The Gillmor Gang explored location’s role in new social media platforms. MG Seigler, Kevin Marks, and Robert Scoble are joined by socialmedia.com’s Seth Goldstein. The transcript starts below the video.

STEVE GILLMOR: Hi, this is Steve Gillmor. Welcome to the Gillmor Gang. We’re going to have a discussion today about why RSS is still dead – no we’re not. We’re going to have an elliptical discussion which will end up being about that. And to join us, we have the newest regular of the Gillmor Gang, MG Siegler. Welcome, MG.

Mr. MG SIEGLER: Hey, thanks for having me. Good to be here.

Mr. GILLMOR: Great for you to be here. MG of course, for TechCrunch fans, is the guy who has single-handedly changed TechCrunch from being a daily newspaper to being a minute-by-minute site.

Mr. MG SIEGLER: Almost real-time.

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t know how he does it, but, I don’t really want to know. And joining us as usual, thank God these days, is Kevin Marks.

Mr. KEVIN MARKS: Hi, there.

Mr. GILLMOR: Hi.

Mr. MARKS: Are we all black and white today?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. MARKS: Is there a retro going on here?

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t know what to tell you. It’s all there on the network, so, I don’t know what you’re looking at. We’ll check that out later. And our special guest today, Robert Scoble, are you there on the phone?

Mr. ROBERT SCOBLE: Yeah, I’m on the phone in my car.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, so, what’s the baby news?

Mr. SCOBLE: Maybe Saturday, not today.

Mr. GILLMOR: So you – what’s the name of the baby?

Mr. SCOBLE: Ryan Soroush Scoble, R.S.S.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, there you go. (laughing)

Mr. SCOBLE: (laughing)

Mr. GILLMOR: Puts the light to that, doesn’t it?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, great. It’s a little hard to hear you so, I’m going to see if we can give you a little bit more level here. Give me a test.

Mr. SCOBLE: Testing, one, two, three, four, five. Hopefully you can hear me.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, that’s better. And well, less of me and then our special guest coming to us, formerly of the land of attention and maybe gestures and now bring the light to the notion that social media is dead, Mr. SocialMedia.com, Seth Goldstein.

Mr. SETH GOLDSTEIN (CEO, SocialMedia Networks): Social media is dead long live gestures.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, well, we’ll explore that. I don’t think it’s dead but the scene that had Caroline McCarthy, I believe is her name, had a really good story about how everything seems to have matured in the social media space as evidenced by TechCrunch50. MG, what’s your thought on that article and in general, are we seeing the maturation, pardon the expression, of all things social media?

Mr. SIEGLER: I didn’t catch that specific article just yet, but, I mean, in general just, I mean, I think, yeah, things are going up. We’re seeing Facebook making actual money now so that’s certainly something for it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Hmm, that was one data point.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: What else?

Mr. SIEGLER: Well, now it’s got Twitter at a billion dollar evaluation, so that’s another interesting thing, right?

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, who says, I mean, somebody told Mike Arrington that but we don’t know whether that’s true.

Mr. SEIGLER: Right, we’ll see but, you know, a lot of people are talking.

Mr. GILLMOR: But that doesn’t really lend any credence one way or the other to the notion that we’ve reached some sort of stability and that people are starting to question, I mean, Caroline’s article suggested that Shawn Parker, I believe is his name, one of the experts on the panel was Robert, said something to the effect that he was bored by all things social media. And she took that as being an indication that we were in a moment in time where modernization was going to become king and that there was little if any value to these, you know, yet another social community. Do you agree with that?

Mr. SIEGLER: Hmm, maybe, I mean, kind of, I guess in a way, I think, you know, if people see Facebook now making money and they kind of all focus just solely on that, you know, we might see a little decline in terms of overall crazy innovation that’s going on, but, I think in general, I don’t think that that will really happen. I mean, you know, they’re still – I think Dick Costolo said it well on, you know, also at TechCrunch50 when, I think it was Jason or someone asked him, so why join Twitter, you know, you sold the company to Google, you obviously have plenty of money, you don’t need to do anything. But he saw it, you know, he said something along the lines of that he sees it as one of those companies that comes along every once in a while that can possibly change things. So clearly, you know, he’s been sold on that idea just for Twitter alone, so that said something, I think.

Mr. GILLMORE: Kevin Marks, what do you think?

Mr. MARKS: I think we’re getting to the point now where this stuff is ready to use. We’ve been working to make social bargain (unintelligible) the web and that’s happening. And so now that’s a tacit part of the side, it’s another thing in itself. So, what I saw at TechCrunch50 was a lot of companies that were taking that pervasiveness sociality as an assumption and then building new things on top of that. And I’m seeing more and more of that as we people do things on top of Twitter, on top of Facebook, on top of (unintelligible), on top of all these ways of connecting to the stuff that’s already there. Robin is saying yes, we’re going to make this another destination site, they say, we’re going to take this stuff you got and do something interesting with it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Seth Goldstein.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re “Mr. Modernization” or you will be. I mean, I don’t personally think that this is – that there is anything different going on here at all. I think that this is just a recognition that some people have figured out how to be able to do something that looks relatively stable more than once. But I think that the pace of innovation is actually going to accelerate rather rapidly right now. What do you think?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I agree. Let me start – I have a friend who used to work for me named Jon Steinberg who built something called social gray(ph) that aggregates Foursquare data to show what’s trending and Foursquare is of course built in part on the iPhone and on top of Twitter. So, I think you’re going to see derivatives of derivatives. You’ll see complex API instruments the same way we’ve seen complex financial instruments the last couple of years in Wall Street. I think there’s going to be five years of innovation before all comes crashing down and breaks all the APIs.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, that’s very optimistic. What do you mean by crashing down? You’re making an analogy to tarp and all of the (unintelligible).

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: No. I’m making this up as I go. I’ve never thought of this big of idea before.

