Our online identity

Our online identity The social web, cloud computing, and its discontents Chris Messina March 6, 2009 DrupalCon Washington, DC i was given the title of my talk today, and as a last minute add, well, i guess grammar went out the window. ;)

Our online identities The social web, cloud computing, and its discontents Chris Messina March 6, 2009 DrupalCon Washington, DC so i thought i’d ﬁx it... identiTIES... but that doesn’t quite sound right.

? hmm

My online identity ___ The social web, cloud computing, and its discontents Chris Messina March 6, 2009 DrupalCon Washington, DC how about MY online identity? grammatically correct... but...

?? not that interesting.

then i was like, well, i’m a big pearl jam fan...

I am mine. how about “I am mine”

I am you. If we’re changing things, why not “I am you”. that’s just weird. So I was like: what I am really talking about? Then I just gave up. Besides...

Today, I am sick. Snifle. I’m actually kinda sick today. Yes, I have a cold. So that’s kind of part of my identity today. Which sucks. (click)

:’( Anyway. Moving right along (we’ll ﬁgure out a title later)

walkah -› Oh, BTW! Did anyone see Walkah’s presentation? coz if you did...

...you can skip my keynote. He basically covered all my interesting stu and you can just skip to drinking. ;) j/k

but i also have to admit that it was a little weird that he had this big picture of my face in his presentation, so i thought i’d return the favor.

striving towards mediocrity ...since he is a drupal lullabot rockstar

Web 2.0 so let’s get started. ironically, where walkah started by asking why we’re using this “godforsaken web 2.0 thing”, I’m going to plow back in time and answer that challenge.

“Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I’ve elsewhere called ‘harnessing collective intelligence.’)” — Tim O’Reilly, Grand Poobah 2.0 Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network eects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I’ve elsewhere called “harnessing collective intelligence.”) Emphasis mine.

“Data is the new Intel Inside.” Photo credit: Adam Tinworth He’s also more succinctly pointed out, as we move to the internet-as-platform, data becomes the new “Intel Inside”. That is, it’s not about the chips or the harddrives. We’ve moved up an abstraction layer. Having the data is where the power is.

“Don't ﬁght the internet.” Photo credit: Charles Haynes Eric Schmidt also said “Don’t ﬁght the internet”. Wise advice.

Five rules • The perpetual beta becomes a process for engaging customers. • Share and share-alike data, reusing others’ and providing APIs to your own. • Ignore the distinction between client and server. • On the net, open APIs and standard protocols win. • Lock-in comes from data accrual, owning a namespace or non-standard formats. But Tim also had ﬁve other rules that accompanied his deﬁnition from back in Dec 2006. (review rules) it’s as though he really saw the future here. Hindsight tells us that he certainly called cloud computing before it happened. But it’s equally important to learn the history of your industry and understand how we got to where we are now.

But why am I bringing up Web 2.0? Aren’t we over this? Where’s this Web three-oh thing that I keep hearing RDF nerds go on about? Wrong questions.

Does open source matter? I think the question the Drupal community should be asking itself is: Does open source matter?

Not like it used to. the answer, simply, is: not like it used to. things have changed. as Tim said, it’s data that’s interesting now. All sorts and kinds of data. But for the purposes of this talk today, I’m most interested in the data created by and gathered about people.

Technology is becoming humanized. and this represents and important shift historically. the machines are ﬁnally starting to serve us — and by “us”, I mean people who don’t live and breathe TechMeme or spend all of their time in code. That is, I mean mere mortals.

Humans are becoming technologized. ...and at the same time, the technology that we are creating is changing us. Short BarCamp anecdote (“back in the day before Flickr was owned by Yahoo...”). At one time people’d think you were weird if you had your nose in your Blackberry all day. And now that’s the norm with iPods and iPhones. You’re weird if you DON’T have one!

We are becoming cyborganic. We are becoming cyborganic. And this will have massive ramiﬁcations, even if the change is more or less gradual for those of us in the center of these shifts. But it also means that people’s previous expectations will need to be upgraded. And that will be painful for some.

Summary • Identity • Friends • Social Web • The Open, Social Stack • Privacy & Property • Cloud Computing • etc. unorthodox, but i’m going to tell you what i’m going to talk about.

Identity So let’s start by considering identity.

Who are you? Identity is really about answering one simple question: who are you? Of course, the answers aren’t so simple, but that’s essentially what this is about.

Now, services need to assign you a public key (your username or email address) coupled with a private key that only you know so that when you leave and come back, you can pick up where you left o. It doesn’t really have anything to do with your identity or who you really are... but people tend to be able to remember who they are and at least one or two passwords that they don’t share so this trend of course has taken o across the web.

