This is the space where I post thoughts and musings on design, web development, interactivity, information, Drupal, the internet, crazy ideas, business, life, and the patterns they weave (...plus science fiction, movies, books and other oddments).

Sookie, the empowered

True Blood, from HBO

There are two vampire phenomena happening right now in entertainment: the Twilight saga, with the popular books becoming popular movies, and the True Blood Series, with the increasingly popular books adapted into an HBO series. Both have a young female heroine who is romantically involved with a vampire. Both are set in present day America.

There the similarities end.

One is set in the Pacific northwest. One is set in the parishes outside of New Orleans. One seems intended for teens. The other very much for adults. But the real difference is in the women at their respective centers.

Carmen Siering writes in Ms. Magazine that Bella, the heroine of Twilight, fails as a feminist hero.

[N]ear the end of the film, Bella must choose between her two suitors. And yet when this big, empowering moment arrives, Bella offers an explanation for her choice that lets her off the hook. Melissa Rosenberg’s script doesn’t have Bella spell things out quite as clearly as Meyer’s narration in the book. Here we have Bella talking in circles about her love for Jacob and what might have been. In the book, Meyer makes it clear that Bella places the blame for her choice on something outside her control….

…[B]y placing the blame for choosing Edward over Jacob on the insane, irrational world in which she lives instead of on her own needs and desires, Bella abdicates responsibility for that choice, making it no choice at all. If the foundation of feminism is being able to choose, as Meyer insists, and one chooses not to choose, then what sort of feminism is that? It may seem romantic to be swept away by forces outside your control, but it’s not empowering.

I'm not a big Twilight expert. I've seen the first movie. The second lurks in a dark corner somewhere in the house, hiding from me. The third, well, I'm not keen enough to compel me to go to the theater and watch all the commercials.

But I do know True Blood.

Let's look at Sookie. Where Bella may seem to "abdicate her responsibility", Sookie refuses to let go of her own. In fact, she won't have others meddling in her business, not without at least confronting them. In the very first episode of the show, we see her pick up a chain from a truck bed and use it to confront a couple of ne'er-do-wells — not out of a misplaced sense of macho or foolishness (though it does feel foolish at the time), but in order to protect someone she's just met and hardly knows. She can't just stand by while someone gets victimized. It's striking how the chain in her hand becomes an extension of herself. Oh, she's scared. But she won't back down — not unless he has to, not unless she's outmatched. And even then, she'll keep the words coming. She's never cowed.

Sookie owns her destiny. She owns her choices in life. When Bill asks, "What are you?" and Sookie responds, "My name is Sookie, and I'm a waitress," she's not being self-deprecating, she's stating the facts. And interestingly, we never sense that she's diminishing her life by not pursuing the usual "success" tracks of college or power career like real estate or movie star. She's too self-aware, too in charge of her own life to feel that.

There's no sense of victim mind in this character who has every right to feel the victim. (I'll spare the spoilers that would be required to rattle off the reasons.) She is empowered. How? Why? I feel that it's because that's how she was raised by her "Gran." It never occurs to her to play victim to the fates.

Yes, Sookie can be foolish and naive at times. But I chalk that up to her innocence and youth, not her sex.

And so I look forward to every Sunday night when True Blood airs.

Is Google taking us back to high school?

I remember high school. The socialites — the "soshes" or soc's or however you would spell the nickname (I never learned) — were the in crowd. The cheerleaders, the football players, the glamorous crowd who looked down on the rest of us. Something like Heathers, only moreso and without the violence. When it came to who mattered in school, they were the arbiters. The rest of us, no matter how many friends we had, no matter how talented we were, no matter how smart we were (or should I rather say because of being smart) amounted to anything in the dominant high school culture. I hated it. I turned away from it. My friends and I would scorn the soc's in some lame attempt at payback, as if they cared. But it hurt to be disregarded so. Even though I didn't even really like them.

We outgrew it, of course. Some more quickly than others.

Now we live in an age of utopian world views and predictions of the perfect egalitarian society, all made possible by the "amazing" and "incredible" new apps, gadgets, widgets and gizmos of the week. Such declarations strike me as Pollyanna, or self serving. There are plenty of people at "the top", especially, who like to declare how egalitarian the web world all is. Perhaps it's flattering to their own egos. But is the world flat, really? Is our own culture all that flat?

