adamyntium

Category: society

  • Privacy, paranoia, and Plaxo

    For those of you reading my blogs and primarily interested in the TIPS category, I’ll get the useful / utilitarian part of this post out of the way first:

    The Plaxo service is pretty darn cool. Despite some annoying quirks, it’s useful, it’s fun, and it’s free. I definitely recommend giving Plaxo a try.

    What is it? Well, in a nutshell, Plaxo is a service (with optional software) that allows you to:
    – Keep your addressbook up-to-date pretty effortlessly.
    – Send out contact-info changes to your friends easily.
    – Access your entire addressbook securely on the Web from anywhere.

    Read on for my detailed thoughts about Plaxo.

    The Plaxo Controversy

    First, the boring ‘legalese’:

    DISCLAIMER:
    I’m not affiliated with Plaxo in any way except as a generally happy user of the service and software.

    Okay, now with that out of the way… 😀

    Since Plaxo’s inception, there’s been a bit of a firestorm on the Internet about privacy, trust, and the evils the service could and might do with your personal info.

    After all, they have your e-mail address, full name, and possibly company name, job title, phone numbers, and more. What a treasure trove for telemarketers and other sleazoids, right?

    Well, sort of. Plaxo vehemently insists, via their privacy policy, that they’re not going to do any of that nasty stuff with your info. And you know what? I believe them. I also like and respect how they prominently feature both a plain English summary of their privacy policy and also a longer, more detailed version for those interested.

    Personally, I think lots of people on the Web are far too paranoid for their own good. Of course, everyone is and should be free to make their own judgement calls about what services and people they trust, but what bothers me is the foaming-at-the-mouth invective and often outright nastiness that’s been flung at Plaxo and other companies like it. “They could sell all our data!” some scream, and “If they get bought out, they’ll betray us!” Many of these people have loudly lumped Plaxo into the category of spammers and virus-makers and worse… IMHO unfairly tarnishing Plaxo’s reputation and unfortunately dissuading many from making an informed opinion about the service.

    Do those folks who are angrily ranting about the ‘threats’ of Plaxo realize what data is ALREADY widely (and sometimes freely or cheaply) available about them via their banks, their health insurance company, the department of motor vehicles, the Direct Marketing Association databases, and so on (all of whom are, without a doubt, FAR more palpably evil than companies like Plaxo)? And unlike Plaxo, most of these companies have actively resisted disclosing, much less openly inviting people to check out their privacy policies.

    Plus other online entities already have demonstrated the concept of trust. Amazon.com not only has my personal contact info, they also have several of my credit card numbers and my purchase history. What if Amazon.com got bought out, huh, bub? ;-). Strangely, I don’t see too many people flinging epithets at Amazon in their blog entries, speculating about how all their data’ll be sold to the highest bidder if Amazon gets bought out.

    * * *

    Personally, I’m much more worried about my credit card companies’ policies (especially since they STILL persist on trying to sell me crap over the phone!) than I am about Plaxo. For that matter, I also think there’s a zillion-times greater chance of my personal data being stolen and sold by a waiter who has my credit card number in a back room for a few minutes.

    Comparative risks, people. Intelligent weighing of risks and benefits. Plaxo offers what I think most would agree is a useful and interesting service. The tradeoff, in my mind, is a no-brainer. Or, in a more direct / less-eloquent way of putting it: get a grip.

    * * *

    LEGITIMATE PROBLEMS WITH PLAXO

    Despite my defense above, I should, in fairness, point out that there are quite a few problems and annoyances with Plaxo.

    1) Privacy issues
    There actually is one argument I’ve read from privacy advocates that I can respect. Unlike with services such as Amazon.com, for instance, where each person has the choice of whether or not to submit his or her personal data, with Plaxo, it’s not really up to each individual. In other words, because I have Jim Smith in my addressbook and I send a query to him via Plaxo’s servers (AND I store his data on Plaxo’s site so I can access my addressbook on the Web), Jim has effectively had his data shared without his consent… and possibly even without his knowledge. Of greater concern, if Jim is particularly concerned about Plaxo ‘n’ Privacy, he really has no recourse for getting his name OFF of Plaxo’s servers, short of demanding all of his friends to remove him from their personal addressbooks.

