Posted on
by

Over at Netzpolitik two leaked draft texts for new EC proposals w.r.t. data and digital legislation have been published. I’ve been reading them the past days, though not yet finished. In a week the final proposal should be announced by the EC. That they have been leaked beforehand tells you there’s some differences of opinion within the EC on this, giving the outside a way to read ahead and mount criticism in time.

The EC’s goals for digital regulation this period are simplification, consistency and clarity. In consultations for the upcoming European Data Union Strategy, I and others put forward to please not merely interpret ‘simplification’ as rule slashing. Simplification can also mean making it much easier to demonstrate compliance. And it would also help if the EC would come out and say the quiet part out loud: that a lot of wat is now presented by third parties as cumbersome regulation is in reality malicious compliance by those third parties. The annoying cookie walls of the past years e.g. are not in any way required by regulation, it’s just the single most annoying way for third parties to deal with it so you might think the EC is the problem. Tracking is the problem, that adtech is fundamentally in conflict with the rules is the problem. It’s not a ‘compliance burden’ if your actions bump into the law. That’s properly called ‘illegal actions’. Simplification in short could also mean a much clearer enforcing of existing rules, as most digital regulation now has very little in the way of actual consequences for third parties, and none that rise above the ‘cost of doing business’.

There are two ‘Omnibus’ proposals in the works, meaning a proposal that makes changes to a number of existing laws at the same time.

One deals with data regulations. It amends the Data Act in such a way that the Data Governance Act, the Open Data Directive and the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation all get repealed, and mostly incorporated into the Data Act. I’m working my way through the meaning of that still, at 90 pages of text it’s not a quick read. But one thing stands out immediately to me: the Open Data rules until now were a Directive, meaning every Member State would create a national law to implement it. The entirety now gets added to a Regulation (Act), meaning it has immediate working across the EU. This is something I and others have long (like since 2008 more or less) called for, because as a directive it means there’s differences between countries in how open data gets interpreted. What can be open data is currently based on the national information access regimes and not on a unified European notion. I still need to explore how that would play out in the new Omnibus. This first Omnibus also touches the GDPR, and that is something to be careful about too.

The other Omnibus is aimed at the AI Act and the GDPR. I haven’t looked at this one at all yet. But around the web I see fears and first takes that the GDPR will get weakened to feed AI model training, a.o. by stretching the notion of ‘legitimate interest’ in ways that make Facebook’s attempt at interpretation of the term in the past years seem conservative. It used to be that legitimate should be read as ‘lawful’ (e.g. I need your name if I’m to send you an invoice, because I’m legally obliged to put that on the invoice), but we seem to shift to where the interpretation of legitimate is as ‘justifiable’, and at that in the very generic meaning of ‘well, I have my reasons, ok?’. Another step, judging by what others have posted, seems to do away with the notion that inferred data can be collection of personal data (As in, I did not ask you about your religion and stored that, but I inferred it from tracking your visits to websites of houses of worship).

In a week we will know what the proposals of the EC really are. Until then I will be reading the leaked drafts, to see what mechanisms are being created, dumped and altered.

Posted on
by

Bryan Alexander provides an overview and interesting analysis of his current social media presences and what they mean and have meant for him, his work and interaction.
His summing up of the various platforms that used to be and currently are online places he frequents reminded me of how I talked about my online presences around 2007. What they did for me, and what I shared through these platforms.
I called it the Long List of My Distributed Self back then.

It read:

Blog, what I think about
Jaiku, what I am doing
Twitter, what I say I am doing
Plazes, where I am and where I was
Dopplr, where I will be
Flickr, what I see
delicious, what I read
Wakoopa, what software I use
Slideshare, what I talk about
Upcoming, where I will attend
Last.fm, what I listen to
and then there is my LinkedIn, my Facebook, my Xing, my Hyves, my NING, and my collaborative tools MindMeister, Thinkfold, and Googledocs.

That list these days is much shorter.

The utility of social software and web2.0 as we called it then, not social media, is that of leaving longer traces. Traces for others to stumble across, so that interaction can happen. As a way of ‘finding the others’, creating conversations and emergent networks of connections.

