When it concerns digital technologies we here in Britain are used to be feeling like living in the Stone Age when compared to the advanced wonders of the Far East. Miniaturisation and digitalisation entered almost every aspect of their daily life continuing to surprise unprepared Westerners. Almost every British visitor comes from Japan with a regular story about electronically equipped public toilets which turn a rather mundane and touchy process into some kind of elaborate and lavish ritual accompanied by a row of unexpected pleasures. However, even Japan is way behind in terms of toilet digitalisation when compared to one neighbouring city-state where recently a network of advanced 21^st century public toilets was installed all over this tiny city-state.
The government of this tiny country decided to celebrate the entry into the new millennia by unveiling the most technologically advanced network of public facilities. It was indeed yet another world wonder with advanced auto-sensing flashing system, built-in 3D washing device, automatic wiping glider and many more things we have no name for in English language yet. Not only each node in this network is connected to the central hub and to all others via high-speed digital link but also they are interlinked in a complex network relaying all of the matter produced in the process to the highly advanced faeces treatment facility where they get sorted and processed for further recycling and that’s why the facility was dubbed EcoTech Loo. What is however crucial for our story that these toilets are of course featuring broadband high-speed wireless internet access with 35-inch sensor touch screen and virtual keyboard provided. But to understand the importance and the true significance of the issue raised by recent events we need to look into the history of the service in question first.

Despite of all these technological advances, shortly after the open day the system had run into some sort of unforeseen trouble. When designed the system was supposed to be free for all citizens of the country except certain categories that included among others criminals on probation, high income earners, sex offenders, known members of terrorist organisations and so on. As all those belonging to these categories have almost natural tendency to cheating the system it is not surprising that the number of paid entries into public toilets for the first year was next to nothing. The alarm was raised after the annual first report of the EcoTech Loo PLC. As soon as this figure was revealed to public, concerns started to spring up regarding mainly not the financial loss as such, but the very principle of fairness which was compromised in this case. Although the fee when paid was rather substantial nearing 10 pounds in UK currency (roughly US$ 20) the EcoTech Loo PLC is a public-private partnership and essentially not for profit enterprise, so the main issue was to find a way to restore the justice in this sensitive area. Initially the solution was to introduce personal entry cards providing free entry for all eligible individuals and charging appropriate fee automatically from the accounts of those who had no right of free entry. But the pilot scheme failed miserably as it turned out to be that it is not only extremely easy to clone the first generation cards equipped only with magnetic strip, but also there is no way to verify the true identity of the user. Some criminal gangs immediately sniffed the opportunity to make a quick buck and organised groups that provided an entry for a smaller fee using either counterfeited or stolen entry cards.

The solution obviously had to cover two aspects: increased security of the card itself as well as to introduce some way of verifying the identity of the actual user. If the former problem could be solved relatively easy just by replacing magnetic strip with a miniature chip the latter required the use of some advanced technology. It was decided to install some advanced biometric sensors right into the seat but this was not the most complex part of the system. The key to its success was brought by state of the art biometric recognition software, programmed not only to take into account significant differences between male and female private parts, but also to be able to provide 100% accuracy while recognising male standing position. When the second generation toilet cards with on-chip biometrics came into use in 2002 it was such a success that many were queing over night to replace their old cards despite of the significant cost (90 UK pounds or over 180 US$) and initial biometric recording that had to be performed on a special recording seat in presence of two independent witnesses. Needless to mention that re-recording of biometrics had to take place annually to take into account natural changes that occur in human anatomy with time.

This new system was not only efficient, practical and convenient on its own but also triggered an unimaginable chain of innovation that brought public services in the country to unprecedented heights.

Firstly the Department of Health seized the opportunity to identify toilet users and proposed to install express test devices right into every toilet to run a quick test on urine and faeces. Test results were passed direct into individual computer files kept in the department, thus allowing not only to gather public statistics but also to provide each toilet user with valuable health recommendations displayed on a special LCD screen together with test results and also available in paper format for free. It also proved to be an invaluable tool for real-time monitoring of epidemiologic situation throughout the whole country. If carriers of dangerous infections were detected with express tests the toilet emergency auto locking feature allowed to detain a person until the emergency medical team arrives to provide the necessary help. To counter cross-border spread of infectious diseases in cooperation with Immigration and Nationality directorate the Department of Health put forward an initiative according to which all entering the country were issued temporary Visitors Toilet ID cards at the expense of the state and biometric recording facilities were installed at each point of entry.