Of course, a site has no idea who you are when you visit, so they have to greet everyone the same way every time. Regardless of whether you own the site or not.

of course, some sites won’t let you do anything until you’ve signed up. which still has nothing to do with who you are or your identity per se everyone wants to store a record of your date rather than providing you a service and letting you take it with you when you leave. why? because it’s the way it’s always been done even though most people hate writing this code.

in fact, that’s one of the problems right now across the web. we’ve got all these services with little splinters of our identity and piecing them together is really friggin’ hard. Here’s a shot from FriendFeed — with the 59 services they support and the subset that I’ve actually decided to import. Is this my identity? Really?

this is my homepage, but is it my identity?

When I started thinking this through and considering my homepage as it exists today, I realized that something really important is missing. Y’know, when I said “I am you” I guess I wasn’t being totally facetious. (click) And that brings me to the next aspect of identity...

Friends

So it kind of turns out that, now that more and more normal people are getting online, it’s becoming more and more eective to get to know someone by the company they keep. No where is this more obvious than on Facebook. This a list of three people that Facebook thinks that I might know. The second one was suggested because we went to the same high school. Kind of a stretch, right? I mean, what is that? A pillow? I have no idea WHO SHE IS (back to identity)

So let’s say I actually dive in and ask Facebook to list ALL the people it thinks I might know... this is where it gets interesting. (click) Now, here I see someone I know. I’ve met Eric in person; I could probably add him as a friend... but is it really him? It’s not like I have some shared secret with him to verify that this is actually an online representation of his...

so I decide to do a search — and lo, he comes up ﬁrst. Sure, but this is the same guy from the previous page. (click) If we have 63 mutual friends, well, that’s starting make this more plausible...

Ok, now I’m feeling pretty conﬁdent. In lieu of a shared secret between us, a familiar social graph is a reasonable substitute. Get that: by revealing one’s social connections I get closer to someone’s real identity.

your social graph is essentially a kind of identity ﬁngerprint for people who know you and know who you know.

@factoryjoe but there’s something else at work here. some of you might know that I go by “factoryjoe” on the web. I came up with it in high school* — you can read about how; I’m sure people have more interesting stories than mine I’m sure. Point is, no one has any frigging clue who “factoryjoe” is, especially out of context. In fact, so linked was my online username to “me” that people would come up to me and call me “Joe” without even thinking about it. My online persona was becoming better known than me!

@factoryjoe @chrismessina So I killed it. At least on Twitter. And now I’m just chrismessina. Like I was before, and always have been. And thus this false dichotomy between who I am online and o no longer exists.

But this is more interesting than that. Compare the chat list on the left with the one on the right. Look closely and you’ll notice something curious (not the weird butt avatar -- I don’t know even know who that is!). (pause) basically with AIM, you’ve got all these foreign-looking usernames... whereas on the right you have real names. [talk about Facebook’s early decision to swear o usernames]

“l0ckergn0me” vs. Chris Pirillo understand that this DESIGN decision was as important as Flickr’s public-by-default decision. Heck, I don’t even know what a “locker gnome” is. But here’s the change.

We’re moving from these weird computer-driven identities...

...to using our real names across the web.

I mean, look at this option panel from Eventbox, the application I just showed you.

why does this option even exist? This to me proves that we are in a transitional period, from assumed aliases to one of real, public, transparent identities. And this change is giving rise to...

Social Web ...the social web

“...a business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform...” If Web 2.0 is a business revolution...

“...a social revolution in the way people interact and share caused by the move to the internet for connection...” then I think that the “social web” is a social revolution in the way people interact and share caused by the move to the internet for connection...”

Of course we found this in 2005 when we planned the ﬁrst BarCamp. Here we were on the cusp of the social web... real desire to come together in person, to interact and share... the web facilitated those connections and then helped this idea to spread.

Similarly, with coworking — our eort to prop up shared workspaces for independents — working alone sometimes really sucks! social networking in isolation also sucks...! as we invite technology into our lives, technology must change for us too. this means that the space between our online and ofline lives is decreasing. and that’s a good thing.

I originally wasn’t going to talk about hashtags, but since they’re being used here, I thought I might as well.

I kind of proposed them back in the summer of 2007 to allow for emergent conversations on a given topic to coalesce. i bring this up largely to talk about the idea of changing technology to ﬁt our needs.

Activity Streams Key to all of this, I believe, is the discovery of what people are doing will be facilitated by activity streams. So, once you have identity — you know who I am and who I know — well, logically, next you want to know what I’m up to or what I’m doing... as an implicit recommendation of an activity or behavior. but before i get into that... some background.

