Slashdot Log In
It's Time for Social Networks to Open Up
Journal written by edmicman (830206) and posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:05 AM
from the heard-that-before dept.
from the heard-that-before dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
As you can see (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!! (Score:5, Interesting)
'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.
Parent
Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of your friends adding information to your profile is a problem of Facebook, not of social networking sites in general. You should have control over your own profile. Of course, you can't prevent someone from posting a picture and saying, "This is me with my good friend Anonymous Brave Guy! (He's on the left)." That happens all the time regardless of whether it occurs on a social networking site or not. Arguably it's easier to trace down connections among people because the links are explicit and contained in a relatively easy to use interface, but really, the photo scenario could have just as easily happened with any site.
You knew when you joined Facebook, that friends were going to show up in your social network, either through explcity invites or by posting things to your wall. That's the whole point of joining any social net. To say that you were shocked to find that your connections to your friends would be accessible is the strain credulity to the breaking point.
Parent
Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!! (Score:4, Funny)
As Far As I
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, continue repeating that until you stop being a jackass.
I am a geek now, I have always been a geek. My definition of "Party" has always been slightly different that many other peoples. There was no shortage of social opportunity for me. I was just pickier about which one
6 Billion users.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:6 Billion users.... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Adopt standards (Score:2)
knock yourself out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:knock yourself out (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, how hard is it to sign up for a facebook account now. You don't even need a school email, just an email. Everyone could have access if they wanted to, in about 5 minutes.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Data monkey that I am, I'd be interested in playing around with that stuff, (e.g. "The phrase "Hooked Up" is 32% more common on the pages of male users than female users") but I don't for a second think that anyone who use
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Why should you have to? There's no good reason to require that I have an account on every damned social web site, for the privilege of seeing what my own friends want to share with me.
I'll say that again: the customers of the web site want to share things with their friends, and the current structure makes that hard. Social networks aren't providing their users with what they want.
I'm all in favor of using a distributed identity system like OpenID [openid.net] so th
Re:knock yourself out (Score:4, Informative)
I think the only thing networking sites could do to be more "open" is to become interoperable: Allow Facebook users to add MySpace users as friends. Of course, that sounds like it would be a royal PITA and would require a whole new standard be developed, but hey...open is good, right?
There's nothing wrong with things as they are today. If you want to make your information public, get a blog. If you want to share something with just a few friends, use whatever networking site they use.
Parent
Well... real-life social networks aren't open (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well... real-life social networks aren't open (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Its the "club" syndrome. (Score:5, Insightful)
And the general public likes to feel special.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ne
umm.... yeah..... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
BUT WAIT (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Software is not the problem (Score:2)
Maybe some P2P system could fix this, but that whould require users to install certain software which generally slows adoption quit a bit.
Or someone should donate a proper
I've been thinking about this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like instant messaging - unless you are savvy enough to have a product like Trillian, you have to install AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Google Talk, and now things like Skype to keep up with all your friends on the various service
hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Perhaps once this is done, they can share the technology with banks [banksafeonline.org.uk], the IRS [cbsnews.com], Blizzard [ezinearticles.com], and everyone else using online authentication.
"Open" social networks fail at its users (Score:4, Insightful)
This would first of all require people to actually accept freedom of speech as the freedom of someone whose opinion or attitude they do not agree with. Try to start an open, unmoderated discussion group on a controversal topic (needn't even be abortion or capital punishment, emacs or vi already does the job) and within minutes you'll drown in opinionated, information-twisting and "FACT: I AM RIGHT!" messages.
Do you want that in your discussion group?
Not to mention that not much later (or maybe even sooner) you'll drown in important information where you get your penis enhancing products and that Lilly really wants you to see how naked she is on her webpage.
If people did "behave" in social networks and be civil and rational, it could work. People aren't, though. And for this reason, I reserve the right to choose who may read my messages, who may discuss with me and who I do not want near any place I frequent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, something like 1 in 30 people is a sociopath.
There you go, I just killed the idea of successfully running a fully open social networking site any time in the near future, right there. Sorry about that.
Its the SOCIAL network ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The article doesn't address privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a feature, not a bug (Score:4, Insightful)
Did anybody say WWW? (Score:2)
My original comments (Score:4, Interesting)
Since they cut my comments off of the article summary :-)
Missing the point of Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
Missing the point of the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Videos and profiles (Score:2)
> posted to your profile? They have to have an account.
Yup, but that's an enabler, too. For example, you can have an app that allows for conversations to develop around a video [facebook.com]. Rather nice.
Disclaimer: I helped work on that one, tech details here [blogs.com].
No thanks Wired (Score:2)
Nevermind the fact that he's wrong and you can make your Facebook page (or at the very least your photo albums) open to the whole web. I found this out after mine was accidentally indexed in Google.
Closed? A Good Thing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
open != user modifiable
Ted Nelson called... (Score:2)
Why is this modded troll? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously do not see why this is modded as a troll.