Immigration and Nationality directorate also developed it’s own programme based on existing facilities aimed at controlling the problem of illegal immigrants and have effective and measured immigration flow. The system not only greatly simplified the procedure of detention and subsequent deportation of illegal immigrants but also allowed to monitor the process of cross-border migration in great detail. Food Safety Agency soon followed the example as express test results allowed to monitor the quality of food eaten and interview the user right in the toilet about sources of food he or she consumes, which helped immensely on their clampdown on producers of substandard food and drinks. Environmental Agency took the opportunity to sort the material right at the place which eliminated the need for a rather costly excrement sorting procedure at the recycling plant.

Next there were various debt collecting agencies who established Digital Debt Collecting Association which was authorized by the government and most of other creditors to collect outstanding debts using the facility already present within the system. Each Toilet ID card is initially tied to a current account held in the State Bank which each citizen has from the age of 5. Initially it was designed to charge the entry fee direct from accounts of those not eligible for free entry. As this state was not permanent, all Toilet ID cards were linked to corresponding bank accounts by default. Quite soon other types of charges started to be processed through this extremely convenient system including particularly various types of fines. The ease of processing fines allowed replacing traditional long-term prison sentences with substantial fines for most economic crimes, petty theft and basically for the majority of crimes not involving bodily harm. Instead of locking people in the state decided not to deprive the economy of qualified labour force and not to damage the social fabric but rather use economic leverage to gain beneficial effects. As the amount of fines was often substantially larger than sums usually held on these accounts the government instituted so-called Liberty Loan automatically assigned for the period of 20 years equal to the outstanding remainder of a fine. These measures helped boosting the economy of the state as current Finance Minister proudly remarked we now have both, budget proficit, and zero inflation rate plus unprecedented growth of GDP, all thanks to reforms that had been made possible following the introduction of our high-tech Toilet ID cards.

And finally of course the facility got attention of a number of Law Enforcement agencies. Some in the Drugs Control department of the Ministry of Internal affairs realised that the express urine test could also detect the presence of illegal substances and in cooperation with General Penitentiary Directorate introduced a programme of correctional detention for drug users. This used the emergency auto locking feature to lock in those in whose urine traces of illegal substances were detected and detain them for a period until their urine test comes clean. Combined with some anti-drug treatment supplied with drinking water and correctional messages and educational documentaries played all day long on the plasma screen it helped to significantly reduce the number of drug addicts throughout the country. The Chief of the General Penitentiary Directorate praised the success of the scheme in following terms: It greatly streamlined the judicial process, saved us from completely unnecessary burocratic procedures as well as masses of paperwork and made it more objective since the duration of the sentence now is not arbitrarily imposed by judges but directly depends on the bodily state of the offender. This is much more measured approach. It creates the atmosphere of fairness in the society. With the help of the technology of the future we are building safer and more just future for our society today.

Soon the idea of streamlined detention was extended to other petty criminals covering offences usually classed in Britain as Antisocial Behaviour and it proved to be very effective. Why you may ask? Why would a criminal ever enter this kind of facility knowing that he or she will be immediately locked up in there? There are two reasons for this and both are quite logical. Firstly the fine for leaving excrements in public place (which is for most citizens is anywhere outside their own private loo) is unbelievably high and surely there are moments when you just can’t hold it. Secondly and perhaps even more significantly the only alternative to being confined are various types of corporate punishment provided by law for these types of offences. If you had a choice, which would you prefer: getting forty or fifty lashes or spending a couple of weeks in a rather warm and comfortable hi-tech environment equipped with high-speed internet access and coming out clean afterwards? You guessed what I’d choose.

And of course it came only natural that a year later it was decided to abolish old-fashioned electric chairs used for the execution of capital punishment in favour of so-called Execution Plug-in which supplemented EcoTechLoos throughout the country. The advantage over traditional electric chair came from the fact that the executed did not actually need to sit on it as the lethal charge could pass along the stream of urine. There were concerns expressed over the reliability and safety of the system but they were quickly countered by a number of field tests. In words of the Interior Minister of the current government of the country: there is no chance of the system accidentally misfiring. We can guarantee absolute safety of our execution device. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear. It’s criminals who should be afraid. Our country holds a moratorium for capital punishment so it is not likely that our execution device will be ever used in practice but its efficiency in crime prevention as a deterrent for potential criminals is beyond comparison. Soon all the police cars too became equipped not only with Toilet ID card readers but also with ecologically friendly biometric devices which along with its main purpose provided a much needed convenience for the officers on patrol.