Mr. GILLMOR: Join the club.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: However, if you think about, you know, building services on top of the APIs that are building services on top of other APIs, it’s a form of leverage, it’s a form of derivatives on top of, you know, complex web service instruments and I think they will continue to be built on top of each other and at some point on the line there will be some crash. I don’t know if it will be a technology crash or a financial crash associated with it, but I think we have five or seven years of relentless and reckless innovation on top of all these open APIs.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, well, I accept the second part of the premise but not the first. I mean, everybody has been calling – remember how the – we were going to run out of bandwidth for the Internet, I think about 10 years ago? Kevin wasn’t that – wasn’t there a great stress around IPv6 and all that kind of stuff?

Mr. MARKS: (unintelligible) the thing on. I mean, we’re not running out of bandwidth, they’re running out of IP addresses. That’s the challenge that’s still there and it’s the, you know, it’s the Y2K-like problem that we still got and we’ve got to deal with.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, but the Y2K problem turn out to be bullshit too, so?

Mr. MARKS: Well, because we’ve fixed it in time, you know, a bunch of things broke.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, so how’s that IPv6 thing going?

Mr. MARKS: It’s getting there. You know, people working on it. Most of the mail (unintelligible) can now support it, people – the routers(ph) are starting to support it. But it’s a propagation thing until everyone’s on it we’re going to need to keep supporting both, IPv4 and IPv6. But what it should mean is that we can then go back to our proper end-to-end network rather than network of not so connected together that don’t quite connect every protocol.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, what I really think this is going to drive this and many of the adoption of so-called open standards is going to be market force coming to bare on more than one company. In other words, the competition between two larger companies essentially driving a standard out of the rubble of the interaction between the two. MG, what’s your thought about – is Facebook, is it really Facebook versus Twitter or is there some larger struggle underway right now?

Mr. SIEGLER: I mean, I think, that they are doing, you know, the two most interesting things in the states right now on a large scale that a lot of people are seeing but, you know, certainly Kevin will know what Google is doing and things like that.

Mr. GILLMOR: No, he used to but they cut him off since he left.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right, he is. Obviously.

Mr. MARKS: I see somebody.

Mr. SIEGLER: (Laughing) but yeah, I mean, the two of them are really kind of going at it, that looks right now and on a larger scale than most people are watching. But there a lot of other interesting companies like, you know, we brought up Foursquare and there are some other ones doing some interesting things.

Mr. GILLMOR: What do Foursquare do?

Mr. SIEGLER: Solely, you know, they’re basically location based – it’s more or less a game, you know, you play, you kind of check in places and you can get there…

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, this is what the mayor of something is about?

Mr. SIEGLER: Right, exactly. It’s the thing you’re always asking me about. Why am I the mayor of so and so.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I think I’m going to continue to ignore this one.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: What else besides Foursquare?

Mr. SIEGLER: Well, I mean, I think that something that it touches upon something that’s kind of something that hasn’t really been touched upon that much yet, which is location which all these services are soon, you know, going to be offering more and more of. Facebook hasn’t really gotten into it at all. They did a small announcement the other day with Nokia to do something for it but, you know, eventually, they’re certainly going to roll out their own location stuff. And now Twitter has got the Geolocation API. There’s a lot of potentially cool things that can happen in the space still that’s not tapped at all with that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Jump in any time gentlemen.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I was – as usual, you’re picking the two companies that the Valley(ph) is talking about ignoring the rest of the world. So I can put my (unintelligible) half back on and say actually there’s lots of sites out there that have moved into this idea of delegating the ability to other sites. So as you can, you know, you can log in now with Facebook, you can log in now with Twitter and we’re seeing sites that do that. You can do the same thing with Google, with MySpace, with Hi5, with a whole bunch of other sites but the difference is that those ones are all using a common protocol. So, what I think we’re seeing is that with these things are starting to converge more and the assumption that I have to create a new account to every site is starting to go away. There was a good post about it this morning by Michael Mahamoff (ph) about different log-in models. And the log-in model – we’re moving away from the I-create-an-account-on-every-site and towards the I-can-log-in-with-an-existing-account and bring some of the value of that account has and be (unintelligible) to it and that’s new. That’s by design, that’s because we’re working hard towards that and a bunch of cross-company ways now. And if you looked at, you know, the tornado stuff we talked about last week, it has a lot of that stuff built in because it was what they were using in FriendFeed. The way you can log in to FriendFeed with different accounts and it brings the friends in the profile information from that then they put into the framework and at the source which I thought was very smart of them. Which means that there is now a more general way to do that and I expect that’s going to extend overtime and the idea of having to create a new account will go away because people will realize actually this is much nicer. I can just use the stuff I already got. I don’t have to get through that recreation thing all the time.

Mr. GILLMOR: So then, Robert, are you there back?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, I am back.

Mr. GILLMOR: Jump in any time. It seems like the, you know, I hesitate to call it a battle, but the most important thing that companies are looking for in terms of establishing leverage in this space is around identity to your point, Kevin.

Mr. MARKS: Well, that’s one way of looking at it. I think that – the thing is that, sorry it’s not able to delegate the (unintelligible). They don’t have to do that. They can draw on the ones that already exist.

Mr. GILLMOR: So before, there’s still – there has to be a, you know, some sort of an on ramp, you know, once you have somebody – MG, you need to pull your mike a little bit away from your face, it’s just rattling a little bit. Once you’ve established a ubiquitous log on that every ends up using, you’re kind of in a situation where you might one want to leverage it.

