7 comments

• 

  Voyagerfan5761

  1 year ago

  w00t, another person who agrees with me that Google Reader's shared items thing was crap! (You don't mind my dropping that link, do you? I hope not...) I feel very strongly that the shared items from friends feature was implemented very incorrectly, and that Google left it in place after much resistance from the community.
  reply
• 

  Matt

  1 year ago

  I'm certainly agreeing with the vibe of this post... i do think friendfeed (the concept if nothing else) is changing the way we even think of social networking... it beats the pants of a service as a social network... it instead makes a social network out of services that cater to an exact need... if i were just now starting to build something i would likely steer clear of many of the traditional "Social" aspects. the life streaming is simply the way i predict more and more people are going to elect to socialize around "their web". it hasn't been addressed enough, i don't think, as THE social network of all things, networks and non alike. i guess we gotta let people warm up to the idea that it's even useful before we start to drop the "you'll leave facebook for this, i kid you not" on them. ;)
  reply
• 

  chris

  1 year ago

  I disagree. I say let the market decide. If people didn't sign up for these services, companies wouldn't develop them. I think the social networks have been too broad for the most part, and folks are enjoying the niche sites that pop up.
  reply
• 

  Corvida

  1 year ago

  @Chris it's becoming way too congested though and time consuming.
  reply
• 

  Jarred

  1 year ago

  It may be becoming too congested, but I think what Chris is pointing out is that eventually the supply and demand will sort that out. If people want a social network for every interest, then people will develop social networks for every interest. If the market decides they'd rather have a few big players, then the niche networks will die off. But to determine the equilibrium, you have to dance on both sides of the balance first.
  
  I think social networking as a feature, rather than a service, is the future. I think within the next few years, every site that is created will have built in social networking features. It's just the next step in how we interact with content: first it was disengaged, then there were accounts, then feeds and comments, and now full engagement and partial "owenership."
  
  This, too, is congesting ("Who wants a different account for every site?", as you point out). That's where I think a big player like Facebook or Google will step in and try to offer a "super account" that basically just adds the new site on to your profile. No more signing up, fogetting passwords and usernames, or going to an account you haven't been to in months and finding that your picture is way out-of-date. Everything will be centralized and pushed to the satellite sites.
  
  I agree that it's getting a little silly with the number of services out there, but I don't think calling for them to "just stop it!" will really make them ignore market forces.
  reply
• 

  Bill Arneson

  1 year ago

  I thought I was the only person on the web who doesn't care about Facebook, or any widget made for Facebook.
  reply
• 

  Corvida

  1 year ago

  @Jarred I don't expect it to slow down at all. I just wanted to complain. =P
  
  @Bill Arneson No you're not! I've blocked 70% of them. The other 30 hasn't reached me yet.
  reply