Robin Sloan has proposed a protocol, Spring ’83, that serves publisher’s content like a magazine stand. You see a board of cards, where cards get replaced whenever its publisher releases a new one. He aims to ditch the timeline experience it seems, partly considering form and content as pieces of the same expression, as well as a way to maintain space for voices that do not express themselves every other minute but way more infrequently.
A Beijing news stand with spread out mags competing for your attention. Image by Peter Ashlock, license CC BY
Others in my feedreader have commented on it in the past days and it gets me thinking. Not in any structured way yet. No idea yet therefore what I think about this in a form I can narrate, but some associations come to mind.
I do like the notion of small cards. Makes me think of Hugh’s Gaping Void back-of-a-business-card drawings, and of tiny zines made as a folded single sheet chapbook. The set limit creates friction for creativity to feed on. Yet, the built in size limit, when putting more of them together on a ‘board’ may well mean the same drawbacks as in Twitter, aiming for the highest attention grabbing value. Magazines in a kiosk do the same thing after all, using the cover to try and lure you into reading them. Look at that image above. Does that make a board of cards just a collection of adverts for your attention? Reading Maya’s annotations, there too the scarcity mindset a board of such cards might introduce is raised. Are there other ways to thread such cards?
The focus on p2p distribution, and on making it easy to put out there, chimes with me in terms of networked agency and in terms of low thresholds for such agency.
The notion where softer voices have the same claim to space as louder ones (i.e. more frequently posting ones) I appreciate a lot. Kicks Condor in his Fraidycat feedreader provides neat sparklines indicating frequency of posting, and allocates every single author the same space by displaying their last few postings regardless of timelines. That points back as well to my use of social distance (not the pandemic kind!) as a method to order presentation of feeds I follow, in a person focused way, and less a timeline. I follow people’s expressions, not blogs as publications. It also makes me cringe at the use of the word publisher in Robin Sloan’s explanation.
À propos following people, Maya also mentions how she likes to see friction between different strands of her online expression (e.g. blogposts, and Mastodon messages). Such different strands have different qualities to them, and having them in one place, like an IndieWeb enabled site may put them too closely or too obviously together. The notion of friction is important I think when getting to know someone online in more detail by following more of their online traces. I follow people, and for a good number I follow multiple traces (photos, posts, tweets e.g.). Combining those traces needs friction I feel, getting to know someone better from their expressions needs a certain effort. That’s about me having something at stake in building interaction. Blogs are distributed conversations to me and you need to invest your presence in such conversations. Connecting with others should be extremely easy in terms of being able to connect, but certainly not effortless in terms of time spent on the actual connecting. Way back when (2006), Lilia and I had conversations about this, and it’s still relevant now. My site purposefully introduces friction to readers: casual visitors see only a fraction of the postings, some content is only shared through RSS and not findable in the site, some content is both not listed nor shared through feeds etc. All the fragments are still in the same place, mine, though, and not farmed out to various silos to create the same effect of deliberate fragmentation. It means I’ve greatly reduced the friction for me as author using IndieWeb, not eroded the needed friction for readers. Someone who puts in the effort will be able to gather all my traces in their reader.
Tracy Durnell has some remarks, and compares Spring ’83 to IndieWeb efforts and discusses the visual aspects. Her suggestion showing a blogroll as cards, not as a list, is a good one I think, perhaps showing the last three postings the Fraidycat way? I’ve seen others do it as a river of news, but that once more provides additional amplification to the loudest authors.
Louis Potok takes a first look under the hood.
Some musings and sidetracks wrt @robinsloan’s Spring ’83 proposal and what others have said about it the past few days. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/06/spring-83/
@ton thanks for posting about this, I had missed it! It is weird & timely because I was recently daydreaming about what a non-stream based interface for the fediverse might look like. I think your points about *friction* are spot on, and in some ways are what corporate social media platforms have tried to eliminate in their quest for smoothness (& sustained attention). I see the difficulties in following people in the fediverse as a productive friction that makes u think about what u are doing.
@ton Thank you for your post as I had missed Robin’s post. I really liked your bringing others comments and posts about Robin’s post into yours and I’m now back wanting to have a networked view of posts and discussions external to the social object in the same view as the object. About 10 to 12 years ago I framed an information strata of 5 layers and abstractions away from the ideal discussion and annotation (the object being discussed in clear view, Karin Knorr Cetina’s perspective).
@ton Robin’s framing, as well as other’s reactions had Jyri Engstrom’s Jaiku come to mind immediately, which is very close to this wish framing from Robin.
@ton Robin’s post also has me thinking again about the Granular Social Network – https://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1975
Explaining the Granular Social Network :: Off the Top :: vanderwal.net
This post was mentioned on boffosocko.com: I’ve been thinking about Robin Sloan’s Spring ’83 Experiment on and off for a bit….