« When Users are Developers |
Main
| Tools, Practice and Adaptation »
December 1, 2003
A-social Networks
Posted by David Weinberger
Esther Dyson has written a right-on
article about social networks, warning about the privacy issues that will arise especially as one or two become more prevalent:
At the end of the day we will have private aggregations of data more rich and interconnected and personal than any government ever dreamed of ... and of course this data will be readily available, just as data from credit card companies, merchants and airlines is today.
She also worries about what these networks are doing to the notion of friendship:
In some way, with their numbers and lists and classifications, these services can subtly make a social network into a trophy collection.
Exactly! I'm a member of LinkedIn but I only visit it when someone requests me to approve them as a friend. (Weird concept.) I always say yes because saying no is a much more serious event. Besides, so far no one I dislike has asked me.
But the resulting social network doesn't reflect my real online social network. For that, you'd have to watch my incoming and outgoing email, and track the blogs I read and respond to. No, the network being assembled at LinkedIn has little to do with friendship and sociality and a lot to do with mutually advantageous business relationships.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, except that these social networks are debasing the words "friend" and "social."
Perhaps a more descriptive tagline would help. How about:
Putting the Shill into Social
Leveraging Mere Acquaintanceships for Business Success since 2003
So that's what friends are for!
Comments (7)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. Stewart Butterfield on December 1, 2003 6:51 PM writes...
This seems more than a little unfair.
"No, the network being assembled at LinkedIn has little to do with friendship and sociality and a lot to do with mutually advantageous business relationships."
Cf., "No, the establishments that Starbucks builds have little to do with providing a third place and increasing social capital and a lot to do with selling coffee."
Well ... yeah. That's the business they're in. Linkedin was designed for and is marketed as a tool for taking advantage of mutually beneficial business relationships.
"... these social networks are debasing the words 'friend' and 'social'." Who's debasing the words? Maybe the journalists?
Have another look at Linkedin and see if you can find "social" in anything they've written about their service. (Hint: google site:linkedin.com social.) The word only occurs in reprinted stories.
And the people are not referred to as "friends" (except for one instance that I can find). Rather, they are "connections", "members of your network", "business contacts", etc.
I take the point generally, but I think you're aiming at the wrong target here.
Permalink to Comment2. Stewart Butterfield on December 1, 2003 6:52 PM writes...
But *why* would links be turned off in comments? Oh well:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alinkedin%2Ecom+social
and,
"one instance" - https://www.linkedin.com/static?key=guest_tour
Permalink to Comment3. Seb on December 1, 2003 7:07 PM writes...
Jerry Michalski threw a log of his own into that fire (http://www.redherring.com/ForumPage_092303-02.aspx) a couple months ago. The owners of the database do have unprecedented knowledge/power as the network grows (social omniscience?).
I'd be more comfortable if the data were equally available to everyone. (Think FOAF.)
Permalink to Comment4. David Weinberger on December 1, 2003 8:37 PM writes...
Stewart: Yeah, I'm probably being unfair to LinkedIn. The real point is that these artificial social networks are weird contraptions untethered to and unreflective of the web of actual social relationships.
Permalink to Comment5. Zbigniew Lukasiak on December 2, 2003 7:38 AM writes...
I see two solutions to the privacy issues: first make the network connection implicit instead of explicite, second make it P2P. Both methods would make the computer mediated social networks closer to how it works in the meatspace only more efficient.
The first would be guard against gathering the information by strangers, but also would let us avoid the allways awkward questions "can we become friends?".
The second would let us own our data.
Permalink to Comment6. Ash on December 3, 2003 12:17 PM writes...
You might want to check out WiredReach (http://www.wiredreach.com).
WiredReach is a 100% decentralized social networking app where ensuring user privacy and security are fundamental design principles. Unlike traditional social networking sites, you don't join a network but rather build one around your own relationships.
We are currently in beta testing and will be announcing a generally available release early next year.
Permalink to Comment7. David Weinberger on December 3, 2003 12:32 PM writes...
Sounds very cool, Ash. I'm downloading it now...
Permalink to Comment