Bryan Alexander is the only blogger I never met in person and yet see as part of my inner circle of bloggers I’m in touch with through my feedreader. That interaction goes back 20 years. Talking about leaving longer traces.

All that in a context where the number of users on these platforms was smaller and, most importantly, well before the currently remaining of those platforms turned on them and started manipulating what everyone saw. Which ultimately moved them completely away of enabling longer traces, and made it harder to find the others. That affordance having been replaced by shoving those (and things) that are already highly visible in everyone’s face, without anyone seeking those out intentionally. And now adding the still denser fog of generated slop.

The change in those platforms, replacing lengthened human traces with adtech’s engagement optimising masquerading as such, has shortened that 2007 long list of my distributed self.

A range of services on that list shut down or were acquired and then subsumed, Jaiku, Plazes, Dopplr, delicious, Wakoopa, Hyves, NING, Thinkfold. Some of those in terms of functionality I still miss, especially delicious, Plazes and Dopplr.
Others showed themselves less capable of / suited for the type of longer traces and finding of others I was interested in, such as Upcoming, Last.fm, Xing.
Those that survived became toxic, Facebook, Twitter, Slideshare, Foursquare. My use of collaboration tools moved to less public environments although open source and self-hosted.

The current list of my distributed self is short, much shorter than in 2007.

  • Blog, this place here, still the main element, and across all of these service past and present the most long lived one and the one under my own full control. It generates conversations, although less in the comment section. Regularly though people, also first time commenters, respond using email.
  • Flickr, still in use, for 20 years now too, but it’s not much of a social space these days, more a convenient archive that I automatically add to from my phone. I have removed (almost) all embeddings of Flickr photos in this site and replaced them with a local copy of the image and a link to their location on Flickr, preempting any tracking unless one clicks the link. While I may still decide to do away with Flickr too at some point, currently its utility as a searchable and chronological archive of 43k of my photos is still high for me.
  • Hypothesis, a new entrant in the list, is a very useful annotation tool, that functions somewhat like an alternative for delicious, the bookmarking tool of old. It has a social aspect, centered around the annotated text, and while ‘finding the others’ through it doesn’t happen often it happens often enough to be delightful.
  • Mastodon, which does Twitter like it’s 2006, which I use from a single person instance, avoiding the scaling that led Twitter et al astray. I cut the ‘longer traces’ aspect short on Mastodon, deleting entries after a few days. Born out of practicality (Mastodon bloats the needed database volume at astonishing rates), it is also a recognition of those messages being ephemera, conversations in passing. Finding the others is still very possible through it, and messages I don’t want to treat as transient originate in my blog (which I then automatically cross post to my separate Mastodon profile), and resulting conversation comes back to my blog as well.
  • LinkedIn, which I can barely tolerate these days, since its timeline degenerated substantially early on in the pandemic. Mostly still there because I completely ditched that timeline (by unfollowing all contacts) and am treating LinkedIn as a self-updating rolodex. It means that I don’t regard or experience it as a social software tool for interaction or finding the others any more.

I shift my behavior as a given system changes how it operates, Bryan writes. True.
Those system changes have over time tended to making one’s online traces harder to stumble across (by reducing interoperability, closing off, and eroding the very building block of the web, the link), and making finding the others harder (even the strongly diminishing quality of web search itself is part of that). A likely answer to that is more distributed approaches, with your self at the core, and navigating widening circles of contacts found through other contacts. The triangulation for that still works but it does take more attention and effort. The trouble is that for most of us it’s not within our agency to do that technologically ourselves. A balancing between that and the avoidance of centralised silos (old and new) is to be sought. Here be dragons, not unicorns.

Posted on
by

Onze 9 jarige dochter is wel toe aan een laptop. Voor de vele creatieve dingen die ze doet (zowel met de hand, als op een scherm), omdat haar nerdy ouders hopen dat ze ook aan het programmeren zal slaan, maar primair omdat ze komende maand aan een typecursus begint. Blind een toetsenbord kunnen gebruiken is een bijzonder praktische vaardigheid. En scheelt bakken met tijd als ik het vergelijk met mensen die soms naast me in de trein zitten te werken en met 2 vingers wel een heel mailtje schrijven tussen Den Haag en Utrecht Centraal.

