400 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Servers should not trust client submitted content, and federated servers also should not trust content received from a server other than the content's origin without some form of verification.

      If it's my client posting to my server then it's of less concern, for the client to server side. Federation is by def not to be trusted.

    2. Servers SHOULD validate the content they receive to avoid content spoofing attacks. (A server should do something at least as robust as checking that the object appears as received at its origin, but mechanisms such as checking signatures would be better if available). No particular mechanism for verification is authoritatively specified by this document, but please see Security Considerations for some suggestions and good practices

      You should do some evaluation of received content, but the spec doesn't provide an authorative way for verification.

    3. ActivityPub defines some terms in addition to those provided by ActivityStreams. These terms are provided in the ActivityPub JSON-LD context at https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams.

      https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#activitypub this seems quite a list, and rather central to AP: All terms in this section are described in the [ActivityPub] specification.

      endpoints (@id)
      following (@id)
      followers (@id)
      inbox (@id) - This is an alias of ldp:inbox.
      liked (@id)
      shares (@id)
      likes (@id)
      oauthAuthorizationEndpoint (@id)
      oauthTokenEndpoint (@id)
      outbox (@id)
      provideClientKey (@id)
      proxyUrl (@id)
      sharedInbox (@id)
      signClientKey (@id)
      streams (@id)
      uploadMedia (@id)
    4. Objects are the core concept around which both [ActivityStreams] and ActivityPub are built. Objects are often wrapped in Activities and are contained in streams of Collections, which are themselves subclasses of Objects. See the [Activity-Vocabulary] document, particularly the Core Classes; ActivityPub follows the mapping of this vocabulary very closely.

      Objects are the core building blocks of AP, following ActivityStreams spec fully. Objects are wrapped in Activities, and can be part of Collections (itself an Object). Also follows the saem URI conventions

    5. This specification defines two closely related and interacting protocols: A client to server protocol, or "Social API" This protocol permits a client to act on behalf of a user. For example, this protocol is used by a mobile phone application to interact with a social stream of the user's actor. A server to server protocol, or "Federation Protocol" This protocol is used to distribute activities between actors on different servers, tying them into the same social graph. The ActivityPub specification is designed so that once either of these protocols are implemented, supporting the other is of very little additional effort. However, servers may still implement one without the other

      It is possible to have an AP client-server implementation that does not do the federation part, but it would be little effort to support it. And vice versa. Does this mean that in such a case every other server should come and get information, iow another server should know to come get it? Federation is more about push it seems. Not doing the federation part means limiting the amount of stuff you get to receive (all the other stuff). For my site it would be good to limit what's being processed. Currently it seems to me that maybe WP AP plugin isn't doing the federation bits?

    6. Since this is a non-activity object, the server recognizes that this is an object being newly created, and does the courtesy of wrapping it in a Create activity. (Activities sent around in ActivityPub generally follow the pattern of some activity by some actor being taken on some object. In this case the activity is a Create of a Note object, posted by a Person).

      posting to your outbox is supposed to be treated as a Create type activity and wrapped as such. Other activities (e.g. Like) should be deliberately expressed, but create is assumed if no activity is present.

    7. Indeed, federation happens usually by servers posting messages sent by actors to actors on other servers' inboxes.

      Federation comes from POSTing to other server inboxes, rather than GETting from server's outboxes. This is the source of M being rather traffic heavy?

    8. if that last one (GET'ing from someone's outbox) was the only way to see what people have sent, this wouldn't be a very efficient federation protocol!

      ? So at core, AP would require cycling through people's outboxes to get the stuff that is available there. Such pulling may be enough for just specific circles of people. Would it be enough for dAPplr? Come and get it?

    9. You can POST to someone's inbox to send them a message (server-to-server / federation only... this is federation!) You can GET from your inbox to read your latest messages (client-to-server; this is like reading your social network stream) You can POST to your outbox to send messages to the world (client-to-server) You can GET from someone's outbox to see what messages they've posted (or at least the ones you're authorized to see). (client-to-server and/or server-to-server)

      get and post behave differently on the client and server side. Get from inbox client side, is reading ones stream. Post to outbox client side is sending messages out. Post to inbox server side is incoming stuff from the fediverse. Get from outbox serverside is getting the msgs you're authorised to see. This last one would be how I'd approach e.g. dAPplr (I think I found my working title)

    10. An inbox: How they get messages from the world An outbox: How they send messages to others

      Every actor has an inbox and outbox. These are endpoints URLs listed in the ActivityPub actor's ActivityStreams description

    11. In ActivityPub, a user is represented by "actors" via the user's accounts on servers. User's accounts on different servers correspond to different actors.

      a user is an actor is an account on server. Actors can be of different type (org, group, person, app and service) I suppose here person is usually meant, but I can see group and org useful too, as well as service (different content streams by me) and even app (source of content creation e.g.)

    12. ActivityPub provides two layers: A server to server federation protocol (so decentralized websites can share information) A client to server protocol (so users, including real-world users, bots, and other automated processes, can communicate with ActivityPub using their accounts on servers, from a phone or desktop or web application or whatever) ActivityPub implementations can implement just one of these things or both of them. However, once you've implemented one, it isn't too many steps to implement the other, and there are a lot of benefits to both

      It seems all current implementations are both, but I wonder if separating them out creates lower threshold agency, much like how microsub separates the feed server and the reading client, and micropub separates the posting server and the writing client. I can see having multiple client side thing to be able to post or see content, even if the base case is my site being my client and my server. Keeping a clear distinction of what's what is always useful.

    13. The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol based upon the [ActivityStreams] 2.0 data format. It provides a client to server API for creating, updating and deleting content, as well as a federated server to server API for delivering notifications and content.

      In sum, I'd need to: understand activities use my site to create those activities, and display those of others separate the client part on my site and the server part clearly in my mind. figure out how the server part processes incoming notifications and content.

    14. federated server to server API for delivering notifications and content

      The servers between eachother also have an API to deliver notifications and content.

    15. provides a client to server API for creating, updating and deleting content

      the client creates/updates/deletes content, and uses an API to send that to server.

    16. The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol based upon the [ActivityStreams] 2.0 data format.

      Activitystreams is a fundament for AP. This is why I'm interested, as ActviityStreams contains a much wider range of verbs than just for basic social interaction. Specifically covering things that used to have a social software service since gone (e.g. Dopplr, original Foursquare, Jaiku's way of combining streams into 1) Should read and mine the ActivityStreams spec for understanding too.

    1. These are the specifications produced by the Social Web Working Group. New implementation reports and feedback are always welcome (details for where to submit these are at the top of each document). [Activitypub] JSON(-LD)-based APIs for client-to-server interactions (ie. publishing) and server-to-server interactions (ie. federation). ActivityStreams 2.0 [activitystreams-core] and [activitystreams-vocabulary] The syntax and vocabulary for representing social activities, actors, objects, and collections in JSON(-LD). Linked Data Notifications ([LDN]) A JSON-LD-based protocol for delivery. [Micropub] A form-encoding and JSON-based API for client-to-server interactions (ie. publishing). [Webmention] A form-encoding-based protocol for delivery. [WebSub] A protocol for subscription to any resource and delivery of updates about it. Specifications which are not Social Web Working Group recommendations, but which are nonetheless relevent to the charter deliverables, are described in 8. Related specifcations.

      The various specs by the Social Web Working Group are listed here together. AP with the purpose of interaction is mentioned alongside MicroPub Sub and Webmention. The 'related specs' mentions IndieAuth and MF2. Useful to see it presented here as a 'family' rather than as alternatives, and underscores the gap that AP could fill for my otherwise IndieWeb enabled site.

    1. To "keep things the way they are" is always an option, never the default. Framing this option as a default position introduces a significant conservative bias — listing it as an option removes this bias and keeps a collective evolutionary. To "look for other options" is always an option. If none of the other current options are good enough, people are able to choose to look for better ones — this ensures that there is always an acceptable option for everyone. Every participant can express how much they support or oppose each option. Limiting people to choose their favorite or list their preference prevents them from fully expressing their opinions — scoring clarifies opinions and makes it much more likely to identify the best decision. Acceptance (non-opposition) is the main determinant for the best decision. A decision with little opposition reduces the likelihood of conflict, monitoring or sanctioning — it is also important that some people actively support the decision to ensure it actually happens.

      Four elements to make 'score voting' more a cooperative effort. Status quo is one of the options to choose, not the default if no decision is made, adding options is always possible (meaning no limitative list of options, which would be giving a certain power to the maker of the list), everyone marks support/opposition to all options, not just favourites (score voting) and totals are tabulated (#openvraag how does this avoid 'brainless squid' results?), acceptance (meaning no or low opposition) rather than faving is main factor in decision making. That last one reads as pointing to a balanced dual indicator: the strongest attractor wins given the lowest barrier. So first determine lowest barrier options, than the biggest attractor amongst those.

  2. fasiha.github.io fasiha.github.io
    1. Yoyogi

      Yoyogi is a tool that taps into your mastodon account (in your browser, locally) and shows messages by author / thread not as timeline. If you'd sort that like Fraidycat that would be a pretty interesting interface.

  3. Nov 2022
    1. We are now seeing such reading return to its former social base: a self-perpetuating minority that we shall call the reading class. — Griswold, McDonnell and Wright, “Reading and the Reading Class in the Twenty-First Century,” Annual Review of Sociology (2005) They see two options for readers in society: Gaining “power and prestige associated with an increasingly rare form of cultural capital” Becoming culturally irrelevant and backwards with “an increasingly arcane hobby”

      Reading is suggested to be potentially waning, maybe becoming more elite or even obsolete. It seems to disregard its counterpart: writing. For every thing that can be read, writing has preceded it. Writing, other than direct transcription, is not just creating text it is a practice, that also creates effects/affordances for the writer. Also thinking of Rheingold's definition of literacy as a skill plus community in which that skill is widely present. Writing/reading started out as bookkeeping, and I assume professional classes will remain text focused (although AR is an 'oral' path here too)

    2. It’s interesting to divide the internet into Word People and Image People because the Internet is a modern evolution of oral culture — and technological/bandwidth limitations have enabled text to serve as the leading means to transfer information online up till now, when more direct oral presentations (podcasts, video streaming, video) become a feasible way to distribute more of the pool of information.

      Tracy Durnell comments on a quote that divides internet users in 'word people' and 'image people' by by position the entire internet as a modern form of oral culture. The only reason in that perspective for the abundance of text is early bandwidth and technology limitations. Nowadays presentations, streaming, videos and podcasts make a much direct version of distributing oral expressions. When Durnell talks about oral culture is that because of the style more than the format? Blogs, IRC chats, microblogging and messaging are more oral in tone. Whereas ;'serious' texts are still in document shape. Reminds me of annotation as conversation and as social interaction.

    1. The last thing Europe wants is its regulation that restricts future innovation, raising barriers to entry for new businesses and users alike. 

      Which is why DSA and DMA target larger entities beyond that start-up scale.

    2. There is no central authority or control that one could point to and hold responsible for content moderation practices; instead, moderation happens in an organic bottom-up manner

      This is I think an incorrect way of picturing it. Moderation isn't bottom-up, that again implies seeing the fediverse as a whole. Moderation is taking place in each 'shop' in a 'city center', every 'shop' has its own house rules. And that is the only level of granularity that counts, the system as a whole isn't a system entity. Like road systems, e-mail, postal systems, internet infra etc. aren't either.

