It scares me how little some Web 2.0 CEO's, pundits and evangelists actually seem to "know" about the value and application of social networks. One recently claimed the quality of a facebook network was proportional to the number of close friends who share many friends in common (with you). At best, this is an oversimplification. At worst, it is a characterization of social networks which begs the proverbial venture capital question --- so what is it good for, another rolodex?
Maybe with an abundance of networks to uncover, discover and build upon, our resulting enthusiasm has led us to ignore the next step. I think Facebook understands this at least, as they have turned their growth momentum over to their users via apps.
"Now that you've built up your social network, we'll let you purpose it as you please."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, if you take those words at face value, they don't necessarily serve as a characterization but rather as a statement of underlying dependence - and one which I don't think is off-the-mark.
In other words, sufficient size of the average user's second-degree network is a "necessary but not sufficient" condition for success of the social networking platform. (The quality of the social network could be "proportional" to hundreds of other factors as well.)
I am cynical enough to believe that CEOs and pundits (and especially evangelists) are well-versed in dispensing small amounts of information to satiate "the masses", and doing so at a sufficiently obfuscated level that it will impress far more people than actually understand it. In this particular instance, presenting a nearly-tautological observation about the potential value of a big social network over a small one is - to me - an example of such rhetoric, where the speaker looks like he's saying something but is actually offering only a small "taste" of his true knowledge. (The rest of the knowledge, of course, he guards for use by his own organization, presumably in a more prudent way than dispensing it for free at the media's request.)
I tend to give people in positions of power an often-undue benefit of the doubt, and assume (as I pretty much stated above) that they have more in-depth analysis and understanding than they present.
However, you make a good point; maybe I shouldn't always look at it this way, and instead just take the words more at face value: said CEO mentioned this and in this way because that's all he knows!
If that's the case, then I completely agree with you - it's scary - but it also means that there might be a company in need of some new executives. ;)
True, I may not be considering that point. For me, the comment seemed more misleading than short.
I was expecting something more along the lines of: what type of quality are you looking for? level of interaction with close real-world friends, or the ability to connect with the most people you may not have met but through the network?
Circles of close friends are great, but I think it's cool when we meet others through friends of friends. That's what I was expecting to hear about :-P
Post a Comment