Een laptop dus. Maar dat vergt praktische, geopolitieke en ethische keuzes. Ook omdat waar ze nu als eerste gewend aan raakt de norm zal zijn voor haar, en al het andere vreemd en onwennig daarna.
Linux dus, Mint waarschijnlijk. Zodat ze ook kan leren dat een computer haar gereedschap is, en je nooit alleen maar hoeft te accepteren wat een leverancier vindt dat je er mee moet kunnen doen en niet.

Punt is, zelf gebruik ik geen Linux, maar sinds 17 jaar MacOS. Wel eens een blauwe maandag Linux op een PC gedraaid, 15 jaar geleden of zo, maar ik gebruikte toen eigenlijk geen PC meer.
Dus als ik iets voor mijn dochter wil doen, moet ik zelf ook bijleren, en me in Linux verdiepen.

Bij ‘de linuxspecialist‘ bestelde ik een bootable USB stick met Linux Mint en er staan hier nog wel wat ongebruikte laptops die nog prima functioneren. Een eerste scan voor een eventueel nieuwe laptop brengt me bij Tuxedo computers in Duitsland. Er zijn wel andere leveranciers, maar die hebben vooral heel grote schermen van 15 tot 17 inch diagonaal, dat vind ik geen laptop meer te noemen. Al helemaal niet voor een 9-jarige.

En dan is er nog het regelen van klankbord, een netwerk voor advies en gesprekken.
De Nederlandse Linux Gebruikersgroep, NLLGG lijkt me er voor in het leven geroepen, en ik heb me dus als lid aangemeld.

Posted on
by

On this day 23 years ago at 14:07 I posted my first blogpost.

After the very stressful time I (and my team and my family) had until mid-September, I have finally turned to my recovery from burn-out. Still very tired, but as I mentioned earlier my head is becoming somewhat more active. Part of that recovery is rekindling my sense of wonder.

Already last year in conversations with a psychologist I defined for myself three things to help me do that. Building more exploration into my activities again starting from my sense of how things could be, and by engaging more again with my professional peers. Stressful and urgent events intervened for a long time, but now I find myself returning to it.

Two weeks ago when we spent a few days in Antwerp as a family, I came across the essay ‘Ode aan de verwondering‘, an ode to wonder, by the late Belgian scientist Caroline Pauwels, in the Stad Leest bookstore.
A timely find and read now that I have slowly moved a bunch of activities off my plate, and except for a single client stopped working until February or so.

My blog has always been a way of sharing things that stood out for me, responding to what others shared, and especially enjoy the type of conversation that creates (thanks to all of you who engage).

Blogging is a feedback loop on one’s sense of wonder.

Just yesterday I wrote about a notion I had (resulting from reading this book), to find interesting European non-fiction books by authors in languages I cannot read. It resulted in several reactions already, including a kind mail by Sven who mailed me about two books in Swedish he enjoyed, plus some links on how to acquire non-fiction books in Sweden. (Thank you!)
My blog over the years has resulted in many such and much deeper connections, reinforced by meeting people at a variety of conferences, and then interacting through other channels and in person (see the mention of peers above).

I find myself writing more again these days, and some of it ends up here. At the same time I see myself withdrawing from several other platforms. I don’t much like being drawn into my Mastodon timeline currently, nor my feedreader, as I seem to seek them out not out of curiosity but as grazing. I need to do my stuff in my own space for now it seems. I’m taking my blogging as an indicator of how I’m doing for the coming months.

Here’s to another year of blogging and conversation.

(In the years 2015 – 2022 I posted a reflection here on the role of my blog. (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 years of blogging), then I skipped/missed a few ‘anniversaries’.)

Posted on
by

I want to find and learn about non-fiction books I cannot read.
Meaning I don’t have the languages for them.

One of the key aspects of Europe is that there are many languages. I since long believe that is a cultural and socio-economic strength and treasure. Article 3.3 of the EU Treaty and Article 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights say the same thing: The Union shall respect […] linguistic diversity.

In practice people for their interaction often retreat to something overlapping, most often English.
Within the EU institutions 24 languages are in official use. Only a few of them are used as common overlap between participants. Online, globally, nothing is truly multilingual, it’s at most serial mono-lingual. Most people don’t even get to write their names properly online. (For fun I spelled my name on my website using the proper digraph ij and not ij, and my search ranking took an immediate tumble when I did.)

