1,182 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Evgeny Morozov
    2. Public writing became a venue for retaining parts of myself that I would not submit to institutional transformation.
    3. Marwick and others have primarily observed intent as a causal condition for microcelebrity and the practice of cultivating it as a set of activities as opposed to the institutional conditions of those activities and microcelebrity’s various effects. Microcelebrity can be a tool to develop a personal brand, to leverage attention to generate income of job prospects, and to distill media and public attention of social movements. I consider microcelebrity’s cause-and-effect from my multiple attenuated status positions. My agency to create, perform or strategically reveal information is circumscribed by my ascribed status positions. As my professional and public-facing identities shift, my social location remains embedded in groups with a “shared histories based on their shared location in relations of power” (Hill Collins 1997: 376). Academic capitalism and microcelebrity promote neoliberal ideas of individualism. But power relations circumscribe the utility and value of cultivating attention in ways we rarely note, much less redress.

      I read this and can't help but thinking about some of my own personal workplace experiences (as well as some of those of others). Many often experience the need to move from an early workplace to another as a means of better experiencing direct promotion, both in status and in respect as well as in pay naturally. One will often encounter issues in promotion at the same company, particularly when it doesn't properly value work and experience, and thinks of you as when you first started work as a young kid still wet behind the ears. Compare this to moving to a new company with a new social group who doesn't know the "old" you, but automatically ascribes to you the rank and value of your new post instead of your past rank(s).

      In some sense making one's old writing/work private (or deleting it on Twitter as is more commonly done for a variety of reasons) becomes a means of preventing the new groups of readers or viewers of one's site from seeing the older, less experienced version of one's self and thereby forcing them to judge you by the "new" you imbued with more authority than the younger tyro of the "old" you.

    4. By the end of the course, my professor encouraged me to purchase my own domain. Her concern was for authorial control that would signal to readers that my content should be treated according to the media and academic logics where citations and attributions are normative. I used a pre-paid credit card to purchase my domain and the website followed me to graduate school.

      A great story of the beginning of her Domain of One's Own.

    5. There is a sense that one can cobble together a common public by overlapping various social media platforms and audiences. Many of my colleagues are doing a fine job of problematizing the intersections of private social media and the university. The larger project from which this essay is drawn is part of that emerging conversation.

      I wonder here what role an IndieWeb-based version of academe looks like in which teachers all own their content on their own websites to make a more explicit appeal of work that they've done. Compare this with the concept that what they may be doing on Twitter isn't "work" and which isn't judged as such.

    6. Institutions, publics, and some media elites are encouraging academics to be more visible in the public sphere.

      I can't help but be reminded of the early professoriate in the 1400's when teachers were expected to be well known or interesting enough to have their own local following and pull in their own individual students. If they weren't the right sort of thought leaders or didn't teach the "right" subjects, they failed as teachers and were kicked out of the university. Social media in this era would have been more interesting whereas, now it barely seems to be a direct economic factor. (cross reference O. Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read)

    7. But, whereas engaged scholarship has a political imperative, academic microcelebrity has a market imperative. Academic microcelebrity is ostentatiously apolitical, albeit falsely so because markets are always political. Academic microcelebrity encourages brand building as opposed to consciousness-raising; brand awareness as opposed to co-creation of knowledge. It creates perverse incentives for impact as opposed to valuing social change. Microcelebrity is the economics of attention in which academics are being encouraged, mostly through normative pressure, to brand their academic knowledge for mass consumption. However, the risks and rewards of presenting oneself “to others over the Web using tools typically associated with celebrity promotion” (Barone 2009) are not the same for all academics in the neo-liberal “public” square of private media.

      I'm reminded here of the huge number of academics who write/wrote for The Huffington Post for their "reach" despite the fact that they were generally writing for free. Non-academics were doing the same thing, but for the branding that doing so gave them.

      In my opinion, both of these groups were cheated in that they were really building THP's brand over their own.

    8. Scholars who are also members of marginalized groups disproportionately take up this kind of engaged scholarship, often without commensurate credit from university administrators or colleagues (Ellison and Eatmen 2008; Park 1996; Stanley 2006; Taylor and Raeburn 1995; Turner et al 2008; Villalpando and Bernal 2002).
    9. Alice Marwick calls microcelebrity a negotiation practice that: “[I]nvolves creating a persona, performing intimate connections to create the illusion of closeness, acknowledging an audience and viewing them as fans, and using strategic reveal of information to maintain interest” (2010; 2012). 
    10. Microcelebrity refers to the affective capital engendered and commodified by various social and new media platforms where identity and brand are merged and measured in likes, shares, follows, comments and so on.
    11. Academic capitalism promotes engaged academics as an empirical measure of a university’s reputational currency. Academic capitalism refers to the ways in which knowledge production increasingly embeds universities in the new economy (Berman 2011; Rhoades and Slaughter 2010).
    12. A systematic analysis of my public writing makes the case that as academics are increasingly called to “publicly engage,” we have not fully conceptualized or counted the costs of public writing from various social locations.
    1. Mississippi’s white leaders did not disguise their intentions. “There is no use to equivocate or lie about the matter,” James K. Vardaman, one of the constitution’s framers as well as a future governor and senator, once boasted. “Mississippi’s constitutional convention of 1890 was held for no other purpose than to eliminate the nigger from politics.”

      This quote alone should win the case to overturn it.

    1. “Aren’t you a white man?” I then asked. “Can’t you see that? Because if you can’t see race, you can’t see racism.” I repeated that sentence, which I read not long before in Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility.”
    2. I wondered if he was an ethnic white rather than a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. The historian Matthew Frye Jacobson, in “Whiteness of a Different Color,” describes “the 20th century’s reconsolidating of the 19th century’s ‘Celts, Slavs, Hebrews and Mediterraneans.’ ” By the 1940s, according to David Roediger, “given patterns of intermarriage across ethnicity and Cold War imperatives,” whites stopped dividing hierarchically within whiteness and begin identifying as socially constructed Caucasians.

      I wonder if it's possible to continue this trend to everyone else? Did the effect stop somewhere? What caused it to? What might help it continue?

    3. I was not overwhelmed by our encounter because my blackness is “consent not to be a single being.” This phrase, which finds its origins in the work of the West Indian writer Édouard Glissant but was reintroduced to me in the recent work of the poet and critical theorist Fred Moten, gestures toward the fact that I can refuse the white man’s stereotypes of blackness, even as he interacts with those stereotypes.
    4. I would have preferred if instead of “white privilege” she had used the term “white dominance,” because “privilege” suggested hierarchical dominance was desired by all.
    5. The title of her essay “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies” was a mouthful. McIntosh listed 46 ways white privilege is enacted.
    6. The phrase “white privilege” was popularized in 1988 by Peggy McIntosh, a Wellesley College professor who wanted to define “invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.”
    7. Did he understand that today, 65 percent of elected officials are white men, though they make up only 31 percent of the American population?
    8. Would they react as the police captain in Plainfield, Ind., did when his female colleague told him during a diversity-training session that he benefited from “white male privilege”? He became angry and accused her of using a racialized slur against him. (She was placed on paid administrative leave, and a reprimand was placed permanently in her file.)

      Seriously?!

    9. I wanted my students to gain an awareness of a growing body of work by sociologists, theorists, historians and literary scholars in a field known as “whiteness studies,” the cornerstones of which include Toni Morrison’s “Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination,” David Roediger’s “The Wages of Whiteness,” Matthew Frye Jacobson’s “Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race,” Richard Dyer’s “White” and more recently Nell Irvin Painter’s “The History of White People.”

      Want to read

    1. That same year, the DEA brought a case against Cardinal Health, accusing the nation’s ­second-largest drug distributor of shipping millions of doses of painkillers to online and retail pharmacies without notifying the DEA of signs that the drugs were being diverted to the black market.

      If the DEA has such a detailed database, how were they not directly aware themselves??

