Yesterday I realised once again the importance of watching how others work with their tools. During the demo’s of what people worked on during IndieWebCamp Utrecht I was watching remotely as Frank demoed his OPML importer for Microsub servers. At some point he started sending messages to his Microsub server’s API, and launched Postman for it. It was the first takeaway from his demo. I decided to look Postman up, install it, and resolved to blog about the importance about sharing your set-up and showing people your workflows.

Then Peter independently, from a different cause, beat me to it with “You do it like that?”.

So consider this reinforcement of that message!

#indiewebcamp Utrecht off to a good start with 9 ppl on site, and me remote. Day 2 is about building things for the #indieweb, with live streamed demo’s at 15:30. Topics range from opml importers, reader syncing, federated search, visualisations for discovery, and more.

I will try to clarify my own routines on reading feeds: what is my current process, what demands does it make of my tools? How well do building blocks like Microsub and -pub map on to that?

I may also take a look at the code of the Yarns WordPress plugins, how it stores feeds. I am interested in tagging feeds (not articles). Most of my feeds are people (Frank’s blog, Peter’s blog etc), and with tags I can make subsets across feeds like “show me what indieweb folks are up to today” or “I’m visiting Vienna, let’s catch up with the Viennese in my reader before contacting them for a meet-up”.

But first, coffee!

Jerome Velociter has an interesting riff on how Diaspora, Mastodon and similar decentralised and federated tools are failing their true potential (ht Frank Meeuwsen).

He says that these decentralised federated applications are trying to mimic the existing platforms too much.

They are attempts at rebuilding decentralized Facebook and Twitter

This tendency has multiple faces
I very much recognise this tendency, for this specific example, as well as in general for digital disruption / transformation.

It is recognisable in discussions around ‘fake news’ and media literacy where the underlying assumption often is to build your own ‘perfect’ news or media platform for real this time.

It is visible within Mastodon in the missing long tail, and the persisting dominance of a few large instances. The absence of a long tail means Mastodon isn’t very decentralised, let alone distributed. In short, most Mastodon users are as much in silos as they were on Facebook or Twitter, just with a less generic group of people around them. It’s just that these new silos aren’t run by corporations, but by some individual. Which is actually worse from a responsibility and liability view point.

It is also visible in how there’s a discussion in the Mastodon community on whether the EU Copyright Directive means there’s a need for upload filters for Mastodon. This worry really only makes sense if you think of Mastodon as similar to Facebook or Twitter. But in terms of full distribution and federation, it makes no sense at all, and I feel Mastodon’s lay-out tricks people into thinking it is a platform.

This type of effect I recognise from other types of technology as well. E.g. what regularly happens in local exchange trading systems (LETS), i.e. alternative currency schemes. There too I’ve witnessed them faltering because the users kept making their alternative currency the same as national fiat currencies. Precisely the thing they said they were trying to get away from, but ending up throwing away all the different possibilities of agency and control they had for the taking.

Dump mimicry as design pattern
So I fully agree with Jerome when he says distributed and federated apps will need to come into their own by using other design patterns. Not by using the design patterns of current big platforms (who will all go the way of ecademy, orkut, ryze, jaiku, myspace, hyves and a plethora of other YASNs. If you don’t know what those were: that’s precisely the point).

In the case of Mastodon one such copied design pattern that can be done away with is the public facing pages and timelines. There are other patterns that can be used for discoverability for instance. Another likely pattern to throw out is the Tweetdeck style interface itself. Both will serve to make it look less like a platform and more like conversations.

Tools need to provide agency and reach
Tools are tools because they provide agency, they let us do things that would otherwise be harder or impossible. Tools are tools because they provide reach, as extensions of our physical presence, not just across space but also across time. For a very long time I have been convinced that tools need to be smaller than us, otherwise they’re not tools of real value. Smaller (see item 7 in my agency manifesto) than us means that the tool is under the full control of the group of users using it. In that sense e.g. Facebook groups are failed tools, because someone outside those groups controls the off-switch. The original promise of social software, when they were mostly blogs and wiki’s, and before they morphed into social media, was that it made publishing, interaction between writers and readers, and iterating on each other’s work ‘smaller’ than writers. Distributed conversations as well as emergent networks and communities were the empowering result of that novel agency.

