Eye candy in lieu of an update

There’s this idea I’ve been rummaging for quite some time:

Facebook could actually be the Open Social Graph that mention the Scriptures (en lieu of Diaspora, OSW, Buzz 3P structure, AppleSeed) — except the best way to open is to first have as many people on board, and then open the ground they stand on, for two things:

  • to reach an agreement on what conventions should make the social web (how to handle faceted identities, relevancy, structure control);
  • to lock-in users, before the storm of necessary adjustments to the opening: attention management, data portability, structure informations, etc. all come with too many issues to anticipate them all.

I believe a platform could reach significant adoption and openness by never being ‘closed’ (like Apache, WordPress or Firefox did) but Facebook’s method could actually be faster, if not the only one fast enough not to fail at offer.

(As much as I love rhyme-book paining, the eye-candy is actually further down.)

Mark Zuckerberg keeps repeating “to make the world more open & social,” without any definition of either; he doesn’t argue against the critics who demand an interoperable platform or portable data — two of the many actual, contradictory, technical options of what “Open” can mean. Why? He has repeated that he likes about “doing stuff” and not talk about it prior, so he most likely has something in mind, that needs to be done and that would quiet such critics.
Kirkpatrick insists on how Mark worked on Warehog, a distributed file-sharing system: he makes it sound like a dead-end, except it helped set up the Application platform. Part of the euphemisms are due to the legal risk, and part to Kirkpatrick’s orientation: he studies tech as a business — but Zuckerberg is visionary enough to make the connection between what he learnt working on a distributed file-sharing system and a more ambitious distributed social network; that explains his investment in Diaspora, for instance. That’s why I expect Facebook to become “more open,” but only after being an omnipresent identity connector. Before that, I believe (that Zuckerberg believes) that the platform would lack the experience to make it feasible: users wouldn’t understand what is an identity provider, and those in charge of developers wouldn’t know how to present them the framework.  It might end up being in Facebook economic interest to do so.

Oddly enough, when I compared these cloudy interpretations with the grief on the technical forums for the more “open” alternatives, it made me think of an argument that I had against Free Software vs. Mac: if “Free” is about doing what you want with your computer with no restrictions — than the free-er option to 95% of computer users is a computer where they can find all the necessary menus, options without being stalled by problems beyond their ability to comprehend them. Or rather, to take a more optimistic view, if you want 95% of the users to care about what they could be tweaking on a free machine, let their first machine be well designed — they’ll want to install GNU-Linux even faster.
The same argument about speed seems to apply to Social Network(ing) services. Just to make sense of it, I tried to draft a presentation about those dynamics (.mov, click to move forward): What do you think?

[If you know how to embed a Keynote presentation in a wordpress.com blog, I’d love to improve this.]

All this is fairly speculative, but not theoretical. Facebook is at least —like iPhone was to Android— a stepping stone: something to prove feasibility, show how to design the interactions, architecture (the non-distributed parts), something to pillage from when barrier-less competition overcomes exclusivity to the inventor.

Coming soon: detailed comments on David Kirkpatrick’s book The Facebook Effect;
Coming sooner: Competition between location based services (LBS) & the efficiency of the star graph structure.

Advertisements

About Bertil

I'm a PhD student in Digital Economics, and I love viennoiserie. Je suis un doctorant en économie (numérique) et j'aime la viennoiserie.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Eye candy in lieu of an update

  1. Bertil says:

    Jolie O’Dell of Mashable has spotted a interesting pattern on Facebook: interoperability of apps, ie. apps working with non-members.
    http://mashable.com/2010/06/09/facebook-email-contacts/

    I’m noticed you could add e-mails to invite lists on events a long time ago, but the control of an e-mail list is new, and the whole process could indeed be extended to other apps, including external, presumably with either a very simple interaction mechanism that can be sustained by e-mail (on reply) or with an external website. There is a lot of coding to make it work with say, Facebook Connect, but that could indeed be yet another site.

    What she saw (the e-mail management list) is not ported to all accounts yet (not mine, I mean.) and the comments are interesting: this feature makes the lack of export concerning many, while portability still triggers many bad situations with shared (semi-private) information. Without new conventions, or very sophisticated data control from Facebook partners, this should remain experimental—Zuckerberg is not that desperated for drama.

  2. Bertil says:

    Yet another month-old update (that I missed because I’m badly organised) that validates my take:
    http://blog.dataportability.org/2010/05/26/facebook-embraces-data-portability-%E2%80%93-again/

    Data portability between a provider of a service simple; with a two-sided platform, it’s a balance to set between both sides—but a social-graph based service, and the corresponding data demands social conventions that are not in place yet, as illustrated by the variety of reactions to the Scoble-gate:
    http://scobleizer.com/2008/01/03/facebook-lets-me-back-in/

  3. Bertil, A couple of thoughts.

    1) Regarding your disappointment about lack of comments in your “About” page . . . the hardest thing to do is to find people who believe what you do.

    2) Speaking of the best path to innovation. If you think that Open may not be the best path for innovation, we may have some common beliefs – see this post today: http://www.comradity.com/comradity/2010/06/disrupting-ambiguity-is-the-path-to-innovation.html

    Let me know what you think.

    Good Luck,
    Katherine Warman Kern
    @comradity

    • Bertil says:

      Thank you for your support, Katherine.

      I do like the ideas in your post—I’m surprised you have even less comment than I do.

      Actually I was expecting more… opposition; poking my friends the freetards in the eyes didn’t seem to work. I was considering to respond myself, mostly because I don’t like the —ambiguous— “Open” axis. Keep you posted.

  4. Lea says:

    Rewriting it definitely paid off ^^

  5. Pingback: Témoignage partial de Carlo d’Asaro Biondo « Deux croissants

  6. Pingback: Will Facebook/Twitter eventually become superseded in the same way MySpace has? If so, when and why? - Quora

  7. Pingback: Quora

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s