Looking for an #Indieweb tool for personal aggregation of social media. Maybe a bit like Feedly, a bit like Nuzzel, but more specifically a webtool that aggregates and does a pesonal curation and display of Twitter Lists, Facebook feeds, YouTube Subscriptions, and if possible FB Groups, and displays the content that I hand curated in one dashboard.
In a way in the same fashion that #Microblog supports keeping publishing to social networks syndicated out and at arms length, would be good to find a toolset that curates the consumption from social nets, and gets around the main feed algorythms and enables more hand curation of what you see from them more easily.
Does that exist? If not, it should.
This is cool, from @menton on #microblog supporting integration any blog that uses Webmentions…
“In a post on Micro.blog, you can @-mention someone’s blog by including @domain.com in the post, using their domain name. If that blogger’s site supports Webmention, Micro.blog will send your mention to their blog, where it could be included as a comment.”<
Jeff Zeldman asks really good questions here: (and I also posted this to my open #Microblog:
“Along those same lines, can the IndieWeb, and products of IndieWeb thinking like Micro.blog, save us?
Might they at least provide an alternative to the toxic aspects of our current social web, and restore the ownership of our data and content? And before you answer, RTFM.
On an individual and small collective basis, the IndieWeb already works. But does an IndieWeb approach scale to the general public?
If it doesn’t scale yet, can we, who envision and design and build, create a new generation of tools that will help give birth to a flourishing, independent web? One that is as accessible to ordinary internet users as Twitter and Facebook and Instagram? Tantek Çelik thinks so, and he’s been right about the web for nearly 30 years. (For more about what Tantek thinks, listen to our conversation in Episode № 186 of The Big Web Show.)
Are these approaches mere whistling against a hurricane? Are most web and internet users content with how things are? What do you think? Share your thoughts on your personal website (dust yours off!) or (irony ahoy!) on your indie or mainstream social networks of choice using hashtag #LetsFixThis.”
A solid argument for the #indieweb - and that it needs to be as “friction free” and as easy to use as closed sollutions:
I had the opportunity to witness an early Internet so I was not natively exposed to the psychological threats that newly born platforms like Facebook or Instagram have built in. It’s amazing to me that in a matter of few years, apps like Instagram evolved from an indie type of platform for wannabe photographers into a vanity tool and status broadcasting.<
Our internet today offers a variety of digital services and social networks that are not showing a clean and honest face to their users. Platforms that are examples of hate speech, privacy violations and lies.<
Most of these platforms don’t charge (directly) for their services. You don’t pay a dime to use Facebook or Instagram. But you know you’ll become their “product” soon, as your own behaviour and content will fuel campaigns based on your data….
It’s still too early to reach any conclusions, but I’m feeling better now that I control my own content and that I’ve found a place where to post my content freely and without fear.
But will be the Indieweb movement be the solution to save us all? The struggles I had at the beginning setting up my Indieweb on a WordPress website have prevented me from thinking that way….It’s clear that the Indieweb needs to be more convenient, otherwise non-early adopters will not even get close to this movement.<
This is a great quote on #indieweb publishing and #microblog in specific…. Build in “web stuff” if you want it to last:
“Micro.blog is not an alternative silo: instead, it’s what you build when you believe that the web itself is the great social network. That’s the important part: even if Micro.blog doesn’t last (though I believe it will), the idea — that the web itself is where we are and where we talk to each other — will continue. And: Micro.blog could be just one of thousands of similar services. And those services would all work together, because they’re made of web-stuff.”<
Microblog creator @menton on what’s coming for Micro.blog, on this week’s podcast #micromonday monday.micro.blog/2019/03/0…
This article from #wired, also got me relooking at #indieweb and Micro.blog. In essence, don’t quit social all together, but “curate your way to a better social media” diet. Key quote:
This vision of decentralization is more back-to-the-land than blockchain. If portals to the digital world are so exploitative, it asks, why not curate our own? For consumers, this means forgoing convenience to control your ingredients: Read newsletters instead of News Feeds. Fall back to private group chats. Put the person back in personalization. Revert to reverse chron. Avoid virality. Buy your own server. Start a blog. Embrace anonymity. Own your own domain. Spend time on federated social networks rather than centralized ones. And when a big story breaks, consider saving your appetite for the slow-cooked, room-temp take.<
“Twenties and Thirties it was the role of government, Fifties and Sixties it was civil rights. The next two decades it’s gonna be privacy. I’m talking about the Internet. I’m talking about cell phones. I’m talking about health records and who’s gay and who’s not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?” — Sam Seaborne, The West Wing (Season 1, Episode 9, 1999)<
This could be your day:
…You read an article online that the average web user has hundreds, if not thousands, of web tracking files (called “cookies”) watching you browse from site-to-site and reporting back to god-knows-where. Adding insult to injury, the site where you read this article adds another cookie to your browser…
…You log into Facebook and discover that somehow, without your approval, you are now a member of NAMBLA’s Facebook group, the result of your friends’ poor idea of a joke and the new “feature” in groups that Facebook management added thinking it would be okay to allow friends to do this without your say so…
…From the window of your home office you see a vehicle that looks like the “fun, wacky” Google Street View truck pass by and you wonder, “Did they just get access to my WiFi passwords?”…
…You read about how those who run the companies that know the most about you online are saying to “get over” the loss of privacy, or that if you want to be acting anonymously online “maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”…
With all that, you’d be forgiven for thinking, as Andrew Sullivan wrote, that online privacy is dead, and that maybe if “you don’t tense up,” over the loss, “it will hurt less.” You are not alone.
