charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
Today, FB announced three big features

1. Data portability: You'll be able to download your data. This is a great step.
2. A page to manage privacy settings on apps: Good because it simplifies the control process.
3. Groups: Simpler way to share information.

Of the three, Groups is the most exciting feature, because of the range of things you can do in them, and also the privacy settings: you'll be able to make the content within the groups private, and even make the listing of members private. In LJ terms, groups are sort of like the ability to create a friends-list filter, and then share it with others as a 'social space,' but they're more like comms in that the members can also post things. Plus, there are other features like shared document collaboration and group chat. (FB says that only 5% of users used the list feature. I wonder what percentage of LJ users create/regularly use filters?)

I'm more interested in how they're going to avoid abuse. I take it there is a Groups administrator who can exercise moderator control over content, and you can't freely join groups, you must be invited (and it'll tell the entire group who invited you, but this sounds like there's drama potential there).

The feature is intended to reflect RL groups of friends, and more as a 'filter out the stuff that not all of your friends are interested in,' but since you can be part of a group, and share privately with the group members, who are not necessarily your FB friends, I suspect people will find ways to make this reflect internet social groups as well, although really large groups will have trouble with the way it kind of breaks down around 200 members. (It's also not for companies either; they recommend businesses continue to use FB Pages)

Hopefully, these moves will inspire other social media companies to become more data-portable, and create more flexible group features.
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)

Because of the instant personalization features of Facebook, I HIGHLY recommend that you stay logged out when not using the site, and tell all of your friends to also do so. Facebook is rolling out this feature to more sites, and in the past and present, there have been many cross site scripting problems with it.

Unrelated, but I agree with what [personal profile] azurelunatic has to say about people spamming the LJ news comm with DW Promotions here. It is simply giving people a bad impression of DW. However, at the same time, I think even though DW and LJ can 'co-exist peacefully' the fact is, DW is objectively speaking in competition with LJ, so hawking a competitor's product in the official forums is not going to be looked upon well by the company. Whenever a DW advocate criticizes LJ, there is a strong likelihood it's going to come off as a PR move to promote DW. [BTW, Splitcomplex is not replying because they've been banned from LJ news] A Russian user claims that Russian users didn't care very much about the cross-posting thing because a) Twitter and FB aren't very popular, and b) because of security concerns, they don't post private things to LJ anyway.
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
Poll #4361 thought experiment on importation
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 44

1. What if someone created a Facebook App that would allow LJ users to import their own journals, AND comments left on those journals to Facebook. Assume that the entries and comments would be imported in their entirety, with comments attributed to the LJ usernames of those who posted them. Assume that non-public entries would remain non-public, and filters would be assigned to filtered entries. What would you think about this? Assume that you were able to delete content left by you that you have access to.

View Answers

I'd oppose it/be offended by it.
16 (36.4%)

I would have no opinion/be indifferent.
23 (52.3%)

I would be very pleased by this.
2 (4.5%)

I would use this FB app to import my journal to Facebook.
1 (2.3%)

Other (please specify)
6 (13.6%)

2. What if someone created an FB App which could import LJ comms to an FB group. Assume similar conditions to the above.

View Answers

I'd oppose it/be offended by it.
18 (40.9%)

I would have no opinion/be indifferent.
24 (54.5%)

I would be very pleased by this.
1 (2.3%)

I would use this FB app to import my comm to Facebook.
1 (2.3%)

Other (please specify)
4 (9.1%)

edit: ugh, grammar fail. I forgot a question mark. -_-
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)

Most of the controversy is over the way comments on other people's locked posts can be posted to Twitter/Facebook, thus revealing the URL. So far, also, LJ is not really explaining if they intend to change any policies regarding this. (Also, the / character is broken in tags, but this was not intentional and is slated to be fixed).
charmian: a snowy owl (Default) (and other entries)

LJ seems to be developing "Facebook Integration." What exactly this is is unclear, but it would suspect it has to do with allowing FB identities to interact with LJ in a manner similar to OpenID identities. I wonder if such a thing will be widely utilized? How many people do, after all, crosspost their personal Ljs to FB?

Or is the intended audience more the communities and public journals with large audiences? For people who use their livejournal/lj comms as general blogs in a manner similar to Wordpress, this may indeed be useful. I'm not sure how useful this would be to a Russian audience, though. According to Google Trends, FB is less popular than LJ in Russia. FB is also far outclassed by Russian social networks.

Or, could the integration involve even more than that? FB does have extensive APIs with many uses.