    2) UI issues
    Plaxo is pretty darn user-friendly, but there are quite a few UI niceties that its engineers have overlooked, and cumulatively, these issues are rather frustrating. For instance, when I’m looking through any large Plaxo list of my contacts, I can’t simply jump to a name by hitting the first few letters. I have to first sort, then scroll. With 600 names in my addressbook, that’s damn annoying, especially if I want to select more than a couple names.

    3) Not very customizable
    While I can change and add to some of the language in the “please update your contact queries that get sent to friends, far too much of it is fixed — and overly formal. The cringe-worthy closing is “Thanks, Adam Lasnik.” What friend signs off with a closing like that?! And while one can save the (partially) customized mails sent out for future use, they’re neither named nor editable nor deletable. It’s issues like this that suggest that Plaxo has been “dumbed down” er, simplified at the expense of customizability, and frankly, I don’t believe that having a highly customizable (power-user) and user-friendly UI should be mutually exclusive.

    * * *

    Okay, with all that out of the way, let me explain why I think Plaxo kicks ass and why I’m pretty excited about it.

    WHY PLAXO ROCKS

    1) One-button sync with secure Web version of my addressbook
    This option, included as part of the free service, is wonderfully handy! Had I been using Plaxo when my Palm Pilot was stolen during a trip throughout Europe a while back, I would have had a much easier time (pop into an Internet cafe, log into Plaxo, access the handy PRINT version of my contact list, print it… voila!). Plus, it’s impressive and useful how the Web version offers nearly the identical (and in some cases, actually superior) functionality to the desktop/Outlook/Outlook Express front-end.

    2) Support for FoaF (Friend of a Friend) standard
    Granted, I’ll admit that I don’t quite yet grasp how this works, nor know if it will end up being widely adopted over time. But the fact that Plaxo has listened to and worked with pioneers in this realm suggests to me that the Plaxo folks are committed to a reasonable amount of interoperability and openness.

    3) Good documentation, admirable interactions with customers
    Though in the past Plaxo has been criticized for some slowness with customer service responses, I’ve actually been pleased with my experience so far, and also impressed that Plaxo representatives have intelligently and actively participated in multiple forums and even posted on blogs. Plus the Plaxo Web site is pretty informative, with a searchable knowledgebase and multiple ways to contact customer service (even an “emergency” form).

    4) Plain English promises and reassurances
    As mentioned earlier, Plaxo has admirably taken steps to be a responsible and ethical player in the Internet contact-sync space, and has also clearly articulated their stances and promises on their site.

    5) Robust feature set and ease of use.
    While Plaxo occupies a pretty busy space (with, among others, GoodContacts and AddresSender), it seems to have the edge in features and makes them nicely accessible via a number of different ways — both via client software and the Web.

    and most importantly…
    6) Strong usefulness!
    When you start having many hundreds of contacts like I do from all over the world, something like Plaxo is a Godsend! I haven’t yet used it to do a full scan, but when I used the similar GoodContacts software a couple of years ago, I found myself instantly provided with literally dozens of critical contact info updates from friends, and also some friendly catch-up notes from people who hadn’t written me for a long time. I also got quite a few bounces, which saved me from writing long letters to people whose contact info was long since out of date.

    * * *

    THE RESULTS SO FAR IN MY TESTING…
    I have tested out Plaxo on a handful of friends and personal test accounts so far, and the responses and results have been generally positive.
    – All said the process of responding was straightforward and easy.
    – In every case, the info they input was added flawlessly to my Outlook addressbook.
    – In my own tests, Plaxo requests weren’t viewed as spam either on my Yahoo or Hotmail accounts. Unfortunately, one friend at Cornell found my Plaxo request in his spam folder. 🙁
    – One friend was reluctant to supply his address, due to privacy concerns; he sent that to me separately via my Web forum, whereupon I mercilessly teased him about being a hypocrite :D.
    – And one other friend was angry that I had disclosed his “personal” e-mail address to a third party, but that doesn’t say anything about Plaxo in particular.
    – I’ve noticed a couple of minor bugs, such as an improper date stamp in one area of my Plaxo reports, but the engineer I corresponded with has noted that this should be fixed promptly.