Twitter unique visitors/time Source: compete.com; taken 3/6/09 this chart is from compete.com. It shows Twitter’s growth in unique visitors over a year. Clearly going from less than a million uniques to around 8M is good growth. But what this picture fails to portray is activity.

Twitter’s cumulative messages/time Jason Kottke: Twitter vs. Blogger redux Now, take a look at these two charts. They’re two years old. This is from a post by Jason Kottke in March of 2007. But the point stands that look at this chart, you can clearly see a hockey-stick growth pattern for the number of messages sent with Twitter. Kind of gives you a dierent perspective on what’s going on, especially, by Twitter’s own admission, most of their trafic doesn’t come from Twitter.com but 3rd party apps. The social web is no longer about stickiness or even virality — but about the meaningful use of your services.

Photo credit: Eric Heupel Turns out, humans are social beings. It also turns out that as you give people easier and simple ways to connect and communicate, they’ll use them. this is what it means to democratize the means of publishing. In some ways, Twitter is a form of social grooming. And I bring this up for a speciﬁc reason. How many of you have heard of Dunbar’s number? Yeah, it’s like 150 and the upper limit of the number of friends you know in your social network, right? (nods) Wrong. Actually it was a study of monkeys’ grooming and gossiping behaviors. Robin Dunbar suggested that maybe there’s a link between humans and monkeys here — in terms of grooming. Not in terms of network size, per se.

“...But I don't think that the technology is to blame. I would argue that we’re addicted to our friends, not the computer. When the computer lets us get access to our friends, we look like we're addicted to the computer.” — danah boyd, when research is de-contextualized On a related point, this woman, Lady Greenﬁeld, claimed in the House of Lords that social network sites are \"infantilising\" the human mind, and should therefore be regulated. danah boyd rebutted her argument, pointing out that it’s not technology to blame. we’re addicted to our friends, and that computers merely facilitate these connections. Lady Greenﬁeld’s assertion was that SNS trivialized relationships. Perhaps that’s because the “game” in social networks has been to “friend” as many people as possible. But perhaps now that we have these friends, we can do something more interesting.

Last.fm ...like, activity streams! this is from last.fm — an old example — but, what are you listening to? social music discovery.

Sweetcron sweetcron, an open source activity streams aggregator gives each activity source its own special treatment

Facebook facebook newsfeed we all know facebook...

FriendFeed friendfeed... sharing images, digging, wishlist netﬂix queue pandora... etc

FriendFeed the 59 ﬂavors of FriendFeed. the problem is — how is this scalable to the size of the web? if you’ve just released an awesome web service and a bunch of your users want to share their activities to friendfeed, how do you get friendfeed to support you? RSS isn’t enough. that’s where standards come in.

Anatomy of an activity

who did what to what [where]

Actor verb object [context] from which we extract... “actor verb object”

@chrismessina tweeted Niches Bitches! [via SMS]

Actor verb object {indirect object} [context]

Chris bought Watchmen tickets {for Brynn} [at Fandango]

What can we observe? microformats or scientiﬁc method: start with what can we observe. we’re essentially looking at what’s already been done, what kinds of activities are already being published and starting there.

Weblog Entry Note Photo Video Bookmark ... we’ll probably add a few more like sharing or moods... but what can we do incrimentally?

and fortunately, it looks like there’s already work underway in drupal... now we just need to get support for producing and consuming the activitystreams format into the module!

The Open, Social Stack

Joseph Smarr & John McCrea’s original the original stack by Joseph Smarr and John McCrea wasn’t so much of a stack... more like a bunch of colorful bricks piled up on top of each other with speciﬁc technologies identiﬁed. [list each one]

The new Facebook stack The facebook stack -- identity, friends and feed. Of course, this highly limited subset allows you to do much as long as you’re feeding back to a mothership like facebook. also helps developers pick which part they want to implement without worrying about weird acronyms.

Luke Shepard’s recent proposal Luke Shepard’s recent proposal -- you can see that this is starting to get away from technical jargon — allowing for substitution of technology

Streams Friends Identity Discovery Authorization Proﬁle “The Blimp” “the blimp” (stacks are overrated anyway) I think what I’m trying to get at here is that the triumvirate of identity-discovery- authorization is a pattern we’re going to see replicated, and which will become essential to distributed social network.

Photos Videos Identity Discovery Authorization Documents “The Blimp” in this model, you can imagine substituting photos, videos and documents on the far right and the model still holds.