    2. Actavis Pharma was acquired by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries in 2016, and a spokeswoman there said the company “cannot speak to any systems in place beforehand.”

      They bought out the company! Of course they can speak to systems in place beforehand! They're just choosing not to. The reporting here should make this clearer. Otherwise it should indicate exactly why they can't.

    3. Cardinal Health said that it has learned from its experience, increasing training and doing a better job to “spot, stop and report suspicious orders,” company spokeswoman Brandi Martin wrote.

      Because companies are incentivized to sell however, it will require governmental oversight and regulation to fix this problem.

    4. On Monday evening, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster removed the protective order for part of the ARCOS database.

      I'd like to see an overlay of this chart below with the number of deaths by city.

      This could also have been used as a heat map based on population per use numbers to immediately pinpoint communities that were abusing much earlier based on countrywide averages. Data could have been a savior here.

    5. The database reveals what each company knew about the number of pills it was shipping and dispensing and precisely when they were aware of those volumes, year by year, town by town. In case after case, the companies allowed the drugs to reach the streets of communities large and small, despite persistent red flags that those pills were being sold in apparent violation of federal law and diverted to the black market, according to the lawsuits.

      Surely a master database could and should have been used to identify bad actors from the bottom up as they were abusing the system and making things worse. Cross correlating against cities with high rates of abuse and drug deaths would have allowed the system to continue leaking for as long as it has (and likely continues to do.)

    1. Mr Fallon denied this, saying the firm's plans would provide authors with "a more sustainable income over time".

      but really only because they're doing this as a company to protect their own income over time! Authors should make sure that their percentage of the pie doesn't decrease in this transition--that's what they need to pay attention to.

    2. However, many of Pearson's digital products are sold on a subscription basis, raising fears that authors will lose out in the way musicians have to music streaming services.
    3. "We learn by engaging and sharing with others, and a digital environment enables you to do that in a much more effective way."

      An interesting pedagogical point, but then the question becomes: "Should we necessarily do it within your company's specific siloed domain?"

    1. In the meantime, the classification of viruses remains unclear. Tupanviruses seem to be dependent on their hosts for very little, and other viruses, according to one preprint, even encode ribosomal proteins. “The gap between cellular organisms and viruses is starting to close,” Deeg said.

      Is there a graph of known viruses categoriezed by the machinery that they do or don't have? Can they be classified and sub-classified so that emergent patterns come forward thus allowing us to trace back their ancestry?

    2. If all giant viruses turn out to share translation-related genes that are unique to their group, then it would mean they had a large common ancestor, an ancient virus that diversified over time, and it would lend support to the idea that giant viruses started out big and constitute their own domain of life.
    3. That mingling has sparked contentious debate among scientists about when and how giant viruses evolved. All of viral evolution is murky: Different groups of viruses likely had very different origins. Some may have been degenerate “escapees” from cellular genomes, while others descended directly from the primordial soup. “Still others have recombined and exchanged genes so many times in the course of evolution that we will never know where they originally came from,” Fischer said.
    4. “It’s remarkable that viruses seem to mingle into the translational domain so extensively,” said Matthias Fischer, a virologist at the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Germany who was not involved with either study.
    1. Personalized learning, though premised on differentiating one student from another, has seemed to work best when it attends, first and foremost, to the needs of teachers as a group. If tech is, indeed, merely a tool of personalized learning, then what does that make the teacher?
    2. A passage from Oppenheimer’s book kept coming to mind: “For decades, we have taken people whom we hold responsible for the intellectual and moral development of our children, put them in chaotic, overcrowded institutions, robbed them of creative freedom and new opportunities for their own learning, imposed an ever-changing stream of rules and performance requirements that leave them exhausted and hopeless, and paid them about $40,000 a year.”
    3. Various sources told me that personalized learning, when aided by screens, is a bad fit for vulnerable students—those from low-income families, ethnic and racial minorities, kids with special needs, and English-language learners. In some areas of the country, including Providence, these groups account for almost the entire population of public schools. But the experience of personalized learning is, indeed, personal, and exceptions abound
    4. Other personalized-learning advocates told me that execution is everything.

      And isn't this the same case as in traditional teaching?!

    5. Yet the academic and policy research behind it is thin.

      And sadly this doesn't seem to have prevented a huge swath of schools to switching over to the idea. Isn't the purpose of a pilot program to do just that--pilot it to see if the data show it's a good idea to spread to other schools?!

    6. A spokeswoman for Summit said in an e-mail, “We only use information for educational purposes. There are no exceptions to this.” She added, “Facebook plays no role in the Summit Learning Program and has no access to any student data.”

      As if Facebook needed it. The fact that this statement is made sort of goes to papering over the idea that Summit itself wouldn't necessarily do something as nefarious or worse with it than Facebook might.

    7. Teachers at Orlo Avenue Elementary said that, while they supported their principal’s decision to adopt Chromebook-based personalized learning, it had undoubtedly created a lot more work, with no accompanying pay raise.

      This is a major issue. And shouldn't all the ed-tech involved actually be lowering this sort of cost and not dramatically increasing it? Isn't that half the point?!

    8. (The Gates and Hewlett Foundations and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative are among the many funders of The Hechinger Report.

      An important disclosure here, given a paragraph or two above:

      This story was published in partnership with The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit independent news organization focussed on inequality and innovation in education.

    9. This story was published in partnership with The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit independent news organization focussed on inequality and innovation in education.
    10. Personalized learning argues that the entrepreneurial nature of the knowledge economy and the gaping need, diversity, and unmanageable size of a typical public-school classroom are ill-served by the usual arrangement of a teacher lecturing at a blackboard.
  2. Jul 2019
    1. Liberals say that social order emerges spontaneously from individuals acting freely, but conservatives believe social order comes first, creating the conditions for freedom. It looks to the authority of family, church, tradition and local associations to control change, and slow it down. You sweep away institutions at your peril. Yet just such a demolition is happening to conservatism itself—and it is coming from the right.
  3. Jun 2019
    1. I’ve worked on the web professionally for over a decade and I’ve never managed to put together a proper website that I’ve maintained and not just binned every five minutes. Yes, I’ve been making websites for over a decade and never managed to make one for myself.

      It's like they say, "At the plumber's house, the pipes always leak."

    1. But could there be a social network that packages these technologies in a friendly, usable way for the non-tech-savvy? One that registers an actual domain name for each user and spins up a base site with all these integrations: micropub for posting, microsub for reading, with webactions and webmentions to glue it all together. I’m not sure. It probably wouldn’t be free.

      This does exist and it's called micro.blog which lets you register your domain and then provides all of the other moving pieces including hosting.

    2. Posting updates.

      and notifications (or @mentions).

    3. In a nutshell, IndieWeb is about using the World Wide Web itself as a social network, through a set of open standards for communication and identification of content and people.

      A great summary sentence of IndieWeb!

    1. I wonder why Dave doesn’t interact on micro.blog?

      My best guess is that he doesn't need to because he gets most of his interaction on his own site or Twitter, or both since his site is somewhat integrated into Twitter. I suspect he hasn't looked closely at micro.blog and/or the Webmention pieces and simply views it as an easy place to syndicate his content into. (I hope most realize that their comments aren't going anywhere and don't bother to use it to communicate with him though.)

  4. bookbook.pubpub.org bookbook.pubpub.org
    1. Marking up this book makes your thinking visible
    2. The Russian philosopher and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, writing throughout the 1930s and 40s, suggested that the nature of language is dialogical. He argued that both written and spoken language is always in dialogue with other texts and authors.
    3. In 1947, a high-flying moth bumped into Harvard’s Mark II Aiken Relay Calculator, was removed by computer operator William Burke, and then taped to the computer log - popularizing the existing term “debugging.”Figure 4: debugging
    4. 1819 that Samuel Taylor Coleridge first used the term “marginalia,” from the Latin marginalis (or “in the margin”), when, as a literary critic, he wrote about another author’s work for Blackwood’s Magazine.
    5. Related to my note above about power in annotation, I feel I need to post a concern here that I’m on the watchout for deterministic effects attributed to annotation as a general technology/practice — rather than to specific social deployments of annotation practices. Each of these outcomes seems like a _possible_, but not _required_ outcome of annotation in specific contexts.