Speaking of Facebook, it has reached 500 million users.
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
Huh, it seems a lot of people are quite interested in the issue, as there are sixty comments (admittedly, a lot of those are mine, but anyway.)

Some highlights:

It was pointed out that crossposting might undermine pseudonomity, not in a general sense (newcomers changing the site culture), but in a specific sense (people's friends crossposting, and then the crossposter's FB friends coming over to DW, and then possibly finding them.) In other words, say that A and B both use DW and are linked here (through access/subscription). A blogs pseudononymously at DW and wishes to keep their RL identity and their pseudonoymous DW identity separate. B does not blog pseudononymously at DW, and so crossposts to FB. What if B's friends on FB decide, prompted by this, to go to DW? Then, it is possible that they might find A via B's profile or by reading B's read-list or some other means, thus undermining A's pseudononymity.

While this is an issue, I don't think this is one which should be solved by banning B from crossposting to FB, or otherwise discouraging them from doing so. The same problem would exist if B had a WP blog which linked to A's DW journal, and B was crossposting their WP blog to FB. It's an issue which exists when someone who is pseudononymous and someone who is not are publicly linked to each other: I am not sure how it is generally solved in other situations. (I personally solve it by keeping a strict separation, and also, on LJ and DW, not posting publicly RL info: location, birthday, etc.)

There was also the important point of how social networking sites are generally not monocultures, and how multiple norms may exist on other sites. In some parts of LJ, it is the norm for people to use IRL names, and not in other parts. I think this could occur on DW, and wouldn't necessarily be a problem either.

There was also a call for more non-LJ users on DW.

Also, I was thinking about Tumblr, and actually, it has some FB integration. This, in my limited anecdotal knowledge, has not undermine Tumblr's own culture, or made it difficult to blog pseudononymously there, as I do. In fact, I would say that Tumblr minimizes the above issue (undermining of pseudononimity by visible social media links) by allowing people to hide on their blog their lists of followers/followed.
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
Recently, there was a suggestion about crossposting to Facebook Notes. In general, public opinion was against the suggestion, and in the comments, there was some discussion about whether this option might create problems for DW site culture or not.

For example, this comment by [personal profile] damned_colonial:

2) I dislike Facebook culture and the style of interaction that happens there. I fear that making it easy to crosspost to Facebook would result in lots of people coming here from Facebook and bringing Facebook social norms, which are at odds with the social norms I enjoy here on DW. (For instance, things I enjoy on DW include: lengthy, thoughtful posts and comments, a respect for pseudonymity, and the ability to segregate one's journalling from one's "real life").

In response, there was an interesting comment left by [personal profile] matgb, who said:

More of my readers come to read my stuff from Twitter and Facebook than do from LJ or DW. Even more come from a UK politics aggregator (or at least did when I was posting regularly). I'd like them to be able to comment effectively. I'd also like to 'push' to those sites I make use of to aggregate my stuff.

Essentially, who are you (or anyone else) to determine what sort of culture I want in my personal journal, and why should a whole site be tarnished because some people don't like the bits they've seen?


I didn't sign up for a fandom blogging platform, I signed up for an LJ fork that would take the good idea and make it genuinely interoperable. Refusing to deal with other sites because there are "normal" people there and they have a "culture I don't want to see here" is, well, annoying.

more on these issues )

UPDATE: [personal profile] foxfirefey has alerted me to the fact that an earlier suggestion about crossposting to FB was already accepted into the bug database. So the point itself may actually be moot.

recent links

Thursday, February 11th, 2010 09:52 am
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
1. Hilarity and some snark. Readwriteweb is a blog about social media and the web, so of course they publish many articles about facebook. The popularity of the blog means that it ranks high in search results, so FB users are typing in 'facebook login' to google, coming to Readwriteweb, and complaining about the "Facebook redesign," thinking RWW=FB!

2. survey on unassigned DW bugs desired by users. An opportunity to talk about some bugs/features that interest you.


Sunday, December 13th, 2009 01:12 pm
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
More information on revised LJ advertising policies

And, [personal profile] vito_excalibur talks about why she is going to stop posting to DW: she crossposted to LJ, and all the discussion stayed on LJ, so she sees little point in continuing to post at DW. (LJ crosspost here)

She goes on to say: "So DW improves the medium part of the LJ clone social medium, and it doesn't matter that much, because the social part is much worse. I think it might still come to work, FSVO working; but the window is narrowing on that possibility." [I think FSVO='for certain values of'?]

