Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts

Oct 4, 2012

#Patter of tiny feet, lulz in App.net 3rd dimension

Maybe, just maybe, I don't get out enough.

After putting out a testimonial about developers' haven App.net (ADN) in which I questioned its viability due to being trapped in a spammy conversation thread about bacon from which there seemed no escape -- I was amazed at how the community swung into action to fix the problem.

It restored my faith in humanity -- at least for a day :)

App.net was set up by developers, for developers, as a refuge to create an environment independent from the influence of advertisers -- allowing creative freedom and more ownership -- and was successfully launched as a subscription service in the summer. 

It was also meant to strike at the heart of Twitter, which has become increasingly commercial, exclusive and more difficult for developers to use as a platform for innovation over the past six years.

The ADN atmosphere is different also because it allows for 256 characters as opposed to Twitter’s 140, meaning there is more in-depth conversation with intelligent people – less broadcast, more chat.

In its nascent, or alpha, state, there are absolutely no protections for users. There's no way to block or report people, mute conversations, direct message (DM) – all those basic protective aspects of Twitter, or even Google Plus (G+) where you can create circles and decide who to share what with -- even your own stream is compulsorily public and there’s no way to selectively hide it.

After my critical "App.net: User utopia?" blog post about ADN, where I outlined some of its pitfalls for users, hit its global stream I was sincerely touched by how many empathetic messages I received from users beckoning me back to the site. 

A significant amount of conversation focused on how to remedy the problem of being reluctantly caught up in a stream or being unable to leave one. People also discussed how to rectify the problem of having nowhere to go for a private chat.

When murmurs started about "Patter", created by @duerig loosely based on some code by @q -- it was as if a bomb had dropped, decimating the main global stream.

We all pattered from ADN into a wonderful chatroom which literally felt like a parallel universe. I've never seen any space online generate such joy and camaraderie  -- I've never seen anything close to it.

Before long, people were getting concerned about the fact that the updates were dying in the global stream as users revelled in the Patter chatroom.

"Now we can tell people to 'get a room'," said @po, referring to Patter's ability to provide private separate space for people to have conversations outside of the main stream. 

The idea is that Patter, which can also be used within the Appnetizens interface designed by @adrianus, can help give users some control over the environment and help bring order to chaos.

Another bombshell was dropped on Wednesday with the news that Tapbots had released Netbot, an iPhone and iPad app for ADN.

The announcement instantaneously brought a flood of new users into the global stream. It also upset some developers slaving away to create other similar mobile products, and raised questions among some users about the integrity of the ADN mandate.

Order was more or less restored on Thursday and the atmosphere was more sedate as users adjusted to the new influx of people on ADN, recovered from the excitement of the previous day and buckled down to work on various apps.

**** Picture created on dood.li

Oct 1, 2012

App.net: user utopia?



Here are my personal thoughts on App.net (ADN).  

I'm not saying that these ideas are in any way conclusive, but after spending a little over a week on the site my experiences and observations made me feel wary on several fronts.

It may be fixable, or maybe not.

As I understand it, App.net was set up to be a haven for developers to create an environment independent from the influence of advertisers -- allowing them creative freedom -- and was successfully launched as a subscription service in the summer.

After I signed up last week everything seemed great: lots of friendly chit chat and the ability to talk freely about things on different levels. And because it offered room for 256 characters as opposed to Twitter’s 140, it allowed for broader conversation with intelligent people – less broadcast, more chat.

The presence of the global stream similar to the one which was removed from Twitter, where I have been a member since 2008, seemed a benefit.

I noticed I was being followed by several people who described themselves as “Christian” in their bios. It made me wonder about what it meant to advertise being Christian in a social media bio because it is a bit different than saying you are a parent, a journalist or a developer, for example.

In some ways, it's like stating an opinion on an issue which in real-life polite social arenas might typically better be avoided – as with other difficult topics such as politics, etc. It’s a bit like taking an in-your-face stand – similar to dropping a bombshell at a party that’s humming happily along by proclaiming: “I'm a conservative” or “I'm a leftist” or “I'm a civil libertarian”.

It made me wonder what would happen if I said certain things that were not acceptable to those with “Christian” in their bio and/or if I might be targeted if I said the wrong thing. I was reminded of the spambots on Twitter that appear with those odd bios of broken bits of sentence fragments and numbers.

On Twitter, I do not follow back or engage with people making potentially confrontational claims in their bios – or I would block them -- because I want to avoid conflict.

I was interacting with some of the Christians who were following me, and then suddenly got worried over a silly discussion about bacon I became involved in -- I know it probably sounds crazy, but I just got this feeling that to be part of that discussion about liking bacon, which went on and on and got bigger and bigger and had more and more people copied in, with people proclaiming their Christianity in their bios made it kind of exclusionary -- possibly an affront -- to people from religions that don't eat pork.

I kept my thoughts to myself and didn't say anything about it, but I said I wanted to leave the discussion. But it was difficult to get out -- impossible in fact. So I muted the people and deleted updates that showed my involvement in it.

On a basic level it proves the need to have a way to block people, mute conversations, direct message (DM) – all those basic aspects of Twitter, or even as with Google Plus (G+) where you can create circles and decide who to share what with, but on App.net I felt totally vulnerable -- even your own stream is compulsorily public and there’s no way to selectively hide it.

But it also shows that despite its utopian goals to outdo Twitter with its oodles of trolls and data monitors, App.net may not be altogether free of the same.

After that first big discussion about bacon, in a separate thread I noticed in the global stream some of the people involved in the bacon chat started talking about hating the Taliban and bombing villages in Afghanistan containing populations supportive of the radical Sunni Muslim movement.

On the heels of the chat about bacon, it suddenly seemed like the environment was not so beautiful as it had been over the previous few days.

