Well, I have to say that if you are importing your feeds into friendfeed, the least you can do is like something every once in a while. Friending, commenting and how you use "likes" are definitely personal preference, but there is a concept of "active in a community". How you use the content that gets fed to you is also a personal choice.
colinwalker
· 1 year ago
But do you actually have to be 'active' anywhere? If FriendFeed is only being used as an aggregator why is there a need to be active? As you say, it is personal choice and some choose not to be active in certain locations.
robdiana
· 1 year ago
Well, like any social site, there is a sense of community. If you just dump your feeds, you are just self-promoting. Why even sign up for the service at that point if you are just going to spam it? I find it hard to believe that people could read their friendfeed river and not at least "like" one post. I am not saying that people have to comment a lot or even be that active. Just showing a little interest in some items on friendfeed qualifies as "activity".
Think of it as if you are submitting stories to Digg/Mixx/Reddit. If you only submit stuff but don't comment, vote or anything then you are basically considered a spammer. That is generally accepted on those sites, what makes friendfeed any different?
colinwalker
· 1 year ago
The difference with sites like Digg etc. is that they are specifically platforms for sharing and the implication is that you will sharing other peoples stuff. You would not be called a spammer if you submitted hundreds of links to other blogs etc. You are only considered a spammer if you fill them up with your own.
The point of aggregation, however, is that you are gathering all of YOUR stuff in to one place so that it can all be accessed together rather than jumping off to multiple sites. Even if you don't like or comment or even follow anyone else how can using a core function of FriendFeed be considered spamming?
robdiana
· 1 year ago
I understand your point, and spammer was definitely the wrong word to use. The concern I am trying to express is that FriendFeed seems to be a community, and if you do not comment or like, you are not participating in the community. Granted I am going on what I think the "spirit" of friendfeed is.
One minor nit with your argument about FriendFeed purely being an aggregator. They use "share" throughout the site. There is also no guarantee that what is shared is your stuff either. So, your digg submissions are streamed to FriendFeed, do you consider that "your stuff". Granted this is outside the scope of what you are talking about, but our discussion is headed there (and may be good fodder for your next post). A blog post is slightly different because you did "generate" the content. Activity streams (like Digg, Mixx, StumbleUpon, etc) do not have the same connotations as the blog post, though it probably could be argued that even that is true.
I have totally forgotten whether I had a point or not, so I will leave it as is :)
Shey
· 1 year ago
I think the topic of Gilmor is a bit different, because he was basically saying FriendFeed sucks, without having ever really using it. So how could he evaluate it without fully exploring the service?
Other than that, I would agree that we all use social media in different ways, and not all of us are about the conversation. Value is something that differs from individual to individual.
In regards to the echo chamber, I agree that it is what you make it. Which leads me to believe that we are wasting our time complaining about the echo. We need to encourage and appreciate new thought while mixing up our own personal networks.
Charlie Anzman gave a good suggestion yesterday: picking up people off the Everyone tab in FriendFeed. I think it's a much better way to hear new voices than just using FOAF.
Maria Reyes-McDavis
· 1 year ago
I agree, there tends to be an incestuous nature on friending in social media. It's all about balance for me, which can be hard to do. -- Maria Reyes-McDavis
Phil Glockner
· 1 year ago
I feel obligated to respond, since you kindly linked my article here (thank you).
Mostly, I agree with Shey's points about Steve Gillmore and FriendFeed. But further, I was dismayed because he was listed as a suggested person to follow on the service, thousands of people followed him, and had active, positive conversations on his syndicated tweets.. without any apparent interaction with the man himself. I was dismayed that he was missing out on these interactions.
As it turns out, he may not have been missing out, he did comment on the original article and said that just because he didn't reply in FriendFeed didn't mean he wasn't watching. He did not go so far as saying he was involved, just that he wasn't not involved. I suppose I could say the same thing about God.
That said, upon reflection I would say I don't have a problem with people using FriendFeed (or any other social media service) as a pure aggregator. That doesn't mean I would call them fully-engaged, though 'poser' has connotations that don't make it the best word.. let's say 'placeholder' for those accounts.
Plus, if I think further about Steve's strategy in the media, is it to interact with everyone that has something to say to him? Hardly. Conversations are happening, on FriendFeed and other service, due to his influence. Although he may not be directly involved, people are learning from each other based on his influence.
So, if the tables were turned and I suddenly had the radio show and the newspaper column and the popularity, and I was called a poser, could I refute it? No. By my own definition I'm probably a much bigger poser (outside of FriendFeed) than him. Would I care? Probably not.
colinwalker
· 1 year ago
Phil,
I completely agree that those that aren't active shouldn't be listed as recommended people to follow on FriendFeed and, yes, I over-simplified your post but it is a worrying trend that people consider there should be a right or wrong way to use these services.
Phil Glockner
· 1 year ago
Understood. I get your point, sorry if I used your post as a soap-box of my own ;). I could actually make the argument that there may be too much blow-back actually.. for example, plurk *does* tell people how to use their service, but that doesn't stop people from using it any way they like.
