recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : favoriting   13

Teju Cole on Instagram: “Seminyak, October 2015. Let like be the emotion and "like" be the Instagram action, the double tap on the picture or the single tap on the blank heart. For some of you, I like that you post, I like the fact of your posting. Rela
"_tejucole:

Seminyak, October 2015.
Let like be the emotion and "like" be the Instagram action, the double tap on the picture or the single tap on the blank heart. For some of you, I like that you post, I like the fact of your posting. Related but not at all the same, I like everything you post (you know who you are). I don't "like" everything anyone posts in part because I want to be able to find things in the "likes" later. I "like" in order to indicate that I like, or to note, or to encourage, or as a thank you. I don't hate-"like." For some of you, I don't like what you post generally, maybe your style doesn't appeal, but I'll "like" a photo you post that I like. I think of a repost as a kind of "superlike" of certain pairings of word and image. Sometimes if I like something a lot, I can't "like" it, because it's too close to my skin. Sometimes, when something makes my spinal cord throb, I'll 🌟 it as well as "like" it, almost helplessly and inadvertently, like a monkey in a psychological experiment.

If someone should "like" something I post, I don't mentally interrogate their "like"—I simply prefer to assume that they like the picture, the words, the sequence of images I've been presenting, or me, which all comes to the same thing, at least at that moment. I notice how many "likes" a given post of mine receives, up to a certain minimum (which I will not reveal), beyond which a shit I giveth not. A "like" from certain people (you know who you are, except for those of you who don't) I mentally calculate as ten ordinary civilian "likes." I seldom but sometimes post with "likes" in mind, either to garner "likes" or to stymie them. I never shoot with "likes" in mind.
#_thehive

giache_I:

'superlike' your writings on this activity and these relations of Instagram ✨✨✨

jetudier:

(is it a function of this medium & platform, that I came to at the age that I did, or pure whimsy, that I find the need to write rather than double tap.. this I went private for just such reasons. to not care or be distracted but I find that a tension still exists .. thinking aloud bout this essay. thank you :)

simplymoraa:

On this one my "like" was primarily for the writing.

creetilda:

And I love you.

achp__:

I assumed your liking politics were very specific, but I didn't imagine they'd be that specific. For me, I try to like less and observe more. Sometimes I can't be bothered, and don't like nor observe, and it makes me wonder about the use I do of this space.

1001sarahs:

🌟✨🌟✨🌟
_tejucole:

@achp__ My liking poetics, you mean. 😬 What I realize is also that one likes here, the same way an author signs book. It is one understood (and largely friendly) form of exchange. Until I published books, I hated getting books signed, much less contemplating signing them myself. The purity of literature was the thing! Then things changed and I did too."

[Continued: https://www.instagram.com/p/BBsHGZvvVtv/

"_tejucole

Ubud, October 2015. Within the system of likes which cannot be turned off, and which implicitly sets up a rivalry not only among one photographer's photos, but between different photographers, lending a mild but never to be mentioned element of anxiety into the presentation of every photo, certain forms of sequencing are imperiled. Repetition is imperiled, slow shifts of photographic phase are imperiled. No one imposes these rules. It's only that Instagram, like any society, has unspoken notions of good behavior, of behavior worthy of reward (and even how that reward is to be assessed: relative to total follower count: a hundred likes has different meanings depending on who's getting it). At direct odds with our individual interests in exploration is our individual talent for popularity. "This one will get plenty of likes" is a thought many of us have had, and not always happily. Read the terrain. Certain work can happen here. Certain work cannot happen here.
#_thehive"
tejucole  likes  liking  favorites  favoriting  faves  socialmedia  2016  instagram  psychology  gamification  terrain  behavior  popularity  motivation  photography  writing  whywewrite  whyweshare  socialdynamics  anxiety  rivalry 
february 2016 by robertogreco
How To Talk To Girls On Twitter Without Coming Off Like A Creepy Rando
"Don't make our own jokes back at us, or explain them to us. This one should hopefully be easy. When you are about to add on to a woman's joke, just take a second and really think (at about the speed indicated by the ellipses, to give you plenty of time to really mull it over): "Is it possible ... that ... what I am about to say ... is exactly the joke ... SHE was making?" Look deep into your heart. If it is possible, err on the side of not making the joke. I promise that everyone will be okay without it. (Check out the replies to this joke for a very meta example of this phenomenon.)