Jerome also points to something else I think is important

In my opinion the first step is to build products that have value for the individual, and let the social aspects, the network effects, sublime this value. Value at the individual level can be many things. Let me organise my thoughts, let me curate “my” web, etc.

Although I don’t fully agree with the individual versus the network distinction. To me instead of just the individual you can put small coherent groups within a single context as well: the unit of agency in networked agency. So I’d rather talk about tools that are useful as a single instance (regardless of who is using it), and even more useful across instances.

Like blogs mentioned above and mentioned by Jerome too. This blog has value for me on its own, without any readers but me. It becomes more valuable as others react, but even more so when others write in their own space as response and distributed conversations emerge, with technology making it discoverable when others write about something posted here. Like the thermometer in my garden that tells me the temperature, but has additional value in a network of thermometers mapping my city’s microclimates. Or like 3D printers which can be put to use on their own, but can be used even better when designs are shared among printer owners, and used even better when multiple printer owners work together to create more complex artefacts (such as the network of people that print bespoke hand prostheses).

It is indeed needed to spend more energy designing tools that really take distribution and federation as a starting point. That are ‘smaller’ than us, so that user groups control their own tools and have freedom to tinker. This applies to not just online social tools, but to any software tool, and to connected products and the entire maker scene just as much.

Bryan Alexander writes a thoughtful post about media literacy, specifically in the US context, and in relation to the role of education, in response to an ongoing conversation on it:

How should we best teach digital and media literacy?  How can such teaching respond to today’s politically and technologically polarized milieu? Last week a discussion brewed across Twitter…

Towards the end of his critical discussion he makes

One more point: I’m a bit surprised to not see more calls for the open web in this conversation. If we want to get away from platforms we see as multiply dangerous (Facebook in particular, it seems), then we could posit some better sites. I’m for RSS and the blogosphere. Others may plump for Mastodon.

I think this an important aspect. To me the open web is about agency, the power to do something, to act. In this case to critically engage with information flows and contributing your own perspectives on your own website.

Every centralised platform or web silo you use means an implicit vulnerability to being kicked off by the company behind it for arbitrary and not just valid reasons. Even when using it, it means hard borders are drawn about the way you can share, interact or connect to others, to protect the business behind it. Facebook forces you to share links outside your commentary, and doesn’t allow inline hyperlinking as is actually the web’s standard. Your Facebook account can’t directly interact with my Twitter account, not because of technological limitations but because of both their wishes to be silos monopolising your online conversations.

On the open web you acknowledge the existence of various platforms, silos and whatnot, but the interaction circles around your own online space. Your own platform-of-1 that monopolises your own interaction but puts that monopoly in your own hands and that makes no assumption whatsoever about what others do, other than expecting others to use core internet standards and protocols. Your platform-of-1, is your online presence, like this website, from which you alone determine what you share, post, link-to, in what way it is presented, and who can see what.

This includes pushing things into silos. For instance I post to Twitter, and respond to others on Twitter from my own website, and reactions on Twitter come back to me on my website. (Not Facebook, you’re no longer allowed to post / peek over their fence).

This is a source of agency. For me as an individual, as much as for a group. There’s a marked difference between a protest group coordinating themselves on a Facebook group, and e.g. Edgeryders, a network of changemakers building sustainable projects for the common good, which runs their own group platform to interact using Discourse. A direct difference in agency to be able to shape the way you interact versus having to follow predefined common denominator functionality, and an indirect difference in resilience against push-back from others (does someone else control your off-switch?).

In media literacy, as much as in other, complexity-induced, aspects of our connected lives, agency of both you and yours, a networked agency is a key ingredient. Not to build your own competing platforms or media outlets to the existing ones, a common misconceived and unvoiced underlying assumption I feel (“we’ll build the perfect news platform ourselves!”), but to be in control yourself of what comes at you and what flows out from you. You still very well may end up in a bubble of uncritical bias, yet it will be one of your own making, not the making of whichever company happens to run the most popular platform du jour. The open web is your toolkit in gaining and maintaining this agency.

Replied to The powers of digital literacies: responding to danah boyd and all (Bryan Alexander)

Well, yes, some of that social ‘cost of leaving’ plays a role. Yet:

It’s part of my company’s journey to better information security and data protection. Leaving silo’s, and Slack is just as much one as is Facebook, although with a different business model, is part of that. Similarly we’re starting to use our own cloud, in order to not use Google docs, Onedrive and the like. Our clients have different (and contradictory) rules against some of those silos, and we want to offer our own environment in which we can collaborate with clients as well. So our cloud and our Slack replacement run on our own server in a Dutch data center. This makes it easier to show GDPR compliance as well.