Mr. MARKS: Well, the point is to establish a standard figure for log on so that it’s not bound to any particular organization. Now that’s the point of, you know, an idea now often and put all the contacts and the stuff we’ve been building is that it’s not bound to one particular provider. It’s a web-like protocol that you can log in and use the same stuff whoever is providing it. So that could be, you know, it could be provided by a large organization. It could be something you host yourself. But the point of these, of coming with common protocols is that you can scale from – two things, one is you can scale from – to (unintelligible) number of providers, and the other is that you can connect with people without actually having to have a business arrangement with them, without, you know, without even knowing about their existence often. Once you got a common protocol for logging in, you can log in to – people can log in to you with accounts you never heard of and that’s a very valuable thing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I keep hearing about people decrying or talking about the death of open ID, for example. Now, I don’t know what that means but I do know that it represents the sentiment that these kinds of open standards are harder than they look.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I think, they’re getting easier than they look, that’s the point. You’re using it without realizing you’re using it now. When you log in…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I think that goes back to the old argument about market force, which is that when you have something that captures the imagination of people, you know, be at a game or whatever, that it starts to have a certain amount of ubiquity at that point people come in the standards arena and basically roll it together with other similar market force standards. And then you’ve got something as opposed to trying to create it at heart from the beginning which I think, history doesn’t really show a whole lot of adoption to that kind of thing.

Mr MARKS: No question (unintelligible) that thing. What happens is that people try things out and then we iterate them and can try and converse them a (unintelligible) on that way.

Mr. GILLMOR: Uh huh.

Mr. MARKS: But, you know, but what I’m saying about OpenID being invisible is that, when you log into FriendFeed with your Google account, it’s using OpenID. You just don’t know it’s using OpenID because the user experiences now seems that it’s not obviously using OpenID. And that’s, you know, that’s the piece though that they were moving towards, where the experience is very, very smooth. Now, the drawback is that to make it that smooth, they didn’t give an option to log in with another OpenID account, which I think is a shame. But, that’s something I expect to see change every time where it becomes easier to put your account in and it works out the right thing to do. That’s the (unintelligible) web thing, finger protocol but being discussed and we’ve talked about that one before. The idea of that is that you can put in an email-like identifier and then its approach we’re discovering other services from that in the same way you can do with an OpenID. You know, the value of an OpenID was that you get your all from it which is a place you can then go to get further API endpoints and so on. So, the point of web thing, we select you to do the same thing with an email-like address. So, an email address or what you call a (unintelligible) address or the @ name at domain structure addresses where the (unintelligible) can let you take that and look up endpoints to get further API access there. So, you can do the contents, contacts access, profile access, and things like that you can do with the (unintelligible). So that, is one of the building blocks to make this stuff more natural and much less intrusive part of this interface. You don’t actually have to know what protocol you are using. You just type in the identifier that you recognize and in the background, the log in can work out the right thing to do and present you with the, you know, approval page that say Okay, you used the goggling mail address, well, use your goggle account to populate this. You don’t have to type in the whole bunch of stuff that you’ve already typed in somewhere else.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, unfortunately, Kevin, I like to have you explain or unpack complex stuff. But, there’s nobody here who can explain what you just said. So, Seth, what’s your take on where we’re going to go in terms of these standards?

Mr. GOLOSTEIN: I agree with Kevin. And I think is that it seems like a showdown between using your Twitter ID and using your Facebook ID for, you know, remote delegation of your identity. And, I know last night, yesterday, the day before I changed my Facebook – I want to change my Facebook password and changed the password and I was concerned because I knew – I didn’t know how that would trickle across the web in terms of all the other services and my iPhone that were accessing and Facebook Connect and they were accessing my Facebook stream via that password. And fortunately I think it’s pretty seamless behind the scenes. But I think there’s a growing sense that, you know, our single password or single log in is rippling through all these different web services that we’re utilizing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, you’re back now, right?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. Sorry about that.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s all right. Have you been able to follow along or you as loss as I am?

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m also lost because, yeah, I’m driving over the hill and my phone call got kicked off by the TV.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, MG, what do you think is going to be the next big story that you’ll be covering? What are you looking for right now?

Mr. SEIGLER: Right now, I’m trying to wine down from TechCrunch50s.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, we’re all on the valley of the end of TechCrunch50 but we’re going to have a bunch of rather significant conferences over the next month and a half or so. And, it seems like things are sort of boiling down into what Kevin’s talking about at a technical level is going to also be manifested at a more political level.

Mr. SCOBLE: And commercial level.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, well, I see commercial and political as being the same thing. But, agreed. So, you’re disagreeing with that. Go ahead.

Mr. SCOBLE: I don’t know that much about politics but I think I know more about commercial reality and what I’m seeing on the commercial side is in the valley we talked about – we use to talked about MySpace and now it’s primarily, you know, Twitter – we’ve been talking about Facebook for years. To a certain extent, Twitter has now taken a lot of the air out of MySpace. It was Twitter and Facebook – but there’s all sorts of other media out there that had a lot of vested interests, commercially and politically. And, they’re trying to figure how to become more social both on the customer side and on the advertising side. And I think it’s going to be faced with as it relays to Facebook Connect, do they implement Facebook Connect one of the data politics of that as it relates to their business case? I think Google has a chance to become everybody’s friend, and so far as Google can be seen as more open and available as a platform than Facebook. And so, I think Google will be waiting and the wings for all these media companies to provide some semblance of social features and so far as the media companies might be reluctant to adapt Facebook Connect.

Mr. GILLMOR: MG, do you agree that Google is waiting and it’s going to pounce or like me, do you agree that that Google seems to have a difficult time winding social graph and other types of social energy into their current services?

Mr. SIEGLER: Yeah, I mean. I totally agree with that. I’ve said that a lot of times. I think that’s it’s been pretty clunky how Google has been laying the social lair over all these different things right now. They could have been doing a lot of things earlier certainly with all their different applications. And actually, one of the companies that launched and made the – was in the DemoPit and then won the DemoPit competition at TechCrunch50 was this is a social walk thing. Which is pretty interesting because it – it basically almost works like a FriendFeed type layer over Google Apps, which is – and the work seems to work very well. I know that they’re working pretty close they said with people at Google on it. So, it’s something like that, you know, these third party companies they just came along and did this. And it looks like a much better social implementation than a lot of things that you see right now within many of the Google Apps themselves, because they’re all kind all spread over the place and, you know, there’s nothing really to tie all these different things in and…

