There was a lot of mayhem surrounding the release of Google Buzz that I’ve been thinking about. First, of course, were the many complaints about privacy, some of which were entirely reasonable, and others of which were not. I think most of the reasonable complaints boil down to the actual, technical process of releasing the technology as opposed to the technology itself, which when regarded alone doesn’t add anything particularly novel to the social networking ecosystem. These actual, technical process issues, like integrating with GMail and automatically populating a public contact list, etc. are not especially interesting to me, and others (danah boyd) have written more intelligently than I could hope to on the subject.
There are two other aspects of Buzz that I find much more interesting. One is the well trod issue of the public-private spectrum, and the other is the discussion around “crossing streams,” or automatically feeding content from one service to another/others. I’ll address the former briefly, but only in how it pertains to my larger point, which is mostly about crossing streams.
The social web as we know it today has formed into distinct silos of information; to different degrees, you must subscribe to each individual service in order to add to or draw from each distinct pool of data. While some are explicitly more public venues (like Twitter), and others are moving in public direction (Facebook), they’re all more or less isolated, and the only way to operate across them is to use some sort of automated feed duplication service, which can be annoying for several reasons. And while Buzz is not that interesting to me as another one of these services (the roll-out was botched, the integration with GMail is weird, and the UI of the service itself is just acceptable), it is interesting in that it pushes open standards for social networking content, making it a force for interoperability.
Interoperability changes things. Ultimately, it kind of elides the differences between the types of content that the different services are used for, and even introduces elision between content outside of social networks. If you take interoperability to its logical extreme, almost all digital communication is the same kind of stuff; it’s all just content. To include:
- News articles, essays, and blog posts
- Tweets and status updates
- Shared links
- Photos/photo sets
- Podcasts (maybe)
- Comments (Jeff Jarvis on comments.)
In the abstract, there are very few true distinctions between these types of content. The distinctions are mostly artificial. The public-private spectrum seems like one that’s real and relevant, so I’ll explore that a bit here.
Let me enumerate all the distinct points on this spectrum that I can think of.
First, there’s public content. Public content goes from one point to every other point. This is broadcast content, which most traditional web 1.0 content is.
There’s also public, but directed content, like @replies on Twitter, Buzz, Facebook’s Wall, comments in general (sort of), etc. These are viewable by anyone, but directed at someone specific, i.e. public content from one point to another.
This kind of public content (tweets at least) can address more than one person specifically, though, so the next would one would public content from one point to many.
Then there are things like mailing lists, private IRC channels, and protected tweets, which are not open to the public but involve (potentially) many points. Each piece of content in these mediums goes from one point to many but not all, i.e. private content from one to many.
Then there are text messages, chats, and e-mails, that (usually) go from one point to another, privately.
So five basic types: 1→all, 1→1[public], 1→many[public], 1→many[private], 1→1[private].
Fairly obviously, however, there’s no fundamental difference between 1→1[private] and 1→many[private]; the former is simply a subset of the latter. Likewise with the [public] counterparts. Which leave us with three: 1→all, 1→many[private], and 1→many[public].
The difference between, 1→all and 1→many[public], though, is also somewhat artificial in that it’s really an extraneous piece of metadata. The public nature of the content renders the fact of any intended recipient sort of functionally meaningless.
So, basically, the only real difference between any of these content types is publicity vs. privacy (or public-ness vs. private-ness). (There’s a problem here, too, namely the “information wants to be free” one. Fact is: there’s nothing stopping anyone from forwarding or publishing anything sent to them, privately or not, and there are not clear legal or social rules governing most private information retention behavior (outside of medical and legal contexts). See: Calacanis vs. Odio.)
It’s not really a spectrum at all, then, but a simple binary, and a tenuous one at that.
(Ok, so this is maybe abstracting the issue to the point of breaking. Realistically it’s probably more like what Jeff Jarvis is saying: There is public, and then there are publics. This is worth talking about separately, I think.)
