There are several emerging trends coming down the pike, some of them seemingly diametrically opposed to one another. It’s too early in the game for any tensions to cause major changes, but tensions are there nevertheless.
It’s about closed platforms vs. open standards. It’s about how we communicate via email, blogs, etc. vs. who gets access to that communication. It’s about social networks and the advantages and disadvantages they bring.
The transformation of Facebook from a social network for college kids and its emergence as a competitor to LinkedIn as a business-oriented network is playing an key role in this. You could add Twitter, Jaiku, and by-invitation-only Pownce to this. I don’t know where all this will end but I’m predicting that it could be the advent of Web 3.0.
One great thing about a closed system is that it allows individuals to make connections with like-minded others who can gather together and may provide a mutually beneficial experience. This also allows communities of interest to develop, where people can gather and talk about anything from basket weaving to basketball. As one ‘friend’ I have on Facebook, Michael Martine put it, “I’m starting to realize you could almost live your life inside facebook.” In a telling point, Michael carried it further, wondering if the emigration that many of us are taking to these networks would leave bloggers who write stand alone blogs out there in cyberspace would lift “their weary eyes from their keyboards one day, wondering where everybody went, what happened.”
Writing in AdAge, Steve Rubel of Micorpersuasion carries it to a slightly different direction. In “The Case of the Incredible Shrinking Blogosphere” he writes:
“Recently, the conversation has focused on the rising popularity of micro-blogging platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Jaiku and the invite-only Pownce. All of these enable people to broadcast brief bursts of text…to their circle of friends…”
He’s right. And this isn’t so much about blogging as it is of how we use the internet as a means of communication, be it blogging or email or posting a video or whatever. In the wide open space of the internet, anyone can read that blog (or, to be sure, subscribe to it) or watch that video. That is, if they find it. Which, in most cases, they probably won’t. But on, say, Facebook, those who you have developed relationships with, the same people who have engendered a certain level of trust in, will now have easier and quicker access to the content you produce.
Then comes Scott Gilbertson of Wired and Karl Long of Experience Curve. Bascially, they both point out how the seemingly real benefits of closed off networking systems could actually lead to their downfall.
Scott writes:
Damn the Facebooks and the MySpaces. The last time we checked, there was this thing called the internet that had 6 billion users. It’s time to take our personal data out of Mr. McGregor’s little gardens and put it back where it belongs — free and open on the open web.
Social networks like Facebook and MySpace are taking the web by storm because they make it easy to manage your personal data and keep in touch with people you know. But to get value out, you have to put something in — photos, contacts, appointments, lists of your interests and your blog musings.
Therein lies the rub. When entering data into Facebook, you’re sending it on a one-way trip. Want to show somebody a video or a picture you posted to your profile? Unless they also have an account, they can’t see it. Your pictures, videos and everything else is stranded in a walled garden, cut off from the rest of the web.
Like locked cell phones and copy-protected music, Facebook is on the wrong side of the open-network debate. Facebook is a sealed bubble.
And he’s right. Who could argue with that? Put up something of importance and it’s shut out. It is an online version of completely closed circulation – the magazine is not available in stores and you have to get a register with the publishing company first and then find a particular author/creator for permission to read whatever he or she produced. And if they grant you access (permission) you can read what they wrote. This goes against the grain of what many of us have cherished – the open web, the marketplace of ideas.
Then, Karl, after pointing out that Scoble characterized Facebook as “a data roach motel. Your data goes in, but it rarely leaves” writes:
“it’s easy to get your information in there, but impossible to get it out, wasn’t that the AOL strategy?”
Hmmm… AOL helped a lot of join cyberspace and learn a thing or two but, hell, it’s been years. He then adds,
” I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently and I think the long term sustainability of a social network can easily be judged by asking the question “if everyone left tomorrow what value would remain?”
To which his solution is (if they remain closed off),
“I’m beginning think in the end it is how social networks engage their community in value creating activities that will determine their long term success. If your only value is the aggregation of eyeballs then you will get run over by the next wave just like AOL.”
Boy does Karl nail that one. So far, I’m getting value out of Facebook and I expect that that will continue. But I suspect that in order for these networks to fully succeed, they’ll need to develop more open platforms for transport of data and more transparency – at least for those who want it. If not, there’s a great business opportunity for some young yet-to-be heard of engineers.
Michael Martine predicts, “Microsoft buys Facebook and plugs their office online tools into it. Take that, Google! Buh-bye, Yahoo. Unless Yahoo buys them first. Another possible scenario: businesses start building their own facebook apps to integrate their workforce with it in a somewhat controlled manner.”
Once that happens, we could start to see the development of Web 3.0. Until then, the tension will grow between these emerging trends.
Side note: Pownce. As a marketing ploy they’ve decided to limit invitations to only a few selected people. Scoble called those that were invited to be on Pownce for these initial stages are, well, members of the online elite. “most of the “cool kids” are over on Pownce, if truth be told.” Well, he’s right. If you’re not elite enough or an insider, you probably didn’t get an invite. Sorta reminds me of certain country clubs I grew up near that didn’t allow blacks or Jews or Catholics. But not to worry, because ” Soon, we’ll let some more people in”. Thanks.
So much for the great world wide web where we all start out as equals. ;)
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I feel so special! Of course, you had to quote the most hastily-written thing I wrote all week, but my main points were that Facebook is going somewhere big, as in: YouTube big; and that it’s swallowing up all these activities that we used to do in separate applications, like blogging.
Just so everyone knows, the quotes and statements from me come from a discussion Jonathon and I are having behind the walled garden of Facebook. If you’re a Facebook member, join the Blog Buzz group.
The issue is wether the internet will play nicely and conform to the market activity of everyday life. The LAW OF ECONOMICS. People must be able to receive just compensation for services rendered wether they be articles, software, shoes or chocolates otherwise how do we work for our keep? Sell a banner on our heads?..the subsidy of the internet must be banished – the advertisers.
The idea of a free utopia “the internet” will soon die the death from reality when data tools are in place to make the transactions properly, securely and accurately. No market in the work could survive if everything in it is free for the taking and the billboards outside the market pay for everyones livelihoods.
There will be a re-alignment on the Internet bubble. The whole internet for the last 10 years is a huge buble of hype of get rich quick schemes like “Search” where the strongest and most well financed networks wins.
Closed networks will finally place the internet genie back into the asylum where it should have never been let out.
I intend to be a part of this transition.