    After I square away a few things, I plan on doing a much larger test with Plaxo (over several hundred contacts), and — if there’s interest — I’ll report my findings back here in my blog.

    In the meantime, I encourage you to post your Plaxo concerns, kudos, and questions below if you’d like, and I’ll do my best to address what I can and – within reason — test specific stuff out for you. Of course, if you’re as geeky and curious as I am, you’ll want to download and play with Plaxo yourself :-). I say go for it!

  • Tragedy of the Social Networking Commons — and the fixes

    I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about online social networks (like orkut, Friendster, Tribe.net, etc.), and am increasingly wondering not IF they can work, but rather, HOW and in what way.

    One of the most complicated and interesting issues, in my mind, is that of how the social networking services (SNs) reposition and provide access to various social strata… layers of ordinary folks, the down-and-out, the meek, the powerful, and poor, and the rich.

    Are SNs the great leveler? Or do they — or will they — simply replicate the strata and their boundaries that exist in the Real World? How will they evolve to keep people from all ends of the have/have-not spectrum interested and engaged?

    Take, for example, a famous company’s CEO. He’s smart, he’s powerful, he’s rich… and many, many people want to ‘network’ with him. Some want advice, others want information, and yet others want something more tangible… a job at his firm, or even an outright handout.

    What does this mean, then, for this CEO when he joins a social networking service? With few exceptions, he is laying himself bare and putting a sign over his unprotected self: “Take advantage of me!” After all, pretty much anyone can send him messages, and while he can hit delete delete delete, such indiscriminate filtering sucks away time and energy and potential.

    So, too, could he implement a gatekeeper… either an electronic one on the SNs that support it (e.g., accept only messages from 2nd-degree friends-of-friends), or a human one (have his secretary screen all incoming messages).

    But in either of the gatekeeper examples above, he has essentially neutralized one of the very advantages of the SNs — unfettered access to people of different backgrounds.

    The challenge, then, becomes one of finding an effective compromise.

    * * *

    I’ve found myself on both sides of the fence quite often. Due to my online presence, I get dozens of e-mails monthly asking for Web design advice, marketing help, and so on. In general, I’m happy to offer what I can, but I’ve increasingly found myself the recipient of barely-disguised spams (“I was wondering if you had any advice for my great Make Money Fast Network…”) or people who couldn’t bother to take two seconds to read my profile or even get my name right (Hint: It’s Adam, not Alan).

    On the flip side, I’ve innundated dozens of folks with questions about their careers and their companies in order to explore various job options and opportunities.

    Early on, things seemed to work out decently. I could e-mail CEOs and VPs and various PowerPlayers(tm) without fearing that they’d been bugged 70 times already that week. I made a sincere effort to do my homework ahead of time, tried to offer something of value myself, and always, ALWAYS wrote a highly-personalized introduction letter.

    But those early days are just a faded memory now for most SNs, it seems. I get the distinct impression that many of my (IMHO) thoughtful messages today find their only audience in some Recycle Bin… and I’ve noticed more and more PowerPlayers disabling their incoming message box, removing salient identifying information from their profiles (including company name), and basically, well, making themselves unavailable.

    Which then, it worries me, seems to portend a Social Networking Service Tragedy of the Commons. The harder it becomes to reach people one might want to network with, the broader net one is likely to cast. The broader the net, the more messages each person up the ‘power ladder’ is likely to be flooded with, adding to the spiral towards unhappy saturation.

    * * *

    A whole lot of different things could help, of course:

    1) Technological throttling
    SNs should make it difficult, if not impossible, to send messages to more than [x] people at a time, or more than [y] people in a given short time period. Or perhaps, as some thoughtful forum software packages have implemented, restrict people from sending more than [z] messages without first getting a response back; in this way, folks must craft messages worth responding to or risk getting shut out of further messaging.

