Querycasting ~ broadcasting/transmission of queries to/amongst select (qualfied, willing, able) “friends”. The future of search as a social platforn enabled function.
New thread at WebmasterWorld, about Facebook Launching Facebook Questions beta triggered a memory of a discussion I launched at WMW several years ago entitled “The Death of Facebook – Social Networking on the Fly. (Sorry, original thread is posted in the part of WMW that requires a paid subscription. )
Here’s what I posted in 2007. What follows are MY posts/comments only, republished here as a) it’s only my comments, and no one else’s, so no one else’s semi-private thoughts are revealed; and, b) I hold the copyright on everything I post, only granting a “soft license” to WMW or any other place where I publish my thoughts, so “it’s perfectly legal” to republish them. 
(If you want to read the entire dialogue then it’s time to pony up, as I did, to join WMW’s “Supporter’s Forums”. Over the years, since my membership in 2003, I’ve certainly got my money’s worth back.)
****************** (< - Indicates separate post I made)
Something has been bugging me, so allow me to just spit it out. It likely won't make perfect sense as it's an idea in motion.
Social media platforms clamor for "members" to "join" their social media platform, and will do so long as there is a buck to be made. The social media model of "owning members" - i.e., registered users - uses membership as a market value metric. (Lucky you. You're a commodity.)
AFAIC, membership driven social networking is a dinosaur waiting for its meteoric extinction. Any number of forces can or will serve as the meteor: marketing excess, privacy concerns, decreasing returns on time invested, market specialization, etc.
Here's the future of social networking, which I say isn't that far away. It is, in part, a forecast emboldened by a) my discovery that folks have been laboring on the issue of "portable identity"; b) the fact that online socializing is a force to be reckoned with; c) the fact that paid "dating sites" appear poised to financially take it on the chin, and struggle to validate their value by suggesting they offer a secret sauce of screening members; and d) a dozen other forces in motion, including some bizarre evaluations of the value of Facebook and the fact that Facebook has opened their API and looks to be opening their member's personal data:
Social Graph, a/k/a "Who are you? Why should I bother?"
* XML or "standards based" social data.
* 100,1000, 10000 tags, I don't much care: High School, College, 1st Employer, Whatever.
* Social Graph, a/k/a My Personal Data, Storage? Ya, on my own darned PC or PDA or whatever. "It's my damned data, you cannot have it all, thank-you very much!"
* Data Verification? Are we ready for it? Sure, I am. I'd really like to know a bit more about "you". Those who are compelled to hide, remain anonymous can do as they please.
* Verification: 1 or 2 lines are "verified", i.e., "You are, in fact, you." I don't care who verifies it: Thwaite, Credit Reporting Agency, whatever. I'm assigned a unique encrypted identifier that says "THIS is the REAL Webwork". (Lucky you)
* Other than verification I control - locally - how much "about me" is released at any moment. Not everyone, all the time, needs to know about my first job, my children, whatever. (Note to World: Profiles really need not be all that inclusive "to work" - in any given interaction.)
"Membership" in Social Networking 9.0?
* Forget being a member. This is real world social networking "on the fly". Not by login but by broadcast and reception or listening.
* Broadcast? A desktop application? Register a query: "Buy from India bulk green tea". "Talk about last night's candidate debate". "Man, age 34, looking for dinner date in Philadelphia Friday night".
* The query is cached & matched.
* Cache? Ummmm . . Google, can you do this?
* Cross-match, qualify, validate and feedback. "The following people/companies have responded, fit your query interest, etc."
* Qualify? You choose. "Only validated businesses." (Filed as entity with Government + Credit Reporting Agency status? BBB? Their equivalent in any country.)
* IF QUALIFY & VALIDATE: Specify social networking media -> IM, Forum, Blog
* Anonymous? Possible, up to transaction point. Opt out for any party previously validated that rejects anonymity.
Social Networking “On the Fly”?
* Social media as a service.
* Paid? Monetized by ads? I don’t much care. Probably ad based.
* Does my identity have to be passed to “the social networking space host” or need on the fact that I am validated be passed? Methinks only the validation (digital certificate) part need be passed.
* “On the fly”: Social networking space is created and destroyed within the specified time limits. “The forum” space exists for 72 hours as a hosted app with assigned storage then it’s wiped. “Do business or die.”
