The news of a few days ago that Microsoft has bought a stake in Facebook has not suprisingly got the blogosphere talking. Mainly because it’s a HUGE sum of money (yes, that really was £117 million quid for a 1.6% stake..) but also because anything involving Facebook gets media attention right now. Here’s a Google Trends snapshot of how Facebook has grabbed both search and media attention over the past 3 years:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve blogged a lot over on Electronic Museum about the opportunities opened to us by these kind of social networking experiences but also about what it means for the various companies involved to be open with their data.

Facebook’s Platform seemingly answered a lot of these issues, but at close inspection it isn’t all that it appears to be. Yes, Facebook provides data to the Platform so that developers can build on it, BUT they don’t provide data OUT. There’s a few RSS feeds which can be grabbed, but not a whole lot more. Meanwhile, of course, LinkedIn and MySpace have both announced similar developer-esque platforms with as yet undefined edges: the extent to which these sites will provide data to the outside world (or not) remains a point of much discussion.

Where does the social graph go from here?

Whatever the end result, there’s a much bigger issue afoot, and it rests on usability, privacy, attention data and a whole host of web2ish concepts around identity. It is about taking Facebook’s notion of the Social Graph: the “..network of connections and relationships between people on the service” and asking where does this go now?

In a world where social networks becomes the norm (and yes, we’re in it..), we can make some pretty easy assumptions:

1. We’re likely (thank God) to see an internet with an extended and complex Social Graph (read: many, many social network sites)

2. We like and use some of these more than others

3. We are really bored of putting in the same details on more than one site

4. Just as in real life, our context changes how we use these. If I’m 14 (I’m not..) then I’ll probably spend time on Bebo. If I’m 35 (I am) then I spend time on Facebook. If I’m 35 and freelancing or running my own business (I’m not) then I spend time on LinkedIn. If I’m in a band (I’m not at the moment) then I spend time on MySpace. If I’m looking for a band to be in (I am) then I spend time on MusoFinder.

You get the picture: lots and lots of sites do great social type things really well, but they all require investment in inputting data that is constant and consistent across all of them. No matter which of these sites I want to spend time on right now, I’m still 35 and not 14. My name is still Mike. I’m still married, and have kids. I still live in Bath. And I’m still really irritated that I have to change these details across multiple sites should anything change.

Right now, Facebook is the social app of choice. So as users we’re all inputting data like crazy, building our own social graph, uploading and tagging photos, sharing with friends. But what about when Microsoft buys the other 98.4%? What if Google does instead? What happens when my mates start moving over to www.anotherdamnsocialnetworksite.com and I’m left high and dry with no-one in Facebook? What if the Facebook servers turn out to be horribly virus-ridden and all melt, deleting my social graph, images and wall posts since the dawn of time? What if Facebook’s CEO turns out to be an alien trying to take over the world and I want to remove all my data from his green, slime-covered servers?

I’m being slightly fatuous (although have you seen Facebook’s CEO - I’m sure that’s a tentacle..) but the point is a serious one:

The social graph shouldn’t be owned by just one company.

The only possible solution is a distributed social graph: a way of managing this complex set of relationships which is outside any one company, not owned or distributed by any one entity: an internet-like social graph which maintains itself, has complete clarity of data input and output and a hugely strong security model. 

Brad Fitzpatrick explains the whole issue really well and suggests a range of ways in which we could move ahead. It makes for fascinating reading. 

As he says, this isn’t about getting rid of Facebook - it’s a great, usable social networking resource. But these issues should also make people a bit wary about putting all their social eggs into one - albeit large - basket.

 

1. John Taylor Says:
   April 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm

   Interesting blog post. What would you say was the most important marketing factor?

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website