Mr. SCOBLE: I agree with that. I want to build on that, which is I think that Google is not waiting in the wings with these social solutions because I do think that they’ve been clunky. I don’t think they have the social graph DNA that Facebook or Twitter has. What I think Google can do is enable third parties to legitimately innovate social solutions on top of Google in a way that Facebook has demonstrated time and time again that they’re not willing to do. Facebook is not really supporting third party applications and third party networks to do the kind of innovation on top of Facebook that they might have been a couple of years ago. It feels like Facebook is trying to close off to third party innovations because they want to do it themselves for better or for worse. And Google, you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Google is now I think going to cozy up to innovative start ups and allow them to do things socially on top of Google, but they can’t do social on top of Facebook.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I find it interesting that you think about Google what I think about Facebook. I actually disagree with you. I mean, historically, Facebook is at a very difficult time in, you know, trying to essay the difference between a closed motive gate(ph) of community and their increasingly large numbers of users. But, I think that they’re – I think, you know, frankly I think the purchase or the merging with FriendFeed team adds significant leverage in terms of dealing with their so-called everyone’s status which I think that they’re going to build out in a very competitive, you know, model as compared to Twitter, where I think that Google, although, they’ve certainly made some strides in terms of opening up Google reader in fact I know, MG, agrees with me to some extent about the success with which they have added social tools to Google reader. They’ve certainly made a large effort over the past few months. I did notice, for example, that in one of my rare visits to Google reader a couple of days ago, I noticed that they are actively now telling me about people that are making available their shared feeds. Kevin Marks, you and I went through a significant amount of back and forth…

Mr. MARKS: Back and forth, yes, a couple of years ago.

Mr. GILLMOR: Back and forth about this. And, I guess that what we’re seeing now is that Google has decided that enough time has passed with the notion that undiscoverable URL, which is what it was originally has now sufficiently been pushed out into the mainstream. That they can afford to spam everybody with, you know, access to share feeds even though they might not be intended for that.

Mr. MARKS: Well, (unintelligible) we had the conversation about how many different sharing and what’s the options there are in Reader(ph) now. It’s getting a bit out of hand. But, there are two things going on there. One is you can see the shared stuff from the people that you already have a friend relationship and start Google with. The other is that because there’s Google profiles who can add URLs, it will discover the feeds from those URLs and the profile and offer you those. That was the other thing they added. So, yeah, they’re starting to pull the pieces together in some of the ways that FriendFeed does by the gathering that the multiple feeds that belong to a person and offering you those as something to read. So, you know, the nice thing is that again, it’s being built on mostly a set of open standards for how to discover those, how to find them, and the shared stuff is going out more publicly. And, yeah, the original friend model that was there two years ago was a (unintelligible) and didn’t work very well. Whereas now, the friend model I’ve got makes a lot more sense and it’s easier to manage and so on.

MR. GILLMOR: They may made more sense but it’s – go ahead, Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, the friend model in Google Reader just isn’t that useful. You know, first of all, if you get more than a few hundred friends, the whole thing slows way down. People are wondering why Twitter is getting all these adoption and all these hype. You can let it go around and use symmetrically(ph), you follow thousands of people without getting the following system from slowing down. And Google Reader is not there, it’s horrid. Also, I can’t immigrate my following with other systems and that’s something I keep holding out hope that the systems will integrate together. I’m now playing with Frenzy, and Frenzy is bringing me my Facebook, my Twitter, and my Gmail in together. But still, there’s no way to aggregate or put together all of Kevin Marks’ items and let me curate Kevin Marks himself and share that back out. Share why Kevin Marks, why what Kevin Marks set on Twitter this morning was really important. I’m still waiting for a really killer system.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, you’re starting to talk about…

Mr. MARKS: But they should be. I mean, you know, in that case, they should be able to connect the different ones together because they’re all bounce together for me particularly for the Google profile in the public way. So, they should be able to discover that. They may just have built that piece of it yet because they built the three separately. (Unintelligible) I like to look of it, I like the demo, I have no chance to play with it yet. But if, you know, if you think how the others, how friendly it binds multiple IDs together, it works reasonably well.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. They (unintelligible) in on it. I love the Google profile, right? And it auto finds where, you know, it (unintelligible) all my accounts or a lot of my accounts all over the place. But it’s just the following. I want to follow Kevin Marks in Google Reader. It’s not very nice to find people. It’s not nice to group them. Getting in there and there’s no real good system for managing followers. It drives me nuts. Foursquare is another one. You know, I have 500 friends waiting on Foursquare to be added, and if you click add, it takes something like five seconds to visit one, it has to refresh the page, it’s not using (unintelligible). I can’t add everybody which is really what I want to. (Unintelligible). And then I can’t put them into groups. I can’t say this group is San Francisco group and this group is my Boulder Colorado group. How lame is that? Just the freaking location base system built for 2010 and it has the worst content measurement system I’ve ever seen.

Mr. MARKS: But I think, well, I can defend them a little. With FourSquare, what they do is they let you assign your own home city. So you can’t tell it that they’re San Francisco people, it will put them in the San Francisco bucket and then when they get – travel to Boulder, they put themselves in the Boulder bucket. So you don’t get to control that.

Mr. SCOBLE: I know, but then, you know, that’s just an example of – they really haven’t thought through. These new systems coming online haven’t thought through how can we manage, make it easier to manage friend groups.

Mr. MARKS: No, I thinks that’s the next frontier, yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: I think that it’s stupid. You know, I …

Mr. MARKS: If you give me…

Mr. SCOBLE: You know, have informed anything from Twitter, why don’t they let me import all my friends from Twitter? Forget making me add another 500 people to another freaking social media piece of crap.

Mr. MARKS: Right, that’s exactly what I was saying. I mean, that was the – the – what was that thing today, Twitter times, did you see that? That was …

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: That was quite a nice thing that says, Ok, well, where we do we, Twitter followers and the links they do and give you a sort of personal tech name of it, or here’s the popular links that you’re – people you’re following to and tune in does something very similar. They’re able to do that because they can get out these sets and they work for people like us who follow a lot of people because we generate in all those signal for them. I think the challenge for – you know, you and I are in a place where we’re following too many people and we suddenly need these tools. Most people haven’t got that far yet and so the priority for these groups is, let’s get the people on board first then let’s build the management stuff. But I do think that’s going to be the next (unintelligible)…

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t agree with the idea that…

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s also maybe…

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t agree, yeah, I’ll let you get in a second, hang on. I don’t agree with the idea that this is all about, you know, early adapters and people who got too many things to follow. This is a mainstream issue that is servicing first …

Mr. MARKS: No, wait, wait.