    2) Collaborative filtering
    If enough people click on the ‘bozo’ button after receiving yet another unsolicited message about the joys of Amway, ideally that person would either have their account revoked, or at least messaging privileges suspended.

    3) Effective etiquette education
    From an early age, we learn that certain behaviors are not to be tolerated and are not part of civil society. MOST folks would not call a list of CEOs at home during dinner hour to ask for a job. Yet these same people seem to have no concerns about similarly annoying large bulks of people via online messaging.

    4) A stronger foundation of trust
    Some SNs, such as Spoke, allow one to send a message to an unconnected member only via a chain of connected members. In other words, if I want to reach Kevin Bacon, I must submit my message or request via someone I already know, and ask them to forward on the request to someone they know that knows Mr. Bacon. Each person in the chain has the option to forward — or not forward — the message on, encouraging the original writer to fine tune and prioritize his or her requests.

    * * *

    Out of the above ideas, I think the technology fix is the simplest, the collaborative filtering is a bit more complicated but still promising, the etiquette-teaching is a bit pie-in-the-sky (hey, people STILL send stupid chain letters despite being castigated), and the idea of stronger trust foundations being the most valuable overall.

    Specifically, I have the most faith in the latter option because it maximizes the incentive to build thoughtful connections and make intelligent networking requests. When combined with a more subtlely gradated connection scheme (social friend, work friend, acquaintance, relative…), I truly believe that SNs will then be able to facilitate and encourage friendly exchanges amongst strata. Job seekers who engagingly contribute in the SNs forums or prove in other ways that they have something to offer will then be granted access to key decisionmakers and powerbrokers.

    Of course, I acknowledge that the idea of discrete SNs-related strata is a bit of a fallacy. I may be an expert at one thing but a dunce at something else, and thus a great candidate for networking with someone of the opposite makeup for mutual benefit. Each of us may be, in that example, a ‘PowerPlayer’ in a different and complementary context. So, too, are there different fields of strata… physical attractiveness, artistic talents, social popularity, and yes, career achievement. The aforementioned CEO, for instance, is likely not averse to hearing from the unemployed, just uninterested in hearing from people who are, well, uninteresting and selfish.

    * * *

    Therefore, I’m optimistic that a mix of technological solutions built upon a flexible but not-overly-permissive gatekeeping/trusted-networking foundation will help SNs thrive — with people of all backgrounds on board. I just hope that relevant aspects of such a foundation become a stronger part of many of the current promising SNs in the news today.

    * * *

    Related entries:
    – Fascinating Perceptions of Online Social Networks
    – The New (much) Improved Friendster
    – A “Friend”ly misunderstanding
    – The concept of ‘networking’ events

  • Here’s why Lieberman (thankfully) lost

    Lieberman and those close to him have defiantly insisted that it’s his support for the Iraq war that sunk his candidacy.

    No, Joe, you lost because you’re a sanctimonious twit, and little better than the holier-than-thou and hypocritical Christian Conservatives that tut-tut at regular folk.

    I still remember my disgust when the first words out of your mouth after Saddam’s capture were berating your Democratic opponents instead of simply voicing hope and support for Iraq’s people. I remember how you crusaded against ‘filthy’ entertainment instead of spending your time discussing core issues that lead to poverty and hopelessness. And I remember, too, how you so frequently invoked the concept of Faith and God instead of offering thoughtful and viable solutions to our earthly problems.

    Joe, I’m happy to see you go. Good riddance.

  • CBS execs are a bunch of boobs

    As you’ve probably already heard, CBS refused to air a thoughtful ad on the SuperBowl that attempts to get people thinking about our country’s debt load on our children and grandchildren. CBS execs didn’t offer much in the way of an explanation except for some lame excuse about consistently refusing to run “issue” ads.

    Of course, they ran an ad equating drug use to terrorism, but I guess that’s not really an issue, right?

    Following the SuperBowl this evening, CBS execs loudly and frantically issued an apology.

