{"id":290,"date":"2007-06-27T13:42:51","date_gmt":"2007-06-27T19:42:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nerdflood.com\/2007\/06\/27\/well-how-many-social-networks-do-we-need\/"},"modified":"2007-06-27T13:42:51","modified_gmt":"2007-06-27T19:42:51","slug":"well-how-many-social-networks-do-we-need","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/well-how-many-social-networks-do-we-need\/","title":{"rendered":"Well, how many social networks DO we need?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Great thoughts from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scripting.com\/stories\/2007\/06\/27\/sheNailsIt.html\">Dave Winer<\/a> based on an open question from <a href=\"http:\/\/twitter.com\/ponzarelli\/statuses\/123326072\">Ponzarelli<\/a>. Since the conversation is fairly short at the moment, I thought I would add my own thoughts on the concept.<\/p>\n<p>Ponzi asks how many social networks is enough? Dave responds that we only need one. The true question becomes: which one?<\/p>\n<p>The problem is, to put it succinctly, there are no really good social networks available right now. At least in my opinion. What do we have? <a href=\"http:\/\/myspace.com\">MySpace<\/a>. <a href=\"http:\/\/facebook.com\">Facebook<\/a>. Is that it? Other systems provide some semblance of social interaction and are considered by many to be social networks. <a href=\"http:\/\/twitter.com\">Twitter<\/a>. <a href=\"http:\/\/digg.com\">Digg<\/a>. <a href=\"http:\/\/youtube.com\">YouTube<\/a>. But they aren&#8217;t truly social networks.<\/p>\n<p>A good social network needs to be first and foremost a <b>content provider<\/b><i>. <\/i>What? A content provider? That doesn&#8217;t make sense for a &#8220;social network&#8221;. Well, actually, it does.<\/p>\n<p>Consider MySpace. MySpace is a good friend collector. But that&#8217;s about it. Hardly anyone on MySpace actually blogs, and those that do don&#8217;t blog much worth reading <i>(I&#8217;m overgeneralizing, I know, but the point is valid for a greater percentage of MySpace than you may think)<\/i>. They can coordinate events, leave messages, overdesign their site, etc. But amongst the teen crowd that hits the site, it is less a social network and more a social status symbol. If anything, the site serves as a jumping off point to organize real-life social interaction. Which it does well, I admit. But MySpace doesn&#8217;t act as a social network so much as a friend map.<\/p>\n<p>In my book, that fails as a social network. Why? Because a good social network should also work to keep you socializing within the network itself.<\/p>\n<p>Consider Facebook. Facebook is a good status updater. You can update various aspects of your life, and the system will notify your friends what you&#8217;re currently doing. I can see that my cousin has just ended a relationship, a friend has just seen a really bad movie, and another friend has posted some new pictures. Sure, I could probably see all that stuff on MySpace, too, but Facebook makes this sort of data easy to create. It&#8217;s the beginnings of content, and Facebook is much closer to being a true social network than anything I&#8217;ve seen so far. You can still collect friends, but now you can do much more with them within the confines of the social network itself.<\/p>\n<p>But once you&#8217;ve collected those friends, and you&#8217;ve updated them on what you&#8217;re doing, then what do you do? Now, you need to provide quality in-depth content, and you need the tools available to make that content work.<\/p>\n<p>Once again: why a content provider? Because your friends and family cannot live on bread alone. I can only stand so many short bursts of mini-info <i>(minfo?)<\/i> from my friends before I simply have to pick up the phone and actually hold a conversation with them. The quick and simple bare-bones info, but not <i>really <\/i>info, pieces of metadata can become exasperating and meaningless. My friend is in love, he&#8217;s out of love, he saw a movie, he added an application, he posted some pictures, he posted a video. On, and on, and on. I can only put up with so much of that before I require some meat&#8211;some <i>detail<\/i>&#8211;to remind me that I have an actual, honest to goodness, <i>connection<\/i> with this human being.<\/p>\n<p>Connection. Conversation. That&#8217;s what it&#8217;s all about. Not collecting friends. Not posting minute minfo <i>(I&#8217;m going to start loving that word, I apologize in advance)<\/i>. But creating an actual social interaction on the web.<\/p>\n<p>So, pulling all that together, I have to admit that my ideal social network is a blog. Or, at the very least, a system of interconnected blogs. Which, as you may or may not realize, we already have. To a certain extent, of course. Not everyone has a blog these days <i>(though it may seem like it)<\/i>. But it&#8217;s the best way for a constant, flowing, dynamic conversation to take place on the web.<\/p>\n<p>The tool that could potentially bind it all together? Twitter. Post a blog on your WordPress blog, and your Twitter account gets automatically notified and updates your Twitterfeed. The Twitterfeed updates your Facebook to show a new blog has been posted. Instead of being a status indicator, Twitter could become the glue of a dynamic social network. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scripting.com\/stories\/2007\/04\/28\/twitterAsCoralReef.html\">Dave sees the potential<\/a>, too. I think more developers need to get on board and put together the tools that combine the basic services into a full-fledged social network that everyone can get behind. We need some people to start creating some glue.<\/p>\n<p>But the blog is the center. It is the content provider. Twitter is the tool that distributes the content to the available channels creating the social network infrastructure.<\/p>\n<p>It may not seem like a revolutionary idea, but if that&#8217;s the case, how come there&#8217;s no automated dynamic network there yet?<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ll tell you this: I&#8217;m not the one to build it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Great thoughts from Dave Winer based on an open question from Ponzarelli. Since the conversation is fairly short at the moment, I thought I would add my own thoughts on the concept. Ponzi asks how many social networks is enough? Dave responds that we only need one. The true question becomes: which one? The problem [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[322,480,481,364,465,457],"class_list":["post-290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tech","tag-blogging","tag-facebook","tag-information-overload","tag-social-networking","tag-twitter","tag-web-2-0","last-post"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=290"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nathanielpayne.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}