Streams Public Data Friends Private Data Public Data Proﬁle Public Data zooming in on the data resources, we can see that some of this data is made public, but some of it is not. what’s important to keep in mind here is that people should be able to choose their level of default public disclosure and modify it over time.

You can see how Facebook currently supports this in giving me the ability to choose my level of disclosure or privacy for my public search result. By giving me control, I have a better sense for how exposed I am. With more control, I’m conﬁdent about sharing more. Or so the theory goes.

Facebook also gives you controls about how you look to your friends — by tweaking what information shows up in your friends’ newsfeed. this helps me look GOOD.

Performative identity so activity streams — and giving people the ability to control who sees what and how much... help both you and your customer look good. this is what i call “performative identity”. your identity emerges as you do things — as you expose those things to your social graph.

“...Only accounts that choose to be publicly accessible are included in Twitter Search. However, more than 90% of the folks who use Twitter have decided to make their accounts public. It seems that people, companies, and organizations are discovering there is value in openness.” — Biz Stone, Twitter on that point, this was an interesting quote from biz stone about Twitter search: He said: “Only accounts that choose to be publicly accessible are included in Twitter Search. However, more than 90% of the folks who use Twitter have decided to make their accounts public. It seems that people, companies, and organizations are discovering there is value in openness.” But while people clearly see that value, we haven’t ﬁgured everything out yet...

Privacy & Property namely with regards to privacy and property.

xkcd.com/256 if there were a part of this map from XKCD that dealt with privacy policies, it would be the part that reads “here be dragons”. (click) no one really wants to go there. but this area is HUGELY important as two things are accelerating: 1. people move to web services 2. and increasingly want to be able to move/share data between services

From a legal perspective, you essentially have to ﬁgure out a way to disclaim any bad stu that might happen if people share their data outside your network. At the same time (click) you have to tell people that, “hey, all bets are o” once your stu goes o our servers, we have little control over getting it back. this means we have to think about what we share — focus on “from this point forward”

Hey, all bets are off. From a legal perspective, you essentially have to ﬁgure out a way to disclaim any bad stu that might happen if people share their data outside your network. At the same time (click) you have to tell people that, “hey, all bets are o” once your stu goes o our servers, we have little control over getting it back. this means we have to think about what we share — focus on “from this point forward”

our course, this is exactly why Facebook changed their terms of service, but the shitstorm that resulted has been fascinating and illuminating to watch.

“... You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content....” — Facebook Terms of Service Here’s what happened. Sometime last month, Facebook made a change to their TOS, striking the passage here. Language was also clariﬁed about ownership of user data... giving Facebook a “perpetual right to license and sublicense your content”... basically you give it to Facebook and they can do what they want with it. At least that’s how people read it.

“... People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them ... to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. ” — Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook In response, they reverted the changes and Mark Zuckerberg said on the FB blog: “Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn o access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.” In other words, people want their cake and to eat it too.

as a result of the public outcry, facebook came up with a statement of principles and rights and responsibilities. kind of like reinventing democracy, but I guess when you have like 175M members, you’re kind of a social network nation-state. we’ll see how this plays out, but some lessons are clear.

Communication & setting expectations Part of this comes down to communication and setting expectations. I mean, if you say you’re going to do something and then change the agreement but don’t tell anyone, that’s kind of bogus, even if your intentions weren’t evil. And with all the social media and transparency, people will call you on what they perceive as a violation of some social contract, even if they’re wrong.

Things are changing Second, is that things are changing. Walled garden social networks are a thing of the past, and yet the legal department didn’t get the memo (they still use typewriters, remember?).

the funny thing is, this kind of thing happened before. you had an option: close your account or merge your Flickr account with your Yahoo account. join us. the water’s ﬁne! Of course, what it doesn’t say here, is that this change was largely motivated by a need to get all Flickr users under the worldwide Yahoo TOS. Heh, and you thought this was a technical detail. But this was back in early 2007 before Facebook became a mainstream phenomenon.

Licensing and “property” of course it’s one thing when it’s a parent company wants to bring acquired users under one set of terms. it’s another when you’re talking about separate companies whose members are covered by dierent — if not conﬂicting — terms of services. and you want to share data between them.

Copyrights, trademarks & patents were intended to protect creators in the old days, when information networking was scarce, copyrights, trademark and patent protections were created to incentivize creativity and to reward those who spent their time inventing because it wasn’t always the most proﬁtable lifestyle. of course neither is panning for gold, but for those who strike gold make it big. and so, because of IP laws, some people have gotten fabulously wealthy. the problem is that these protections really don’t work as well on the social web when the cost to create and share has dropped to zero and the enforcement of “digitial property rights” has skyrocketed exponentially.

