The Real-Time Web
One of the key challenges in the Network Age is how to absorb all the information flowing through what’s being called the “Real Time Web.” Howard Greenstein spoke with Andrew Keen (self-proclaimed “Anti-Christ of Silicon Valley,” Author of “The Cult of the Amateur”), TechCrunch Co-Editor and moderator of the Real Time Stream Crunchup event Erick Schonfeld, John Borthwick, Kevin Marks, David Talley and others on the topic. Click the player above to hear the conversation. The conversation continues in the comments below.
Background: In recent video interviews on the Supernova Hub, Keen and author Clay Shirky, perhaps surprisingly, agree that the information flowing across our news, email, Facebook, Twitter and other networks needs to be curated and filtered. But will the curators be “experts,” acting as the gatekeepers of All The News That’s Fit To Share? Will we simply filter our information based on the concept of “greylisting,” where we simply see the items that were interesting to our closest contacts and colleagues? What can we learn from the TechCrunch event where experts gave their opinions recently?
Chat Transcript:
*** (18:04:37):Welcome to the Supernova Chat Room.
Supernova says (18:05:37):
welcome all
Kevin Werbach says to (18:06:19):
Ironic that we’re talking about the real time web today when Twitter was down for hours from a denial of service attack
Supernova says (18:06:28):
agreed
ccarfi says to (18:07:23):
Hi, all
Kevin Werbach says to (18:08:54):
Andrew sees real-time replacing email. Another reason that is happenign is the continuing growth of spam.
ccarfi says to (18:10:20):
if anyone has a question for the callers, either put them here, or if you would like to ask live on the call, please let me know.
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:11:39):
go bitly!
Kevin Werbach says to (18:11:47):
Who woulda thunk there was a biz in link shorteners?
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:11:58):
John did.
Kevin Werbach says to (18:12:03):
(I know)
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:12:12):
of course.
Kevin Werbach says to (18:12:12):
Johnborthwick says to (18:12:34):
thank.ly
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:12:39):
well said.
Supernova says (18:13:11):
welcome John . we’ll include you if you ahve a comment or question
Johnborthwick says to (18:14:05):
ok
Kevin Werbach says to (18:15:47):
Memory vs. consciousness? Yes, this is getting deep.
Supernova says (18:17:43):
maybe we should take it up a level
ccarfi says to (18:20:38):
“recency effect?”
Supernova says (18:21:21):
i want it now
Supernova says (18:21:34):
shiny object syndrome?
Kevin Werbach says to (18:21:54):
Is Facebook really about realtime? Even with the news feed, I mostly use it for connections, rather than stream updates.
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:24:39):
A new way of experiencing the world?
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:25:14):
Are we experiencing it with our minds or our hearts?
Johnborthwick says to (18:25:32):
here howard
Johnborthwick says to (18:25:50):
tell me what to do to talk
Supernova says (18:26:02):
we will addyou
Supernova says (18:26:04):
in 1 min
Johnborthwick says to (18:26:54):
ok
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:28:20):
All these streams…what Joseph Campbell spoke of -we’re “standing on a whale, fishing for minnows”
blephen says to (18:28:45):
fb is hardly realtime and i doubt it will ever be as “realtime” as twitter. i don’t see that as their core competency or their offering.
geoffabrown says to (18:29:26):
Perfect timing for this debate. I just finished reading “Cult of the Amateur” as research for a recent panel on Citizen Journalism and found Keen’s points to be quite relevant.
Supernova says (18:29:49):
is FB making pages the public component
blephen says to (18:30:22):
hi andrew, hi eric, it’sjeff, “the schwartz” here…interesting stuff both of you, thx.
Supernova says (18:30:36):
geoff if you have a quest. pls dial in and press 1 to ask it
blephen says to (18:34:42):
good point andrew
blephen says to (18:35:37):
this is a very old discussion that began back before web 1.0 dotbombed. glad to see/hear it recapitulated and mapped onto today.
Supernova says (18:36:21):
we’re open to your questions
Supernova says (18:36:27):
you can call in and press 1` or ask them here
blephen says to (18:39:23):
suggest folks take a look at this video rant by alan kay and andy van dam from last year’sprogramforthefuture.org conference. https://admin.adobe.acrobat.com/_a295153/p99875217/
blephen says to (18:39:51):
the stream from twitter contains 20+ percent bots…that’s well more than enuff to game the system
RandyGiusto says to (18:42:56):
regular people have to take the next step and look at Twitter apps to “get it” as Twitter.com is limited in functionality- great chat!
blephen says to (18:43:15):
it’s simple, you don’t follow your friends, you search subjects and look at people who are tweeting on the subject you are interested in. if they’re tweets are 20% useful, i follow them. in one hour i was able to uncover most of the backchannel on iran.
blephen says to (18:44:39):
it’s not about nowness it’s about relevence and context.
geoffabrown says to (18:46:30):
At our Social Media Club Los Angeles panel, Chris Tolles (Topix CEO) said, “assume all news from unconfirmed sources” as untrustworthy” and “you have to triangulate reports” to get at the truth. I prefer to wait for a trusted news source…
Supernova says (18:46:48):
excellent geoff but who do you trust?
