Scripting News: My web site is my space (Scripting News)
Ravi Pinjala
· 2 months ago
What would be really nice to see from SideWiki is a simple way for the owner of a site to administer SideWiki for their site. I should be able to drop a file in the root of my web server with a salted password hash (or, better yet, an openid?), and use that to get access to an administrative interface. This, plus having SideWiki content clearly separated from the actual content of the page, would make it a welcome addition in my book.
There are also security issues, of course, but given Google's fascination with sandboxing in the web browser I think they're probably on top of that.
@silverton
· 2 months ago
This seems like a reasonable bare minimum for all annotation layers on personal, individual web sites, Ravi.
Our social identities have always been the result of complex and all too often irrational negotiations between social context, individual psychology, and human behavior. It's going to be a real challenge to maintain this awkward and all too imperfect balance -- if we can even call it balance -- moving forward. This become particularly interesting as growing numbers of researchers -- from physicists to ethicists, and every domain in between and beyond -- engage in research that differentiates and contemplates the roles of PAST evolutionary advantage of such human meaning and experience versus FUTURE implications for the identity of our very species; as we move forward into increasingly science-fiction-like terrain of augmented reality, extended cognition, brain computer interfaces, brain machine interfaces, and perhaps even communication features and functionality very much akin to a primitive direct digital telepathy.
By comparison, today's hopelessly primitive pages, symbols, and protocols indeed express the earliest inklings of such inevitable advances, and it's not utterly improbable that we are today setting the stage for more than we can yet fully imagine, much less accurately articulate.
However gradually this process unfolds, to date, all kinds of evolutionary boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred as information becomes our very existential abode, as Dave clearly describes. This isn't the last we'll hear of such debates in a growing number of seemingly obvious -- and what many will surely argue as inconsequential -- contexts. The inverse of what seems utterly obvious to some will represent the only logical and reasonable path, to others. Of course, this much has always been so.
Having been raised in the West, I can certainly understand and share a strong preferences to err on the side of preserving rugged individualism; on the other hand, the experience of having worked with and learned from many others raises just enough doubt for me to question my own biases, however obvious they may seem to me, today.
So, with the deepest and utmost respect for Dave -- for I too have long opined, even ranted, upon this issue of Online Identity Management http://tr.im/identityman -- the following link may represent yet another potential violation of the proposed Web Annotation Policy http://webnotes.net/?PmajRU (note that Mac Safari seems to fail to load the Sticky Note that accompanies the highlighting).
As always, I yield back the balance of my time and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks; or to even entirely reverse my opinion upon grokking new, better, or more accurate information. ;-)
Richard Carter
· 2 months ago
Exactly right. I had to introduce a very strict comment policy on one of my sites (which is about Charles Darwin) because of all of the comment spam I was getting from creationists. Google's SideWiki is a trojan for any creationists who might want to defile my site.
Mark
· 2 months ago
Sidewiki doesn't modify your website, the comments are stored on Google servers and appear in a side window when people visit the site.
dave
· 2 months ago
Yes, and Phil's bank account is just a bunch of documents stored in the banks computers that are transmitted to another computer. By that argument we can have all of his money and spend it any way we like.
Anti SideWiki
· 2 months ago
While I agree with you that SideWiki is a thing of evil, you can't really compare bank accounts to a public web site. A web site is made public, and a bank account is made private. It would be almost the same as arguing that hidden cameras in our bathrooms are allowed, because we can take a picture of a crowd at a baseball game.
Zacqary Adam Green
· 2 months ago
I agree with the objection wholeheartedly, it's just that you have to admit: people DO have the right to view the web however they want. It's also technologically impossible to stop someone from figuring out (or having someone else figure out) how to get the web to look like whatever they'd like it to.
How exactly is a blogger supposed to argue against this when they, for example, use Adblock?
dave
· 2 months ago
I don't use Adblock. I don't even know what it is, and have no idea what it has to do with any of this.
As I said at the end of the piece, if you or a small group of people want to get together and view my website in your own way, go ahead, but that's not what Google is doing.
Zacqary Adam Green
· 2 months ago
Adblock is a Firefox extension that blocks ads from downloading. It improves the look and feel of websites, while cutting out the ridiculous amount of bandwith ads take up, but it's supposedly "stealing ad-supported content" apparently. So it's sort of a parallel, in that Sidewiki is, I guess, stealing our right to post our unadulterated opinions on our own websites.
Adblock, however, just like Sidewiki, is an extension you have to download, so it's very much an opt-in system for the users. Since Adblock hasn't killed the Internet advertising industry (or the ad-supported web), it provides a little comfort that maybe Sidewiki won't kill opinions.
