Category Archives: Technology
White House Tweetup live blog
I was invited to attend the holiday edition White House Tweetup on Monday. In the morning we will ask questions of many administration officials including CTO Aneesh Chopra, economic adviser Brian Deese, first lady chief of staff Tina Tchen, director of digital strategy Macon Phillips, and the White House pastry chef Bill Yosses.
I’ll try to live blog the day here (cell service permitting). Send me your questions and comments on Twitter @jeffsonderman and watch the #WHtweetup hashtag.
11:52 a.m. Unfortunately, no cell service or wifi in the meeting room this morning. I’ll post updates later when I can.
6:03 p.m. Well, sorry the live blogging didn’t work out during the event. You missed out on some witty comments here and there, but the best parts of the day were captured in photos. See them here.
How to customize the appearance of Storify on your site
Storify is growing in popularity and being used by more and more sites to tell stories by curating social media. But while you see Storify embedded on more and more sites, you’ll notice it looks exactly the same on all of them.
It doesn’t have to. The Storify site doesn’t yet give you options to customize the look of a widget. But with a few quick tweaks to the CSS of your site, you can make the Storify widget look less like a widget and more like an organic piece of your site.
Below are the before and after examples of how I modified its appearance to fit into my own site. You can use the same framework, substituting whatever fonts and colors are appropriate for your site.
Notice the major differences are the fonts and colors consistent with the rest of the site, and the removal of the widget’s header and borders.
Original Storify look
New Storify look
This paragraph is written in my WordPress blog, but notice how it flows seamlessly into the following one, which is actually the beginning of the Storify widget.
How to do it
Now that you’ve seen what you can do, here is how I did it using CSS. The following lines, substituting your own font/color styles, should be added to a new section in your stylesheet. Note that in several cases you must use the “!important” declaration on the styles because you need to override inline styles that the widget script prints by default.
Hide the entire Storify header
#sfywdgt_header {
display:none!important;
}
Align Storify body text flush with the left margin of the widget. By default it is indented 20px from the border.
#sfywdgt_body {
margin-left:-20px;
}
Remove borders, changes font and font size and background color of Storify body area.
#sfywdgt_body, #sfywdgt_body li, span.sfy_text, .sfy_description {
border:none !important;
font-family: “Helvetica Neue”,Helvetica,Arial,default!important;
background: #FCFCFC!important;
}
Changes color and behavior of links in the Storify body area. Match this to whatever your links look like in normal body text.
#sfywdgt_body a {
color:#000;
text-decoration:underline!important;
}
#sfywdgt_body a:hover {
color:#333;
}
Removes border from Storify footer area. Also increases “Powered by Storify” font size (this last one is just my taste — I felt like they deserve a slightly more prominent credit line since I’m hiding the header and a lot of the other distinctive features).
.sfywdgt_footer {
border:none!important;
background: #FCFCFC!important;
font-size:10pt!important;
}
Depending on how comfortable you are with CSS editing, you can do more advanced customizations. The key things to know are that the widget script creates three main HTML divs — the header (#sfywdgt_header) the body (#sfywdgt_body) and the footer (.sfywdgt_footer). You can modify or hide any of those by playing with the CSS.
Feel free to share links to examples of your own customizations or tips in the comments.
Silencing WikiLeaks
What I have found most significant in the WikiLeaks release of U.S. diplomatic cables is not the information itself or the fact it was leaked, but the moves by governments and large corporate web services to cut off avenues of access or support for the organization.
Online retailer Amazon, which leases spare web server capacity to third parties, booted WikiLeaks from its servers. The company cited a violation of its terms of service. However, it was generally understood to be a response to political pressure from U.S. senators. After that WikiLeaks moved to a French web hosting company, and the French are now looking to ban it.
Open-source data visualization program Tableau Public removed WikiLeaks-published visualizations from its site, citing political pressure. The Library of Congress even blocked access to WikiLeaks from its public computers, classifying it as a “malicious” site, which it clearly is not. Then PayPal, owned by eBay Inc., froze WikiLeaks’ account and blocked donations.
Reporters Without Borders condemned such moves as “the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency.”
All of this brings into clear focus a contradiction of the web — a public thing with private owners. It is best described by Ethan Zuckerman, who told CJR:
What’s really hard about this is that we perceive the web to be a public space, a place where you should be able to go and set up your soapbox and say whatever you want to say to the world. The truth is, the web is almost entirely privately held. So what happens here is that we have a normative understanding that we should treat this like public space—that you should have rights to speak, that no one should constrain your rights—but then you discover that, basically, you’re holding a political rally in a shopping mall. This is commercial speech, controlled by commercial rules.
In the late 20th century, the consolidation of major media outlets into the hands of a few major corporations was an issue of great concern and debate. Its importance diminished significantly in the 21st century as online services democratized media production and conversation and displaced the central role of mainstream news media in controlling information flow.