      I’d agree. Annotations are a tool and can be used for both positive and negative outcomes.

      Related somewhat to my bible example above, one could view the individual texts of the New Testament as annotations to the Hebrew bible, in which case they changed a movement from being a religion of Jesus to a religion about Jesus—one which not coincidentally makes him one of the best known people to have ever lived (see: http://pantheon.media.mit.edu/rankings/people/all/all/-4000/2010/H15).

      In the case of my earlier genealogical example, the books of the New Testament go back and parallel the lineages of the Old Testament to draw a direct line from King David to Jesus spanning roughly a 1000 years. This is seemingly suspect for a man who would have most likely been an illiterate and poor carpenter, but certainly served the purposes of Greek, Jewish, and Aramaic writers of the time, particularly against the ruling patriarchy of Judea and Rome at the time.

    6. This, too, is an act of everyday annotation, stretched over time and etched with love.

      Another good example is the built up genealogy of family bibles inscribed with the names of owners and their family tree which are passed from one generation to the next. To some extent this is highlighted by the passages of the bible in which W begat X begat Y begat Z begat... (Genesis chapters 5 & 11).

    7. Annotation happens every day in school and is an everyday activity for students, for “at every stage, students working with books have used the tool of annotation.”

      A well known popular culture version of this appears in the title of the book and film Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince as well as a primary plot point in which Potter actively eschews a beaten up copy of a potions textbook, but to his pleasant surprise find a heavily annotated text that helps him significantly in his studies.

      https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Severus_Snape%27s_copy_of_Advanced_Potion-Making

    8. Or do you recall jotting down formulae for molecules and compounds in the margins of your chemistry textbook?

      I can't help but think of one of the biggest and longest standing puzzles in mathematics in Fermat's Last Theorem. He famously wrote in the margin of a book that he had a proof. but that it was too large to fit in the margin.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

    9. The Scottish author Kenneth Grahame, best known for his novel The Wind in the Willows, observed in an 1892 essay, “The child’s scribbling on the margin of his school-books is really worth more to him than all he gets out of them.”7Kenneth Grahame, “Marginalia," Pagan Papers (1898), https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5319.
    10. this book will discuss five essential purposes of annotation that contribute to cultural, professional, civic, and educational activities.
    11. This is why annotation matters.

      Google has accelerated this by using search to better link pieces of knowledge in the modern world, but scholars have been linking thoughts manually for centuries.

    12. Some of the most significant commentary about the Talmud, first written in the eleventh century, has been featured prominently as annotation in print editions since the early 1500s.

      Surprisingly, these have only been recently aggregated online at Sefaria a story delineated here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/09/18/quest-put-talmud-online/

    13. That which is fit to print - be it the news, or social commentary, or religious doctrine - has for centuries been fit for annotation, too.

      Other great examples include teaching and scientific progress. Owen Gingerich details annotations in all the extant copies of Copernicus in his text The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus. There it seemed obvious that the moving state-of-the art of science and teaching was reflected in the annotations made by professors who handed those annotations down to students who also copied them into their textbooks.

    14. In 2017, the Times also featured the author Margaret Atwood annotating key episodes and scenes from the TV adaption of her celebrated novel The Handmaid’s Tale.

      In some sense this is a textual equivalent of the directors commentary tracks on DVDs from the 1990's in which one could watch films with overdubbed running commentary of the film's director (and often cast, producers, et al. as appropriate).

    15. Annotation by reporters frequently accompanies political speeches, debate and interview transcripts, the release of legal documents like the Mueller report, and analysis of news conferences.

      The first time I recall seeing such journalistic annotations was on the web in The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/) which generally annotated court documents that were the source of newsworthy tidbits—generally relating to celebrities or gossip pages.

    16. I’ve actively participated in a revisionist sort of annotation that is part redaction/part revision in that I have gone through digital copies of some children’s books and in cases where it didn’t matter if the main character was male, I would actively use book editing software to make all the lead characters female for the sake of reading to girls. Often I’ve done this while reading out loud, but around the 1st/2nd grade level when children begin to read for themselves, physical annotations/revisions are required.
    17. This is why annotation matters.

      Also this:

      First!! ;)

    1. They both obviously point to the same specific page, and their beginnings are identical. The second one has a # followed by the words “I’m not looking” with some code for blank spaces and an apostrophe. Clicking on the fragmention URL will take you to the root page which then triggers a snippet of JavaScript on my site that causes the closest container with the text following the hash to be highlighted in a bright yellow color. The browser also automatically scrolls down to the location of the highlight.
    2. I have two different blogs: my personal blog on my main domain and my work blog on my subdomain.

      Sounds like a multi-site IndieWeb case here.

      Also posting this as a test of embedding and annotating sites via iframe.

    3. With social media you have some control over who can see your post based on who “friends” or “follows you”; on a domain, this is not as much of a luxury.

      The IndieWeb is working on fixing this problem...

    1. Tip: One of the Discover curation guidelines is the Buddy Bench principle. If you want to find someone who shares a particular interest, write a micropost asking “Hey, are there any fans of ___ out there?” We add posts like that to Discover.

      Another useful tip on this front is to post a micromonday following recommendation aggregating a few people you know are interested in a particular topic. As an example, I posted one about a few educators and researchers I knew on micro.blog in July 2018 and it quickly blew up with lots of additional recommendations from others following me within the community.

      Over time I've kept up with adding to it, and even within the last month that post is still helping to benefit others on the service:

      blair says: "@c this made me very happy, thanks for tagging me, I’ve now got a bunch more interesting folks to follow!"<br/> May 30, 2019 at 4:28 pm

    2. We are not filtering out topics like F1. There just are not any posts to add. For a lively community on that topic or other specialized topics, you probably need to find a forum or follow hashtags on Twitter.

      This is also a potential space that Webmention-based aggregation services like IndieWeb news, or the multi-topic Indieweb.xyz directory could help people aggregate content for easier discovery and community building.

    3. Quitting Facebook meant that I lost my connection to thousands of guinea pig owners. On Micro.blog, we have four that I know of. But I was sick of Facebook, so the tradeoff was worth it.

      Of course this hasn't stopped Jean from trying to convert us all into fans one at a time. ;)

    1. When I reload my site in a web browser, I should now see my new image in the background:

      but be sure to delete your cache!

    1. What are the crucial texts and ideas I should be engaging with?

      I'd also look at doing some interviews as well. Starting with Tantek Çelik, Kevin Marks, (both previously of Technorati in the early blogging days, pre social), Dave Winer, Anil Dash, David Weinberger, and Doc Searles.

    2. That is to say: if the problem has not been the centralized, corporatized control of the individual voice, the individual’s data, but rather a deeper failure of sociality that precedes that control, then merely reclaiming ownership of our voices and our data isn’t enough. If the goal is creating more authentic, more productive forms of online sociality, we need to rethink our platforms, the ways they function, and our relationships to them from the ground up. It’s not just a matter of functionality, or privacy controls, or even of business models. It’s a matter of governance.
    3. So this is where some older paths-not-taken, such as Ted Nelson’s original many-to-many, multidirectional model for hypertext, and some more recent potential paths, such as Herbert van de Sompel’s decentralized, distributed vision for scholarly communication, might come in.
    4. Contravening that force is going to require something more than personal control, promoting something other than atomization.
    5. I imagine that the first part of this project will focus on how it got to be this way, what got missed or ignored in some of the early warnings about what was happening online and how those warnings were swamped by the hype depicting the Internet as a space of radical democratization.

