Lifestreams: David Armano On The Need To Simplify and Find Meaning
Published August 27th, 2007 in Social Media
From David’s post, Lifestreams:
But here’s what I find really interesting about Lifestreams. What the visual here shows is that our streams do have a source. Us. Network aside—it’s the individual that produces a stream of data whether it be media, text or other. And what’s becoming increasingly important is they array of multiple digital platforms that we use to create the streams. Most of the aforementioned platforms have some type of mobile support. Add advances in technology like the iPhone and the increasing pervasiveness of wireless digital networks and you’ve got the perfect storm. Soon, most participants will be looking for ways to make sense out of there multiple streams—not just the early adopters like Rubel.
My take - I hadn’t consciously thought about what the aggregation of all my personal data feeds (e.g., Facebook, Experience Planner, Flickr, Last.fm, etc.) might be called or look like but I could envision a “Lifestreams Aggregator” that lets me control my feeds and how I share them with others. Steve Rubel thinks Tumblr is an answer. After looking at his Tumbelog, I’m not so sure.
I actually thing that Facebook is the closest thing out there, but it’s a closed-system - which is good and bad (good - certainly because it lets them do all the things that they’re doing right now with their Facebook application platform, dubbed F8). Though David seems to think that Facebook is nothing more than a “community cluster” (he promises to go deeper on what he means by that later).
Question: What are you using to aggregate your lifestreams right now?
Search
Subscribe to Experience Planner's RSS Feed
Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
Hi Scott.
I don’t want to build a reputation as a curmudgeonly contrarian, but is there any external value to building a “lifestream”? I can see value if you’re concerned about tracking your personal exposure/identity online - but what is the value for the average online user in making a public “me” aggregator?
Sure, a power user or prominent consultant or evangelist or academic might profit from having all their thoughts centralized. But that sort of person is probably more cautious about the range of emotion and depth of information they actually reveal online.
In my view, there are some real dangers to aggregating all those disparate thoughts in one place. I commented about it last week: http://canuckflack.com/2007/08/24/your-digital-loaf-can-lead-to-identity-theft/
Colin - do you think it’s more about context than centralization then? We don’t have to go my “lifestream” portal but rather I’ll consume what I need to consume via the blog, or the Facebook profile, or the Flickr stream if that’s what I’m most interested in consuming?
I think this sort of idea is complicated by one of three “lenses”: is the information presented in its original informational context (meaning, was it part of a larger discussion or debate); is the information presented in its original temporal context (meaning, a fart in the wind twitter comment may seem different juxtaposed with other more considered information on a similar topic); and are the links to external influences on the content evident?
David’s graph makes perfect sense if your aggregator displays the streams as they cross a “junction point” - but what if that “slice of life” hits a point where your streams are wildly divergent? For a lot of people on the web, they’re trying to build an identity as a focused professional. An aggregator may not benefit that effort.
On another track, I recently moved into a job where I think about online identity and privacy a whole lot more. An aggregator is basically like a family bulletin board - that you put up in the hallway of the community centre. Some of your extended family, high school buddies, neighbours or complete strangers might find that information profitable - in a literal sense.
Colin - I’m with you. People need to figure out how to manage an online identity before exploring an aggregation of one’s lifestreams.
On that note, I came across profil.es yesterday. Looks like they’re trying to help out in this space. I need to dig a little deeper though.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
Scott,
Thanks for the great post. I discovered the topic when reading Steve Rubel yesterday and thought it was an interesting idea. So yes, I currently use Tumblr to do this since it was so easy to set up.
I think Colin brings up a good point. Since I *want* to be found online, and I don’t mind being “public”, the lifestream idea works well for me. However, I do believe that there is a growing frustration by many new users who are “exploring” some of these social tools that their content is by default “public” (i.e. Twitter).
It’s a question that needs some thought and to be addressed by many social networks. Sites like profil.es may hold the answer as you point out.
I think it’s funny that our generation (I’ll throw you into my generation Scott as you look over 24 like me
does seem to want, even crave a ‘portalized’ version of ourselves. We are centralists as a generation. Even those of us connected to the network most of the time haven’t really been brought up inside the borg and therefore tend to actually “see” lifestreams and want to organize and track them.
I am not so sure that the generation coming behind (i’ll go with Mark Federman’s definition of the first generation brought up not knowing childhood without the net being 24 and under) will experience or desire this type centralization in the same way. Multiple identities, multiple places, unaggregated, ebb and flowing …..maybe a tag or two to shape and form a query if it’s required but in the moment and within a particular context….
hum…definitely food for thought