Skip to main content

Some thoughts on "Some Thoughts on Open Social Networks"

Dare Obasanjo:
"Content Hosted on the Site Not Viewable By the General Public and not Indexed by Search Engines:  As a user of Facebook, I consider this a feature not a bug."

Dare goes on to make some great points about situations where he's needed to put some access controls in place for some content.  I could equally make some points about situations where exposing certain content as globally as possible has opened up new opportunities and been a very positive thing for me.  After which, I think we'd both agree that it's important to be able to put users in control.
Dare: "Inability to Export My Content from the Social Network: This is something that geeks complain about ... danah boyd has pointed out in her research that many young users of social networking sites consider their profiles to be ephemeral ... For working professionals, things are a little different since they mayhave created content that has value outside the service ( blog postings related to their field of endeavor) soallowing data export in that context actually does serve a legitimateuser need."

It isn't just a data export problem, it's a reputation preservation problem too.  Basically, as soon as you want to keep your reputation (identity), you want to be able to keep your history.  It's not a problem for most younger users since they're experimenting with identities anyway.  Funny thing, though:  Younger users tend to get older.  At some point in the not so distant future that legitimate user need is going to be a majority user need.
Dare: "It is clear that a well-thought out API strategy that drives people toyour site while not restricting your users combined with a great userexperience on your website is a winning combination. Unfortunately,it's easier said than done."

+1.  Total agreement.
Dare: "Being able to Interact with People from Different Social Networks from Your Preferred Social Network: I'm on Facebook and my fiancée is on MySpace. Wouldn't it be great if we could friend each other and send private messages without both being on the same service?  It is likely that there is a lot of unvoiced demand for thisfunctionality but it likely won't happen anytime soon for businessreasons..."

Will there be a viable business model in meeting the demand that Dare identifies, one which is strong enough to disrupt business models dependent on a walled garden?  IM is certainly a cautionary tale, but there are some key differences between IM silos and social networking sites.  One is that social networking sites are of the Web in a way that IM is not -- specifically they thrive in a cross-dependent ecosystem of widgets, apps, snippets, feeds, and links.  It's possible that "cooptition" will be more prevalent than pure competition.  And it's quite possible for a social network to do violently antisocial things and drive people away as Friendster did, or simply have a hot competitor steal people away as Facebook is doing.  Facebook's very success argues against the idea that there will be a stable detente among competing social network systems.

Popular posts from this blog

Personal Web Discovery (aka Webfinger)

There's a particular discovery problem for open and distributed protocols such as OpenID, OAuth, Portable Contacts, Activity Streams, and OpenSocial.  It seems like a trivial problem, but it's one of the stumbling blocks that slows mass adoption.  We need to fix it.  So first, I'm going to name it:

The Personal Web Discovery Problem:  Given a person, how do I find out what services that person uses?
This does sound trivial, doesn't it?  And it is easy as long as you're service-centric; if you're building on top of social network X, there is no discovery problem, or at least only a trivial one that can be solved with proprietary APIs.  But what if you want to build on top of X,Y, and Z?  Well, you write code to make the user log in to each one so you can call those proprietary APIs... which means the user has to tell you their identity (and probably password) on each one... and the user has already clicked the Back button because this is complicated and annoying.

XAuth is a Lot Like Democracy

XAuth is a lot like democracy:  The worst form of user identity prefs, except for all those others that have been tried (apologies to Churchill).  I've just read Eran's rather overblown "XAuth - a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea", and I see that the same objections are being tossed around; I'm going to rebut them here to save time in the future.

Let's take this from the top.  XAuth is a proposal to let browsers remember that sites have registered themselves as a user's identity provider and let other sites know if the user has a session at that site.  In other words, it has the same information as proprietary solutions that already exist, except that it works across multiple identity providers.  It means that when you go to a new website, it doesn't have to ask you what your preferred services are, it can just look them up.  Note that this only tells the site that you have an account with Google or Yahoo or Facebook or Twitter, not what the…
Twister is interesting.  It's a decentralized "microblogging" system based on putting together existing protocols:  Bitcoin, distributed hash tables, and Bittorrent.  The most interesting part for me is using Bitcoin for user registration and spam control.  Federated systems handle this with federated trust, which is at least conceptually simple.  The Twister/Bitcoin mechanism looks intriguing though I don't know enough about Bitcoin to really comment.  Need to read further.