Beyond Facebook, the fascist dystopia

At a workshop that we gave to a client recently, partner in crime Ivan Pope positioned social networks as follows (this isn't word for word, but I think it's true to Ivan's thinking and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong!):

MySpace is like an old-fashioned vision of the future: Heavy machinery; mechanical; steam-powered; clunky; and basically a bit broken.

And he described Facebook as the "fascist dystopia" of social networking, although looking at that Wikipedia definition, I think anti-utopia might be more appropriate, since Facebook tries hard to convey that its interests are with its population (users.)

So the question everyone's asking is: When will we get a truly democratic, open social network?

Part of the answer lies in social networks opening up more. TechCrunch has reports that Google is planning on using its social network Orkut as a basis for a Facebook-beating social networking platform that's much more open and able to integrate with other networks. A platform where you would be able to create applications that leverage the Orkut social network without having to build the application INSIDE of Orkut itself, like you do with Facebook.

This is potentially big news, but it only goes part of the way towards utopia because despite being more open the problem is that its still controlled by one company.

The thing is, I doubt very much that users will care. They certainly don't care about Facebook being a 'fascist dystopia' because its so much more open and flexible than anything they've had before. And I reckon they'll care even less about the lack of TRUE democracy on an even more open platform run by Google, a brand they probably already trust.

So does it really matter? I think it does. I think that social networking infrastructure and protocols need to be as open and free as the glue that already binds the Internet together: DNS; TCP/IP; HTTP; Email etc. To accept that control of what will be a key part of how we use the Net in the future resides with any one company just FEELS plain wrong.

What do you think?

Comments

[Alex Farran]

I'm pleased to see the moves towards a more open social graph. Google are being very cautious right now. I think that's just part of their general policy of not setting deadlines. Six Apart have been more forward in their commitment to open standards http://icanhaz.com/opensocialgraph

The standards are out there already. It just requires the will to use them. Ultimately openness benefits everybody. I look forward to being able to manage my social networks as easily as my RSS feeds.

[Ricardo]

I don't equate open with democracy in this context. I think it will be features embedded within a network that enable democratic usage - and by that I mean exposure of a persons views in an equal way..One network (badoo.com) allows each user to vote their profile into 1st place in the search results which, to me at least, is very democratic way to allowing users to gain an audience. And I guess democracy is only really about allowing equal access to the podium.

[Tom Nixon]

Cheers for the comment, Ricardo. What I would like to see is more democracy in how the network is 'governed'. It's the difference between being able to develop a website where you're free to do whatever you like, compared to a Facebook application where you have to agree to their terms and conditions.

[Geoff]

I totally agree with your comments. There is something "big brotherish" about Facebook. Why indeed should they have control over everybody's personal details? It's as if they've become a source of truth. Yes we need a more democratic, open (and open source) social networking platform. I've been approached a number of times to join Facebook and have refused for these reasons.

[Ash]

My problem with Facebook and MySpace is not the idea of social networking itself, but perhaps the way it works in the background. For marketeers, the data these sites collect about individuals is invaluable to the marketing industry I'm guessing that this data collection is the fundamental thing that gives such sites their enormous worth. Facebook, in particular can build up a very accurate demographical image of each user. This information can then be used to directly target the demographical group the user belongs to. I find this a little scary, personally.

Of course, data culling is not a new thing. What's perhaps the slightly iffy thing is that personal information collected by Facebook, etc, is controlled by one organisation. Giving that organisation great clout and power.

Creating a true commodity from information about you, the user.