# While working for an outsourcing company a number of years ago I came up with the phrase "the apathy of the outsourced worker" as a play on "the loneliness of the long distance runner."

No matter how well the client might integrate outsourcers you're still not truly part of the team and something always comes up to remind you of it, normally around pay or contracts or benefits. You don't have a stake in the organisation you are effectively working for and, while based on the client site, are isolated from your actual employer leading to a feeling of being stuck in limbo, unsure of where your loyalties really lie.

When looking to leave I told myself I would never work for outsourcer again - why would I want to put myself through that a second time - but ended up at a different outsourcer because of the promises they made at interview.


Similarly, having become disillusioned with, and eventually leaving, the major social networks some might question why I would want to dive back in to another online social environment and potentially expose myself to more of the same.

Just because certain networks have failed their users it doesn't mean that those same users don't want to be social, they just need to find another, hopefully better, way to do it.

In an episode of the Internet Friends podcast Jon Mitchell talks about maintaining your relationships when you don't have the default options of Facebook or Twitter to fall back on. How do you reach out, how often, and who should control that relationship? Because you are the one who has eschewed what are seen as the "normal" channels, forcing an additional means of communication on others, do you have to rely on them to dictate the pace and frequency of connection?

It's an interesting question. (Which reminds me, I need to drop him a mail.)

Although the number of people quitting the networks has increased, thanks to a growing distrust and recent scandal, they are still an incredibly small minority. While the attraction of the open web may be strong some will inevitably embrace it but then think "now what?" They may have been unhappy on the network but at least they were connected; after leaving there is a real danger of becoming isolated.

Some may question the sense in leaving Twitter and then jumping on to a service like Why decry social networks and sign up to another?

Two reasons:

  1. it's not a social network in the normal sense, and
  2. promises.

I've outlined before how shares certain attributes with somewhere like Twitter but is a different beast because it is actually the hosting and social connection of blogs.

It is the second point that I really want to emphasise, however – promises. Unlike the empty promises made at interview by that second outsourcing company, the indieweb promises to put you in control and can deliver. Having your own site and using that as your main identity. No algorithms to determine what you should see. No ads placed alongside your posts unless you choose to put them there. is the first mass market implementation of the indieweb that aims to make things as simple as posting to Facebook or Twitter. Because of this, I feel it delivers on that promise. People may see the apps and the timeline and think "why should I just give all my content to another social network, put it all in another silo?" but that's not what this is.

To understand you have to think of it more like or a web hosting company. The core service - and what users actually pay for - is to have their blog hosted in an incredibly simple environment, the difference is that an additional social layer is placed on top which negates those fears of isolation mentioned above.

You don't have to have your own domain or point it to your microblog - it's better if you do - but it doesn't stop you from being able to export your posts and move them to another host.

Posting to, and commenting on, blogs is as easy as sending a tweet. Because of the timeline (which is essentially the output of an RSS reader) you don't have to waste time visiting multiple websites to see what's new. is firmly built on indieweb principles and, in my view, has achieved its ultimate goal: to make all of the technical stuff (like microformats and webmentions) invisible to the user unless they choose to go under the hood and take advantage of these capabilities out on the wider web - as I do with this blog.

This all helps further the overall open/indieweb agenda.


But there's another side to this.

I backed the Kickstarter because I was already disillusioned with the status quo, understood the vision, and really wanted Manton to succeed. However, I am aware that, being self hosted, I haven't contributed anything financially since.

There's an element of guilt to that.

I have no need for a hosted microblog seeing as everything happens here and I don't use the facility to cross-post to Facebook or Twitter (kind of hard when I don't have accounts anymore) so the option to provide revenue to support my usage of the social elements (even if only $2 a month) via that avenue is not available.

In an episode of the Core Intuition podcast Manton talks about the importance of keeping the platform open, so that the social layer extends beyond its timeline, and not trying to force everyone who joins to be a paying customer. That would push people away who, like me, have their own blog and would only serve to reinforce the potential for social isolation on the open web.

Like the introduction of his new podcasting feature and app (Wavelength) he discusses how growth and functionality, even if not used by some, attracts others and adds value to the community as a whole. Even those who are not paying customers are still contributing to that community thus making it better for everyone - it's the value of the network effect. Just look at Facebook!

A rising tide floats all boats, as the saying goes.

While I agree, it sometimes feels a little hollow. There is this nagging doubt about not actually providing enough value to make it worth it, to properly offset the cost of giving a non-fare paying passenger a free ride.

So that's why I choose to write about, to extol its virtues and those of the indieweb as a whole. Even if the service doesn't succeed in the long term it has created a blueprint, an example of how such a service can operate. That's why I share any code or solutions I create to make its interaction with WordPress easier. If I can help others get started or prevent issues and frustrations from driving them away it benefits all. A rising tide.

My promise is to do what I can, as much or as little as that may be, to help it fulfil its promise.

  1. hjertnes says: #
    If there had been a real market for being a contractor / consultant / outsourced around here, I'd do it again. I actually enjoyed being a part of one team for six months and then another for six more. And I loved that I could skip more or less every single meeting and just code. Because why would they pay for me sitting in a lot of (boring) meetings not in any way relevant for my work? Some people love it, I guess most don't.
  2. Colin Walker says: #
    In the industry I’m in, and with the clients involved, it was long term placements (years) so while there was the possibility to move from time to time it was the exception rather than the rule.
  3. Colin Walker says: #
    You could, and I did once, but it was preferred if you didn’t - keeping the client happy due to team stability was key.
  4. hjertnes says: #
    Stuff like that is just idiotic. Either you hire people, or you accept that people move around. You have to take both the bad and the good.
  5. devilgate says: #
    Your reference to “[h]aving your own site and using that as your main identity” reminded me of something I wrote years ago:
    I wouldn’t mind other people with the same name appearing above me, if it was their proper sites; but to me social-network profiles feel like distinctly second-class web entities. Or is that snobbish?
    Far from snobbish, it now feels positively indieweb-centric. But probably still a bit snobbish. The worst thing is that when I DuckDuck for myself today, my site is even further down, with my Twitter and LinkedIn profiles above it.
  6. Colin Walker says: #
    I don’t think that’s snobbish at all. That we have come to rely on social profiles as our primary identities on the web is extremely sad.
  7. smokey says: #
    I like your take here. My software background, such as it is, is from open source projects, and even though isn’t open-source, it’s an open community around the open web, so they still dovetail well. In open source, if one wants to support a project and can’t code (or pay someone to code), there are all sorts of non-code things one can do: write documentation, answer user questions, find/triage bugs and test new builds, design, etc. So here I try to answer questions whenever I can, write and share these little WP tweaks, etc., and by doing so, I’m hopefully contributing to the community and helping @manton and @macgenie have a little bit more time to actually code or manage the community or be a human :-)
    1. Colin Walker says: #
      Thanks. You’re right, of course, and I know that some of the things I’ve done have helped a number of people but sometimes it just doesn’t feel enough. I think that’s why I made the promise at the end (that was very much an organic addition) and will try to do what I can to help that tide rise so we’re all lifted.
  8. smokey says: #
    Thanks, I think (that is one of those emojis that I have no idea what it means) 😀