Within the company I’m the only heavy Slack user, taking part in about half a dozen Slack spaces. Still 90% of my Slack interaction is within my company.

Importing our Slack history into Rocket.chat, as well as that the URL of our Rocket.chat space is called Slack, help make a soft landing. Similarly Rocket.chat’s interface is similar to Slack’s.

Our cloud integrates well with Rocket, better than with Slack.

For mobile having another app on it is hardly an issue, given we all have half a dozen chat apps on it already.
For desktop it will be less automatic to make the switch, but adding Rocketchat to the dock will help.

So, there will be an adaption cost, but I’m optimistic it will be low, given our starting point. Over time I’ll reflect on how it went.


Screenshot of Rocketchat with previous Slack historty loaded

Replied to a post by Frank Meeuwsen

Wat me bij deze diensten toch erg interesseert is de kosten van overstap voor de overige gebruikers. Met name de mentale overstap. Ik kan me voorstellen dat je huidige conversatiepartners in Slack zelf ook meer Slack-koppelingen hebben. Dan is het handig om alles bij elkaar in één Slack app te hebben. Rocketchat voelt dan als “weer een extra app” wat transitie en acceptatie lastiger kan maken. Ik ben benieuwd hoe je daar mee om gaat!

As of today it is final: the new EU copyright directive has been adopted (ht Julia Reda). I am pleased to see my government voted against, as it has in earlier stages, and as my MEPs did. Sadly it hasn’t been enough to cut Article 11 and 13, despite the mountain of evidence and protests against both articles. It is interesting and odd to see both Spain and Germany vote in favour, given the failure of their respective laws on which Article 11 is based, and the German government coalition parties stated position of being against content filters (i.e. Article 13).

Over the next two years it is important to track the legislative efforts in Member States implementing this Directive. Countries that voted against or abstained will try to find the most meaningless implementation of both Articles 11 and 13, and will be emphasising the useful bits in other parts of the Directive I suspect, while subjected to intense lobbying efforts both for and against. The resulting differences in interpretation across MS will be of interest. Also looking forward to following the court challenges that will undoubtedly result.

In the mean time, you as an internet-citizen have two more years to build and extend your path away from the silos where Article 11 and 13 will be an obstacle to you. Run your own stuff, decentralise and federate. Walkaway from the big platforms. But most of all, interact with creators and makers directly. Both when it comes to re-using or building on their creations, as when it comes to supporting them. Article 11 and 13 will not bring any creator any new revenue, dominant entertainment industry mediators are the ones set to profit from rent seeking. Vote with your feet and wallet.

Harold Jarche looked at his most visited blog postings over the years, and concludes his blog conforms to Sturgeon’s Revelation that 90% of everything is crap.

I recognise much of what Harold writes. I suspect this is also what feeds impostor syndrome. You see the very mixed bag of results from your own efforts, and how most of it is ‘crap’. The few ‘hits’ for which you get positive feedback are then either ‘luck’ or should be normal, not sparse. Others of course forget most if not all of your less stellar products and remember mostly the ones that stood out. Only you are in a position to compare what others respond to with your internal perspective.

At the same time, like Harold, I’ve realised that it is important to do things, to keep blogging and writing in this space. Not because of its sheer brilliance, but because most of it will be crap, and brilliance will only occur once in a while. You need to produce lots of stuff to increase the likelihood of hitting on something worthwile. Of course that very much feeds the imposter cycle, but it’s the only way. Getting back into a more intensive blogging habit 18 months ago, has helped me explore more and better. Because most of what I blog here isn’t very meaningful, but needs to be gotten out of the way, or helps build towards, scaffolding towards something with more meaning.

It’s why I always love to see (photographs of) artist’s studio’s. The huge mess and mountains of crap. The two hundred attempts at getting a single thing to feel right for once. Often we see master pieces only nicely presented and lighted on a gallery wall. But the artist never saw it like that, s/he inhabits that studio where whatever ends up on a museum wall someday is just one thing in a mountain of other things, between aborted efforts, multiple works in progress, random objects and yesterday’s newspaper.