Don't be a pedant. Before you hit her with the #actually (highly useful terminology care of Desus), consider again: Is it possible she was making a joke? Joke-making by women has been legal for years, and many of us have gotten very good at it. Okay, so you've considered it, and it definitely wasn't a joke, it was just a factual error. Was it a truly harmful error? Then definitely, go ahead and correct it! But did she just imply that Tarantino directed True Romance, when really he just wrote the screenplay? Oh, buddy. I know it feels pretty awesome to correct people, and scratches what feels like a very urgent itch, but the same is true for jerking off, and we just don't do that in public. Chances are someone has already told her, and if they haven't, that's still okay. Really!

Don't be a mentions pest. Almost any woman with a fair number of followers will know what I'm talking about here: someone who you don't follow but who @'s you all the time with innocuous but inane comments or questions, nothing so out of line that you'd feel justified telling them to fuck off, but constantly making little demands on your attention. It's surprisingly exhausting! Social cues exist on Twitter, too, mostly in the form of faving or replying. If you're making a lot of little jokes in her mentions and she's not even pity-faving them, I'm so sorry, but you're probably being a mentions pest. Maybe chill a little.

Don't derail and make it about you. Yes, we know, not ALL men. You, personally, would never. Is that really, truly what's important here, though?

Don't imitate bad dudes in our mentions. This one is really specific, but it's also shockingly common. Like, when we're like, "Ugh, another strange dude frickin' told me to smile today," some dude will @ us all jokingly like, "Durrr but you're so much prettier when you smile!!!" First of all, if we don't know you, why would we instinctively get that you're joking when it matches actual things that actual dudes say to us? Even if we do get that you're joking—even if you're a friend—I hope you can imagine that it doesn't seem to us to be the funniest, most original joke we've ever heard. Instead, it comes off as a self-serving gesture to cast yourself as "one of the good ones" who "gets it." But adding on to the endless chorus of dudes who say wack shit to us, even in jest, is just not the move.

Faving is almost always cool. Ditto thank-yous, expressions of sympathy, non-gross compliments, answers to actual questions, and pictures of cute animals. (One exception to "faving is cool": If you see girls talking amongst themselves about sex or their bodies or something, don't fav that. We know you can see it, the same way we know you can overhear us in public, but it's like if we were having the conversation at a coffee shop and you winked at us. Eww.)

It's probably cool if you want to defend us from trolls, but keep us out of it. If someone is harassing us and you want to tell them about themselves, thank you, that's super sweet. But take our handle out of your reply to them so we don't have to keep seeing it in our mentions. And try to be thoughtful about not drawing our attention to trolls unnecessarily, or drawing their fire to us.

If someone tells you that you're being weird or annoying or creepy, say sorry and cut it out. It doesn't matter if she's being way harsh about it, or that you're a super-awesome dude and didn't mean it that way—literally the only cool move when someone enforces their boundaries is to respect them, apologize, and back off. Even if you weren't being a creep before, a really easy way to make yourself one is to stick around after someone's made it clear that they want you to leave them alone, even if it was for what you think is a bullshit reason.

If you don't know each other, maybe just don't @ her. This one is going to make dudes mad, I think, but like ... what if you just didn't? Would you die? Maybe think about why you feel entitled to have a stranger listen to your thoughts at all? This isn't a perfect analogy, but a good rule of thumb is to treat the mentions of someone who doesn't follow you back (i.e. someone who hasn't explicitly consented to listen to you) like you're asking her to take out her earbuds on the bus. (Here's a bonus article-within-an-article, by the way, entitled "How To Talk To Women On Public Transportation": Oh gosh please just don't.) Is what you have to say funny or interesting enough that you'd feel good about saying it to her while she looks at you blankly, earbuds dangling? Listen, I'm just urging you to consider the alternative path of not @'ing her whenever you're about to @ her. You may find that it suits you, and sorry, but there's a good chance it'd suit us, too."
gender  socialmnetworks  sociamedia  twitter  etiquette  culture  2015  lilybenson  howto  tutorials  favoriting 
february 2015 by robertogreco
Twitter doesn't care about you anymore | Jess Zimmerman | Comment is free | theguardian.com
"The school that I attended when I was nine years old didn’t have much of a playground – just a pull-up bar and two basketball hoops on either side of the blacktop. But nobody I knew cared, because we spent all our playtime in the ragweed-choked thickets on the outskirts of the yard, pretending to be the rabbits from Watership Down.