She argues that DW has mostly removed negative aspects of LJ (as it currently is), rather than adding things which would convince people to switch. DW as it stands is not enough of an improvement to get people involved in fandom to switch to DW, it seems. I would argue that this is correct for many people on LJ. DW is simply not enough of an upgrade for most. Possibly this is because the people left at LJ are there for the content/social, not for the media, and that people who choose blogging/social media software based on the features have already left.

Anyway, when reading her post I was confused why V_E argued that DW only had a limited amount of time to get people to switch, and I asked her about this point. So it seems that she has eventually concluded that the idea of an LJ fork is itself flawed.

I think to some extent this may be so, but that at the same time, many people are using in fairly large numbers message boards, IRC, etc., even though this tech has been obsoleted, so DW I think can still have a larger stable userbase that it does currently. (It's sort of plateaued at around slightly under Insanejournal's daily userbase)

More notes:
Talking more about the post )
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
1. Give your two cents on how many icons you would want in an ideal world.

Actually, my honest answer would be "around ten or so, but I can even make do with one," so my use case is so far from what's being discussed there that it's not even funny. XD I suck so hard at making icons (I was trying to make some Ravages of Time ones, but the art really doesn't shrink down well) that I was all like "bleh, might as well just stick with this wol." For me, as a paid feature, polls are more important than having multiple icons. (And I don't really use those that much either... I must say, honestly for me, the paid features of an LJ/fork/clone don't really impact my daily usage of the site.)

I use Tumblr and Posterous (and Disqus to comment on Tumblr) and honestly, I don't really care that on those sites I can have only one icon. Heck, right now on my default layout on Tumblr, you can't even see my icon in the posts there.

2. A blogger remarks, re: FB's enhanced granular privacy features that they aren't really about privacy, but about publishing and competing with Twitter, which is an interesting hypothesis. Seems a bit far fetched, though, to claim it's also with Wordpress.

I wonder if this means that other platforms will begin to incorporate granula privacy in a manner similar to FB's implementaton of it?
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
Kind of following my previous post on OpenID:

I was reading Chris Messina (one of the people behind DiSO (which is basically a project about making social networking/media distributed, instead of centralized)'s blog, and he had some things to say about the openID's flaws on the user experience level.

In April, he talked about how openID is confusing to the technically un-inclined. The problem, as he sees it, is that openID is simply confusing users because there is too much choice. I agree that the openID logo also really doesn't help matters because people don't know what it is.

Later, he makes another post on usability issues, about 'designing for the gut'. Basically, he's saying that users demand simplicity in login, and engineers and designers cannot afford to ignore this, even if it isn't the most technically powerful solution. Simplicity wins.

Other DiSO related links:

Also, DiSO is working on Activity Streams, which is a way of standardizing data produced by various social networks. The format has already been adopted by Facebook, MSN, and many other popular sites.

Recently, Cliqset created a way to convert many feeds into the Activity Streams format. It "enables user data to pass freely from one network to another or through multiple applications, unhindered by network-specific markup and namespaces."

Chris Messina on My Name is not an URL

Namespace squatting?

However, at the same time, there seems to be another trend: the increasing dominance of Facebook in the identity field. (Which may not be a contradictory one: FB seems involved in some of these Activity Streams projects)

Yahoo recently announced they were going to increasingly integrate Facebook data into their services, and now, Myspace is rumored to have an extensive FB integration in the works. It looks like Myspace wishes to have access to the FB social graphs. Looks like the war is going to be Google v. Facebook now. XD

I'm wondering what this is going to do to the smaller blogging/publishing sites. So far Twitter seems to be somewhat aligned with Google, but that could change in the future. Microsoft is a FB investor, so they may start doing more things with them. Hard to say what's going to happen in the next year, but it may be an exciting one.
charmian: a snowy owl (Default)
It seems that Facebook has granular privacy on some things, like notes and photos, and may soon have it on status (it's a beta feature not available to all users yet). (See links for more information)

I think, IMHO that this is a type of granular privacy actually superior to LJ's, because without going through the trouble of creating a separate filter, you can filter something to just one or two people (or possibly multiple Friends Lists), or exclude only one (or more) people. I'm not sure how widespread the usage of this feature is among FB users, though. Were I to use FB for communicating w/ people more often, though, this would definitely come in handy.

The beta feature of being able to do this for the activity stream as well sounds nice too, but unfortunately it isn't yet possible for all users to do this.

I wonder what effect this will have on rival social networks? Some theorize this is FB having a go at Twitter which has simple privacy (either your Twitter account is 100% public or 100% private).

May 2014

18 192021222324


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags