Slashdot Mirror
The Debate about Social Software
Roland Piquepaille writes "Is "social software" the new overhyped buzzword? In an article for the Guardian, Jack Schofield says yes. On the contrary, in Historical Roots of Social Software, Howard Rheingold offers insights about this new phenomenon. And in this Tech Central Station article, Arnold Kling agrees with Rheingold. He thinks that social software is likely to the basis of what could be the next "killer app." Kling says that with social software, the interaction is no longer between you and your computer, but between the groups you belong to and networks of computers. In order to explain the issues, King studies three types of problems that this new kind of software might solve: the matching problem, the issue-resolution problem, and the classroom-management problem. So, is social software hype or reality?"
Seriously, since computers have taken over many of the roles previously reserved for personal assistants, such as arranging meetings, et al, it only makes sense that they would start to become robotic facilitators of social interaction.
Three separate emails this morning directed me to Tom Coates' post about the definition of social software.
I thought I would offer a few resources for those who are inclined to look at the historical roots of this new phenomena. First, I applaud Coates' reference to Engelbart, because the social aspects of computer augmentation were very much on his mind as early as the 1950s. I wrote about that in 1985. At that time, and in many conversations since then, Engelbart stressed that his original framework for augmentation included "humans, using language, artifacts, methodology, and training," although most emphasis by most people in the intervening decades has been on the visible part, the artifacts. In that sense, the emphasis on social software today is (or ought to be, in my opinion) a reminder that the real capabilities of augmentation lie not just in the capabilities and affordances of the hardware or software but in the thinking and communication practices these tools enable. Of course, in 1993 -- hard to believe it was a decade ago -- I wrote about the Well, BBSs, Usenet, Muds, IRC, etc. in The Virtual Community. So much debate and commentary has flowed around the notion of "community" in this context that it doesn't make a lot of sense to rehash it here and now, although, arguably, online community is an early example of Technologies of Cooperation. I would only note that when a particular group of people uses social software for long enough -- whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, deskbound or mobile, text or graphical -- they establish individual and group social relationships that are different in kind from the more fleeting relationships that emerge from task-oriented group formation. Although the enterprise of Electric Minds is long forgotten, I talked a lot about "the social web" in 1996-97 (and Judith Donath wrote about The Sociable Web). The original conversations are gone, but a snapshot of the editorial content of Electric Minds exists -- note in particlar The Virtual Community Center.. In 2001, I updated "The Virtual Community" with a new chapter that went into detail about the community debate and brought in the notion of social networks: and three years ago, Lisa Kimball and I wrote about the advantages to enterprises of establishing online social networks.
And of course many others from the social sciences, political science, and the technology side have studied and written about the way people use computer-mediated communications in teams, group formation, and social networks. I don't want to give the impression that I've been the only person writing about this: indeed, I have two shelves of books by authors from a variety of disciplines about the social, political, psychological aspects of social cyberspaces. Certainly, we have much more to learn about Trinity dying in Matrix 2. And I applaud the reinvigoration of interest in a phenomenon that popped up just as soon as people could send email to distribution lists (HUMAN-NETS was one of the oldest discussions of social software.): I think the emerging field would do well to acknowledge and build on this earlier work. Something new is happening, truly, in terms of the kinds of softare available, and the scale
And what if we make a beowulf cluster with this???
As I think about it... that's nothing new for Microsoft
Duff Man says, First Post!!!
And check out the new Dry Post and Light Post!
The concept behind social softwareis very legitimate...But its also becoming one of those buzzwords like 'realtime' or 'high preformance computing' The definition of realtime is to place a deadline on a proccess...and kill it if it has not completed by that time....and high preformance computing is the structuring of algorithims to crunch numbers faster
Yet Microsoft says windows XP does both.
If you ever needed more proof that these are no more than overused buzzwords...thats it!
Similarly, social software is a very real concept, but it just seems to have one of those sexy...media friendly names....every time i turn around now i hear a devloper talking about the next generation of 'social software'. Please.... its not some magical philosiphy that software devlopers are using to better society...we do what makes money...hence our software follows social trends....boom...social software
It must have ChattingAndDrinkingAtAPub.