      I love the brewing idea here. We definitely need this.

      Some broad initial bibliography from the top of my head:

      Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia)

      Some useful history/timelines: https://indieweb.org/timeline https://indieweb.org/history

    1. To put our toxic relationship with Big Tech into perspective, critics have compared social media to a lot of bad things. Tobacco. Crystal meth. Pollution. Cars before seat belts. Chemicals before Superfund sites. But the most enduring metaphor is junk food: convenient but empty; engineered to be addictive; makes humans unhealthy and corporations rich.
    1. A little magazine called the Blind Man, co-edited by Duchamp, ignited a debate still running today. “Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He chose it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – and created a new thought for the object.”
    1. During her confirmation hearing she did not discuss her family’s extensive ties to the Chinese maritime industry, and she did not disclose the various Chinese accolades she had received. The Senate’s written questionnaire requires nominees to list all honorary positions.
    1. The code quality of my site is only visible to me, what matters is the functionality. And I want this private post functionality.
    1. That said, I personally can’t imagine handing over all of my labor to a centralized platform where it’s chopped up and shuffled together with content from countless other sources, only to be exploited at the current whims of the platform owners’ volatile business models. I know a lot of creators are successful in that context, but I also see a lot of stuff that gets rendered essentially indistinguishable from everything else, lost in the blizzard of “content.”
    2. From the inception of Subtraction, you used it as a place to think out loud.
    1. However there are going to be lots of scenarios where students are required to use institutional tech. In those cases I still think we need to more willing to delete by default, and not leave the burden on the students. It’s a different mind-set – to purposefully throw away data – but I think it’s becoming a fundamental privacy issue.

      A big piece of the DoOO and IndieWeb philosophies is predicate on the student/teacher/other having their own domain name. Thus, even if they're dependent on institutional technology and/or platforms, they can usually easily export their data, move it to another host and/or platform, and then still have all the URLs live on for as long as they like. If they prefer, they can also have control over whether their content is published to the public, or unpublished/password protected so that only they or those they choose have access to it after-the-fact.

  5. May 2019
    1. So - I’m not quite ready to ditch disqus and move completely to Hypothesis annotations

      I do quite like the idea of using Hypothes.is as a service for implementing one's website comments in a broader way. It's sort of reminiscent of how some static site generators are leveraging webmention.io as a third party comment/webmention provider. Of course this presuposes that one is comfortable offloading this to a third party that could disappear and take the data with them, though your spreadsheet set up would help to protect against that.

    2. The sidebar is styled white

      I do like how you've changed the styling a little bit. Being able to have the style fit the particular website is an interesting idea.

    1. Schools can ensure their curriculum are up to date and training students for the areas of science with the most potential for advancement

      This completely flies in the face of the need for more basic science research which is far more likely to create vast potential advancement rather than focusing on smaller edge cases.

    2. Funding organizations like universities and foundations can get in touch with authors to back their future work, or spot trends of where breakthroughs are being made so they can funnel resources correctly

      Essentially GoFundMe or Patreon for the science set! This is nearly laughable and unlikely to really happen.

      Maybe VC culture can invade science research and screw that up too!

    3. Scientists can find the latest data and analysis on their areas of research, determine experiments that have already been performed that they don’t need to replicate and find new opportunities for investigation

      "Don't need to replicate"!!! A big part of science is the ability to exactly replicate and double check others' work! We need the ability to do more replication, not less!

    4. Meta co-founder and CEO Sam Molyneux writes that “Going forward, our intent is not to profit from Meta’s data and capabilities; instead we aim to ensure they get to those who need them most, across sectors and as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the world.”

      Odd statement from a company that was just acquired by Facebook founder's CVI.

    1. we should beware the peril of books as glorified wallpaper.
    2. There is also a Napster for research articles, of which we shall not speak.

      Here he's almost assuredly referring to SciHub, which certainly deserves mention.

    3. academics often approach books like “sous-chefs gutting a fish.”
    1. Moreover, digital collections can reorder themselves on the fly with interfaces that accommodate diverse audiences. The research interface for a fifth grader should not be the same as that for a professional historian. By starting off as virtual, the Obama library has the potential to rethink how we present, in multiple ways, the vast record of the presidency, to grade schoolers, amateur enthusiasts, casual browsers, and many others. Presidential libraries have always had those different audiences, but going digital-first can make this much more of a reality than a fixed physical space or the often fairly basic websites of existing libraries—all of which were designed for an age of laptops and desktop computers, now a poor baseline when most online visitors access these sites through their smartphone.

      This is an interesting point, but it also presupposes that some staff is going to be building these various interfaces. Who will that be? How will they be supported? It's a whole new level of administration that a library needs to face.

    1. tl;dr;

      Things change. The silos hold too much power. There's no clear or stable path forward. Too little advice about revenue or the bottom line.

      Perhaps publications should unionize?

    2. No representatives from over the over 35 publishers who attended felt they could confidently predict where Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat or any other growing social media platforms would be in five or 10 years.

      What is the product? Who is helping whom?

    3. The more transparency in the media industry, the more publishers at all levels will be on equal playing field with new platforms. If everyone makes the shift to Facebook Instant Articles and sees a negative return, but no one talks about it, Facebook will always have all the power.
    4. Publishers of all sizes are trying to figure out how to leverage these new platforms as user behavior on each platform evolves. On top of all this, the platforms themselves are rapidly changing. It can often feel like no one is on steady ground.
    5. However unlike a user account, you don’t own your audience and can be kicked out any day.
    6. Publishers should be open and honest about their failings. The endless puff pieces on “how X publisher is using Y new platform” serve no one but the publisher and platform’s public relations teams. Sharing not only how your brand is leveraging a new platform, but the failings, challenges encountered, and tactics used to overcome those challenges, benefits the industry at large and opens the door for collaboration.

      I see almost no one doing this sort of sharing. Instead it's more often "we're shutting down this service", "we've turned off this feature", or something similar on top of "revenue results were not reported."

    7. That said, once a new platform is identified as a target you don’t want to wait too long to pounce. There are benefits to being early. It can show platform representatives that you’re a believer in the product and the company, which may make them more willing to work with you or build products to help you. For instance, publishers who were early to Twitter, such as The New York Times, were marked “suggested follows” for users and saw huge audience growth.
    8. If the goal is ultimately to drive direct revenue, you might approach things differently. It takes time for a sub-brand to grow. Partnering with an advertiser to launch a new sub-brand can be a good way to mitigate the financial cost of launching something new.

      Some scant suggestions about income...

    9. In 2014, Hearst launched Sweet, a lifestyle-driven publication that lives exclusively on Snapchat.

      Hearst's Sweet, the first Snapchat-only media property, is closing its daily digital magazine, but the brand will be kept alive with a new show under that name. Other video titles will be available as well. The publisher has fired some staff as a result of the change, but would not say how many people. [...] Hearst declined to comment on whether Sweet was profitable and how it measures its success. Sweet went through a round of layoffs last year, according to Digiday, including then-editor-in-chief Luke Crisell.

      -- via SWEET, HEARST'S SNAPCHAT MEDIA PROPERTY, PIVOTS TO VIDEO on 2018-08-23

      Pay close attention to the statement on profitability.

    10. Publishers who aren’t media partners with Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter, aren’t highlighted prominently on these platforms, don’t receive a heads up about new products and never have a direct line to support at these companies.

      Looking at the relationship of authors, book publishers, and even the big 5 publishing companies provides a reasonable model for what all of this looks like down the road. All the publishers are generally screwed if they're reliant on one distributor which they don't control.

    11. A common complaint we heard from publishers at all levels is that it’s difficult to build partnerships with social media platforms. They seem to be holding all the cards. Even large publishers often feel in the dark during meetings with large platform companies.