The following year, the school blocked one of our most significant warrens and razed two others to install some sort of jungle gym nonsense. This made the playground function more like the people in charge thought a playground should function – there were things to climb on, things to swing on, things to race each other to the top of. But we wanted things to pretend to be rabbits on. The grown-ups in charge tore down the parts we were using in favor of what they thought we should use.

Twitter’s recent change to the way its “favorites” work shows the same kind of grown-up tone-deafness. The service now allows tweets that you marked as a favorite to show up in your followers’ timelines (and vice versa). Many users might not notice, but Twitter’s core audience has been abristle at this change.

Whereas faves were, until now, semi-invisible except to those being favored, Twitter’s new plan shows them to the world (or, at least your other followers). A glance at any taxonomy of Twitter faves – and there have been ones at Buzzfeed, Time and the Wire – makes it clear that this runs counter to the way faves are used in the wild. Buzzfeed’s list of 17 types of fave, for instance, includes “the hate fave”, “the secret crush fave”, “the flirty mutual fave” and “the blackmail fave”. Much of the rich vocabulary of the fave depends on the reality that they aren’t visible to anyone who’s not involved or specifically looking.

Faving can mean “I like this” or “I hate this” or “I like this but not enough to retweet it” or “I want to passive-aggressively respond to this” or a host of other things. It’s a complicated, Calvinball-esque game. But one thing the Twitter favorite has never meant is: “I wish the fact that I liked/hated/liked but not enough to retweet/wanted to passive-aggressively respond to this would show up in the feed of everyone I know.” Actually, a lot of people are mildly horrified by this notion. It’s not the way we’ve been playing; it messes with the rules we’ve made up. But it’s the way Twitter wants us to play.

Twitter wasn’t always a bunch of school administrators paving over kids’ rabbit warrens to install new equipment. Indeed, the way the service once dealt with hashtags implies that the company is capable of letting its users’ needs set the agenda. Hashtags, one of Twitter’s most powerful features, were invented by a user – they weren’t a native capability of early Twitter. Once the practice became widespread, Twitter started hyperlinking hashtags to make them easier to follow, and instituted the “trending topics” feature to track them – and now they’re a defining part of the platform.

I’ve been to Twitter headquarters in San Francisco: in addition to the start-up-requisite ping-pong tables, there are plastic deer and a huge patio with a setup for a beanbag-tossing game. Twitter, of all places, should understand that it’s built a playground and that, if you give social networkers a place to play, they will shape it to meet their ends. Improvements that simplify or enhance those innovations show that you appreciate and prioritize your users, but those “improvements” that bulldoze what they’ve built end up showing that you prioritize – well, something else. Advertisers, probably. Your vision of how your service should be used. But not the people who use it.

Twitter users don’t need the fave to be public; we need it to be multivalent. If you’re paying attention to users – or even to Buzzfeed or Time – it’s apparent that Twitter faves mean so many different things to different people. Instead of asking users to understand other people’s vocabulary, why not institute multiple types of fave, one for bookmarking and one that’s more equivalent to the Facebook “Like”? People have been calling for such a change for years.

I suspect the Twitter of five years ago – the one that made hashtags more functional because that’s what its users had carved out of blacktop and ragweed – would be doing that. But this Twitter wants to build a new, fancy playground on top of the hardscrabble one we’re actually using – one that suits its needs and not ours."
jesszimmerman  twitter  favorites  favoriting  play  calvinball  socialmedia  watershipdown  2014  rules  faving 
august 2014 by robertogreco
Stowe Boyd — Twitter's New Favorite: I Want Groupings, Instead
"The reason this feels odd is that it breaks the convention we’re used to, and replaces it with something that doesn’t follow network connections. If Twitter changed the rule so that all my followers would see my favorites it would follow the retweet model. But in that case, why have both retweet and favorite?