    3. Since moderation in major social media platforms is conducted by a central authority, the DSA can effectively hold a single entity accountable through obligations. This becomes more complex in decentralized networks, where content moderation is predominantly community-driven.

      Does it become more complex in federation? Don't think so as it also means that the reach and impact of each of those small instances is by def limited. Most of the fediverse will never see most of the fediverse. Thus it likely flies under any ceiling that incurs new responsibilities.

    4. what will it mean if an instance ends up generating above EUR 10 million in annual turnover or hires more than 50 staff members? Under the DSA, if these thresholds are met the administrators of that instance would need to proceed to the implementation of additional requirements, including a complaint handling system, cooperation with trusted flaggers and out-of-court dispute bodies, enhanced transparency reporting and the adoption of child protection measures, as well as the banning of dark patterns. Failure to comply with these obligations may result in fines or the geo-blocking of the instance across the EU market. 

      50ppl and >10M turnover for a single instance (mastodon.social runs on 50k in donations or so)? Don't see that happening, and if, how likely is it that will be in the European market? Where would such turnover come from anyways, it isn't adverts so could only be member fees as donations don't count? Currently it's hosters that make money, for keeping the infra humming.

    5. Today– given the non-profit model and limited, volunteer administration of most existing instances– all Mastodon servers would seem to be exempt from obligations for large online platforms

      Almost by definition federated instances don't qualify as large platform.

    6. However, based on the categorizations of the DSA, it is most probable that each instance could be seen as an independent ‘online platform’ on which a user hosts and publishes content that can reach a potentially unlimited number of users. Thus, each of these instances will need to comply with a set of minimum obligations for intermediary and hosting services, including having a single point of contact and legal representative, providing clear terms and conditions, publishing bi-annual transparency reports, having a notice and action mechanism and, communicating information about removals or restrictions to both notice and content providers.

      Mastodon instances, other than personal or closed ones, would fall within the DSA. Each instance is its own platform though. Because of that I don't think this holds up very well, are closed Discord servers platforms under the DSA too then? Most of these instances are small, many don't encourage new users (meaning the potential reach is very limited). For largers ones like mastodon.nl this probably does apply.

    1. Mastodon is just blogs

      "Mastodon is just blogs and Google Reader, skinned to look like Twitter." That is pretty accurate, microblogging and following does what feedreading does too. In this case commenting is put at the exact same level as the orginal blogpost, akin to how I can reply to posts with a post of my own (like old trackbacks, now webmention)

    1. In 2022 willen we nadrukkelijker in beeld krijgen welke veranderingen veel waarde opleveren voor de gebruikers en daarbij speciale aandacht besteden aan enkele sectoren. Daarnaast willen we volgende stappen zetten in de doorontwikkeling van inhoud, processen en voorzieningen. Hierbij gaat het bijvoorbeeld ook om het structureel in beheer nemen van voorzieningen die de afgelopen jaren zijn gerealiseerd, zodat deze breed gebruikt kunnen worden. Tot slot besteden we aandacht aan de organisatie van het programma, zodat voor iedereen duidelijk is wat waar gebeurt en hoe mensen uit het veld daarbij betrokken kunnen zijn. We blijven iedereen op de hoogte houden via nieuwsbrief, website, DiS-Online-bijeenkomsten en als het weer kan voorlichtingsbijeenkomsten in het land.

      In 2021 is DiS Geo goed in het GI Beraad opgenomen. In 2022 ging het om sectorgericht en laaghangend fruit. En het netjes organiseren van verandering. Hoe past in 2023 EU datastrategie daarbij: zijn er dingen die je niet meer zel hoeft bijv?

    1. The majority of scholarship on platform governance focuses on for-profit, corporate social media with highly centralized network structures. Instead, we show how non-centralized platform governance functions in the Mastodon social network. Through an analysis of survey data, Github and Discourse developer discussions, Mastodon Codes of Conduct, and participant observations, we argue Mastodon’s platform governance is an exemplar of the covenant, a key concept from federalist political theory. We contrast Mastodon’s covenantal federalism platform governance with the contractual form used by corporate social media. We also use covenantal federalist theory to explain how Mastodon’s users, administrators, and developers justify revoking or denying membership in the federation. In doing so, this study sheds new light on the innovations in platform governance that go beyond the corporate/alt-right platform dichotomy.

      Promises to be interesting wrt governance structures in moderation/adminning.

    1. It's not entirely the Twitter people's fault. They've been taught to behave in certain ways. To chase likes and retweets/boosts. To promote themselves. To perform.

      Twitter trains users to behave a certain way. It rewards a specific type of performance. In contrast, until now at least, M is focused on conversation (and the functionality of the apps reinforce that, with how boosts and likes work differently)

    2. Loudly proclaiming that content warnings are censorship, that functionality that has been deliberately unimplemented due to community safety concerns are "missing" or "broken", and that volunteer-run servers maintaining control over who they allow and under what conditions are "exclusionary". No consideration is given to why the norms and affordances of Mastodon and the broader fediverse exist, and whether the actor they are designed to protect against might be you.


    3. It is the very tools and settings that provide so much more agency to users that pundits claim make Mastodon "too complicated".


    4. Nevertheless, the basic principles have mostly held up to now: the culture and technical systems were deliberately designed on principles of consent, agency, and community safety. Whilst there are definitely improvements that could be made to Mastodon in terms of moderation tools and more fine-grained control over posting, in general these are significantly superior to the Twitter experience. It's hardly surprising that the sorts of people who have been targets for harrassment by fascist trolls for most of their lives built in protections against unwanted attention when they created a new social media toolchain.

      Agreed, M allows more agency to accountholders. I see how agency and community safety are part of the technical design. What tech / functionality in M is aimed at consent? You can determine the audience for each message more granularly than elsewhere, but that to me is not an implementation of consent, more one of signalling intent.

    5. The people creating, publishing, and requesting public lists of Mastodon usernames for certain categories of person (journalists, academics in a particular field, climate activists...) didn't appear to have checked whether any of those people felt safe to be on a public list. They didn't appear to have considered that there are names for the sort of person who makes lists of people so others can monitor their communications. They're not nice names.

      fair point. At the same time Mastodon has I think overly relied on 'security by obscurity' for safety, which is always a failing tactic in the face of sudden influx of people. If you're in the public square you will be seen. If you need private conversation, in groups, find eachother in the public square and take the conversation elsewhere is more sound. Vgl. the e2e encrypted conversations I'm in, various Matrix servers etc. There's a plethora of tools out there. M never was a 'safe' tool in that regard, but it suggested it is because of the paucity of users.

    6. The academics excitedly considering how to replicate their Twitter research projects on a new corpus of "Mastodon" posts didn't seem to wonder whether we wanted to be studied by them.

      This I think is more a matter of the research boards at univs. Esp US univs have a very limited perspective on what e.g. constitutes 'human subject' research. Vgl Princeton GDRP/website study last year, or the CrisisTextLine datasharing that danah boyd thought able to defend.

    7. The people re-publishing my Mastodon posts on Twitter didn't think to ask whether I was ok with them doing that. The librarians wondering loudly about how this "new" social media environment could be systematically archived didn't ask anyone whether they want their fediverse posts to be captured and stored by government institutions.

      This I think is an unfounded expectation.

    8. I hadn't fully understood — really appreciated — how much corporate publishing systems steer people's behaviour until this week. Twitter encourages a very extractive attitude from everyone it touches.

      This stands out indeed.

    9. I was nervously watching the file storage creep up on the ausglam.space wondering if I'd make it to the end of the weekend before the hard drive filled up, and starting to draft new Rules and Terms of Use for the server to make explicit things that previously "everybody knew" implicitly because we previously could acculturate people one by one.

      Author runs a community server. Here points to how it used to be possible to 'acculturate' new people 1 by 1. That is the lurking/delurking/participating process.

    10. I finally realised on Monday that the word I was looking for was "traumatic". In October I would have interacted regularly with perhaps a dozen people a week on Mastodon, across about 4 or 5 different servers. Suddenly having hundreds of people asking (or not) to join those conversations without having acclimatised themselves to the social norms felt like a violation, an assault. I know I'm not the only one who felt like this.

      Recognisable. Author was accustomed to quiet conversation and suddenly many others joined those conversations without lurking for a while. To me it felt like many T-migrants brought with them the passive aggressive tone, the streetwise attitude of don't f with me, that kept the trolls and baiting away over there. Classically what one does when joining a new conversation, in a bar, online or wherever, is you lurk to observe the setting and context of the conversation, then signal you want to join by injecting an insignificant contribution (to de-lurk) and when acknowledged you join more fully. That is not what has been happening. Various T-migrants came with the expectation it seems that they had replicated their existing conversations into a new room. Where those in the room already were the new participants, and therefore the ones delurking. The T-migrants weren't budding in, they were continuing their conversation, in their mind, imo. This creates clashes between perspectives on weaker and stronger ties. Vgl [[Lurking Definition 20040204063311]] and [[Lurking Weak Strong Ties 20040204063311]]

    11. Early this week, I realised that some people had cross-posted my Mastodon post into Twitter. Someone else had posted a screenshot of it on Twitter. Nobody thought to ask if I wanted that.

      Author expects to be asked consent before posting their words in another web venue, here crossposting to Twitter. I don't think that's a priori a reasonable expectation. The entire web is a public sphere, and expressions in it are public expressions. Commenting on them, extending on them is annotation, and that's fair game imo. Problems arise from how that annotation is used/positioned. If it's part of the conversation with the author and others that's fine depending on tone e.g. forcefully budding in, yet even if unwelcomed. If it is quoting an author and commenting as performance to one's own audience, then the original author becomes an object, a prop in that performance. That is problematic. I can't judge (no links) here which of the two it is.

    12. Like when you're sitting in a quiet carriage softly chatting with a couple of friends and then an entire platform of football fans get on at Jolimont Station after their team lost. They don't usually catch trains and don't know the protocol. They assume everyone on the train was at the game or at least follows football. They crowd the doors and complain about the seat configuration.

      Compares the influx of new people on Mastodon as the sudden crowding of a train by a loud group. I can see what the author means. My timeline has felt like that.

    13. For those of us who have been using Mastodon for a while (I started my own Mastodon server 4 years ago), this week has been overwhelming

      author has been running his own instance for as long as I have. Not sure if it's a community server or a personal one. Assuming community one.

    14. Home invasion Mastodon's Eternal September begins

      About the impact on Mastodon culture of the new influx of people. Esp now that influx is a significant portion of overall users. Several instances have more than doubled in a week or so. Hence the eternal Sept reference. In the mean time #twittermigration seems to be levelling off in the last day or so.

    1. But Mastodon instances aren't even competing on that! They seem to all be running the same version of the same software, so aside from some banner images and icons, they are all exactly the same user interface. This is great if you are in the "Federated Feed Reader" camp, less so for the "we are all unique flowers" camp.