In the tech world — and to some extent the political world — we see an in crowd who all link to each other, and the rest of us. And when I read Google's Matt Cutts' discussion of how Google works, it's not really new, but hearing it all at once is a bit, well, sad?

"Maybe some small site, you might only find a chance to crawl its pages once a week, but if that site is blogging like every 20 minutes, boom , you hit the submit button, and the search engines can find out about it," explained Cutts.

"Now the tension is that more spammers would use this as well, so you can't just say, 'I'm gonna index everything that everybody pushes to me.' So finding the right balance there is tricky, but the potential is really, really exciting," he said.

"You can definitely imagine the reputable blogs getting very fast updates - the ones that we think are trustworthy, and then over time, maybe ramping that up, so that more and more people have the ability to do...just like, instant indexing," he says.

And here we see another way Google may end up looking at the trust factor, with regards to ranking.

The online world is a busy world. We have a lot of crap thrown at us. We must filter out a lot of noise just to get at some information. But I wonder if ranking relevance by giving extra weight to the sites that are already popular, isn't a bit too inward facing — or inbred — to actually provide relevance to the vast majority of us, we who live outside of the interweb beltway. This stated algorithm does not provide for the possible relevance of the outside view, the venture by non-insiders, the independent voices. It's a mainstreaming algorithm that rewards groupthink.

We've known for quite some time that Google values links — quality links, links from reputable sites — in ranking a site. But let's hope that Google is doing a lot more than just that, because when I hear it summed up like this, I feel like I'm back in high school. Because as described, once again, what you need to do to build your reputation, to boost your "trust factor," is to get nods from the in crowd. You need to be in the clique.

Am I wrong?

[...and I write this keenly aware that some people may look at me as being part of the in crowd. I have to laugh at the idea, but I also know how fortunate I am compared with the lot of billions of people in this world.]

I pant, you pant, we all pant for iPad?

iPad
Other devices such as the WePad will offer similar kinds of features. In the end, it's about the content.

There's a whiff of desperation in the air. The iPad is now supposed to be the white knight that can save publishing. Is it?

I wrote before how the iPad will define a new market for consumer technology. There's no question of the appeal of a simple, extremely portable device with a decent-sized screen to peruse news headlines and browse magazine articles. But the mainstream media hype seems perhaps overblown a bit.

Despite the restrictions, the iPad's full color touchscreen is seen as a game changer for media companies that have long struggled to make money off digital content, which most consumers expect to get for free or at a very low cost.

Book publishers see a new chance to get their electronic offering right -- and win more bargaining power if the iPad emerges as a viable rival to Amazon.com Inc's Kindle.

"We have all struggled in this industry to find an online model that works successfully in terms of content and the consumer's propensity to pay," Penguin Books Chief Executive John Makinson told a recent media conference in London.

And then there's the mild FUD, such as in USA Today, who claims to have "your questions answered":

Q: The iPad doesn't run Flash, popular software from Adobe that powers many Internet videos. Isn't that a huge oversight?

A: Consumers are likely to find the iPad's lack of Flash incredibly frustrating.

But Apple thinks Flash is buggy and prone to crashing computers. It wants media presented in the alternative HTML5 format. That's fine, but if you bring home the iPad this weekend, you'll find many sites urge you to "Download the latest Adobe Flash Player." If you try, it won't work.

"Incredibly frustrating"? That strikes me as a bizarre claim. I've been finding more and more that sites depending upon Flash tend to be a few years out of date. And when it comes to video, the iPad, like the iPhone and Android, has a native YouTube application to play those videos. The odd sites that have other Flash at work are sites I simply tend to ignore and move on from. It's only "incredibly frustrating" if you feel some deep need to get at content presented by a Flash widget on a site (or a site built entirely in Flash). Absence is Flash is nothing new to to anyone who has a phone with a web browser.

Q: Can you run Adobe's Photoshop image-editing software on the iPad?

A: No.

Actually that's not true. The iTunes store has had the Photoshop app up for quite some time now. [iTunes Photoshop app link] In fact, many software companies have developed lightweight apps that integrate with their more powerful desktop and/or web-based apps.

