Slashdot Mirror
Is Google+ a Cathedral Or a Bazaar?
An anonymous reader writes "With its recent mass suspension of accounts, Google has highlighted its desire to create a social network that is very different to the way many (including those whose accounts were suspended) would want to see it. The metaphor of the Cathedral and the Bazaar used for software development can be applied to the two types of social networks being proposed by Google on the one hand and the pseudonym supporters on the other. Google's Cathedral model emphasizes order and control whilst the bazaar model supports users who can be anonymous, have multiple identities, interact with anyone they please, and remain unobserved."
Or a church? Or mom's basement? Or a sweaty office at a university?
Would you say that Google+ is more like a simile or closer to an analogy?
Controlled and orderly anonymity. All while being unobserved. Makes perfect sense.
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
Why not allow both and let the userbase sort out who they do and do not add on their professional (cathedral) and personal (bazaar) accounts? Because frankly, we already have a cathedral (LinkedIn) and a Bazaar (Facebook), so if Google wants to attract those users, they better be flexible enough to accommodate them.
Bow before me, for I am root.
Not that I think the "Catherdral vs. Bazaar" comparison is really that appropriate as a tool for measuring social networks (and it wasn't intended for that either), but using Google+ will always be - no matter how you twist and turn it - on their rules and conditions. And this regardless of wheter anonymous accounts are allowed or not. The only way to have a truly "bazaar" social network model would be using decentralized nodes. I admit I don't know much about Diaspora, but wasn't that one of their selling points?
Jesus had a UNIX beard.
where they don't have access to most of my information. if you don't want to use your real name then i usually don't want to have anything to do with you on a social network
The Bazaar was likened to the slightly chaotic but powerful collective approach behind the development of open source software.
The Cathedral represented the traditional, closed, corporate approach to software development.
Um, I'm a little confused on their definition of the Cathedral. From Wikipedia (and also from my memory):
* The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers. GNU Emacs and GCC are presented as examples.
* The Bazaar model, in which the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as the inventor of this process. Raymond also provides anecdotal accounts of his own implementation of this model for the Fetchmail project.
GNU Emacs and GCC were the "traditional, closed, corporate approach to software development"? That's news to me!
... nor do I think the author of this article fully read CatB.
I don't follow nor agree with this adaptation of CatB to social networks
My work here is dung.
Key assumption.
I canceled my FB account.. never had a My Space one.. and I will never ever have a Google+ one.. i barely use my google email as well.. might cancel that soon too.. I am so tried of these corps using my data for their own ends and not giving me anything in return. Also I have family members that cant read FB becuase they are blind or almost blind. In the last two updates they did, the almost blind person can now read much much less on the main FB page and is so frustrated with it, they are ready to toss the PC out the window. Mark Z you listening?? contact me I have a million ideas to update and fix FB for people that currently cant use it. (also have a few awesome ideas to make FB better with Pictures)
Medieval analogies? Look into the sci-fi future, see, it is more like ad Matrix..
Of course they wouldn't want the possibility of anonymity. That makes their information collection services that much less useful for targeted advertising.
I really don't give a damn about Google+ ... but I hope this isn't part of a larger trend to disallow accounts which are pseudonyms. Because if they can't accept why people have email accounts which explicitly aren't tied to their own names ... well, they're idiots.
The last thing we need is a world in which all of our on-line actions are tied directly to a verified identify which is us.
Google's attempting to not necessarily take down Facebook or twitter, I don't think anyway. It'd be insane. Facebook had some advantages that Google+ does not, namely, no matter how bad the Facebook UI will get, it will NEVER be as horrible as the best days on MySpace, which is the social media giant it uprooted. Now I'm speaking strictly in terms of UI, in terms of privacy and other issues, Facebook has a long way to go, but Google+ isn't looking to chase FB on those fronts(except for the exclusion of apps; which I think is a benefit for G+).
Instead what I think they're trying to do is coexist and yet dictate some terms, but not try to be this domineering force in the social media market. Hence, a church bakesale. Come see what we've got, it's tasty, if you don't like it, no big deal.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Well since Eric Raymond, who wrote the book, is using Google+ and is blogging about it (entries here, here, here and here), maybe someone should ask him.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Google wants your data. They are a gigantic advertising company. There's no way they'd let you use anonymous pseudonyms. It's not about order and control; it's about getting more personal information on you that they can sell to advertisers. For many users, Facebook is becoming the web. They don't use Gmail; they message through Facebook. They don't visit YouTube; they watch videos posted to Facebook. That's dangerous to an online advertising company dependent on page views , and so Google+ is their attempt to reclaim users and root them back onto their platform.