That's if Google doesn't bundle Sidewiki with Chrome by default, though. Then it's a different story.
dave
· 2 months ago
Does Google include an ad-blocker with their Toolbar?
rbonini
· 2 months ago
I think they include a popup blocker. But an adblocker would be foolishly hypocritical and self-defeating. Unless of course it only allowed google ads though :)
dave
· 2 months ago
If they did that, the FTC and the DOJ would be all over them.
As it stands, this Sidewiki thing will be a lose-lose for them eventually, when people see the net-effect of letting any asshole markup any web page. In other words, the seeds of its downfall are planted by its success, if it actually attains any.
But at the same time, the web gets degraded along with Google.
rbonini
· 2 months ago
Exactly. I prefer the old fashioned method of blogging or tweeting when you need to vent :)
I see little point in Sidewiki, its almost as if Google decided to stick Amazon reviews on every page on the web.
In hindsight though, it would help them fine tune the pagerank algortihim (assuming they can mine that data from the comments).
Zacqary Adam Green
· 2 months ago
I get what you mean, there is something to be said about the fact that Google is doing this, versus some guy working in his spare time. In the long run, though, I don't see it having much of an effect. Or people liking it, for that matter.
gregorylent
· 2 months ago
agree ..
google side-wiki is another way to empower the lowest common denominator, and that is the best that can happen
spencer
· 2 months ago
Your web site as a newspaper... While I can buy a newspaper and doodle on it, or start a charcoal grill, or line a bird cage, what I do to my copy as a reader doesn't and shouldn't affect everybody else's copy. You, as editor, are entitled to present your views unencumbered.
Your site, your space.
Ken Sheppardson
· 2 months ago
Where's the line, Dave? Do you object to people commenting on your posts on FriendFeed? What about comments on the entries from your RSS feed in Google Reader? What about a Firefox plugin that aggregated all the FriendFeed and Google Reader comments related to this post and displayed them in a sidebar in my browser? Is that permitted? By the way, Diigo's been allowing users to comment on your site for some time now... those comments are only visible to users who have the Diigo browser extension installed. Are you objecting to the technology, or is this really rooted in fear of Google?
dave
· 2 months ago
I said where the line was near the end of the piece. Please reflect that in your comments.
One of the problems of the "conversational web" is that you get boilerplate positions in a comment threads from people who don't even read the pieces they're commenting on.
If the comments get prominence then we can never get beyond the mindlessness of comment threads and cable TV "news" which I stopped watching because the script is so mindlessly predictable.
Ken Sheppardson
· 2 months ago
I read your piece, Dave.
So your criteria is simply that the comments must only be visible to "a small group of people"?
dave
· 2 months ago
Read the piece again Ken, it's all there.
joypog
· 2 months ago
sorry man, I don't see it. I understand the question and concern, but I don't see where you delineate the line more specifically than "big conglomerate (ie google) = scary."
Personally, I think that any megacorp is free to create a forum where people can post comments. After all, the commenters own the copyright over their comments no matter how that content was inspired -- and the commenters are free to comment where they please - whether on your sandbox or on google's sandbox. That said, I do agree that there may be an exceedingly good case to boycott the google sandbox.
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
I don't agree, Dave, even though I've been a big fan of yours for many years. Your web *server* is yours. If you allow your web content to go out into the public web, then it's not so clearly yours anymore - you have released it in some senses although not in all ways. I like to browse web sites, and I like to use tools that let me customize my browsing experience using tools like popup blockers and maybe the new Google product. If you don't want your content to be messed with, then you shouldn't put it up on the public web where these tools exist.
dave
· 2 months ago
Well Phil lets his money go out on the public banking system. I want all of his money now. If he wanted to keep his money he should have put it under his pillow.
Same with his house. If he wanted to keep homelss people out of his living room, he should have put his house on top of a mountain where no one could get at it. Once you accept that people can walk up to a house or drive to it, then you have to let them use your bathroom and eat the food in your fridge.
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
The public banking system is a terrible metaphor for web issues. Web is a form of publishing. I like your house metaphor better. There is a public part of your house - the outside appearance that is seen from the public space. And there is an inside part of your house. If I change your house without your permission, that's wrong. If I spy into the private part of your house, that's wrong. If I wear tinted glasses on the public space so that your house looks different to me, that's ok. And if I give away tinted glasses to others so they can see your house the way I do, that's ok also. Is this a better metaphor?
dave
· 2 months ago
No Steve, my website is my intellectual home. You may feel differently about yours, that's your right. But if I don't want you on my porch you ain't going to be on my porch.
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
Bingo, you hit it, Dave. I'm not on your porch. I'm on the public sidewalk. The porch is your property, the sidewalk isn't. You can choose to make your house look a certain way to pedestrians. Pedestrians can choose to use tinted glasses to see it a different way. When you want absolute control over how your house is viewed, then locate it on private property, out of viewing distance from a public space. If I'm on your porch without permission, or repainting your house without permission, get me arrested! If I'm on the public sidewalk looking at your house with tinted glasses I think you'll just have to accept that, and to hope that I know you didn't really intend your house to be that godawful color.
joypog
· 2 months ago
I guess to stretch the analogy a bit further, is there a way that Dave can build a 10' high fence so that you can see his house only under his terms? (ie he can unlock the gate but he will let you into the front yard only if you take off those garish glasses)? I guess that is where the opt out / opt in question comes up.