Now, however, we all must realize that these online services are also controlled by corporations with commercial and political interests. Just as GE, Disney, News Corp., Viacom and the like posed a threat to an open marketplace of ideas in mass media, the new corporate lords of the web can pose a threat to online freedoms that have been taken for granted.
eBay Inc. has contributed $3.4 million to federal political committees and spent $13.2 million on lobbying since 1997. Amazon.com has contributed at least $500,000 to federal candidates since 2003, according to OpenSecrets.org. Beyond those involved in WikiLeaks censorship so far, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and Go Daddy (to pick a few) spend millions lobbying in Washington. So when someone like Sen. Joe Lieberman calls to complain about something they’re hosting, they listen.
This is why encoding principles such as net neutrality and an Internet Bill of Rights into national and international law is so important. Commercial and political interests will always find it beneficial to suppress some things from being said or published online — and as the WikiLeaks experience has shown, they are currently able do so without due process or subject to appeal.
* A footnote: I anticipate counterarguments that claim this is an exceptional case because it concerns classified documents, obtained illegally, arguably (though not at all proven to be) damaging to U.S. diplomacy. Even so, it does not follow that the end of removing them justifies the means of corporate and political censorship without due process. Beware that any effort to claim censorship authority always seeks first to use the public’s natural abhorrence of outlier cases (racism, hate speech, child pornography) to justify giving authority to censor in all cases. The sensitivity of these leaked documents is not the issue — it is the now-demonstrated ease with which political and corporate interests may collude to try to expel something they dislike from the Internet.
Video: Watch the sessions from ONA 2010
Many of the sessions from the Online News Association conference here in Washington were streamed live online. For the benefit of those who weren’t there, or even those who were and want to watch again, I’ve pulled together as many of the videos here as I can find. (more…)
Malcolm Gladwell’s errors on social media activism
Malcolm Gladwell in 2008. Photo by Flickr user Pop!Tech
New Yorker writer and sociologish author Malcolm Gladwell has a new essay out in the New Yorker that seeks to draw a line in the sand between social networks and “real-life” relationships when it comes to producing significant social change.
My first reaction was, this reads like hyperbolically contrarian linkbait — in the vein of “X Is Dead” headlines sprawling the tech blogs today. Maybe that’s true. But I’d like to think he’s serious about this, and so I’d like to give the proper context to the world of networks and action that he frames. (more…)
Google’s secret micropayment strategy for publishers – is it a trick?
So Google is planning to roll out later this year a micropayment system for web content called Newspass. The concept is a single, standardized system for many publishers to put a “pay to read this story” button on their web pages.
Now, I’m on record as not a fan of paywalls online (they’re often considered for the wrong reasons and with a lack of economic understanding). As bad as that is, micropayments are worse.
People who have been paying attention have learned that valuable websites are created through building a loyal community and creating a rewarding user experience. At least a paywall site lets you have a loyal (though small) community with potential for a bonded experience. Micropayments, however, turn the user into a henpecked customer constantly battling doubt and buyer’s remorse. They encourage the shallowest possible interaction with your site, only reading the one or two things you really want to pay for, then get the heck out of there.
So why is Google enabling this by developing an industry platform? It’s clear that Google wants to at least appear friendly to newspaper executives, many of whom in the U.S. and Europe have been denouncing the company as a parasite on their hides. So maybe Newspass is just another Fast Flip — a red herring that smells progressy but really advances nothing.
Or, here’s the crazy part, maybe Google is tricking the news publishers. Get them to install the “pay me” buttons they think are a great idea, so that millions of readers will dodge the pay demand and immediately leave the site to search Google for a free version of the story.
Maybe not. Maybe it’s just a bad idea.
2011: The year mobile takes over
You have less than one year left to talk about mobile devices as the “future” of media.
A lot of people have been talking about the eventual dominance of mobile. Some people have been planning. How many are truly ready?
We’ll know next year. (more…)
Find me at Digital Capital Week (#DCweek)
Digital Capital Week kicks off with a big party tonight at and around Long View Gallery in NW. There are a ton of great events (including one hosted by TBD) over the following week for the DC area digital/tech community. (more…)
Tips for institutions (and others) to succeed on Twitter
A friend who recently started working for a journalism institute e-mailed me for advice about how to grow the institute’s Twitter following. My response applies to both institutes and institutions, including newspapers, and somewhat to individuals as well. So I thought I should share it.
Here is a summary of my advice to him (more…)
7 revelations about Google
Jeff Jarvis got some prime access at Davos to the top executives at Google and has a great post at Buzzmachine detailing the questions and answers. The whole thing is worth a read, but I want to quickly highlight 7 points I found the most interesting/relevant.
– More AdSense transparency. Google will “consider” disclosing the revenue split numbers behind the AdSense program.
– Dissing the iPad. “You might want to tell me what the difference is between a large phone and a tablet,” Schmidt said.
– Apps are everything. “The phone is defined by the apps.”
– The economy is back. “The recession is very much behind us.”
– Focus on display ads. “Display (ads) is likely to be our next really big business globally.”
– Partner with newspapers. Marissa Mayer promises better ads and support for pay systems.
– YouTube is profitable. (no details)
Wednesday event showdown: Apple tablet vs. Obama’s speech
Two big events will dominate the news on Wednesday. Apple is announcing a much anticipated new tablet computer, and President Obama is giving his biggest annual policy address, the State of the Union.