I read, speak and write three languages (Dutch, English, German), and can somewhat read and speak French, and can somewhat guess when reading a few more. Whenever I travel I visit bookstores, to look at what titles are available, ignoring if I could read them or not.
Of course non-fiction bestseller titles often overlap, having been translated from English usually. Other books on display are local.

Some works in other languages will be translated into others, and if that is English, German or Dutch, become accessible to me.
However, the side effect of that is that other works that are not translated become even less visible. If I count on the fact that the most relevant Polish, Swedish, or Greek works of this moment will be translated then it will reduce the probability I will go looking for something beyond that. And I won’t know if an absence of translated works means an actual absence of relevant material. Translation acts like a filter, made up of unknown curation terms. Everything else becomes ‘dark matter’ in the words of William Marx in Libraries of the Mind, outside that language.

In order to change that, at least personally, I want to add more non-fiction titles to my ‘library of the mind’, i.e. books and their core messages that I’m aware of.
With non-fiction you can get a lot from a book even if you cannot read the language. Content overview, index, illustrations and section titles already provide a good first approximation of what a book is positing, without the need of much translation or language.

So, when it is about technology, data, philosophy, futurism, communities, change, democracy, do tell me what books I should be aware of in your language. It would be great too if you can point me to online, local to you, retailers that may have it as e-book.


A bookshop in Seville, Spain (since closed). Photo Metro Centric CC BY.


A bookshop in Athens, Greece. Photo Luke McKernan CC BY SA


A bookshop in Caen, France. Photo TeaMeister CC BY

Posted on
by

The video above is a conversation between Nicole van der Hoeven who hosted it, Bob Doto who wrote the excellent A System for Writing, and Tris Oaten of the No Boilerplate YT-channel (that I did not know before).
Having watched this video where PKM systems are discussed and the different approaches the three participants have, a thought emerged. A thought that I have had previously at PKM events, or when I browse through e.g. the Obsidian forum. In a lot of PKM conversations people can talk past each other due to unspoken assumptions about what your system ‘should’ be.
Not necessarily in the video above, it’s just that watching this conversation made me think about it again.

One dimension is those that assume their system is for personal knowledge. Subjective and temporal as Bob at some point clearly says in the video. As opposed to a system to store references, facts and objective knowledge.

Another is using top-down and up-front created structures vs emerging structures that are earned over time and where noticing emergent structures is newly forming personal knowledge.

A third is whether your PKM system or your Zettelkasten is seen as the whole thing, a artefact-as-is (and thus perhaps transferable in its own right), or whether one’s interaction with it, your own thinking plus your PKM system / Zettelkasten is the whole thing and thus a fully personal tool. Do you see yourself as part of your PKM system, or not?

These three differences in attitude and resulting approach determine quite a bit it seems of what you choose to do and not do in practice (such as the Folgezettel part of the conversation in the video shows).

But it seems to me we hardly ever spell out our own starting assumptions (and thus design parameters) of one’s PKM system and where we see ourselves. We merely project our own ‘givens’ onto the outside world.

What Bob Doto says in the video for instance about his practices resonates well with my own, born from personal knowledge, emergent structures and personal interactive tool.
To me PKM is personal along three dimensions, a personal system, personal knowledge, and personal management, which map well on the three dimensions of assumptions just listed. But I sometimes get the sense that to others that sounds like not as PKM at all, just as making it up as you go along. Which isn’t a false description per se, except for the implied judgement that it won’t yield results and isn’t a deliberate design choice. While I see ratchets and compounding effects.

Maybe we need to more often precede our conversations about PKM system design choices with speaking our usually unspoken assumptions about what type of systems works for us.
Although paradoxically it may be the case that for some that isn’t perceived as a need, if they already assume there is a single cluster of ‘right’ ways of doing things. Then of course it is not needed to speak of assumptions, because what is right is external. Vice versa to me it is not PKM, is not P at all, if it’s assumed there’s a single right way of doing it for all. Then PKM is a method and productivity hack, but not a system for thinking and sensemaking.

For next year’s European PKM Summit I think I need to come up with a short way of describing that and put it on my name badge.