Social Networking Sites - Are they Backwards?

It seems to me that today’s social networking sites have things all backwards. Yes, I too would like to build a backwards company with a valuation greater than the 2007GDP of Jamaica but let me explain.

Social networking sites are all the rage these days. MySpace and Facebook are top 10 sites and are mentioned in every other Internet related blog post. Clearly a lot of people use and enjoy these sites, but I really don’t get it.

According to Wikipedia social networking sites “provide a collection of various ways for users to interact, such as chat, messaging, email, video, voice chat, file sharing, blogging, discussion groups, and so on.” That’s all fine but there’s nothing new there. In fact the services provided by social networking sites are either a poor copy of previous services (compare MySpace blogs to Wordpress) or closed versions of previously open protocols - messaging within a site vs e-mail for example.

In today’s crazy spam filled e-mail world a closed messaging system has some merit I suppose but why would someone chose a messaging system that only lets them communicate with a small portion of the people they know vs one that allows them to communicate with everyone? There’s also some value in integrating a number of services that people would have to get through multiple other sources - combine your Flickr photos, YouTube videos and Wordpress blog in one spot - but I still think not enough value to justify the popularity of these sites. Clearly the appeal of social networking sites is not just in these services. So what’s the innovation that social networking sites provide?

The Social Graph

The social part of social networking comes not through the simple fact that you can do messaging and share photos but through the expression of social connections. The sites allow you to declare that someone is your “friend” and if that other person agrees the relationship is expressed on both profile pages. Once these relationships are expressed the site can use them for various purposes to either limit access to information - only friends can send you messages and view your profile - or to push information - automatically alert you of the actions your friends take.

Even though these social relationships are the key innovative feature of social networking sites, I still think they miss the mark and quite widely. Namely in the fact that there are many more social relationships in the real world than just “friend” and the access to information that we’d want to apply varies so much by the type of relationship. It’s natural - and good - to want to present a different face to a co-worker, a parent and a college drinking buddy. The lack of this fine grained control over what you share about yourself can create problems when you leak information from one area of your life to another where it might not be appropriate.

So Why Backwards

Perhaps social networking sites have their flaws in the services they provide and in the way the express social relationships and control information but why would I say that they’re backwards? Social networking sites of today create their own little walled off community and allow the communication and expression of relationships only within that community. Maybe I’m idealistic but the basis of the Internet in my mind has always been standards and openness. Social sites do provide a useful function - they’re a place where people can create a profile. Even though there are many places where people can create a profile most people don’t bother to do so. Even though people can get a better blogging platform a better photo album or a better chat system elsewhere most are served with the limited functionality and ease of use that they can get at a social site.

Why though should the relationships that you express be limited to relationships with people who also host their profile at the same site? Wouldn’t it be much better and much more in keeping with the “spirit of the Internet” to express those relationships in an open way that crosses site boundaries? The current situation requires that people either join multiple social networks to connect with all of their relationships. On top of that it seems that every other site is building social network functionality. Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow people to create a profile in one place, use it across the web communities they participate in and express their relationships profile-to-profile regardless of which site hosts that profile?

It seems to me that eventually users will come to the realization that their relationships extend beyond the users of a particular site and they’ll demand that their relationship and communication tools extend beyond the users of a particular site as well. There are movements underway to work toward this goal with things like the distributed social project and standards based expressions of relationship like FOAF. It’ll be interesting to watch this area and see the kinds of opportunities that will develop.

Does it Work for You?

What’s your take? Do you find yourself wanting to express relationships outside of facebook? Do you need more nuanced expressions of those relationships and finer grained controls over access to the information you share? If it doesn’t work for you give some thought to what would work and how you can either influence existing services in that direction or seek out new services that will work.