      This reads like being confused about what instances are. You don't need to pick one even, can participate fine without an instance. If you do choose to be part of a group instance there are indeed things to consider, wrt orientation, group traits, culture. Which are as varied as we all are. It's not about the tool or competing on css and interface, it's choosing fav watering hole to chat. Where others can wander in but also get bounced. And you can frequent multiple watering holes depending on your whim (you may not want to talk work stuff with colleagues on the sports field where your kid is playing Saturday morning). Why are these odd comparisons made within the singular viewpoint of Mastodon as tool. All comparisons must be made against human social interaction in general. Twitter is the odd one out there: everyone shouting their loudest, all in the exact same place, where all can bud into any conversation without the conversers perspective playing a role. Doug Belshaw describes this dynamic much better: https://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2022/11/12/on-the-importance-of-fediverse-server-rules/

      It's not just 'everything open to all' or 'walled garden' it's not indiividual or the global population. It's all about the intermediate layers, where the fluidity of humans choosing their groups and places of interaction. That is where the complexity lives, and thus the value. Tech sin't neutral in it, and shouldn't be, as it's a human tool, humans who are part of that complexity. Vgl Technoloog podcast where they were as confused about the role and purpose of instances.

    2. It's gonna go great!

      It will be as messay as, the internet itself, as the web itself. Which works. The abberation imo is centralised website silos on top of a fully federated internet and web. At least AP embraces the underlying srtucture of the internet, and the underlying structure of human networks. Federation brings the human and tech networks to a closer resemblance, which brings more digital affordances, esp social ones we have offline already.

    3. n the olden days, when someone picked yahoo.com as their email host instead of hotmail.com, it wasn't because they thought to themselves, "I have more friends who use Yahoo than Hotmail, so I definitely want it to be easier to communicate with them." It wasn't because, "The Hotmail brand really speaks to my identity." No, they picked one over the other because it seemed like one of them had a website that sucked less.

      In the olden days, yes that is a clear marker of when this remark made sense.Yahoo and Hotmail have no role in this comparison. Having your mail on your own domain is more apt. Or a group's domain (company, sports org, brand whatever).

    4. Taking something like Mastodon, whose core concept is federation, and then not federating, or limiting federation, is kind of like buying an iPhone and not putting a SIM card in it. Like, yeah, there are use cases where that will work I guess, but if that's what you need there are simpler and more economical ways to get that.

      This is nonsense hyperbole. Noone in the world uses their iphone with sim in the expectation of phoning every other phone user in the world. The only expectation is that you can phone the people you want to phone in a given situation. I have a blocklist on my phone as well. I cotrrol who can call me when and where as well. Limiting federation is what everyone does in their offline life every single second, and when deciding on every single human interaction.

    5. I know a lot of people who want the Federated Feed Reader version. These are the people who were kinda-ok with Twitter but would prefer it to not be dismantled by a billionaire crybaby, and also fewer nazis if at all possible. The people I know who want the Private Walled Garden version are already using Discord for that. ("Discord: non-federated IRC with emoji-first design.")

      An example of dilemma-phrasing. The world isn't dilemma's it's always multilemma. It's not either living room or public square with the entire globe, there are many spaces in between. I'm mostly feed-reader camp in this author's dilemma, but also definitely want to limit both what I encounter and where things can spread. Just not in an absolute or absolute control sense.

    1. How does Guppe work? Guppe groups look like regular users you can interact with using your existing account on any ActivityPub service, but they automatically share anything you send them with all of their followers. Follow a group on @a.gup.pe to join that groupMention a group on @a.gup.pe to share a post with everyone in the groupNew groups are created on demand, just search for or mention @YourGroupNameHere@a.gup.pe and it will show upVisit a @a.gup.pe group profile to see the group history

      a.gup.pe is a group mechanism on Mastodon. Works like my email set-up: using an address makes it exist. This means groups are open to all I suppose, so personal curation (blocking, muting accounts) is needed. Like following # in that sense, but then with active distribution, as the group account serves as a repeater. Interesting addition.

    1. Preserving web content never really left my mind ever since taking screenshots of old sites and putting them in my personal museum. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine is a wonderful tool that currently stores 748 billion webpage snapshots over time, including dozens of my own webdesign attempts, dating back to 2001. But that data is not in our hands. Should it? It should. Ruben says: archive it if you care about it: The only way to be sure you can read, listen to, or watch stuff you care about is to archive it. Read a tutorial about yt-dlp for videos. Download webcomics. Archive podcast episodes.

      Should people have their own webarchive? A long list of pro's and cons comes to mind. For several purposes a 3rd party archive is key, for others having things locally is good enough. For other situations having a off-site location is of interest. Is this less a question of webarchiving and more a question of how wide the scope should be of one's own 3-2-1 back-up choices? I find myself more frequently thinking about the processes at e.g. the National Archive in The Hague, where a lot comes down to knowing what you will not keep.

    1. o understand what Activity Streams is, think of it as an abstract syntax to represent basically anything that can be an action on social media. The Activity Streams Vocabulary specification defines, amongst other things, three types of objects: Actors: Application, Group, Organization, Person, Service. Activity types: Accept, Add, Announce, Arrive, Block, Create, Delete, Dislike, Flag, Follow, Ignore, Invite, Join, Leave, Like, Listen, Move, Offer, Question, Read, Reject, Remove, TentativeAccept, TentativeReject, Travel, Undo, Update, View. Objects: Article, Audio, Document, Event, Image, Note, Page, Place, Profile, Relationship, Tombstone, Video. To build a valid Activity Streams activity, you pick one of each category and add some metadata to it. You describe that something did something to or with something, and you explain those things in more detail.

      A valid activity in Activity Streams is using one of each Actors, Types and Objects. Me Arrives at Place, Me Travels to Place, Me Announce Event etc. It's all JSON

    1. for the safety of the LGBTQ community here we refused to engage in mass server blocking and instead encouraged our users to block servers on an individual basis and provided access to block lists for them to do so

      This instance encourages their account holders to actively block for themselves. Pushing agency into their hands, also by providing existing blocklists to make that easier. After all it isn't pleasant to have to experience abuse first before you know whom to block.

    2. In fact we added a feature just for them called subscriptions which allowed them to monitor accounts without following them so they could do so anonymously.

      Providing lurking opportunities for security reasons. Very sensible. Example of actively providing tools that create agency for groups to protect themselves.

    3. s pecifically from the LGBTQ community, onto our server. It turns out many people relied on us not-blocking for their physical safety. There were big name biggots (like milo yanappolus) who were on the network. They used their accounts here to watch his account for doxing so they could warn themselves and their community and protect themselves accordingly

      Having the ability to see what known bigots get up to on social media is a security feature.

    4. allowed people read content from any server (but with strict hate speech rules)

      Blocking means your account holders don't see that part of the fediverse, you're taking away their overview. A decision you're making about them, without them. A block decision isn't only about the blocked server, it impacts your account holders too, and that needs to be part of the considerations.

    5. So there are some servers out there that demand every server int he network block every instance they do, and if a server doesnt block an instance they block then they block you in rettatliation.Their reason for this is quite flawed but it goes like this.. If we federate with a bad actor instance and we boost one of their posts then their users will see it and defeat the purpose of the block. The problem is, this isnt how it actually works. If they block a server and we boost it, they wont see the boost, thats how blocks work.

      There are M instances that block servers that don't block the same servers they do. That seems to defeat the entire concpet of federating (and the rationale isn't correct).

    1. Towards a  federated metaverse

      Immers Space is a immersive web / metaverse initiative. It is federated, using ActivityPub. The AP implementation uses the Arrive/Leave/Travel and Places Object Types for virtual destinations. Vgl [[ActivityPub voor Check-ins 20221109095516]]

    1. or the type of services I offer and my target audience, Twitter is an unlikely place for me to connect with potential clients

      I've seen it mostly as place for finding professional peers, like my blog did. But that is the 2006 perspective, pre-algo. I wrote about FBs toxicity and quit it, I removed LinkedIn timeline. Twitter I did differently: following #'s on Tweetdeck and broadcasting my blogposts. I fight to not be drawn into discussions, unless they're responses to my posts. In the past 4 yrs I have had good conversations on Mastodon. No clients either though, not in my line of work. Some visibility to existing professional network does very much play an active role though.

    2. Pretending Twitter is the answer to gaining respect for and engagement with my work is an addict’s excuse that removes responsibility from myself.

      ouch. The metrics of engagement (likes, rts) make it possible to 'rationalise' this perception of needing it for one's work/career eg.

    1. Nowhere better to start getting one’s head around this distributed vision than with Mike Masnick’s epic explainer, Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech.

      Mike Masnick https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech Aug 2019. n:: "Build protocols, not platforms" (reminds me of the convo's around Jabber/XMPP I listened into in the early '00s) Also, IndieWeb / ActivityPub

    2. Algorithmic choice. Algorithms dictate what we see and who we can reach. We must have control over our algorithms if we’re going to trust in our online spaces. The AT Protocol includes an open algorithms mode so users have more control over their experience.

      I don't have much expectation for Bluesky, mostly because of Jarvis earlier ref to Mike Masnick's protocols above platforms/apps. But this is the one interesting bit (the others less so in the sense that portability and interoperability are becoming mandatory soon in the biggest market, and performance is an existing customer-feedback loop pushing for it): being able to choose which algo to let loose on your dataset, or bring your own [[Individuele software agents 20200402151419]] is a novel area, a new [[Evolutionair vlak van mogelijkheden 20200826185412]] adding to [[Networked Agency 20160818213155]]

    3. Mind you, this is not a net without corporations and capitalism; they can use the protocols, too, and I’m glad Google gives us usable email and spam protection. But it need no longer be a net corrupted by the business model of mass media imported online: the attention economy. And it need no longer be a net under sole corporate control — and thus, potentially, the influence of malign actors, whether Musk or his pals Putin or Trump.If we gain this promising future, if we return to the net’s founding principles, keep one thing clearly in mind: It won’t be so easy to blame the bad shit on the corporations and nasty nerd boys anymore. The net will be ours along with the responsibility to build and enforce the expectations and standards we wish for. The net is us, or it can be at last.

      Jeff clearly hearking back to the golden era of blogging wrt which values it (should) promote(s). Is the 'attention economy' only the 'corrupted biz model of mass media imported online'? The algo-induced raging sure is. Otherwise not sure: [[3 kwantitatieve veranderingen 20100420210721]] was in full effect way before it, and all three contribute to [[Aandacht is het schaarst 20201013163120]]. Maybe it's the flipside that's key? n:: Being economic with attention, as the core of what an attention economy really is like. Towards the end Jarvis slips in the responsibilities stemming from the triplet of obligations [[Obligation to explain 20120327173752]] [[Wie deelt bestaat 20130131133926]] and [[Obligation to re-use 20191223194129]]

    1. federated mastodon is neat. that “ericajoy”can exist on any server is going to be a problem, especially around impersonation. a third party “verification” player will be necessary if mastodon gains broad traction.

      Poster implies that a benefit of globally centralised structures like Twitter, FB and LinkedIn is verification. I think impersonation is rife there, and will be less on Mastodon. Apart from basic measures (rel-me verification against your website, use your own domain for an instance), there are similar to T/FB/LinkedIn ways to verify someone outside the platform itself, where people check it's you through a channel they already know it's you. Above all the potential benefit of impersonation does not exist on M: no immediate global audience, no amplification of messages through self-feeding loops of engagement. Your reach is limited to your own follow(er)s mostly, and they won't fall for an impersonation, as you're already there among them. The power assymmetry inherent in T/FB's algo's doesn't exist on M. So impersonating would cost the impersonator way more, and become unsustainable to them.

    1. Plausible open source webstats, reached $1M recurring annual revenue. 4 people, no marketing, only word of mouth, started late 2018, launched beta Jan 2019, so they've built that up in 4 years. Became sustainable at 11k monthly revenue, then 2 people. 3rd added at 29k monthly revenue, June 21. Useful overview.