(anti lameness filter : azeerttyippisjqdidhfjdbnxbv;,xnvlwxcnfvrn234534656 8787568)
s ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssss ssss s ssssssssssssssssssss sssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
These problems have already been solved in several formats. Think MP3. Someone wants a track, and they are connected with someone who has that track.
One format is websites. This is especially true for topics such as employment and dating where an "offerer" is connected with the "needer".
With my previous example of MP3s there the possibility of having a P2P referer network. Each person posts their "resume" of talents / interests, and then is refered through their friends lists to friends of friends searching for that interest. Six degrees of seperation stuff that is backed by the trust you have in your group of friends.
When I started this post it was just an unusual thought, but the more I think about it, the more logical this seems. I reserve all rights to this idea ;)
___
cheap web site hosting
So you mean that the someone is going to invent a MUD? I can't wait!
We've been working on combining the social software idea and visualization to build CRM-type tools. http://www.bigattichouse.com/peoplelinking/
meh
What seems off to me about these filtering and pattern matching programs is the vague key values. Like genre recognition software for managing movies, where do you put your stops, what do you filter on? When you're looking for directions, you have a simple weighted graph traversal, the data is mainly empirical. But when you're looking for a plumber, what're the key values and who puts them in for each entry?
Such software fundementaly screws with baseline criteria. You end up hireing a plumber, not because he's a good plumber, but because he's got a good score on the *personality* test. In the begining it looks kind of nice to be able to aquire groups of people that you'll "get along with" for all your needs... but this is the real world and things don't quite work that way.
And for it to do so, it requires people to be honest about their profiles (much less it requires them to provide them) and that just isn't going to happen... we value our freedom of privacy, and all the really practical apps of this would require us to give up a great deal of it.
Am I the only one who finds the term "social software" terribly ironic, considering the social skills of the people who write software? :-)
My web browser and e-mail client already let me interact with groups I belong to and networks of computers. I also get many hints on how to enlarge my penis. If social software could more intelligently tailor my group interaction, I might have missed out on any chance I had to grow my member.
I certainly regard myself as a masterdebator
does "social software" mean the kind that allows you to communicate with others, or the "social" software produced by Richard Stallman and his hordes?
RMS gotta be behind this...
LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- The jockey who won the Kentucky Derby aboard Funny Cide is being investigated by track stewards who examined a photo of him possibly holding something besides his whip as he crossed the finish line.
Santos
Besides Jose Santos' whip, officials are looking at this Getty Images photo, wondering what other object he was holding before crossing the finish line.
The investigation will focus "most particularly on the actions" of Jose Santos at the race, chief Churchill Downs steward Bernie Hettel said Saturday. The stewards scheduled a meeting for Monday with Santos and Funny Cide owner Jack Knowlton, said Karen Murphy, the jockey's lawyer.
Knowlton said any accusations that Santos might have cheated are "just absolutely, totally ridiculous." Funny Cide, a 12-1 shot, became the first New York-bred horse and first gelding since 1929 to win the Derby, holding off favorite Empire Maker by 1 3/4 lengths last Saturday.
The stewards decided to investigate after The Miami Herald published the photo, along with a story. A reporter from the Herald brought the image to the attention of the stewards Thursday night.
The investigation gave Empire Maker's trainer, Bobby Frankel, second thoughts about his decision to skip the Preakness. He told the Blood-Horse Web site he was going to enter Empire Maker, after all, but later he decided against it.
"I don't think there'll be any change," Frankel said, referring to the possibility that Funny Cide could be disqualified in the Derby, "so I'll stick to my original plans."
Kentucky Racing Commission rules do not prohibit a jockey from holding an object besides his whip, other than those specifically prohibited, such as an electrical device that might make the horse run faster.
The Getty Images photo, which ran in several newspapers the morning after the race, depicts a dark area in the space between Santos' right hand and his whip. It is unclear whether the area is a shadow, the green background of another jockey's silks or something else.
Rick Leigh, a Churchill Downs steward, told the Herald the photo looks "very suspicious." The stewards, who have ultimate authority over a race's results, set no timetable for their investigation.
"It takes as long as it takes," track spokesman John Asher said. "If there is a next step, it could be a formal charge or a hearing. But we are nowhere near that."
Knowlton
Jack Knowlton, one of the owners of Funny Cide, answers questions from the media at Belmont on Saturday.
