Privacy Filters and Facebook

In my previous post I used privacy in Facebook as an example of how data filters could work. One point I glossed over was how currently Facebook, indeed all social sites, fail with social distance. Unfortunately, social distance is a necessary for privacy filters to work satisfactorily.

Facebook has one major flaw, once a person is a friend in Facebook they are treated the same as all other contacts whether the connection comes from bumping into the person at a pub or someone you grew up with. It collapses the privacy or social distance between two people. The social distance can be considered how strong the connection between two people is. Social distance provides a measure of both strong and weak ties as articulated by Mark Granovetter.

Without some measure of social distance or strength of connections, any privacy filter is going to fail. The social graph fails to represent the real world connections between people properly.

Facebook attempts to use groupings of friends to approximate social distance but this is cumbersome to use. The manual nature of setting up and categorising everyone into groups is a major barrier to use. People are lazy.

What is needed is an automated method for calculating social distance. Social distance is calculated (and this is how Mark Granovetter categorised connections) by the frequency of communications. Measuring frequency of communications is difficult for Facebook. While Facebook can measure wall posts, internal emails, poking etc., so much more of our communication occurs outside of Facebook, outside of the wall; whether through email, IMs, phone calls, SMS, twitter parties attended etc.; that the frequency of communication within the wall is not a reasonable approximation for the wider frequency of communication.

The key measure of social distance – communication – is hard to quantify as it is dispersed through many different channels. Trying to capture the frequency of communication via porting the data in is one method of dealing with the issue. The other, probably more realistic, method is to start off with some rules and use what can be easily quantified to refine the measure of connection strength overtime.

The rules would look at what is known generically about social connections. Some of rules are:

1. Married is a strong connection
2. The same surname is a strong connection
3. If strong connections to friends with which you have strong connections then you probably have a strong connection

Some of these rules will dictate a very strong connection (first rule) while others will dictate varying strengths dependent on factors such as prior connections with other friends (third rule). All connections start as very weak and are refined first by application of the rules and then overtime by measures of frequency of communication.

Privacy filters all start with knowing the distance between two end points whether physical in case of centuries before or by social distance in the case of today. Until Facebook and any other social-based site has a measure of social distance privacy filters are going to be mediocre at best and more often prone to failure.

Tags: Privacy, Facebook, Filters

The Social Network has little Value in a World of Flow

Fred Wilson recently wrote a post about how the flow of data is important versus the data itself. Primarily in response to the ongoing bushfire in the blogsphere about Facebook and Google Friend Connect and the larger context of data portability.

The conceptual point of flow versus data is important one to highlight.

It is very easy to confuse the two. To an extent this is an artifact of our language which emphasises objects (nouns) over flow (verbs). But it is also influenced by trying to use an existing frame-of-reference to discuss a new frame-of-reference that is only just beginning to come into focus. This is always going to make everything more difficult.

The web is moving into uncharted territory. Up to now we have been dealing with the conversion of existing real-world into an online equivalent. Now the web has reached the point that it is moving beyond the confines of being a real-world analogy. This is creating vast new opportunities, few of which are known to us now. Data portability discussion exits within this new framework.

To make headway understanding this new framework, we need to converse using language that properly describes this new framework. The language of flow will help us frame problems and hold conversations that enable solutions and new opportunities.

In Wither Social Networks, Arise Communities I pointed out that social networks are glorified contact books. A better way to look at social networks is that the merely describe a connection between two people. They are the pipes, wave-guides, tubes along which guide the flow. What happens at the end points is not part of the social network.

In addition to the guides, we have process points. The process points are where points along a flow something happens to the flow. Whether its received (such as email), or processed (such as Wesabe). A process point is not necessarily where the flow stops, merely where it undergoes some sort of processing.

Facebook's aim is to become the primary process point. They know (or suspect) that merely having a description of a flow network is not enough. They have to be a processing point, but here is their dilemma: Facebook was never designed with being a processing point in mind, merely a description of a flow network. So their strategy is to try and control of the description of flow networks by restricting access while they shift to being a processing point, Facebook Connect being an example.

Bear in mind that the flow network description has little intrinsic value. It is the flows along the network where the value lies. In this Robert Scoble is wrong. It is not the flow network where the value lies but flow along the guides that is important.

