I spent a short time recently getting Twitter (a ‘micro blogging’ site) to talk to Facebook. Obviously the desire to spend time integrating two Web 2.0 applications places me firmly in the category of ‘geek’, but let’s ignore that for now. What I began to think about is:
I mean, really, who cares what I am doing?
15 years ago I worked in remote parts of the world: The only contact we had was via the BBC World Service or Voice Of America (both on Short Wave radio) or if there was a real emergency via Single Side Band Radio to the country office. I was out of touch with the world for 2 months at a time.
And the world seemed to keep turning.
Now, we are being encouraged to post to the world in every minute detail. I just wonder what it is that gives us the arrogance to think that anyone else is remotely interested in what we are doing right now Or maybe I am just officially a Grumpy Old Man
I can understand the concept of creating a new online community of your friends, knowing what each of us is doing all the time. Maybe that is what neighbourhood communities were like 40, 50 or more years ago. Or maybe my vision of the world has so changed as a result of working away for long periods of time that I can’t actually work out how much “normal” people know about each other every day.
Hard to believe amongst all the frisbee throwing, vampire chasing and general waste of time and space… but there are some cool applications running on Facebook.
The problem is that is not clear what Facebook is… but maybe that is the point. Different people use it in different ways- but what happens when “friends” are using it differently? Does the added stress of one person conspicuously ignoring another’s request to be a pirate or whatever indicate a deeper incompatibility?
Or maybe I just got ground down by the number of invites to install a new app.
Here is what I use (for what it is worth) in the general Web 2.0 sphere. Hey this is as much for me to remember as anyone else (so expect the odd edit to occur)
And I’ll add more as I remember them. So far, I haven’t signed up with YouTube as I a) don’t like the quality of their videos b) can host videos quite happily on BatWeb.
I am sure that there are more apps that I use, but I can’t remember them for now.
Following on from the last post on Commonality vs Compromise I started thinking about the integration of Web 2.0 apps. Currently there are a huge number of sites that overlap with functionality and whilst there are some dominant sites, there are also a lot of competing ones. This is traditionally seen as good for the consumer, as they have choice, but is also difficult if you want to maintain a single identity.
This used to be the situation with IM protocols: If you were on ICQ and I was AOL then there was no way for us to communicate- now applications allow you to create multiple protocols (you still need to log in and create the account) but that at least you no longer need to use 1 application per account.
So is this happening with Web 2.0? Sort of, I think. You can link from certain social sites to e.g. Flickr so that you don’t have to post your photos twice (on account of the fact that anything on Flickr should be viewable by all your friends, though the reverse may not be true) but this may be due to distinct functionality.
However, the main point is that I still have to enter a whole bunch of the same information on each site. So, if I want to choose the best of breed (which I do) and use Google’s Calendar with Yahoo’s RSS Reader I break the data principle of single data entry.