Most other differences between the above listed types of data, distinctions like length (whether it’s enforced or not), immediacy, context, and format are so self-evidently arbitrary and artificial, that I think they can be dealt with quite handily with proper use of metadata.
So, let’s imagine a web of total interoperability. I think a “web” is actually no longer as appropriate a metaphor, and would have to give way to a metaphor of a river or stream. All public data produced would be available in real time all at once. Without intervening silos like the the social networks that currently exist, there would be only two fundamental points of filter: production and consumption. Producers of content would be responsible for attaching appropriate metadata, which would include many of the points of distinction above: intended recipients, importance, subject (both in the sense of taxonomical subject, e.g. “technology,” as well as in the sense of topic, such as “re:[html link]”), location, etc. Consumers could then apply filters using the available metadata, and display different filter sets in customized ways, with the obvious different toggles for displaying a specific filter set being chronology and real time updates.
So, let’s imagine all above-defined content posted by everyone as a single Stream of (as yet) undifferentiated data. What web services currently do as clients of the Stream, essentially, is to filter it into discrete streams and display them in conventional ways. Twitter filters out everything but the people you follow on Twitter, and displays them in reverse-chronological order. Your email client filters out everything except things addressed to you (and spam, generally (and in herein you already see some pretty intense algorithmic filtering coming into play)).
You can even think of individual websites as this sort of a River client. If individual people are the only real content creation points, a website simply aggregates certain pieces of content from one or more individuals (or, from a filter-only perspective, filters out everything except certain pieces of content from one or more individuals).
What I like about looking at web activity this way is that, with the right client, one could cut out all these intervening services and have a direct stream of all the data you want to see, displayed the way you want. My dream client would consist of a multi-column display with each column representing a different filter or set of filters, each independently configured to display its data in a way appropriate to its contents. For example, my “inbox” would be all new, private content addressed to me from whitelisted contacts, displayed in chronological order. In the next column would be private messages to me from non-whitelisted contacts, mailing lists, etc. The third column might be the “social” column, which would aggregate everything posted by close friends and family, stuff I don’t want to miss any of, displayed in chronological order. Then a “news” column, which would be posts from blogs, twitter, etc. in reverse chronological order, so I could see just the latest updates at any given time. This column would probably only display headlines. (So, basically, this would be my twitter replacement, since a large portion of my twitter feed is really just headlines or short descriptions of blog posts and news items, with links.) I could configure this column to scroll constantly, or not. Another alternative display would be an algorithmic one, designed to show you first things you will find most relevant and interesting, like Google Reader’s “magic” sort.
I also imagine this client to include output functions, which would consist of more columns, each configured with different preset filters: one broadcasting publicly, another to share with friends, family, etc. I could alternatively configure certain outgoing filter-columns to append metadata pertaining to the content, or manually tag each post as I write it. I would tag this post, for example, with “boring, unrealistic web nonsense,” and you could subscribe to my public feed, but filter out everything I post with this tag. Or you could subscribe to only this stuff. Or only this stuff and photos. Etc.
Like I mentioned, this is really just a simplification/streamlining of what already happens, but I think what’s powerful about the idea is that it removes the current data silos like Twitter and Facebook, and decentralizes them, so that each individual has more control over which data is siloed and how.
I think it also flattens the publishing environment, putting more emphasis on individual authors. Websites and news organizations could more explicitly be understood for what they are: aggregators. One way I can imagine a publishing model is for individual authors to introduce advertisements inline in all or some of the items in the feeds they consider “published content.”
None of this is to say that I think the entire Web should be a Stream. There are clearly a lot of websites that should be website and not streams of content. All stores (or more broadly: organizations), for example, including online stores and the websites of physical stores make more sense as more or less static websites. Web applications like maps and Wikipedia and countless others make more sense as static web pages. But I think a Stream is a better metaphor for a large part of current communicative Web activity.