Discussion:
[GNU/consensus] Social Resilience in Online Communities: The Autopsy of Friendster
Melvin Carvalho
2013-03-03 20:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Read a summary of findings at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/03/google-facebook-nothing-lasts-for-ever

Quite an interesting study here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6109

Adoption remains a key challenge for the federated social networks that
have, to date, tended to operate as balkanized islands, each with their own
protocol.

Perhaps some lessons from this story can help us to think of ways to
challenge the dominant players...
hellekin (GNU Consensus)
2013-03-03 23:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melvin Carvalho
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/03/google-facebook-nothing-lasts-for-ever
*** Thank you for posting that Melvin. I've read that article from [1]
and it mentions cascading defections from the network: if many users
have few friends, say one or two, a friend quitting the network gives an
incentive to her friend left with only one friend to quit as well,
triggering a chain reaction. When the cost of leaving the network
becomes less than the benefit of staying, people will rather quit.

Recently, Douglas Rushkoff wrote "Why I'm quitting Facebook" [2],
explaining that the new "related contents" that Facebook rolled out,
that are actually sponsored links, impersonate users at their own
detriment as regard to their reputation vis a vis their friends. He
finds that unacceptable, and resigned for that reason.

A friend of mine, who is using Facebook, translated the article into her
language and distributed it to her 400 contacts on Facebook. As she
knows having it on her wall will not reach out to her 400 contacts (they
will probably miss it), she started sending messages to all of them in
bulk. It seems that Facebook makes it easy to share what they want you
to share to all your contacts, but doesn't provide a feature to
broadcast messages to all of them at once. So she proceeded to message
them by chunks of about 30 people. Soon enough, she started receiving
messages from the system telling her that it was considered a spamming
behavior and that her account would be suspended if she persisted. All
that she wanted to do is tell her contacts that she's closing her
Facebook account, and that they can keep contacting her by email.

==
hk

[1]
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511846/an-autopsy-of-a-dead-social-network/
[2]
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html
Melvin Carvalho
2013-03-03 23:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melvin Carvalho
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/03/google-facebook-nothing-lasts-for-ever
*** Thank you for posting that Melvin. I've read that article from [1]
and it mentions cascading defections from the network: if many users
have few friends, say one or two, a friend quitting the network gives an
incentive to her friend left with only one friend to quit as well,
triggering a chain reaction. When the cost of leaving the network
becomes less than the benefit of staying, people will rather quit.
Recently, Douglas Rushkoff wrote "Why I'm quitting Facebook" [2],
explaining that the new "related contents" that Facebook rolled out,
that are actually sponsored links, impersonate users at their own
detriment as regard to their reputation vis a vis their friends. He
finds that unacceptable, and resigned for that reason.
A friend of mine, who is using Facebook, translated the article into her
language and distributed it to her 400 contacts on Facebook. As she
knows having it on her wall will not reach out to her 400 contacts (they
will probably miss it), she started sending messages to all of them in
bulk. It seems that Facebook makes it easy to share what they want you
to share to all your contacts, but doesn't provide a feature to
broadcast messages to all of them at once. So she proceeded to message
them by chunks of about 30 people. Soon enough, she started receiving
messages from the system telling her that it was considered a spamming
behavior and that her account would be suspended if she persisted. All
that she wanted to do is tell her contacts that she's closing her
Facebook account, and that they can keep contacting her by email.
Yes, it's unfortunate that facebook will resort to these tactics. They
have probably have the best adoption and interoperable technology in the
world, but they dont always use it for good. This is a common symptom when
you have shareholders looking for a quick profit. However tech-wise
facebook is the state of the art, imho...
What facebook did well was to master the LAMP stack (which is FOSS). In
theory, it would be quite easy to make an open source clone, but no one did
it (well elgg had a good try imho, but 2 devs can only do so much), and
LAMP has become quite unfashionable these days, so the gap has got wider.
Sorry, I meant to write Free and Open Source clone :)
Given that there are no alternatives people sort of feel trapped in
facebook, but because all their friends are there, it's hard to leave...
Post by Melvin Carvalho
==
hk
[1]
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511846/an-autopsy-of-a-dead-social-network/
[2]
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html
Melvin Carvalho
2013-03-03 23:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melvin Carvalho
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/03/google-facebook-nothing-lasts-for-ever
*** Thank you for posting that Melvin. I've read that article from [1]
and it mentions cascading defections from the network: if many users
have few friends, say one or two, a friend quitting the network gives an
incentive to her friend left with only one friend to quit as well,
triggering a chain reaction. When the cost of leaving the network
becomes less than the benefit of staying, people will rather quit.
Recently, Douglas Rushkoff wrote "Why I'm quitting Facebook" [2],
explaining that the new "related contents" that Facebook rolled out,
that are actually sponsored links, impersonate users at their own
detriment as regard to their reputation vis a vis their friends. He
finds that unacceptable, and resigned for that reason.
A friend of mine, who is using Facebook, translated the article into her
language and distributed it to her 400 contacts on Facebook. As she
knows having it on her wall will not reach out to her 400 contacts (they
will probably miss it), she started sending messages to all of them in
bulk. It seems that Facebook makes it easy to share what they want you
to share to all your contacts, but doesn't provide a feature to
broadcast messages to all of them at once. So she proceeded to message
them by chunks of about 30 people. Soon enough, she started receiving
messages from the system telling her that it was considered a spamming
behavior and that her account would be suspended if she persisted. All
that she wanted to do is tell her contacts that she's closing her
Facebook account, and that they can keep contacting her by email.
Yes, it's unfortunate that facebook will resort to these tactics. They
have probably have the best adoption and interoperable technology in the
world, but they dont always use it for good. This is a common symptom when
you have shareholders looking for a quick profit. However tech-wise
facebook is the state of the art, imho...