The new model is a popularity-oriented approach, but what about something more semantic? What if twitter allowed us to tag ourselves in our profiles, and then would direct tweets to us that matched our preferences? This is the concept of groupings, or Chris Messina’s Channels concept, inverted (see Hash Tags = Twitter Groupings). A grouping is a collection of people related through the use of a tag. You don’t get invited to a grouping, like a group: you invite yourself by tagging.

So when someone in my social scene (like friend of a friend) tags a tweet with #postnormal or #hashtags I would see that in my feed, because I am a member of the #postnormal and #hashtags groupings.

Of course, Twitter could simply develop the new favorite algorithm in a way that does the same as self-tagging and groupings would. I’d be happy with that."
stoweboyd  twitter  groupings  favorites  favoriting  farhadmanjoo  channels  2014  hashtags  faving 
august 2014 by robertogreco
Save the Fav, Twitter's Digital Body Language - NYTimes.com
"On Twitter, faving a tweet politely communicates that you saw the message. If you say nothing else, it is a polite, one-button way to end the conversation without actually saying you want to end the conversation. If email or instant messaging had faves, we would be saved a lot of unnecessary messages saying, “Got it!” or “Hah, good one.”

But more than just a tepid goodbye, the fav allows each side to come away with different impressions of how the conversation went. I could hit “favorite” to signal “I’m bored. I want to stop talking to you.” But you could read my fav to mean “That was fun, but I gotta go!” In the end everyone wins, because we all read faves in the most self-flattering light.

There are all kinds of situations in which this sort of double meaning comes in handy. You don’t really find my joke funny, but you don’t want to hurt my feelings? Fav it; I’ll interpret it as a hearty LOL.

You want to kiss up to a superior who keeps posting banal New Age quotations? Fav her; you can always plausibly deny any sycophancy to your colleagues, because a fav doesn’t mean anything.

You may wonder why should we celebrate doublespeak. The body language analogy is useful here. Shrugs, grunts, winks, nods, squints, eyebrow tilts — these are undefined signals, little human gestures that suggest some meaning. They’re powerful because they’re intentional, but also because they’re ambiguous.

Sometimes body language hides more than it says. But we use our bodies to do some of the talking because maintaining civility and good feelings is often necessary; for the sake of everyone, you don’t say every honest thought that pops into your head.

Twitter’s fav acquired its power only by happenstance. In its early days, the service never defined what the “favorite” button was for, leaving people free to find creative ways to use it.

The history of the fav should serve as a model for the many new chat apps popping up: They should resist overdefining every feature or making every action a signal in some kind of learning algorithm. They should add in a few extra user-interface elements that do nothing at all.
favoriting  faving  favorites  twitter  online  web  socialmedia  2014  farhadmanjoo  likes  liking 
august 2014 by robertogreco
Emptyage — About my quote in The Wire   
"I fave things because I like them, or hate them. I do it to say good job, or fuck you, or just because I want to see them again. (But I never, ever see them again.) I fave things because I want the writer to know that I know too—I fave stuff just to let people know I’ve seen it. I fave things out of obligation. I fave things because I’m bored. I fave things to be a part of something bigger than myself. I fave things because favoriting is important and society is broken and Twitter is a meaningless and empty way for me to pass the time and avoid any form of introspection that might make me a better or more productive person. I favorite things to get people’s attention. (“Take out menus left on the doors of other restaurants,” but I may be misquoting that.) I favorite things to feel less alone, and so that you’ll feel less alone too. I favorite stuff that makes me laugh. Sometimes I favorite things by accident. Fave."
favorites  favoriting  mathonan  2014  twitter  likes  liking  web  online  socialmedia  faving 
august 2014 by robertogreco
The Semiotics of Like - Anil Dash
"What's key here is that people are experimenting. When Mat tries a different way of using the Like feature on Facebook, he's testing its boundaries and exploring the meaning of using it in different ways. This is key. And not just because we need to understand the algorithms that shape so much of our lives (though we do), but because it can open up our minds to new ways to express ourselves.

Of course, I have a dog in this fight. I've done experiments about being mindful of whom I retweet and amplify. I'm the guy with a comprehensive theory of favoriting on Twitter. And I spent all day building an app (sign up now for free!) that is about plumbing the depths of this expression.