blephen says to (18:46:59):
bingo
blephen says to (18:47:10):
trust is the key
blephen says to (18:47:56):
what is a trusted news source?
blephen says to (18:48:43):
in an echo-chamber of spin, there are few “genuine” voices
geoffabrown says to (18:48:44):
Each source leans one way or another…I suppose you can have a better triangulation by taking a few different major media outlets
RandyGiusto says to (18:48:51):
Yes, I’ve created a “sages” group in TweetDeck that is growing, but it’s from following various streams and other industry people I know. Over time, I trust these people the most
blephen says to (18:49:41):
yes, editing is still an essential function
blephen says to (18:49:52):
but who is going to do it?
Jonathan Trumper says to (18:50:22):
public versus private sources
blephen says to (18:51:04):
that’s not true
blephen says to (18:51:11):
all the source data is hardly public
blephen says to (18:51:44):
much of the “source data” is just referencing hearsay
blephen says to (18:52:16):
there’s less and less real research and more and more obfuscation
David Talley says to (18:52:31):
One excellent source of credible filtering might be a professional association in the space (says the guy who works for a professional association).
David Talley says to (18:53:09):
Few associations are all that agile but they can catch up.
ccarfi says to (18:53:17):
yup.
Supernova says (18:53:51):
david – which association?
David Talley says to (18:54:09):
American Water Works Association (awwa.org)
RandyGiusto says to (18:54:22):
more data does not equal more insight, just more noise!
Kevin Werbach says to (18:54:33):
“slicing and dicing the stream”
blephen says to (18:54:50):
@randy, tru dat s/n ratio is the problem
geoffabrown says to (18:56:09):
News aggregators can add value by having various “trust” levels associated with each article they publish I suppose.
ccarfi says to (18:56:09):
David…you are totally on to something. Didn’t associations used to do “research” and publish it, but perhaps that raw-data info comes from the web now. But it’s too much, not credible, etc. So, assoc. can (re-)become the authoritative source?
blephen says to (18:56:44):
remember that associations often have a bias of their own…
David Talley says to (18:56:51):
We do that now in old-web terms — online pubs, mainly.
blephen says to (18:57:48):
what is needed i think is a spin indicator…hey there’s an idea for a biz…mebbe i’ll get to work on that.
geoffabrown says to (18:57:50):
Great call everybody. Thank you very much Supernova.
David Talley says to (18:58:12):
Those researched original stories & papers take time, though. We may be ignoring an opporunity to pick up bits from our community and retweet or post the best, according to our informed judgment.
blephen says to (18:58:13):
yes, great call. thx
JulianG says to (18:59:58):
Thanks
blephen says to (19:00:09):
just remember as billy wilder said: taken individually, the audience are all idiots, but together they are genius
Jonathan Trumper says to (19:00:22):
thanks Howard
Supernova says (19:00:27):
thank you all!
Supernova says (19:00:31):
great contributions from the chat
RandyGiusto says to (19:00:39):
thanks!
One question that came up as the call was wrapping was from Rachel, who asked “Are these organizations syncing with librarians, who have deep skills in this area?”
A great question. There is an existing, well-understood discipline called “Information Science” out there. Are organizations taking advantage of this existing body of knowledge, or are they reinventing the wheel?
“Memory” is a subset of “consciousness!”
[...] who curates the real-time web? we do. A friend of mine invited me to call in to a web talk show about “who curates the real time web?” after I posted some characteristically snarky answers to the question on his Facebook page. [...]
I totally agree with the last paragraph from the linked post above:
“The librarian silo is starting to crumble at the bottom from rotting woodwork. The tech-business silo can’t be built any taller without more resources and materials. I can’t help but think maybe if we were all in the same barn, instead of off building our own silos, our Twitters and our OPACs, we could achieve real progress, for both sides of the spectrum. Librarians have immense value to offer. We know how to organize, annotate, and recommend materials and information. We have a history of credibility, authority, and reliability (unlike “brands” that were recommended as reliable sources). We have exactly the skills called for in today’s discussion. But we just don’t have the money, the support, or the technological skills. The tech elite wants their web organized, and they have resources to throw at it. They just don’t know how to do it. Imagine what we could do if we broke down those silos and worked together.”
Agreed. So, what’s preventing the various silos from blending? Time? Money? Knowledge that the other sides exist?
D) all of the above, with a little bit of e) librarians, at least, have been very protective and defensive about their professional identities, and often perceive commerical information organization efforts as threats rather than opportunites for contribution and improvement. I think many are still intimidated by digital evolution. Also, we’ve never been the best at self-marketing and promotion–that’s clearly evidenced by the sheer number of people who still think librarians simply read and shelve books all day.
Note these other 2 pieces:
http://www.benjaminjtaylor.com/2009/08/a-supernova-hub-podcast-the-real-time-web/
and
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/06/realtime-blabfest-with-andrew-keen-john-borthwick-and-kevin-marks/
for other takes on today’s discussion.