“The benchmark for a big idea is changing. If you want a big idea you need to embrace everyone on the planet.” Jan Chipchase, principal researcher at Nokia, talking at TED.
Simple rules for tools that can change to world.
Design tools that:
1. Meet basic and universal needs.
2. Are always ready-to-hand. Portability and immediacy are key.
3. That are open. The tool itself should meet basic and universal needs. The best way to meet local and personal needs is to make it easy for people to innovate on top of your tool.
If you’ve been talking to me at all you probably heard me say stuff like this.
Connecting ‘people 2 info’ is trumped by connecting ‘people 2 people’.
Google is great at connecting people to information. But a better way to create new knowledge is to connect people to people. When you connect to people they discover and create new knowledge. And people find this activity deeply rewarding and highly addictive. As the guys discoverio say ‘..discovery is the new cocaine’.
The company that manages this will be bigger than Google
To give people what they want. To really connect people online. We have to create the same sense of privacy, reputation, identity and trust online that we take for granted in the real world.
I came across this today. An article riffing on a comment made by a leading VC…
Search is dead…[In the near future, people will] find what they want by using their social network rather than a search algorithm. After all, the people in your online social network should know you better than a mathematical equation, right?
Social discovery pivots on identity
…this focus on online identity is what could turn search upside down… it’s conceivable that the information could attempt to find us—the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way. As new content enters the Web, it could tumble through the various filters that you set up around your identity…
The unholy mess of privacy and security issues show us where the pivotal opportunity lies
…[currently] nobody owns this space the way Google “owns” search. And as it evolves, there will be an unholy mess of privacy and security issues to work out.
This kind of talk was the ever-constant ever-recurring theme at the Web2.0 expo this last week in San Francisco. And this has made me even more excited about RelevantM than ever. If that were even possible.
Dan Trevino had this to say over on Jaiku on a conversational thread that spun off from something Damien Mulley said in passing here
“Twitter is for the socially inept. You cant carry on any kind of conversation there, and maybe its not designed for that. Thats fine, but to me its just too messy…Twitter love is irrational…”
I wholeheartedly dis/agree. Here’s why:
Irrational love is compelling love
I totally agree that twitter love is irrational. But irrational love is also compelling love. The most compelling kind of love. Its the kind of love you want to experience in your life. Its the kind of love you should seek to cultivate. If you are interested in getting into business, its the kind of love you should hope your offerings inspire. Ask people why they love twitter and they are likely to shrug and coyly say ‘I dunno…’ Which is charming in its own way.
Rational love is NOT compelling love…
Jaiku love on the other hand is 100% rational. And much less compelling for that. Rational love is not compelling love. Love is an irrational commitment. Rational love? There is no such thing. Rational choice is the safe choice. Its the comfort zone. Ask a jaikuist why they love jaiku and they’ll rationally assert that it has a rich set of features that make it possible to control the noise and better manage conversations.
I’m bringing the party down. Why can’t I just lighten up a bit?
Even you geekiest of geeks and nerdiest of nerds recognise that one fault they have is that their conversational instincts can sometimes tend to bring the party down. That sometimes they are inclined to be blind to the fact that considered conversation is inappropriate and should be dropped when all are gathered for the purpose of having fun.
Its a GOOD thing to LOSE the conversational thread
The socially inept are those who are considered to be blind to or choose to ignore social cues obvious to the rest. Those that shy away from messy social situations where they are required to improvise. Those that are uncomfortable in confusing social situations. Confusing social situations where it is easy and in fact socially necessary to lose the conversational thread.
Twitter’s main feature is that it runs interference against deep and meaningfuls
The socially inept might well miss the point of Twitter. Twitter is not about considered opinion and considered conversation. Its main feature is that it runs interference against the social instinct to engage in deep and meaningful conversation.
Interference is a social lubricant
This interference is a social lubricant. As I’m fond of saying, people play loud music at parties for precisely the same reason. They want to run interference against the human instinct to sit down and have considered conversation. You know. Considered conversation being the type of conversation that is not conducive to a party atmosphere.