But even putting aside my own peccadilloes, what seems to be glaringly missing is a broader discussion about the ways we bend and stretch these apps we use every day. Where are the hacks and the cheat codes and the unexpected discoveries? Sure, the billion people who simply see these services as utilities to talk to their friends aren't going to try to break their networks, but those of us who are geeks seem to have settled into a too-comfortable acceptance of what we're given.

How are we going to find out what we really mean when we act if we don't start doing more experiments about how we express ourselves?"
like  liking  favorites  favoriting  socialmedia  web  online  internet  anildash  2014  networks  twitter  mathonan  facebook  faving 
august 2014 by robertogreco
6, 19: Favorites
"One of my favorite things on the web is favorites. Twitter, of course, but also bookmarks on Pinboard and everything else. I like browsing my own every few months. On Flickr – photos I starred because they remind me of a place. Because of a place I was reading about. Of a food I was reading about. Only because of the caption. Only despite the caption. Things by friends that I starred long before they were friends or I even recognized their names. Good examples of techniques I’ve doodled with – kite aerial photography, cyanotype, infrared, slitscan, …. Stars meaning “listen, I see what you were going for”. Stars on pictures of children I babysat. Stars meaning “yes, you caught what that friend looks like”. On photos of wonderful memories. On photos of me goofing with friends. On events I wish I’d been at. On friends doing brave, difficult, or beautiful things. On niche celebrities – just Bruno Latour or Robert Bringhurst being a person. Tricky satellite images starred as a kind of solidarity. This photo. Things starred because they exemplify something I dislike. Undistinguished snapshots of things I feel strongly about. A famous harbor seal, now passed, whom I hung out with sometimes. Things I starred as a side channel while conversing with their taker. Awfully clichéed shots for reasons other than the cliché. Photos, especially, that surprised me – that used a technique I dislike or a subject that bores me in a way that held my attention. And this is just Flickr, where I’m not particularly active or fast to star – my Twitter favorites are full of star-to-thank, star-to-bookmark, ….

(My one rule for starring things on Flickr is: it should be difficult to work out anything about my sexuality from my favorites page. Likewise: when considering whether to follow a stranger, I check their favorites. Certain kinds of creepth show up there before anywhere else.)

But of course better than my own favorites are my friends’ favorites. There’s a distinct and powerful joy in finding that a new friend long ago starred something that I did too. It’s such a splash: You noticed that one! But that’s only a small part of it. Mostly, for me, the fun is in scrolling past things that they care about more than I do, the things they starred as thanks, their cousin’s Etsy pictures, a whole series of something that they starred every single one of, not impatient, just moving along, but sometimes finding big troves of the most amazing stuff, things I never imagined, whole genres and esthetics that they must have obsessed over for a week, inside jokes, people they’re trying to help, parts of the world I’d never heard of, ambiguous things where I can’t tell at all how it’s being taken, new social vocabularies, communities whose names I knew but which I’d never seen in action.

Sometimes for me favorites are about the difficulty of defining what’s good. Sometimes it’s more just a worn-out metaphor but one I like: surfing."



"I’m at the edge of an important subculture that seems badly over-yelled and under-discussed. Hyperloop is too often either the tragic hero idea, martyred by a public that lacks imagination anymore, or the so-awful-we-don’t-even-have-to-discuss-why idea, and too rarely an “okay, let’s think about what this tells us about where we are today, beyond any eye-rolling” idea.

Regarding SV as a homogenous, historyless alien colony is useless whether you love it or hate it, and indeed is one of the reasons people think they need to choose between loving it or hating it.

[Deleted sentence: The greatest minds of my generation are repeating “The greatest minds of my generation are working on ways to make people click ads” like it’s clever.]

I’m reminded of an essay that @debcha mentioned in reply to the newsletter before last(?), The Distress of the Privileged. It connects with my tired argument that if you want to dismantle something, vigorously othering it is probably counterproductive. Cultivating precisely the empathy that it hasn’t earned tends to work because you learn where to put the knife. I think this holds whether the other is a small-time criminal, MRAs as a group, an invading nation – it’s scale-invariant. Treating people as people is not the same as complicity in their reprehensible decisions. It helps you stop them. “It’s not my responsibility to understand, it’s their responsibility to stop, and I’ll make them if I have to” is of course always valid response to injury, never to be silenced or scolded. But as a long-term strategy against something bigger than you are? It lacks. Or so I think, from a pretty insular point of view.

