It's Time for Social Networks to Open Up

edmicman notes that "Wired has an article, "Slap in the Facebook: It's Time for Social Networks to Open Up", that calls for the greater programming community to create a truly "open" social network. Specifically, the problems with today's networks, says the author, is that their content is not available to everyone."

Comments

I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

[FatSean]

WTF? Part of the appeal of many of these sites is that it is restricted in some manner that that current users enjoy.

'Open social networks' is greed-speak for 'easier SPAM access' AFAIAC.

Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

'Open social networks' is greed-speak for 'easier SPAM access' AFAIAC.

Or worse. I'm far more concerned with things like identity theft or profiling of child targets for other crimes than I am with spam.

Opening up the social networks might be an ideal for a completely open society, but our society isn't grown up enough to be that open yet. Doing it now will just mean that anyone can abuse the system by data mining for their own ends, instead of just the hosting services and their current and (unknown) future owners and business partners.

Of course, some of us removed our personally identifiable data from all social networks pretty early on, precisely because you have no idea who really has access to all that juicy insider gossip about your life and what they're going to use it for, even on the "closed" networks today. Facebook's entire MO is basically to get friends to spy on each other, thus resolving the one remaining block in intelligent data mining of the entire population.

Well... real-life social networks aren't open

[Yold]

Something that I was actually thinking about this morning is why are people friends with some, and not with others. Its because most people use their friends to feel better about themselves. I'm not saying they abuse their friends, I had a shitty weekend and sitting around laughing with my buddies on Sunday night at the bar made me feel amazingly better.
  My point is, I had this feeling of "this is us, these are my friends and this is where I belong". It took me about a year and a half to become a fully-accepted member of this social group.
  It wouldn't suprise me if the future trend of social networks is to become more and more closed off and exclusive. Like having to do interviews and personality tests to see if you are accepted into the group.

umm.... yeah.....

[Lxy]

I like the comment that Wired "tried to build an open social network, and failed". Makes me think that Wired doesn't have a clue about Social networking in the first place (and why would they?)

The crux of the complaint here is that in order to view someone's profile on Myspace/Facebook, you need to create an account. I guess I fail to see what's difficult about creating an account on a free service. Concerned about privacy? It's easy enough to set up bogus info. I guess I don't see the argument here.

Is this just an advertisement for a new social network? Trying to create buzz around something that may fail for the sole reason that we we have is good enough?

hmm

[thatskinnyguy]

I think sites like MySpace and some of the others need to focus more on user security before they go all "Facebook". I can't tell you how many people who have come to me with complaints that their accounts got haxor'd because they didn't take precautions and got phished. A good social networking website will be genuinely foolproof before moving on to third party apps.

The article doesn't address privacy

[rascher]

The article does not address the issue of privacy. Facebook and myspace, and xanga, allow users some amount of granularity to control who can view their personal data, which is one of the draws of these websites. Let me start a blog, post my home address and phone number and who I'm dating on it, and let google index it for spam-harvesters and identity thieves to come get? I don't think so.

My original comments

[edmicman]

Since they cut my comments off of the article summary :-)

Personally, I don't use either Facebook or MySpace, though I have friends that do. I host my own blog, and communicate with friends via email, IM, and forums. I run my own blog and pic hosting. I've just never really jumped on the social networking bandwagon. Yeah, I'm old school.

As for this article, I can see both sides. Part of the point of the Facebooks and MySpaces is so that *not just anyone* can view what you put online. Nevermind that I don't really get why you'd post something *private* online in the first place if you didn't expect the world to see it. But the private social networks foster and clique or group mentality where if you're not in the know, you don't know.

What the point of the article is, though, and which I tend to agree with, is there needs to be a better way to round up your online "identity". Why should I have to sign up for Facebook to keep in touch with some friends, and MySpace for others? Why should I have to be a member of multiple IM services to keep in touch with different people? I have multiple email addresses for different purposes. I have signed up for probably dozens of mailing lists and discussion forums, and have been an active member in more than a handful. Heck, I even signed registered on Slashdot so I can make posts and comments non-anonymously. Why should my online "identity" be fragmented so?

Of course, the flip side of that is is that due to the fragmentation of my online identity, I still maintain that air of anonymity. I think that actually may be at the root of a lot of the issues going on. By having different email addresses and aliases, I can appear to some audiences as one person, and to others as someone totally different. Even on Facebook and MySpace, would most of those users publish in a real life semi-public place the photos, musings, and thoughts that they write on those sites? Perhaps we would ideally like the convenience of having a central identity, but don't want the accountability of being tied to that central identity? /blockquote

Re:knock yourself out

[corbettw]

On top of which, you can create a MySpace account and leave it open to the world. Or, gee, maybe create your own web site and/or blog yourself or one of a billion services. I don't get what problem this guy thinks exists.

Re:knock yourself out

[Iron Condor]

I think closed communities are inevitable,

I would go one further ans say that it is the boundaries that define a community. Something that is totally open isn't a "community" at all. What would it mean for some group to be a community if there is nothing and nobody that is not a member of that community?

Re:Its the "club" syndrome.

[owlnation]

Yes, I think you are right.

Now, I know myspace has been criticized for..., well many things really..., but mainly for having a population base that's considered lower IQ and social status. Where Facebook has been considered to be mainly a graduate type of network.

However...

I'm a filmmaker. I am a graduate, and have a pretty good social status. Much as I do agree Myspace is the place where web designers and anything considered good taste goes to die, as a filmmaker it is a very very good tool for networking.

Facebook on the other hand is absolutely worthless for film networking. (and I assume for music or other creative endeavors too) It seems to me that Facebook is full of legal and accountancy firms, and management consultancies -- at least in the UK.

Never cross the streams. These are two World's that must never meet. When that happens the spawn of satan appears -- or the RIAA as they are otherwise known.

Re:Closed? A Good Thing!

[Meostro]

Facebook being closed is not the reason it looks "good". MySpace being open is not the reason most pages look horrible.

open != user modifiable