      I'm more curious why all the large media companies/publishers don't pool their resources to build a competing social platform that they own and control so the end value comes to them instead of VC-backed social silos?

    12. Even publishers with the most social media-savvy newsrooms can feel at a disadvantage when Facebook rolls out a new product.

      The same goes in triplicate when they pull the plug without notice too!

    13. For instance, come to senior leaders with new ideas and opportunities on emerging platforms that could lead to direct audience growth or revenue.

      audience growth is good, but growth without the revenue is misplaced....

    14. benefits of these new mediums

      Still waiting for these "benefits" to be defined concretely, particularly those that actually provide support to the bottom line.

    15. Building a new analytics dashboard to highlight social metrics in addition to traditional web traffic is a an option for those publishers with the technical staff to undertake such a project. This type of integrated dashboard can help get newsroom staff excited about embracing new platforms. It’s also valuable for editors to see that even though a video received 2,000 views within a web article, that same video reached over 2 million on Facebook.

      Why not just build better, more interesting functionality into one's own web/mobile presences where the eyeballs are more captive? Why always be pushing to other platforms where one's content may have no monetary value to the publisher, but all the value redounds to the platform which isn't performing for the publisher.

    16. It also could add potential revenue.

      At last a mention of "potential revenue."

    17. Legacy publishers need to leverage distributed content to grow their audience and survive this wave.

      Growing audience is certainly laudable, but this is an odd blanket statement which is going to need some significant supporting evidence for the how, why, and how will these legacy publishers benefit?

    18. Cheddar

      On April 30, 2019, Cheddar announced an agreement to be bought by the cable company Altice USA for $200 million in cash. Altice purchase Cheddar to bolster its news. When the deal closes, Jon Steinberg would become Altice News president overseeing Cheddar plus Altice USA's News 12 Networks and i24 News. --via Wikipedia) referencing The Hollywood Reporter

    19. “If we can differentiate those platform experiences in the right way, we can start to craft content experiences that are maybe built for the same person, but they’re in a different mindset depending on the platform they’re on,” the company’s president told Digiday.

      This is a great "if" statement here, but it's completely missing the question of how doing these things benefits the bottom line of the publication.

    20. It could mean working closely with a platform itself to beta test new products and features. Companies like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post have signed on as Facebook media partners and have collectively produced hundreds of Facebook Live broadcasts, for instance. Other brands such as The Wall Street Journal, Cosmopolitan, ESPN and more have teamed up with Snapchat to produce content for Snapchat Discover, Snapchat’s media portal.

      It's been almost 2 1/2 years since this was published. I'm curious if the group has revisited this white paper to evaluate how these methods have worked over time.

      Prima fascia evidence would indicate that most major publications that have gone all-in on some of these experiments have only lost out on them following the pivots that social silos have made since. A good example is the large number of publishers that went in on Facebook video related products only to have Facebook completely abandon them. It's not a partnership if the publication has no recourse when the social platform abandons them.

      I seem to recall that several online pubflishers were essentially forced to completely shutter following social platforms pivoting unexpectedly.

    21. Distributed content is any content that a publisher creates to live “natively” on an outside platform without directing any traffic back to your domain. This could mean allowing Facebook or Google to host your articles through Facebook Instant Articles or Google AMP. But it more generally means content you create specifically to live off-site on certain platforms.

      This definition of distributed content seems tragically flawed to me. If it doesn't live natively on a publisher's platform, then how is it exactly "distributed"? This definition is really more like silo-specific native content.

      It also seems predicate on publications entirely giving up all the agency and ownership of their own content. If they're creating content completely for silos, where's the value for them other than the diminishing returns of their brand recognition?

      Concepts like POSSE or PESOS are much better and more valuable in my mind by comparison.

      While the marketing idea of creating content that seems native to the platform on which it appears is valuable, publications still need to get eyeballs back to either their own platform or to places where their advertising, subscription, or other financial enterprise centers can directly benefit. Simply giving away the candy store without direct benefit to the publisher are only going to hasten their demise.

    1. “If Facebook is providing a consumer’s data to be used for the purposes of credit screening by the third party, Facebook would be a credit reporting agency,” Reidenberg explained. “The [FCRA] statute applies when the data ‘is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for … credit.'” If Facebook is providing data about you and your friends that eventually ends up in a corporate credit screening operation, “It’s no different from Equifax providing the data to Chase to determine whether or not to issue a credit card to the consumer,” according to Reidenberg.
    2. “It sure smells like the prescreening provisions of the FCRA,” Reidenberg told The Intercept. “From a functional point of view, what they’re doing is filtering Facebook users on creditworthiness criteria and potentially escaping the application of the FCRA.”
    3. In an initial conversation with a Facebook spokesperson, they stated that the company does “not provide creditworthiness services, nor is that a feature of Actionable Insights.” When asked if Actionable Insights facilitates the targeting of ads on the basis of creditworthiness, the spokesperson replied, “No, there isn’t an instance where this is used.” It’s difficult to reconcile this claim with the fact that Facebook’s own promotional materials tout how Actionable Insights can enable a company to do exactly this. Asked about this apparent inconsistency between what Facebook tells advertising partners and what it told The Intercept, the company declined to discuss the matter on the record,
    4. How consumers would be expected to navigate this invisible, unofficial credit-scoring process, given that they’re never informed of its existence, remains an open question.
    5. But these lookalike audiences aren’t just potential new customers — they can also be used to exclude unwanted customers in the future, creating a sort of ad targeting demographic blacklist.
    1. People are rewarded for being productive rather than being right, for building ever upward instead of checking the foundations. These incentives allow weak studies to be published. And once enough have amassed, they create a collective perception of strength that can be hard to pierce.

      We desperately need to fix these foundations of science to focus on solid foundations and reproducibility...

    2. When geneticists finally gained the power to cost-efficiently analyze entire genomes, they realized that most disorders and diseases are influenced by thousands of genes, each of which has a tiny effect. To reliably detect these miniscule effects, you need to compare hundreds of thousands of volunteers. By contrast, the candidate-gene studies of the 2000s looked at an average of 345 people!

      I'm hoping that more researchers are contemplating this as they stroll merrily along their way this week.

    3. It’s as if they’d been “describing the life cycle of unicorns, what unicorns eat, all the different subspecies of unicorn, which cuts of unicorn meat are tastiest, and a blow-by-blow account of a wrestling match between unicorns and Bigfoot,” Alexander wrote.
    4. “How on Earth could we have spent 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars studying pure noise?”
    1. As it happens, he’d already done some work on coding theory—in the area of biology. The digital nature of DNA had been discovered by Jim Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, but it wasn’t yet clear just how sequences of the four possible base pairs encoded the 20 amino acids. In 1956, Max Delbrück—Jim Watson’s former postdoc advisor at Caltech—asked around at JPL if anyone could figure it out. Sol and two colleagues analyzed an idea of Francis Crick’s and came up with “comma-free codes” in which overlapping triples of base pairs could encode amino acids. The analysis showed that exactly 20 amino acids could be encoded this way. It seemed like an amazing explanation of what was seen—but unfortunately it isn’t how biology actually works (biology uses a more straightforward encoding, where some of the 64 possible triples just don’t represent anything).

      I recall talking to Sol about this very thing when I sat in on a course he taught at USC on combinatorics. He gave me his paper on it and a few related issues as I was very interested at the time about the applications of information theory and biology.

      I'm glad I managed to sit in on the class and still have the audio recordings and notes. While I can't say that Newton taught me calculus, I can say I learned combinatorics from Golomb.

    2. Despite all his contributions to the infrastructure of the computational world, Sol himself basically never seriously used computers. He took particular pride in his own mental calculation capabilities. And he didn’t really use email until he was in his seventies, and never used a computer at home—though, yes, he did have a cellphone.

      Ha! I should take a little bit of pride here as I was the one that helped Sol to finally set up and get his email working. I'd have to look, but I suspect that it wasn't until around 2004ish when I saw him somewhat regularly and frequented his and Bo's annual Christmas parties.