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
I just realized that something happened to Dave and his family today that is much more important than this silliness. I'm sorry I hadn't realized it before, and Dave - you have my sympathy. That's a terrible loss.
As far as a fence, joypog, , sure David could build a fence, but I don't think that changes anything. If the fence is the only thing I can see from the sidewalk, then the fence itself becomes the metaphor for the public web site. As a pedestrian I can view his fence or his house or whatever I can see with my glasses or not. If Dave wants to control the way I see his private creation, then he should not make it visible to the public. If it's visible to the public, then the public can choose how to look at it, I think, and that includes the possibility that some member of the public (or a company) can offer a filter of some sort for another member of the public to use when viewing public things from the sidewalk.
Chris Heath
· 2 months ago
Google should allow for a meta tag so that you can opt-out of this 'service' -- but they probably won't.
Like a friend of mine says: "Google is the new Microsoft"
dave
· 2 months ago
No sir. It should be the other way.
I like Disqus, the commenting system we are using here. I have to put a bit of Javascript in my page to call it up. Why can't Google co-exist on a level playing field with Disqus?
Chris Heath
· 2 months ago
They are (to an extent) on a level playing field. Disqus can create a toolbar/browserplugin that 'enhances' sites that don't have the Disqus plugin already.
It seems to me that you're objecting to something because Google is behind it and that means that it will have a greater chance of becoming mainstream. If SideWiki was a greasemonkey script you wouldn't have a problem with it because not a whole lot of people would be using it, right?
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
<<This really is my intellectual home. And I think the government should protect it, the same way the government protects my bank account. >>
To respond directly to that - your site, on your server, is your home & property, a reflection of who you want to be. But the page I see in my web browser is *mine* to do with as a please, at least as long as it stays on my own screen.
If you paint your house white, but I choose to walk on the public sidewalk and view it through tinted glasses and make it look green, that's life.
joypog
· 2 months ago
I gotta agree with Steve here...but in the end the piling of analogies does highlight how we are just at the beginning of figuring what the heck to do with digital property. For those of us whose livelihood does not depend on this digital content, its easy to be caviler about what happens to our data as it is disseminated into the wild - so for those who care a bit more about their content I understand the concern (even if I do not share it myself).
But I am awfully queasy about the idea of government protection for the appearance of websites. Do you propose that the FCC kill sidewiki outright?
mterenzio
· 2 months ago
I've actually been surprised that so many early adopters had the Google Toolbar installed. I would have figured that was something that more mainstream users would have.
Anyway, I've been leaning more toward the protectionism side especially when an application is communicating back to a server to render dynamic content. It's one thing for me to give a document to you, and you having a right to do what you want with it locally, as long as you don't redistribute it.
Not saying Google is doing this, but it is completely another matter of me giving you a document and a third party taking that information back to a server and distributing content that is dynamically created with the data and metadata of that document. It amounts to redistribution of copyrighted material.
It's a technicality, but if all the processing of disparate information is happening locally, THAT may be what a user has a right to do. And I'm all for mashups of all sorts. But it should remain the right of the content creator on whether their data can be used in those mashups, if those mahups are indeed being distributed and not created solely on a local machine.
There are even exceptions to that case, but I'm not sure this qualifies. For example, a search engine itself could be considered redistribution in the way that I define it and in fact, the courts never denied that it was. They ruled against search engines being illegal because it was deemed so important to the common good that it was a necessary infringement on copyright.
If there were no other places to talk about websites, this might qualify for that rule, but there is no shortage there.
Roger Benningfield
· 2 months ago
Dave: your site is your space, and my browser is mine. If you allow me to load your site in my browser, you do so with the knowledge that each browser/plugin/extension is going to do something different with your content.
So that's pretty much nothing like my relationship to your bank account. I'm not allowed to see or change anything about your account without explicit permission.
dave
· 2 months ago
Glad you don't run the world Roger.
Yule Heibel
· 2 months ago
Interesting. I hadn't heard of Sidewiki before - but I've been using Diigo for years. Since few people paid attention to Diigo, I wonder if this is a new problem or a problem of scale... Diigo is a small David compared to Google's Goliath. When they did it, it seemed innocuous. Now that Google is doing it, it doesn't.
From my ex-academic p.o.v., I've always felt "entitled" to mark up someone else's webpages (and even felt good about being able to do it digitally, for it saves printing out text and annotating it in pencil). When Diigo became better known, I made my annotations private - I realized other people could see this stuff even if they didn't want to. Others might be less modest, though...
