A nice piece on the challenges and opportunities that are part of social software design from Gentry Underwood.

Here's some excerpts:

The problem: "...for all of the press and fanfare, most social software is, well, socially awkward. " "...design is profoundly awkward for more nuanced social interaction. " "...most social software tools are clumsy and ineffective at smoothly facilitating interpersonal interaction.

The opportunity: "...From an historical perspective, we are still in the early days of social interaction design." "...social software is pretty far from mature" "...there is ample opportunity to produce something truly new."

Success requires: "...different skills than those employed traditionally in software design." "...a deep understanding of the unseen elements of relationships, power dynamics, and cultural rules in social systems."

Here's a link to the original article

And here's a video of him giving a talk based on that article:

Discussions about privacy are muddled. That's because people are often talking at cross purposes.

It turns out that privacy is virtually impossible to define.

And to further confuse matters, we think we care about it. But when it really comes down to it. We don't.

To begin to make progress in understanding privacy we first have to recognise that we relate to privacy at two distinct levels. At a societal level and at a personal level.

Yet another threat to society At the societel level the concern is about government spooks and megacorporations. Pouring over your data and watching your every move. This is a very real concern. But... It's impersonal. And filed away in our heads under "Yet another threat to society." In short people don't feel it acutely enough to actually alter their day-to-day behaviour. Even though they kinda know they should. So, in a practical sense its just as if people don't care about privacy.

This time its personal The erosion of privacy at a personal is very different. I hold that privacy cannot be usefully defined at this level, except to be defined by the breach. By instances of social embarassment. By those moments when social spheres collide with messy consequences. Facebook has gone further than most in bringing this reality to light. At its best Facebook is a serendipity engine. At its worst its a privacy trainwreck. To restate that. When we are pleasantly surprised we call it serendipity. When we are unpleasantly surprised we call it a breach of privacy.

'Privacy' is a red herring Its all very subjective and context sensitive and this is why I say that at this level privacy as a notion is not amenable to definition. And it distract and confuses us, making it difficult to see what is really going on. Its better to reframe the situation. And recognise that people don't care about privacy. What they really care about is social embarassment. They want the happy accidents that are the upside of social collisions without the messy consequences that are the downsides. Of course, this is not possible with Facebook. Its a double-edged sword. You can't have one without the other.

The Future I suppose someone will eventually find a way give the consumers what they want. The upside without the downside. What will it look like? Who knows, but it will likely be a new platform that doesn't have these problems baked in. *****Timely example******** Facebook 'reconnect': The latest Facebook innovation illustrates this baked in double-edged sword... serendipity engine / privacy trainwreck scenario perfectly. Facebook 'reconnect' prompts users to reconnect with ex-lovers and dead friends.

The number one facebook blog www.allfacebook.com has a guide for sale that show you how to manage your privacy settings on facebook.

The Holy Grail of Facebook Privacy is a simple guide to protecting yourself on Facebook and making sure you never end up with an embarrassing situation that could have lasting repercussions, potentially even costing your job.

It runs to 24 detailed pages. This is not for normal people. Normal people will not buy this book. Normal people will not read a detailed 24 page guide to navigating the privacy setting on facebook. Normal people will not keep updating and curating setting at the level of detail required as their social networks morph and grow. Facebook privacy is not attainable by normal people. The settings are just too complicated and detailed. They are too offputting and require too much attention and curation.

Here's how it easily compromised by you:

Twitter almost solves the biggest baddest puzzle of our time. But its not there yet. Twission shows us one way to go about solving that puzzle.

So what is the biggest baddest puzzle of our time. In short, too much of a good thing.  

Information overload. We live in an age where we are easily overwhelmed by the constant flood of high value information.

Information makes you smarter. Until it becomes overwhelming. Then it makes you dumb.  

Drinking from the firehose is not the best way to quench a thirst.

1.  So how can we cope? Well, Twitter helps a lot. It delivers the first part of the solution. It enforces brevity. And that's good.