(Cf., for a very clear e.g., the appalling idea in recent American historiography/pedagogy that the Montgomery bus boycott was one cool lady’s random impulse rather than a brilliantly strategized campaign. It’s almost like the status quo has an interest in downplaying the value of careful tactics and solidarity, and likes to valorize exactly the kind of awful one-passionate-hero narrative that’s Ommatokoita’ed onto the eyes of our culture.)

Okay, one more angle on this and then I’ll stop: treating worrying companies (and agencies, and nonprofits) as pathological humans is something to be done carefully, not by default. They are at least as different from people as dogs are, and maybe as different as whales. I think a scary amount of work diverts its own force by uncritically accepting the identity metaphor, the #brand, of what it’s trying to attack. (There is certainly work that does it critically, for example @lifewinning’s astrological readings of surveillance agencies.) (This is connected to the above in that assholes, by making you treat them as assholes, can distract you from more effective methods of dispatching them.)"
favorites  email  charlieloyd  favoriting  flickr  stellar.io  twitter  pinboard  bookmarks  bookmarking  communication  2014  empathy  complexity  subcultures  privilege  siliconvalley  faving 
july 2014 by robertogreco
Webstock '13: Jason Kottke - I built a web app (& you can too) on Vimeo
See also: http://stellar-status.tumblr.com/post/62923078635/in-february-i-spoke-at-the-webstock-conference-in

"In February, I spoke at the Webstock conference in Wellington, New Zealand. My talk was called “I built a web app (& you can too)” and was about how I built Stellar.

In the final third of the talk, I discussed the future of the site and the difficult time I was having with my motivation. At the time, I honestly didn’t know if I would continue developing for the site or even hosting it. The process of giving the talk was very helpful in helping me figure out that, yes, I did want to keep Stellar going. My first code check-in in several months occurred just a week or two after I got back from NZ and I’ve been working steadily on it ever since.

ps. Webstock is a wonderful conference. I don’t know if they’re doing it next year or not, but if they do, you should go.

pps. Oh man, I am not a good public speaker. I’m a little embarrassed watching this, even beyond the usual “that’s what my voice sounds like?” reaction. I feel like I had a compelling story to tell, I just didn’t tell it very well. Next time — if there is a next time — I will do better."

[Also here: http://www.webstock.org.nz/talks/i-built-a-web-app-you-can-too/ ]
stellar  stellar.io  favorites  favoriting  likes  socialmedia  vimeo  flickr  tumblr  twitter  slowhunches  streams  webstock  2013  webapps  aggregation  youtube  online  internet  motivation  facebook  jasonkottke  liking  making  process  text  faving 
october 2013 by robertogreco
All In Favor - Anil Dash
"In short, favoriting or liking things for me is a performative act, but one that's accessible to me with the low threshold of a simple gesture. It's the sort of thing that can only happen online, but if I could smile at a person in the real world in a way that would radically increase the likelihood that others would smile at that person, too, then I'd be doing that all day long."
anildash  2013  favoriting  liking  appreciation  accessibility  gestures  twitter  flickr  youtube  vimeo  facebook  stellar.io  bookmarks  bookmarking  sharing  social  socialmedia  online  behavior  favorites  faving 
july 2013 by robertogreco
Photography’s Third Act | Dustin Curtis
"Since using that early prototype of Treehouse, I've been wanting something that replicated the feeling of using photos for communication, and nothing has come close. It seems that every photo sharing app ends up adding features like commenting, which destroys the fundamental value of the photos themselves; all photo sharing apps have regressed into apps for artistic expression.

Until Snapchat, which has captured the essence of using photos as communication. Because it is completely ephemeral – and because the photos are deleted after 1-10 seconds – it's impossible to use the photos for anything but communication. It's an amazing app, and its popularity is just a hint of how I think we'll use photos in the future."

[via: ""photography's third act" -- photos for individual communication as opposed to artistry -- by @dcurtis" https://twitter.com/atlin__/status/319984386521059328 ]`
snapchat  dustincurtis  communication  photography  2013  treehouse  instagram  commenting  ephemeral  sharing  liking  favoriting  social  ephemerality  favorites  faving 
april 2013 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read