DLTQ.org

I am listening to a podcast interview with me that Mark from Citizen Reporter recorded when he was here in Copenhagen some time ago. Although I hate listening to my own voice, I liked the discussion.

One of the problems that was discussed in this interview was depth of conversations. How do we enable deeper conversations on the net?

How do we let these media bits and bytes build into larger organisms? Something that can be tweaked and tuned and remixed into new constellations. Something that can swiftly - and swiftly is the key here - be used again and again in new contexts, while also linking back to the sources.

In Mark’s podcast he also wrote:

In many ways this podcast is an extension of the arguements and discussions brought forth in my podcast with Jay and Ryanne as well as with John Aravosis last December.

Where are the links? Well, I found the podcasts he mentioned: The podcast with Jay and Ryanne is here, while the talk with Aravosis is here.

Now, if the discussion I had with Mark is in the same thread as those others, one must assume that there are tons of other threads. Must be literally hundreds of blog posts out there that touch on the same vein, from different perspectives. How could the people who do not know many of these, but listen to the Citizen Reporter podcast and want to learn more - move on? Do we google a sentence? Browse a blogroll and do searches on the different blogs?

So, Mark, my challenge to you (and me) now is: Let’s gather and display a “Conversation Depth 101″ page with useful links, perhaps some quotes, and perhaps pointing at best practice out there. What do you think?

When we talk about videoblogging, how do we describe it? Is it a show, is it a window into someone’s world, is it edutainment, or is it content? How do we relate to it? Do we browse through the feeds in Miro, see the next video in line, and move on? Perhaps we write a comment, and, unless we subscribe to the comment thread in co-comment, forget about it.

How about time? There is an underlying perception of videos on the net as being extremely time-critical. I call it the curse of the time-stamp, where video is judged by how fresh it is, as if it is a piece of toast, not media that can enter ever more relationships with other pieces of media.

The serial nature of the media, the time-bound condition, the strictly contextualized environment, it all adds to limiting the media, limiting the video. Or the media, for that matter: Imagine how extremely time-sensitive a twitter-message is.

Some years ago, Howard Rheingold wrote this:

(…) when a metaphor attempts to reify human relationships, to make a dynamic process into a concrete, unchanging thing, what the metaphor fails to describe can be as important as what it imparts.

How we talk about these new media opportunities shapes how we think about them, and how we ultimately benefit from them.

A few questions:

* Do you have examples of how the labelling of a practice has limited the practice?
* How do we as agents work around these labels? Are we even always aware of how these labels affect our own practice?
* What can we - on a very practical level - do to keep reminding each other of the ways in which tools Can be used?

I just saw this Norwegian video at snutter.no, which is a norwegian site for free uploading of videos.

Yes, it is in Norwegian

I have increasingly had an interest in architecture and urban planning. Not because I want to pursuit architecture myself, but I utterly enjoy reading writings about architecture. I will write more specific posts about that later.