2.  It also deliver the second part of the solution: Finding what is relevant to you. By using friends as filters.  

3.  The third part of the solution? Real-time search of real-time discussion. This is why Twitter purchased 'Summize.'  

4.  The final part of the solution. Is real-time search within the bounds of 'friends as filters' This delivers real-time results most relevant to you. This is what Twission aims to provide.

Check it out. Twission.

The 10 principles are stolen directly from Nassim Nicholas Taleb article in Today's FT. Taleb, a veteran trader and dinstinguished professor. And views economies as complex adaptive systems. So it'll come as no surprise that I'm a fan. He has also published two very famous books in The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable and "Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets" The original article is here. Its already very short and sweet. I highly recommend it. If you haven't clicked through yet. Here's an even shorter version.

1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small . Nothing should ever become too big to fail.

2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains. Whatever may need to be bailed out should be nationalised; whatever does not need a bail-out should be free, small and risk-bearing.

3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean.

4. Do not let someone making an "incentive" bonus manage a nuclear plant - or your financial risks . No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.

5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity. Complexity from globalisation...needs to be countered by simplicity in financial products.

6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning. Complex derivatives need to be banned because nobody understands them and few are rational enough to know it.

7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to "restore confidence". Governments cannot stop the rumours.

8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains. Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it is denial. We need rehab.

9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible "expert" advice for their retirement. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).

10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs. This crisis cannot be fixed with makeshift repairs. [Apply these principles and] we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news.

The news. Facebook, once again, got smacked on the wrist by its userbase.

Zuckerberg has indicated that the swift and negative reaction to their recent efforts to amend the terms of service had helped him realise it was now time to deal with this. Facebook plans to prevent this happening again.

They've presented their plan as 'Facebook opens discussion on a 'bill of rights' for the governance of their userbase.'

What this really means: The reality is that this intervention will affect the SOCIAL DYNAMIC on Facebook in a very significant way. This intervention will: 1. Defuse 'Stop Energy'. 2. Clear the way for 'Forward Motion'.

More on 'Stop Energy' and 'Forward Motion'.

'Stop Energy': Most types of collective action organize around 'Stop Energy'. Facebook users have mobilised and engaged in 'Stop Energy' to great success time and again. Its the only effective power available to the users of Facebook. Or any large-scale informally organised collective. Rerouting 'Stop Energy' into a pseudo-democratic consultation process will effectively quench its power. As an act of political hegemony if would be described as the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem remote and tiresome to engage in for the typical user on any particular issue.

'Forward Motion': ''Forward Motion' is very difficult to initiate or progress in informally organised collectives. However, 'Forward Motion' is the raison d'etre of formal organisations and firms. Facebook, like any other formal organisation is a lean, mean and very effective machine at mobilising 'Forward Motion'. Naturally, Facebook will leverage this ability to drive forward the Facebook agenda.

Political hegemony: At large scale, collective action is best mobilised by a simple coordinating signal. And best extinguished by efforts at large-scale collective conversation. Facebook now reroutes collective action into collective conversation. Its a master-stroke of a political hegemony. Its a classic 'bait-and-switch'.

Nice stroke, Facebook.

I proposed the simple idea of 'internet only' 'new banks' back here in "My friend the economist and my dumb question."

Since then Buiter, Stiglitz, Soros and Romer have proposed similar schemes. New banks: Did I get the scoop? Did you hear it here first?

But the really good news is that Marc Andreesen is now pushing the idea. Why is this good news? Well, Marc Andreessen could carry this idea.

Andreessen's got all the right credentials ie he is a wunderkind of the industry of wealth-creating technological innovation and has none of the wrong ones ie he is not of the wealth-destroying financial innovation industry.

And Obama and Andreessen are already personally acquainted. Can Andreessen carry this simple idea to move Obama? I hope so.

And I hope it can be done in time to demonstrate the Irish leaders that there is a smarter and simpler way. Talk about 'new banks' 50 minutes in. Transcript below. But note that as always Andreessen give great value entire way through.