Tricky problem. I don't think it's the same as standing on a public sidewalk and "choosing" to look at your house through pink sunglasses or whatever. It's more like rearranging the shrubbery around your yard, so as to signal to others on the public sidewalk what it is they should perceive first. And that is quite a different kettle of fish than deciding on the color of sunglasses for yourself.
You're being given the power to create a frame, which will be seen first by some people (those signed in to Sidewiki, or Diigo). (I like to think we Diigo users are a better class of people, but I know I'm probably just flattering myself here... )
We did learn something about the power of framing from George Lakoff, didn't we? It's not sunglasses we're talking about.
cocreatr
· 2 months ago
Thanks for the lively topic and the discussion. I think I get it with the house and sidewalk metaphor. For me, the line is overstepped when someone from the public sidewalk modifies the public impression of the house by projecting an image on one of the walls.
At the risk of stating the obvious, what's acceptable (based on copyright law) applies to real people doing things in the real world.
When you create a digital work you own copyright in that work. When you serve it from your web server you publish it, and do so with an explicit or implied licence on how it can be used. For example: "No part of the site may be reproduced in any form whether electronically or otherwise without the prior consent of <content owner> ... You shall not Frame or Rebadge the Web Site, or otherwise integrate it into any other system, except with the express advance permission of <content owner>".
I see a trend of content creators reclaiming their content from third party sites, and this should include tightening up how it can be used. Caching is usually fine (and useful), but I feel that limits need to be more clearly defined on how content can be framed.
rcastro0
· 2 months ago
As a web surfer, a blog reader, I wouldn't mind having the option to read comments to any and every site, from a given (closed or open) community of people. In fact, I would value it. I like the slashdot commenting system the most, and there I find people whose comments I value and I know I would like to consider. What if their comments (my /. friends) were available all over the web? That would be great -- that would be valuable.
However as a blog writer (not so frequently as you, Dave, but still...) I do feel a little hurt every time a banner ad shows up in my site. I mean, come on, I took so much care with my words, and now these alien words are right there, polluting it!
But I guess if people want to visit my "evolution theory" posts and only see comments from their creationist pals... it is their right, isn't it?
ds_canada_e
· 2 months ago
This house analogy is stretched pretty thin.
I stand there and hand passersby a pair of glasses which have the phrase "The owner of this house is a known criminal" etched into the lenses such that this phrase appears when anyone looks through them.
Does my right to free speech cover this? Would it be different if I was standing outside your house?
Jake Savin
· 2 months ago
I have a friend who was once accused of date rape. Via graffiti. On the inside of a women's bathroom stall, in the college commons. In spite of its untruth, it pretty much wrecked his college dating possibilities, the desired effect, I'm sure.
Say someone went to my blog and said I steal source code from my employers, or that I lied on my resume, or that I'm a racist, or any of a million other horrible untrue things they could potentially say about me. Things that could potentially adversely affect my livelihood, and therefore threaten both me and my family. I think that's wrong, and I shouldn't have to police my own website for this crap. It's enough trouble to moderate comments already, and if it gets to be much more trouble I'll just turn them off. But I can't turn this off, and I never opted in.
To say that this debate is only about modifying the content in the user's browser, and that it's the user's right to do so, is to completely miss the point. The point isn't who owns the user's browser and how it presents content. The point is that systems like this are ripe for abuse, and that if Google were acting responsibly, they wouldn't be exposing content owners to the kinds of risks we're talking about without letting them have the least bit of say in the matter.
Not to mention that users won't understand the difference between the content on the site and the comments.
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
If you're doing something illegal with speech, whether spoken or written or etched into lenses then there are already legal remedies for that situation. We shouldn't restrict technologies (like printing or lens-etching or SideWiki) because of the possibility that someone may commit libel or disturb the peace or whatever. If it's legal to hand out a flier on the public sidewalk that accuses the owner of being a criminal, then yes, it should also be legal to hand out the modified glasses.
ds_canada_e
· 2 months ago
It is harder to walk out front of a house and hand out fliers.
The volume of people walking by a house is always going to be much lower than the potential maximum of visitors to a Web page, because the ease of access factor is so much higher. All you need is a computer and Internet access.
Existing laws are playing catch up with the Web.
There is an implicit assumption that SideWiki is a valuable technology. I remain unconvinced of that fact.
Very well said and I most certainly agree with your position. Thanks for writing it!