    1. The myth of the good venture startup is dead

      Not sure why Werdmüller concludes this only now, in the wake of Musk taking over Twitter. The VC has been clear for ages, esp in the US view of shareholder value as only litmus test. Value extraction, regardless of its consequences. Zebra's are more realistic than unicorn chasing. https://medium.com/zebras-unite/zebrasfix-c467e55f9d96 The EU has been developing its own geopolitical proposition wrt digital/data in contrast with the VC for the past years, with two legs: maximising socio-economic benefit from digital and strengthening citizen and human rights and European values. Not to stifle invention as GAFAM would have it, but to ensure a different set of starting conditions and success criteria for innovation.

      Apart from that: any funding must be closely examined in terms of strings attached, and in terms of their consequences on possible paths in the evolutionary field forward. (I've seen subsidy conditions that made it impossible to reach the moment to do without the subsidy, in contradiction to the stated goal of the subsidy.)

  4. Oct 2022
    1. An assessment method for algorithms. In een sessie werd dit genoemd in combinatie met IAMA als methoden voor assessment.

    1. What if explanations resorting automatically to power, society, discourse had outlived their usefulness and deteriorated to the point of now feeding the most gullible sort of critique?8 Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but it worries me to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee‐jerk disbelief, punctilious demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social neverland many of the weapons of social critique. Of course conspiracy theories are an absurd deformation of our own arguments, but, like weapons smuggled through a fuzzy border to the wrong party, these are our weapons nonetheless. In spite of all the deformations, it is easy to recognize, still burnt in the steel, our trademark: Made in Criticalland.

      Are earlier tools of critiqueing obsolete, and now misused by conspiracyfantasists? Criticism as instrument vs criticism as rejection/avoiding change? The first is part of a theory of change, so what's the other, theory of stasis? Sounds too neutral, it's more destructive than that. Not moving is also a move, in the face or urgencies, usually in the wrong direction. Note this paper is from 2004! Since the early pandemic this is more pertinent in our everyday lives

    2. What’s the real difference between conspiracists and a popularized, that is a teachable version of social critique inspired by a too quick reading of, let’s say, a sociologist as eminent as Pierre Bourdieu (to be polite I will stick with the French field commanders)? In both cases, you have to learn to become suspicious of everything people say because of course we all know that they live in the thralls of a complete illusio of their real motives. Then, after disbelief has struck and an explanation is requested for what is really going on, in both cases again it is the same appeal to powerful agents hidden in the dark acting always consistently, continuously, relentlessly. Of course, we in the academy like to use more elevated causes—society, discourse, knowledge‐slash‐power, fields of forces, empires, capitalism—while conspiracists like to portray a miserable bunch of greedy people with dark intents, but I find something troublingly similar in the structure of the explanation, in the first movement of disbelief and, then, in the wheeling of causal explanations coming out of the deep dark below.

      How to make the difference between the doubting academics do and the conspiracyfantasists do clear?

    3. My argument is that a certain form of critical spirit has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to fight the wrong enemies and, worst of all, to be considered as friends by the wrong sort of allies because of a little mistake in the definition of its main target. The question was never to get away from facts but closer to them, not fighting empiricism but, on the contrary, renewing empiricism.

      Critique / scepticism is meant to get closer to establishing facts, not meant to get away from them. Not meant against empiricism (yeah, that's just, like, your opinion dude) but to strengthen empirical factfinding. Establishing how the presented facts came about, and see if the method of establishing them can be improved. Vgl [[Data geeft klein deel werkelijkheid slecht weer 20201219122618]]

    1. However there are follow (and boost and like) notifications there if you want them, which contains the seeds of the twitter engagement spiral.

      I don't think they run risk of spiraling. Fav's are not shared back to the fav'rs audience, only visible as action by the OP, and in aggregate under the original message. So it doesn't serve as signal to a fav'rs own audience. Boosts don't allow remarks, just straight boosts (no 'quote-tweeting') limiting it to sharing only the original message, sharing it back to the booster's audience only. Otherwise there's only replies, which are always to the person replied to, favouring interaction. Most of all: no algo watching over what gains traction and pushing those higher up in all timelines: the timeline is strictly chronological. Meaning most of the time I do not see what people I follow boost or fav. Only in the moments I dip my toe in the river of messages do I see things pass by.

    2. As with Twitter, and indeed the web in general, we all see a different subset of  the conversation. We each have our own public that we see and address. These publics are semi-overlapping - they are connected, but adjacent. This is not Habermas’s public sphere, but de Certeau's distinction of place and space. The place is the structure provided, the space the life given it by the paths we take through it and our interactions.

      de Certeau, theologist turned cultural philosopher because of 1968. NL Wikipedia spreekt v Europese en Amerikaanse Certeau, de eerste de theoloog, de tweede als de theoreticus van het alternatieve discours. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_Certeau vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_Certeau Veel werk lijkt pas na zijn dood in het Engels vertaald te zijn, vooral ook jaren 90/00, op tijd voor vergelijking met internettools. Kernwerk in het Engels is 1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_of_Everyday_Life lijkt het. Is dat de bron van het place/space onderscheid

    3. standards are documentation, not legislation. We have been working in the w3c Social Web Working Group to clarify and document newer, simpler protocols, but rough consensus and running code does define the worlds we see

      Marks says standards should be descriptive (doc) of actual things used/happening, not prescriptive (legislation). Usable distinction. Interesting to me is that the EU data strategy does both, legislation that has a mechanism to point to documentation and declare it a rule or instigate the creation of such documentation.

    4. It may be that the more concrete boundaries that having multiple instances provide can dampen down the cascades caused by the small world network effect. It is an interesting model to coexist between the silos with global scope and the personal domains beloved by the indieweb. In indieweb we have been saying ‘build things that you want for yourself’, but building things that you want for your friends or organisation is a useful step between generations.

      I'd say not just interesting, but also crucial. Where T and FB operate at generic level (despite FB pages as subgroups), the statistical, and IndieWeb on the personal (my site, my self-built tool), M works at group level or just above (bigger instances). That middle ground between singular and the statistical is where complexity resides and where it needs to be addressed and embraced. The network metaphor favors that intermediate level.

    1. The synthetic party, a Danish political party with an AI generated program from all Danish fringe party programs since the 70s. Aimed at the 20% non-voting Danes. 'Leder Lars' is leading the party, which is a chatbot residing on a Discord server where you can interact with it. An art project.

    1. often say that my PKM approach is technology-neutral. I do not promote one tool about another. I share my top tools but do not ask others to use them. But it seems I do have a chosen technology — the blog.

      Practice informs tool choice, tools do influence practice in return, and can become 'favourites' temporarily as exploration, but also long term. Here I'd say Harold's blogging is a practice more than a technology.

    2. My understanding of PKM began in 2004 with Lilia Efimova’s blogging of her journey through her doctoral dissertation on personal knowledge management entitled  — Personal productivity in a knowledge intensive environment: A weblog case. So I came to PKM through my blog, Lilia’s blog, and the blogs of the researchers she was observing

      I first encountered PKM in the form of Mick Cope's book Know Your Value, Value What You Know, which did little in terms of system for me, but helped cement setting the individual as key element in KM. That was the summer of 2000. Before that I had read Sveiby's New Organisation Wealth (first published 1997, read it in 2000), which wasn't about PKM, but still put the individual knowledge worker very much at the center of how KM evolves and why it is needed. For me PKM and KM were largely the same thing, with KM the aggregate over an organisation of the PKM of its people. In 2001 I joined KnowledgeBoard where I met Lilia, David Gurteen, Johnnie Moore, and many others active in this field. They reinforced the P in KM for me. It led me to blogging in nov 2002, after publishing an essay on KBoard about trust's role in KM, which very much centered on the P and relationships. In nov 2004 I co-org'd a PKM workshop at KM Europe, together with Lilia and Piers.

    3. The bullshit is believing in a technology silver bullet. We constantly see that BS sells.

      This is the underpinning of the current hypelet, plus that having forgotten what went before (centuries ago, or as little as 2 decades ago) obscures how to tap into existing practices which reinforces the shiny new tool effect.

    4. I concluded that PKM is bullshit only when it is technology-centric, and not a set of processes, individually constructed, to help each of us make sense of our world and work more effectively.

      PKM is defined by the P, not by the tools for M. This means an individual system aimed at what is of import to its user. In that system processes and methods come first, then tools. Although all tools in return influence the system. It's an artisanal perspective on tools: to be informed and shaped by the artisan's intent and experience, plus the experience gained of using the tool.

    1. Using Niklas Luhmann’s rough average of six zettels per day working full time for 8 hours a day

      For ZKII this was true. I think this, the full working day, is often overlooked when people talk about L's ZK, that it was the core of his working practice, his job to do research for which this was his tool of choice. Whereas for many in the current hypelet it is a tool next to most of their activities.

      For ZKI he had about the same average but it seems with less systematic reading approaches and a more generic purpose. Still working towards his academic career, from another career path.

    2. It bears mention that Vannevar’s influential essay “As We May Think” in the July 1945 issue of The Atlantic is entirely underpinned by the commonplace book and zettelkasten traditions pervading Western thought and culture. Rather than acknowledge this tradition tacitly, he creates the neologism “Memex” which stands in for a networked and connected zettelkasten

      This is an interesting observation. Also because Memex went on to inspire e.g. Doug Engelbart. Was Engelbart aware of the history when he demo'd outlining and notes? Was Nelson when he thought up stretchtext in 67?

    3. Additionally Colleen Kennedy has an excellent 12 page primer she developed for classroom use on how to actively implement and create one’s own commonplace book which takes into account some of the historical practices seen in the literature.
    4. One can’t help but notice the proliferation of specific method names for slightly different practices within the now growing space

      yes, it's a drag.

    5. branded method

      This may well be true for Bush too. Why say commonplace and linked notes when you can claim Memex?

    6. author Steven B. Johnson who wrote frequently about his experiences with note taking, commonplaces, and DevonThink in the early 2000s in The New York Times as well as his blog. 5

      I did not realise Johnson made note cards (in DevonThink) but have read his 2004 book Emergence which he probably wrote that way. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2004/05/the_emergence_o/ I do associate card based interlinked notes with emergence, Vgl [[Emergente structuur ontdekken is kennisontwikkeling 20200922082048]] 'spotting emergent structure is newly developed knowledge'

    7. TiddlyWiki, first released on September 20, 2004, is a card-based user interface software built by Jeremy Ruston

      I played with this at the time in 2004 https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2004/10/tiddlywiki/

    8. Hypertext Gardens: Delightful Vistas (1998)

      My zettelkasten section of notes is called The Garden of the forking paths, from a 1941 short story by Argentinian author Jorge Luis Borges titled El jardin de senderos que se bifurcan. In 1992 it was worked into Victory Garden, an early hypertext novel, published by Eastgate. Eastgate is Mark Bernstein's company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Garden_(novel)

    9. writer, scientist, and engineer Mark Bernstein who created Tinderbox in 2002 as a note taking tool, outliner, and publishing software

      Good to see Mark Bernstein mentioned here. He's definitely strongly aware of the history and legacy he is building on with his software. I met him and came to know Tinderbox in 2004. I have been using Tinderbox since early 2008 when I went independent and started using Mac.

