Slashdot Mirror
Creating a Better Facebook
Fed up with Facebook's insatiable need to continue to expose your personal information to ever widening circles, four NYU students have decided to build an open source, distributed competitor to the social networking behemoth. They've raised a few grand, but I imagine it will be harder to convince your mom to log in.
All true, but things get harder and harder as the user bases in question grow. Geocities used to popular for example, but it's user base never encountered anything remotely resembling what Facebook currently has. It's the digital equivalent of inertia.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The main reason Friendster died-off was because it couldn't scale up. After it hit a certain level of popularity, you couldn't even visit the site without it spewing MySQL errors or hanging for a minute on every page load. Meanwhile, they launched some half-baked plan to rewrite the whole thing in Java, while people were bailing from the site out of frustration.
The other interesting thing about Friendster was the "friend-of-a-friend" privacy model. Which means if you weren't somehow connected to the active userbase, it did seem like a ghost town. That sort of model has its advantages, but it did limit network effects and probably accelerated the hipster effect of becoming too popular.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Then again, MySpace did have a userbase comparable to Facebook. And yet it seems to have gone from being the the place to be to "are you still on myspace?" in a very short space of time.
If social networks function in the same way as (say) eBay, then you'd be right. In that case the size of the user base is itself a resource that draws in more users. But suppose there's a different dynamic at work. Suppose it functions like a fashion accessory. Then users could prove a lot more fickle that you'd expect.
A lot of the people driving adoption for new networks are kids. Then the parents follow so they can keep an eye on the children. Before long everyone's on the new network, and aside from a few die-hards, no-one wants to be seen dead on the old sites. And then the kids start looking for a place to hang out that their mums don't know about, and a new generation is coming up that doesn't want anything to do with what their big sister thinks is cool...
I could be wrong, of course. But it would explain why none of the previous social networks have managed translate users into longevity.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
ctd.
This is why distributed approaches like Diaspora/Retroshare/... will fail:
- You have a problem publishing new versions of the software. You can't force new versions out, there will be incompatibilities between nodes, things will not 'just work'.
- Privacy aside, you don't add value that Facebook hasn't.
- Quality of the service: The development team or community will not provide a continuous, mature program version.
* unless they have some business model on how to generate revenue from it.
- No inspiration, or higher goal they strive to. They just do something existing a little bit better. But there is nothing fundamental about why one should use the new service. It is better in features, it is logical to use it. But that is not satisfactory.
- Original developers will at some point stop maintaining the project, and not have gained enough other developers around them that continue development, maintenance and infrastructure on a high quality level.
Please, Diaspora* team, prove me wrong. Read this and prove me wrong.
If you can't, it is not the fault of your expertise, or skills as a programmer or software engineer. There is just more to it than developing a superior product.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
The thing they need most is a name that's not "diaspora" the streak of horribly named open source projects continued.
I have no opinion about the merits or demerits of Diaspora, but forums (fora?) thrive or survive on what fills a given purpose at a given time. Take Slashdot, for instance. This is focused towards those of us with what is essentially a 1990s mindset, with marginal respect paid to the thrills and spills of the so-called "Web 2.0" junk peddled by other sites.
Facebook is for now the leader among these fora, since it ostensibly offers many people (I am not among their number) the kind of connectivity that they seem to want right now. But nobody should be surprised if Facebook gets supplanted by something else if it becomes seen to be lacking in something (e.g. security or privacy safeguards) regarded as necessary. It's all part of the normal rise and fall of eminence in software (as in other things). Evolution happens online just as much as in meat-space.