Anonymity was once one of the fundamental tenets of the internet, something considered so core to it that it was almost treated as part of the definition. That has been whittled away over time, to the point where people have become used to revealing almost everything about themselves, and now the internet is no longer treated as a means of free expression, escape, and privacy.
These values used to be something Slashdot cared about, but as Google rose in power, Slashdot's values changed. All you have to do as a company is announce that you use Linux and that you use open source, and geek communities will avoid questioning you about your privacy violations, your exploitation of buzzwords like "openness," or your motives for data collection. In fact, those communities will rise to your defense, even in the face of antitrust probes. You can even "accidentally" archive neighborhood wifi data for four years without repercussion.
Google isn't the benevolent little search engine company with the minimalist website. That disappeared many years ago and was replaced with another hypocritical corporation guilty of multiple broken promises, from heir removal of H.264 support from Chrome in the name of openness in spite of their inclusion of Flash, MP3, and AAC playback to their refusal to provide the source to Android Honeycomb to their lukewarm adoption of standardized advertising opt-out technology in Chrome (advertising is their business, after all).
Hopefully, Google+ fades away like Buzz and Wave before it.
This is a social media environment that I might actually join and one I may let my children join. Linkedin is the only other "social media" account I have and I will never have a Facebook account and shunned MySpace when it was introduced. For me, the lack of any social decency that stems from anonymity is simply not worth it. If I'm going to build relationships with people (isn't that the point of social media?), I'd like to have reputation as collateral for bad behavior.
Perhaps we will return to a point where people think before they speak/post and self censor out of respect for their fellow man. For my tastes, the streets of the Bazaar are pretty filthy but to each his own.
What would be the technical issue of setting up a more flexible social network? Multiple social networks which supply feeds to each other. Shouldn't be too hard from a technical PoV. Marketing seems to be the big blockage.
It's a koncentration kamp.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Pseudonyms and Anonymous users provide absolute no value to Google. Google isn't a charity, it provides services because of the data it gathers about users for targeted advertising.
Facebook / Twitter / etc also rely on advertising and user information but they don't care about fake information because these fake accounts make their site look good to investors. Google on the other hand actually cares about REAL data, they don't want their algorithms to be soiled with fake data.
Google should just convince the government (FTC) that Facebook has its users locked-in.
An analogy: society doesn't accept it when a telephone company prohibits or hinders its users from switching providers, so why not impose the same rules on social networks?
By the way, we also don't allow that telephone companies spy on their users (record conversations, etc.), but that's a different story.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Of course they wouldn't want the possibility of anonymity. That makes their information collection services that much less useful for targeted advertising.
You really think they care about my name when they target me for advertising? If an ad uses my name, it's creepy and a little frightening. If an ad tells me about a store in my neighborhood having a coupon, I just might click on it to print it off. They shouldn't care of I'm using my real name, they should care more about my interests, my location, what concerts I like, etc. That's how targeted advertising works. It has nothing to do with a user's true identity. Ask any marketer. They want a collection of that information and they don't want to associate it with a name because that's when you get into the privacy violation realm.
What in the world does a user's name do for targeted advertising?
My work here is dung.
"remain unobserved"? What social network DOESN'T observe your every last move, data-mine your communications, and sell the resulting package to any and all comers?
Seriously, do people think that you'll somehow have less privacy on Google+ than you currently have on Facebook or Twitter?
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
I've seen the argument that requiring you use your real identity harms those under oppressive regimes, but I don't buy it. Google+ existing does not reduce the number of outlets such people have for their views/ideas at all.
The other problem often sited is other people posting stuff about you. But having a fake ID isn't going to stop someone posting something that includes your real name if they were going to do so already.
facebook is no more anonymous, at least according to the TOS at https://www.facebook.com/terms.php:
* You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook
* You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date
You can't give a fake name (a name is required, and you shouldn't provide false information) and they make it a requirement that any contact info you are daft enough to hand over be kept up to date (though how they would enforce that one I have no idea). How it this any different to Google+, other than the fact Google seem to be enforcing the policy and facebook don't seem to really care as long as your using their network? What existing system are they holding up as an example there anonymity is permitted/accepted/encouraged?
Personally, I'm happy to use a network where there is a small chance of the person I'm exchanging crap with is the person I think I'm exchanging crap with. If you want something else, why not use something else. Or make your own. If there is something I don't want publicly known about me, I won't put it on any social network. When it comes down to what other people post that is linkable to me (truthfully or not), there is little I can do to control that no matter what policies the system has.
a Bizarre Cathedral.
esr's original analogy of the cathedral and the bazaar is not applicable to types of social networks. He was using the concept exclusively to describe software development models. "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." Unless you are capable of going into Facebook and rearranging the data tables and making your own facebook, you can't apply the concept directly here. Ergo it's a stretch to call any social network anything but a cathedral.
I guess that makes 4chan very bazaar indeed.