Jannifer
· 2 months ago
Very interesting perspective. I never thought of it that way before, but can definitely see this point of view. In my mind, the Google SideWiki was a way for me to blog easily. I'm not a problogger, just love to blog. With the SideWiki, I could send a post right to my Blogger blogs from the page I'm looking at and my post would link right to that page automatically. I'm not the type to try to invade someone's space or be malicious, but I can see how someone who loves to troll could use the feature against someone. Hopefully, something will be put in place to give the site owners more control over the SideWiki comments.
iamronen
· 2 months ago
I think of this as a matter of courtesy. I'd like there to be a way for me to turn away abusive and rude people (and links) from my website. If Google, or anyone else, can't respect that basic courtesy - then I'd like to show them the door. http://www.iamronen.com/2009/10/courteous-linking/
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
iamronen, you can easily have total control over exactly the way people view your website if you don't put it on a public webserver. Have your site on your own computer, and bring people over to your place to view it, in person, on your computer. They will then see precisely what you'd like them to see. If you make your site available on the internet you have lost control over how people view it (and gained the possibility of a much bigger audience). As far as courtesy, I think it should be made clear to the viewers that any annotations were not made with your approval - and I suspect that will be quite clear on SideWiki.
iamronen
· 2 months ago
Steve,
It would be great if we could converse without cynicism, and I, on my part, will try to do that.
You speak as if there is an absolute truth, and that you've got dibs on it. I am guessing and assuming that most people, to date, view my web-pages pretty much the way I wanted them to be seen. I place attention and intentions both into the content and into how it is presented, and I believe that viewers do too (even if unconsciously). You see, there is no truth, there is choice. You (and Google) can choose to respect my choices or ignore them - and to me that says something.
Do you usually walk into your friends houses and start hanging notes on the wall or rearranging the furniture the way you think it should be - I am guessing not. Does the fact that it's easier to do on-line make it right?
I don't see a blog or website linked to your profile - so in a way this discussion is theoretical on our part, so I'd like to offer you another perspective, one which does involve you directly. Let's suppose that there was an absolute truth, and that you are on to it and absolutely right. To make it easier on you we can also assume I am an eccentric person with whimsical behavior. If I were to take your advice and take my website offline, would that, in your eyes, make the Internet a better place?
All Things Good Ronen
Steve Rothman
· 2 months ago
My apologies, Ronen, I'm not trying to be cynical at all. I'm sorry that I came off as arrogant. Of course I don't know absolute truth, only my opinion.
I would never walk into anyone's home (friend or not) and write on their wall or rearrange their furniture. It would be a violation of their privacy and their right to a secure home.
On the other hand, if I'm in a public place, and someone hands me a printed leaflet, I feel it would be ok for me to write my comments on the leaflet and then share it to someone else.
You have voluntarily placed your website on the internet where it can be accessed by billions of people. And I'm sure you hope that many people will read it. Is this more like the inside of your house, or more like a pamphlet being handed out to the public?
Ronen, I'm glad you have made your website public, and I certainly hope you keep it that way. Don't worry that a few people may make comments on it, and that a few other people will see those comments. If there are certain parts of your site that feel very sensitive to you, that it would make you feel violated if someone commented about them without your permission, then maybe you shouldn't put those particular bits on your public site?
Ironically, btw, I'm not a SideWiki user anyway - because my browser of choice doesn't support it. -Steve
evanwolf
· 2 months ago
Google has been adjusting the browsing experience for years. Google Translate rewrites your page in French. Their PageRank widget shows how famous your site is. Users have the power to change typefaces and font sizes to better suit their reading habits, to replace images with alt-text to support the visually impaired, etc. Firefox extensions automatically block ads placed by site owners, show from which countries the pages are served, DNS info about the domain, trust/safety of the site. I don't think that's the problem.
The great offense appears to be showing comments about a page in visual proximity to the page without the page author having any control over those comments.
Sidewiki could evolve to address these concerns.
First, federation. I'd hope there would be many hosts of sidewiki content and that you'd be able to subscribe to one or more of them. Hosts might be shared by people with similar values or interests (the Monster.com sidewiki service, the Slashdot sidewiki service). This reduces the concentration of power held by Google.
Second, moderation services would give you some influence over what appears next to your pages, perhaps even how much. I'd want change alerting, sentiment analysis, sidewikis respecting robots.txt bans, and DISQUS-style moderation of sidewiki content.
I agree with Jake that sidewiki creates the power for abuse without practical means of redress. Evolution along these lines might cut abuse and add back tools for giving site owners at least the illusion of control.
iamronen says courtesy comes from being able to cultivate the flavor of conversation. Without giving some tools to site owners, Google's sidewiki will remain rude.
Mark Dzmura
· 2 months ago
Don't even bother resisting. Ultimately this capability (in many forms) will become just another layer in the increasingly complex internet ecosystem. Each of us will be able to choose and save, then selectively turn on and off our preferred sidewiki / commentary / annotation / markup for each content provider we visit, to the point of simultaneously layering several annotations. How will we make these choices? People will vote! New web technologies will aggregate this info and provide us with ready access to the annotations. Some people will even MAKE a LOT OF MONEY doing this!! Unbelievable, huh?? But ultimately, commentary without a lot of votes will not have much traction with large numbers of users.