    “CBS deeply regrets the incident,” spokeswoman LeslieAnne Wade said.

    But she wasn’t referring to CBS’ odious stiffling of important discourse or penchant for featuring clueless twits like Diane Sawyer.

    Nope. It was something far, far scarier and threatening to the fabric of our society.

    The network showed a quick glimpse of Janet Jackson’s naked breast!

    Oh, the horrors! A woman’s naked breast for a fleeting second!

    Puleeeeaze. Why on earth are Americans so obscenely UPTIGHT? It’s a breast, for goodness sake. It was made, some would say, by that very God so many of the same uptight folks love to publicly acknowledge and quote from.

    But it gets worse. Check out this guy’s foaming at the mouth:

    By allowing such disgusting spectacles, the NFL degrades every athlete who took thousands of body blows though the long football season to reach the Super Bowl. This is their moment. It dare not be stolen away by Neanderthalic music miscreants.

    – Rabbi Schmuley Boteach in a WorldNet Daily article.

    Personally, if I had kids, I’d much rather they be admiring a nice pair of breasts (heck, even one breast) instead of watching a bunch of dumb jocks slamming into each and slapping each others’ asses. I mean, really, who are the neanderthals here, Mr. Boteach?

    Actually, no, I shouldn’t be mocking the athletes here. We prudish, hypocritical Americans are a much bigger and much more deserving target.

    Only in America would TV networks gleefully and graphically depict several thousand murders and other violent crimes yearly (via dramas and ‘infotainment’) but then hurriedly and deeply apologize for a fleeting moment of nudity.

    It’s like the old saying goes: It’s okay to hack off someone’s breast in a movie; just, for Godssake, don’t show anyone kissing another’s breast!

    {Sigh} It’s times like this when I really miss living in the overall much-more-sane Eureopean continent.

  • Don’t like it? Go home and don’t come back.

    There’s the old joke of two folks eating in a restaurant who are (probably once again) kveching:

    “Oy, this food is terrible!”
    “It sure is! And the portions are so small!”

    It’s amazing and pretty disgusting to me how many folks apply a similar attitude on the Web. I think everyone has a right to complain, but if you don’t like the food… don’t spit in the kitchen, just stop going to the restaurant (and perhaps post a negative review somewhere if you wish).

    Friendster and other social networks
    First, let me preface this by saying I’m not much of a fan of Friendster. It’s slow (really really REALLY slow), feature-poor, and it has basically devolved into an “I’m more trendy and freaky and have more piercings than you!” smugfest. Oh, and the guy who conceived the project is seemingly a humorless boob.

    But with that said, it’s still a private company, running its own servers, set up by its own programmers without the use of public money.

    So I tried it, gave up on it, and have chosen to show my dislike of the service by no longer using it. Pretty simple, eh?

    But for countless others, they see Friendster’s penchant for deleting fake profiles (“fakesters”) and the like to be an outrage and a challenge. Therefore, despite the service’s terms that these folks agreed to when signing up, these counter-culture rebels have taken to using scripts to create multiple fake profiles and engaging in other behavior to basically send a big “fuck you” to the Friendster creator, the Friendster staff, and many of the members who find it both unfunny and annoying to be indirectly linked to 50,000 others via Cookie Monster.

    In my mind, it’d be like getting invited to an apartment party, finding the host to be rather disagreeable… but instead of just leaving, you jump up and down on the host’s couches (in your shoes, no less). He asks you to please leave, since it’s his apartment, after all, and you’re a guest… but you tell him to stick his demands where the sun don’t shine. After you’re (understandably) forcibly ejected, you come back with thirty friends and all proceed to jump on top of the host’s furniture. Hey, it’s your right to have fun, isn’t it?

    Some equally maturity-challenged guests think it’s funny, so they join in, too. Others, unsurprisingly, are annoyed and then leave the party for more sane territory.