Good banks, bad banks, doesn’t matter. What we need are NEW banks. And I actually think what we need — and I think the valley can play a role in this, I think there should be a new wave of financial institutions that should be created from scratch today. And they should take the role. So instead of trying to unwind some big bank that’s underwater, and hundreds of billion dollars insolvent, let’s create a whole bunch of new ones. And by the way, let’s have them all be new and online. So instead of having all this infrastructure and all these old systems and these ATM’s and all this stuff, let’s do purely online, purely Internet banks. Purely virtual, much lower cost structure. Because it’s going to take — even if you can figure out a way to fix the old banks, it’s going to take a long time. I mean it is a very complicated and involved process. They are deeply broken in very fundamental ways. Create a new bank. I mean a bank is a simple concept. You can create a bank in software.

I wrote about my idea of 'My friend the economist and my dumb question' here on 23rd January. I'm now in very good company. From Willem Buiter at the Financial Times on January 29, 2009 "The 'Good Bank' Solution"

There is an alternative solution to the problem of valuing the toxic assets. It would not involve nationalising the existing banks. Instead the state would create one or more new ’good’ banks - all state-owned and state-funded to begin with.

From Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz on 02 Feb 2009 at Davos. "Let banks fail" reported in the Telegraph.

“the government should allow every distressed bank to go bankrupt and set up a fresh banking system under temporary state control rather than cripple the country by propping up a corrupt edifice”.

From George Soros on 04 Feb in the WSJ "We Can Do Better Than a 'Bad Bank' "

... about $1.5 trillion is likely to be required to recapitalise the existing banks properly. This money could be leveraged a lot more effectively if most of it were injected into the new good banks, unencumbered with the toxic waste of the existing banks.

From Paul Romer in the WSJ on 06 Feb "Let's Start Brand New Banks"

Everyone agrees that the United States urgently needs a few good banks. Turning bad banks into good banks is a difficult and risky way to get them. It's simpler and safer to start entirely new banks.

And from Willem Buiter again at the Financial Times on 08 Feb "Good Bank/New Bank vs. Bad Bank: a rare example of a no-brainer" rounding up the ongoing discussion:

I claim no authorship or originality for the ‘good bank’ proposal. The idea is obvious and no doubt was floating around the blogosphere and elsewhere as soon as the magnitude of the insolvency disaster in the banking sector became apparent.

The US, the UK and several other continental European countries are at risk of emulating Ireland, where the government first guaranteed all the liabilities of the banks (other than equity) and only after that began to nationalise the banks. This leaves the Irish government today in the not too enviable position of having to choose between sovereign default and bleeding the tax payer and the beneficiaries of normal public spending to make whole all the creditors of the banks.

I want to tell you a little about a friend of mine. He's got a PhD in economics and has been lecturing for years. From time-to-time I say to him: "Can I ask you a dumb question?" He always replies with a wry smile "Answering dumb questions is practically my job description." We had one of our chats last night:

ME:

I keep hearing:"Strong banks are essential to our economy." But surely, they should be saying: "A strong banking system is essential to our economy." The 1st statement leads us towards bank rescues and nationalisations. While the 2nd gives us more options.

My friend the economist:

Yes that is more accurate. In fact, I was studying in Finland in 1992 as a series of banking collpases swept across the Nordic countries. Many of the possible options were tested with varying success. Go on..

ME:

Well, I don't know if this option was available in the past... Why not establish 2 brand new internet-only banks in Ireland. And capitalise them with the €15bn. For that, you get 2 new banks. Each starting with a clean sheet. Free to borrow. Free to lend. The advantages are you get a banking system. You avoid nationalisation. You embrace pure competition. And no money gets thrown into a black hole.

Economist:

Yes. Pure internet banking wasn't an option in 1992. It could constitute a banking system. Such new banks would be able and eager to lend. The old banks could continue to deal with cash. But if they do crash..?

ME:

If a physical branch network is important. Co-opt the post office network. Or the credit union network. If internet access is important. Support internet cafes. Such an approach would be a snug fit with the government's policy of support rural Ireland and the roll out of the national broadband scheme...

Economist:

Sounds like it could work. But you know the old joke "If you want 4 opinions. Ask 2 economists"

So that's it. My dumb question to you is "Why not?" I'm hoping you can help me understand our options a little bit better.