A VC - Latest Comments in Can We Live In Public?

Re: Can We Live In Public?

Sllecks — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:59:23 -0000

Creating so much content, particularly useless information, could be a good defense. Who would want to spend so much time shifting threw your information to actually find the good stuff? Hide the important stuff among the useless, and the audience will never know the difference, unless you point them to it.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

monsur — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:48:06 -0000

I've thought about this issue from a different direction: what place does a person who does not want to live publicly (such as myself) have in a medium that is all about social interaction? I think the saving grace here is that living online is no longer just about blogs. It used to be that having an online presence meant having a blog. Well, unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the desire to blog. And for years I had this guilt: I should blog about this, I should blog more, etc.

Well recently we've experienced an explosion of non-blog forms of content: mobile-posting to Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, all of which can be aggregated and presented with sites like FriendFeed and Tumblr. Heck, if I want to create my own form of communication, I can do so and expose an RSS feed for all the world to consume.

So I'll leave the strong online presence to all those extroverts; I'm content finding a way to carve just a small niche online.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

Alex R — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:31:40 -0000

Thanks, Fred. I am considering a move to Latin America, where it will be nearly impossible to stay in close contact with all of my friends and family in the States. So, I've been thinking about blogging my day-to-day experiences/activities/thoughts/feelings, and sending the link to everyone with whom I'd like to keep in contact.

Obviously, I don't have your following, but I'll make sure to take everything you said into account as I decide how I want to keep people up-to-date on my life.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

fredwilson — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:44:05 -0000

It is totally relevant!

Re: Can We Live In Public?

mattsingley — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:45:29 -0000

10K people a day read this? Wow. Well, with me now you have 10,001. This is a great post, I will not only share it with my electronic friends, but with my friends IRL including my wife. Thanks for writing this, it brings a lot of clarity to our new public lives.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

Robert John Ed — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:11:42 -0000

Potentially irrelevant: Blood on Tracks is my favorite record of all time. Wonderful. Dylan's ability to compose songs with overarching themes (many tracks on Desire showcase this art form) is remarkable...and although BOT is similar throughout, the melancholy, the cognition of loss is simply unbelievable. Good choice.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

jedc — Tue, 27 May 2008 05:47:33 -0000

I've been puzzled about this, too. I tend to read the first few comments more thoroughly than later comments, and on many blogs one vote will move a comment to the top. It seems that a small number of people can influence (though obviously not control) the conversation.

I do think changing it to thumbs up/down would likely make the feature more used...

Re: Can We Live In Public?

colinizer — Mon, 26 May 2008 09:41:04 -0000

Actually Erik Vidal was ahead of that with hereandnow.net - several 24/7 high quality windows media streams from an Oberlin-college (Ohio) student house of room mates.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

Kathy Sierra — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:17:34 -0000

"...there is a lot to be gained from living publicly online. As long as you know where to draw the line."

The big problem is not where WE draw the line--but rather that others can draw those lines for us, wherever they choose. I have no problem with how much people choose to expose *of themselves* (well, except for my daughters), but I think it's unconscionable to expose ANYTHING about another person, even indirectly, without their explicit permission.

And that's just the people who are "oversharing" about someone they care about (or did at one time). The biggest problem of all is that our private details can be publicized by anyone, anonymously, then replicated across the 'net in ways that Google will never forget.

Privacy and identity are huge, scary issues right now. It's a myth to believe we are in control of the line. I'm glad you're writing about it, though.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

greenskeptic — Sun, 25 May 2008 23:46:17 -0000

Great post, Fred.

I always try to remember that we have two ears and one mouth, and we should use them in proportion. I enjoy "listening" to the commentaries that surround my blog, and comments on other blogs that I read. And I enjoy the dialogs offered by Twitter (when it works) among and between my twitter followers and those I follow.

I agree with Elizabeth Spiers that we should think about what we write or say as if it will be displayed on a Times Square billboard -- but a billboard that will have even more reach than several Manhattan blocks. It's not always easy to remember, especially when the tools of social networks make it easy to just say what's on your mind when it's on your mind. But that's when it's handy to have a spouse who brings us back to reality.