    3. in June 1955 he wrote his final report, “Sequences with Randomness Properties”—which would basically become the foundational document of the theory of shift register sequences.
    1. Relatively new bookstores in LA:

      • Last Bookstore (Downtown) opened 2008
      • Stories Books & Cafe (Echo Park) 2008
      • The Mystic Journeys (Venice) 2009
      • {pages} (Manhattan Beach) 2010
      • Pop-Hop Books & Print (Highland Park) 2012
      • Book Show (Highland Park) 2013
      • The Ripped Bodice (Culver City) 2016
      • OOF Books (Cypress Park) 2017
      • Now Serving (Chinatown) 2017
      • Owl Bureau (Highland Park) 2019
    2. Twenty Stories Bookmobile, which left L.A. traffic for Providence, Rhode Island, in 2018

      This makes me think that a mobile bookstore a la the traditional LA roach coach with a well painted/decorated exterior could be a cool thing.

      I'm reminded of a used bookstore pop-up I saw recently at the Santa Anita Mall prior to the holidays. Booksellers were traditionally itinerant mongers anyway. Perhaps this could be a more solid model, especially for the lunchtime business crowds.

    1. Crowther offered everyone who shared at least a certain volume of data with his forest initiative the chance to be a co-author of a study that he and a colleague led. Published in Science in 2016, the paper used more than 770,000 data points from 44 countries to determine that forests with more tree species are more productive4.

      I suspect a similar hypothesis holds for shared specs, code, and the broader idea of plurality within the IndieWeb. More interoperable systems makes the IndieWeb more productive.

    2. High-level bodies such as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the European Commission have called for science to become more open and endorsed a set of data-management standards known as the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles.
    1. Tufekci argued that, in the 21st century, a surfeit of information, rather than its absence, poses the biggest problem. “When I was growing up in Turkey, the way censorship occurred was there was one TV channel and they wouldn’t show you stuff. That was it,” she said. “Currently, in my conceptualization, the way censorship occurs is by information glut. It’s not that the relevant information isn’t out there. But it is buried in so much information of suspect credibility that it doesn’t mean anything.”
    1. "I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world." Walt Whitman, 1855.

      from Song of Myself, 52 https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/song-myself-52

      Which is also played out in a scene from The Dead Poet's Society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6xyHna-NuM

    1. About this time I met with an odd volume of the Spectator.[18] It was the third. I had never before seen any of them. I bought it, read it over and over, and was much delighted with it. I thought the writing excellent, and wished, if possible, to imitate it. With this view I took some of the papers, and, making short hints of the sentiment in each sentence, laid them by a few days, and then, without looking at the book, try'd to compleat the papers again, by expressing each hinted sentiment at length, and as fully as it had been expressed before, in any suitable words that should come to hand. Then I compared my Spectator with the original, discovered some of my faults, and corrected them. But I found I wanted a stock of words, or a readiness in recollecting and using them, which I thought I should have acquired before that time if I had gone on making verses; since the continual occasion for words of the same import, but of different length, to suit the measure, or of different sound for the rhyme, would have laid me under a constant necessity of searching for variety, and also have tended to fix that variety in my mind, and make me master of it. Therefore I took some of the tales and turned them into verse; and, after a time, when I had pretty well forgotten the prose, turned them back again. I also sometimes jumbled my collections of hints into confusion, and after some weeks endeavored to reduce them into the best order, before I began to form the full sentences and compleat the paper. This was to teach me method in the arrangement of thoughts. By comparing my work afterwards with the original, I discovered many faults and amended them; but I sometimes had the pleasure of fancying that, in certain particulars of small import, I had been lucky enough to improve the method of the language, and this encouraged me to think I might possibly in time come to be a tolerable English writer, of which I was extremely ambitious. My time for these exercises and for reading was at night, after work or before it began in the morning, or on Sundays, when I contrived to be in the printing-house alone, evading as much as I could the common attendance on public worship which my father used to exact of me when I was under his care, and which indeed I still thought a duty, thought I could not, as it seemed to me, afford time to practise it.

      Even the greats copied or loosely plagiarized the "masters" to learn how to write.The key is to continually work at it until you get to the point where it's yours and it is no longer plagiarism.

      This was also the general premise behind the plotline of the movie Finding Forrester.

    1. I feel some apprehension about how this book might present designers’ “amazing amount of power.”  I think designers work within a profound network of constraints, and I’m curious how this will be addressed.

      I, too, share this apprehension. From what I've read so far, it's a tough hill to climb, but I think he'll suggest that designers need to have larger associations like doctors, architects, lawyers, etc. to be able to create a better "standard of care."

    1. Here’s my pitch for a Dumb Twitter app: The app forces you to tweet at the original 140 character tweet length. You can reply. You can’t like or retweet. You most certainly can’t quote tweet. There is no private DMing. Linear tweet stream only.

      Perhaps he's unaware of it, but this sounds a lot like the design decisions that micro.blog has made in it's platform which is very similar to DoOO, but for the broader public.

    2. So far coming back to Twitter has felt like visiting your hometown: it’s great to visit but it’s also a reminder of how much you enjoy not living there anymore.
    3. In fact, I’d argue this blog has been largely a collection of writings concentrated on me working through the thoughts of my own digital identity and the tools that help shape it. The whole bit is highly meta.
  6. Apr 2019
    1. I think most social networks, if they've made this journey, need to make a return to utility to be truly durable.

      This sounds to me like what the IndieWeb is doing. Utility for the site owner directly.

    2. Incidentally, teens and twenty-somethings, more so than the middle-aged and elderly, tend to juggle more identities. In middle and high school, kids have to maintain an identity among classmates at school, then another identity at home with family. Twenty-somethings craft one identity among coworkers during the day, then another among their friends outside of work. Often those spheres have differing status games, and there is some penalty to merging those identities. Anyone who has ever sent a text meant for their schoolmates to their parents, or emailed a boss or coworker something meant for their happy hour crew knows the treacherous nature of context collapse.
    3. Perhaps old dogs don't learn new tricks because they are closer to death, and the period to earn a positive return on that investment is shorter.
    4. That so much social capital for the young comes in the form of followers, likes, and comments from peers and strangers shouldn't lessen its value.
    5. Maintenance of existing social capital stores is often a more efficient use of time than fighting to earn more on a new social network given the ease of just earning interest on your sizeable status reserves. That's just math, especially once you factor in loss aversion.
    6. A social network like Path attempted to limit your social graph size to the Dunbar number, capping your social capital accumulation potential and capping the distribution of your posts. The exchange, they hoped, was some greater transparency, more genuine self-expression. The anti-Facebook. Unfortunately, as social capital theory might predict, Path did indeed succeed in becoming the anti-Facebook: a network without enough users. Some businesses work best at scale, and if you believe that people want to accumulate social capital as efficiently as possible, putting a bound on how much they can earn is a challenging business model, as dark as that may be.

      An interesting thesis on why Path failed. Again it posits that social capital is the only reason to be there...

    7. As people start following more and more accounts on a social network, they reach a point where the number of candidate stories exceeds their capacity to see them all. Even before that point, the sheer signal-to-noise ratio may decline to the point that it affects engagement. Almost any network that hits this inflection point turns to the same solution: an algorithmic feed.
    8. I think the Stories format is a genuine innovation on the social modesty problem of social networks. That is, all but the most egregious showoffs feel squeamish about publishing too much to their followers. Stories, by putting the onus on the viewer to pull that content, allows everyone to publish away guilt-free, without regard for the craft that regular posts demand in the ever escalating game that is life publishing. In a world where algorithmic feeds break up your sequence of posts, Stories also allow gifted creators to create sequential narratives.
    9. Copying some network's feature often isn’t sufficient if you can’t also copy its graph, but if you can apply the feature to some unique graph that you earned some other way, it can be a defensible advantage.
    10. After all, the best messaging app in most countries or continents is the one most other people are already using there.
    11. Most of these near clones have and will fail. The reason that matching the basic proof of work hurdle of an Status as a Service incumbent fails is that it generally duplicates the status game that already exists. By definition, if the proof of work is the same, you're not really creating a new status ladder game, and so there isn't a real compelling reason to switch when the new network really has no one in it.