Of course, the only problem with this is when a small number of powerful entitites can control aspects of this technology. But that's the same problem we already have with the media! Bring it on, and let's fix the problems. Of course, we should always be able to quickly and easily view a site "naked" !!
Reminds me of my brother, the teacher, complaining that "some pimple-faced eighth-grade miscreants can prevent me from getting another good teaching job by killing my score on ... (teacher rating site of week) out of spite and vindictiveness". NEVER happen, I said. (Well, almost never.) It might take awhile, but the truth will OUT.
I have long wanted to be able to do a similar kind of thing (in the audio/video space) to "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation" so that - instead of just throwing things at my television - I, and others, can offer our fellows a "real time" commentary layer over the beltway talking heads who control the scope of the much of the media conversation in this country.
All Comments
There are also security issues, of course, but given Google's fascination with sandboxing in the web browser I think they're probably on top of that.
Our social identities have always been the result of complex and all too often irrational negotiations between social context, individual psychology, and human behavior. It's going to be a real challenge to maintain this awkward and all too imperfect balance -- if we can even call it balance -- moving forward. This become particularly interesting as growing numbers of researchers -- from physicists to ethicists, and every domain in between and beyond -- engage in research that differentiates and contemplates the roles of PAST evolutionary advantage of such human meaning and experience versus FUTURE implications for the identity of our very species; as we move forward into increasingly science-fiction-like terrain of augmented reality, extended cognition, brain computer interfaces, brain machine interfaces, and perhaps even communication features and functionality very much akin to a primitive direct digital telepathy.
By comparison, today's hopelessly primitive pages, symbols, and protocols indeed express the earliest inklings of such inevitable advances, and it's not utterly improbable that we are today setting the stage for more than we can yet fully imagine, much less accurately articulate.
However gradually this process unfolds, to date, all kinds of evolutionary boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred as information becomes our very existential abode, as Dave clearly describes. This isn't the last we'll hear of such debates in a growing number of seemingly obvious -- and what many will surely argue as inconsequential -- contexts. The inverse of what seems utterly obvious to some will represent the only logical and reasonable path, to others. Of course, this much has always been so.
Having been raised in the West, I can certainly understand and share a strong preferences to err on the side of preserving rugged individualism; on the other hand, the experience of having worked with and learned from many others raises just enough doubt for me to question my own biases, however obvious they may seem to me, today.
So, with the deepest and utmost respect for Dave -- for I too have long opined, even ranted, upon this issue of Online Identity Management http://tr.im/identityman -- the following link may represent yet another potential violation of the proposed Web Annotation Policy http://webnotes.net/?PmajRU (note that Mac Safari seems to fail to load the Sticky Note that accompanies the highlighting).
As always, I yield back the balance of my time and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks; or to even entirely reverse my opinion upon grokking new, better, or more accurate information. ;-)
the banks computers that are transmitted to another computer. By that
argument we can have all of his money and spend it any way we like.
How exactly is a blogger supposed to argue against this when they, for example, use Adblock?
As I said at the end of the piece, if you or a small group of people want to get together and view my website in your own way, go ahead, but that's not what Google is doing.
Adblock, however, just like Sidewiki, is an extension you have to download, so it's very much an opt-in system for the users. Since Adblock hasn't killed the Internet advertising industry (or the ad-supported web), it provides a little comfort that maybe Sidewiki won't kill opinions.
That's if Google doesn't bundle Sidewiki with Chrome by default, though. Then it's a different story.
As it stands, this Sidewiki thing will be a lose-lose for them
eventually, when people see the net-effect of letting any asshole
markup any web page. In other words, the seeds of its downfall are
planted by its success, if it actually attains any.
But at the same time, the web gets degraded along with Google.
I see little point in Sidewiki, its almost as if Google decided to stick Amazon reviews on every page on the web.
In hindsight though, it would help them fine tune the pagerank algortihim (assuming they can mine that data from the comments).
google side-wiki is another way to empower the lowest common denominator, and that is the best that can happen
Your site, your space.
that in your comments.
One of the problems of the "conversational web" is that you get
boilerplate positions in a comment threads from people who don't even
read the pieces they're commenting on.
If the comments get prominence then we can never get beyond the
mindlessness of comment threads and cable TV "news" which I stopped
watching because the script is so mindlessly predictable.
So your criteria is simply that the comments must only be visible to "a small group of people"?
Personally, I think that any megacorp is free to create a forum where people can post comments. After all, the commenters own the copyright over their comments no matter how that content was inspired -- and the commenters are free to comment where they please - whether on your sandbox or on google's sandbox. That said, I do agree that there may be an exceedingly good case to boycott the google sandbox.
all of his money now. If he wanted to keep his money he should have
put it under his pillow.
