Facebook, The CIA and Neoconservativism

[Crispy]

threads merged

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I think lots of them are terrified by it because it fundamentally alters their role as informational gatekeepers, and those who don't understand what positive benefits it could have see it as reducing their status in society.

Nail on the head.

 

[untethered]

As for the Greenfield article, he freely admits it's personal experience and 'common sense' he's using to back up his assertions...they're good observations, but nothing that cannot be overcome by coding networking sites.

Then why hasn't a social networking site got it right, yet? They have plenty of resources (MySpace, Facebook, Google Orkut, etc.).

How would you create a social networking website that both reflected the constantly shifting nuances of our relationships with other people and was also usable?

But other than that I think most of it comes down to people being fuckmuppets and not thinking about what they do, or bothering to read and digest privacy settings.

I agree that people need to take responsibility for looking before they leap. There are two problems, however. One is that often the policies of a site can change overnight and leave people exposed in ways they hadn't previously agreed to. The other is that when sites gain sufficient traction they become de facto monopolies which people have little choice but to participate in (accepting the rules and restrictions) if they want to be part of a certain group. People like Facebook know they have a hold over their users and can do broadly whatever they like - at least until there's some serious competition and the entire focus shifts to the next big thing.

It's like eBay and PayPal - many people don't like aspects of their service but if you want to sell things online on a small scale you have very little choice but to use them. And if you get banned by one of them, that puts you pretty much out of the game permanently.

What we need are interoperable systems where the infrastructure is open, like email. No-one can "ban" you from using email and the terms on which you'll use the system will vary by provider, giving you real choice.

 

[Crispy]

Absofuckinlutely. Email works with everyone and no one company can control it.

 

[untethered]

Absof-inlutely. Email works with everyone and no one company can control it.

Which, of course, is why there's so much work being done on standards for open/portable social networks.

 

[Crispy]

Which, of course, is why there's so much work being done on standards for open/portable social networks.

I've heard about this. Are facebook and myspace on board?

 

[untethered]

I've heard about this. Are facebook and myspace on board?

Google and Facebook are both trying to create platforms/APIs with varying degrees of openness and as far as I know, little interoperability.

Google's OpenSocial includes:

Engage.com, Friendster, hi5, Hyves, imeem, LinkedIn, MySpace, Ning, Oracle, orkut, Plaxo, Salesforce.com, Six Apart, Tianji, Viadeo, and XING

http://mashable.com/2007/11/02/opensocial-now-live/

Yes, MySpace is in there.

 

[kyser_soze]

Storm in a teacup. So far, every single time a net monopoly has emerged, something better has come along to challenge it. Here's a simple point - if someone codes a better site that allows greater levels of discretion to the user (if that's the really important thing people want), then people will go there. Internet monopolies don't last if someone comes along with a good enough app with features people want to use.

You want a better version of Paypal, write one and sell it into websites. You want a better auction site, go to somewhere that's not ebay (there are others out there). What pisses me off is attitudes like yours - oh, there's only one of this thing therefore I must use it, or be protected...fuck that, the web offers more opportunity for innovation within it's own limitations than any other way of doing business, but unless you're first mover with something genuinely original (as fb and myspace were when they launched..OK, fb wasn't the first of it's type, but it was the first to reach the tipping point because it offered features people wanted) you have to work at it.

 

[untethered]

Storm in a teacup. So far, every single time a net monopoly has emerged, something better has come along to challenge it. Here's a simple point - if someone codes a better site that allows greater levels of discretion to the user (if that's the really important thing people want), then people will go there. Internet monopolies don't last if someone comes along with a good enough app with features people want to use.

And what if the monopoly persists and some people who are either banned from using it or decline to use it are effectively excluded from an important part of social or economic life? Facebook may be relatively vulnerable but I don't see the eBay/PayPal monopoly being broken any time soon.

You want a better version of Paypal, write one and sell it into websites. You want a better auction site, go to somewhere that's not ebay (there are others out there).

Have you ever been on any other auction sites? Noticed the echoes? Even big players like Amazon haven't been able to succeed in breaking eBay's monopoly, with all their hundreds of millions of registered accounts.

You can build it, but it doesn't mean that they will come. And just because they don't come doesn't mean that your system isn't technically, legally or socially better. It might just mean that an incumbent player has established traction and the inertia of getting people to use a new system, even a better one, is to great.

What pisses me off is attitudes like yours - oh, there's only one of this thing therefore I must use it, or be protected...f- that, the web offers more opportunity for innovation within it's own limitations than any other way of doing business, but unless you're first mover with something genuinely original (as fb and myspace were when they launched..OK, fb wasn't the first of it's type, but it was the first to reach the tipping point because it offered features people wanted) you have to work at it.

And do we also have to accept that while emergent competitors are "working at it" and trying to break an established monopoly, consumers will either get a raw deal or be excluded from an area of life entirely?

If someone came along with a proprietary email system that was seemingly better than what we have at the moment and the mass of users flocked to it to the point where it was impossible to engage in net life without using it, wouldn't you see a problem there? Because that's exactly what's happening with VOIP and Skype.