Irrational love feels so good
Some of the people who go to parties with loud music will naturally gravitate away from the action towards the kitchen. In some ways, Jaiku is the kitchen area at the microblogging party. While twitter is the main party room. Whether we are able to join in fully or not, we are all drawn to the buzz and activity of a party. Its a hard wired instinct. Its not rational. Its instinctual. And all the more real for that. And its deeply rewarding to our psyches to engage. And if we are unable to engage. Then at least to hover nearby.
Hows that for a detailed exposition of the light and fluffy? Heavy going? Time to lighten up with a bit of music. And who better and appropriate at this time than Jona Lewie.
Kids played Dungeons and Dragons in basements instead of socializing. Geeks like algorithms. We like sets of rules that guide future behavior. But people, normal people, consistently act outside rule sets. People are messy and unpredictable, until you have something like the Dungeons & Dragons character sheet. Once you’ve broken down the elements of an invented personality into numbers generated from dice, paper and pencil, you can do the same for your real self.
For us, the character sheet and the rules for adventuring in an imaginary world became a manual for how people are put together. Life could be lived as a kind of vast, always-on role-playing campaign.
We geeks might not be able to intuit the subtext of a facial expression or a casual phrase, but give us a behavioral algorithm and human interactions become a data stream. We can process what’s going on in the heads of the people around us. Through careful observation of body language and awkward silences, we can even learn to detect when we are bringing the party down with our analysis of how loop quantum gravity helps explain the time travel in that new “Terminator” TV show. I mean, so I hear.
Facebook and other social networks ask people to create a character — one based on the user, sure, but still a distinct entity. Your character then builds relationships by connecting to other characters. Like Dungeons & Dragons, this is not a competitive game. There’s no way to win. You just play.
This diverse evolution from [Dungeons and Dragons] goes much further. Every Gmail login, every instant-messaging screen name, every public photo collection on Flickr, every blog-commenting alias is a newly manifested identity, a character playing the real world.
After he left Facebook, Nipon Das wanted the social network to erase his personal information from its servers. Eventually that happened. But only after two months, a lengthy email exchange and — ultimately — threats from a lawyer. “It’s like the Hotel California,” Das told the New York Times. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” Facebook PR flack Amy Sezak claims the company is doing users a favor by making it easy to come back to the site after they quit. 6,000 members of the Facebook group “How to permanently delete your facebook account” don’t seem grateful.
Jean Burgess is deleting her account partly because of all these facets of her identity are collided together in an unnatural and unmanageable way on facebook. Which illustrates the point that faceted identity does not scale well and on facebook many people have discovered that it has been stretched uncomfortably out of shape.
Too many worlds colliding, too many invites to vampire garden pirate fishtank zombie kissing applications, and yes, I ended up with kind of too many friends from too many different spheres of my existence (not that I don’t love them all, really) for it to be non-complicated and fun.
And check out what your facing if you want to really remove yourself from Facebook…
Oh, and by the way, in order to delete your Facebook account, apparently, you have to not only deactivate it, but also delete every single item you have contributed to the site (messages, wall posts, posts other people have written on your wall, photos, links to contacts, profile information) and then email customer service and request they delete your account completely. Oh, and also, in order to delete absolutely everything, I’d also have to re-add every single one of the applications I’ve ever had installed, and then go through and remove the content, and then delete the applications again. Because when you delete an application, guess what? Your data is still stored there somewhere.
That’s not just meanness, but I’m pretty sure it’s also not just to be helpful in case you’re quitting in a fit of pique like this one and might decide later that you want to come back. It’s also because of the way the business model works: Facebook and all the marketeers who sail in her pretty much just want you to visit as many ad-bearing pages per visit as possible (that’s what all those applications and invites are for), and having lost your eyeballs, they’d quite like to keep the data that can be mined from those activities. So they’re going to make it as difficult as possible to scrub that data out of the system. Can you guess how much that softens my heart toward the company?
Mark Evan’s compares his relationship with facebook as a kind of ‘amour fou’ that has run its course.