It all went good until today, when a huge controversy potentially leading to international scandal emerged ignited by a punitive detention of a British national who allegedly violated the pornography laws of the country. Nick Green of West London, a biology student (name and address are changed for privacy reasons) who is visiting the country as a tourist this morning downloaded and watched a video clip from YouTube that graphically depicts the process of plant pollination while using the EcoTech Loo facility. As a result he was automatically sentenced to five plus two days of corrective detention starting this morning. Immediately after the emergency auto locking feature activated Nick Green started an active internet-based campaign in his defence. He contacted his lawyers in Britain and a number of non-governmental organisations defending the cause of Internet privacy including the well-known Privacy International. In his statement he insisted that he was unaware of the fact that watching graphical depiction of plant pollination that is classed under category of animal sex especially when insects are involved into the process, constitutes a criminal offence he also called the current pornography laws of the country " ridiculous and stupid " and called for international pressure to change the definition of pornography and even proposed a convention to define what constitutes a criminal offence in relation to pornographic images. Understandably, he suffered a great deal of shock as a result of his unexpected imprisonment so he could not control his initial reactions. He also protested against the additional two days sentence for the involvement of insects arguing that plants and animals belong to different species and hence it does not constitute a natural sexual act. I’m afraid this argument may only make the matters worse.

His lawyers in their statement took a different approach arguing that based on US v. Zeigler case Nick must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the Internet from the EcoTech Loo facility also arguing that satisfying this type of natural needs is by definition a very private act and hence all actions associated with it are to be considered as private hence the evidence can not be admitted. The problem however is that the decision was made automatically according to legal algorithms programmed into the EcoTech Loo facility and there is no appeal procedure provided by law. This creates an interesting legal precedent as under international pressure the government of the country is already willing to release Nick Green from his detention, but the only way of doing it is through the procedure of pardoning but Nick Green is refusing to plead guilty at the stage which creates a kind of legal standstill which is only possible to overcome by changing the draconian laws of the country and that is a mammoth tack that can only be achieved by mounting constant international pressure on the government of the country.

I fully support Nick’s efforts in this direction and as a sign of protest I decided to place the video that caused his imprisonment here in my blog. Ironically, the video is narrated by David Atenborough who was once described within the country as "a known English pervert" and whose entry to the country is prohibited on the grounds that he allegedly sponsored "the largest series of animal pornography in history". On the same grounds BBC reporters are also banned from entering the country and reporting from there.

WARNING! Watching these videos may constitute a criminal offence in some parts of the world! Watch them at your own risk.

I also decided to supplement this video with more instances of the so-called plant pornography just to keep you entertained.

P.S. it might seem ridiculous when you first look at it but we all should perhaps use it as a lesson before introducing such dramatic technological changes into our society. The rapid penetration of new technology into our dense and fragile social fabric might sometimes lead to consequences completely unforeseen at the beginning. Let the tragic fate of Nick Green serve as a warning to our government too

Bookmark to:

So picking up from where we left off in the post on the Internet History let us summarise in condensed form what we may take from there and use in our further reasoning.

The transformations described in that posting eventually lead to the explosion of Web 2.0 were secured through gradual introduction of three distinct states of Internet presence. Whilst online, an individual may act in one of the following three capacities:

• Visitor – freely surfing the net: anonymous, invisible and passive, can only read and download
• Legal Self – predominantly when engaged in some sort of monetary transaction, government or job-related activities: tied up to various offline ID tokens (SSN, Credit Card Number, Legal Address etc.) mostly sporadic, purpose-driven and compulsory, creates two-way tunnels between "real" and "virtual" worlds transferring tangible goods or services
• Internet Service User – authorised with login/password combination, recognisable by nickname and/or avatar active contributor to user generated content and participant in online communication (at the moment fragmented and scattered all over a large number of isolated services)

In purely technical terms of course Legal Self is just a subset of the User state as to be identifiable one has to be logged into a certain service. What makes these two states taxonomically equal is not heir relation to an internet service but their relationship to the outside world. In other words, looking from within a server the former is just a type of the latter but looking from the offline point of view these two are different in kind.