You may also think you have a “privacy problem,” but technically you have a bigger issue — an identity problem. A true “online identity crisis,” as it were, as online privacy is a subset of “online identity.” See: I believe you can boil down the entire multifaceted online privacy issue to a single nine-word statement and a single five-word question.
Here is the statement: There is a “real-you” and a “digital-you.”
The “digital-you,” this digital doppelganger of yours, deeply, deeply affects the “real-you” (and will almost certainly outlive the “real-you” by many generations at least).
This “digital-you” may consist of little more than a nine-digit social security number, a wisp of an existence, but it’s there on one of various digital networks. But for most of us our digital selves are much more substantial and fleshed out. Enough to fill five or six hard disc drives at least. And if you are under 18, chances are your “digital-you” is even more substantial: certainly terabytes, maybe petabytes, of images, thoughts, writings, emails, facts, idle thoughts, blog posts, political rants, religious inklings, musical tastes, sexual fantasies, and more. Fears, hopes, and dental records all lumped together in one hard-to-imagine digital approximation of the human being you are, or were. It’s a digital echo that we all leave behind us. For some of us, the aggregate may be the truest portrait of ourselves that will ever exist.
And the fate of your “digital-you” and “real-you” couldn’t be more intertwined.
This begs the key question I promised earlier, which is: “Who owns the digital-you?”
For some while, there is a quiet “identity war” going on for this ownership of the “digital-you.” A battle for your likes and your links — your interests, your passions, your information, everything about the “digital-you” that is public or that the combatants in this war help make public. And the spoils of this war are great: the central business model of most of the information marketplace right now is about offering you “free” services in exchange for information, giving up what was formerly nobody’s business but your own.
What was “nobody’s business” is now big, big business.
Jack Shafer got it when he wrote:
“…The privacy problem is really one of our own making. We’re the ones who surrender the privacy of the contents of our e-mail, calendars, and contacts to Gmail, which then sells ads against those contents. We give the mapping services our home addresses and our destinations… We share our comings and goings by checking in on Foursquare. We let iTunes catalog our music libraries in exchange for its “Genius” recommendations. We submit volumes of personal information to Facebook for Mark Zuckerberg to monetize. None of these exploitations should come as a surprise. They weren’t forced on us. If we read the voluminous “terms of service” agreements that we check yes to in return for these free services, we’d see that the providers of “free” services were very candid about how they’d use our personal information.”<
And in their battle by omission or co-mission a troubling pattern forms: privacy is treated in a cavalier way, boundaries get pushed back, there is a public outcry, and then the offending company pulls their privacy standards back up, but NOT as far as they were previously. And then wash, rinse, repeat.
The Kenyan aphorism applies: “When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers.” In this case, it’s our identity and our privacy that does.
The combatants in the identity war over the “digital-you” want you to cede them control and stewardship of it. They want you to trust that they can navigate and avoid “the creepy line” of intrusion for you, even if they “walk right up to it.”
So who owns the Digital-You?
I’ll explore who should in the next post in this series, but here are spoilers: not them. Or anyone like them.