* Want to organize a class reunion or get together? Rent more space. Pay more to have the application(s) serve the space for longer times?
* Bidding to “host the space”? Sure, why not.
* Open source apps versus pay for the social network space (server metrics), storage (server metrics), bandwidth? Yep.
* Social networking space is only accessible/visible to those qualified and invited. (Possible pre-qualification steps.)
I don’t see this version of social networking as far off in the future. Validating “who am I”? Not too hard. Social networking “as a service”? I’m not a programmer but my guess is “not too hard”, mostly an issue of data access and storage. Cross-matching interests of verfied participants? Hmmmm. It’s been going on for awhile in a variety of applications. Uncertain about a match in the “new social networking world”? Then offer the service as an escalating system: Email query -> IM sessions -> Forum/Blog session -> Video conferencing. All destroyed after X days/hours, including email addresses. All with the option to extend as an adjunct service.
Do people care to be “owned” – be compelled to “membership” – in order to socialize?
What about putting time and effort into one’s membership only to have a new corporate boss trash the elements of the service that made it attractice?
UNLESS there is a compelling reason for “memberhip in order to socialize” why should we bother? What is that compelling reason for membership? Exclusivity? Well, hell, do I have to be a member in order to achieve “exclusivity” OR can I all the better achieve exclusivity – inclusion/exclusion – by specific invitation? (Yes, they’re working on this issue at social network sites, because it’s a real issue.)
What about a social network where you are able to specify who yhou are – to whatever degree you believe disclosure “for that issue” will help – and to further specify “I want to speak with A who is trained in B and has X years experience”. AND to broadcast to an entire world of folks who are prepared to not be anonymouse.
I don’t necessarily want to keep loading up my personal data. I suspect I’m not alone so I’m prepared to guess that one imperative of the “social graph” is likely ubiquitous: “Is it really worth it to me to sign-up again and again and again”.
Do I want to expose my social graph? No, not really. I don’t need nor want the who world to “know me”. I’m not embarrassed nor am I particularly private. I just don’t feel a strong desire – or feel overwhelming benefits from – “putting it out there”. Too bad for the hungry marketers.
My very best guess of the future is that social media membership will run up against the law of diminishing returns. I can think of a dozen reasons why the existing social networking model will lose a great deal of steam when “on the fly” networking takes hold.
Who needs to ally one’s self with 30,000,000 million “other members” of Facebook when your living room only seats 12?
I may still enjoy the fruits of “club membership” but, as far as I can tell, the model will be suffering a breakdown in the near future and it will be a healthy one.
Alrighty, if you’ve reached this point you either see the same things I see evolving or have been pondering the same or I simply sucked you into some mindless rambling. I hope it’s not the latter. ;-P
So, I guess I’ve got a question: For all the excitement and crazy evaluations surrounding Facebook is there a good chance that Facebook will face an inglorious death in the next 5 years? My money is on a big YES.
My best guess is that, despite all the talk about the big valuations and big number surrounding Facebook those numbers will not materialize in a big payday for Facebook – unless some knucklehead company without vision and ability and with a fat pocketbook ponies up. (Read: Microsmurf)
Why? Because social networking is an application that serves people and not a website. Build me a better application and I’m gone. Facebook is attempting to add value – by opening the API – but “it’s” still only a social application – the modern day equivalent of the popular new bar or restaurant.
Can anyone predict that they will squeeze $10 billion in value out of Facebook before another social networking application emerges? I doubt it. Who has the clout and technology to take social networking to a new level? New possibilities? Social networking where YOU create networks, on the fly, with not commitment and no external ownership “of you”.
I don’t want to be owned. I don’t want my personal data owned. I don’t want to keep updating my data everywhere. I dont’ want to have to keep signing up. I don’t want to have to expose my “social data” any more than is necessary. I would really prefer to socially network in a platform independent way. I want my freedom. I don’t care to, again and again, be defined as “member”. I’m a member of the human race and would very much like access to the entire human race. I would like to be able to say “This is who I am. Do you know me? Do you want to know me? Well, hell, the door is open IF . . ”
Social networking on my – your – own terms. Wanna bet someone is working on it and that, when realized, Facebook is either a) dead; or, b) makes its coin as an entity that offers social networking services.