The stewards could take away Funny Cide's victory and award the Derby to another horse if they find that Santos violated racing rules. There has been only one Derby winner disqualified, Dancer's Image in 1968 after he was given banned medication. Forward Pass was declared the winner.
Knowlton called the investigation "an unneeded distraction" as he prepares to take Funny Cide to Baltimore for the Preakness.
"We're trying to get the horse and all the horse's connections ready for the second leg of the Triple Crown," he said by phone from the horse's barn at Belmont Park in New York.
"There's absolutely, positively not one iota to this and we're very, very disappointed that an individual can take the luster off what we all consider to be a great victory."
The Herald reported that Santos said he carried an object in his hand during the race and that he described it as a "'cue' ring" to alert an outrider to his presence. An outrider is a rider aboard a pony who can guide a thoroughbred before and after the race.
However, Santos told the Daily Racing Form that the Herald misunderstood. The jockey, who is from Chile and speaks English with a heavy accent, said he was talking about a ``Q-ray'' bracelet he wears for arthritis.
Frank Carlson, the Herald's horse racing writer, told New York Racing Association vice pr
It might just be me but for each of the problem types mentioned the article seems to be saying that the "killer app" which solves this problem will take the human factor out of the equation (not completely but close).
Maybe my problem is that I don't think social applications will be the next killer app. If you think back then most of the applications (or genres of applications) which have made it big have come about due to new technologies or by making existing applications more convenient in some way.
Examples from the article: Word processing apps (upgrade from typewriters - introduction of computer technology made this an almost inevitable step), spreadsheet programs (upgrade from, well, handwritten spreadsheets - again computer tech introduction), e-mail and web-browsing (not needed until the internet became a mass population creation rather than an academic or BBS thing).
My point being that none of the examples cited are social software based so why should the next killer app be? Not that I don't see social software coming up with something useful to a subset of people in the same way that modern programming suites (convenient drag and drop features and comprehensive debugging systems and code optimisation in comparison to simple text editor and command line compiling) are useful to programmers. But a necessary app for the entire computer user base? I find it more likely that anything that large will require a new technology development.
Could be wrong though...
If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
so can social software help a desperate slashdot reader get laid any time soon?
Hype or reality? Total hype. I mean why would people want to use software to say, "post their ideas" on a "shared forum". Totally ludicrous.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Come on, seriously, is there going to be a Killer App that is going to make Silicon Valley explode and get convicted murderers with zero experience jobs as C++ software engineers?
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
In my opinion, "Social software" has already met its peak. I can stream any sort of dataset i have (video, audio, text, software, etc.) to anyone with a computer. P2P technology even opened up the door to communicate this information with people I don't know, and generate lists of contacts who require or provide similar information. At least technologically speaking, we have all the social software we're ever going to need.
I think the issue at hand is more psychological than technical. Social psychology revolves around a single issue: reproduction. The fact of the matter is, if we don't meet people we can't reproduce to pass our genes onto a new generation. This functional property of social interaction can't be replaced by software. No system of statistical compatibility will ever be able to tell you when you're in "love," nor will the Sims Online ever teach how to cope with living with other individuals. The only way to learn these kinds of behaviors is to interact with other human beings.
However, I do admit that social simulation can prodive a useful tool for computing. In particular, some areas of artificial intelligence deal with search spaces of unthinkable complexity and distributed computing (i.e. seti@home) allows many computers to work on the same problem at the same time. Which is exactly what humanity has been doing for ages.
I predict that social software, and even social psychology, will under go a massive revolution once the Turing test can no longer distinguish man from machine. ALICE has successfully fooled some old friends, but only because they thought it was just me "messing" with them, which I tend to do on occasion.
FYI, I'm finishing up my last year in college, with a BS in Math and a BA in Psychology.
Fight or flight its all the same
Live to die another day
--Ryan
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.
I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).
Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!
Sincerely,
Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.
In this column, I was just not giving the references to the three articles mentioned in this Slashdot story, but also I gave more comments on each story. Read it by yourself. Roland Piquepaille. Website: http://primidi.com/ Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends: http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/
I was thinking that killer app was an overhyped buzzword.
