blog with any frequency knows, I have been extolling the virtues of FriendFeed for some time.

Friendfeed is  a “lifestream aggregator.” What that means in “non-tech-speak” is that it is a place you can bring together all your various feeds. As Wikipedia astutely noted:

“Friendfeed consolidates the updates from social media and social networking websites, social bookmarking websites, blogs and micro-blogging updates, as well as any other type of RSS/ Atom feed. Users can use this stream of information to create customized feeds to share (and comment) with friends.

But it is more than that. So much more.

THE GOOD

FriendFeed is a place populated by a diverse group of individuals, some extremely intelligent. Not a day goes by where I do not learn something new about technology, arts, sports, literature and current events. And almost always I learn these things hours if not days before the mainstream media gets around to discussing the topics in question.  So FF is indeed a place to learn.

FriendFeed is also a place to interact. There are some truly complex, thoughtful, warm and witty people on there. For some, FF has become a  very strong community.

THE REALLY GOOD

A great example of this was the recent birth of a beautiful baby girl. So many people were so excited about the pregnancy and the birth – which the father actually twittered but still, FF was kept apprised. And there was genuine rejoicing over her entrance into the world.

And if people have connected through FF for a long time, they have developed shared jokes, common interests and a genuine concern for each other. There’s even been an FF-sparked romance between two really funny, smart, spirited and lovely individuals.

Why then am I thinking of leaving this community if it is all lollipops and rainbows and kittens? [LOL Cats to be more specific.]

THE BAD

It may be the phases of the moon or growing pains or the fact that the discussion of politics can bring out the worst in people. But as of late, many pockets of FF have been filled with drama and sniping and comments that are clearly designed to provoke people.

In the darker corners of FF, the  trolls have been out in force. For those not familiar with the term, here is a very good definition of a troll from a public-domain document known as The Jargon File:

An individual who… regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks… for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand – they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics….

Most of the time I can ignore such behaviour. As the mother of a crafty, clever 4-year-old, I’ve been well-trained to do so: Tantruming wee children and trolls are not all that different. They both want attention and they want it NOW.

At least the children are cute.

THE UGLY

Common courtesy has become an oxymoron it seems. (Or maybe morons just don’t know how to be courteous? )

Right now on FF, many people seem to have lost the ability to agree to disagree or to debate things they don’t see eye-to-eye on civilly.

Today I reached my limit during a discussion of the Inauguration of President Obama. There has been a lot of excitement and hope generated by the Obama over on FF. And apparently trolls don’t like hope.

In response to a series of primarily positive comments I made, someone suggested that I go do something rather nasty.

That’s usually not a problem for me except what they suggested — an action that could be thought of as somewhat benign — was in fact the method used by someone I loved to end their existence. And having to relive that- to plummet to that kind of despair after having been so full of hope and joy – was too much.

The final straw snapped.

CONCLUSION

But please don’t take this as a condemnation of FriendFeed. With exceptions, it is a magnificent and lively group of  intriguing, intelligent souls. You just need to have infinite patience to deal with the few vile and insistent trolls oozing out from under that particular community’s bridge.

Alas,  my patience has reached its limits – and thus, regretfully, my time on FF likely has too.

Is Imitation the Sincerest Form of Flattery?

A Few Thoughts On Plagiarism

There’s been a lot of talk around the blogosphere lately about what constitutes plagiarism and how important proper attribution is. Just yesterday over on FriendFeed, Louis Gray pointed out an article of particular interest on a really intriguing blog called Plagiarism Today.

Nobody is defending plagiarism. It is true that often ideas for a post are inspired by something someone else has written – or an item that they saw first and were quicker to write about because they had more time to write that particular day. You may take see their piece and take idea off on your own particular tangent, but attributing their piece is more than a polite gesture- it’s a necessity. You need to honour the time and effort that someone else put into their work. (And you also need not to just copy their ideas and slap your name on it. That’s despicable.)

This is something else. Something different.

What Is This Something Different?

I have a story that could be labeled a cautionary tale-it’s a little bit odder and not at all about the lifting of content. Rather, it’s more of a textual version of Single White Female.

I’m going to keep the names anonymous to protect the innocent and guilty alike. (That’s also why I am not linking to these blogs- you’ll see why in a minute. Be patient.)

The Cautionary Tale

A dear friend of mine made an acquaintance in the wilds of the world wide web. (I’m going to call them X and Y because I’ve been listening to that Coldplay CD lately. If you’re a Bond fan you could call them M and Q or you could take the first two letters of the alphabet and designate them that way. Whatever makes you happy.)

X got to know Y slightly. Read Y’s blog occasionally and liked it. It was a good blog with some interesting ideas and good things to say, though it lacked a strongly distinctive voice. X saw that Y was reading X’s blog. A lot in fact. X saw that Y’s URL was coming up in the blog log many, many, many times in a day over a period of weeks. One day, X went back to Y’s blog and discovered that Y’s blog now had a very distinctive voice: X’s down to the phrasing, the tone of how Y answered comments and in fact the way post titles were punctuated. (So much so that some people who read both had been e-mailing X and commenting upon the similarities and how weird this situation was.)

What Would You Do About This?