I think maybe the greater point is for a social service to be truly successful, it has to limit through functionality rather than rules.
Christopher Harley
· 1 year ago
I'm curious if my Imaginary Friends, The Oregonian (Portland's major newspaper) and NPR News, could be construed as FriendFeed spam. My intention is to import their Twitter stream to spark discussions about issues that are both local and global.
Phil Glockner
· 1 year ago
Imaginary friends can only be seen by you, so they are spam only if you consider them so.
Christopher Harley
· 1 year ago
OK, that I didn't know. So those Tweets aren't streamed as NPRNews (Friend of ___) ? If not, do they become visible if I comment on them or "Like" them or would I have to "Reshare" them?
Phil Glockner
· 1 year ago
You would have to reshare them. Liking or commenting does not make them visible. I believe this is to protect syndication of non-original work to some extent. With apologies to Colin for promotion within a comment, I have a blog entry about it here.
mfruchter
· 1 year ago
The individual should use social media as they see fit. There should be no requirements or restrictions on where a conversation is started or where a conversation ends. The herd mentality will always play a part. Feelings should not be hurt if a said individual is not participating on a service, or is using the service in a one way format. .
gregorylent
· 1 year ago
say what? is this a club? with rules? you guys work for the riaa or something? it's just pixels in public. anybody can do what they want, why is that so hard, even for the supposed leading edge, to relax into and simply enjoy, rather than make something up about how it is supposed to be and we're special for being here and blah blah blah. blah blah blah.
i mean, like, go write a post on the real ins and outs of brushing your teeth, or how to sit on a bus.
man oh man ...... :-)
Mark Dykeman
· 1 year ago
To each their own
NikitaScene
· 1 year ago
Innovation seems to be the cornerstone of social media. I love seeing people use social platforms in unexpected ways and applaud the malleable nature of the social tools.
All Comments
Think of it as if you are submitting stories to Digg/Mixx/Reddit. If you only submit stuff but don't comment, vote or anything then you are basically considered a spammer. That is generally accepted on those sites, what makes friendfeed any different?
The point of aggregation, however, is that you are gathering all of YOUR stuff in to one place so that it can all be accessed together rather than jumping off to multiple sites. Even if you don't like or comment or even follow anyone else how can using a core function of FriendFeed be considered spamming?
One minor nit with your argument about FriendFeed purely being an aggregator. They use "share" throughout the site. There is also no guarantee that what is shared is your stuff either. So, your digg submissions are streamed to FriendFeed, do you consider that "your stuff". Granted this is outside the scope of what you are talking about, but our discussion is headed there (and may be good fodder for your next post). A blog post is slightly different because you did "generate" the content. Activity streams (like Digg, Mixx, StumbleUpon, etc) do not have the same connotations as the blog post, though it probably could be argued that even that is true.
I have totally forgotten whether I had a point or not, so I will leave it as is :)
Other than that, I would agree that we all use social media in different ways, and not all of us are about the conversation. Value is something that differs from individual to individual.
In regards to the echo chamber, I agree that it is what you make it. Which leads me to believe that we are wasting our time complaining about the echo. We need to encourage and appreciate new thought while mixing up our own personal networks.
Charlie Anzman gave a good suggestion yesterday: picking up people off the Everyone tab in FriendFeed. I think it's a much better way to hear new voices than just using FOAF.
Mostly, I agree with Shey's points about Steve Gillmore and FriendFeed. But further, I was dismayed because he was listed as a suggested person to follow on the service, thousands of people followed him, and had active, positive conversations on his syndicated tweets.. without any apparent interaction with the man himself. I was dismayed that he was missing out on these interactions.
As it turns out, he may not have been missing out, he did comment on the original article and said that just because he didn't reply in FriendFeed didn't mean he wasn't watching. He did not go so far as saying he was involved, just that he wasn't not involved. I suppose I could say the same thing about God.
That said, upon reflection I would say I don't have a problem with people using FriendFeed (or any other social media service) as a pure aggregator. That doesn't mean I would call them fully-engaged, though 'poser' has connotations that don't make it the best word.. let's say 'placeholder' for those accounts.
Plus, if I think further about Steve's strategy in the media, is it to interact with everyone that has something to say to him? Hardly. Conversations are happening, on FriendFeed and other service, due to his influence. Although he may not be directly involved, people are learning from each other based on his influence.
So, if the tables were turned and I suddenly had the radio show and the newspaper column and the popularity, and I was called a poser, could I refute it? No. By my own definition I'm probably a much bigger poser (outside of FriendFeed) than him. Would I care? Probably not.
I completely agree that those that aren't active shouldn't be listed as recommended people to follow on FriendFeed and, yes, I over-simplified your post but it is a worrying trend that people consider there should be a right or wrong way to use these services.
I think maybe the greater point is for a social service to be truly successful, it has to limit through functionality rather than rules.
i mean, like, go write a post on the real ins and outs of brushing your teeth, or how to sit on a bus.
man oh man ...... :-)