What facebook did well was to master the LAMP stack (which is FOSS). In
theory, it would be quite easy to make an open source clone, but no one did
it (well elgg had a good try imho, but 2 devs can only do so much), and
LAMP has become quite unfashionable these days, so the gap has got wider.

Given that there are no alternatives people sort of feel trapped in
facebook, but because all their friends are there, it's hard to leave...
Post by Melvin Carvalho
==
hk
[1]
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511846/an-autopsy-of-a-dead-social-network/
[2]
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html
hellekin (GNU Consensus)
2013-03-04 02:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Yes, it's unfortunate that facebook will resort to these tactics.
*** I cannot find it unfortunate, but rather a normal consequence of
their position. Facebook was never made to empower communities, but to
exploit the social graph, and the contempt of Zuckerberg for his users
is not a secret.
They have probably have the best adoption and interoperable technology
in the world, but they dont always use it for good.
*** I fear I won't ever be able to agree with you on that topic. I agree
with Jacob Appelbaum and Dmitry Kleiner that Facebook, and most
centralized social networking platforms, that happen to be commercial,
have surveillance as the foundation of their business model.
(well elgg had a good try imho, but 2 devs can only do so much),
and LAMP has become quite unfashionable these days, so the gap has got
wider.
*** Yes, working with small teams has its drawbacks. But we're trying
with Lorea to upscale our reach to developers. I agree that the
technology is not the best, but as far as PHP is concerned, I think Elgg
offers the best potential for success. Moreover, n-1 benefits from a
strong support base, where inhabitants--as we call "users" have an
exceptional resilience on the network's glitches and flow in for ethical
reasons.
Given that there are no alternatives people sort of feel trapped in
facebook, but because all their friends are there, it's hard to leave...
*** They are. My take is that fixing the federation for good, and
providing easy access to the code, by packaging it GNU-style, and
shipping it to the major GNU/Linux distros, can provide a space for more
contributions, and better interoperability with other projects. That
position is half of what prompted me to start the GNU/consensus project.
The other half is that I believe there is a path from the current
situation to a fully peer-to-peer solution, given that we can cooperate
over time to ensure seamless convergence.

