I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I've always thought (and
preached) that the SN component should always exist as an adjunct to
something else, and not as an end in itself - what Jyri Engeström called
object-centered sociality. Some sites (e.g. Flickr) do this pretty well.
Facebook offers many "objects," and a minifeed so that people are visible in
the context of activities, applications - "objects." I think that's why
Facebook is - so far - succeeding.
On Dec 19, 2007 11:51 AM, Valdis Krebs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes, it is not the technology [although bad matching algorithms ARE a
> problem!] it is that all of these systems mess up on the sociology --
> they make us change age old habits for "some future benefit"... most
> people do not see the value of the trade-off after some experimenting
> with these systems.
> IMHO, no SNS will succeed until they do the sociology right, AND the
> technology more closely matches the process of how we actual build and
> maintain networks -- P2P. Any SNS built on the client-server model
> will fail, or morph into something else like a job site. Like you
> said, we are tired of going somewhere and joining something [and
> hoping they don't screw it up] just so that we can hopefully improve
> what we already do.
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
> > I'm beginning to think the pile-on is fueled, not by significant
> > issues with
> > this particular system, but by general frustration with the increasing
> > complexity of the online social environment, and the myriad calls
> > for our
> > scarce attention. The real message here is probably that we don't
> > want or
> > need "yet another social network" [platform], especially one that
> > requires
> > more of our attention than we're willing to give. Hopefully
> > entrepreneurs
> > who want to build "the next Facebook" will pay attention (but I
> > doubt it).
> > ~ Jon