Mr. GILLMOR: That is servicing first in, you know, in Scoble and Mark’s land but it’s going to rapidly …

Mr. MARKS: No, that’s absolutely …

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s going to rapidly become common place.

Mr. SCOBLE: It is, it is…

Mr. MARKS: The think is, at the moment, what you do is you segment your friends by having them in different sites because that was the model we had and then you have to build separate groups in different places …

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I don’t agree with that. I mean, to me, I don’t use …

Mr. MARKS: Expect to hold. That’s, that’s…

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t use Twit deck, I don’t use a lot of these services that attempt manage by grouping because at the end of the day it becomes more complicated and time consuming to create the groups and then curate them than it does to just use serendipity and much more social graphic types of equations. Seth, you want to say something.

Mr. SCOBLE: It’s, it’s…

Mr. GILLMOR: Hang on a sec, Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: All right.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: About, about FourSquare. I’m very deliberate about who I allow to know where I am physically, and that’s the case with Google Latitude, and that’s the case with FourSquare and I appreciate that I have to create a new social graph within FourSquare to be very intentional about these different set of people, friends, colleagues, relatives, et cetera in terms of who I am allowing to see where I am and that I can – you know, at different levels of permission in terms of just sharing that with my FourSquare friends and then sharing that more broadly with Twitter followers. Whereas on Facebook, you know, I have thousands of friends and I know that whatever I put on Facebook, they’re going to see. I actually appreciate this sort of extra layer of introspection and to your earlier point, Steve, I mean, we are moving into this gesture economy and to this gesture stream and the geolocation of us is of fundamental gesture. I mean, that is becoming literally physical. You know, where am I, what am I doing, sharing that and then within that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead, Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: I totally disagree. First of all, the whole privacy thing …

Mr. GILLMOR: With what?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yes, about the – let’s focus on location-based privacy for just a second.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK..

Mr .SCOBLE: Everybody comes at these lat – the Google Latitude and the FourSquare is that way and it’s lame. The best thing I’ve ever done was share my location with everybody. I get more friends that way, more people are coming into my life that way. And when I’m in San Francisco, people call me up and say, hey, you’re nearby want to have a, you know, want to have a sandwich and stuff like that. And I’ve never had any bad trouble. First of all, let’s assume that you’re correct that you really need to focus on where you’re going to share your location, which is probably true for a lot of people. Why can’t I just bring in all my Facebook friends and then click on the ones I don’t one to share with or I do want to share with and say add those to FourSquare and make it easy. Right now, you know, going through, if you have 500 people asking to get your attention on FourSquare and you will have 500 people getting your attention because there’s a freaking game and a fun game, it’s an addictive game. Everybody is going to want to play this game and everybody is going to want to add everybody else on the social graph and now you’re going to end up just like me with 500 people asking to get your attention. And right now you have to click add, and then you have to wait five seconds for your freaking page to reload because the jerks over there were too lazy to do Ajax like Doppler does. Doppler doesn’t know if…

Mr. GILLMOR: You know, Robert, I really think that this is a problem that you have and that many of us don’t.

Mr. SCOBLE: So everybody says that. Everybody says that, oh, I remember having this freaking thing conversation on IPQ(ph). Nobody will have a thousand friends and then everybody have a thousand friends. Nobody would have a thousand followers on Twitter. I remember having that conversation, too and now, I asked the guardians at TechCrunch50 the other day, how many people have a thousand followers, a lot of hands went up. This is going to be a problem…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, that’s different, Robert. It’s different to have a thousand viewers or followers and to have a thousand followers who know that you are standing 10 feet away from them. Location-based social media is the special case. It certainly going to have some value and it’s fun as a game but it …

Mr. SCOBLE: Because it’s a game, just because this is a game, the FourSquare is a game, you are going to want to share your location with large numbers of people. And yeah, there will be privacy cries and there will be, you know, somebody you just …

Mr. MARKS: Pretending that’s true at all Robert, I think …

Mr. SCOBLE: Doctors would want that…

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead, Kevin.

Mr. MARKS: And it’s true too. I think, you know, you’ve chose into live in public and I have to some extent as well, but I know, lots of people who’ve have very different views. One of my …

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. I’m not saying that you just (unintelligible)…

Mr. MARKS: One of my female friends said, I’m not going to let anyone know where I am on a FourSquare unless that’s somebody who would hold my hair while I’m vomiting, that was the test to say, you know, that’s the test for personalness that she was using there. People have different points on that continuum and there is a certain (unintelligible) when fear of people stalking them.

Mr. SCOBLE: Kevin, you don’t need seven billion people to have a lot of freaking people on your freaking social graph. There’s a lot of people who are going to be wanting to play this game and sharing their location with each other. And yes, maybe it’s only five percent of the population. Five percent of seven billion people is a lot freaking people on your social graph who want – you need to manage. And the fact that these companies take the late low road, lazy road on engineering because they don’t have enough time to build it properly, it’s just bullshit.

Mr. MARKS: Well, give them some, Robert. They just got some funding. They can probably afford to hire more engineers than just one now.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, OK, you know what, that flew three years ago Twitter was just getting going and nobody understood that these systems would be popular. It doesn’t buy with me anymore.

Mr. MARKS: Well, probably the point, there’s two thing there, one is, FourSquare did only just get funding. It was two guys and on credit cards until a couple of weeks ago and they’ve got like a long way …

Mr. SCOBLE: They built dodgeball. Why did dodgeball fail? It failed because of bullshit like this. They don’t think it’s real and then they get popular and they go, ooh, our skill ability problems are there. Fucking, if you’re going to put up a service out in public, build it right first.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, I’ve been there, done that and it’s easier to say than to do. Part of the thing is, part of the value is it’s just (unintelligible). You can delegate these.

