Squarevox

I went and set up an account on FriendFeed (all the cool kids are doing it!). It was quite easy, and in no time I had aggregated lots of different bits of my online existence. And then I thought, “So, now what?”

That’s the experience I was thinking about when I read Josh Catone’s post on the lifestreaming backlash on Read Write Web:

Backlash is probably too harsh a word, but as the buzz around lifestreaming continues to build, some people are starting to question where it fits into their daily lives. Last week, we wondered whether sites like FriendFeed solved the problem of information overload, or merely brought attention to it. Keeping track of all that activity is starting to feel like watching code in The Matrix, and this week, others are starting to feel the same way.

Venture capitalist Josh Kopelman asks how the feed concept will scale. “I love the concept of the News Feed. I think it is an early implementation of the Implict Web, helping to break down the data silos. However, I’m now receiving hundreds of feed updates a day. And with the combination of (1) more users activating feeds and (2) more web sites offering them, I think that feed volume is poised to increase exponentially. And I can sense that … the volume will increase to a level that will require 24 hour vigilence to remain informed,” he writes.

I think that’s all correct, but there’s a larger question: what problem does lifestreaming solve? In my case, I wondered who wants to look at all of the content I create. I suppose there are a few people who want to see what I have to say about social media here, and also read the marketing blog I co-author, and also want to check my personal blog to see pictures of my puppy and other completely personal comments, and check out my political writing on the local newspaper site, and keep up with my Twittering. I could add in my Utterz but I really just use that as a convenient way to send pictures I take with my mobile phone to my blog, so it’s kind of pointless. So… how many people need all that aggregated?

Probably not more than two or three. I do all of these things for specific audiences and specific personal reasons, and if I thought they same people read them all, I’d probably just put them all on one blog.

People use things because they provide value: they’re useful. Twitter gives you access to an ongoing set of conversations with people you select. Blogging lets you publish easily and cheaply and keep up with people who are publishing content you find valuable. Lifestreaming lets you do… what, exactly?

I’m not sure that in its current infant form, it’s offering any great new benefit to many people. And it does add to information overhead, especially if you use a lifestreaming platform to track your social graph by establishing links to people… something you are probably already doing in Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.

On a related topic, Andy Wibbels asks, why isn’t RSS mainstream? He blames the geeky terminology, and I think that’s part of it, but I think you’ve also got to ask, what does this do for anybody?

A lot, if you’re me (or, presumably, Andy). If part of your day is sorting through vast amounts of incoming information, RSS is a lifesaver. But do most people actually do that? From Andy’s post:

The real truth, I think, is that most people simply don’t want that much information f***ing up their day. [slight language edit by me - JW]

Just like with bad copywriting - we focus so much on features features features and not benefits. We are transfixed by our amazing technology. How does it help people? Real people.

Those of us who deal with these technologies and platforms every day are the power users, and before we decide that something is the Next Big Thing, it’s important to stop and ask ourselves, What would normal people do with this? By normal I mean, not social media junkies. Because in reality, none of this is as important to most people as it is to those of us who are soaking in it all the time.