    10. Eco, Umberto. How to Write a Thesis.

      I have the 2015 MIT Press version see Zotero

    11. Heyde, Johannes Erich. Technik des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens: zeitgemässe Mittel und Verfahrungsweisen. Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1931.

      I have a 1969/70 edition

    12. the commonplace tradition

      One of the most fascinating things in historical exhibitions or overviews of the work of an artist I find are surviving note(book)s. Across the centuries it is clear that so much of the work of making sense, of developing practices, striving for results, consists of making notes. Even if not for re-use as a way of being present.

    13. commonplace book kept using index cards

      This is akin to how I kept notes for most my life. With notable exceptions when I used The Brain and later a local wiki, which made interlinking easy. Before that, it was loose handwritten notes (since I was 10), often bundled in a5 blocks, but still one note per page, or loose txt files on a xt. After it was Evernote. Until early 2020 when I returned to loose notes digitally

    14. compounded by the lack of appropriate history and context,

      Everything has a lineage, and the one for pkm is centuries deep.

    15. There’s a specific set of objects (cards and boxes or their digital equivalents), but there’s also a spectrum of methods or practices which can be split into two broad categories.

      there's tools and there's practices.

    16. around 2018 during the COVID-19 pandemic

      around 2018 AND later during ... Covid started early 2020, so something is missing here. Was Roam launched 2018? Obsidian is from early 2020 indeed.

    17. The Two Definitions of Zettelkasten

      Great to read this essay, after folllowing the annotations Chris made in h. that fed into his notes that led to this essay. Fun to recognise bits and pieces from his h. feed in recent months.

    18. Do it until you have between 500 and 1000 cards (based on some surveys and anecdotal evidence), and you should begin seeing some serendipitous and intriguing results as you use your system for your writing.

      For me the first new connection happened at 35 notes, or within a week of starting my notes garden in July 2020. Documented in my blog https://hyp.is/R59hRFKvEe21Cj8MfKmtxQ/www.zylstra.org/blog/2020/07/planting-the-garden-of-forking-paths/ This is an order of magnitude difference (also mentioned by Matthias in the comments) from what you mention. This may well be, in both Matthias and my own case from having worked with these type of notes much longer (just not in this particular fashion), and me in this case recycling my own blogposts and earlier output back into atomic notes. I suppose that results in more 'refined' notes, less processing steps needed to make a new connection in my mind.

    1. A reasonable shortcut might be a simple editor app that provides the create modal for all apps, with different template presets (notes, posts, tasks, etc), that then is designed to sync what you’ve written with other applications, whether directly or in conjunction with Alfred. It could also take command line input.

      I see people use Drafts like this for anything text based. Also to quickly jot things down on mobile and then later have it be processed (by Hazel or Alfred) to be placed in the right context and application.

    2. What I really want is a user-centered desktop. If I want to save a note, I enter a key combination and a window appears for just as long as I need to save it, superimposed on whatever else I’m doing; then it disappears.

      This comes near the previous annotation about programming portals closing the divide between the terminal and the use of graphical interfaces across applications.

    3. An intent-centered desktop

      the title immediately grabbed me.

    4. The end of Twitter

      Ben Werdmüller sees the Musk take-over as one of more signs that Twitter as we know it is sunsetting. Like FB it is losing its role as the all-in-one communal 'space'. I think the decline is real, but also think it will be long drawn out decline. Early adopters and early main stream may well jump ship, if they haven't already some time ago. The rest, including companies, will hang around much longer, if only for the sunk costs (socially and capital). An alternative (hopefully a multitude as Ben suggests) needs to clearly present itself, but hasn't in a way the mainstream recognises I think. It may well hurt to hold on for many, but if there's no other thing to latch onto people will endure the pain. Boiling frog and all that.

    1. This kind of accessible end-user programming on the web feels like something we've been dancing around for a decade. I really want to someone build pre-Notion. And it's unlikely to be Notion.

      In light of Hypercard more like 'the industry has been avoiding this on purpose'.

    2. 1. HyperCard HyperCard is the grand OG example of programming portals. Developed by Bill Atkinson at Apple in 1987, its interface married all the accessibility of simple, graphical user interfaces with the power of writing programmatic logic. Its core concepts were the card and the stack.

      murmuratur http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568 #2011/11/29 that's exactly why it went away, breaking the divide between coder and user, as everyone being a coder, a shaper of their computer as a tool conflicts with the biz model. Fitting it is listed here as letting user and programmer be the same person.

    1. The information manager was surprised by this, saying something like “and I have these BI specialists who never came up with this kind of use for the data”.

      Internal re-use along the lines of [[Data wat de overheid doet 20141013110101]] means questions being asked of the data, that BI teams don't think of. (perhaps because of the common disconnect between bi-teams and operational/policy teams?) This is a repeat pattern of what can be observed externally with open data as well. (Vgl CBS open data community in the 2010s)

    2. companies are their own objects of sociality as well as their own user group

      companies are their own objects of sociality (the work, processes, habits etc.) companies are their own self-formed user group. I am placing companies here on the spectrum of communities of interest/learning/practice. #2007/10/26

    3. They were adding social structures and context to the data. Basically adding social software design principles to a large volume of data.

      After letting professionals in a company have access to their internal BI data, they made it re-usable for themselves by -adding social structures (iirc indicating past and present people, depts etc., curating it for specific colleagues, forming subgroups around parts of the data) -adding context (iirc linking it to ongoing work, and external developments, adding info on data origin) Thus they started socially filtering the data, with the employee network as social network [[Social netwerk als filter 20060930194648]].

    4. they had given a number of their professionals access to their business intelligence data. Because they were gathering so much data nobody really looked at for lack of good questions to ask of the dataset. The professionals put the data to good use, because they could formulate the right questions.

      Most data in a company is collected for a single purpose (indicators, reporting, marketing). Companies usually don't look at how that data about themselves might be re-used by themselves. Vgl [[Data wat de overheid doet 20141013110101]] where I described this same effect for the public sector (based on work for the Court of Audit, not tying it back to this here. n:: re-use company internal data

    5. Companies are excellent environments for social filtering. Because they sit on large volumes of data and information, going largely unused. Because organisations are a group of people with shared goals and tasks.

      This never happened in this way. Another example of how #socsoft became marketing almost exlusively. With the exeception perhaps of async tools like Slack (2013) or Yammer (2008, still exists as part of MS), although filtering is not their point, their users may use it that way. The whole #socsoft for org internal k-work never got much traction. Still a lost opportunity imo. Tools probably need to better fit existing culture/communication styles in org and be internal, but being created as separate place external with its own assumptions.

    6. Social software works well given these conditions because these tools are the internet’s response to the enormous volume of information the internet helped create. Social software is the answer to the internet by the internet. The quantitative change in information availability (going from scarcity to abundance) leads to qualitative changes in our information strategies. Social filtering is one of those changed information strategies. Social software caters to social filtering.

      I wrote this in 2007, just as FB and Twitter took off, so was thinking not of them but other social tools (social software rather than media). One way #socmed turned toxic is because they started filtering for us?

    1. But now let’s layer in some costs.

      This one is just silly. None of those costs are seriously influenced by the way you make your income. The costs of living are always there. The comparison between self-employed and salaried work as an artist is odd too, which artist is salaried as such? Meaning journalists here probably. Taking Kelly literally on his 100k/yr is even odder, that is high end earning literally everywhere in the world (top 10% in the USA and NL e.g). Yes living in a city is usually more expensive. Kelly's true fans message isn't promising that costs disappear.

    2. Thousand True Fans encourages us to embrace the individual opportunities and whistles past the broader social trends.

      I think this is the key thing. The US-ian idea that there's only 'do it on your own' alternatives in the face of failing larger structures (apart from the 'so let's tear those structures down with gusto' that others conclude from it) breaks because it only works for people doing so within the context of those structures existing failing or not, as a minority. Otherwise there's no comparison to be made. How do I fare on my own, compared to those who still work in 'the industry'?

    3. The creator economy is not good, and it's getting worse.

      This should have been the title! And then perhaps use Kelly's essay to illustrate that people used that nudge to try and avoid the bad state of the creator economy, but that it doesn't solve the underlying problems.

      This feels like 'Kelly's 1000 fans has proven to be a nicely sticky message so let's make it lead' so that people may read about the bad state of the creator economy in general, because that isn't sticky. Piggybacking on Kelly to make a different point altogether.

    4. the essay is meant as a supportive nudge towards attainable dreams

      and that's all it is and ever was, while pointing out there are now other means at hand to do that, and measure your progress, than pre-web. so why set it up as 'theory' in the title?

    5. What bothers me most about the Thousand True Fans concept today is how I see it being deployed by the Web3 crowd

      bothered by how people use it, is not the same as being bothered by the concept is it? "Kitchen knives are great for cooking, you can now mix ingredients by chopping things up, it revolutionises the concept of meals and dishes allowing a variety of taste combinations. We can all be chefs!" "What bothers me most about the "Kitchen Knive" concept is how nowadays there are bad people stabbing others with it."

    6. As the network gets bigger, the platforms develop algorithms to help people discover what they are looking for/what they want but might not be looking for yet. It results in a power law/rich-get-richer phenomenon, driving attention and audiences toward the biggest successes and away from the niches.

      indeed. see 'do without intermediaries' and don't make yourself as consumer only a passive element in the whole recommendation circus.

    7. A fundamental virtue of a peer-to-peer network (like the web) is that the most obscure node is only one click away from the most popular node. In other words the most obscure under-selling book, song, or idea, is only one click away from the best selling book, song or idea.” This is only true when the peer-to-peer networks are small, though

      That doesn't follow. I don't read Kelly's 'one click' as meaning that the most obscure thing is directly adjacent to the most famous thing as seen from their end. The one click point is that everything is just one hyperlink away, from the 'consumer's' end. Not everyone in the world is my neighbour, but all people online are indeed one click away (although I may not be aware of that most of the time). For me this points to the importance of self-intermediation, i.e. the weblogstyle curation, that 'word-of-hyperlink' propagation of finds. There are now many ways around the intermediaries, even as those evolve or new ones claim their role, even if they remain dominant.

    8. Theory

      theory? indeed one way of setting things up so you can be seen to take it down.

    9. The culture industry still bends toward the big hit-makers.

      Kelly: do without intermediators Karpf: intermediators have found ways to keep intermediating. How does that negate the premise as such?

      (The clue is in the word industry, if one's looking for what's wrong with it)

    10. What we’ve mostly experienced with the Internet of the past fifteen years is that the platforms algorithmically funnel everyone’s attention to the same thing

      yes, if you let them. The flipside of artists, or anyone, looking for true fans, is that it requires a certain level of pro-activeness on the side of the audience too looking for their niche 'true stars'.

    11. Not everyone has a hundred bucks per year to spend on each of their hobbies.

      True. You can't afford being a True Fan in Kelly's literal wording most of the time even in affluent societies. If I was a true fan of something in my teens (I wasn't) I wasn't spending money on it. For all the concern W is displaying for artists trying to make an income off Kelly's rule of thumb, then in this turn of phrase turning that creative output into their fans 'hobby' probably is a put-down for any artist reading this. Thanks, mate.

