« Henshall on Skype |
Main
| Social Networking Cuts Spam in Half »
February 18, 2004
Two negative views of social networking services
Posted by Clay Shirky
Jon Udell:
Is social networking just another men's group?:
I am sure that networked software systems can support and amplify that improvisational dynamic, but I often wonder whether our current software development culture can produce such systems. Consider the recent crop of six-degrees-inspired relationship amplifiers, notably LinkedIn and Orkut. Both have tin ears for social nuance. On LinkedIn, when asked to endorse a marginal acquaintance, I was stopped dead in my tracks by the requirement to define our relationship as one of a list of choices such as "You managed X directly" and "You were a client of X's." On Orkut the choice is even more starkly binary: "X is my friend" or "X is not my friend."
LinkedIn's and Orkut's tin ears shouldn't really surprise anyone. Social software systems are created by programmers who -- let's face it -- are not renowned for their social skills.
Richard Stokes:
I'll take social software for $1,000 please, Alex:
Social software has an inherent network externality. That is, much like Microsoft Office or email, it is only valuable to the extent that other people are using it. The "value-add" follows a typical S-curve model, that is, there is some critical mass of users that must be surpassed before the application is compelling to the masses.
The average person will receive value from a software network only if a sufficient number of other people participate. The lack of a critical mass of participants acts as a barrier towards achieving that critical mass. Chicken and egg syndrome.
Comments (5)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
- 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 February 18, 2004 4:04 PM writes...
I don't have a well-formed opinion on the general point, but I think the second point suffers from conflating "social software" and "social networking". (I still strongly prefer "social computing" to the "social software", but eh ...)
Social networking apps will suffer from the chicken and egg (generally) but the same is not true of all "social software": some things work just fine with a very small group of users and some are even design for small/closed/private groups.
Permalink to Comment2. Gregory Narain on February 18, 2004 5:52 PM writes...
Surely, critical mass is important for the current crop of social networking tools, but just like I can only manage so many people in real life, eventually the thousands and thousands blur into the background and the ones that matter come into focus.
In this sense, I have to agree with Stewart. Sometimes one degree is all that matters. Any system that enhances and extends my ability to manage my real personal network, with its constant fluctuation, will prove useful to a very large audience.
As for programmers of social software, I agree that there is a serious problem trying to assume the vantage point of a relationship. I've commented briefly on this in my blog..
http://socialtwister.com/archives/000058.html
Permalink to Comment3. BillG on February 19, 2004 7:32 AM writes...
In real-life social networks....size doesn't matter.
Network strength is based on the conviction its members have to being part of that network.....so, strength is not necessarily tied to membership enrollment.
This means is in real-life the average person can realize value even in the smallest of social networks.
While the vast majority of today's social networking services do not operate in this manner, it is possible for social computing to emulate real-life. However, for it to do so the computing platform must be truly decentralized, leaving the user in complete control, as is the case in real life.
Permalink to Comment4. Stewart Butterfield on February 19, 2004 3:24 PM writes...
Wot? May be different where you live Bill, but up in Canada we have a system of laws, police and a court system to enforce them and a whole shitpile of interlocking and conflicting social norms inherited from multiple parent cultures AND a bunch of psychological/sociological pseudo-laws about human interaction.
Permalink to Comment5. BillG on February 19, 2004 6:23 PM writes...
Where I live we too have laws, police, court systems,etc....but I'm not making the connection between that, social software, and critical mass....perhaps you can clarify.
My point addressed Stokes comment that 'the average person will receive value from a software network only if a sufficient number of people participate". The implication being it takes many people to participate before value is derived.
Stokes is right in the sense that with the well-known social networking services, some degree of critical mass is needed to be achieved for the average person to benefit.
My point is that does not have to be the case.
A small number of people participating in a (social)software network can derive value providing the social software is tailored to their needs and facilitates their interactions in a truly natural way and allows the user to maintain full control over who they network with....just like in real life. These solutions are not widespread today....but will be forthcoming in the future.
Permalink to Comment