Thanks, as always, for stimulating dialog.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

Steve Kane — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:27:08 -0000

i think all the self publishing and community building tools are awesome and i certainly enjoy participating but only to a point

but i can't help but wonder if "living in public" is soon going to be like getting a tattoo -- a seemingly ubiquitous seemingly harmless form of self expression and community mostly by/for young people ... but who, when they get older, lose interest and are even a little embarrassed and worried and so try -- in vain -- to remove all traces...

also, i wonder if privacy -- already a luxury (rich people and celebrities go to great lengths to be hard to find and even harder to investigate) -- will soon be an ultra-super-luxury, available only to those with real affluence and power, or with the foresight to start carefully managing their public selves from a very young age (the way some super successful people start managing their lives and careers from a very young age).

i can pretty easily imagine a future where the average person thinks its worthwhile or cool to be in the public mix and so (essentially) waives their right to privacy, while those with the wherewithal or foresight carefully artfully retreat out of reach of prying eyes and searches and quietly and efficiently consolidate and extend their authority.

i mean, heck, historically-speaking, thats what the ruling classes have always done.

and i cant imagine a future where smart people don't leverage their ability to be private. today as always the best investors and hedge fund managers and inventors and business people all relish secrecy; that will likely always be the case IMHO but soon that may be a privilege of only a very very select few plain folks

i dont say this is inevitable; just one possibility

Re: Can We Live In Public?

Katherine — Sun, 25 May 2008 20:43:06 -0000

I thought you might find this blog post on the "post-privacy age" amusing and interesting:

"For many young people, privacy is an old fashion concept. But for many of us who were raised in an era where privacy meant something, this electronic age of endlessly archived personal information represents an almost existential threat. Here are a few possible survival strategies.

1) A total (and arguably, near-psychotic) detachment from your consumer purchases and electronic interactions. I don't care if they know i bought a big black dildo. That wasn’t really me. For all they know i was buying it for a theater show. Or as a gift. Or for an art project. Besides: I am not what I buy. I am more than the sum of my purchases. That big black dildo in no way reflects my essential, underlying, ineffable self. My being en soi. That letter threatening to kill my girl friend--right before she mysteriously died??? An exercise in hyperbole. Or research for a fictional character I was trying to develop for the writing class I never got around to signing up for. I refuse to submit to the tyranny of presumed knowability.

2) A radical rejection of consumerism. In the post modern age of endlessly archived, infinitely accessible consumer information, the refusal to buy is arguably the most radical act-- the last redoubt of true rebellion. Stay off the electronic radar. Marginalize yourself within the matrix. He who does not buy (or, for that matter use the internet) is invisible. Or at least irrelevant. But he enjoys a freedom unimaginable to the kings of consumption and the masters of materialism. Or at least that's what the practitioners of this subversive praxis feel cozy believing.

3) Jam the codes. Buy and interact under many aliases. Or under the same name but in a strategically inconsistent manner. For every purchase of an uzi, make a contribution to UNICEF. Expensive, inefficient but presumably effective, this is the privacy preservation strategy for those with lots of disposable money…and time.

4) Perhaps the most simple and radical strategy of them all. Be a good person. Act in an egosyntonic fashion. Outsource your superego. Use the absence of privacy in this virtual panopticon to motivate ethical behavior. Simply don't do anything you are ashamed of—and thank the matrix for helping you do so.

5) Mix and match from among the above...or come up with your own fun strategies! "

Found at:

http://www.nyc.com/people/T...

