Jeff over at Coding Horror posted an interesting read recently about how social networking sites are private, walled gardens, similar to AOL from days gone by. He goes further to say that such sites should be avoided since we already have a better tool: the internet itself.
For the most part, I agree with his point. Using public, open mediums (such as this blog) are definitely better. But there are a few factors I think that do distinguish it, and may even justify it. It sort of depends on your vantage point and your intentions.
The first difference from AOL is that Facebook is obviously free. I think this is actually a big point, since it puts Facebook more in the class of applications like Flickr and twitter (which Jeff mentioned as acceptable social networking sites). The major difference is that Facebook isn’t indexed by Google or other search engines, and the information about you is private if you want it to be (which Jeff mentions as a negative).
That leads to my second point: Is that really such a bad thing? A little privacy (granted it’s only pseudo-privacy) between authorized friends online could be viewed in a positive light, especially in this day and age of employers searching for potential candidates or their employees. This culture of privacy (some might argue that it was “exclusivity” at first) that Facebook has stems from the fact that it used to be a tool simply for those going to college, and you couldn’t register unless you had an email address for a school. I knew then that that model wouldn’t last, and it didn’t. Now Facebook simply offers some basic level of shielding, not simply from the general public, but from other non-authorized user on the site itself.
The “privacy” then is more of a feature then for the system. It could be argued that because it really is only a form of pseudo-privacy that you shouldn’t put up anything you don’t want to get out (which is excellent advice). But I consider it private enough that I have my personal email address and cell phone number on the site - one of the few places on the net you can actually find my email address, a successful measure against spam.
My third point is that there is a different level of accessibility with Facebook than there is with social networking via the internet in a general sense. While I think it’s largely a social barrier (rather than a technical one) your average person doesn’t care, is too lazy, thinks it’s too hard, or doesn’t want to be thought of as someone who has a “blog,” at least by that name. Now, I know how dead easy it is (especially with stuff like wordpress.com, blogger, blogspot, etc.) but when you start adding other tools into the mix - like Flickr and twitter - to get the same functionality, it can be seen as “too much hassle.” Even I can appreciate wanting to have one place where I can take care of most of my social networking needs.
But when all that is said and done, I’m still posting this here, as opposed to my Facebook. And I still have a Flickr, which I use to post pictures (if I did post pictures anymore that is). Facebook is just a more private place for people I directly know to interact.
One thing about Facebook I can’t say I like or have any intention of really using very much of is all their applications that they’ve allowed people to develop for their platform. I don’t see the draw I suppose, but I don’t spend very much time in “Facebook-land” unlike some people who use it like their base of operations on the internet.
Long story short, I agree with what Jeff is saying, but I think that taken in a slightly different light (and used appropriately) Facebook isn’t quite the same thing as AOL was back in the mid-90’s. Does that mean I think it’s guaranteed to succeed and stick around forever? Not necessarily. On this point I agree with Jeff and Kottke: Something else will come along eventually and replace it, or Facebook will evolve from where it is now to stay ahead of the game.
