Slashdot Mirror
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."
I will be out to dinner tonight at 8pm, so that will be a good time to rob my house.
I wasn't aware almost everyone in the world had internet access....
I'm not sure what the complaint really is here. Market forces and web site design combined to create places like Facebook, people signed up, and it was successful? Alternative ideas are better, but haven't worked?
The article raises interesting points but I'm not sure there's any "there" there. If you build it, they will come. If they like it.
Don't discount some of the suggestions in the article will emerge, but market and social forces prevail. As long as these social networking metaphors are popular and users come and go of their own free will, life is good.
I'm not sure the sublime or transcendental solution Wired seeks exists, or should. The internet is a network, electronic. It's a powerful tool. (..., the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes.(!)) I'm not sure life was meant to be played out on the internet, anyway.
(For the record, I'm no big fan of these web sites... I think they're more fad than substance, but I embrace others' freedom to participate.)
I think part of the reason these sites are so popular is because they are *not* open. People like feeling as if they art part of a group, no matter how open that group may be in reality, if there is even a hint of the "velvet rope" effect its generally enough to make people feel special.
And the general public likes to feel special.
What, me worry?
If we open up social networking and make it a community effort, who gets to sell it for millions?!?!?!
i support the right to offend.
Part of the reason I've always thought social networking sites were stupid is because it was a weird boundary to keep-- everything has to be on their site. Sure, that makes sense from the point of view of the business running the site, but I don't think it makes sense from a business standpoint.
It would make more sense to me if people were able to create a set of standards for online profiles, access-controlled by something like OpenID, that could be linked from various sites. That way, I could design my own site, my own profile, my own weblog, keep all my data in one place and under my control, and have the linking between these sites be the "social network".
I just think it's stupid that, if you want to participate in these communities, you have to go duplicating your data all over the place. I know people who had a profile on Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, and their own site, and spent a bunch of time trying to keep the profiles in sync. i never joined any because I refuse to take these things seriously until it's an actual open and dynamic way to establish a real social network, rather than a means to generate ad revenue for some creepy company that caters to teeny-boppers and child-molesters.
'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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I don't think the suggestion is that these sites be "open" in the sense that anyone can view and participate in your "social group". Rather, the suggestion I think is that these things should be able to interoperate, so that your profile didn't "belong to" Facebook or Myspace. As in, you could have your one profile that could be used in any social network you want. At least, something more like that than what we have now.
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.
No. Even in the most ideal of open societies, I would still want to be allowed to form circles around certain topics. When I log into my arts community, I want to know that I'm surrounded by fellow artists who understand what I'm getting at when I speak of a particular effect that some software was never intended to do. I do emphatically NOT want a bunch of retarded computer geeks tell me that I merely have to reformat my hard drive, install a completely different OS and use this particular specialized software in order to generate that effect.
Likewise, when I log into my fellow-nerd community, then I want to know that my subtle pun on the fine structure constant is actually understood. It would be completely wasted on a horde of uneducated Joes.
Even my network of drinking buddies, which is about as "open" as a social network can be (show up, get plastered, be a member) should retain sufficient limits for us to decide that we just don't want to hang out with some given person. That dude that showed up to that party and started shouting racist crap when he was drunk - I'd rather not have him show up at the next party. I think we all made that known to him, but he didn't quite give me the impression of getting it.
There are social networks that are filtered by virtue of their nature - my circle of co-workers is necessarily composed of certain hardware wonks simply because of the nature of my employment. For all the other ones, I'd prefer to maintain a certain amount of control over who I associate with.
(Incidentily, I consider Facebook "wide open". It's not exactly hard to get an account; it's not exactly hard to join some network. And what is Myspace if not the widest open social networking side possible?).
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Sir, get thee a Clue.
Either you didn't read the article, or your reading comprehension needs serious work. The author was NOT calling for a network where all information is freely available to everyone, simply an open framework within which people can network as they please. It's kind of like IRC versus a web-based chatroom on a website - IRC is an open framework, anyone can make an IRC client that will work with any IRC server, but that doesn't mean users can't form private channels or choose who they communicate with. Similarly, there is no reason an open framework for a social network would require you to give up the ability to have distinct, closed cliques within the open system. You could, however, reuse any profile data you put in for as many different groups in as many different configurations as you like, without having to sign up for and maintain your presence on a multitude of different, specialized social networking services. You'd just need one login for one service, or maybe one login for a master network which you could allow any independent service to access to retrieve your data as you see fit.