Well I'm not allowed + to invoke the editor and I'm not sure how to escape it.
There I was minding my own business when all of a sudden I'm offered google+.
I expect this is because I have been messing around trying to see what the rel="me" link means and how it plays out. I was just about to add to a conventional html page on an otherwise unassociated site of mine to see how the Demo Social Graph API - Site Connectivity at http://socialgraph-resources.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/samples/findyours.html?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbradfitz.com plays out. (This link is back to bradfritz.com which is the way to get to understand the damn thing.)
I am unclear how it does play in Nanoki - hence trying the other site. But experiment interruptus.
Really what I would like to achieve is to be able to 'stream' selectively from Nanoki to wherever, or at least to, say, SemanticC. Why not. I like the control, simplicity and, in a way, the lack of control, that is the lack of too many options in Nanoki and that it is on my server. It's unreliability reminds me of something. Like having my feet on the ground, not relying on the whole palaver of other people's ideas on 'how to do it'.
As I have been looking at my profiles (google) over the last day and, especially when looking at the Ad Sense site, it is very clear that google encourages people to create content with the express purpose of attracting traffic to read advertisements. I note Eli Pariser's observations. (1) The Filter Bubble And I wonder how that can really work in a serious medium. But then, as he observes, one does not have to be 'serious' i.e. challenging, within the bubble. How, then, might this play out in google+?
It is interesting to speculate about the threshold to be invited in. Of course I feel flattered. I expect this is on the basis of how much time you spend messing around trying to link your sites and with your profiles. This is, of course, a time consuming process. And in this google have definitely hit on something that is valuable, that is valuable to me. Valuable to them?
That is another, separate, issue that can only be understood by taking into account some of Eli Pariser's observations. One only has to dwell on the new interface for a moment to see the uncanny power that highly targeted advertising would have in this environment - though whether it would really work on me I'm unsure. By now every one must know I'm a contrarian. And not, it seems, sufficiently motivated by money as against my own criteria for understanding the 'world'.
An example of my contrarian nature, which seems perfectly normal to me and only to be encouraged, is in my return to Psychoanalytic practice. To do that I have to have supervision. For the moment I have chosen to work with my original supervisor, Tom Ryan, from all those years ago.
I intend to work with the Jewish Orthodox community.
Tom said that they remind him of the Amish. I know nothing about the Amish and I feel quite angry at the suggestion, because it seems to try to have me distance myself from them.
I see it quite differently:There is something sacred in the way of life of the Orthodox, that link with a tradition that is, what, over three thousand years old? Anyway from before 516 BCE, the time of the building of the Second Temple.
So not only do I beg to differ from my supervisor, I also contrast it to the hubristic claims of modern technology about which subject this article is centred.
Since I have a job interview Monday I will not have much time to get back to this. It is an interview that I actually feel enthusiastic about - this comment being relevant to my following thoughts. It is a semantic web type job. I don't feel too positive I will get it, I am sorely aware of my limitations compared to others now. And my rather different (I hope individual) interests.
As to streaming some of this content. Up until now, like any good writer, not that I think I am, I haven't cared a rat's p if any one else reads this. But if I know they might that is interesting.
I should mention the screen I saw when I completed the first setup. It was full of posts from Robert Scoble. And he was, as I suspected he might be, full of commercial stuff about Rackspace and the cloud.
This is OK, mildly interesting, perhaps he should go in a business circle? I don't know. We create our own filters here. Then after looking for the lost setup page, I guess I did something, no Henry and a couple of others did something (linked back to me - added me in), there was then more interesting content from Henry. Em, but that means I have to work at this too.
There is another point. Where is the time for this?
This is about 50% of the point. The more google, or facebook, take up my time, the more they like it, I suppose.
Here are my impressions and reactions to google+.
First, what I have been doing over the last day is to try to figure out if I can follow my own blog/wiki "my lua love" from SemanticC and buzz, which has now become a google+ unified profile. Confused, you will be.
See also My Google Profile which is clearly all about me.
See my comments below about the way google+ suggested links on first use. Interesting point, I'm not sure where that page (one page - json - two screens in a frame - has gone. What if I want more celeb hints?)
I promised to come back to this and then post on bitly. I must admit I wonder why I am?
Add people you know to your circles When you add someone to your circles, you can start sharing with each other.
Suggestions - screen one
Henry Story bblfish
I have met Henry after following his posts and projects for some years on line. I went out of my way to hear him when he was in Oxford a year and a bit ago. I think we go on. I'm interested in his references to philosophy and Lacan, although I haven't followed these up yet.
I'm not sure that I will have time to write so much about others below, even if I have as much to say.
Danny Ayers Independent
I know Danny on line only originally from his work at Tallis and his advocacy of the semantic web. I have also had a couple of more personal exchanges with him. The last was where I asked if he is a sculpter (I meant in his spare time, I think he is) but he didn't respond. Ah yes, the first exchange was also when I asked if he had any relation to A J Ayers, no, but he does to Ayers Rock!
Thurston Davis
*I have worked with Thurston in two separate places. We obviously know each other 'in the flesh'.
Jeremy Hadfield
*I have worked with Jeremy, Thurston and Roland in one place of work.
Paola Di Maio Networked Research lab
I have exchanged emails on the SemWeb mailing list with Paola recently on a couple of occasions. Some of the exchanges have been humorous and mainly about the impossibility of exposing data reliable in the large context of the web, that is without people surreptitiously distorting that to their own ends.
