Archive for the “life” Category
Maddow explains when outing is newsworthy – special appearance by George “lift my luggage” Rekers
Tuesday, May 11th, 2010Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Subtitle Sweetness CoCo on 60 min – MSFW
Wednesday, May 5th, 2010Accidental Comedy – One Toke Over the Line – A Lawrence Welk classic circa 1971
Monday, May 3rd, 2010My SXSW 21010 talk – Totally Gay for the Web: Coming Out as a Model for Social Media
Saturday, April 24th, 2010Â
This is a 4:30 excerpt of a 15 min talk.Â
Â
tags: privacy, publics, social media, facebook, twitter, LGBT, queer, identity, self-acceptance, transparency, trolls
Facebook’s “everywhere” doesn’t understand some basics of meaningful social engagement
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010From TechCrunch’s piece on Facebook’s recent announcement/http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/21/zuckerbergs-buildin-web-default-social/
Facebooks concern for themselves over their users (and disregard of their privacy) also shows up in creating poor “social” experiences much like the ones Google Buzz made as the comment above shows. Self-agency is a core element of social engagement. Everyone participates in different publics. But technology doesn’t differentiate between them well. People do. That’s why algorithmically driven automation (made more intense by fb by default opting in people to sharing their info across the web) assumes that what one says to this group one says to everyone or even more clearly..that everyone is sharing the same context all the time. re: social-agency. I very much am a fan of openness and use it a great deal in tummeling and opening people up is part of creating a socially engaging space or conversation. But if people don’t feel they are choosing to participate, if they are doing so because of peer pressure only or because of tech defaults then the act of engagement isn’t actually engagement. Your sense of self isn’t coming with you. In FBs case it’s even lamer (Google Buzz did this too) because it’s placing information / people where it and they make no sense.By definition, controlling relationships, ones which are not consciously chosen ( and I don’t just mean initially I mean continually) are not relationships on one being WITH another. It’s one reason tummeling is so critical. It’s how we people can help make connections but it is based on seeing the other person and connecting with them subjectively. (Facebook and Google in its own way) aren’t trying to do this. FaceBook wants the *result* of you but they aren’t particularly interested in you. This is still industrial era relating even if it happens in a web 2.0 candy “social” shell.
Facebook’s “everywhere” doesn’t understand some basics of meaningful social engagement
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010From TechCrunch’s piece on Facebook’s recent announcement/http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/21/zuckerbergs-buildin-web-default-social/
Facebooks concern for themselves over their users (and disregard of their privacy) also shows up in creating poor “social” experiences much like the ones Google Buzz made as the comment above shows. Self-agency is a core element of social engagement. Everyone participates in different publics. But technology doesn’t differentiate between them well. People do. That’s why algorithmically driven automation (made more intense by fb by default opting in people to sharing their info across the web) assumes that what one says to this group one says to everyone or even more clearly..that everyone is sharing the same context all the time. re: social-agency.. I very much am a fan of openness and use it a great deal in tummeling and opening people up is part of creating a socially engaging space or convo. but if people don’t feel they are choosing to participate..if they are doing so because of peer pressure only or because of tech defaults then the act of engagement isn’t actually engagement. Ones sense of self isn’t coming with you. In FBs case it’s even lamer (Google Buzz did this too) bc it’s laying info / people where it makes no sense.By definition, controlling relationships, ones which are not consciously chose ( and I don’t justm ean initially I mean continually) are not relationships on one being WITH another. Its one reason tummeling is so criticaal. It’s how we people can help make connections but it is based on seeing the other person and connecting with them subjectively. (Facebook and Goolge in its own way) aren’t trying to do this. FB wants the *result* of youy but they aren’t particularly interested in you. this is still industrial era relating even if it happens in a web 2.0 candy “social” shell.
The volcano, ashcloud and my #ashtag adventure
Monday, April 19th, 2010Â
Plan C -Patti Smith sings Smells Like Teen Spirit
Friday, April 16th, 2010Step 2 Take a nap
Step 3 Listen to Patti Smith