Veel herkenbaars in je verhaal Frank. Zelf was ik ook in Utrecht gisteren, en wat me aan de online en tv berichtgeving opviel is vooral hoe het onrust aanwakkert. Terwijl de berichtgeving letterlijk inhoudsloos is, suggereert het format (de hijgerigheid, live, er bovenop) zoals je schrijft, dat er ieder moment iets belangrijks kan gebeuren, en dus blijf je het volgen.

Je hebt in dit soort gevallen alleen iets aan berichtgeving als het van belang is voor je handelingsperspectief in een verder nog chaotische en onzekere situatie. De hijgerigheid suggereert wel dat je iets zou moeten doen, anything, maar geeft je geen suggesties wat dan. Je wordt verteld dat er een stress situatie is maar krijgt geen bruikbare informatie voor je fright, fight or flight reflexen. Want die verslaggevers weten uiteraard helemaal niets. Ze dragen alleen maar hun eigen fight or flight onrust aan jou over omdat zij met hun stress ook nergens heen kunnen. Op dat moment zijn ze niet professioneel genoeg kennelijk om dat te doorbreken en te doorzien dat hun eigen diep menselijke reflexen niet betekenen dat er echt iets te melden valt.

Handelingsinformatie gisteren die in de berichtgeving wel van belang was, zijn dingen als dat de school van je dochter in lock-down was, dat je uit voorzichtigheid beter niet de straat op kon gaan zolang ze die gast nog niet te pakken hadden, dat treinen bussen en trams niet reden, en dat de A2 deels afgesloten was. De eindeloze herhaling van alle overige ruis maakt dat je die handelingsinformatie nog over het hoofd zou kunnen zien ook. Veel had achterwege kunnen blijven, zonder dat dat de ernst van de zaak had gebagatelliseerd en zonder mensen ongeïnformeerd te laten.

Zoals op de radio bijvoorbeeld meer het geval was. Dat format, liedjes draaien, leent zich niet goed voor de hijgerigheid die op tv wel kan. Dus daar was er vooral elk half uur een kort bulletin “we weten nog niets meer, en de burgemeester zegt dat je beter binnen kunt blijven”. Dat was op alle andere kanalen ook ruim voldoende geweest.

(Het doet me denken aan de nieuwsvoorziening na de vuurwerkramp in Enschede in 2000. Niets van wat de tv of pers bracht de eerste 24 uur was bruikbaar. Het enige waar we in de eerste chaotische uren wat aan hadden was handelingsinformatie. Zoals de locatie van gewonden-nesten en triage-plaatsen. Zodat we de verdwaasde mensen die we op straat tegen kwamen naar professionele hulp konden wijzen.)

Replied to De vorm van het nieuws bij #24oktoberplein by Frank Meeuwsen

De dag begon best rustig. Zo’n typische maandag zonder al teveel beslommeringen. Kinderen zijn naar school en ik zit wat vervelend administratief werk te doen. Ineens komt de pushmelding van Nu.nl binnen dat er een schietpartij gaande is in Utrecht, op een plein aan de andere kant van de stad waar…

Aral Balkan talks about how to design tools and find ways around the big social media platforms. He calls for the design and implementation of Small Tech. I fully agree. Technology to provide us with agency needs to be not just small, but smaller than us, i.e. within the scope of control of the group of people deploying a technology or method.

My original fascination with social media, back in the ’00s when it was blogs and wikis mostly, was precisely because it was smaller than us, it pushed publication and sharing in the hands of all of us, allowing distributed conversations. The concentration of our interaction in the big tech platforms made social media ‘bigger than us’ again. We don’t decide what FB shows us, breaking out of your own bubble (vital in healthy networks) becomes harder because sharing is based on pre-existing ‘friendships’ and discoverability has been removed. The erosion has been slow, but very visible. Networked Agency, to me, is only possible with small tech, and small methods. It’s why I find most ‘digital transformation’ efforts disappointing, and feel we need to focus much more on human digital networks, on distributed digital transformation. Based on federated small tech, networks of small tech instances. Where our tools are useful on their own, and more useful in concert with others.

Aral’s posting (and blog in general) is worth a read, and as he is a coder and designer, he acts on those notions too.

Dave Winer writes “we all feel disempowered“:

… people who feel disempowered figure there’s nothing they can do, no one would listen to me anyway, so I’ll just go on doing what I do. I know I feel that way.

He’s talking in the context of the US political landscape, but it applies in general too. Part of the solution he suggests is to

Invest in local news. And btw, I have a lot more to invest than money.