Ya, so there it is. A future of social networking as a service and not a club or website where I belong or am somehow “owned”.
Facebook as you know it is dead. Wanna bet? ;-P
********************
Allow me to simplify this a bit.
I’m not saying “this thing” – the concept being worked out called a social graph – spells doom for “community”.
Will it kill your forum? Not necessarily, but it may serve as a vehicle for the spawning of special issue/interest forums on the fly.
“Social networking” is software that enables people to do what they do – communicate, relate – online, within the construct of digital relating. But that’s ALL there is to it – software. No people? Pointless software.
What do people really want?
What does on online service provider really want?
Bored people? Unfocused people? People whose time appears to be of little value to themselves, who can spend hours searching, sifting, whatever?
It’s my best guess that we’re going through a period of luxury – the luxury being the indulgent passing of hours – that the world and its economy may not support indefinitely. That’s only one factor that may drive a “new and improved version of social networking”.
Other factors? I’m sure you all can name them. Please do. Spell it out why Facebook, in its current manifestation, will perish.
Please confirm that I’m not entirely nuts about social networking’s future as a non-membership driven “service”, where integral data about people will not be “owned” by any company or its website but will only be exposed on an “as needed” basis, voluntarily, and where social relations can take shape and take place on a non-owned platform, likely open source, that is hosted and that the value is in the value of the hosting and how the service is delivered.
More privacy? Likely.
More control? Likely.
More secure? Validation would likely be a +.
More effective? That’s a software thing.
So, Google offers an on the fly social networking service that offers escalation (IM->on up), that scales (it’s a storage issue), that is query friendly and capable (who has better technology?) and that enables social networking in a less time killing and more focused way.
I’m sure there will still be room for MySpace for adults. It will be called Facebook. ;-P
*****************
Man . . social networking “as a platform, not a place” (access to all the value of best-of-breed social networking apps, unbound from the need to access a specific website) . . plus the emergence of a fully transportable “social graph” (no need to keep building a profile for each site and the possibility of carrying relationships and reputation with you, instead of having to start from scratch at each site) . . plus social networking trending towards niche interest (re-trending, due to empowering tools so small sites, with a social element, can compete) . . plus the social economics of increasing social networking value by increasing exclusivity/selectivity and decreasing social noise by empowering niche sites (empowering niche sites with tools so they can compete with “take all comers sites, such as Facebook) . . . with all that tasty new “data” for Google and all the Google apps likely optimized for easy optional integration with Google’s APIs and Google as a “media – advertising/marketing – partner” to “help you” produce income (and them) by unleashing the capitalist spirit . . .
Imagine all the water behind a dam. To me, that is a fair analogy to forces “for real social networking”, i.e., social networking unbound from a place, profile data ownership (by anyone but yourself), unbound from a particular application provider.
If Google can facilitate the unbinding of the urge or drive “to be social” from the many current constrants – such as place (website) or specific application provicer – and remove the burden of having to constantly rebuild network connections or reputation, well . . that will really be something.
My money is that given the social pressure (implicit demand) a new version of social networking will come roaring on the scene, sooner rather than later. Membership optional.
One big key: Access to and control of my information “is desktop”, not network property. Having the ability to regulate the flow of personal data, on a opt-in and scale basis, will be essential to opening social networking.
*****************
What’s interesting is that as value generating opportunity social networking – as it is now structured or “operates” – is a wee bit inefficient.
Imagine a search engine driven version of social networking that enabled the broadcasting an issue (contract law question) tied to a verified profile (adult, male, business owner, USA) that would operate as the catalyst for the formation of an on-the-fly meet up, introduction, preliminary discussion and choice making “event”. (Somewhat described above as a destructible social network.)
Sure, we have had access to forums for posting issues. We’ve even had access to Yahoo answers, but is that as good as it gets? Is that version the most efficient version “for real business”?
I can see a very real future for on the fly, authenticated member and authenticated member credentials social networking. Authentication is key, as well as personal control of the “by social event” disclosure of personal information.
Again, this operates version of social networking flies if the time you wish to spend online is driven by any business interest, or at least of more issue focused agenda. If you just want to pass the time, chatter, egobate, whatever there’s already abundant channels for that.
*****************
Something akin to a personal ~SSL certificate, which may facilitate both identity authentication and allow for encryption of personal information?
No related posts.