Same with his house. If he wanted to keep homelss people out of his
living room, he should have put his house on top of a mountain where
no one could get at it. Once you accept that people can walk up to a
house or drive to it, then you have to let them use your bathroom and
eat the food in your fridge.
about yours, that's your right. But if I don't want you on my porch
you ain't going to be on my porch.
As far as a fence, joypog, , sure David could build a fence, but I don't think that changes anything. If the fence is the only thing I can see from the sidewalk, then the fence itself becomes the metaphor for the public web site. As a pedestrian I can view his fence or his house or whatever I can see with my glasses or not. If Dave wants to control the way I see his private creation, then he should not make it visible to the public. If it's visible to the public, then the public can choose how to look at it, I think, and that includes the possibility that some member of the public (or a company) can offer a filter of some sort for another member of the public to use when viewing public things from the sidewalk.
Like a friend of mine says: "Google is the new Microsoft"
I like Disqus, the commenting system we are using here. I have to put
a bit of Javascript in my page to call it up. Why can't Google
co-exist on a level playing field with Disqus?
It seems to me that you're objecting to something because Google is behind it and that means that it will have a greater chance of becoming mainstream. If SideWiki was a greasemonkey script you wouldn't have a problem with it because not a whole lot of people would be using it, right?
To respond directly to that - your site, on your server, is your home & property, a reflection of who you want to be. But the page I see in my web browser is *mine* to do with as a please, at least as long as it stays on my own screen.
If you paint your house white, but I choose to walk on the public sidewalk and view it through tinted glasses and make it look green, that's life.
But I am awfully queasy about the idea of government protection for the appearance of websites. Do you propose that the FCC kill sidewiki outright?
Anyway, I've been leaning more toward the protectionism side especially when an application is communicating back to a server to render dynamic content. It's one thing for me to give a document to you, and you having a right to do what you want with it locally, as long as you don't redistribute it.
Not saying Google is doing this, but it is completely another matter of me giving you a document and a third party taking that information back to a server and distributing content that is dynamically created with the data and metadata of that document. It amounts to redistribution of copyrighted material.
It's a technicality, but if all the processing of disparate information is happening locally, THAT may be what a user has a right to do. And I'm all for mashups of all sorts. But it should remain the right of the content creator on whether their data can be used in those mashups, if those mahups are indeed being distributed and not created solely on a local machine.
There are even exceptions to that case, but I'm not sure this qualifies. For example, a search engine itself could be considered redistribution in the way that I define it and in fact, the courts never denied that it was. They ruled against search engines being illegal because it was deemed so important to the common good that it was a necessary infringement on copyright.
If there were no other places to talk about websites, this might qualify for that rule, but there is no shortage there.
So that's pretty much nothing like my relationship to your bank account. I'm not allowed to see or change anything about your account without explicit permission.
From my ex-academic p.o.v., I've always felt "entitled" to mark up someone else's webpages (and even felt good about being able to do it digitally, for it saves printing out text and annotating it in pencil). When Diigo became better known, I made my annotations private - I realized other people could see this stuff even if they didn't want to. Others might be less modest, though...
Tricky problem. I don't think it's the same as standing on a public sidewalk and "choosing" to look at your house through pink sunglasses or whatever. It's more like rearranging the shrubbery around your yard, so as to signal to others on the public sidewalk what it is they should perceive first. And that is quite a different kettle of fish than deciding on the color of sunglasses for yourself.
You're being given the power to create a frame, which will be seen first by some people (those signed in to Sidewiki, or Diigo). (I like to think we Diigo users are a better class of people, but I know I'm probably just flattering myself here... )
We did learn something about the power of framing from George Lakoff, didn't we? It's not sunglasses we're talking about.
Are we witnessing a repetition of the HTML framing issues? http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html#Frames
When you create a digital work you own copyright in that work. When you serve it from your web server you publish it, and do so with an explicit or implied licence on how it can be used. For example: "No part of the site may be reproduced in any form whether electronically or otherwise without the prior consent of <content owner> ... You shall not Frame or Rebadge the Web Site, or otherwise integrate it into any other system, except with the express advance permission of <content owner>".
I see a trend of content creators reclaiming their content from third party sites, and this should include tightening up how it can be used. Caching is usually fine (and useful), but I feel that limits need to be more clearly defined on how content can be framed.
However as a blog writer (not so frequently as you, Dave, but still...) I do feel a little hurt every time a banner ad shows up in my site. I mean, come on, I took so much care with my words, and now these alien words are right there, polluting it!
But I guess if people want to visit my "evolution theory" posts and only see comments from their creationist pals... it is their right, isn't it?
I stand there and hand passersby a pair of glasses which have the phrase "The owner of this house is a known criminal" etched into the lenses such that this phrase appears when anyone looks through them.
