https://web.archive.org/web/20230404050349/https://greshake.github.io/

This site goes with this paper <br /> https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.12173

The screenshot shows a curious error which makes me a little bit suspicious: the reverse Axelendaer is not rednelexa, there's an a missing.

The mechanism needs a consent step from the user: to allow Bing Chat to see currently open websites. And one of those websites already open, needs to contain the promptinjection.

Wait, what does this mean. #openvraag That previously it did, but now doesn't in response to this? Or that Bing Chat never did so in the first place? In the latter this paper is dealing in hypotheticals at this stage?

Somewhat suspicious of timing, but listen to those soundfiles. We're surrounded by Triffids!

Timing: the info about these sounds is known since 2012 https://gizmodo.com/plants-communicate-with-each-other-by-using-clicking-so-5919973 but this new paper turns to learning models to derive info from the sounds made.

Running BLOOM on a VPS or locally even is either expensive or very slow. Mostly because of the sheer size of the 176B model. Share it in a group of similar users on a VPS set-up? Use the Hugging Face API for BLOOM?

Donald points rightly to some of the classic monsterisation responses to AI. Although he imo misrepresents the EU AI Act (which in its proposal carefully avoids static tech regulation).

Vgl [[Monstertheorie 20030725114320]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329045841/https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/cyber-resilience-act

proposal Cyber Resilience Act (read together with CSA, April 2019)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329045405/https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-practicalities/

Bert Hubert on the CRA part 2

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329045249/https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-secure-coding-solution/

Bert Hubert on the CRA proposal, part 1.

Generative AI abstracts away the open web that is the substrate it was trained on. Abstracting away the open web means there may be much less incentive to share on the open web, if the LLMs etc never point back to it. Vgl the way FB et al increasingly treated open web URLs as problematic.

replacing the incentives to share on the open web are not a mere by-effect of it being abstracted away by generative AI, but an aimed for effect. As it may push people to seek the gains of sharing elsewhere, i.e. enclosed web3 services.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230328130227/https://librarian.aedileworks.com/2023/03/27/the-push-to-ai-is-meant-to-devalue-the-open-web-so-we-will-move-to-web3-for-compensation/

blogged https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2023/03/22930/

Via Stephen Downes https://www.downes.ca/post/75035

openvraag is er een link met [[Monstertheorie 20030725114320]] ook uit #2003/

PDF in Zotero

psychologische veiligheid als belangrijkste voorwaarde voor team succes. Verwijst naar Google onderzoek hiernaar, https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/

on both short term and long term risks in AI

https://web.archive.org/web/20230316192144/https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/should-we-worry-more-about-short?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

https://web.archive.org/web/20230316103739/https://subconscious.substack.com/p/everyone-will-have-their-own-ai

Vgl [[Onderzoek selfhosting AI tools 20230128101556]] en [[Persoonlijke algoritmes als agents 20180417200200]] en [[Everymans Allemans AI 20190807141523]] en [[AI personal assistants 20201011124147]]

MDTO (Metagegevens voor duurzaam toegankelijke overheidsinformatie) lijkt ook de norm te worden voor WOO actieve openbaarmaking. #openvraag hoe zit dat voor passieve openbaarmaking? Wordt metadatering beperkt tot de actieve categorieën?

https://web.archive.org/web/20230309111559/https://www.d4d.net/news/ai-and-the-state-of-open-data/

Tim Davies looks at the bridge between #opendata and #AI. Should go throug the chapter in version 1 of the State of Open Data too. Note: while Tim acknowledges some of the EU data strategy developments (e.g. the dataspaces) it doesn't mention others (e.g. data altruistic non-profit entities) which may fit the call for instutions better. Data space aren't an institution, but a common market

https://web.archive.org/web/20230309061020/https://boffosocko.com/2023/03/07/rules-against-quotes-in-zettelkasten-a-closer-look-at-ahrens-on-quotes-and-collecting/

Chris Aldrich on Ahrens and on quoting and processing by one's own rephrasing as mutually reinforcing. As Ahrens is regularly interpreted as advicing no quoting. Vgl [[Zettelkasten Ahrens 20201025194845]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230301112750/http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2023/02/openai-releases-massive-wave-of.html

Donald points to the race that OpenAI has spurred. Calls the use of ChatGPT to generate school work and plagiarism a distraction. LLMs are seeing a widening in where they're used, and the race is on. Doesn't address whether the race is based on any solid starting points however. To me getting into the race seems more important to some than actually having a sense what you're racing and racing for.