      It isn't about 'hobbies' only either. The stacking of subscriptions is also problematic. It's the culture intermediators from above doing the exact same thing, thus eroding potential revenue in any actual existing niches (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify: the point is most people want both the fat head of the long tail to be available to them, in addition to the niches they're fan of. The spending likely still starts at the fat head, esp if it follows the same pattern as niche spending, small amounts regularly), and everybody else too (why does every single piece of software turn into a yearly subscription without realising all the umpteenth tools on my laptop trying to do the same make that impossible)

      Yet I've never taken Kelly literally, not about the 1000 people, and not about the $100, you can switch that to any number, relevant to any location on earth, and any lifestyle, and still be invited to think realistically about the actual reach you need to make a living. In all cases you don't need to be a superstar to make it, nor a global market leader. It always used to be you could be 'world famous' in your part of the woods, now your part of the woods can be more distributed and does not depend on locality per se.

    1. Of course this would not result in immediate translation of texts into all languages. It would however result in ideas being transmitted throughout the whole system. When enough interest is generated within a certain circle (tipping point like) this subset of people will arrange for translation, on the basis of perceived needs. Once translated a document has become a more ‘spreadable meme’ and will travel through the system once more.

      More recently I also have come to see translation as creative work, not just placing it in a different conversation, but as a 'language game' a la Wittgenstein, it has different effects when one translates something. When my notes are mixed language, or when I translate one for a blogpost, that act of translation becomes part of the work of making sense of the notion in the note, it regularly offers new avenues of thought. Due to slight differences in meaning between words in languages, or because of the ethymology of a word in another language offering a new line of thought.

    2. These connectors would be able to mesh the different language-networks

      My current practice, reading in multiple languages, seeing myself as participant in different conversations, where I sometimes carry those conversations to another place (in another language). If I blog in another language, it's because of the conversational context I am placing that posting in, it's never an attempt to offer the content here in translation.

      Meshing is a useful term

    3. I’d go for a decentralized way of looking at it. So it’s up to individuals to create a solution. To connect networks you need connectors, networkstraddlers. Through them knowledge and information can flow between two otherwise seperated networks.

      This is still how I approach multilingual settings. Building a chain (my go to example is an early 90s example of a students meet-up in Hungary where a Russian spoke Russian to a Bulgarian who spoke Spanish to a Spanish student who spoke English and put the Russian's words in front of the rest of us.) This is imprecise, but human and forgiving.

    4. I try to point out that centralized solutions to the language divide in my view won’t work. Not adopting one language, and not going for the huge amount of work of having one centralized hub doing all the translation

      I think this is still valid. Enforcing a single language is too rigid. Although for a temporary context may well be the best working solution (say, a single meeting), and centralised translation is only worth the enormous effort if there's a strong need for reliably translated material (such as the EU laws)

    5. Mechanical translation might offer a solution in the future, but not at the moment.

      We're 19yrs on now from when I wrote this. Things are better but far from perfect. I'm getting good use out of DeepL, but it still helps if you know the other language to help understand what is meant.

    1. 9/8j Im Zettelkasten ist ein Zettel, der dasArgument enthält, das die Behauptungenauf allen anderen Zetteln widerlegt. Aber dieser Zettel verschwindet, sobald manden Zettelkasten aufzieht. D.h. er nimmt eine andere Nummer an,verstellt sich und ist dann nicht zu finden. Ein Joker.

      ha! an elusive joker that refutes the other concepts in the notes. Sounds like L could be frustrated in his 'communication with his ZK' searching for a note. I've definitely had that, being unable to find a thing in my 1600 or so ZK type notes that I know is in there somewhere in some form. Let alone in his 67k notes ZKII

    1. Zettelkasten mit dem kompliziertenVerdauungssystem eines Wiederkäuers. Alle arbiträren Einfälle, alle Zufälleder Lektüren, können eingebrachtwerden. Es entscheidet dann die interne Anschlussfähig-keit.

      Another metaphor, the ZK has the complicated digestive system of ruminantia. This says something about the work involved, but also about how there's a temporal dimension at play. Things can come back to be used long after being put in. The internal connectivity determines the process.

    1. Hinter der Zettelkastentechnik steht dieErfahrung: Ohne zu schreiben kann mannicht denken – jedenfalls nicht in anspruchsvollen,selektiven Zugriff aufs Gedächtnis voraussehendenZusammenhängen. Das heißt auch: ohne Differenzen einzukerben,

      L sees ZK as extension of his personal experience with better thinking through writing, although that seems to mostly cover the input side of ZK. The mention of anspruchsvollen Zugriff (ambitious/demanding ways of accessing the notes) in constellation (Zusammenhängen) is very much usage/output related. The mention of clearly establishing differences (einzukerben, which is a raw almost violent choice of words) is notable, also goes back to the stated purpose of ZKII to find the imperfections and inadequacies in the concepts studied.

    1. Daher wird der Zettelkasten produktiv insofern,als er Notiertes nichtmitnotierten Hintergründenaussetzt und dadurch Information entstehenlässt, die so nicht gespeichert war.

      This sounds bit like [[Gestalten and Constellations above Crumbs 20200426111123]] wrt to exposing context without noting such context all down, but keeping it accessible for when one is going through what was noted.

    1. Rückwirkungen auf die Lektüre: manliest anders, wenn man auf die Möglichkeitender Verzettelung achtet– nicht: Exzerpte!

      L says there's a feedback loop to reading when you make notes. Atomic notes change reading and are not excerpts. Fragmentation and non-linearity, also a form of interdependency interruption?

    1. Zu überlegen wäre etwas zum Problemder Interdependenzunterbrechung.

      Very interesting. L's preconceived order, and the branches resulting from his numbering, are in a sense introducing the interruption of interdependence between notions here. Interdependenzuntrebrechung afaict is a L term in his system theorie, where creating disconnects is a way to make things manageable. Organisations are a means to create an interdependency interruption, demarcating, fencing off really, the inside from the outside. This is akin a path from complex realm to complicated and locally to simple. A path to production requires such demarcation, a limit, to be able to express it in an output.

    1. Wegen des vorstehenden Gesichtspunktes istes wichtig, dass die Ordnung im Zettelkastennicht nur unter Begriffen oder komplexenEinzelthemen aggregiert wird;obwohl das natürlich auch notwendig ist.Aber die Verweisungen dürfen nicht nur dieLeitgesichtspunkte aggregierenden Sammel-begriffe erfassen, sondern müssen dasunter ihnen gesammelte Materialselektiv wegziehen.

      Because of the previous notion that an entry point should offer more than a single note, it is not enough to just order things under big themes. 'although that is still needed too' : I suppose because of the physical nature of his ZK things must have some pre-conceived topics. The connections must escape the preconceived structure, provding an emergent one.

    1. Zettelkasten als Klärgrube – nicht nurabgeklärte Notizen hineintun. Aufschiebendes Prüfens und Entscheidens– auch eine Tempofrage.

      ZK is compared to a septic tank here. Don't just add clarified notes, put in rough material too. Postponing evaluation and decision (elsewhere: because the question at time of use determines the lens for that). Also a matter of speed: how? loosing a thought as you're taking too long to get down the preceding one?

      I find it interesting to find this septic tank metaphor in ZKII, when compared to his 1980's communication partner one. They are of very different type. To me it feels the septic tank metaphor fits ZKI better, which seems to have been less aimed as tool on certain outputs, whereas ZKII started with more purpose, and was used that way. Notes are undated, is this L's thinking at the time of starting ZKII, i.e. the result of reflecting on ZKI while starting ZKII?

    1. Es ist danach wichtig, dass man nicht auf eineUnmenge von Punkt-für-Punkt Zugriffeangewiesen ist, sondern auf Relationenzwischen Notizen, also auf Verweisungenzurückgreifen kann, die mehr auf einmalverfügbar machen, als man bei einemSuchimpuls oder auch bei einer Gedanken-fixierung im Sinn hat.

      the connections between notes are important because they allow every access point to provide more than just that single entry.

    1. Kombination von Unordnung und Ordnung,von Klumpenbildung und unvorhersehbarer,im ad hoc Zugriff realisierter Kombination

      Formulation of the emergent character of working with L's ZK. The unordered/ordered distinction points to it being a means, starting out in the complex domain, bringing it to the compllicated, where scientific method resides. The serendipitous combinations and the clustering are emergent structures that provide new insights [[Emergente structuur ontdekken is kennisontwikkeling 20200922082048]]

    1. Das Produktivitätsproblem muss inbezug auf eine Relation gestellt werden,nämlich in bezug auf die Relation vonZettelkasten und Benutzer.

      "The productivity problem must be formulated in the context of a relation, in the relation of the ZK and its user." This holds generally I suppose, productivity notions must be placed in the context of the producer and their tools. Where the producer also is the one formulating what counts as productivity. Vgl [[A Practice for Note Card Systems Outputs – Interdependent Thoughts 20221023140227]] Reading this I realise I have little purpose for e.g. economic measures of general population productivity, and e.g. in my company staying away from using billable hours as measure for productivity (but struggling to find another way to have such conversations, about effectiveness perhaps more than productivity)

    1. Personal ist schon lange knapp undteuer, jetzt wird es zusätzlich ungebärdigund unleitbar. Die Mikroprozessoren sind angekündigt,aber noch nicht wirklich verfügbar. Das eigene Gedächtnis mangelhaft undentlastungsbedürftig. Überlegungen zu einem Versuch, sich einZweitgedächtnis zu schaffen

      Interesting. L talks here about attempts to make a second brain for himself. Citing that assistants are problematic: hard to find, and ever more unruly and unmanageable. Sounds cranky.

      Then says, micropocessors have been announced but not yet available really. ==> L would have done his ZK digitally if given the chance?

      Complains human memory is limited and needs relief through tooling.

      This is a rather 'human' type of note. Different from densely referenced other stuff, more autobiographic in a sense, as it speaks to throughs/perception more than theories and concepts.

    1. making the notes also leads to new connections that I hadn’t thought of before, or didn’t make explicit to myself yet. The first time happened early on, at about 35 notes, which was a linking of concepts I hadn’t linked earlier in my mind.

      After under 3 weeks I had some 140 notes in my conceptual 'garden' (mostly 'recycled' from my own earlier blogposts and presentations), and I report making the first novel connection for myself at 35 notes.

    1. Theoriehistorisch dürfte der Neuanfang mit der Entwicklung einer Theorie der Verwaltung erfolgt sein; paradigmatisch für den Neuanfang steht die programmatische Formulierung auf dem ersten Zettel dieser Sammlung: "Es muss versucht werden, die Methoden und Begriffe so klar als irgend möglich zu explizieren, damit ihre Unzulänglichkeit und Unvollkommenheit deutlich wird."

      ZKII was a new start, perhaps coinciding with L having developed a theory of governance. The first card is a programmatic phrasing, that signifies the paradigm of this new start: "Es muss versucht werden, die Methoden und Begriffe so klar als irgend möglich zu explizieren, damit ihr Unzulänglichkeit und Unvollkommenheit deutlich wird" Wow. It must be attempted to make explicit the methods and concepts as clearly as possible, so that their inadequacy and imperfection become clear .

    2. dokumentieren seine Lektüre verwaltungs- bzw. staatswissenschaftlicher, philosophischer und zunehmend auch organisationstheoretischer sowie soziologischer Literatur.

      L's first ZK of about 23k notes came about in the 1950s, although occasional additions took place until early 70s. He was a civil servant at this time. Notes cover his readings in public governance, organisational theory, philosophy, and sociology.