      This presumes that status is the only reason why people would join such a network. It also underlines the fact that the platform needs to be easy and simple to use, otherwise no one enters it and uses it as the tool first before the network exists.

    12. The same way many social networks track keystone metrics like time to X followers, they should track the ROI on posts for new users. It's likely a leading metric that governs retention or churn. It’s useful as an investor, or even as a curious onlooker to test a social networks by posting varied content from test accounts to gauge the efficiency and fairness of the distribution algorithm.
    13. graph-based social capital allocation mechanisms can suffer from runaway winner-take-all effects. In essence, some networks reward those who gain a lot of followers early on with so much added exposure that they continue to gain more followers than other users, regardless of whether they've earned it through the quality of their posts. One hypothesis on why social networks tend to lose heat at scale is that this type of old money can't be cleared out, and new money loses the incentive to play the game.
    14. TikTok is an interesting new player in social media because its default feed, For You, relies on a machine learning algorithm to determine what each user sees; the feed of content from by creators you follow, in contrast, is hidden one pane over. If you are new to TikTok and have just uploaded a great video, the selection algorithm promises to distribute your post much more quickly than if you were on sharing it on a network that relies on the size of your following, which most people have to build up over a long period of time. Conversely, if you come up with one great video but the rest of your work is mediocre, you can't count on continued distribution on TikTok since your followers live mostly in a feed driven by the TikTok algorithm, not their follow graph.
    15. I can still remember posting the same photos to Flickr and Instagram for a while and seeing how quickly the latter passed the former in feedback. If I were an investor or even an employee, I might have something like a representative basket of content that I'd post from various test accounts on different social media networks just to track social capital interest rates and liquidity among the various services.
    16. Instagram, despite not having any official reshare option, allows near unlimited hashtag spamming, and that allows for more deterministic, self-generated distribution. Twitter also isn't as great for spreading visual memes because of its stubborn attachment to cropping photos to maintain a certain level of tweet density per phone screen.

      Some interesting UI clues here that either help or hamper social networks

    17. time travel back to pre-product-market-fit Twitter

      Want to see what your Twitter timeline would've looked like 10 years ago today, if you followed all the same people you do now? https://t.co/41a6iQcYhc

      — Andy Baio (@waxpancake) May 24, 2018

      <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
    18. What changed Twitter, for me, was the launch of Favstar and Favrd (both now defunct, ruthlessly murdered by Twitter), these global leaderboards that suddenly turned the service into a competition to compose the most globally popular tweets.

      For the social status conscious these two services definitely created a layer of interesting discovery to the service that it hadn't had before.

    19. Recall Twitter in the early days, when it was somewhat of a harmless but somewhat inert status update service.

      As I'm thinking about it I definitely went to Twitter for its use as a tool and not for the social or network piece.

    20. By definition, if everyone can achieve a certain type of status, it’s no status at all, it’s a participation trophy.
    21. It's true that as more people join a network, more social capital is up for grabs in the aggregate. However, in general, if you come to a social network later, unless you bring incredible exogenous social capital (Taylor Swift can join any social network on the planet and collect a massive following immediately), the competition for attention is going to be more intense than it was in the beginning. Everyone has more of an understanding of how the game works so the competition is stiffer.

      Perhaps the IndieWeb is growing at such a much slower rate (in this thesis, there is a much higher level for "proof of work") that this sort of social capital is more akin to that of social capital in real life? Some of the value of IndieWeb is that all your "social capital" can be put in one place and better controlled by you.

      Why would one want to game their own sites in these ways? Are personal sites a better reflection of real life social capital? There's also lost personal time in learning and participating in dozens of social silos which is much better spent creating things of greater consequence.

      With respect to his mention of Paul Krugman's Instagram account, it's useful to be able to pick and choose what you might want to follow in Paul's life. If you're a close friend then his Instagram account is awesome, but if you're a young political science student then his bookmarks, reads, notes, and articles would be much more valuable to you.

    22. [An aside about exogenous social capital: you might complain that your tweets are more interesting and grammatical than those of, say, Donald Trump (you're probably right!). Or that your photos are better composed and more interesting at a deep level of photographic craft than those of Kim Kardashian. The difference is, they bring a massive supply of exogenous pre-existing social capital from another status game, the fame game, to every table, and some forms of social capital transfer quite well across platforms. Generalized fame is one of them. More specific forms of fame or talent might not retain their value as easily: you might follow Paul Krugman on Twitter, for example, but not have any interest in his Instagram account. I don't know if he has one, but I probably wouldn't follow it if he did, sorry Paul, it’s nothing personal.]

      In publishing circles, this has long been known as platform or author platform--ie that thing that made you famous in the first place that gives you the space to attempt to try to use that fame to sell books.

    23. Almost every social network of note had an early signature proof of work hurdle. For Facebook it was posting some witty text-based status update. For Instagram, it was posting an interesting square photo. For Vine, an entertaining 6-second video. For Twitter, it was writing an amusing bit of text of 140 characters or fewer. Pinterest? Pinning a compelling photo. You can likely derive the proof of work for other networks like Quora and Reddit and Twitch and so on. Successful social networks don't pose trick questions at the start, it’s usually clear what they want from you.

      And this is likely the reason that the longer form blogs never went out of style in areas of higher education where people are still posting long form content. This "proof of work" is something they ultimately end up using in other areas.

      Jessifer example of three part post written for a journal that was later put back into long form for publication.

    24. While you can outsource Bitcoin mining to a computer, people still mine for social capital on social networks largely through their own blood, sweat, and tears.

      The other portion of the problem is then turning this social capital into actual money. This gives way to the rise of influencers.

    25. The creation of a successful status game is so mysterious that it often smacks of alchemy. For that reason, entrepreneurs who succeed in this space are thought of us a sort of shaman, perhaps because most investors are middle-aged white men who are already so high status they haven't the first idea why people would seek virtual status
    26. "Come for the tool, stay for the network" wrote Chris Dixon, in perhaps the most memorable maxim for how this works.

      I sort of feel like this is the missing piece of Hypothes.is. I came for and love the tool, but wish there were more of a network available.

    27. This is the classic cold start problem of social. The answer to the traditional chicken-and-egg question is actually answerable: what comes first is a single chicken, and then another chicken, and then another chicken, and so on. The harder version of the question is why the first chicken came and stayed when no other chickens were around, and why the others followed.

      This gives me a hypothesis about why the chicken post came first within the IndieWeb.

    28. Think of this essay as a series of strongly held hypotheses; without access to the types of data which i’m not even sure exists, it’s difficult to be definitive. As ever, my wise readers will add or push back as they always do.

      Push back, sure, but where? Where would we find this push back? The comments section only has a few tidbits. Perhaps the rest is on Twitter, Facebook, or some other social silo where the conversation is fraught-fully fragmented. Your own social capital is thus spread out and not easily compiled or compounded. As a result I wonder who may or may not have read this piece...

    29. Social capital is, in many ways, a leading indicator of financial capital, and so its nature bears greater scrutiny. Not only is it good investment or business practice, but analyzing social capital dynamics can help to explain all sorts of online behavior that would otherwise seem irrational.
  7. quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com
    1. I can reliably predict when features get added and bugs squashed. I may not know that with WordPress.

      These pieces definitely happen on WordPress as well, it's just got an order of magnitude larger of people and infrastructure, so it can sometimes be more difficult to follow.