Mr .SCOBLE: I know but now they’re (unintelligible) the ability problems and the service is falling down and now they got planning – well see if they fix their problems. It’s going to turn in to the next Twitter where at Twitter is still down all everyday, you know, because they never got on top of their skill ability problems up front.

Mr. MARKS: No, I think Twitter has caught up now but, yeah, they don’t want to be go where friends today.

Mr SCOBLE: Of every freaking day, man. Twitter everyday, I mean, giving that thing 500 times a day. Everyday I had problems on Twitter. It is still having skill ability problems.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I think we’re rolling a bunch of different issues up into one social mess. Seth, what do you think is, you know, the resolution of this kind of conflict between too much and too little in terms of, you know, privacy versus public – and for those who probably can’t hear us, I believe that the U-stream is down or we’re down to U-stream so, we’re recording, so, we’ll finish the show up and then we’ll release it on YouTube. Do you understand my question, Seth?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: No.

Mr. GILLMOR: We’ve got this notion of these capabilities being under implemented and unreliable versus this incredible public utility of these technologies and general move toward adapting and for virtually every input that becomes meaningful to us from an economic and also personal perspective. It just seems like we’re always going to have Robert as the sort of every man basically saying, how come this thing doesn’t work because it’s so absolutely crucial to what I – to my existence.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, so I, I hear that. I don’t think there’s necessarily a question here. I think that Robert brings up the right point and I think Robert would be a great investor and board member to one, you know, popular and increasingly popular web service start-ups about the need early on to really think about these scaler shoes and think about managing multiple groups and thinking about managing – you know, Robert was the one when we all had 50 Facebook friends. He was the one problematizing the case of having 5,000 Facebook friends and we appreciate him for that. I think on a deeper level and on a more basic level what is awesome right now is not only do people want to share information on Facebook, not only do they want to share information on Twitter but they now want to share the informations on fourth square and that there is a positive feedback where people want to, you know, as you would say, Steve, kind of up drift or their gestures into the cloud and that is going to unlock a ton of innovation around this space and I think from a privacy – in politics’ perspective, we are in a very different place than to Twitter in where we were two years ago and these advances in – in data sharing and in attention syndication are not getting constrained and hem strung by knee jerk responses from the mass market PR and the mainstream PR.

Mr. GILLMOR: M.G, what do you think?

Mr. SIEGLER: Yeah, I mean, I think that we’re about to – to get too big witness test for all these location stuff obviously. So when the Twitter geo location API goes live, it’s going to be a first big one. The second big one, you know, bigger would be with Facebook rules out whatever they’re going to do with locations. Because that’s going to be 300 million people who all of a sudden have these shoved in their face. Now obviously, I mean, I have to think that they’re going to do this, you know, the right way and obviously make it opt in. I mean, there’s no way that they could just turn that on for everyone and then everyone knows where you are if you have the iPhone ap or whatnot. But, yeah, you know, Robert is talking about that he wants all these, all these networks put together and you know, you just easily port your friends over from Twitter into FourSquare automatically and stuff and certainly, some people like that but the majority of people that I talked to are right now using FourSquare the same way that Seth was talking about very differently from the way that these Twitter in terms of their social graph – they just, they will only accept people who they, you know, do not mind knowing where they are and like Kevin was talking about and they’re not – you know, like I’ve a huge list of people who I’m, I’m just not accepting. It’s not because I don’t necessarily think that they’re going to be stalking me or whatever. It’s just, it’s a question of do I really want to know where they are all the time and do I want them knowing where I am all the time. But when, you know, when Twitter geo location rules out and then all of your twits are tagged with where you actually are, that’s going to be a really interesting test for all these stuff.

Mr. GILLMOR: On the other hand, I think Robert does have a good instinct about this stuff. Things that seem to be unlikely to have a utility when they get, you know, to mass Scoble type scale often turn out to be just the opposite. They turn out to be very useful. You know, the whole…

Mr. SIEGLER: Sure.

Mr. GILLMOR: The whole argument about the track and you know, the speed of real time for example, most people pitching whole that as being something that only a small number of technologists were interested in.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: When feed switched over that model, there was a hue and outcry about it.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: Followed by rapid…

Mr. SIEGLER: Yeah, not everyone loved it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, exactly.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: And you know, they use these numbers…

Mr. SIEGLER: And they think it’s going to be…

Mr. GILLMOR: They use these numbers as much.

Mr. SIEGLER: It’s going to be the same thing (unintelligible) location I think. I mean, it’s just – it’s going to take a long time for location because like – unlike real time, real time, you know, when it first ruled out, a lot of us thought it was really cool but we also saw that people would probably get annoyed with it because there’s just so much information coming in. But a lot of us, you know, recognize it. Eventually everyone would love it and you know…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well the reality is that there is so much information coming in and we just have…

Mr. SIEGLER: Right, right.

Mr. GILLMOR: Without any way of dealing with it yet.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right. Why would you want to slow it down when you can get it in, you know…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, what – put it the other way. How do you fix it? How do you make it useable? I mean, that – you know, I think Google rater is a great – I think, Google rater is a great product. It, it blew out the market frankly. And the problem is is that it’s so good at what it does that it makes it unusable for me. There’s too much.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. Steve, the thing that we’re forgetting is utility causes human to change their behavior and their attitude. And not, I’m now sharing openly that I have a kidney disease. Ten years ago, I probably wouldn’t have done that. Right? Why do I share that? And why am I going to open up my medical records and share that on some system? Because the goodness you get back, the sharing of information with doctors around the world and with people who have that disease and so on and so forth, is far greater than the incursion on my privacy that I’m perceived – perceiving, right? And same thing with location. I’m already using (unintelligible) and to find things, find businesses near me and telling, yup, I’m here in (unintelligible) bay and then shares me hoe, there’s a peeps(ph) copy, you know, half a mile away. That utility is going to cost people to change their behavior and change their attitude, you know, toward – you think. Now will it take a year or will it take five years or ten years, I don’t know. But over time people are going to find that when they share their location with other people, a lot of goodness comes back to them and therefore, they’re going to buy into these systems.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right. But what is – we need to, we need to build tools in a (unintelligible) system AP, we’re comfortable with that. They select these share in a way that doesn’t involve lots of administration and messing around.

