Eric and Chris are thinking about social software and collaboration behavior as developers and academic theoreticians, citing papers and so forth. Poupou’s posing the questions in a way which reflects a user orientation. Good for her!
She forecasts the imminent death of chat and notes the need for audience-sensitive content filters; a kill-file the blog author controls; then, huzzah, she points to a roll-your-own implementation for MT under PHP from the aptly self-proclaimed Scriptygodess, savior of all MT users and guiding hand behind the MT Plugins page.
Personally, I fall in to the ‘anonymity? why?’ camp; but in the entry and in some thoughtful comments by Coop my ‘why’ is answered.
It’s true I won’t be publishing material here I don’t want my parents to read; but it’s also true I have not published material here I don’t want the DOJ – or Rush Limbaugh – to read.
In the first case, it does mean I haven’t sat down and devoted an hour of serious writing to, for example, an intimate sexual encounter. Does it also mean I never will? That’s uncertain.
In the second case, I’ve already noted that I’m unhappy with this self-imposed restriction; however, it’s organic and not strictly a reflection of blog-ness and the age of zero anonymity.
There is a third case of content filter which determines what goes up here and what does not, and that’s the desire not to publish fairly finished source material – quotes, mostly; interviews, as being largely quotes, fit this rule – prior to professional publication of pieces drawn from the source matter.
That is to say, the blog supports professional activity, and is intended to act as a point of presence for both Mike Whybark, who woke up one day knowing he was a fool to not have thought seriously about writing; and Mike Whybark, underemployed webchicken.
In which case, um, maybe the sex writing shouldn’t appear there ayway, yes?
There’s more for me to say about this, but I’ve been told it’s time for bed.