For the part that is to follow it is crucially important to establish that there are only three possible states of presence and no other states exist.

Bookmark to:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
from "Reason in Common Sense", the first volume by George Santayana
not my favourite philosopher, I admit, but the quote is too good not to use it

Well, of course there is no new thing under the sun but problems we are facing with the rapid introduction of Web 2.0 are even more severe than those arising at the time its predecessor Web 1.0 took over the world. In its early days Web 1.0 looked like a mysterious cyberspace inhabited by semi-robotic creatures travelling over the paths of hyperlinks. Overexcited zealots preached nothing short of digital revolution and it might have been looking very much reasonable at the time. All that existed in real world seemed to be easy to digitise and place on the InterWeb (where else?). This was imagined as nothing short of a parallel reality both mimicking the real world and obscuring it. It looked as if some sort of parallel reality is about to be born. Matrix (the movie) comes as perhaps the best illustration of the spirit of the time. At the time it looked indeed like a second virtual reality structurally opposed to the real world coming into being. Now we may look back and see how exaggerated this whole thing was, how much fantasy was projected into something that was not even nearing this image.

So, what was in fact this Web 1.0? We need to look at it now with the benefit of hindsight as without the clear understanding of Web 1.0 all talks about subsequent versions of the InterWeb will inevitably just produce an equivalent amount of hype that can only obscure the reality. At the foundation of Web 1.0 lied HTML. And it was just this – a HyperText Markup Language – perhaps the most crippled computer language ever devised it could only do what it says on the tin. Tied up with HTTP protocol in an inseparable mass this HTTP/HTML alloy was placed right in the foundation of the WWW and that’s exactly the kind of burden we have to carry into the future. In those early days the vision of the Internet was no more than just a collection of texts enhanced, in comparison to paper texts, with the ability to link otherwise separate documents with hyperlinks. No more nor less. Behind it was still the idea of printed books. The whole Internet looked as a huge library with universal 24/7 access. More importantly all content structure of the Internet itself was also modelled from printed books, with web sites being in a way similar to specialised libraries and their directories being books with web pagers clearly standing as separate documents with separate single titles and the continent was assumed to be linear and one-dimensional.

The same concept of linearity applies to larger Internet structures. The general assumption was that the content is guided by principles of linear narrative, or in other words that it should be read from the beginning to the end and from top to bottom. Actually it was assumed that any given piece of content must have its beginning its body and its end. Once again we are dealing with an idea of a written text that originated in classic literature of 19^th century. So at this stage, search engines appear as a form of a catalogue allowing quick keyword search through those structured and subject oriented texts.

Now we have a library, a catalogue, and we have users, who are not even users just yet, they are only readers. And what those readers could do in that global library? Well, only what they were supposed to do, and they were supposed to read. HTTP protocol allows read-only access. HTML language was not designed for constant editing of documents. What advertised itself as second reality turned out to be just an enormous collection of texts.

This created a certain type of user self identity that would have been better characterised by the word of the time: a visitor. The state of an Internet user formed at this stage could be seen as completely anonymous passive recipient, an invisible traveller, a museum visitor who is only allowed to see objects, but never allowed even to touch, not to say to modify them. Production of Web content was primarily limited to a very tiny circle of Internet professionals and was out of reach for those who viewed their computer as just a sophisticated typewriter. Static pages, passive visitors, huge catalogues, plus constant buzz about virtual reality - that’s how our beginnings look like.

It’s not that Web 2.0 came out of nowhere. Changes amassed gradually within a period that might be called Web 1.5. First your typewriter with a screen turned into a multimedia PC - remember how a simple addition of a soundcard and CD-ROM overturned the whole concept of this device? Now text stopped being the only possible continent on the Net. With it came filesharing for which neither HTTP, nor HTML were designed and which required user authentication. Two other things, contributing to these changes were e-commerce and interactivity.