Interesting point by John Caswell. AI prompting is a skill to learn, can we simultaneously learn to prompt better in conversations with other people? Prompting is a key thing in collecting narrated experiences for instance. Or will more conscious prompting lead to instrumentalising your conversation partner? After all AI chat prompting is goal oriented manipulation, what to put int to get the desired output? In collecting narrated experiences the narrator's reality remains a focal point, and only patterns over collections of narrated experiences are abstracted away from the original conversations. n:: [[Prompting skill in conversation and AI chat 20230301120740]] n:: [[Prompting pitfall instrumentalising conversation partner 20230301120937]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230301110422/https://www.grouppartners.online/blog/critical-conversations

Julian dives into https://medium.com/@ElizAyer/meetings-are-the-work-9e429dde6aa3 on when meetings are productive work (vgl [[Netwerkleren Connectivism 20100421081941]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230226002724/https://medium.com/@ElizAyer/meetings-are-the-work-9e429dde6aa3 Meetings are regular work, so blindly avoiding meetings is damaging.

Julian Elve follows up https://www.synesthesia.co.uk/2023/02/27/finding-the-real-work-that-meetings-are-good-at/ with lifting out the parts where Ayer discusses the type of meeting that are 'real work' and what they're for. (learning, vgl [[Netwerkleren Connectivism 20100421081941]]

Folgezettel are per the linked https://web.archive.org/web/20220125173712/https://omxi.se/2015-06-21-living-with-a-zettelkasten.html posting also a way to create some sort of initial overview in a physical system. In digital systems network maps serve a similar purpose as initial overview to be able to start with something. The outline Lawson mentions as origin is a thing in itself to me, esp as the connections / place in a system of a note can be reconsidered over time. Physical placement is by def a compromise, the question if it is a constraint that has a creative effect?

presumption: L's Folgezettel are a combination of outlining (as common in US maybe not German law edu) and the note cards used in sociology. Cross linking as a way to escape forced categorisation into exclusive buckets. Is there also in cross linking an element perhaps of escaping established idiom while building new (fields) of knowledge? (Vgl. Richard Rorty's struggle when forced to explain pragmatism in the language of Platonic dilemma's. [[Taal als zicht beperkend element 20031104104523]] )

Yes. Any pkm system or method is (or should be) tailored to one's own needs. Vgl [[% Interessevelden 20200523102304]] as [[Macroscope 20090702120700]]

Lawson thinks L's Folgezettel are a product of his training in law, and they were used by L for synthesis.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230227100951/https://www.seanlawson.net/2021/03/the-role-of-folgezettel-in-the-zettelkasten-method/

Sean Lawson on the rationale behind Folgezettel as used by Luhmann.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230227055845/https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757

Fascinating read. Esp the build up in the year before the Russian full invasion of Ukraine started.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230226072321/https://blog.xot.nl/2023/02/14/analysing-the-architecture-of-the-european-digital-identity-framework/index.html

ha! psychohistoric event. Yes, I recognise some of that. I've been in recent sessions that were the 3rd of 4th larger public gathering with the same group, with the group leader still repeating the mantra that we hadn't been able to meet up for so long, where we just did the same thing several times before. A ritualised phrasing to excuse any time spent on catching up. I'd rather put the catching up on the actual program. No excuse needed, psychohistoric or not.

Indeed. 'the lockdown' in various conversations I've been in seems to be an indetermined period between 2019 and now, which serves as explanation for anything that wasn't finished in the past 3 years. As if we were all in actual stasis all that time continuously. Yes it was hard for us at times, I know it was much harder for other people I know at times in other locations, let alone what's been going on in China. But it wasn't constant and everywhere in NL or in EU. The Dutch actual lockdowns were 3 different periods and to very different degrees, with the first being the strictest, but the last one feeling the most difficult to me. I should mark the actual lockdowns and restrictions more clearly in my notes as factcheck.