    Interestingly enough, similar rumblings are already occurring with orkut. Folks are complaining about restrictions on their profile photo, for instance, and instead of sending feedback to orkut or even making amusingly snarky posts in their blogs, they’re having oh-so-much-fun by signing up as many different IDs (with goofy photos) as they can. I’m just waiting to see how long it is before some San Francisco hippies take to the street to protest orkut’s dominant tyrany, the abridgement of their “first amendment rights!”, and orkut’s role in the fascist perpetuation of normalized and coercified group acquiescence. Their rallying chant, “We Rail | Against Jail | No more bans | We’ll all hold hands!” (yes, I know it doesn’t exactly rhyme, but that’s never stopped protesters like this before).

    Do I think everything at orkut is hunky dory? Certainly not, and indeed, I actually admire folks — like Liz and Dana — who have taken the time to voice their strong opinions about orkut’s current flaws.

    But on the whole, I think folks who are unhappy with orkut (or any other privately-owned-and-run service) have exactly two choices:
    – stick with the service, but publicly or privately express concerns
    – quit the service (and, yep, still publicly or privately express concerns if they wish)

    In contrast, hanging on to the service while trying to undermine its intent or knowingly violate its terms is both rude and immature. Then again, living in San Francisco, I think those adjectives describe quite a bit of the ‘trendy’ protesters (“What’s the protest this week, oh Moonshadow Cheese? I can’t wait!”). And mind you, I may sound like a fuddy duddy, but anywhere else I’d be a flaming liberal. I even helped organize a street dance in the middle of Union Square a few months ago, and I have nothing against silliness and fun. But I also don’t willingly abuse others’ property / sites / etc.

    Registration at the New York Times
    I love reading the New York Times on the Web, and I’m grateful I can do so for free.

    Others, however, are not quite so appreciative. Despite the fact that the New York Times collects a minimal amount of personally identifying info and the fact that one can use a disposable e-mail address to sign up, many people have started using ‘community’ IDs because they’re either too lazy or too rebellious to offer the 30 seconds it takes for the one-time registration.

    Why does the NY Times even ask folks to register? Well, it keeps their advertisers happy. It helps them figure out which articles are more popular in tandem with usergroup trends, and it also enables them to (I’d assume) serve more targeted ads: if you read the technology section regularly before other sections, I’m sure the NY Times could serve you more technology-oriented ads. Sounds good to me.

    But believe it or not, I just spotted a site (which I won’t even give the benefit of a link here) that urges people to share their registration username and password for the NY Times and other sites so others can use them to log on with. I hope the sites affected quickly blacklist the shared IDs.

    I’m not sure whether these folks are paranoid (“Oh no, the NY Times may know that I clicked on their crossword puzzle page AND their travel page!”) or selfish or simply wanting to stick it to The Man {gag}. And I don’t know whether there are enough of these twits to actually threaten NY Times’ tracking or advertising efforts. But I sure hope not. If enough jerks continue to abuse the concept of free content in exchange for minimal advertising, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to fortell that more and more services will simply start to make their content available only via paid subscriptions.

    And you’ll have the wankers detailed above to thank.

  • No limits to human greed and obnoxiousness

    Forget “evil,” I am upset and angry that there appears no limit to simple human greed and obnoxiousness.

    I’ve just deleted about the 20th piece of comment spam (“Nice blog, check out my casino link”) on this blog. Of course, this pales in comparison to the 400+ e-mail spams I receive (150+ I must personally sift through) DAILY. But it irks and saddens me nonetheless.

    Sure, I could install a special filter to try to quarantine the spam from the non-spam comments. I could even switch to a different blog software (at the cost of about 20 hours out of my already busy life) that offers more comment options.

    And yeah, I could even just turn off my comments, like many others have done. But then this blog becomes purely a lecture and not a conversation, whereas I’m constantly hoping to move it more towards the latter!

    So I’m just sick of this, knowing that it’s basically an arms race.

    I don’t make much, if any money off of this blog; I do it because I enjoy writing, and I take pleasure in the fact that thousands of folks monthly seem to enjoy reading what I have to say.

    But — as other bloggers have frankly expressed — when it becomes more of a hassle than a pleasure, I (and many other bloggers) will simply just throw up our arms and give up. And then the spammers will simply move on to the next medium, I suppose.