E-commerce was perhaps the most significant in breaking through the virtual barrier as it provided a bridge between the real world and that virtual reality, previously separate from it. Now you could find a virtual object in this virtual world, provide your real details, pay with your real credit card and a week later a postman would bring it to your doorstep in a form of a very tangible real object - the first and perhaps the most important breakthrough in this real vs. virtual dichotomy. Real credentials placed in a virtual world and a virtual world producing a real object in return, that’s a very demystificating experience. In addition, our visitor for the first time became active, online shopping required definite actions and produced tangible real-world results of those actions.

But what finally turned our visitor into a proper user was interactivity, where bulletin boards and forums are perhaps paramount examples of the genre. It’s there the final transformation took place – now our visitor could quickly switch from an invisible observer to active and personified participant. Nicknames, usernames, passwords and avatars all suddenly became attributes of nearly everyone who ever spent some time on the net. Now another state of internet presence emerged – instead of having a homepage user became accustomed to having profiles. Notably, those two are differently related to the concept of online self: if the former was about that very self and presented some text or images produced by that self, the latter is actually a facet of online self or at least being perceived as such. For the first time profiles established not "is authored by me" but "is me" relation between online self and a URL. In other words, "this URL is me in syberspace".

Although being scattered all over different services these profile pages became constituent parts of a new type of online personality representation which is different in kind to the one provided by homepages only. Bulletin boards and forums or, broadly speaking all that comes under the term interactivity, also changed the type of content, adding to the previously prevalent linear narrative a different tree-like conversational structure that came not out of planned writing of a single individual (author) but as a result of a conversation between an indefinite number of participants.

This collectively produced content had no single author, no linear structure and perhaps no pre-defined narrative structure at all, as even if a particular subject in forum discussion might have a beginning, it surely has no end and at any time can stroll away from the initial subject to some off-topic deviations that may sometimes never to come back to the initial point. This type of content better known as "user generated content" is fluid, dynamic, progressive and growing and only this variety content can be seen as truly and genuinely specific to the Internet.

In the same way as printing revolution produced after some time a bunch of literary forms from pamphlet to a novel, the Internet, or better computer revolution, begins to produce its own specific modes of existence for written word, changing on the way the meaning and the perception of the written word as such. In many respects it is the most significant cultural consequence of this revolution and I promise to discuss it in more detail in a piece on Search Engines I am planning to write next.

Suffice to mention for now that as a result of this our visitors or guests became gradually trained to act as users, they now expect to be identified and recognised, expect to be able to contribute to almost anything, expect to be able to leave a trace either in a form of a comment or in "last visited" logs, expect to be seen when online and addressed by their fellows. This gradually turned the perception of the net from being a tool of information dissemination to the one of active real-time communication. Instant Messaging too contributed to this training albeit in an indirect form. Remarkably, it’s been brilliantly reflected in traditional paper literature already in the book Loneliness on the Net by Janusz Wiśniewski.

Needless to remind here that for all these activities neither HTTP nor HTML were designed, but in the absence of native solutions twisted and crooked implementations of HTML and HTTP became common practice to such a degree that to this day we all prefer to turn a blind eye on the perverse nature of these solutions.
Please, consider this being a first part of a larger article that I just had to split as otherwise it would be over 7000 words To be continued…

Bookmark to:

My dearest SEXiest SEO – I’m infinitely sorry. How could I be so stupid not to post my virtual greetings in time? How could I think that it’s enough to make a non-virtual presentation? Forgive me SexySEO.
Well, not SexySEO actually. It’s Lora’s birthday, not hers. But she’s angry with me. Who? Lora or SexySEO? I’m totally confused and the more I think about, the more confusing it seems. Lora wasn’t angry with me when I met her at the party. SexySEO is angry that I forgot to post my greetings in her blog. But they are the same person, aren’t they? I know they are! I’ve seen them both! Both in real life and online. Admittedly not at the same time and moreover SexySEO can only be met online while Lora predominantly circulates in real world.
Surely they are the same, as it clearly isn’t the case of split personality. Perhaps it’s very much like when writing a novel author feels that when characters become more and more developed they become more and more independent and even the one that was supposed to be the alter ego becomes detached and starts demanding the right for independence. Banal comparison it is, but still worthy of taking it a bit further. Online interaction is different indeed, as you can not detach yourself from your online personality to the same degree, and the narrative of online interaction is forged daily and is never completed. It demands consistency. You can’t get too distant from your online image but you gradually realise how it attaches itself to your offline you and now we can’t make any distinction between Lora and SexySEO. But were they ever separate?
SexySEO is neither a fiction not a function and neither is Lora. It once started as an experiment. Once I suggested that Web 2.0 SEO isn’t about unique content at all. It’s about social interaction in online communities. This became known as zero content SEO in our circle but remained just an untested idea until Lora decided to put it in practice. And the course of events took SexySEO from being just a nickname to becoming a separate phenomenon, almost a brand name if you allow. Something that was started by Lora as just a proof of concept suddenly became an integral part of our online environment. Honestly. I have no clue how she did it. Perhaps the key to her social media success, along with unquestionable expertise in conventional SEO, is her remarkable and friendly personality. Not only she managed to make otherwise dull and booring business of SEO to look sexy but somehow she is able to see the best sides of all people she communicates with and find nice and comforting words exactly when one needs it (the skill I am admittedly short of). And now again I don’t know if I am talking about Lora or SexySEO, but who cares since they are the same.