Mr. GILLMOR: But…

Mr. SIEGLER: So we need to build…

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely.

Mr. SIEGLER: Well the Harry Potter analogy. We need to not be build in a Marauders map. We need to be building the Weasley’s clock that says, you know, Kevin’s at home, work, Kevin’s at home whatever to a set of – the family rather the thing you conspire wherever on the world is which is the, the Marauders map.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. SIEGLER: And so it’s the intersection administration that works on the location stuff.

Mr. SCOBLE: Somebody will…

Mr. SIEGLER: And so there’s a sort of mentioned walk…

Mr. SCOBLE: Somebody will discover that…

Mr. GILLMOR: What?

Mr. SIEGLER: One second.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, somebody will discover that, that’s right. There’s a company called Glimpse for instance that does exactly what the latitude does in terms of sharing your information with everybody. But it puts a little time clock on it. And so, if I’m heading towards your house and I want you to see my location, I’ll just share it on Glimpse and say, share it for only 30 minutes and that way…

Mr. SIEGLER: But it’s still going to manage that manually.

Mr. SCOBLE: The clock will see me in equal time.

Mr. SIEGLER: So my friend…

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s that?

Mr. SIEGLER: You still would have managed it manually which is not right. My friend Jessie who – he’s building (unintelligible) which is a calendar thing. But draws your calendar and helps you find events – he was, I was telling him about this. He said, well what you want is to know – if you know the calendar and who you are meeting, you would share your location with people with – within an hour of the meeting so they can if you’re there yet and how close you’re getting. And I thought, yeah, that would give – that would actually make a lot of sense. That will be a very natural default thing to do and I said, Seth, we’ll find more of these over time which is – but part of it is the intersection of the social and the local. So it’s…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. SIEGLER: There’s a set of people that I’m happy to share very detailed location data with. There’s a set of people that I don’t want them to know where I am at all. And then there’s the people in general and I don’t – I’ve no reason there. And there’s bit of a blind spot in the geo-community in this and this is something I’ve noticed – been noticing for years which is that they’re so focused on geo points, they don’t think about fuzziness. So actually share – one of the things that forced with us is that you share physical addresses and you label the dresses. So the location is as specific as the addresses. So I’ve seen people constructing force where locations that are non-specific, that are – that don’t actually have a good geo point to them. So they can check into their house and their apartment without the whole world knowing where they are but their friends who know it’s their apartment say, all right, Fred’s – at Fred’s house tonight. Okay, that’s good to know. So I think we – that’s one of the things, the issues I have with, with Ryan and the geo staff in Twitter is that he hasn’t got the fuzziness premature at the moment. That it’s roughly proposed. It is a point whereas you do need some fuzziness to say, I’m in Palo Alto as opposed to, I’m at Fresh Yogurt in Palo Alto depending on who you’re talking to.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. SIEGLER: Or depending on who you’re trying to broadcast it to. And also, there’s also a whole bunch of other new ones in this, you know. If I’m in Palo Alto, well that’s not a big deal. It’s just down the street. If, you know, J.P. (unintelligible) is coming to Palo Alto from London, it’s a big deal and people, you know, will come down from San Francisco to have dinner with him. So there’s a difference between…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. SIEGLER: The importance of the information based on a whole bunch of other context. There’s a whole set of these context that we’re going to – you need to start making sense of and making intuitive in the same way that, you know, yeah, in the same way we have to thought rather – events in the stream. And having more of that and we’ll start making it more sensible but it’s also – there’s two sizes. One is the filtering from the last same information. But the other is the outbound filtering that sends out the, you know, the knowledge and the, you know, deciding who share with what and that’s going to take longer to work out. And we may start out…

Mr. GILLMOR: I think that – I think you’ve here on something that is fundamental to this. We’ve been talking a lot about filtering coming in and certainly, that’s going to be the sort of a Ground Zero of the next few months in the social space. But, you know, it effectively broadcasting, to micro communities is also going to become an exceptionally large focus for users and they’re going to look for tools that will allow them to do that and right now, I think, to what Robert is saying about the social, about the location space and what, you know, Seth is moving into in terms of his montization(ph) models are both examples of the immaturity of that space, which is why I think the…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: What’s going on in terms of the assumption that we have reached some sort of mature point in terms of the social media, I think, we’re just barely touching down now and preparing to make these things actually useful, you know, I though that…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah:

Mr. GILLMOR: I thought Techron 50 was remarkable and it’s, you know, professional display and sort of funneling of the current visible stuff that’s going on. I thought, Threadsly(ph) or Treadsy(ph) or whatever it is that it’s called is a fantastic program. I have no idea why I’d want to use it. But I like what it does. It’s just seem attractive on some level.

Mr. SIEGLER: What I saw was transition. So, I saw a bunch of (unintelligible) that we’re doing this delegation. And again, I’ve been advising 140.com which is all about gathering the Twitter eco system and looking – we’re absolutely(ph) building that. So, I’ve seen lots and lots of those. And I was disappointed with a lot of the tech crunchings because they would obviously have been better aps if they got delegated login Robin, oh we’re going to create yet another place to share your photographs that belongs to this folks will say.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s like saying that, because we don’t have an open standard, that that’s a problem. That’s not a problem.

Mr. SIEGLER: We do have open standards.

Mr. GILLMOR: We don’t.

Mr. SIEGLER: Yes, we do.

Mr. GILLMOR: We have people like you who are building them. You’re building them.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: And they’re in their shipping.

Mr. GILLMOR: There’s a Walgreens down in the corner in Pacifica. He can’t go in there. It’s not open yet. I mean.