    I’m hardly a violent person, but I’d so like for one of those creeps to try invading my personal space in real life so I could punch their lights out.

    On a more philosophical note, I’m just deeply saddened (and worried) about how spammers seem to be effectively co-opting every revolutionary new communications medium. Already I’ve lost e-mails sent to me by friends because I accidentally trashed them as spam. So many lost opportunities, strained friendships, and so much wasted time that could have been spent in profitable or social pursuits… all because of spammers’ greed and ammorality. I don’t believe in hell, but if I did, I’d be delighted to see all of them having their nether regions being painfully singed in the netherworld.

  • Two big, uh, points against Booble

    I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. But I did graduate from law school and I know a pretty open-and-shut case when I see one.

    Booble, the “adult search engine” that is claiming to be a “parody” of Google, has been sent a takedown notice by the latter and has subsequently sent a defiant reply, perhaps just milking this for all the free publicity.

    It’s pretty clear to me that Booble’s lawyers should have used training bras before filing their argument, because while they may be abreast of (mostly) relevant case law, they’re nonetheless gonna be sadly deflated from a court loss.

    Here’s why:

    – Booble has not done enough to be seen as a parody rather than a predator
    Had the Booble folks been a little less airheady, they would have included a PROMINENT disclaimer at the TOP of their pages, rather than in tiny point at the bottom. Additionally, Booble is directly profiting from Google’s likeness (via porn site sponsorships)!

    – Booble is profiting from business in Google’s space!
    By positioning itself within Google’s space, not only does Booble cause likely consumer confusion, it also directly competes with Google (where undoubtedly people seeking porn often turn to for their needs).

    Booble’s going down. The only questions are what damages will be assessed, and whether Booble will have the assets to pay up.

  • The New (much) Improved Friendster

    Well, if you’re as much of a geek as I am — or even if you just are a geek wannabe and voraciously read the tech rags — you’ve likely already heard about Orkut.com.

    Well, I’ve had a chance to play with it for a day or so, and it’s rather fascinating. Though clearly not-yet-perfect, it’s still fun and quite a bit ahead of Friendster in many ways.

    Let me get some criticisms and concerns out of the way first:

    – There aren’t enough checks and balances
    It’s too easy to add (and then be unable to un-add) a friend, delete a message, and so on. There are no “Are you sure?” screens. Aside from preventing ‘oops’ moments, I think it would at least be helpful to gently remind folks to carefully choose their friend links, as in “By adding this person as a friend, you’re making a statement that you know and like this person. Are you sure you want to do this?” Otherwise, the system is more apt to end up with a zillion useless/meaningless friend linkages.

    – As of yet, the search features are anemic
    You can search only by a small handful of esoteric and broad fields, and cannot search by company name, interests, etc… though indeed orkut.com has noted that this functionality is slated for future versions.

    – Information display is far from optimal
    On the search results page, the info you get is minimal on each person, and generally not enough to give you a good idea of whether it’s worth your time to click through to their profile. Ideally, it’d be nice to be able to choose which data points are shown, but in the meantime, it’d be nice to at least see some professional info (e.g., company name) on such listings.

    – The invite process is kludgy
    You can’t invite groups of friends, you can’t (easily) individually customize the invite e-mails, and it seems you can’t access a generic invite URL to send in your own e-mails.

    – Me Too?
    Perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of orkut.com for me is that there’s no real sense of its ‘place.’ It mingles in just enough romantic/flirty/goofy stuff to be potentially off-putting to serious business networkers, but it’s unlikely to be enough to compete with Match.com, Yafro, and other friends-oriented networking services.

    * * *

    Okay, enough whining. There’s certainly much to admire and appreciate in orkut.com!

    – It’s FAST!
    Sure, this isn’t that impressive YET given the limited member set (2464 members as of 2:40pm PST, and seemingly growing by about 50-100 every hour since this morning), but boy, that speed sure is refreshing right now! And given Google’s track record on efficiency/speed, I am confident that orkut will remain delightfully quick on its feet.