Two things stand out for me.

One is, that we’ve come accustomed to view everything through the lens of individualism. Yes, we’ve gained much from individualism, but by now we’ve also landed in a false dichotomy. The false dichotomy is the presumption that you need to solve something as an individual, or if you individually can’t then all is lost. It puts all responsibility for any change on the individual, while it is clear no-one can change the world on their own. It pitches individuals against society as a whole, but ignores the intermediate level: groups with agency.

The second false dichotomy is the choice between either the (hyper)local or the global. You remove litter from your street, or you set out to save the ozone layer. Here again there’s a bridge possible between those two extremes, the (hyper)local and the global. Where you do something useful locally that also has some impact on a global issue. Or where you translate a global issue to how it manifests locally and solves a local need. You can worry about global fossil fuel use and with a cooperative in your area generate green energy. You can run your own parts of a global infrastructure, while basically only looking to create a local service. It is not either local or global. It can be local action, leveraging the opportunities global connection brings, or to mitigate the fall-out of global issues. It can be global, as scaling of local efforts.

Local / global, individual / society aren’t opposites, they’re layers. Complexity resides in that layeredness. To help deal with complexity the intermediate levels between the individual and the masses, bridging the local and the global (note: the national level is not that bridge) is what counts. The false dichotomies, and the narratives they are used in, obscure that, and create disempowerment that way.

Disempowerment is a kind of despair. The answer to despair isn’t hope but action. Networked agency, looks at groups in context to solve their own issues, in the full awareness of the global networks that surrounds us. Group action in its own context, overlapping into other contexts, layered into global context, like Russian dolls.

Kars Alfrink pointed me to a report on AI Ethics by the Nuffield Foundation, and from it lifts a specific quote, adding:

Good to see people pointing this out: “principles alone are not enough. Instead of representing the outcome of meaningful ethical debate, to a significant degree they are just postponing it”

This postponing of things, is something I encounter all the time. In general I feel that many organisations who claim to be looking at ethics of algorithms, algorithmic fairness etc, currently actually don’t have anything to do with AI, ML or complicated algorithms. To me it seems they just do it to place the issue of ethics well into the future, that as yet unforeseen point they will actually have to deal with AI and ML. That way they prevent having to look at ethics and de-biasing their current work, how they now collect, process data and the governance processes they have.

This is not unique to AI and ML though. I’ve seen it happen with open data strategies too. Where the entire open data strategy of for instance a local authority was based on working with universities and research entities to figure out how decades after now data might play a role. No energy was spent on how open data might be an instrument in dealing with actual current policy issues. Looking at future issues as fig leaf to not deal with current ones.

This is qualitatively different from e.g. what we see in the climate debates, or with smoking, where there is a strong current to deny the very existence of issues. In this case it is more about being seen to solve future issues, so no-one notices you’re not addressing the current ones.

Sinds twee jaar doe ik iets soortgelijks. Bij ieder spreekverzoek op een conferentie kijk ik naar wie nog meer komt, en of er, als er panels zijn, evenwicht in een panel zit. Als ik zelf niet kan, geef ik vrouwen op als alternatieve sprekers. Bij mijn panel deelname op een conferentie in Servië vorig jaar september, was het panel in evenwicht. Een half jaar eerder in Servië was het ook in orde. Mijn optreden bij State of the Net afgelopen jaar vond ik lastiger, in die zin. Te weinig vrouwen als spreker vond ik (3 van de 11), en telkens drie sprekers werden in een panel gezet, waardoor je dus geheel mannelijke panels kreeg. Wel heb ik, ik zit in het adviescomité van dat congres, zelf alleen vrouwelijke sprekers voorgedragen. Uiteindelijk ben ik wel gegaan, enerzijds omdat ik zelf een geheel nieuw verhaal wilde testen op een relevant publiek, anderzijds om een goede vriend die het organiseert niet teleur te stellen. Maar het betekent wel iets voor hoe ik dit jaar mijn adviserende rol in wil vullen.