Reading this I realise I'm not using Folgezettel really, only linking back to a previous notion. There's some sequencing, esp when I create little 'trains' (a notion, a link to a more abstract notion, a link to a more detailed one, a link to an example). The forward linking I generally not do, except sometimes. L always did forward linking in the sense of placing the index card.

https://web.archive.org/web//https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/bestuur-en-organisatie/io-research/morele-vragen-rijksambtenaren-vaak-onvoldoende-opgevolgd

#nieuw reden:: Verschillende soorten morele dilemma's volgens I&O bij (rijks)ambtenaren. Let wel, alleen rondom beleidsproces, niet om digitale / data dingen. #openvraag is er een kwalitatief verschil tussen die 2 soorten vragen, of zijn het verschillende verschijningsvormen van dezelfde vragen? Verhouden zich de vragen tot de 7 normen van openbaar bestuur? Waarom is dat niet de indeling dan? #2022/06/30

Singer, b1946, Australian @ Princeton, applied ethics, utilitarian. EA / LT as utilitarianism ad absurdum

Lofty goals can serve as 'moral shield', excusing immoral behaviour in other situations, because the higher ends 'prove' the ultimate morality of the actor.

Colin Walker added a start here page to his site to present posts in a more curated way than stream to new / incidental visitors.

A comment about the diff between desktop and mobile browsing experience: one might miss the multiple columns. For my site that is true too: all the right column stuff comes at the bottom on mobile. Noone scrolls that far.

individually yes. Feedback loops is the response. It's just that we allowd socmed to base feedback almost entirely on outrage.

I've always assumed the point of the stream is that you can't drink it all. My [[Infostrat Filtering 20050928171301]] is based on the stream being overwhelming. Never twice into the same river etc. You don't make sense of the stream or catch what's important. Social filtering is the bit you 'drink' from the stream, and what you reshare is feedback into it. Given enough feedback what is important will always resurface.

Metaphor of algo-timeline as a canalised river, vs the free flowing stream that is e.g. a socmed stream like Mastodon.

True, not sure I did stop, but a rethink is definitely useful, and extending it.

blogroll is that too, no?

I don't follow, RSS is the stream I'd say, it's entire design is the reverse chronological order? Or does Amit specifically mean the representation of the stream on the blog front page?

As is the blogroll.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221214055312/https://wildrye.com/roundup-of-67-tools-for-thought-to-build-your-second-brain/

Glad to notice that: - I've heard of / know many of these tools, so have an ok overview of the current space. No surprises in the list. - I have not cycled through all these tools.

Also interesting that The Brain still exists. Used to be my desktop interface in the late 90s/early 00s.

This sounds like what I call soft-focusing. Some years ago I let go of being strict with myself, and stopped having defined goals in favor of course/directions and a vaguer sense of the destination. I also started soft-focusing my inputs (if there's a connection to my running list of interests connected to my sense of direction it qualifies), and am now trying to soft-focus my outputs. Not blogpost / project A or deliverable B as I would earlier, but more emergent. Then when I have task / creative thing to do, I use it to formulate questions to my notes and see what comes up. This evolved from doing the same in conversations with clients and colleagues where the value of that and resulting associations was clearly visible.

are there compelling stories about what comes after?

oversimplification abounds: this isn't the single cure, so it's not helpful. While we're in a truly complex environment and per def this means a whole collectiojn of simultaneous interventions is needed. Complexity never has a single answer.

stories about not having the solutions / being too late.

stories lack context discouraging proper comparison (imo often by design)

green washing is a category of stories

social media the last refuge of climate change denial

we are all storytellers or should be, and we're in a power negotiation situation.

It might be we have all the pieces, just not the connective and compelling narrative.

who's the we here? Just the few (rich countries) or also the many. Then lists aspects systems / ethics and what method of change you think to deploy.

The Ponzi scheme that is western society is centered as cause and its end the remedy. Vgl [[De externe input cheat 20091015070231]] where I formulate the same. We've run out of being able to ignore [[Geexternaliseerde effecten 20200914204533]]. Is this a [[Ethics of Agency 20201003161155]]?