    – It’s quite the A-List party at present
    From my experience (and, biased-ly, my friendships), Google hires uber-intelligent and interesting folks. Given that at least 50% of the current orkut.com members seem to be Googlers, the service is starting with a pretty intellectual and powerful foundation.

    – It has great potentialLook at past Google projects that started out as pet projects, like Google News. There is clearly a history of refinement and success with these projects, and while orkut.com is clearly not yet version 1.0 material due to needed feature enhancements and interface tweaks, it’s certainly a fun and impressive beginning.

    * * *

    It’ll be fascinating to see if — or perhaps, more likely when — orkut overtakes the slow-and-feature-poor-but-critically-massed Friendster.

    Additionally, will Google’s entrant into this market stimulate demand enough for online social networking so that more sites (including the stellar Tribe.net) will flourish by the expanding pie? Or will orkut.com — like Google search, to a great extent — basically crowd out all competitors? What do you think?

    * * *

    Added 1/24/04 5:16pm:
    Wow, just got my first application error while browsing orkut. Bummer.

  • Reflecting upon a wonderful man — the late Paul Simon

    It was with great sadness that I read about the death of Senator Paul Simon.

    Though always a fan of his thoughtful politics and respectful demeanor, I particularly have fond memories of the time I met him in person one chance evening.

    I was on a Northwestern University dorm-sponsored scavenger hunt back in the early 90’s, and while traversing the cold streets of downtown Chicago, one fellow in our team of eight shouted out “That’s Paul Simon! Senator Simon!” It was a joyous outburst one might hear upon a sighting of celebrity, or an old friend, or a school teacher one cheerfully remembered. Especially to residents of Illinois, I learned, Paul Simon seemed to be a bit of all of that wrapped into one.

    Along with his wife, Senator Simon — yes, wearing a bowtie, as was seemingly always the case — graciously stopped for us on the sidewalk on this wintry night, signed autographs, and posed with his arms warmly around us for a picture.

    Some people simply exude an aura of kindness and integrity, and that would clearly include the late Senator Simon.

    May he rest in peace, and may his family and close friends find strength and happiness in the memories of his life.

  • On being being universally loved… or not.

    One of the hardest things I’ve had to face is the fact that it’s very difficult — and perhaps not necessarily optimal — to be liked, much less loved by everyone, all the time.

    This may seem like an especially obvious notion, but hear me out 😉

    There’s this one fellow I know who is pretty prominent in one of my social circles who is universally loved. I’m not exaggerating.

    I’ve heard a lot of gossip in my day, but I’ve heard not one single iota of negativity in conjunction with this fellow’s name.

    His colleagues adore him. Women adore him. Guys worship him.

    He’s revered in person and given standing ovations. He’s consistently praised and admired in online communities as well.

    He has, seemingly, achieved the impossible — he’s universally loved.

    —

    I, on the other hand, have both my fans and my detractors. I’ve been lauded as a friendly, giving person… and also vilified as a “fucking idiot” and “immensely annoying.”

    Some of the negativity stems from my penchant for taking stands, for speaking my mind regularly and on a broad array of topics. By nature of being vocally opinionated, I’ve managed to aggravate and occasionally alienate those who strongly hold opposing views.

    And that’s what’s particularly fascinating about the Universally Loved fellow. He keeps his mouth shut. Undoubtedly he shares his opinions and his feelings with those close to him, but for the rest of the populace, he smiles, asidiously avoids getting involved in any controversies or debates, and thus continues living and loving unscathed and unencumbered by negativity.

    What a brilliant man.

    And if I could go back and live my life over again, perhaps I’d choose his path. Would you?

    In the meantime, I have at least resigned myself to the reality that it is too late for me to be universally loved. I must instead just appreciate the friendships and admiration I’ve cultivated and earned, and gracefully accept the controversies and disdain I’ve brought upon myself through my outspokenness.

    In the meantime, I’m working to develop thicker skin… while still not dulling my sensitivity and positive outlook on the world. Alas, that’s not always easy, is it?