    3. 1961 bis Anfang 1997 erstellt worden, also in der Zeit der auch institutionellen Zugehörigkeit Luhmanns zur Wissenschaft

      L's ZKII created from the early sixties until his death in late 90s, of about 67k notes, coincides with his time in scientific institutions. Sociology focused, methodical access to his readings across diverse scientific disciplines.

    4. die Sammlung auch als eine intellektuelle Autobiographie verstehen kann

      L's card collection as intellectual autobiography Vgl index cards as diary, here unintended. L's notes were undated.

    5. n einer kleinen Abteilung (Zettel 9/8 ff.) des Zettelkastens, die vermutlich im wesentlichen im Zusammenhang mit dem vorgenannten Aufsatz entstanden ist und in der Luhmann über die Zettelkastentechnik selbst reflektiert, bezeichnet er den Zettelkasten einerseits als ein ‚Denkwerkzeug‘, das es ihm erst ermögliche, in einer strukturierten, auf Zusammenhänge hin orientierten, Differenzen einkerbenden Art und Weise zu denken (Zettel 9/8g): "man liest anders, wenn man auf die Möglichkeit der Verzettelung achtet" (Zettel 9/d). Andererseits sei der Zettelkasten ein "Zweitgedächtnis" (Zettel 9/8,2), das gerade kein einfaches Wissensarchiv darstelle. Vielmehr sei er eine "Klärgrube" (Zettel 9/8a2), da "[a]lle arbiträren Einfälle, alle Zufälle der Lektüre" (Zettel 9/8i) eingebracht werden können, über deren Informationsgehalt erst im Nachhinein und durch die interne Anschlussfähigkeit entschieden werde. Dem korrespondiert eine Ablage der Zettel nach dem "multiple storage"-Prinzip (Zettel 9/8b2), wobei es wesentlich sei, dass "man nicht auf eine Unmenge von Punkt-für-Punkt Zugriffen angewiesen ist, sondern auf Relationen zwischen Notizen" (Zettel 9/8b). Aufgrund seiner Eigenkomplexität könne der Zettelkasten dadurch zu einem "Junior-Partner" (Zettel 9/8,1) in einem Kommunikationsprozess werden.

      Luhmann's description of his cards is varied: - Denkwerkzeug thinking tool (to in a structured, connection oriented and highlighting differences way think) - Zweitgedächtnis, second(ary) memory/brain, but not as a 'simple' knowledge archive - Klärgrube (literally clarification pit), septic tank, in which to put all arbitrary thoughts/ideas and coincidences of reading material in, decisions about its informational value being made later through the internal connectability. - Junior partner in communication, because of the resulting internal complexity of the notes collection

      There's a mention of the multiple storage principle here, which is also mentioned in [[Technik des wissenschaflichen Arbeitens by Johannes Erich Heyde]] to prevent having to consult the cards card by card, but can rely on relationships between notes. Is this a hybrid step between L's own system and how Heyde wrote about what was common? Did L actually do multiple storage? If so, how? Heyde suggested full copies.

      L's card about multiple storage is titled thus in English (https://hyp.is/QQk9IFKZEe2e1vPRucX3WQ/niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/zettel/ZK_2_NB_9-8b2_V) suggesting it did not originate from Heyde here.

    1. "Multiple storage" als Notwendigkeit derSpeicherung von komplexen (komplex auszu-wertenden) Informationen.

      Interesting that the card uses English, implying the phrase 'multiple storage' came from an English language reading source. As a necessity for storing complex information and complex evaluations of infromation.

    1. don’t take critiques from someone who wouldn’t work as hard on their art as they are telling you to work on yours, they have no frame of reference, they have no foot in reality. Rae works as hard as I do, who better to take advice from?

      Having put in the work is a frame of reference for providing feedback. To ensure it matches up with the reality of the effort. This goes beyond the context of writing/art, I tie this to cybernetics, thinking about feedback in networks and systems.

    2. Repairing my errors has always led to the actual interesting places in the work, slowly emerging out of some fog, to surprise me

      Author talks about repair, then mentions emergence. The latter is probably the more important observation. Repeatedly revisiting things and making incremental changes also points back to author's earlier point of the qualitative effects of quantity through paying attention. Says this creates the most interesting value from his work. I'd say this is probably a crucial piece of work. Interacting with ones own material, like linking and going through cards, adding to them is the work. Makes it like Luhmann's communication and writing of books, and Sohrens notion that the written work emerges from the previous work put into the cards.

    3. Later, I have to fix everything. Tie it all up, make it gel. Connect the dots even further, which is just a way of saying ‘reverse engineering.’ I have a clerical mess to rearrange, but while I’m rearranging all of it logistically, I get a chance to enhance the language so it matches the characters and the place, which I had to discover through writing it all anyway.

      The process of connecting written fragments is not just editing, it is also creation: make the story work logistically, and improve the language to match characters and locations. The latter can only be done at this stage, because the writing process reveals characters to the author. Author calls this reverse engineering, which is an interesting metaphor.

    4. Then for the next draft I make a little punch list/index card of new scenes to create to properly finish ‘the thing.’ The cards become a vague map I can leaf through when I get stuck. Working through that punch list often happens out of linear order, too. Just jumping to which new scene I feel most like working on.

      After writing the first things based on energy, the author makes cards (vgl those in scrivener) that would help complete the story. Cards serve as a tentative map, not as a rigid outline to complete (see advice above wrt rigidity). Works through those to select what to write next, again based on energy/excitement.

    5. That’s what I mostly do. Write about things I’m really excited about. In the beginning I don’t have a plan, maybe just one or two scenes but I write them, and bumble towards creating things around them that thrill me in some way

      A non-linear approach to writing, starting from where your own energy is. Apparently combined with the earlier mentioned showing-up to do things repeatedly. Akin to non-linear reading?

    6. And then when it does pile up, actually fix it later, as if harvesting a crop you get to correct once more, twice more, impossibly, luckily, till you’re happy with the harvest.

      harvesting as metaphor, points to the compounding effect of doing things (not aimless things though, methods/aims above goals)

    7. Don’t beat yourself up. Make your goals tiny. And I really am saying, write three hundred words a day. Fill up ONE index card a day with chicken scratch. That’s all it takes. Retype the things that pile up. All of a sudden you have something. Have no hierarchy of importance when it comes to your work. Make whatever. Be at play, always. Get comfortable doing sloppy work, malformed, phoned in, wonky work—believe you can fix it later. Because you can.

      A rich paragraph of for me hard won insights.

    8. even the most common type of life (my own) adds up to something grander, because I was paying attention, documenting, trying to learn from it.

      There are compounding effects from the small things of life, if you notice those. Vgl [[Kwantiteit leidt tot kwaliteit 20201211155505]] [[Blogs als avatar 20030731084659]]

    9. To be more productive, just to do a little bit of your art, when you feel like you can

      showing up

    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20220929103452/https://spectator.clingendael.org/nl/publicatie/waarom-een-europese-digitale-identiteit-simpel-moet-blijven

      Jaap-Henk Hoepman over de eIDAS. Tot nu toe kijk ik naar eIDAS vooral als een digid dat Europees werkt, niet veel meer (dus om in te loggen op bijv een B of D dienst). En verder facet-gebaseerd zoals Irma doet. J-H kaart hier toch andere punten aan.

    1. Can't go to any of these talks next week. Follow up on the names listed and see if they have a web presence I want to subscribe to.

    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20220112185239/https://medium.com/human-ventures/sane-is-helping-you-reclaim-your-attention-online-6b79297b67f4

      Came across Sane in Chris Aldrich's h. feed. Sane looks intruiging, but not yet clear to me what it is/aims to be, or how it works and is/n't interoperable with other things. This is an interview with its founder Ida Josefiina. Explore what the idea/vision behind Sane is.

      Fazit: the described observations seem off to me, the motivations resulting from them and the aim of Sane valuable.

    2. There is an active rebellion going on against big tech. There is a huge group of Gen Zers who are actively practicing this rebellion, rethinking their relationship to technology, and wanting to be much more intentional with their time.

      It's not just a 'rebellion'. In Europe there is a strong establishment regulatory effort, that recognises the geopolitical significance of everything digital/data. So 'rethinking your relationship to tech' is a pretty mainstream discussion for at least 6 yrs.

    3. if you measure people’s attention spans on platforms that have been created to reduce your attention span

      nice phrase. but there's a learned behaviour here as a result, that you can't simply discount and counteract by offering a different environment. It seems to require retraining. (Vgl finding my blogging muscle again after ditching FB, and reading more academic papers and books after ditching attentiongrabbing timelines in e.g. Twitter and LinkedIn.)

    4. Sane to include content that you don’t find on the airport bestsellers bookshelf. All of our content is quite existential in nature, whether it’s about the future of humanity, technology, psychology, or consciousness, and it’s sourced from those deep rabbit holes of academia that people normally don’t have access to.

      Goes back to wanting to make it easier to access the institutional stuff. This is a useful type of threshold eroding.

    5. These micro-communities are extremely strong and the opportunity is more massive than anyone can imagine.

      online networked micro-communities have existed as long as dial-up modems have been around. Are they confusing with finding that out for themselves with something actually new? The whole generation phrasing suggest they are.

    6. There is a clear shift in digital behavior happening where Gen Z are migrating from public podiums into the more intimate nooks and crannies of the internet

      iow they are growing up.

    7. We’ve designed Sane to be less about consuming content and more about meditating on ideas to really expand your neural networks and generate more of those “a-ha” moments.

      Sane focuses on reading/text, creating the space for thinking about stuff, and generate insights. It wants to move away from consuming inputs to digesting them. Annotation and note taking similar. Do they see it as social annotation? Does it interact with local note systems?

    8. Who goes on university websites to look at the research they are publishing, and then downloads a 30-page research PDF that’s full of jargon? It’s technically accessible because it’s there, but it’s not accessible because people have limited time.That’s where Sane comes in. We’re building a truly accessible way for people to discover new ideas without the burden of those navigational challenges. We’re not dumbing down content, but we’re putting it in a format that gives users much more space to meditate on the ideas themselves rather than get caught up in all the layers of distraction, like overly complex language.

      Where is the boundary between easing the work and friction that is necessary in learning, and doing it for you? Discovery of new ideas and formatting to meditate on sounds valuable. But it also reads like a summary service, like e.g. Blinkist, which helps in determining if something is worth a read but hardly conveys the stuff that creates new insights/K for the reader.

    9. It’s all there, so accessibility is not about the availability of information but how to discover, organize, digest, and retain it.

      the fundamentals of learning have always been the same. There is a quantitative difference in information availability and speed/ channels of delivery due to digitisation and internet that leads to qualitative differences yes. n::don't have a note yet about this oddly enough, or I named it in a way that doesn't help finding it.

    10. building their identities and communicating individual expression specifically through the cultivation of idea

      and this is new or unique?

    11. They are hypercognitive, in search of truth, and comfortable adopting different new tools for learning online.

      please stop the 'generation whatitsname' is like 'something'. It is never true. Gen Z hypercognitive and comfortable adopting new tools is just as much nonsense as saying they are lazy and can't concentrate on anything meaningful. Young people always more easily adopt things that are newly introduced when they are in their 10s and 20s, afterwards they will be just as locked in as older people. My grandparents eagerly 'adopted' radio, while their parents likely bemoaned them for not reading the paper anymore. Likewise my parents and TV news, and me with internet. Thinking in 'generations' doesn't have any real value imo. It's shorthand for marketing, and hand waving in every other context.