Which is most important? Let’s break it down: (more…)
Why NYT’s metered model is a big gamble
The New York Times has decided that direct consumer payments for content must be a part of its online revenue mix. The metered paywall plan announced today was envisioned as a safe way to test the waters, keeping a mix of free ad-supported traffic and paying subscribers. But the model actually is a big gamble — with the best chance of working, but also the biggest damage from possible failure.
Begin with an admission, as David Carr notes in an insightful and honest post, that no one knows for sure how the high-traffic visitors will react in 2011 “hit the wall.” But it will be one of two outcomes: Stay and pay, or flee to free.
This is why it is such a big gamble, because the NYT is wagering its most loyal users. Yes, they are the more likely to pay than anyone else — but turning them away in large numbers would be devastating.
The costs vs. benefits are certainly questionable. There are many unknown variables at this point, but Shafqat at NewsCred makes some good estimates that NYT will be “giving up $10M-$15M (in lost ad revenue) to make $9M (in subscriptions).”
NYT plans to charge online: Will it work?
The paywall debate is about to move from words to actions. In the biggest large-scale test of whether a news website can successfully charge readers for access, The New York Times is about to announce an online subscription model, New York magazine reports.
So, will it work?
Much of the answer depends on how exactly it is structured, which we don’t yet know. What Gabriel Sherman reports is that it will be a metered model, where a user can see a certain number of free pages before being forced to subscribe.
What that number is will make a big difference. NYTimes.com draws 16.6 million uniques a month, each visiting an average of four times and spending a total of 17:17 time on site, according to the latest Nielsen numbers reported by E&P in November. Nielsen doesn’t report the number of pages viewed, but you could guess how many someone reads in four four-minute sessions — I’d say 5 to 10 pages.
So, does the NYT turn on the meter after five pageviews, forcing most readers to decide whether to pay? Or does it leave a high threshold of 10-15 free views, allowing average readers to stay free and just taxing the very biggest consumers?
That pageview threshold will be the most-important to watch when details are announced. Secondary is what price NYT sets for an online subscription — that is somewhat important, but studies have shown that any act of charging triggers a flight of readers.
Google CEO Schmidt hints at “very powerful display advertising solutions” to help news websites
From an article in the Telegraph:
(Google CEO Eric) Schmidt … to him the revenue model the newspaper industry will have to use comes after a pretty simple, and essentially binary, decision.
“The simplest model to think about is that your readers are eventually going to consume the majority of your products in online devices. The fact of the matter is that is what the reader is choosing.
“The problem is how do you monetise that reader?There are two choices. One is that you can do a subscription and the other is to use advertising.
“We are in the process of trying to develop very powerful display advertising solutions that will work in those categories. That is the way it is going to happen.”
Improving news with user-directed assignment desks
Journalism is about asking and answering questions. So for journalism the “metaquestion” — the question underlying all other questions — is, what questions shall we ask?
Until now, that metaquestion was answered by an analog process. It leveraged no network or algorithm. It basically consisted of editors speculating what they think the public should know, and reporters talking to informed people. That was fine, for the time.
But we can do better now.
That metaquestion can now be answered in powerful new ways that take advantage of the collaborative web. In short, the public can actually suggest and rank questions it wants the professional journalists to answer. In some cases the public can also help answer the question.
Here are some encouraging examples that align reporting efforts with public interest or even financial support:
- MyReporter.com: An excellent project by the Wilmington, NC, Star-News that lets users ask questions that the paper’s journalists answer.
- Explainthis.org: A concept by Jay Rosen to align the journalist’s efforts with the interest of the audience. Jay has been into this subject since his NewAssignment.Net project in 2006. The idea of that site was “open source methods to develop good assignments and help bring them to completion; it employs professional journalists to carry the project home and set high standards so the work holds up. There are accountability and reputation systems built in that should make the system reliable.”
- HelpMeInvestigate.com: A site by Paul Bradshaw to let a community of users suggest investigative topics and then collaborate on putting the pieces together.
- The Virtual Assignment Desk: Part of the New York Times “The Local” community blogging project, the assignment desk let’s users suggest assignments for the blogger. It also offers assignments for users to go cover themselves.
- Spot.us: Ideas are nominated and users pledge small donations up front to support them. Ideas that raise enough support are executed, with the added benefit of an engaged audience waiting to see and share the outcome.
- Kickstarter.com: Similar to Spot.us, Kickstarter lets people secure multiple-donation funding for news projects, as well as company startups and almost any type of venture.
I’m focusing on projects that connect pros with users. Other notable projects such as Cody Brown’s Kommons.com are empowering the public, but seek to displace the journalist altogether. See also Yahoo Answers, Mahalo.com.
Another great platform worth looking at, getsatisfaction.com: Conceived as a customer service tool, but could be applied to journalism. This service let a site’s users ask questions and suggest improvements, and then the community comments on and ranks the suggestions.
Do you know of others that should be included here? What elements need to be part of the user-directed assignment desk? Leave your comments.
Circle me on Google+