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."

knock yourself out

[yagu]

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.)

Its the "club" syndrome.

[BiggestPOS]

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.

No it's not

[Rethcir]

More open social networks -> More sexual predators

I've been thinking about this

[nine-times]

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.

"Open" social networks fail at its users

[Opportunist]

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.

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

[brunascle]

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.

Its the SOCIAL network ...

[Tjp($)pjT]

"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)

This is a feature, not a bug

[ThousandStars]

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.

Missing the point of Facebook

[hansamurai]

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.

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

[nine-times]

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.

Closed? A Good Thing!

[blueZhift]

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?

What?

[FatSean]

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

Why is this modded troll?

[east coast]

I agree. One of the better things about MySpace is that a user has a certain amount of control over what is and is not open to the public. This makes it a safer environment for kids who want to have pages and gives both the teen and the parent peace of mind to know that their information the is only available to a select crowd.

I seriously do not see why this is modded as a troll.

Missing the point of the article

[shish]

The point is to make APIs so that you can access the data with a defined protocol rather than with a web browser -- one can change the transport, and still keep the same authentication / data limiting~

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

[Iron Condor]

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:Social discrimination

[Kintanon]

Repeat after me, "I am not entitled to a large network of friends. No one should be forced to like me or associate with me. If I want to meet people and gain friends I will have to make myself more appealing to those people in some way."

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 ones I chose. There is NO REASON for the people I chose not to socialize with to have to allow me to participate in their group activities.

Bah. Why am I even responding to you...

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

[coaxial]

'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.

That threat already exists today with the closed networks. We're talking about interoperability. Interoperability is always good. If you're afraid of personal information getting out, don't post it.

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

[Jerry Beasters]

May be a troll, but the sentiment is (although cliche) both true and on topic.

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

[coaxial]

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.