So, happy birthday to you, Lora and my sincere apologies to SexySEO!
Better late than never
PS: for those who never met SexySEO here is her blogspot: SexySEO

Bookmark to:

Now, how do I start this story? Once upon a time, sometime in mid July to be more precise, I was approached by a group of guys from a young start-up company who wanted me to assess their in-work project both in terms of conventional SEO as well as from a more generic angle and all because I once wrote an article on Pownce. My first reaction was to avoid this since I didn’t at the time consider myself to be an expert in Social Networks and Online Communities at all. Before continuing with the story perhaps I should give you some more details about the project itself. Initially the project was conceived as Yet Another Social Network Profile URL Aggregator capable only of storing URLs of user profiles on various Social Networks. Somehow logically it progressed to the idea of gathering friends from those social networks thus creating a sort of representation of a Social Graph or better User Circle that can be viewed, accessed, managed and controlled by user from one centralised location. The system is supposed to issue alerts and inform the user of new or orphaned friends and other discrepancies in the user circle. At first I took these guys for a bunch of deluded and overexcited armatures, arguing that to amass and manage this kind of data would require computing resources available only to the likes of Google itself. However, I had to radically change my opinion after a rather impressive demonstration of their working prototype. The guys had already a spider capable of reading friends circle with minimal delay simply by parsing XHTML code and a database server running already several hundreds thousand user circles gathered from several major social networks. Most importantly they had a clear idea about scaling this prototype and some sketches of user interface allowing a very detailed management of this user circle. They also produced a draft version of API and data exchange protocol. Suddenly it all had begun looking doable, realistic and interesting. So I decided to accept the challenge and started working with them. Needless to say that I am continuing working on the subject to this day providing some sort of theoretical and even ideological background for those managing the project and with their kind permission I am going to publish some of my conclusions in a series of articles in my personal blog here.

Now, let us continue with the story. Eventually we’d set up a timeline and all went working on our respective tasks, me doing research and thinking, them doing their stuff which I suppose mainly consisted of some kind of hardcore programming of which I honestly know nothing. Back then, nothing spelled a disaster that was about to happen when all over sudden there comes Brad Fitzpatrick with his now infamous Thoughts on the Social Graph article. Although with the benefit of the hindsight being quite predictable at the time it came as a bolt from the blue and looked like a terminal deathblow for the whole project. The team spirit went so low that I nearly thought it will never recover. Pity, you couldn’t see the expression on their faces after they’d heard the news. The closest analogy that comes to my mind is what perhaps every one of us had experienced or at least observed while still at school. You are about to sit down on your chair and just at the very moment you cunning classmate quietly pulls the chair from under your bum. It’s that split second when you realise that the seat is not where it is supposed to be and now there is nothing that can stop you from falling and hitting the floor in front of the whole class as well as your much hated teacher and neither yourself is now able to stop the force of gravity, that can produce this truly unique and inimitable facial expression. In our circumstances I’ve been given a pleasure to observe this very expression on their faces for several days in a row and this is something that happens not very often in your life. Their reasons for panicking are not so difficult to understand as when the almighty Google decides to move into the domain you rather foolishly considered to be your own, you really need the nerves of steel not to run away and duck and cover. Should I mention that the fact that Brad now works for Google was even back then just two clicks away from the article itself?