Als event-organisator weet ik dat het kan, een gebalanceerde sprekerslijst en dito panels. Je moet wel zorgen dat je netwerk bij voorbaat al gebalanceerder is. Zo probeer ik dat bijvoorbeeld al te doen in mijn feedreader bij de weblogs die ik volg. Er is een overvloed aan vakmensen en denkers, als je die niet vindt ligt het niet aan die mensen. Als ik bijvoorbeeld vrouwelijke sprekers wil kunnen aanraden moet ik ze zelf ook eerst kennen: netwerken is gewoon een continue activiteit. Als event-organiser moet je er ook rekening mee houden dat mannen en vrouwen verschillend op een uitnodiging te spreken reageren. Mannen zijn eerder gevleid en gaan er vanuit dat ze wel een relevant verhaal kunnen houden. Vrouwen reageren eerder met reserve t.a.v. match van hun eigen kwalificaties en wat je zegt te zoeken voor je conferentie (er is altijd wel iemand beter), of planningsproblemen. Bij internationale conferenties die ik organiseerde nodigden we dan ook twee vrouwelijke sprekers t.o.v iedere man uit. In de praktijk kwam je dan op het omgekeerde uit, 1 op de 3 vrouwen als spreker. Het had nog een stuk beter gekund met meer vasthoudendheid (en betere planning) van onze kant. In Zweden op technische conferenties waar ik sprak was het altijd keurig 50-50. Ook in de organisatie zelf, en dat is volgens mij al het halve werk.

Replied to Alleen mannen op het podium? Dan kom ik niet. by an author

Prins Constantijn gaat nooit meer in een panel zitten zonder dat er minstens één vrouw in zit. Volgens hem is dat een goede manier om vooroordelen over vrouwelijke ondernemers weg te nemen, …..
Een mooie uitspraak die hopelijk ook in daad word omgezet…

Chris Corrigan last November wrote a posting “Towards the idea that complexity is a theory of change“. Questions about the ‘theory of change’ you intend to use are regular parts of project funding requests for NGO’s, the international development sector and the humanitarian aid sector.

Chris’ posting kept popping up in my mind, “I really should blog about this”. But I didn’t. So for now I just link to it here. Because I think Chris is right, complexity is a theory of change. And in projects I do that concern community stewarding, networked agency and what I call distributed digital transformation, basically anything where people are the main players, it is for me in practice. Articulating it that way is helpful.

Cutting Through Complexity
How not to deal with complexity… Overly reductionist KPMG adverts on Thames river boats

Dries Buytaert, the originator of the Drupal CMS, is pulling the plug on Facebook. Having made the same observations I did, that reducing FB engagement leads to more blogging. A year ago he set out to reclaim his blog as a thinking-out-loud space, and now a year on quits FB.

I’ve seen this in a widening group of people in my network, and I welcome it. Very much so. At the same time though, I realise that mostly we’re returning to the open web. As we were already there for a long time before the silo’s Sirens lured us in, silos started by people who like us knew the open web. For us the open web has always been the default.

Returning to the open web is in that sense not a difficult step to make. Yes, you need to overcome the FOMO induced by the silo’s endless scrolling timeline. But after that withdrawal it is a return to the things still retained in your muscle memory. Dusting off the domain name you never let lapse anyway. Repopulating the feed reader. Finding some old blogging contacts back, and like in the golden era of blogging, triangulate from their blog roll and published feeds to new voices, and subscribe to them. It’s a familiar rhythm that never was truly forgotten. It’s comforting to return, and in some ways privilege rather than a risky break from the mainstream.

It makes me wonder how we can bring others along with us. The people for whom it’s not a return, but striking out into the wilderness outside the walled garden they are familiar with. We say it’s easy to claim your own space, but is it really if you haven’t done it before? And beyond the tech basics of creating that space, what can we do to make the social aspects of that space, the network and communal aspects easier? When was the last time you helped someone get started on the open web? When was the last time I did? Where can we encounter those that want and need help getting started? Outside of education I mean, because people like Greg McVerry have been doing great work there.

The ‘on this day in earlier years‘ plugin I recently installed on this blog is already proving to be useful in the way I hoped: creating somewhat coincidental feedback loops to my earlier blogposts, self serendipity.

Last week I had lunch with Lilia and Robert, and 15 years ago today another lunch with Lilia prompted a posting on lurking in social networks / blog networks. With seventeen comments, many of them pointing to other blogposts it’s a good example of the type of distributed conversations blogging can create. Or could, 15 years ago. Re-reading that posting now, it is still relevant to me. And a timely reminder. I think it would be worth some time to go through more of my postings about information strategies from back then, and see how they compare to now, and how they would translate to now.