Kingsley Idehen OpenLink Software
I don't think I have ever had an exchange with Kingsley although I have read his comments from time to time in technical lists. I have also used software written by Kingsley and used Virtuoso.
Roland Major *
glenn mcdonald Google
I don't recognise this name
Leo Sauermann Refinder
I am familiar with Leo through Nepomuk semantic desktop which I have tried to use (have used, the vagaries of KDE allowing) on various occasions. I have exchanged emails with him about metadata creation in Sesame.
Juan Sequeda University of Texas at Austin
I posted on a recent thread started by Juan, but otherwise don't recognise the name.
Melvin Carvalho
I know the name, but cannot place, Melvin.
Yves Raimond
I do not know this name.
Nathan Rixham
I do not know this name.
Lin Clark DERI Galway
I do not know this name.
Dan Brickley Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
I do know this name as the progenitor of foaf. I had to look this up to be sure.
Dave Beckett Digg
I do know this name as the progenitor of the Redland RDF libraries. I had to look this up to be sure.
Christopher Gutteridge
I do not know this name.
Jeni Tennison The Stationery Office
Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research
All those marked ** are names I vaguely recognise and may associate with their employer or institution. I may have recently added them to buzz in a couple of cases, but have not had direct contact apart from in the case of names at DERI where I may have asked for help with SMOB at some point.
Giovanni Tummarello Galway, Ireland
**
Michael Hausenblas DERI
**
Gunnar Aastrand Grimnes
I know of Gunnar from work around semantic technologies.
Sampo Syreeni Nokia
**
Stéphane Corlosquet
**
Alan Ruttenberg State University of New York
**
Anja Jentzsch
**
Richard Cyganiak
Have I read Richards blog or posts he has made to other blogs?
Chris Messina Google
**
Ed Summers Library of Congress
**
Keith Alexander
**
Lee Feigenbaum
**
Manu Sporny Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Manu's name comes up a lot. Possibly also in XML mailing lists?
Stefano Bertolo European Commission
I do not know this name.
Robert Scoble Rackspace
Recently from buzz.
Ivan Herman Amsterdam, The Netherland
XML mailing lists?
Larry Page Google
Of course I do know this name. But I missed Sergey Brin below.Why is Sergey thought of as a celeb? Anyway I have never had contact with either person.
Sandro Hawke
_XML mailing lists?
John Breslin NUI Galway
**
François Dongier Liège, Belgium
I know, but cannot place this name.
Thomas Roessler World Wide Web Consortium
I do not know this name.
Ian Hickson Google
I do not know this name.
Ben Adida Mozilla Corporation
I do know this name, but have not had any contact. Ben Adida is much quoted in a way that e.g. Larry Page is not. Interesting...
Raphaël Troncy EURECOM
**
Tantek Çelik http://mozilla.com
**
Daniel Schwabe Dept. of Informatics, PUC-Ri
**
Leigh Dodds Talis Group
I have come across the name.
Phil Archer i-sieve technologies & freela
I do not know this name.
Jie Bao RPI
I do not know this name.
Eric Prud'hommeaux W3C/MIT
I do not know this name.
Matthew Rowe Knowledge Media Institute
I do not know this name.
What do I know about this list of celebs?
Screen Two
Guy Kawasaki
An avid blogger. But saw no reason to follow at this stage of overload.
Muhammad Yunus
I do not know this name.
Sergey Brin
See comments about Larry Page above.
Tom Anderson
I do not know this name.
Snoop Dogg
I do know this name. But don't care to know anything about him.
Steven Levy
I do not know this name. Or do I?
Mark Cuban
I do not know this name. Or do I?
Jessi June
I do not know this name.
Dolly Parton
Not my thing.
Ashton Kutcher
I do not know this name.
Paris Hilton
Not my thing.
Richard Branson
Hear enough of his family through real life very slight peripheral contact. Don't need his thoughts.
Taylor Swift
I do not know this name.
Jillian Michaels
I do not know this name.
Erin Andrews
I do not know this name.
Vic Gundotra
I do not know this name.
Matthew Inman
I do not know this name.
Alton Brown
I do not know this name.
Trey Ratcliff
I do not know this name.
Dane Cook
I do not know this name.
Thomas Hawk
I do not know this name.
Britney Spears
Not my thing.
So, it is difficult to discern a pattern but it seems very likely that my emails are inspected for suggestions on the basis of a few recent, but not too many, and around a theme - in my case the semweb.
When it comes to celeb suggestions it is pretty much a wash out. I suppose I find that gratifying. plus cannot know that much about me on this basis. And truth is, I don't want it to. I don't want it to know my taste as my taste is always changing and it is something I discover for myself. It is something that unfolds.
There are other issues. Trey Ratcliff is a photographer I think. Plus can do photos, but how would it do music? Or some other media such as radio, where comedy stands up well. Would I want comedy on plus? So this leaves it as a written medium.
There are some other points. The notion that I have within my circle Larry Page (or do I, doesn't he have to add me in, that is reciprocate?)
The US centric nature of it, which I find very strange. Is that me, or would this be universally so?
Finally what type of medium is it? Pleasure or work? So far it really seems like work and everyone I am associated with is really work, even professional social media advocates, of whom there are many, this is work.
But work that doesn't somehow enhance or extend my work. I also find this very strange. In the end it is more a type of conditioning than anything else.
When you are out of it you are out of it.
Then it becomes difficult to see what takes people in.