At first, the romance was hot and heavy…It was a lusty, unhealthy affair that made me crazy but you know how lust consumes you…You know that awkward feeling when you’re dating someone, and the romance starts to fade? …I feel that way about Facebook these days…Truth be told, I’ve found someone else - younger, sexier, more streamlined: Twitter. Yet, I’m not as enraptured with Twitter as I once was with Facebook, which is a good sign.
Social network is a terrrible metaphor
If you’ve ever talked to me, I have probably taken you by the pin of your collar and blasted something like this in your direction: ‘Social networks!? Don’t talk to me about social networks! I despise the term. Not only is a terrrible metaphor for reality. Its dangerrous and damaging as well”
We must start using the social cloud
If you didn’t manage to escape at this point, I’d have continued “We need a new metaphor, such as a social cloud, that recognizes the esssential fluidity and dynanism of social relationships. Only then can we hope to build platforms that don’t direct people into autistic-style interactions that plague these so-called social networks”
At which point, I’d generally point up to the sky and get a far away look in my eye. Which was also your cue to slip away unnoticed.
Its not just me…
Well, I think its only fair to warn you that there’s more of the same coming. You’ll no longer be able to escape by simply avoiding me. Other people are starting to say the same thing. Normal people. Respectable people. Using almost exactly the same words. But unaccompanied by the wild-eyed look.
Read/WriteWeb have produced another of those really excellent “what has happened and where we might be going” articles. Its an exploration of the paradigm shifts that have occured and a look at what’s next after social networking.
I like it. It reminds us of a few things that are so blindingly obvious that they are very often overlooked.
The two foundational observations in the post appear to be:
Social interactions have taken over from search as the centre of the internet.
People are lazy
Social interactions are at the centre of the new web:
….since Facebook is already widely accepted as the next big thing, the new question is: what is the next “next big thing”? Is it already out there? To start with check out the graph below, summarizing the Web’s stages up till now and our vision for the future:
As you can see, the current trend is for social interactions to take over search as the pivot of the internet. But if you’re not convinced, here are a few examples of why:
Google and Microsoft’s billion dollar ad partnerships with MySpace and Facebook respectively;
Yahoo and Viacom’s bets on Facebook;
Yahoo’s rivals.com acquisition and rumors of Fox offering to sell MySpace to Yahoo! in exchange for a 25% stake.
People are lazy:
Age #2.5 - On-demand Video It’s a fact that humans are born lazy. Yes, we love spending time on the internet and interact with many things; but still many of us prefer spending our free time on TV and watching meaningless shows…
Age #4 - Joost ???
It’s hard to guess the 4th phase of the web because we don’t even have the 3rd one yet, fully. But what the past eras (see ages 1.5, 4 and 2.5) show is that we will end up with the rebirth of online TV. Since we are all born lazy, video on demand is the way to go. And what Joost is offering is higher quality content (thanks to their collaboration with big content providers), higher quality watching experience (thanks to P2P technology) and a legal hassle-free alternative to YouTube, which has already shown tremendous success
This post resonates with me cos it reminds us why we must never underestimate peoples desire to socialize or people’s inherent laziness. We cannot afford to overlook these facts if we want to have a hand in shaping the next paradigm. In fact, its imperative that we embrace these truths of human nature.
Of course, this has huge implications for anyone and everyone hoping to shape the next paradigm. Of course this has huge implications for the semantic web initiative. Any initiative that seeks to succeed by meeting real human needs will have to embrace the social forces that are the hunger for social interaction and the powerful inherent desire to avoid any effort. IMHO new initiatives have to lubricate sociability and interactive flow first and contribute to the commons as a poor but essential second. That is, contributions to the commons made by individual users ought to be mostly invisible to the users as they make them but also such that the users can feel the benefits of cumulative contribution without any particular sense of contributing effort in the first place. In short, quality and rewarding social interactions should be as easily and as readily available to everyone as the air we breathe. How to achieve that is another days post.
A post that will not only tackle the truism that people are lazy but also the truisms that people lie and are also often stupid.