This sounds like crap detection and [[Infostrat Filtering 20050928171301]] What do you amplify, how do you judge sources, how do you shape your info-diet, and are you aware that how/what you share is a feedback loop to those who shared the stuff you're reacting to? Solnit focuses here on the narrative/shape of what you share in response to your intake (in contrast to resharing other people's narratives)

progressive populism? Vgl [[countering the populist narrative 20221103141532]] and https://jarche.com/2022/09/better-stories-for-a-better-world/

This is how I've read SF for years, both near future and space opera. As mood board and thinking input.

adrienne maree brown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrienne_Maree_Brown in turn inspired by SF author Octavia Butler (have I read her xenogenesis trilogy?)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230112060303/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/jan/12/rebecca-solnit-climate-crisis-popular-imagination-why-we-need-new-stories Vgl [[We Need New Stories by Nesrine Malik]] wrt argumentation and types of narratives.

All this, and in the end a statement that in absolute terms there's stability? Wow, did they miss the demographic factrs at play in scientific community as possible explanation of the relative effect?

At the same time this is precisely the argument above wrt 19th century. Right when you think you know all, everything gets turned over.

Kind of like an inverse singularity: a brick wall.

Pointing to [[Evolutionair vlak van mogelijkheden 20200826185412]] again and that new disruptions probably have higher thresholds to cross (resources, crossdiscipl teams)

Book to find.

Again this reads (second hand) more as a quantity-dynamic. Many confirming the status quo btw is also K. (Vgl Edison's '999 ways I established that don't work'.)

Rate of disruption, need to check how this rate is determined. Absolute number of big breaks over time, or relative to scientific production in general (which is when it would be expected to slow with rising production).

Suggesting it isn't in scientific practice. So what changed very much? Volume of scientists -> volume of publications.

the narrowing maybe a relative one? Or is it really being on a branching but ending path in [[Evolutionair vlak van mogelijkheden 20200826185412]]

Is this caused by anything in science, or a symptom of the growing scientific community globally, and rising average edu levels? Quantitative phase shifts have qualitative effects.

switching here from publications to patents which are a very different beast. Patents are transactions (publishing ideas for temporary market exclusivity) There isn't a necessary path from paper to patent, and def not in all scientific fields. By def patents are more engineering (in the primary meaning) oriented imo, they're about how to (potentially) make things (work). Why's aren't patentable.

I can see how the volume of publications rising is also result of broader access to scientific disciplines. By def high impact is rare, so the average impact will decline with volume. If only because by def a lower percentage of eyes will ever see a paper.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230116221448/https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/16/2147067/-Are-we-living-in-the-last-days-of-the-Scientific-Age Discusses a recent Nature article looking at how increasing numbers of new patents (a rightly criticized indicator) deal with ideas of decreasing impact. Conclusion is though that the number of disruptive patents remains high, just that the overall number of patents rises. Meaning perhaps more the democratisation of patenting, or perhaps the end of the utility of patenting, than stalling scientific progress.

Some points from a 1996 book mentioned vgl [[Evolutionair vlak van mogelijkheden 20200826185412]] wrt scientific progress / increasing niche-specification in the evolutionary plane of possibilities. The book suggests skating to a different place has prohibitive costs and maybe out of reach. Vgl local optimisation in complexity, and what breaking loose from a local optimum takes. Is the loss of the Scientific Age here discussed a needed path into chaos to be able to reach other peaks? Check comments on the Nature article to see if this type of aspect gets discussed.

Call to action: curb the hype.

Does that ever work? (Vgl when I was recently seen as old and negative simply because of listing a range of (pos and neg) real experiences wrt metaverse from earlier waves of hype for VR, and asking questions that are a lithmus test to determine contextual value to a user.

One can not participate in hype, and ensuring the hypers are never able to be seen at the same table / level of disucssion as you (it legitimises the entity of lesser status if a key figure debates a more trivial figure) But can one pour cold water on it when others and other outlets do join in? And without being seen as 'just negative' Hype shifts perception of the neg-pos spectrum [[Overton window 20201024155353]] and Trevino scale, which also applies I think in ethics / phil of tech discussions (which in part means circling back to monstertheory).

speed and mainstreaming are points of contention here, in light of unripe tech, and unprincipled company behind it.