--the next "killer app" is here, the deal is, it's not a singularity any longer, like when it was 'visicalc" or "lotus i-2-3". The "app" is that now computers are universal, and with sharing and P2P, this "the people", the "sociality" aspect is the app, because now we can combine all the other singularity apps into "one". It's the COMBINATION that is the killer app, the tool is the ACCUMULATION and adoption of the previously built tools. Stores and business? We have ebay, anyone can be a store now, and we can already manage, file, graph, plot, utter, whatever bits of human data we need to, any new advances will just be variations on those themes, nothing really "new". We hit it already, that "car" has been invented and is on the road, with the only thing chaning is paint and engine advances whatever. News? Large news organizations are beoming redundant, because anyone so inclined can be a reporter and "broadcaster' or "publisher", you can-and we do- get "news" instantly from around the planet, increasingly from just people reporting what they are seeing outside, bypassing the old news orgs. Entertainment? What used to take a troupe or a band can now be created by a single individual, then shared, copied, distributed. And because of storage, anything can be archived, modified, sold, given away, rented-whatever floats your boat. Education? All the homeschoolers I know use computers and the internet, they don't NEED massive government expenditures and brick and mortar buildings and daily two way commutes and yearly property tax increases, and frankly, seem to be doing an admirable job of it. And it has happened with higher education, and will most likely become more and more common.
The biggest problem (my list here is obviously just an opinion) will be the frantic machinations of older style monopolies to hang on to what they have, but still be "the big dogs", both government and busy-ness. What we own, what we can do with it. They are trying now with legislation, restrictions, etc. In fact I'd say they are going out of their way to create artifical problems, just because the "new" way of doing things is a direct threat to their buggy whip notions of what "stuff" should be as it relates to "society".
The second tier problems are the struggle between anonymity and building online trust, as anyone who has used any chat or forums for any length of time can tell you, you have NO idea who you are speaking with at any time. The old style of "only" face to face that had that instant verification got replaced with various communications advances, where at one time say you needed face to face where visual and auditory combined to help you discern reality, now you have to trust electronics which may or may not be "real". Using one to verify the other as indicated in the articles is a great way to do this, but we are still somewhat constreained, even with distance travelling being so much easier now than even 100 years ago.
Third tier is just "security" in general, whereas we used to rely on stout construction, door locks and the old 12 bore in the corner to make sure we were "safe", now you must devle into the arcane world of bits and bytes and packets which may be "spoofed" or "intercepted" or otherwise and are the newest in sociopathic maladjustment, ie, criminality.
And in this Tech Central Station article, Arnold Kling agrees with Rheingold.
Did anyone else read that as Arnold Klingon? You're needed in Oregon ASAP, Mr. Klingon!
Remember Windows 3.0 GPFs? The ones where it says the system is basically screwed, you lost your work and force you to click "OK?"
I bet that set the bar for antisocial software.
Check out http://www.trepia.com/, and application that automatically links nearby Wi-Fi users. This is an amazing idea...
In Russia ALL software is socialist software.
You can't spell "Socialism" without the word "Social". That should tell you something about those that hype this Socialism err I mean Social Software.
I thought Bob and Clip-It were coming back. Damn you, Microsoft!
--
But then again I thought VCR+ was a stupid idea and would die a quick death--so what do I know?
It's communisms greatest achievement.
He said: "It's okay to get some exercise, take a shower, and put on clean clothes!"
You said: "None of which has much to do with social skills. We're talking about how easily you interact with other people."
Being considerate is a social skill. Having poor personal hygiene does tend to affect how easily you interact with other people. If you really stink, it's hard for people to stand close enough to have a good chat with you.
If you can't help stinking, well that's sad, but if you can are able to fix it and don't bother too, don't expect other people to bother taking the trouble to find nose plugs, masks etc, so that they can talk to you in person.
A project to build community and facilitate information sharing in the San Francisco Bay Area. It's a free access point to a distributed library of people's books, videos, and other media. Share with your community, meet your neighbors, find the books you've always wanted, and never pay for video rentals again:
http://www.communitybooks.org
Years ago, people were asking what would be the killer app or game for girls/women.
Doh, they already had it - chat software.
With all the buzzwords being thrown about, and the various agendas, I think they may forget one important point. The software has to "GET OUT OF THE WAY" and let em chat. Not saying it does nothing or little, after all there's plenty of technology in a cellphone.
Matrix spoiler in the second paragraph.
I recognize those words, but those sentences mean nothing at all!