That's not to say that the iPad is going to thrill anybody as a computer. It's really an enlarged iPhone ... without the phone (and I'd say even the iPhone doesn't really have a phone). And I could see using it around the house as a magazine "e-reader". Maybe even for reading books, though on that score I'm not so sure.

John Erianne has an interesting take on why book publishing won't exactly be saved by the iPad/Apple store model:

Most readers are casual readers. Your average reader reads maybe two books per year. I’m not talking about voracious readers like yours truly — I’m talking about those people that might read the latest Twilight novel or maybe a Stephen King. These people will read a book once and then they are done with it. These people don’t spend a lot of money on books. Ironically, the more prolific the reader, the more esoteric their tastes in books so they may not go for the latest bestseller as gleefully as a casual reader. For perhaps different reasons, both of these groups aren’t going to be overly eager to spend $16.99 on a eBook and, unlike with music downloads, they are not likely to be downloading ten books at a time. Amazon has the advantage in that they’ve pretty much written the book on the selling of online books both the hardcopy and digital variety. Publishers fear Amazon the way brick ‘n’ mortar retailers fear Wal-Mart. And for good reason. Think about this: Amazon still has a virtual monopoly on selling hardcopy books online. They control the lion’s share of this market. As such, is it smart for a publisher to play hardball with Amazon over the Kindle? I’m not saying Amazon shouldn’t be taken down a peg or two, but when consumers are at stake, you’ve really got to pick your battles. And quibbling over a few dollars in price point is stupid.

While the Kindle may eventually go the way of the buffalo, Amazon is in a better position to turn the Kindle into device similar to an iPod Touch than Apple is to duplicate Amazon’s online marketplace for books. Which is not to say people won’t buy the iPad. Apple-o-philes will undoubtedly shell-out the $500 for this new toy just because it’s from Apple as well as other techies and gizmo-lovers who just have to have it because it’s the new thing. Just don’t bet on it as a game-changer the way the iPod and the iPhone were. It-is-not-going-to-happen.

And yet, I think we'll see more than just Apple fanboys snapping up iPads. Who else? Gizmodo has a funny post profiling 6 types of iPad fans and critics in which lot of it rings true — although I don't see myself in one category, but rather see bits of myself in all of them.

Still, while iPad represents at least a small inflection point in how people consume information, it remains to be seen how this will change publishing — let alone, whether it will be "revolutionary" in any way. It really depends upon the market. And on that score, maybe John Etienne is right: Apple is reaching out of its zone of competence and challenging Amazon's core business. And my bet is Amazon isn't going to take it lying down.

My sense, though, is that it's not entirely up to Apple. We have open source Android-powered touchpad devices coming soon, and they likely won't be constrained by Apple's walled market castle business model. How will content producers adapt to these new consumer behaviors? And will the consumers truly view a touchpad as profoundly different than the computer experience to the point of being more willing to open their wallets, as publishing prognosticators are predicting? The market will decide.

Personally I feel we need a new banking system where online transactions can operate in the fractions of a cent, rather than accommodating the roughly 30-cent floor on credit card-based transactions. (But that's a topic for another blog post.)

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how much of a breakout success the iPad will be, especially when even geeks run into the challenge of finding content. Dave Winer shared his experience this morning:

Okay so the iPad has a problem that lots of software has, when you finish the basic setup -- now what? There are no movies, newspapers or books on the device, and no clue as to how to get them on there. Those are the first things I want to do, see how it plays stuff. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I should disconnect and see what I get....

...Where can I get a book to try out for $0?

I also have to get Netflix. And the NY Times. What else?

Okay I want to copy bigLebowski.avi onto the iPad. How?

How to find good content. Hasn't that always been the challenge?

Ada Lovelace was a Drupalchick

Okay, it's a whimsical title. But on this Ada Lovelace Day, I was thinking about how, if Ada Lovelace were alive today, she no doubt would be in technology. After all, the creator of the first "computer" wouldn't stop there, would she?

In my daily life I get to work with some amazing women who are working in, with or on Drupal. I wrote an appreciation over at PINGV Creative.