Vgl w 'disinfo innoculation' a la Finland.

When hype is used to influence public opinion, there's a obligation to resist. (Vgl [[Crap detection is civic duty 2018010073052]], en [[Progress is civic duty of reflection 20190912114244]]) Also with which realm of [[Monstertheorie 20030725114320]] are we dealing here with this type of response? In the comments on Masto it's partly positioned as monster slaying, but that certainly isn't it. It's warning against monster embracing. I think the responses fall more into monster adaptation than assimiliation, as it aims to retain existing cultural categories although recognising the challenges issued against it. Not even sure the actual LLM is the monster perceived, but its origins and the intentions and values of the company behind it. Placing it outside the Monster realm entirely.

Additionally the ecological footprint of the tech is problematic (Vgl the blockchain mining activities footprint discussion).

Claims: Doing free labour for OpenAI is problematic. (not expressed: every usage feeds back into the machine and is more free labout put in) Reasons: * OpenAI founders are on the utilitarianism followed ad absurdum end of Effective Altruism. The 'Open' bit is open-washing. * The provenance of training data is ethically suspect (internet scraping), and not controlled for quality. * Externalities aren't taken into account * Social impact of use (including based on faulty output) not considered. * LLMs are still bad at understanding (and routinely fail test that contain imprecise references to other words in the sentence, which humans find easy to solve based on real world knowledge outside the text)

buying into the hype equated to doing PR work for OpenAI

Iris van Rooij means to counteract edu sector buying into the AI hype

https://web.archive.org/web/20230114235338/https://irisvanrooijcogsci.com/2023/01/14/stop-feeding-the-hype-and-start-resisting/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230116150040/https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/267674-ais-jurassic-park-moment/fulltext

Dave positions free will as a 1 or 0 thing, and then tends to 0. Is it that binary though? A spectrum (matters of degree across different contexts) would also help explain things.

Free will is not free of consequences, which is where conditioning kicks in. (and society demanding responsibility or not)

How about animals? Conditioned by their ecosystem (like us, by ecosystem and culture), yet free to roam which coalesces into patterns (migration, foraging, trails)

Is emergence then disproving free will? Emergence is the only possible definition of 'they' here. Which lacks intention and planning. Still means you can perceive it as forcing you / hostility compared to you individually.

Evolution. Your starting point on the evolutionary field of possibilities is determined outside of you, and limits choices/paths, as does every choice made along the way cut off certain paths and brings others in reach. One has limited control there by def, and no control for the first phase of life (what little control as child is there is while ignorant of consequences down the line wrt options).

This juxtaposes invidivual (having free will or not), and society (imposing full conditioning). Crux of complexity is group level, groups one is part of by conditioning/birth and by choice/seeking out within available pre-conditioned options. There is no influence free place, but doubt it's a prerequisite for free will. Is agency more useful term, as it does apply to groups, and by extension organisations and countries. Bit weird their mention in context of free will as if anthromorphisation is something actual.

Actually 'delivering targeted ads' based on protected data is inconsistent with the GDPR entirely.

so if I annotate and highlight something at the same time?

I wonder if it uses the W3C recommendation for highlighting and annotation though? Which would allow it to interact with other highlighting/annotation results.

To me highlighting is annotation, though a leightweight form, as the decision to highlight is interacting with the text in a meaningful way. And the pop up box actually says Annotation right there in the screenshot, so I don't fully grasp what distinction James is making here.

Kev is equating integration with any service to attempts to increase conversation around a post. That is often true but not always. E.g. I'm looking at AP to increase what own words I am sharing. E.g. AP for limited audience postings, and e.g. RSS for a subset of posting that are unlisted for the general public on my site.

Valid point Kev makes here. A site should do only what its author needs it to do. I want interaction visible on my site, though I probably will cut down on the facepiles.

