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."

As you can see

I will be out to dinner tonight at 8pm, so that will be a good time to rob my house.

Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

WTF? Part of the appeal of many of these sites is that it is restricted in some manner that that current users enjoy.

indeed, called a "password", which is not included with the source code.

What?

No jack-ass, I like the segmentation offered by islands like Facebook.

Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

'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.

Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

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?).

Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

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.

Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

We're talking about interoperability. Interoperability is always good.

No, it isn't. In fact, in the context of the dangers of having too much information on-line and having it data mined for purposes you wouldn't like, interoperability and the One True Database are just about the most dangerous things there are.

Let's be honest here. You're arguing for security through obscurity. "Security" through poor interoperability is an illusion. Any Bad Guy(tm) dedicated to doing ill can mine multiple social nets today. We're talking about allowing people to manage multiple social nets easily. It's stupid that someone has to monitor multiple sites. They should work together. I would argue that having multiple incompatable sites can actually lead to more insecurity since you can never be sure of what's going on all the assorted nets.

If you're afraid of personal information getting out, don't post it.

Well, I guess that's one step better than "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."

It's a hell of a lot better than "one step." It's the antithesis to "if you've got nothing to hide." It's "If you want keep something hidden, then why the hell are you doing blabbing about it?" My home address is not posted anywhere online. My phone number is not anywhere online. That's personal information and you can't get it. It's not a secret, but it's not something I want to share publicly. If I think you need it, I'll give to you. It's the same for any other personal info.

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.

Re:I don't want EVERYONE to see my data!!

AFAIAC

As Far As I ... Anchor ... Chilis?

6 Billion users....

I wasn't aware almost everyone in the world had internet access....

Re:6 Billion users....

They didn't, until about a month ago, when the iPhone came out. Cancer and parking downtown were also solved. Hope you had a nice vacation.

knock yourself out

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

After reading the article, it really looks like it's just this guy whining about being really lazy.

Therein lies the rub. When entering data into Facebook, you're sending it on a one-way trip. Want to show somebody a video or a picture you posted to your profile? Unless they also have an account, they can't see it. Your pictures, videos and everything else is stranded in a walled garden, cut off from the rest of the web.

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.

Re:knock yourself out

Facebook and Myspace allow you to share content with unregistered users. They also allow you to restrict it so that only your friends can see it. This is a good thing.

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.

Well... real-life social networks aren't open

Something that I was actually thinking about this morning is why are people friends with some, and not with others. Its because most people use their friends to feel better about themselves. I'm not saying they abuse their friends, I had a shitty weekend and sitting around laughing with my buddies on Sunday night at the bar made me feel amazingly better.
  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:Well... real-life social networks aren't open

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.

Its the "club" syndrome.

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.

umm.... yeah.....

I like the comment that Wired "tried to build an open social network, and failed". Makes me think that Wired doesn't have a clue about Social networking in the first place (and why would they?)

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?

BUT WAIT

If we open up social networking and make it a community effort, who gets to sell it for millions?!?!?!

I've been thinking about this

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.

hmm

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.

"Open" social networks fail at its users

While I'm all for the ancient hacker creed of data wanting to be free, it does not work. It simply does not.

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.

Its the SOCIAL network ...

"Specifically, the problems with today's networks, says the author, is that their content is not available to everyone."

It is a social network not the augmented expose of my life to everyone including the people that may wish me harm network. Dang social engineers think they know better but this is market and society driven. WE CHOOSE as a Social Network the places we want to expose ourselves and how much and most importantly to whom we will expose our information, and in some sites liked Linked-In some people see more than others. I LIKE IT THAT WAY. (sorry shouting at an ignorant pseudo-pundit, he may be smart but he is still clueless)

The article doesn't address privacy

The article does not address the issue of privacy. Facebook and myspace, and xanga, allow users some amount of granularity to control who can view their personal data, which is one of the draws of these websites. Let me start a blog, post my home address and phone number and who I'm dating on it, and let google index it for spam-harvesters and identity thieves to come get? I don't think so.

This is a feature, not a bug

Facebook, at least in my experience, is free of spam -- unlike, say, e-mail. Opening up the network would allow all the problems that currently plague e-mail (and, in my much briefer experience prior to deleting my profile, MySpace), thus reducing the value of Facebook to its users. I also trust, within reason, Facebook to not display my personal data to anyone except those on my friend lists. I don't want the "content" available to everyone, which is the whole reason Facebook took off in the first place -- people I want to see my profile can (friends, classmates), and everyone else can't. This article is a call to fight a problem that doesn't exist and that the author will create.

My original comments

Since they cut my comments off of the article summary :-)

Personally, I don't use either Facebook or MySpace, though I have friends that do. I host my own blog, and communicate with friends via email, IM, and forums. I run my own blog and pic hosting. I've just never really jumped on the social networking bandwagon. Yeah, I'm old school.

As for this article, I can see both sides. Part of the point of the Facebooks and MySpaces is so that *not just anyone* can view what you put online. Nevermind that I don't really get why you'd post something *private* online in the first place if you didn't expect the world to see it. But the private social networks foster and clique or group mentality where if you're not in the know, you don't know.

What the point of the article is, though, and which I tend to agree with, is there needs to be a better way to round up your online "identity". Why should I have to sign up for Facebook to keep in touch with some friends, and MySpace for others? Why should I have to be a member of multiple IM services to keep in touch with different people? I have multiple email addresses for different purposes. I have signed up for probably dozens of mailing lists and discussion forums, and have been an active member in more than a handful. Heck, I even signed registered on Slashdot so I can make posts and comments non-anonymously. Why should my online "identity" be fragmented so?

Of course, the flip side of that is is that due to the fragmentation of my online identity, I still maintain that air of anonymity. I think that actually may be at the root of a lot of the issues going on. By having different email addresses and aliases, I can appear to some audiences as one person, and to others as someone totally different. Even on Facebook and MySpace, would most of those users publish in a real life semi-public place the photos, musings, and thoughts that they write on those sites? Perhaps we would ideally like the convenience of having a central identity, but don't want the accountability of being tied to that central identity? /blockquote

Missing the point of Facebook

Seriously, the best thing about Facebook is that it's closed to everyone but specific people that I want to allow. Nobody but my friends (or people in my network, Facebook offers a variety of privacy options) know what I'm up to, can see my favorites, or see my wall postings. I don't want random people to know specific things about my life. However, Facebook still allows you to do broad searches on specific fields in specific networks, but you can't access the real information until you become friends.

Closed? A Good Thing!

After seeing what most MySpace pages look like, I think it's not such a bad thing that the content on social networking sites is not freely available! And with the API having been opened up to allow the launch of a million and one chintzy and loud page gadgets, I'm not too worried about Facebook being closed either. Besides, wasn't the allure of the social networking sites hanging out and sharing with a few (hundred?) friends, and not the whole friggin internet?