My DrupalCon San Fransciso session: Grok Drupal (7) Theming

Drupal theming is incredibly powerful, flexible, dynamic and granular, but it can be a bit of a challenge to understand without knowing the fundamentals.

The Way Drupal Theming Was

When I started Drupal theming in 2004, it was all a bit overwhelming. Back then, the core theme engine was something called Xtemplate, and it gave the impression to the n00b themer of being a great big mess. When you looked at the page template, it was one big blob of markup and logic, and it was very hard to figure out to change just about anything. What's more, it seemed to be very brittle: change something and you got the white screen of death.

And thus life was for the themer through Drupal 4.5 and the beginnings of 4.6.

New Drupal Theming Power

Then, in 2005, came the PHPTemplate theme engine, thanks to Adrian Rossouw (now with Development Seed), and the heavens opened up.

Suddenly (well, not suddenly, as it took a lot of work) Drupal templating had a structural logic: a nested system that simplified the clutter, gave us defined variables to work with, and provided the basis for extending the system. This was really really cool — so cool that it immediately became the theme engine of choise, and, with Drupal 4.7, it became the theme engine for Drupal core.

I was so excited about it, I did my first Drupal conference presentation on it, at OSCMS 2007 at the Yahoo! campus in Sunnyvale. (It was part of a larger topic of overriding display upon which I collaborated with Greg Knaddison and Ezra Barnett Gildesgame, now of Growing Venture Solutions. The PDF of my slides are available here, though they're pretty outdated now.)

Since then the Drupal theming system has evolved and improved. There are a lot of nifty techniques, tricks, best practices that are available to the themer. What's essential is having a good understanding of the underlying architecture, because that's how you can figure out where to look, how to go about making the changes you want to make the theme yours.

No PHP knowledge is required ... beyond knowing not to muck with what's between the <?PHP ... ?> tags. Of course, knowing some PHP can help. But you can also pick up the basics as you go, if you want to delve into the coded bits.

Learning Drupal Theming in 2010

My session proposed for DrupalCon SF on Drupal theming basics brings a comprehensive look at the Drupal theming system and how the front-end developer new to Drupal can take charge of the output by taking advantage of what Drupal gives you.

You won't come out an expert — that would be a ridiculous promise — but you will come out able to start rocking your own themes. You will have a solid understanding how the Drupal theme is structured, how the various templates work together, how to define regions, how to add your own targeted CSS files and scripts, use of subthemes, some good base themes to work from, how to do custom overrides of obscure, quirky or persnickety output using preprocess ... and you'll grok theming in such a way that even if you don't know how to do something, you'll know how to go about figuring it out, where to look, what to change, etc.

And because we're about to enter the age of Drupal 7, this presentation will be about these things for Drupal 7 (with some notes on how things have changed from Drupal 6). So this session could also be of interest to the experienced Drupal themer who hasn't had a chance to delve much into Drupal 7 yet.

Session voting is now open for DrupalCon SF, so if you think this session sounds helpful to you, or would be of use to the several hundred people new to Drupal who are expected to attend, please vote for my session, "Grok Drupal (7) Theming".

Thanks!

Needed: Peer-to-Peer Twitter (or: Did Google get it backwards?)

Fail.

With Twitter blasting over capacity today — which doesn't seem to be a very uncommon occurrence — I find myself pining for true peer-to-peer Twittering. And as I turn to Google Buzz out of almost desperation, a thought comes to mind:

Did Google get it backwards?

Part of the hubbub about Google Wave was that it was to be a protocol, a new open standard for which anyone could develop applications. Like email. To replace email.

Well, so far Google Wave hasn't caught much traction in the regular world. Oh yes, there is a small circle of people using it, developing for it. But I think Anil Dash may have been right:

So the big question is whether Wave will succeed as overall in becoming a popular standard for communications on the web, because Google has made an admirable investment in documenting the underlying platform and making it open enough for others to build on and extend. I think the answer is no, and the reason is because the Wave way is not compatible with the Web way.

[Edit: If you haven't read Anil's post, it really is quite fascinating. And fairly convincing.]

On the other hand, Google Buzz has launched as a service — really just an extension of Gmail.