 

[pinkmonkey]

I don't have anything to hide anyway.

<throws sheep at self>

 

[Lowrider]

Absofuckinlutely. Email works with everyone and no one company can control it.

And that same Guardian writer who did the Facebook piece has opted out of email as well. 'Email was becoming a distraction, a burden rather than a liberation'. Then he admits at the end of the piece that he has set up an account just to file stories.

www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/07/comment.comment

All very inconsistent and rather pointless - as with this piece, I'm sure there are some good points to make about Facebook but they're lost in his burning envy of wealthy entreprenuers and woolly reasoning.

 

[untethered]

I don't have anything to hide anyway.

<throws sheep at self>

Let's have copies of your birth certificate, bank statments, payslips, love letters/emails, etc. in your next post then.

 

[editor]

You can build it, but it doesn't mean that they will come. And just because they don't come doesn't mean that your system isn't technically, legally or socially better. It might just mean that an incumbent player has established traction and the inertia of getting people to use a new system, even a better one, is to great.

Agree. I fucking hate Murdoch, but when it comes to looking for bands and running a club, I can't afford to not be on MySpace.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Storm in a teacup. So far, every single time a net monopoly has emerged, something better has come along to challenge it.

Again nail/head. This is exactly what a mate of mine (web designer) said to me recently. He commented that reactions like this show a fundemental ignorance about the basics of the net and how it changes...

 

[untethered]

And that same Guardian writer who did the Facebook piece has opted out of email as well. 'Email was becoming a distraction, a burden rather than a liberation'. Then he admits at the end of the piece that he has set up an account just to file stories.

www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/07/comment.comment

All very inconsistent and rather pointless - as with this piece, I'm sure there are some good points to make about Facebook but they're lost in his burning envy of wealthy entreprenuers and woolly reasoning.

Agreed that a general Luddite approach to technology doesn't make one a very credible commentator on it.

But I think the information about the people behind Facebook was interesting and will be useful to many people.

 

[untethered]

Again nail/head. This is exactly what a mate of mine (web designer) said to me recently. He commented that reactions like this show a fundemental ignorance about the basics of the net and how it changes...

On the contrary, I think your friend has a fundamental misunderstanding about how lightly-regulated markets work.

Again, I ask the question: is it acceptable for consumers to get a raw deal while we're waiting for a better competitor to come along and unseat the incumbent? And what's to stop that company subsequently adopting similar policies to the people they've replaced.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Adam Greenfield (most definitely one of the tech cognoscenti) has an interesting piece on the perils of social networking. Primarily his concern is the damage it does to real, valuable and nuanced social relationships.

http://speedbird.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/antisocial-networking/

That's a bit more interesting than the usual FB stole my life/CIA will make you a lizard via FB stories...

 

[kyser_soze]

And what if the monopoly persists and some people who are either banned from using it or decline to use it are effectively excluded from an important part of social or economic life? Facebook may be relatively vulnerable but I don't see the eBay/PayPal monopoly being broken any time soon.



Have you ever been on any other auction sites? Noticed the echoes? Even big players like Amazon haven't been able to succeed in breaking eBay's monopoly, with all their hundreds of millions of registered accounts.

You can build it, but it doesn't mean that they will come. And just because they don't come doesn't mean that your system isn't technically, legally or socially better. It might just mean that an incumbent player has established traction and the inertia of getting people to use a new system, even a better one, is to great.



And do we also have to accept that while emergent competitors are "working at it" and trying to break an established monopoly, consumers will either get a raw deal or be excluded from an area of life entirely?

If someone came along with a proprietary email system that was seemingly better than what we have at the moment and the mass of users flocked to it to the point where it was impossible to engage in net life without using it, wouldn't you see a problem there? Because that's exactly what's happening with VOIP and Skype.

Do you know what I hear? Whine whine whine whine. Who exactly is being excluded from life by not using fb? How many people are unjustly banned from ebay? All you're talking about here are the same competition pressures facing any new entrant into a marketplace - if you're really that concerned about ebay, skype etc than make a structured, legal complaint to the EU competition commission, complete with evidence of monopoly abuses, examples and evidence of consumer issues etc.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

On the contrary, I think your friend has a fundamental misunderstanding about how lightly-regulated markets work.

Again, I ask the question: is it acceptable for consumers to get a raw deal while we're waiting for a better competitor to come along and unseat the incumbent? And what's to stop that company subsequently adopting similar policies to the people they've replaced.

It's acceptable that 'consumers' can get off their arses and create something new.

 

[untethered]

It's acceptable that 'consumers' can get off their arses and create something new.

Do you have the resources to create the next MySpace, Facebook, eBay, PayPal or Skype? I certainly don't.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Do you have the resources to create the next MySpace, Facebook, eBay, PayPal or Skype? I certainly don't.

I know a guy. Well a few in fact. Also you could take the DIY ethic into the digital domain...