Mr. SCOBLE: Laughing:

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: These are open, they ship quite the size with biddings of uses, with over the bill and uses, you know. This isn’t…

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re sounding like you’re at Google again.

Mr. SCOBLE: Steve, Steve, I think the problem is when the problem for engineers taking dependency – and that’s. I have father and Mike’s office teams that check dependencies…

Mr. SIEGLER: That’s a good point.

Mr. SCOBLE: Like (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: I’d like to say, Robert. Could you speak up a little? Robert, speak up, I can’t hear you.

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s that? I’m just saying that engineers have an impulse of not taking dependencies on other things. Certainly not another commercial business. You know, that’s why, you know why the…

Mr. GILLMOR: What a shock.

Mr. SCOBLE: (unintelligible) don’t build in Facebook connect. Right? They should and as users, I want them too but I can sort of understand why they don’t do that. And I can sort of understand Kevin’s point too about FourSquare, why the engineers there say, you know, we’re going to build our own socialgraph and we’re going to force our users to do all the toll again because we want our separate pay and we don’t want any dependencies and we don’t want anybody else in control of our location base privacy call.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. I understand Kevin’s point. What I’m saying is that…

Mr. SIEGLER: So there’s two points there. One, yes. You’re right about the dependencies. You have to have enough value in the thing you’re depending on to actually say every time Robin making a new work, sure. And that’s always an engineering trait. If it’s hard today – ahead of time and you have to have a fairly good case for that. The other half of that is you don’t want the dependency to ease bound to one company which is where the open standards come in. So, if you’re at work to the open standards, you can then depend on multiple companies that could provide that or individuals or whatever. Whereas,if you’re about, you are going to single supplier, then you got a problem.

Mr. GILLMOR: But you were commenting on was the disappointment about the fact that individual companies otherwise known as features by, you know, platform vendors, have, you know, individual ways of rowing on their own, you know, ingress and identity and so on and so forth. To me it’s like, if you go up to the 50,000 foot level, all that stuff goes away. It’s noise. You know, there will be a filtering mechanism that filters out and standardizes around these things and what you guys are building in the standard arena is a consensus that will be adapted at that point.

Mr. SIEGLER: Yes.

Mr. GILLMOR: But let’s not be disappointed in the fact that we’ve got, you know, 50 selling name companies that are doing some interesting stuff.

Mr. SIEGLER: Oh, no no. I wasn’t disappointed that they’re doing interesting stuff. I was disappointed for them in that, they were in interesting stuff that looked – that I suspected wouldn’t take off well unless they cover everything else. Now, part of that maybe is the artificiality of Tech Crunch where – TechCrunch 50 where you know, a lot of launchings rite before you go, they have to launch there. So they have to use this sort of slightly older stealth model for start up development (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: You mean, as opposed to the stealth model that everybody uses everywhere.

Mr. SIEGLER: No, as oppose to the (unintelligible) model where you launch something and then grow it gradually and then you know, (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: The industry model. I’ve heard of that but I’ve never seen it in a while.

Mr. SIEGLER: Well, I’ve seen a lot of it.

Mr. SCOBLE: Steve, the most interesting conversation that we’ve had here is the location one. I hope – I expect that we’re going to be talking about that a lot on the Gillmor Gang over the next few months. One thing that I haven’t heard too many people discuss about location is – I mean, let’s go back at the 50,000 people – Google studies the intent of people to search, right? I type in digital camera and they assume that I’m looking to buy a digital camera and they put ads next to that search. So, and by doing that, they unpack some value and they keep some money(ph). Location is going to do the same thing. I’m sitting in front of a pit. If I walked into a pit, that tells the world, I intend to buy some coffee, right? And then also tells the world, I’m a coffee fan. And I can build a whole set of assumptions about behavior I might exhibit elsewhere.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: And then we’re going to see a – something like that around location. That’s where FourSquare is really interesting by the way because I check in various businesses and that tells the world a lot about what I am.

Mr. GILLMOR: But there’s – there are basis. This…

Mr. SIEGLER: They have that, they have these tips that you can create for the businesses. So, you actually get…. pay a recommendations when you check in there some way. It says, you know, try the veal or whatever. It says, the food here is good.

Mr. SCOBLE: Exactly.

Mr. GILLMOR: The main point of this, the main point of the location dynamic is that it’s about privacy and it’s about leveraging the outbound model. You have to have sophisticated tools to be able to tell, to be able to know and to have a legitimate contract with users to be able to broadcast to them in such a way that they are open to be in broadcaster. That’s what the gesture model describes. So, Seth…

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Since you and I were, you know, way ahead of a lot of this in terms of understanding where this was going to go, how do you see this as rolling out now in the real world because obviously, the attention trust may have been at the forefront of understanding that we were going to have to figure out how to be able to stand the flow of the fire hose or at least constrain it to some sort of inbound coherence. But… now, how do we turn it around and go outbound?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I mentioned before this one example, called social grate and all it does is take generic anonymous location data from four square and show which restaurants or which locations are a growing or declining in popularity overtime to kind of show key trends. Almost like a stock ticker and in a way, it’s the closest that I’ve seen to a realization of the gesture bank which is everybody in the four square ecosystem is acting in individually to share their information specifically to individuals. But there also, I guess, on some level intentionally or not, publishing it to this larger stream on information that can then be further analyzed and interpreted to provide media based on all these concurrent anonymous gesture streams and I think, there’s, you know, here we are four or five years later from when you really helped to first articulate this for me and it’s starting to happen. I think the privacy coordinates in the coordination around it is messy and is very ad hoc but I think, it’s a function of a broader cultural shift that is more comfortable sharing attention and gestures with a broader public audience.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, I love having the last word even if I didn’t say it. This is Steve Gillmor. This has been the Gillmor Gang. I want to thank everybody who showed up especially the people I’m looking at right now. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Seth. Thank you, MG. And Robert, wherever you are. Keep going. Bye-bye.

Tags: social media

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 am and is filed under Gillmor Gang. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.