Re: Can We Live In Public?

zachlandes — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:32:24 -0000

Honestly, I think many of the people who have been the early adopters of lifestreaming have been the introverted - those people who don't feel safe or comfortable expressing themselves in person. As the internet becomes more integrated into our daily lives, these people are in for a big surprise - what they say online is increasingly tied to real world consequences.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

hardaway — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:14:12 -0000

I'm comfortable living online. I live by myself, so I don't implicate many others in my predilection. I have learned to mention my children seldom, if at all. And I rarely mention my business partner, either, because I know he wants to live a more private life. I think if you are a natural extrovert and you don't care what others think of you (I am and I don't), online life is fun. If you are more introverted and you do care (that's most of the world), you ought not to try it. It can be pretty bruising.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

fredwilson — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:52:04 -0000

That's how I feel about all the talk about twitter these days

Fred

Re: Can We Live In Public?

Chuck Fishman — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:40:40 -0000

Related thought : One of the biggest frustrations for me when it comes to online social sharing / conversations is that I can't really talk about work efforts. And I try to avoid being some sort of analyst commenting on digital media services - which means I leave myself out of the conversation here a lot of time.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

fredwilson — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:11:02 -0000

Many exist. The most popular are friendfeed and socialthing

Fred

Re: Can We Live In Public?

ph0rque — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:05:05 -0000

> Between this blog, my tumblog, my twitter stream, my flickr stream, my friend feed, and a host of other social media sites, it's easy to be a stalker if you were so inclined.

Sorry if this is offtopic, but it would be nice if there was a service that lets you aggregate all such services into one website (a distributed social app, if you will) to let both you (the author) and your audience have a central url to keep up to date with you.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

zachlandes — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:00:40 -0000

yes, but human capital remains the biggest barrier to entry. One might argue that we are in a period similar to the age of invention in the 19th century (and before) where individuals had the ability to create despite limited resources of both labor and capital. Then technology developed to the point that it required a growing amount of these inputs to create and lead and there were few, if any, "Edisons" by mid-century. We may have restarted this cycle with the WWW, and it will be interesting to see if increasing complexity again eliminates the possibility for creative destruction by the "Edisons" of the internet age.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

fredwilson — Sun, 25 May 2008 13:45:03 -0000

If you are half way up everest, then I am blown away by the wireless internet coverage!

Re: Can We Live In Public?

gregory — Sun, 25 May 2008 13:10:45 -0000

means, you had to be a "big" capital(ized) entity and it was centralized, now, the same tools are in the hands of the many, dispersed .... we could narrow it for clarity and speak only of publishing, but what is really being dispersed is value creation.

Re: Can We Live In Public?

markslater — Sun, 25 May 2008 13:08:07 -0000

Fred - you are the ring master of a barnum troupe in the digital guilded age, trotting out your 3 headed tecno gizmo's - braver than most!

Seriously though, you and i have never met in the 4 years we have occasionally conversed, i must be one of thousands. I mentioned in another post how important i find it to put a face to a name. Digital relationships have a limited scope - they are inherently asynchronous.

I mean how many of these people would dare to say some of these offensive comments to my face? Its not a bravado thing, its a human nature thing. When confronted with having to use the full range of interaction (see, hear, touch) we then act in a truly synchronous way. seesmic (or seesmic like services) are the next iteration in this march to onliine sychronisity. The big question is, what generates take up?

Have a great weekend in the hamptons playing golf and listening to dylan. I'm half way up everest, but then again......how would you know ;)

Re: Can We Live In Public?

fredwilson — Sun, 25 May 2008 11:55:03 -0000

I'll give it a try but I've never posted privately to delicious or flickr and I am not sure private posting services are for me

Re: Can We Live In Public?

zachlandes — Sun, 25 May 2008 11:49:13 -0000

Your comment intrigues me as a social scientist...but what do you mean by dispersal of the means of production?

Re: Can We Live In Public?

stetoscope — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:51:04 -0000

Thanks for this interesting post.
I think we could find a theorem on public life, that could be the more you are exposed or implicated in public affairs the more you need a personnal brand to protect your privacy (and personnal failures). But, I am very interested to see how young teens learn how to manage those degrees easily. The 13 year old daughter of a friend of mine has three blogs, with three differnet identities and sometimes she speaks to her mother that she is wondering one or another of her public personnality. I wonder what she will become when she will be professionnal.