Does my right to free speech cover this? Would it be different if I was standing outside your house?
Say someone went to my blog and said I steal source code from my employers, or that I lied on my resume, or that I'm a racist, or any of a million other horrible untrue things they could potentially say about me. Things that could potentially adversely affect my livelihood, and therefore threaten both me and my family. I think that's wrong, and I shouldn't have to police my own website for this crap. It's enough trouble to moderate comments already, and if it gets to be much more trouble I'll just turn them off. But I can't turn this off, and I never opted in.
To say that this debate is only about modifying the content in the user's browser, and that it's the user's right to do so, is to completely miss the point. The point isn't who owns the user's browser and how it presents content. The point is that systems like this are ripe for abuse, and that if Google were acting responsibly, they wouldn't be exposing content owners to the kinds of risks we're talking about without letting them have the least bit of say in the matter.
Not to mention that users won't understand the difference between the content on the site and the comments.
The volume of people walking by a house is always going to be much lower than the potential maximum of visitors to a
Web page, because the ease of access factor is so much higher. All you need is a computer and Internet access.
Existing laws are playing catch up with the Web.
There is an implicit assumption that SideWiki is a valuable technology. I remain unconvinced of that fact.
http://www.iamronen.com/2009/10/courteous-linking/
It would be great if we could converse without cynicism, and I, on my part, will try to do that.
You speak as if there is an absolute truth, and that you've got dibs on it. I am guessing and assuming that most people, to date, view my web-pages pretty much the way I wanted them to be seen. I place attention and intentions both into the content and into how it is presented, and I believe that viewers do too (even if unconsciously). You see, there is no truth, there is choice. You (and Google) can choose to respect my choices or ignore them - and to me that says something.
Do you usually walk into your friends houses and start hanging notes on the wall or rearranging the furniture the way you think it should be - I am guessing not. Does the fact that it's easier to do on-line make it right?
I don't see a blog or website linked to your profile - so in a way this discussion is theoretical on our part, so I'd like to offer you another perspective, one which does involve you directly. Let's suppose that there was an absolute truth, and that you are on to it and absolutely right. To make it easier on you we can also assume I am an eccentric person with whimsical behavior. If I were to take your advice and take my website offline, would that, in your eyes, make the Internet a better place?
All Things Good
Ronen
I would never walk into anyone's home (friend or not) and write on their wall or rearrange their furniture. It would be a violation of their privacy and their right to a secure home.
On the other hand, if I'm in a public place, and someone hands me a printed leaflet, I feel it would be ok for me to write my comments on the leaflet and then share it to someone else.
You have voluntarily placed your website on the internet where it can be accessed by billions of people. And I'm sure you hope that many people will read it. Is this more like the inside of your house, or more like a pamphlet being handed out to the public?
Ronen, I'm glad you have made your website public, and I certainly hope you keep it that way. Don't worry that a few people may make comments on it, and that a few other people will see those comments. If there are certain parts of your site that feel very sensitive to you, that it would make you feel violated if someone commented about them without your permission, then maybe you shouldn't put those particular bits on your public site?
Ironically, btw, I'm not a SideWiki user anyway - because my browser of choice doesn't support it. -Steve
The great offense appears to be showing comments about a page in visual proximity to the page without the page author having any control over those comments.
Sidewiki could evolve to address these concerns.
First, federation. I'd hope there would be many hosts of sidewiki content and that you'd be able to subscribe to one or more of them. Hosts might be shared by people with similar values or interests (the Monster.com sidewiki service, the Slashdot sidewiki service). This reduces the concentration of power held by Google.
Second, moderation services would give you some influence over what appears next to your pages, perhaps even how much. I'd want change alerting, sentiment analysis, sidewikis respecting robots.txt bans, and DISQUS-style moderation of sidewiki content.
I agree with Jake that sidewiki creates the power for abuse without practical means of redress. Evolution along these lines might cut abuse and add back tools for giving site owners at least the illusion of control.
iamronen says courtesy comes from being able to cultivate the flavor of conversation. Without giving some tools to site owners, Google's sidewiki will remain rude.
Of course, the only problem with this is when a small number of powerful entitites can control aspects of this technology. But that's the same problem we already have with the media! Bring it on, and let's fix the problems. Of course, we should always be able to quickly and easily view a site "naked" !!
Reminds me of my brother, the teacher, complaining that "some pimple-faced eighth-grade miscreants can prevent me from getting another good teaching job by killing my score on ... (teacher rating site of week) out of spite and vindictiveness". NEVER happen, I said. (Well, almost never.) It might take awhile, but the truth will OUT.
I have long wanted to be able to do a similar kind of thing (in the audio/video space) to "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation" so that - instead of just throwing things at my television - I, and others, can offer our fellows a "real time" commentary layer over the beltway talking heads who control the scope of the much of the media conversation in this country.