Seriously, if I tell my non-Geek friends about "social software" they'd probably look at me blankly as they try and figure out what ELSE you could possibly do on the internet with a computer besides chat with other people, buy stuff on eBay, exchange emails and pictures, etc. To them the computer is a FACILITATOR.
It's like the geeks just discovered that information-based machines can, *gasp*, be used to exchange information with OTHER PEOPLE and not just computer programs running on other machines.
Welcome to the party.. people have been forming social groups for years, whether it's at church, or over the telephone, or pen-pals, or now blogs and chat rooms and message boards and collab software.
So I'll just toss this one squarely in the "hype bucket".
Social Software? Isn't that what "Microsoft Bob" was supposed to be?
'Nuff said....
The beauty of social software is that it opens up a whole new class of people I can say to: "Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script."
Just imagine it: half the managers and all of HR: whoosh! evaporating into a cloud of their own useless chatter, while they themselves are replaced by bots.
What a wonderful world it would be.
Free mal vu !.especially these days its all about selling the same old soap as something new. Damn. They were into recycling before anyone.
Isn't a "killer app" just a database of serial killers? In which case, shouldn't it be antisocial software?
Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
...pinch of salt.
He has recently written both that Ogg Vorbis isn't yet good enough to be used for encoding music, and that the English Al-Jazeera site is running IIS on Linux. Those, and other small things, make me read through things he writes carefully.
After taking these actions, the typical acquired company would see a doubling of productivity and a tripling of profitability in 18 months.
So I guess I have to say I am a bit skeptical of "social software" in any kind of business setting. Blogs are fun to read in the evening for one's personal enjoyment, but turning the business day into a blogging session doesn't seem to me to have much promise.
sPh
if you're going to use "et al." then make sure you are referring to people. Otherwise use "etc." which doesn't require italics as it is an abbreviation. "Et alli" means "and other people."
Microsoft Bob was supposed to be an extension into deep metaphors. It proved that people prefer shallow metaphors.
Sociologist: "Do you want to comment social software?" Geek: "Social? What that?" Sociologist: "Like interacting with people." Geek: "Me not interact. Me not see people." Sociologist: "Well, anyhow, what do you think about social software?" Geek: "Me not social. Me want software not social." Sociologist: "Never mind..."
I know I'm supposed to click through and read the articles, yada yada, but I feel that there should be a sentence in there, maybe in place of one of the "it's the next revolution" ones, telling us roughly what "social software" is supposed to mean. Forgive me for not being up on my buzzwords, but this is a new one to me. I'm reminded of the book review that kept talking about "The Singularity" assuming we knew that meant the time when machines become more intelligent than humans, and I just assumed it was talking about a black hole. Well, "social software" sounds to me like what you'd call aim and irc.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
stamped and organized :|
The "Social Software" community is all about the 1% of the geeks on the blogging "A-list". They don't care about everyday web users.
The "Social Software" is Semantic Webs, endless bickering
over RDF formats, FOAF, and a new meme every day. It is trying to do things by revolution, not evolution.
It should be renamed the "exclusionary group creating toys for other members of said exclusionary group".
May you be raped and murdered by a backhoe.
With social interaction comes social structures.
Imagine yourself in the context of a workplace, where your role is one of employee, manager, contractor etc which to some degree controls what you may or may not do (hire, fire, be fired...), and how.
This sort of social structure is imposed and artificial, and quite different from the informal structure of any group of people interacting on equal terms.
Social software such as chat rooms may seem to level the playground, but the actual interaction is extremely limited, and in reality you often find there are users, powerusers and superusers (and Anonymous Cowards) - all different levels of a social hierarchy. And at the top, of course, is the dictator who decides exactly what can and cannot be done - the developer.
Not all software is dictatorial but exceptions are few and far between. Emacs is one of them, it empowers the skilled user with Elisp, a programming language that can be used to alter and extend every aspect of the application.
MUDs are another good example, both of user freedom (if you're a wizard) and imposed social structures.
My point is that social software is not necessarily democratic, often the opposite will be the case.
I'm working on developing a completely open and extensible collaborative content management and application framework. The first implementation will be based on XML to describe content and logic, and wysiwyg authoring tools so that you don't have to be a programmer to participate (the major drawback of for example Emacs).
Martin Klang <mars at pingdynasty.com>