 

[kyser_soze]

Do you have the resources to create the next MySpace, Facebook, eBay, PayPal or Skype? I certainly don't.

Since you can't code, no you don't, but every single one of these now huge companies started off as bedroom projects, as did most of the major websites on the internet. I'd suggest you go and have a look at the histories of IT companies untethered, cos your ignorance is really showing.

 

[untethered]

Do you know what I hear? Whine whine whine whine. Who exactly is being excluded from life by not using fb?

In many schools and universities, being on Facebook is an essential part of social life. No-one is necessarily being excluded but they are being forced into a position where they have to accept Facebook's terms to participate in having a social life with their classmates. Is that a good thing?

How many people are unjustly banned from ebay?

According to eBay, I'm sure none. But they are legislator, judge, jury and court of appeal in their own private domain. Again I ask, is it acceptable that an individual or small business should have to accept eBay and PayPal's terms to be able to effectively trade online?

All you're talking about here are the same competition pressures facing any new entrant into a marketplace - if you're really that concerned about ebay, skype etc than make a structured, legal complaint to the EU competition commission, complete with evidence of monopoly abuses, examples and evidence of consumer issues etc.

I imagine if the competition commission were that competent they'd be pursuing these matters proactively. They haven't seemed to have had much effect so far on Microsoft, despite a very lengthy process.

 

[corporate whore]

That Guardian article's alarmist shite.

At the time of writing Facebook claims 59 million active users, including 7 million in the UK, Facebook's third-biggest customer after the US and Canada. That's 59 million suckers, all of whom have volunteered their ID card information and consumer preferences to an American business they know nothing about.

ID card info? Consumer preferences? Really?

 

[jæd]

Since you can't code, no you don't, but every single one of these now huge companies started off as bedroom projects, as did most of the major websites on the internet. I'd suggest you go and have a look at the histories of IT companies untethered, cos your ignorance is really showing.

Yup. To write the new Facebook would just take time... If written correctly it would be scaled up accordingly as needed...

 

[untethered]

Since you can't code, no you don't, but every single one of these now huge companies started off as bedroom projects, as did most of the major websites on the internet. I'd suggest you go and have a look at the histories of IT companies untethered, cos your ignorance is really showing.

Not only can I code, but I am very well aware of the history of the Internet, having been on it since it started.

Yes, many of today's big players started somewhere small. But they staked out their territory and (depending on who you're talking about) a combination of market dynamics and anti-competitive practices have ensured that once domination of a particular market has been established it is rarely relinquished.

Microsoft started with two geeks and a couple of bright ideas. But that was 1975. Are you suggesting that someone could create a startup in 2008 to replace MS as the dominant desktop operating system in the near future?

Google started with two grad students, a bright idea and a $100,000 cheque from a friend in the business. But that was 1997. What would it take to start a business to challenge them in the search market now, let alone anywhere else?

Smart entrepreneurs aren't starting ventures in these fields. They're going for territory not necessarily where they are literally the first entrant but where there is substantial room for expanding the market and often where there is an established service whose existing user base can be poached wholesale with a better offering.

 

[untethered]

Yup. To write the new Facebook would just take time... If written correctly it would be scaled up accordingly as needed...

But it's not the code that's the issue.

It's the userbase, the marketing, the market share.

I could code the next Facebook but there would be absolutely no point in me doing so and I very much doubt anyone would fund it.

It's not a technical issue, it's a business issue.

 

[untethered]

I know a guy. Well a few in fact. Also you could take the DIY ethic into the digital domain...

I know a guy. A few in fact. In fact, I'm also one of them. What's your point?

The next Facebook just needs a few hackers and a following wind? I don't think so.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yet more woefully uninformed comment from untethered ahoy!

Do you have examples of people being excluded from life because they aren't on fb? Is that ANY different to being excluded from any social group for any one of the million arbitrary reasons you could be excluded? On the basis of the fashions you wear, or the fact you support a different sports team?

According to eBay, I'm sure none. But they are legislator, judge, jury and court of appeal in their own private domain. Again I ask, is it acceptable that an individual or small business should have to accept eBay and PayPal's terms to be able to effectively trade online?

Then trade using your own website; use one of the hundreds of possible avenues to making a sale on the internet. How about setting your own website up and using affilaite networks? There are alternatives to Paypal as well, not to mention alternative auction sites.

I imagine if the competition commission were that competent they'd be pursuing these matters proactively. They haven't seemed to have had much effect so far on Microsoft, despite a very lengthy process.

Ah, so the the EUs rulings on MS, complete with the biggest fines levied against a corporation in the world don't matter then?

Your lack of knowledge in this area makes this a poor performance even by your own low standards.

 

[jæd]

I could code the next Facebook but there would be absolutely no point in me doing so and I very much doubt anyone would fund it.

It's not a technical issue, it's a business issue.

Incorrect. It's not a just technical issue, it's also business issue.

No-one gets any where by saying "I can't". Perhaps you can't, but there are others (including people I know) who are good at the marketing side...