It took me some days to convince the shell-shocked guys that not everything is lost and in fact this sudden intervention may even work to their advantage. First of all I had to unveil my treasured theory of second-mover advantage trying to convince them that time trial isn’t at all the worst kind of racing game. Moving in after the leader had already ploughed the virgin land makes following the furrow a much easier task. Besides Brad’s article itself didn’t look very convincing. Not only had he managed to spoil the whole impression by inelegantly trying to promote the Dopplr project to which he personally is seemingly related, but also it had a number of weak points we are about to discuss here. But before we begin with the critique it is customary to acknowledge all the positive sides and achievements of the article in question. The strongest point of the article is obviously the magnitude and the power of the vision: the vision of the project, the vision of the future of the internet and most impressively the vision detailed enough to include such practical things like API, servers, databases, browser apps and so on. The vision that is so close to my own that I must admit I nearly went frustrated seeing it written by somebody else.

Undoubtedly, the most attractive part of the picture drawn by Brad is the openness of user data, but being at the core of the idea this is at the same time is the weakest point in this whole construction and precisely at this point of course our visions differ. However wonderful the idea of a non-profit body taking care of the promotion, maintenance and proliferation of user data might look, this part is the most questionable in the whole article and no wonder it remains the least elaborated. Please, understand me correctly, I am not defending the greedy corporates trying to get hold of everything that’s alive, neither I am an advocate of paid services, and quite to the contrary, I would love to see such a project as being completely free and open for all, but at this stage it looks merely utopian, especially considering the amount of work to be done and the size of obstacles ahead. The starting point for the project, to which I am now related, was certainly different. From the very beginning it was thought to become an independent business venture with a rather banal but clear business model based on selling ad space. And by all means the project is intended to be self-supporting starting from phase two. After digesting the open data idea, obviously there was an attempt to adjust the current business model to the one offered by Brad. To my infinite disappointment it turned out that there is none. The problematic issue here is sustainability of the whole project. To achieve the desired sustainability and growth one simply must have a clear business model; even non-profits do have one. Keeping the project data free at the user level one must have at least an idea where those money needed to set up and maintain servers, to program APIs and browser add-ons etc, etc will come from. Avoiding even remotely any possible outline for this side of the project is either an evidence of a complete carelessness concerning the business side of the idea (something I find myself hard to believe into) or, more likely that the funding had been already promised at least for the initial stage of the project. All subsequent events only confirmed my suspicion. It is not incidental that soon after the article Google itself comes with their Open Social initiative. By all means Google is probably the worst possible starting point for a project of this kind. Let me explain why. Structurally as well as commercially Online Communities, no matter who owns or operates them, in their very nature are antithetic to the concept of Search Engine (more about it in my next posting). Google being a Search Engine is eager to gain a foothold in the competing business area and get at least a partial access to Online Communities data. Hence, an attempt to gather free community effort only to provide Google with free qualified labour and ideas is certainly bound to fail. We’ve been there, we’ve done that. In addition, one needs to ensure a rapid uptake of the service in circumstances where the initial data collection depends largely on a good will of big players in the Online Communities field, and those players are not likely to display any good will at all, clearly seeing this as an attempt to lessen their competitive advantage. Merely, there is no pretext which would convince large Online Communities hosts to share their data with anyone, but to share those data with Google would be plain stupid if not suicidal on their side. To sum up - I can see three highly questionable points in what can be seen as a practical side of Brad’s plan:

1. absence of a clear business model independent from Google funding and support
2. consequently his call for community effort in a project that would ultimately benefit Google looks to me a bit hypocritical, to say the least, and by all means not convincing enough to gather independent volunteer developers under those banners
3. over reliance on willingness of big Online Communities hosts to share their data – just get real, it simply ain’t going to happen, and the only way out is to focus instead on building a robust spider engine capable of gathering public domain User Circle data from those hosts regardless of their willingness to cooperate

However, much more fundamental follies of Brad’s article are not in the field of practical implementation but rather in the field of theory and general methodology. Like many others before him Brad falls under the magic spell of the word social that is ever present in thinking about online communities. Trying to narrow the problem to a mere representing of pre-existing social relationships in digital form we are running a risk of missing entirely the meaning of the ongoing online interaction. A somewhat lon