For the past few weeks, I've been quietly mulling over the future of Facebook, trying to figure out whats next for the juggernaut and, inspired largely by a post from Ellysa Cahoy, whether or not the novelty of Mark Zukerberg's baby has started to wear off. For most of the early adopters, the honeymoon is over, and Facebook has either become as routine as brushing your teeth or been dismissed in favor of the next new thing.
Its not all that profound (though it might be surprising given some of my previous posts) that I don't expect Facebook to last forever. All good things must come to an end, and though I think Facebook still has plenty of time left in the spotlight, it will eventually be replaced by "insert oddly titled application here".
But when its time comes, what shall it be that slays the beast? None can be sure, though I happened across an interesting OpEd piece a few days back that suggested that Facebook would not fall from without, but rather from within. The write up can probably best be articulated through its closing sentences.
That's why I don't worry about Facebook taking over the net. As more users flock to it, the chances that the person who precipitates your exodus will find you increases. Once that happens, poof, away you go -- and Facebook joins SixDegrees, Friendster and their pals on the scrapheap of net.history.
Essentially, writer Cory Doctorow is suggesting that its not Facebook's competition that will destroy it, but rather the very nature of the application itself - the unnatural way in which it combines all of your social networks into one intermingled jumble. This is compounded by the fact that there is a social pressure not to deny anyone from your network, meaning that people you may not really know, or worse still not really like, end up forcing their way into your parade until eventually you just give up and back away (now thats a spicy run on sentence!). I'm sure the irony of such an end isnt lost on any of you.
I've gotten on my soap box more than once about the notion of judgment in these sort of environments, so I'll spare you another tirade. Today hip cats, I'm putting my ear to the people, to find out just how misguided I am! =D
Question 1 for today:
Do you make judgments of people based on the things you see from their social networking profiles? Does the prospect that others may judge you concern you when you post content to your own profile? Why or why not?
Question 2:
How comfortable would you feel removing someone from your friends list, or denying a friend request of an acquaintance of co-worker who you did not feel comfortable sharing information with? Would you be offended if someone removed you from their friends list? Do you think its a good or bad thing to have people other than those you would consider good friends observing your virtual social life?
Cole has, for some time, been predicting that Web 3.0 would be in essence, the internet's version of the great depression. The read /write culture of sharing and openness and conversations and engagement will fall away into a world of walled knowledge and a return to the privacy of old. A backlash of sorts - the other end of the spectrum. Off the cuff it doesnt seem possible. After all, anyone who has participated in web 2.0 understands its potential to generate great things. But after reading Doctorow's writeup, and thinking about the questions posed above, perhaps its more possible than I thought. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with Web 2.0 - but rather because of our own flaws as species.
I'll stop before I get a little too philosophical for my own good =) But I'd love to hear what you guys think!
Image from quotesfromtheoffice.com
Facebook will certainly die at some point, but I think their open, flexible API will keep it around for a while. I can't really see any competitor to FB right now where users can build whatever they want to plug-in to the app.
Something better will come along, but timing will be key if it will get adopted.
I'm curious if the FB folks are going to sell at any point. I've heard big companies have offered MASSIVE amounts of money for FB, but the creators have held strong.
Would passing something like this to Google keep around longer?
I found myself over the past year actually using privacy controls to limit subsets of the content I share with certain groups. I say "actually" because that is something I previously never gave much thought.
Facebook doesn't do a bad job of this with their features like limited profiles and private groups.
I also like the way flickr will transparently add a filter to what you are looking at so that you only see what you are allowed to see. One person may look at my profile and see 10 sets and another might see 12.
This is part of why a portable social graph that so many eggheads have been talking up lately will be important. We don't want to have to recreate these relationships in every sharing service we use. The alternative is that we do everything in facebook and facebook eventually replaces the internet.
Anyway, yeah, my basic point is that I feel the akwardness of the one giant social jumble, but I don't try to spend too much time thinking about it either. After all, I am who I am.
Chris--thanks for linking to the Doctorow editorial. I loved what he had to say about FB--especially the point that you noted: "creating more communications pathways increases the value of the system, and that's not always true."
But is that really what killed Friendster? I am not sure that is what will eventually kill Facebook. Over-commercialization and an intrusive ad strategy, yes. Having old friends from college friend me (which almost never happens to me, at least), no.
And, to answer your questions: 1)Yes, I do make judgments from people's profiles and 2) I just ignore friend requests from people I don't want on my friend list. There haven't been many.
Btw, we are doing a podcast about privacy on the social web at 10 on Friday in the 300 building. Would you be interested in participating?