** YAWN **

Too bad Google didn't see the potential of establishing a peer-to-peer twittering protocol with Buzz. That would have been the killer app.

And you know what? If they had done that, today's Twitter outages would be only more occasions for people to flee to a true P2P social media experience, without that singular point of failure that has the face of a whale.

(And the flip side: Imagine what Wave would be like now if Google were developing just a service, and not bothering with trying to make it a protocol. I'd like to think it would be at least a touch more usable by now.)

iPad where there was none: How Apple's new product competes against non-consumption

The iPad is low powered, but who cares for what it's intended to do?

Once I got over the ridiculous name — and thank you, HuffPo, for sharing the Mad TV sketch that long predates the iPad announcement — I started to see how the new Apple iPad fits in the current market.

It doesn't. That's right, it doesn't. And I predict it's going to be a pretty big success, too.

Apple iPad faux pas

The iPad competes against non-consumption. There is no existing electronic device that it effectively replaces. Too big for the handbag, too small for most productive tasks, and with its touchscreen keyboard it really isn't a netbook. This is a new thing. A fun thing.

Let me explain.

Clayton Christensen has written and talked much about disruptive technologies and how they can cause dramatic shifts in existing markets, as well as open new markets altogether. One case he talks about is the advent of the transistor radio. Transistors had been around for years. The problem was that companies could not figure out how to use them in their products. You see, transistors could not take a lot of power, so they would blow out when you put them in a system requiring a lot of power to run.

Then in 1965 the portable transistor radio came out. How did they fix the problem of the transistor's low power capacity? They didn't. Instead they came up with a low-power product that actually could use transistors. Here's the thing: the product did not replace anything. It was completely new, for a new market of radio buyer. The transistor radio had no competition (except with itself). It was a hit because suddenly kids could listen to their own music. The radio itself sounded like crap, but that didn't matter because the alternative of going home and convincing mom and dad to put on rock and roll just wasn't in the cards. The transistor radio was competing against non-consumption. Before the transistor radio, people did not have an option except for home or maybe the car.

Now we have the iPad coming on the market, with its low-power, ho-hum performance processor. People are excited, but don't seem to have a strong sense of what they would actually do with an iPad. But I figure — and my hunch is that this is what Steve Jobs and company are figuring — is that the iPad will find its own place in our technology lives. It won't replace the smart phone because it's not portable. It won't replace the laptop because it's not really designed for much productivity.

No, it's for something new: The casual online consumption of media, away from the computer, free of the television, and with no dead trees to think about.

I see the iPad as becoming the morning newspaper, the weekly and monthly magazine, the video screener — and yes, the means to stay connected via social networks, email, etc. while you're doing all these other things.

When you go to work, the iPad will stay at home. When you go to a conference, the iPad will stay at home. In fact, for many people, I imagine the iPad will never leave the kitchen table.

That's why the mobile connectivity is only a pre-pay option, and not at all emphasized. Because this is a device that will live off of your home wifi.

And though I certainly have other things I probably should do with my money, I want one!

There has been much concern about digital rights management (DRM) in the iPad. Apple is maintaining very strict control over the device and what you can do with the content on it. It's looking like publishers are counting on it, and are pinning at least part of their hopes of salvation in this new media economy on paid subscriptions on this device that is so much more than a Kindle.

Then there are Kindle users who are concerned that Apple seems to be defining a new version of eBooks.

The way I figure it, however, is that the market will sort that out. DRM does not fly with consumers when it makes the purchase a hassle or the experience a pain in the ass. DRM sure didn't work in the iTunes store, when consumers discovered they couldn't play the music they bought on another device. We'll see how that sorts out. (Honestly, there is a lot to say about DRM, but I'll save that for another blog post sometime. Maybe a series.)

Related iPad blogging:

Rosa Golijan points us to Kim Zetter's Wired blog noting that Wired will be coming to the iPad by subscription this summer. It's not surprising to see Wired among the first to jump on board, given their audience.

Katie Marsal reports that, just as the Android app market was starting to pick up steam against the iTunes store, iPad developer interest tripled after the hype.

Apple revealed at its iPad event that there are more than 140,000 applications available on its mobile App Store. That software will be compatible with the iPad when it debuts at the end of March.