Creative Commons & social property Of course Creative Commons is one answer to this problem, where people use a plain- language licenses that permits sharing or reuse of their intellectual property without prior permission — generating “social property” or “property in common”. But what kind of legal stipulations work when we the lines between services and companies are blurring? If you post a message to Twitter and it shows up in FriendFeed and later decide to delete that post, must FriendFeed delete it as well? Who’s responsible for what? Who do you sue when your expectations aren’t met? What’s going on?

Cloud Computing Welcome to the land of cloud computing.

In my view, this is where OpenID will really add the most value. Here’s why.

c:\\ icons by Seedling Design and Fast Icon so you need a way to refer to these cloud-based applications like you used to...

c:\\ meanwhile we have hybrid apps like these that are also being thrown into the mix with inﬁnite storage but a native experience. and these all require identity of some sort.

icon by Seedling Design which brings me back to openid. as I mentioned before, with discovery, you can use your OpenID as a universal pointer to all of your services, so when a great new web applications launches, you simply sign in, provide authorization and BOOM, you can get to work. None of this “invite your friends” and all that. Activities Streams become a passive mechanism to invite your friends, showing them what you’re up to.

Government So, I want to shift gears here. We are in Washington, DC after all. And we do have a huge opportunity in front of us here.

Transparency there’s a big buzz around transparency in Washington, and at TransparencyCamp last weekend, there were all kinds of ideas shared on how to make our government more transparent. Clearly this is because, for the past 8 years, it’s been anything but and look at how that turned out! So, who knows more about transparency than any one else?

Open source! we do! and so the opportunity for us to make a dierence in this new world order (yes, I just said that) is actually to help usher in these changes in a meaningful and productive way.

look, clearly the new administration is aware of us. for starters (literally) recovery.gov is a Drupal website! Sure don’t look like one... at least given what I’ve seen that comes out of the tarball! But what if we set out sights a little higher? What if we were to shoot for something a little more conspicuous?

what if this were run on Drupal? why isn’t it? heck, why don’t you go and implement it, and redesign whitehouse.gov taking into consideration everything that you’ve heard during DrupalCon all the things that i’ve talked about? less broadcast, more interaction, dialog, sharing, activities... the government should come to ME.

Open Source Government I want to issue a challenge to you. And this is something that I’m coming to think dierently about in my old age. What if government really were of, by and for the people? What if I wanted to see my government be changed or improved? For so long, this idea has been abstract to me... “change the government”... what does that even mean? Shouldn’t we fear the government? Isn’t it full of bureaucracy and bickering and ugh...! Why would I even want to get involved?

OpenID & the government There’s an interesting opportunity here, where something like OpenID, in the way I’ve talked about it today, could be one key to simplifying interactions with the government, as well as improving the services that that government can provide to you as a citizen. I think on the one hand, I don’t even know all the ways in which this is a good or bad idea, but I do know that the clumsy oaﬁsh government that we have today is annoying and unproductive to work with. Frankly I want my dealings with the government to be eficient. I want the government to act more like a customer service-oriented organization. And I want it to get out of the way and let me focus on the things that are important to me. Like the way good technology does.

Trust + transparency make open source work. Let me suggest that trust and transparency are the glue that make open source projects work. And you don’t get trust without identity. Could we expect the same from government?

Work on stuff that matters so let me leave you with one ﬁnal thought, brought to us, again, by Tim O’Reilly. I don’t really need to tell you guys this, but it bears repeating. We who choose to work in open source are some of the luckiest folks in the world, getting to pursue our passions and, hopefully, making a decent living for ourselves making technology easier to use and better for people. but that’s not always the case. for some, open source is your passion, but it’s just a hobby. you tell yourself that you need the day job to get by and to make things work and I respect that... I hear that. But here are some principles to consider.

1. Work on something that matters to you more than money. 2. Create more value than you capture. 3. Take the long view. First. Work on something that matters to you more than money. Second. Create more value than you capture. Third. Take the long view. On that last point, everyone in this room has something to contribute. And you should consider your contributions — to Drupal and open source — beyond the scope of the module or patch you’re working on — but how it ﬁts into a bigger picture. What if every module or line of code that you wrote ended up in software used by your fellow citizens everyday? What if you were writing code that you knew was going to make its way to whitehouse.gov? Would you think about it dierently? With the way things are going, I’d say that every moment of eort that you spend should be considered in that light, and in the ultimate impact it may have.

fin. me -› @chrismessina -› factoryjoe.com so that’s it. questions?

Our online identity

0 comments

Notes on slide 1

14 Favorites & 2 Events