So is Facebook right or is Google right? How about neither? Facebook's move is entirely about trying provide themselves with time to become a processing point and less of a pure flow network. Google's aim is to get access to the flow network in order to get access to the processing points. Google looses out if it doesn't know about the processing points. Neither are taking the positions they are merely out of moral indignation. I do find Google's behaviour less obnoxious than Facebook as Google's move is about access where as Facebook's is about control. Not really surprising given Facebook's past behaviour and in the words Umair, evilness.

Ultimately, it is a meaningless argument. The web is shifting so fast that both companies actions will soon be lost in the momentum in the move to flow. The flow based web even looks like it will overtake the Data Portability movement. Rendering the broader discussion irrelevant as well.

Tags: Social Networks, Facebook, Data Portability, Google, Web Next, Web 2.0, Fred Wilson, Robert Scoble, Umair Haque, Web Services

Google App Engine is final leg of the strategy to disrupt social networks

With the announcement of Google App Engine and the resulting symphony (or cacophony) of conversation a lot has been said about cloud computing and Amazon's Web Services. For all the conversation not much has looked at the Facebook angel in detail.

Google App Engine strikes me less as a competitor to Amazon Web Services and more as the finial piece in the puzzle for creating a web-spanning social network. Google App Engine provides a place for applications to be built and hosted external to any social network. Coupled with Google's APIs for a users social network (the contact API), an identity mechanism (Google Accounts) and the OpenSocial APIs, everything that can be done in Facebook or any other social network can now be done by any application without having to be internal to any social network.

It is an innovative way of dealing with the issues of social networks by explicitly turning the web into a giant social network without walls.

Of course this will mean the very act of surfing could see you have a sheep tossed at you!

Tags: Google, Facebook, Google App Engine, Amazon,Amazon Web Services, Social Network, OpenSocial

Facebook - the next x?

The blogsphere has oscillated between hysteria and backlash against Facebook since the release of the Facebook platform. Some have asked, what is so special about Facebook while others have breathlesssly compared Facebook to Google, Apple & Microsoft.

Now, I personally think the underlying value of Facebook is enormous. However, capturing that value or more accurately realising that value for both the company and users is going to be difficult. More importantly, this will be massively more difficult while people keep talking about Facebook being the next "wunderkin."

Put another way, Facebook is not and never will be Google or Apple or Microsoft or any other wunderkin company. It will be its own wunderkin company that charts a new direction for the industry just as the others have before it. Any punter that talks about Facebook being the next x, will completely and thoroughly miss what Facebook is and will achieve. Do not trust them. These punters are still stuck in the old world and will fail to see the new world.

Facebook as a market

I'm just reading Fred Wilson's recent post about Facebook. Essentially, Facebook has created a stock market-like entity for web apps. Which validates my point underlying my previous post on Facebook and micro web apps.

Extending the concept of the market and micro web apps logically leads to some interesting conclusions. A stock exchange like market could be created that allows micro web app designers another method for monetising their creation. The market would track some combination of the number of users (number of shares) and the value per user (stock price). The movement in the value of the apps would be fascinating to watch.

I wonder if you could create a Stock Exchange app using the Facebook platform?

Apart from the intellectual interest of the Facebook Stock Exchange, does it have any value? Yes. The exchange offers an interesting way of trialling new applications for possible future investment. If an application within Facebook takes off, this is a reasonable indicator that this application will a good candidate for full blown development. Facebook becomes a rapid prototyping and marketing testing platform for the internet.

Facebook Exchange also offers a Darwinian environment to develop and trial new features for existing Web companies. The features to develop out are the ones that gain widespread tracking amongst a target demographic. This will allow web companies to focus their development resources on features that will be worthwhile to their users.

The developments going on around Facebook is fascinating. Where it will end is unknown, but the ride getting there is going to be fun.

Tags: Fred Wilson, Micro Web Apps, VC, Facebook

Facebook a Platform for Micro-Apps

Just as eBay prompted the rise of the micro-retailers, the Facebook Platform has the potential to prompt the rise of micro-web apps. Facebook Platform provides a range of infrastructure services necessary for these micro-web apps to survive and thrive. Social networking, network distribution and hosting are all provided.

Just like the micro-retailers on eBay it is only with the environment of Facebook can these micro-web apps exist.