But developers will also be able to create new, iPad-specific applications that take advantage of the multitouch device and its 9.7-inch screen.

While the App Store saw a huge increase, new Android applications grew about 25 percent in January, continuing a steady ramp for Google's mobile platform. However, Apple's App Store spike helped to push it even further ahead of Android.

It makes me wonder how long it will be before a company releases an Android competitor to the iPad.

Or has it already happened? Amanda on NetBookBoards gives us the specs on HP's new "smartbook" which....

combines the portability and design of a netbook with the hardware and software often seen in smartphones. The Airlife has a battery life of up to 12 hours, longer than what most netbooks can offer. While the Airlife and iPad are very different in terms of design, they share many similar features such as simplified software interfaces, touch-screens, and ARM processors (most netbooks use Intel processors).

But is the Airlife really an iPad competitor? It doesn't seem to fit the use case I described above.

Staci D. Kramer reports on Disney's enthusiasm about the iPad:

Bob Iger wasn’t on stage for the iPad launch last month, but the Disney CEO just gave a demo spiel Steve Jobs, the company’s largest shareholder, would applaud about a “really compelling” device that could be a game changer. Volunteering and replying to analyst questions about how Disney plans to use the new Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) tablet, Iger reeled off a series of iPad uses that are either likely or already in progress: a companion to ABC’s Lost, an ABC News app, a digital books app for Disney, an enhanced version of the popular ESPN Sports Center app, and apps for Marvel (NYSE: DIS).

Amy-May Elliott shares with us Bill Gates' shrug over the iPad.

"You know, I’m a big believer in touch and digital reading, but I still think that some mixture of voice, the pen and a real keyboard - in other words a netbook - will be the mainstream on that", Gates said.
"So, it’s not like I sit there and feel the same way I did with iPhone where I say, ‘Oh my God, Microsoft didn’t aim high enough.’ It’s a nice reader, but there’s nothing on the iPad I look at and say, ‘Oh, I wish Microsoft had done it".

Notwithstanding various cynical reactions out there to the iPad, self-confessed Apple fangirl, Lorraine Marie shares some iPad accessories she's wanting (as the iPad itself is a given).

Because it’s a known fact that I’m an Apple fangirl, many people feel it’s their duty to let me know that they won’t be buying the iPad. That’s fine with me- people can certainly choose not to buy Apple’s latest product. But I’m not one of those people.

Before wrapping this up, I just have to share the prescient Mad TV sketch:

So what do you think? Do you want an iPad? Why? (Why not?)

[I wrote this for BlogHer.]

Are you wanting an iPad?

I find myself wanting an iPad to read the news in the morning. It would be nice for magazines, too, I think. Of course I'm assuming that the usability will be very good. Maybe I'm wrong.

But I think the iPad will be a big success.

What do you think? Is the iPad a must-have device for you?

Google take-downs of Blogger blogs raise the ownership question

If it isn't in your possession, is it really yours?

Google shut down several blogs without prior notice:

“We’d like to inform you that we’ve received another complaint regarding your blog,” begins the cheerful letter received by each of the owners of Pop Tarts, Masala, I Rock Cleveland, To Die By Your Side, It’s a Rap and Living Ears. All of these are music blogs – sites that write about music and post MP3s of what they are discussing. “Upon review of your account, we’ve noted that your blog has repeatedly violated Blogger’s Terms of Service ... [and] we’ve been forced to remove your blog. Thank you for your understanding.”

Jolly as Google may be, none of the bloggers who received these notices are “understanding” in the least....

...“When we receive multiple DMCA complaints about the same blog, and have no indication that the offending content is being used in an authorised manner, we will remove the blog,” explained product manager Rick Klau.

All that content is presumably gone. If the site owners want to get at it, they have to convince Google to let them. That doesn't sound much like ownership to me.

What do you think?

(See the Twitter reactions tagged #Musicblogocide2k10.)

Google Buzz and contacts silos (and privacy and spam)

Updated below.