My question is this: What would you call this? It isn’t plagiarism because there was no theft of content. It isn’t identity theft because Y never claimed to be X- just copied many of X’s best practices.

Has anyone else ever come across an example like this where someone else has appropriated another person’s voice? And if so, what did you do about it? What would you recommend X do about it?

The Only Spam I Like Comes From Monty Python.

Spam isn’t tasty when it arrives unbidden in your mailbox. It’s just annoying. In fact, as I have noted in the title, really the only spam I like comes from Monty Python.

Alas, these days spam doesn’t just come to you, it also tricks you into going to it. It has a slightly more sophisticated half-sibling, the splog.

Spam by Any Other Name Still Stinks

Splogging is a minor evil, right up there in terms of irritation with the sound the drill makes when you are getting your tooth filled.

The word “splog” is an amalgamation of spam and blog. The content of this beast is made up or has been excerpted from many legitimate blogs and the majority of it is ads.

Even more nefariously, there’s a variant called a “scraper.” It’s like a raccoon except instead of ransacking your garbage, this time it has gone through your safe and your fridge and it has taken your valuables and the best leftovers back to its lair.

As noted in an invaluable post by Jeffro on his Jeffro2pt0 blog, a scraper is a little thief of sorts:

“A scraping blog is a blog that uses an automatic tool, often a WordPress Plugin, that snatches the content from legitimate blogs, called “scraping”, and uses it as its own with no original content. Some present the content in full posts, a big copyright no-no….”

Copyright’s been a hot button issue as of late when it comes to the net. I covered the main event (AP vs. bloggers everywhere) and today we’ll look at an interesting undercard match–Duncan Riley vs. perceived sploggers.

Round One Wrap-Up of Sorts

This is a week where everyone’s tolerance levels were low because of the AP mess.

That potential clash went out with a whimper and not a band and left some large questions unresolved, as the mysterious Media Bloggers Association mentioned here.

[Regarding the above link, I must disagree with the MBA about "blog rage" not work. It was more the howls of protest from the blogosphere than any dialogue that the MBA had with AP that made this go away. They realized they'd awakened a sleeping giant who was now in a bitterly foul mood.]

Round Two: Riley vs. Splogging

But I’m off track. This week on FriendFeed, there was a lot of discussion clustered around a post by Duncan Riley entitled Why Has Keith Teare Gone Into Spam Blogging? Seriously Dumb.

His beef with Teare is that the latter has blogs such as SeriouslyTech that apparently republish full content from many influential bloggers- including Riley’s own work! It must have been quite a shock when he came across it.

But in fact, it seemed Teare was really a handy representative for the many sploggers out there who basically snatch your textual child and put it in their own nursery- so to speak.

I don’t like it and I’m a Z-list blogger. I can’t imagine how irritating it must be for the A-listers to have their work snatched like that because people want to capitalize on their reputations for increased web traffic.

Riley was civil but clearly upset and gave Teare the benefit of believing he had been badly advised:

“I’ve met Keith before and he’s always struck me as being a smart guy, so who ever convinced him that doing this is a good thing (he’s not doing this alone, but it’s all in his name) needs to be quickly purged. I’m sorry Keith, but I’ve gone after companies and people for far less than this…. Whatever this site aims to be in the future, it needs to die now before you start getting the lawyer letters from the very annoyed people you are currently stealing from.”

fav.or.it meets with no favour?

Riley saved the worst of his ire for fav.or.it, and rightly so. As he noted, not only does fav.or.it often reprint full contents of blogs, it makes the authors jump through hoops to prevent it from happening again.

Look at their help page which explains the process. That’s more than anyone should have to do concerning content that they created which turned up unexpectedly elsewhere.

No wonder Riley was compelled to ask “exactly when did splogging become a business model again? It’s like a whole chunk of the world missed the memo that ripping peoples content off for your own commercial gain is immoral and wrong, no matter how well you flavor the end product.”

Aftermath

There was A LOT of discussion on FriendFeed about this and it also branched off into discussion about copyright. (Though that was also in large part to the “AP vs. the world” business.)

It was fascinating to watch the ripple effect in play. It was also exciting to watch all these smart, tech-savvy key influencers discuss and debate such important issues. And hat’s one of the things that makes FF so compelling.

According to FF (or, to be accurate, Twitter via FF), Teare has apparently taken Riley’s content off his site. Teare has also tried to explain his position in comments on Riley’s blog – see that and many other insightful comments here.

But this does raise some questions: Is fav.or.it actually a splog or just an aggressively grabby aggregator?

Is what they are doing wrong or is it the way they are doing it and the arrogance they are displaying in asking the copyright holders to get a license to get them to back off?

Are they actually adding any kind of value at all to the work? Or are they just coasting on a lot of other people’s coattails?

Why do you think copyright has blown up into such a hot issue again? And is this some kind of turning point?

And does anyone else agree with me that it might all be due to the humidity?

UPDATED: Wow. Riley really does feel very strongly about all this and I suspect his latest move may generate some interesting discussion. To hear the man speak the situation in his own words, please go here.

(But please come back – or stay on FriendFeed- and answer this question: Is he right? How do you see the copyright issue?)

AM