A trendy restaurant. 'nuff said.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
While some people find all the speculation entertaining, I'm not really holding my breath. In spite of the questionable analogy here, I imagine that the present incarnation of Google+ is nowhere near an accurate representation of what it will be. Google, being what they are, will probably find a compromise between the "social climate" and their own goals and thoughts on policy. And it probably will evolve. Most of the good stuff from Google gets caught up in an evolutionary process.
As far as aliases and pseudonyms, if this is really the deal-breaker that a lot of outspoken people say it is, I suspect Google will address it carefully, and not just barge into a solution. Anyone out there feel like they would prefer Google to change policies like underwear until they find something that works? As a Google+ user, I'd wait it out, and see what they come up with. It's ludicrous to believe anything is set in stone at this stage of the game, while the Google+ network is still a relatively controlled testing environment, (albeit with a lot of beta testers).
There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
G+ is to the internet, what Yellowstone Park was to the U.S. in 1872. A beautiful landscape where people could meet, relax and enjoy the serenity.
Recently I used this example to tell friends about G+ and compared FB to an amusement park akin Disneyland where you had to pay $45 to enter the park, $5 for a coke, $15 for a picture of you and about $200 for lunch for you, your wife and 2 kids.
On the other hand, you have G+ that is not being built to hijack your information, sell you targeted items based on your 'likes and dislikes' or anything of the sort. It is truly a social network.
Whether that makes it a cathedral or a bazaar, I don't know. What I do know is that I left FB and I'm not looking back.
Seems like using ESR's story for comparison here is a stretch. My $.02. -jilljackson4545
Medieval analogies? Look into the sci-fi future, see, it is more like ad Matrix..
Futurama usually hits closer to the truth than we'd like to admit...
Bender: Behold - The Internet!
Fry: My God! It's full of ads!
#DeleteChrome
You're trying to bastardize the metaphor. The Cathedral and Bazaar is about the control (or lack thereof) of information. You're twisting it into an authorization thing that makes no sense in this metaphor. A more appropriate metaphor for your topic might be doormen/bouncers (or lack thereof) and the model they use to allow access (guest list, actractiveness, etc).
"Is Google+ a Cathedral Or a Bazaar?"
Yes. Or no. It's one of these.
Google+ Is neither Cathedral nor Bazaar.
Google+ is closer to a concentration camp.
If you fail to conform to the norms dicacted by the Google hive mind, your account gets gGassed; which ends its entire Google life, forcing you to stop using Google services altogether.
Huh. Facebook doesn't let me use my real online name, Drew from Zhrodague. LinkedIn allows this just fine. I am still blocked by Google+, since I use the name Drew from Zhrodague, and not my birth name. They've ignored my contributions to O'Reilly and Associates as Drew from Zhrodague, two other mentions on Google Scholar, and countless years and accounts posting also as such. So far, I can't enter the town of Google+, can't +1 anything, and can't post pictures or other stuff. Other (more famous) people can get into Google+ with their chosen names. I will either have to wait for them to unblock me, or I will simply lose interest - my bazaars and cathedrals must be elsewhere.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I guess I don't understand where all this is coming from. You're signing up for a social media site, in which you interact with other people socially. What is the point of using a pseudonym or remaining anonymous, when the whole point of the site is to interact with your friends and acquaintances? How are your friends supposed to find your profile if you are not you? Obviously I'm missing something because lots of people have a problem with this, but I just don't get it.
It's downtown. Overbuilt and underpopulated. Especially outside work hours.
I love google.
But I have no need to start posting personal stuff all over the net thank you.
/WARNING: scoffers, "tin-foil hatters" and "don't make me thinkers" should skip this post. Closed minds need not apply.
Many have made the point here that Google can certainly sell my viewing habits as a persona to ad agencies and be just as effective in reaching my eyeballs/wallet without a wallet-name. My profile as a long-maintained pseudonymous writer contains a boatload more information on my viewing habits and pathways than my wallet name would (as I am extremely careful about the security of that data). So, they can sell me stuff; I still control my typist's wallet. There's also a huge difference between anonymous and pseudonymous. Those arguments have been made before and above.
A couple pieces of this puzzle can be set next to each other for contemplation:
1. Google is currently undergoing an FTC probe for antitrust violations concerning its dominance in the web-advertising market.
2. Put that piece next to the piece that shows Google's continuing handling of this issue in the face of a real groundswell of negative opinion and debate from a cross-section of users (including the security community) and the information coming from Skud (aka Robert Kirrily) about the database he is compiling of purged accounts and Googlers quitting their jobs over this issue.
3. The just-passed Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act aka the Data Retention Bill.
There's a pertinent paragraph in the above-linked article about PCIPA:
"The Constitution protects privacy against government intrusion, but it doesn't stop the government from forcing private companies to do its dirty work."