So today's buzz is about Buzz, Google's new Friendfeed-kind of thing announced just an hour or so ago. Jeremiah Owyang blogged some quick thoughts, including this:

For consumers, the risk of privacy will continue to be at top of mind. Although the features allow for sharing only with friends or in public. expect more consumer groups to express concern. Overtime, this will become moot as the next generation of consumers continues to share in public.

Setting aside his prediction that privacy will become "moot" — which I don't believe is necessarily true, given that we're still in the bedazzled phase of experiencing social media's integration with our daily lives — as I look at my own use of Google, Twitter, etc., Buzz could turn out to be the means towards breaking down my contacts silos.

Right now, my Twitter contacts are pretty much separated from all other media I use. My Flickr contacts are separated as well. Frankly, I'm building contacts in different media via varying criteria. For example, just because I follow someone on Twitter doesn't mean I will find his or her Flickr photos particularly interesting. My Address Book contacts are separate on my computer. I sync them via MobileMe, which was handy when I was using my iPhone.

It's when I adopted the Droid that Google nudged me a bit to maybe consider consolidating my contacts silos. Until that time, I did not have many contacts in Google. I use Gmail pretty much just as my spamable address, good for listservs, discussion boards, web services registration.... not for interpersonal communication. I just find Gmail too unusable, and its spam filtering too handy. But the Droid syncs with your Google contacts, so after a moment's pondering opted to add Google sync to my Address Book settings in Snow Leopard.

Now Google has Buzz, which pushes towards even more contacts integration, breaking down the Twitter silo. Jeremiah writes:

Content will be aggregated, and then prioritized based upon the people you already email with, Harry McCracken and I call this a social graph based on history, “Historical social graph” or HSG. Secondly, this Google Buzz feature will rate and rank content based on activity and interaction within your social group.

For me, people I email with are not part of my "Historical social graph" because my email world is my real world — clients, friends, colleagues, associates, family — and my social media world is more open, more ephemeral, more casual, more about ideas and news and interesting stuff. While there's certainly a degree of overlap between my real world and my social graph world, for the most part they define different areas of my life. And I consider this a good thing. I like following people I don't know but who are interesting and do or talk about interesting things. And I like interacting with friends, clients, associates on a more personal basis even though I may not find their public social media life particularly interesting.

But if Buzz is automatically following my email contacts, and I want to integrate Buzz with my active Twitter life, Buzz is pushing towards melding all these different social spheres into one big blob. Is that good? On balance, I can't say. On the plus side, I suppose it helps fill some gaps in my social media life by connecting my email (i.e., "real") world with my social networking (i.e., "virtual") world a bit more. But on the minus side, it tosses personal contacts and online social media contacts into one bucket, which then becomes something of a contact management problem. And it apparently by default pulls social media activity of my personal contacts into my social media life, which I may not particularly want. (My neighbor is really nice, but do I really want to read her "buzz" about knitting socks?)

There is the privacy thing, at least to some extent. Google is glomming onto a lot of our lives. All one company, all centralized. I confess it goes against my preference for peer-to-peer networks. Perhaps more of a concern might be spam. I don't know about you, but I really hate it when someone using Plaxo ends up spamming me to update my information. On the other hand, email is the most vulnerable medium when it comes to spam, and all these social networks are at least relegating email to fewer and narrower use cases.

These are just my initial thoughts. More as Buzz comes walking my way.

Update:

Dave Winer isn't so impressed with Buzz:

I liked Google Buzz at first, for about 15 minutes. Permalink to this paragraph

But when I got to the API, I saw a big red X over its future. Permalink to this paragraph

They had to embrace the Twitter API to capitalize on the know-how in the developer community. Google is going it alone. Good luck with that. Maybe it will get uptake, but there's nothing here for me as a developer. I'm even more bored with Buzz after 15 minutes than I am with Twitter after three years.

Update 2: Apparently Yahoo! and Microsoft are pointing out that they have had since 2008 the features Google is touting about Buzz today. The difference for me, though, is that I haven't used Yahoo email since 2002 (thanks to all the spam) or Hotmail email since before that. They just are too far out on the margins of my social media life today. Yes, I know, Yahoo owns Flickr, but Flickr is a very focused web app for a very narrow use case. Aside from the odd comment here and there, the only real lively interactions on Flickr itself tend to be about Flickr itself.