I thought: "Perhaps an antagonistic U.S. Christian fundamentalism biased against other religions is the underpinning theme of the environment."

People are entitled to their political views and religious beliefs, and on a very basic level blocking or whatever other technical means necessary could solve the problem for an individual who does not want to be a part of such a circle within the network. But these mechanisms don’t exist on ADN.

 I started thinking about the entire project.

Lots of people have paid $50 to sign up for the service, but what do they really get for their money?

They get a social networking/broadcasting site if they are people like me, and if they are a developer they get a good opportunity to make stuff to take the site beyond its bare bones and improve its functionality so that the founders can sell more subscriptions. Developers have the chance to make money too from their endeavours.

This is what App.net say on their site:

"We are operating a sustainable, predictable business. App.net will always have a clear business model. We know that depending on services that could go away or desperately squeeze users for more and more money is a toxic cycle. We want our ecosystem to rest easy that App.net is built on a financially solid foundation."

That doesn't tell me much. Maybe they have one, but I didn't see it on their site -- what is the actual business model?

What's the ultimate objective?

For users it's total chaos. All the protections built into other sites are not there. No opportunity to DM, no way to protect a feed, no way to block people, etc. Most importantly, no way to report people for abusive behaviour.

Conversations get hijacked. People add too many people in -- it's similar to what can happen to a comment thread on G+.

It's anarchy.

Apparently, it's up to random developers to bring random order to it – if they feel like it!

When I subscribed, I paid with a corporate credit card because ADN don't offer PayPal as an option for payment, and I didn't want to give them my personal card details.

App.net says those who “join the movement” will not be subject to having their personal data, content, feed, interests, clicks or anything else sold to advertisers. ADN data will remain in the full control of the user, the site says.

At the same time, they say “we hope developers build large, robust businesses on top of our platform” which in my personal opinion does not preclude developers and others using – or even observing the site without joining it – from monitoring or retrieving user data, selling it or forming opinions based on it.

I am concerned that by default – because I cannot control my environment – that I may be perceived as being associated with some trends on App.net by having my moniker attached to certain chats or because certain people are following me.

I can mute them, but I can’t block them.  



****Lawn of the dead garden gnome picture courtesy of @kosso

***NB: Since I wrote this blog post, many kind members of ADN have beckoned me back to the site. Including one user who has told me that a developer has fixed the problem. I have not yet had time to check. 




May 15, 2011

English pancakes, or Shrove Tuesday





I sent this to an American I know from Twitter who wanted the recipe for English pancakes -- shortly after March 8 - Shrove Tuesday.

I don't have my mother's recipe in London, so I use a recipe from a Gary Rhodes cookbook my sister gave me a few years ago titled "New British Classics".

My mother is English and my father Canadian. They met in London and then moved back and forth between the UK and Canada several times as well as the United States.

My mother started a tradition of serving my sister and me English pancakes when we were children, but later in life hated making them.

She would often not tell us when it was Pancake Day, so she wouldn't be coaxed into making them.

She much prefers to make Canadian pancakes, which are far simpler.






Although the Rhodes recipe below does not specify, I have always eaten English pancakes, which are like crepes, with white granulated sugar and either freshly squeezed lemon juice or orange juice. 






I have always preferred orange juice to lemon as I find it too sour.

My mother taught us to sprinkle sugar over the pancake, then drizzle juice over it, roll it up and sprinkle a bit more sugar and juice on top.






These are tedious to make as you have to put the batter on the pan and then tilt it around to ensure the batter spreads out thinly on the pan.

After pouring the batter, I wait for until the edges are cooked through and peeling away a bit from the pan. Then I shake the pan so the pancake loosens. Once it is getting cooked through I flip the pancake on the pan rather than using a spatula to turn it.

For maximum efficiency and to cook these up as quickly as possible, I would recommend using two frying pans. Otherwise it seems to take forever standing at the stove.

I hope you enjoy these if you make them.

Gary Rhodes
New British Classics

Home-made Pancakes

Pancakes were among the very early enriched breads cooked on the griddle and have become one of our favourite breakfast and afternoon tea foods. They have a long-standing yearly association with Shrove Tuesday, otherwise known as Pancake Day, which is when all the eggs must be used up before Lent.

Pancakes are a Sunday treat in our house, with my sons and me whisking away making the batter.

And then I cook the pancakes, while they eat them: I'm making a mistake somewhere! But they are so easy to make and with a dribbling of golden syrup, just delicious. They could also be served with honey, jam or ice cream. In a savoury sense, they can be filled with ratatouille, fish stew, mussels, chicken and so on.

This quantity will make 16-24 pancakes, depending on the size of pan used. It is best to use a 20 cm (8 in) or 15 cm (6 in) frying pan.

- 225 g (8 oz) plain flour (all purpose in North America)
- Pinch of salt
- 2 eggs
- 600 ml (1 pint) milk
- 50 g (2 oz) unsalted butter, melted
- Vegetable oil, for frying

Sift the flour and salt into a bowl. Whisk the eggs and the milk into the flour. Add the melted butter and whisk into the mix. At this stage, the mix can be used for sweet or savoury pancakes.

For a stronger savoury flavour, chopped fresh parsley or mixed herbs can also be added.

To cook the pancakes, pre-heat the frying pan. Lightly oil the pan and pour in some the mixture, making sure the pan has only a thin layer of mix by tilting and rotating the pan to make the batter spread out.

Cook for 30-40 seconds, until golden brown. Turn the pancake over and cook for a further 20-30 seconds.

The pancake is now cooked. Keep warm between squares of greaseproof paper, while you cook the remainder. Two or three pancakes per portion should be plenty.

If made well in advance, the pancakes can be microwaved for 30-40 seconds to re-heat.