      Here's the best place to start for it: https://make.wordpress.org/

      You can follow along with most changes at https://core.trac.wordpress.org/

    1. Under OLC's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize ce1tain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions. See Application of 28 U.S.C. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 357 n.11. The Constitution does not authorize the President to engage in such conduct, and those actions would transgress the President's duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. CONST. ART IT, §§ 3. In view of those clearly permissible applications of the obstruction statutes to the President, Franklin's holding that the President is entirely excluded from a statute absent a clear statement would not apply in this context.

      Since the DoJ won't indict a sitting president, here's a direct suggestion of what Congress could do.

    2. if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

      TL;DR

      This summary is not what Trump or even Barr have been indicating in their communications.

      Barr's statement on the day of the release of the redacted report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aHPFh2HfSM

    3. The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

      So the better judgement of others has apparently kept Trump out of trouble?

    4. March 2019
    5. 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c)

      PART 600—GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL can be found here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title28-vol2-part600.pdf

      Part (c) reads:

      (c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

    1. Medium’s ultimate underlying problem:Medium thinks it’s a brand.
    1. A 2015 clip about vaccination from iHealthTube.com, a “natural health” YouTube channel, is one of the videos that now sports a small gray box.

      Does this box appear on the video itself? Apparently not...

      Examples:

      But nothing on the embedded version:

      A screengrab of what this looks like:

    2. “The primary goal of our recommendation systems today is to create a trusted and positive experience for our users,” the document reads. “The YouTube company-wide goal is framed not just as ‘Growth’, but as ‘Responsible Growth.’”
    3. The idea was to reward video stars shorted by the system, such as those making sex education and music videos, which marquee advertisers found too risqué to endorse. 

      This is an interesting concept. Too often, too many people are "shorted by the system".

    4. crisis. Its “creators,”

      I see crisis and creators close to each other in the text here and can't help but think about the neologism "crisis creators" as the thing we should be talking about instead of "crisis actors", a word that seems to have been created by exactly those "crisis creators"!

    5. YouTube doesn’t give an exact recipe for virality. But in the race to one billion hours, a formula emerged: Outrage equals attention.

      Talk radio has had this formula for years and they've almost had to use it to drive any listenership as people left radio for television and other media.

      I can still remember the different "loudness" level of talk between Bill O'Reilly's primetime show on Fox News and the louder level on his radio show.

    6. When Wojcicki took over, in 2014, YouTube was a third of the way to the goal, she recalled in investor John Doerr’s 2018 book Measure What Matters.“They thought it would break the internet! But it seemed to me that such a clear and measurable objective would energize people, and I cheered them on,” Wojcicki told Doerr. “The billion hours of daily watch time gave our tech people a North Star.” By October, 2016, YouTube hit its goal.

      Obviously they took the easy route. You may need to measure what matters, but getting to that goal by any means necessary or using indefensible shortcuts is the fallacy here. They could have had that North Star, but it's the means they used by which to reach it that were wrong.

      This is another great example of tech ignoring basic ethics to get to a monetary goal. (Another good one is Marc Zuckerberg's "connecting people" mantra when what he should be is "connecting people for good" or "creating positive connections".

    7. The conundrum isn’t just that videos questioning the moon landing or the efficacy of vaccines are on YouTube. The massive “library,” generated by users with little editorial oversight, is bound to have untrue nonsense. Instead, YouTube’s problem is that it allows the nonsense to flourish. And, in some cases, through its powerful artificial intelligence system, it even provides the fuel that lets it spread.#lazy-img-336042387:before{padding-top:66.68334167083543%;}

      This is a great summation of the issue.

    8. Somewhere along the last decade, he added, YouTube prioritized chasing profits over the safety of its users. “We may have been hemorrhaging money,” he said. “But at least dogs riding skateboards never killed anyone.”
    1. Early Christians used the ichthys, a symbol of a fish, to represent Jesus,[94][95] because the Greek word for fish, ΙΧΘΥΣ Ichthys, could be used as an acronym for "Ίησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ" (Iesous Christos, Theou Huios, Soter), meaning "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour".
    1. Andrews, P., & Hatch, G. (2001). Hungary and its characteristic pedagogical flow. Proceedings of the British Congress of Mathematics Education, 21(2). 26-40. Stockton, J. C. (2010). Education of Mathematically Talented Students in Hungary. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 1(2), 1-6.

      references to read

    2. Moreover, the teacher repeatedly asks, “Did anyone get a different answer?” or “Did anyone use a different method?” to elicit multiple solutions strategies. This highlights the connections between different problems, concepts, and areas of mathematics and helps develop students’ mathematical creativity. Creativity is further fostered through acknowledging “good mistakes.” Students who make an error are often commended for the progress they made and how their work contributed to the discussion and to the collective understanding of the class.
    1. Digital sociology needs more big theory as well as testable theory.

      Here I might posit that Cesar Hidalgo's book Why Information Grows (MIT, 2015) has some interesting theses about links between people and companies which could be extrapolated up to "societies of linked companies". What could we predict about how those will interact based on the underlying pieces? Is it possible that we see other emergent complex behaviors?

    2. Digital sociology needs more big theory as well as testable theory.

      I can't help but think here about the application of digital technology to large bodies of literature in the creation of the field of corpus linguistics.

      If traditional sociology means anything, then a digital incarnation of it should create physical and trackable means that can potentially be more easily studied as a result. Just the same way that Mark Dredze has been able to look at Twitter data to analyze public health data like influenza, we should be able to more easily quantify sociological phenomenon in aggregate by looking at larger and richer data sets of online interactions.

      There's also likely some value in studying the quantities of digital exhaust that companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. are using for surveillance capitalism.

    1. While I would say that Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett’s book “Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences“, is neither a new book nor an old one (it was published in 2004), it is definitely a classic and a must-read. Moreover, I’m a comparativist, and someone who undertakes systematic case study comparisons, so George and Bennett’s book is definitely my go-to when I want to revise my research strategy.
    1. But thirdly, and most valuably, the template gives you a big space at the bottom to write sentences that summarise the page.  That is, you start writing your critical response on the notes themselves.

      I do much this same thing, however, I'm typically doing it using Hypothes.is to annotate and highlight. These pieces go back to my own website where I can keep, categorize, and even later search them. If I like, I'll often do these sorts of summaries on related posts themselves (usually before I post them publicly if that's something I'm planning on doing for a particular piece.)

    2. I kept losing content that I edited out and then wanted to put it back in.

      This is where bits like version control of academic documents can be incredibly valuable!

      See: https://boffosocko.com/2014/09/17/revision-control/

    3. And that free hand comes in useful for holding open books, grasping coffee cups, or stuffing your face with Gummi bears.

      The importance of the Gummi bears portion cannot be overstated. ;)

    1. I find it somewhat interesting to note that with 246 public annotations on this page using Hypothes.is, that from what I can tell as of 4/2/2019 only one of them is a simple highlight. All the rest are highlights with an annotation or response of some sort.

      It makes me curious to know what the percentage distribution these two types have on the platform. Is it the case that in classroom settings, which many of these annotations appear to have been made, that much of the use of the platform dictates more annotations (versus simple highlights) due to the performative nature of the process?

      Is it possible that there are a significant number of highlights which are simply hidden because the platform automatically defaults these to private? Is the friction of making highlights so high that people don't bother?

      I know that Amazon will indicate heavily highlighted passages in e-books as a feature to draw attention to the interest relating to those passages. Perhaps it would be useful/nice if Hypothes.is would do something similar, but make the author of the highlights anonymous? (From a privacy perspective, this may not work well on articles with a small number of annotators as the presumption could be that the "private" highlights would most likely be directly attributed to those who also made public annotations.

      Perhaps the better solution is to default highlights to public and provide friction-free UI to make them private?

      A heavily highlighted section by a broad community can be a valuable thing, but surfacing it can be a difficult thing to do.