I wonder if that would increase responses to my blog as Kev indicates. There might be those who will respond in e-mail, but not in a public comment. Worth a try.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soziale_Systeme_(1984)

https://web.archive.org/web/20221020022908/https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/soziologie-flug-ueber-den-wolken-a-1ef2fd09-0002-0001-0000-000013511556

A disc by Dirk Käsler of Niklas Luhmann's 'Soziale Systeme', both from 1984. Käsler notes something I hadn't realised yet. Luhmann and Habermas are almost the same age, and Käsler in 1984 dubs them Western-Germany's best sociological and philosophical contemporary export products respectively. E did her master thesis on Habermas in comparison with blogs (H never said anything about internet). The Western-Germany context is also something to take note of I think. Reading the name made me realise how much context / cultural background there is in it. How different I experience Germany now from the 1980s when even a year before the fall of the wall that happening seemed a generation away. The summers I spent in Germany, all in the west, and the visit to East Germany in 1987. A different world compared to later visits on both sides of the former divide.

Tarkowski has only seen a few more participatory server governance set-ups, most are 'benevolent dictator' style. Same. I have seen several growing instances that have changed from 'dictator' to a group of moderators making the decisions. You could democratise those roles by having users propose / vote on moderators. It's what we do offline in communal structures.

We have that proof, once you let go of the notion that everyone should be on the same tech platform to count as social network. Offline social networks are by def decentralised and operate by consensus (or they split, change, move on), we build governance mushrooms on top of it (countries, democracies) that are the scaling layers, but not the building block. Mimick human networks digitally (which internet fundamentally already is) and it will be fine, messy as humans are, but fine in terms of utility and value derived by people using their tools. Tarkowski hits on key points, but seemingly takes the notions of scale and the centrality of a tech platform (and calling that the community) as a given, whereas I see them as the narrative that bigger tech platforms created. For them that narrative was necessary to be able to monetise, to get above the Cosean Floor with funding. There is no presumptive need for any social networks to be at scale for the entirety of human interaction to be at scale as a result. Community is not a synonym for platform or for the combination of a platform and its users. Approaching the fediverse from this 'big tech' framing more likely permeates the Paradox of Open it starts with than the resulting suggestions solve it. Escape it by working with the actual human meaning and level of social networks and the tools they deploy to interact, and ensure they can interconnect. E-mail, snail mail, SSB, IFPS make more sense here than Twitter, FB et al.

This again is where it derails: 'a new bigger Mastodon'. There is no Mastodon as such. That's the point to/of leverage.

Yes. It requires however letting go of starting from the tech as a single plaform or the presumption of scale, and starting from community and network. The group once formed shapes/defines the tech tools used. Then link those tools used up into a federated whole, that in turn may need its own governance structures. Vgl [[Waardevol op zich, waardevoller verbonden 20190513163855]] (valuable on its own, more valuable connected)

This makes sense. Not just for public institutions, also for other types of organisations. Public institutions have a leading by example role here.

Why is the apparant assumption here that it is needed to start from a perspective of global scale? Why one 'shared mission' e.g.?

I'm surprised that the underlying assumption (and tone) not just here but in most tech discussion of this type, is still that 'everything' around a tech tool should be done through that tech tool. Of course you need to organise around it, and professionalise that in the face of growth or becoming more central to some group's functioning. Obviously you need to leverage other types of governance and decision making than what went into creating a tech at first. Institutionalising is a time proven way to sustain an effort. Technology = politics. You need to be a politician in your own technology space. A politican in the artisanal and as a practice / behaviour sense, not in the occupation sense. Vgl [[Mijn werk is politiek 20190921114750]] which mostly implies thinking at different levels of abstraction about your situation simultaneously (Vgl [[Triz denken in systeemniveaus 20200826114731]] but then socially as well as tech)

PublicSpaces overtones here. They're not wrong. Presumably Paul Keller is involved in it?