Is that happening? I don't know; I don't think it's "crazy-land" to ask questions about this latest "real names or nuthin'!" push. When the government tried to push Real ID (2006) many states said "no fscking way!" and killed that movement. This latest trend smells to me like it might be an end-run around that kind of resistance; after all, if people are offering their data (on condition of using a "free" service), why then, it's perfectly legal for the government to simply buy it as another customer.
So sure, call tin-foil hat on me; call crazy-nut. There's a lot of questions about this issue that aren't being asked because of the knee-jerk reaction of "there ain't no conspiracies anywheres!" crowd. Perhaps I need to re-brand that in today's terms and call it cronyism, collusion or #trending. I'm not a "true believer" but I do have serious questions about this all being about "marketing" and "ad sales."
Miso Susanowa
Google's Cathedral model emphasizes order and control whilst the bazaar model supports users who can be anonymous, have multiple identities, interact with anyone they please, and remain unobserved.
If Google comes out with a product that "supports users who can be anonymous", what does that mean? Suppose I post "work sucks, I hate my coworkers". Google may not show the post with my real name, but there are a few ways I can still be discovered:
* I post from a work computer, which has software that records POST requests made by browsers to catch leakers.
* Network monitoring software captures the text of the post, and flags it for admins to read. They see the text, and my IP address.
* My anonymous username is the same as another pseudonym that a coworker of mine knows. They correctly guess that I am the same person because they know I had a bad day at the time of the post.
* Someone who knows who I am adds a comment: "Aw, , it's not so bad. Lets get dinner at , the place just below your office!". Now anyone I work with can guess who I am.
Now suppose I use my anonymous account to do something a government doesn't like. What do you do when you get a subpoena?. You also have to trust the ISP to not snoop on you. SSL is not enough to hide completely...
Some people understand these issues, and can work around them. Most social networking users do not. If google promises anonymity, users will think they are anonymous. They will be wrong, and when some of them get discovered, the press will run stories like "Google betrays users: so called anonymous users are not!".
Given the difficulty of explaining what "anonymous" accounts do and do not guarantee, it is not surprising that anonymity is not in the first version shipped.
This is just pure nonsense. So-called social networks have only one goal: to know their visitors good enough to send them targeted ads. How you call yourself doesn't matter to them, as long they're sure that's you. This is the Facebook model: we know who you are, where "who you are" means the sum of all the things you seem to be interested in on the web. FB managed to attract millions of teenagers, spammers, geeks, etc. It remains to be proved that their model is efficient, from an advertising point of view.
Google is now trying to target a more "classical" society, where people are known by their name. This will not only enhance the quality of the content they provide (well, the content you provide and they distribute), but it's also much more profitable. The crowd is a dead concept: too much diversity. Circles are much better: they are more homogenous, carefully selected groups of people. Facebook has to sort people and frame their interests. On Google+ you will do the work for them. Brilliant.
You know that it's Google. You know that it's linked to your Gmail/Google account. You know that you are required to use real information. So what's the big deal?
Why is it that we expect every service to be everything to everybody? If Google wants to attempt to create the best non-anonymous social network, so be it. Why not let them? In the mean time, maybe this is a great opportunity for some entrepreneur to create a better anonymous social network site.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Google already supports "bazaar"-style social networking (much moreso than does Facebook) via a variety of open APIs for communication and social data and support for open social tagging standards that can be used on any webpage no matter who hosts it that Google will crawl to derive and present social graph data. (OpenSocial API, Social Graph API [which provides access to data that users present on their own pages via XFN or FOAF markup], PubSubHubbub protocol and the open reference hub supporting it, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad-almost-fricking-infinitum.)
Yes.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Which one of these is emptier and has less activity than the other?
dixie. like twitter. and facebook. people typevomitting all over the place
You cannot escape the gazebo.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It just doesn't know it yet.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
... it is a superfluous innovation, like Twitter and Facebook, which has as good a chance of bombing as it does of seeing wild success.
I agree that Google has already a lot of advantages. For one, it's backed by the search engine giant which basically made its name equal to Internet these days.
check this out world.brightbridgewealthmanagement-mag
But many of the problems can and should be fixed if possible. For example, remember the Blizzard real name fiasco? Guess what this article uses as an example?
I'm glad I won't have to sort thru thousands of invites from fake people trying to spam my stream.
...it's an old fashioned private club, complete with membership requirements, a bouncer at the door, and some odd activities and traditions that don't make sense to outsiders.
"Cathedral" and "Bazaar" are commerce/Command-and-Control related, not social related. Don't try to shoe-horn any of the Social things (Twitter, Facebook, Diaspora, RainbowDash.net, etc.) into something it's not.
I have no tag line