    12. nternal experience economy, and the pandemic accelerated it like crazy. A more personal, spiritual, and of course intellectual pursuit is replacing the idea of the experience economy.

      yuck. learning as 'internal experience economy', very marketing speak. The earlier mention of attention in the title makes more sense to me than 'internal experience economy'

    13. We’re creating a personalized guide to the pursuit of knowledge that is accessible outside of institutions

      3rd purpose of Sane: access to K outside institutions. See earlier mention of not having access to uni libraries. Something that irked me greatly over the years as well. (I registered for uni for some years to gain access to courses I was interested in and to the uni lib, until it became too expensive to do so in NL when they created the non-regulated institutional fees alongside the regulated first time student fees.)

    14. This process is much more about learning how to think than about learning anything specific.

      Vgl the topic neutral aspects of commonplacing and Luhmann's approach to ZK, vs the topic focused forms of ZKs.

    15. sheer volume of content available online means our greater challenge in making knowledge more accessible is in helping people discover, organize, digest, and retain information they find.

      indeed. No such thing as [[Information overload 20040327145709]], but failing [[Infostrats 20200705214454]] are common in usefully dealing with the abundance [[Informatie overvloed 20051122162501]].

    16. them build a network of connected knowledge

      'build a network of connected knowledge' this seems to subscribe to the K as object view, woven into a network of connections. As opposed to connectivism (Siemens, Downes) [[Netwerkleren Connectivism 20100421081941]] where the network is the knowledge itself.

    17. Sane’s product is designed not just to introduce you to a new topic — readings range from eloquent, digestible overviews of general relativity to theories on whether we are living in a computer simulation — but as an active exercise to help build a healthy habit for thinking.

      Sane has two purposes: 1 provide entry points to new topics 2 help build an active thinking habit (where the work in note making is too)

      Is this communal commonplacing?

    18. Being the architect of her own intellectual journey led her to create Sane

      This sounds very PKM-ish, and the type of thing the IndieWeb community sees as starting point for the creation of independent webtools. Personal software that may be of interest to more users than yourself.

    19. did not attend university

      her LinkedIn profile says she's been a year at a Chinese uni to study Chinese.

    20. Reclaim Your Attention Online

      [[Aandacht is het schaarst 20201013163120]] meaning [[Aandacht is een morele keuze 20201217074345]], and therefore [[Stuur aandacht met intentie 20220213080032]]

    1. Any kind of ritualistic process is a form of journaling and reminding yourself that you’re present; it’s about maintaining some sense of mindfulness, of presence. A lot of my work that has that kind of reoccurring motif—as if you make a mistake with how you form the shape, how you execute something, and then you start over and try again and try again and try again until the composition reveals itself, you know. What I’m trying to say is that I guess that is the reason why my practice warrants itself to be so… diverse? Yeah.

      Satterwhite describes making art, the process of it, repeating things, as a form of journaling, as proof to oneself of presence and existence, anchoring mindfulness. Repetition of attempts 'reveal' the compostion. Gives that as reason of why their practice is varied in media. Intriguing. It reminds me of how Austin Kleon makes his collages also as a sort of journal, incorporating stuff from the now. And how Wouter Groeneveld in his commonplacing notebooks has memento's thoughts, doodles and everything. A contextualised creative expression.

    2. I am very interdisciplinary, but it sometimes comes off as being all over the place. But technically it’s just kind of an extended frame sculpture, something that goes beyond the medium, but where the central idea is the nucleus.

      From a central idea, Satterwhite expresses themselves across multiple disciplines. This may seem to be fragmented and unfocused. ('all over the place') With a list of current questions one can help soft-focus a range of different information flows, Feynman style, and avoid focusing on 1 type of info. This increases serendipity and combinational creativity. Is what Satterwhite describes the same thing for expression? Having several outlets not as fragmentation, but different probes of expressing the same idea. The idea soft-focuses the expressed across the mediia it is expressed in, not focusing on a single form of expression. Provided one has the skills to do so. Vgl Doctorow exploring in science fiction the same ideas he explores in non-fiction.

    3. Usually the 3D animation stuff will be scored by an album that I also made, and is attached to the piece because they are rooted in a similar space, and are negotiating similar processes.

      Satterwhite talks about how different expressions/media originate from the same process and same context, and form a connected whole.

    1. I’d never call myself a real programmer. But it was real programming. Even the tiniest little bits, like yesterday’s simple hack, are real.

      A few months later I blogged about this as being the 'home cook equivalent' of a programmer https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2020/02/i-am-the-programming-equivalent-of-a-home-cook/

    2. creating applications in Excel is real programming too

      Hermans proved that Excel is Turing complete in her thesis.

    3. there are many drop-outs that way, that the acquired skill level flattens out quickly, and that there’s no efficiency gain visible in consequent activities of the children involved

      there is a big opportunity cost to unassisted learning to code: many people will drop-out (in frustration). Again this is how the IndieWeb community quickly drives people away too. the skill level acquired this way is limited (due to absence of Vgl deliberate practice?) the acquired skills do not make following activities more efficient. (Vgl how I usually struggle with the same basic coding issues, no matter how many scripts I try to write).

    4. getting stuck and unstuck on your own is the way to go.

      Still very common to observe as example of such 'coder's ethics'. E.g. IndieWeb community discussion is mostly based on figuring things out yourself and creating one's own code (self-dogfooding), with only generic and hand-wavy assistance most of the time.

    5. many of us acquired our own tech skills strongly shapes the assumptions about learning to code

      The way you learned programming shapes assumptions about how to learn programming.

      The fact I self-learned through trial and error without supervision in the early and mid 80s, is common, but not a model for K transfer, and not useful "coder's ethic"

    6. she says in contrast to e.g. reading, we don’t know much of anything about teaching programming. There’s no body of work

      Hermans posits that there is no actual body of work about how to effectively teach programming. In contrast to reading.

    7. Felienne Hermans

      Now a professor at VU Amsterdam. In #2019/ we both keynoted NL CoderDojo Conf. and I blogged this beforehand.

    1. How to overwrite your cognitive scripts

      This article does not say a word about the how-to of overwriting one's cognitive scripts, rather it states why you might need to. It describes what they are, how they are useful and when not, and how to detect when they're not.

    2. Many of us exhibit patterns of behaviour that are a throwback to the behaviours formed as children in our family unit, or because of behaviours lived out in our current social environment.

      Cogscripts need review if they are still applicable or no longer provide utility. As with all habits, reflection cycles are needed. This does require being aware of the existence of cogscripts/entrained responses. A range of childhood cogscripts are likely past their use-by date.

    3. A seminal study conducted in 1979 by Gordon Bower, John Black and Terrence Turner showed that cognitive scripts prompt the recall and recognition of things we already know

      Scripts in memory for text https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010028579900094 April 1979.

      Abstract mentions how our existing scripts help determine how we remember texts that describe common events. The order of narration, and filling in of details is influenced by our internal script upon recall. Vgl [[Luisteren gaat uit van wat je al weet 20030309070740]] the linguistic notion that listening starts from what you already know (here the cogscripts)

    4. they are commonly based on a sequence of events that we expect to occur in given situations

      cognitive scripts / habitual behaviour is often an entrained response to a common situation. Situations that are common for many people means there is commonality in their cognitive scripts too. 'Copying the neighbours' is a heuristic that informs the formation of such cognitive scripts in a situation, which is also one of the heuristics that contributes to emergence. Are shared cognitive scripts, through emergence, atomic particles of culture? (Vgl [[Culture is the Greatest Hits collection of social facts 20070828174701]] (Social facts are agreements in groups of people.) and [[The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker 20070828073721]] where he presents a culture as the sum of the individual psychologies of those in a culture.

    5. Although we think we are fully aware and in control of our everyday decisions, we actually often follow a series of cognitive script

      I don't see that 'control' and 'cognitive scripts' are in juxtaposition. Handing things off to 'subroutines' isn't the same as reducing oneself to that subroutine. I drive my car mostly on cognitive scripts so I can pay actual attention to traffic and surroundings, pilots use checklists to get a plane in the air and back down, it helps to be more aware and in control, and not be swamped in noisy complexity that distracts.

    6. If you identify as a successful business leader, but the impact of working long hours and managing intense stress is making you miserable, it may be in your best interest to make a change. However, the thought of losing your identity can make you cling to this unhealthy, but ingrained, cognitive script.

      Such an odd paragraph. Yes changing habits tied to aspects of identity can be hard (but the other way around vgl [[Gewoonteveranderingen 20200928165507]] can also be the very starting point of change. "As a business leader I don't do .... and do do ....")

      The (another) strange notion here is that the self-identity of 'successful business leader' is tied to 'long hours and managing intense stress'. I'd say that you probably won't be a successful business leader if that is your daily experience. So the example falls flat, reducing working hours and stress will not challenge one's identity as a successful business leader, at least not in any sane individual.

    7. simple strategies can help you question your cognitive scripts and start overwriting the most unhelpful ones.

      suggestions to reflect and change cogscripts (the article talks about 'strategies but that's bs, these are operational tactics): - journal to see recurring patterns - take some risks (vgl [[Probe proberend handelen 20201111162752]]) - 'update your scripts' which isn't a 'strategy' nor tactic but the objective for which the list is made that this point listed in. it's the key point that the article circles around, but left completely empty. Vgl [[Gewoonteveranderingen 20200928165507]] wrt process changes.

    8. possible to overwrite unhelpful cognitive scripts

      habits can be altered.

    9. The automated response when recognising a situation based on our previous experience means that we may act without truly thinking about our decisions, the background behind them, nor the consequences they may have.

      Automated responses are shortcuts, but it may blind us to differences (jumping to conclusions), opportunity costs and hidden consequences.

    10. Cognitive scripts have been found to control our social behaviour to a certain extent. Learning by social observation and then storing cognitive scripts gives us an indication of what we can expect and what is expected of us in a certain situation. We build an internal catalogue of scripts so that we recognise how to behave in a diverse range of situations including at business meetings, when socialising, or even during a funeral.

      Link: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-media-violence/i1171.xml article that apparently looks at how "the model of cognitive scripts to explain how children learn aggression-related knowledge structures" which is a diff context than it is cited here. The claims in this paragraph do not stem from that link but are stated in the links abstract as pre-existing knowledge informing the article at the link. Cogscripts may script our social behaviour (it's how we learned it), but it doesn't follow the scripts control our behaviour, even if we can usually expect ourselves and others to stick to them. Control implies force/intent on the side of the script and lack of agency of the individual. Intuitively it's the other way around, it's a tool / aid / scaffold. This is the rules/structure as skeleton vs suit of armour discussion, sounds like.

    11. Roger Schank and Robert Abelson formulated the Cognitive Script Theory.

      1977 The link is to a review: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1421499 "Scripts Plans Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry Into Human Knowledge Structures" Nice referral to K structures. Book link https://www.routledge.com/Scripts-Plans-Goals-and-Understanding-An-Inquiry-Into-Human-Knowledge/Schank-Abelson/p/book/9780898591385

      Review mentions the book is situated interdisciplinary: cs, psych, ling, phil

      According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_theory Shanck and Abelson extended a pre-existing script theory as early AI work to represent procedural K This to me strengthens the link with emergence and culture. It also compares to [[Standard operating procedures met parameters 20200820202042]] : my behaviour with some input parameters is pretty predictable to myself (because of such entrained cogscripts) and thus also scriptable as personal software tools.