This comes back to my 'tech smaller than us', governance and technological control over a tool should reside within the context-specific group of users using it. Which does not mean every single person within the group needs all the skills to control the tool, just that the group has it within itself, and decides on how that control is used a group. Vgl [[Networked Agency 20160818213155]] and [[Technologie kleiner dan ons 20160818122905]] n:: This would e.g. imply in Tarkowski's text that a community run instance would ensure having at least 1 member contribute code to Mastodon, and strategically operate to ensure that. Is this also an element wrt the above about Paradox of Open, as the non-monetary benefits of contributing may be well be enumerated as part of the operating costs of a community instance?

unless as I said servers and individuals are often the same. Not per se to run a Mastodon instance as discussed here, but to have a website that also supports #ActivityPub interaction

Indeed, and this is what many don't seem to take into account. E.g. calls for various centralisation efforts. The way 'out' of being under 'benevolent dictators' is to fragment more to the level where you are your own dictator and moderation decisions at individual level and server level are identical, or where you have a cohesive circle of trust in which those decisions take place (i.e. small servers with small groups)

The Paradox of Open (Source) is as Keller and Tarkowski formulate it, that the clear socio-economic value and tech impact of open source comes from underfunded / volunteer work. Vgl [[Bootstrapping 20201007204011]] and the role of precarity in it. Makes me think about 1937 Ronald Coase's transaction costs which in [[Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky]] is used to derive a Cosean Floor (and Cosean Ceiling). Openness allows you to operate below the Cosean Floor, but it seems that to bootstrap beyond that first stage is harder. Are such projects incapable of finding a spot above the Floor further down the chain, or are they pushed aside (or rather 'harvested') by those already positioned and operating above that Floor? Perhaps your spot above the floor needs to be part of the design of the work done below the floor. What's the link with my [[Openheid en haar grenzen 20130131154227]] in which I position openness as necessity to operate in a networked environment, and as necessarily limited by human group dynamics and keeping those healthy? Balancing both is the sweetspot in the complex domain. Are we any good at doing that in other terms than just social group behaviour in a room? #openvraag what's the online/bootstrapping equiv of it? How did we do that for my company 11 yrs ago (in part by operating something else above the Floor alongside)?

https://hans.gerwitz.com/about/ this one?

An eye-opening metric. 'souls saved' vs eyeballs. As in, the number of people with access to a community values reinforcing platform. Vgl [[EU Digital Rights and Principles]] and [[Digital Services Act 20210319103722]] more geared to things that aren't specifically aimed at the culture of interaction, but at things that can be regulated (in the hope that it will impact culture of interaction).

An actor has id and type properties and an inbox and outbox. It should also have a number of things (which I don't all see the use of, why should I disclose followers and followed e.g.?), and may have a number of things, including token endpoints which might be useful

this is akin to how Dave Winer added the capability to add source to a feed in the RSS spec. I read this as only of interest if you use the client to potentially edit the source. If I'd use WP to originate AP msgs, this would not be needed, as any changes would be initiated in WP anyway

dereferencing = following the link to the source, and look at its content, to see if it matches the representation in the json data. Does this imply you could leave it at the id for the object, and leave out the rest as it isn't accepted anyway? Below it says that every object has at least id and type, so yes to the above.

to address a message to followers

it is needed to be aware of the distinctions between server elements related to client interaction, and server elements related to server-to-server things. A server is basically 2 servers in 1 if it is fully capable of federatiion.

a special to group, meaning publicly available (e.g. on yr profile page, or anyone looking in your outbox.

any AP message is in context of ActivityStreams

this is the server to server step

Actors in AP can be apps, groups, orgs, people, services. It's a choice that Mastodon assumes people? What If I create an actor profile that says it's a group, would Mastodon know how to deal with it?

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

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

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

endpoints (@id)
following (@id)
followers (@id)
inbox (@id) - This is an alias of ldp:inbox.
liked (@id)
shares (@id)
likes (@id)
oauthAuthorizationEndpoint (@id)
oauthTokenEndpoint (@id)
outbox (@id)
preferredUsername
provideClientKey (@id)
proxyUrl (@id)
sharedInbox (@id)
signClientKey (@id)
source
streams (@id)
uploadMedia (@id)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

Indeed.

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

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

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

This I think is an unfounded expectation.

This stands out indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a second bootstrapping / zebra example, in 2yrs to 30k monthly

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

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

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

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20221021190712/https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/421123

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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