My mantra for this: localhost, where your social networking belongs.

==
hk
Melvin Carvalho
2013-03-04 09:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by hellekin (GNU Consensus)
Yes, it's unfortunate that facebook will resort to these tactics.
*** I cannot find it unfortunate, but rather a normal consequence of
their position. Facebook was never made to empower communities, but to
exploit the social graph, and the contempt of Zuckerberg for his users
is not a secret.
They have probably have the best adoption and interoperable technology
in the world, but they dont always use it for good.
*** I fear I won't ever be able to agree with you on that topic. I agree
with Jacob Appelbaum and Dmitry Kleiner that Facebook, and most
centralized social networking platforms, that happen to be commercial,
have surveillance as the foundation of their business model.
Sure, but to build a viable alternative, it would be wise to see what the
industry leader has done well, and also, what they have done badly.
Sometimes to be successful, you need to separate ethics from technology.
Take the good technology, but reject the bad ethics.
Post by hellekin (GNU Consensus)
(well elgg had a good try imho, but 2 devs can only do so much),
and LAMP has become quite unfashionable these days, so the gap has got
wider.
*** Yes, working with small teams has its drawbacks. But we're trying
with Lorea to upscale our reach to developers. I agree that the
technology is not the best, but as far as PHP is concerned, I think Elgg
offers the best potential for success. Moreover, n-1 benefits from a
strong support base, where inhabitants--as we call "users" have an
exceptional resilience on the network's glitches and flow in for ethical
reasons.
The primary problem is lack of developers.

We could have fixed this 2 years ago, when GNU social and elgg offered to
join forces. In fact, the planets were aligning with Tim Berners-Lee
helping to advise how to build a scalable web architecture.

Instead GNU made a big bet on OStatus, and has turned out to be
unsuccessful. GNU are making the same bet again. Wasn't einstein's
definition of insanity, "Doing the same thing again and expecting different
results"? :P The GNU Consensus still contains Web 2.0 Advocacy, even to
the extent of promoting protocols that you should watch what Eben Moglen
had to say about this in 2007.

http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/08/my-tonguelashing-from-eben-mog.html

n-1 was pretty awesome 2 years ago or so, especially with caedes. There is
a person that knows web 2.0 and web 3.0 inside out, and is able to take the
best parts and put them together. My impression of n-1 is that it has gone
backwards -- no more WebID login, the front page seems to be full of weight
loss commercials etc. Nevertheless lorea has done some very good work, at
least in bringing people together.

Working together with elgg now (if that happens) is perhaps good step, but
the gap has widened.
Post by hellekin (GNU Consensus)
Given that there are no alternatives people sort of feel trapped in
facebook, but because all their friends are there, it's hard to leave...
*** They are. My take is that fixing the federation for good, and
providing easy access to the code, by packaging it GNU-style, and
shipping it to the major GNU/Linux distros, can provide a space for more
contributions, and better interoperability with other projects. That
position is half of what prompted me to start the GNU/consensus project.
The other half is that I believe there is a path from the current
situation to a fully peer-to-peer solution, given that we can cooperate
over time to ensure seamless convergence.
My mantra for this: localhost, where your social networking belongs.
I've been following this argument for many years :)

I've listened to arguments for P2P solutions, such as psyc etc. for many
year. I think there is a case for over inventing, and that's the something
facebook didnt do too much of. They simply embraced the web, and then much
later, email, and xmpp. But the web came first. I know the urge to create
something new is strong, but please dont forget that HTTP was designed to
work across federated servers. You may look at tent.io for some
inspiration.

The reason I think this is important in the social networking is because
adoption drives the network effect. This is part of the reason for the
failure of friendster orkut myspace etc., as pointed out in the original
paper. Let's try not to make the same mistakes again, embrace the web in
the same way facebook did, dont reinvent, but make it free software.
Post by hellekin (GNU Consensus)
==
hk
Loading...