Social networks as walled gardens: what’s the issue?

Lots of talk these days about the issue of “walled garden” social networks. The issue cited is that users have multiple overlapping social networks, and that this issue could be solved through a more open architecture.

I’m all for openness, and like the idea of some sort of uber-control mechanism for all my social networking activities. I thought about it a lot when I was a Product Manager for Yahoo Address Book years back, and technologies like Plaxo were starting to appear on the horizon. At that time, email was the primary hub for social networking, and everything was very “Web 1.0″ (always to be uttered in a snooty, condescending voice).

However, even as an avid user of Web 2.0 technology and social networks, I don’t use more than 2 social networks with any frequency, and I don’t think the average person is trying to juggle and unite a lot of disparate social networks. I have about 250 or so people in my online network. There is probably 15-20% overlap across my LinkedIn and Facebook contacts. The cost of having 2 social networks in my life is quite low, and I like the fact that these two networks are “walled gardens”. Not only do I not mind keeping LinkedIn and Facebook separate (my two favorites), I want them to be separate. I’m in a completely different mindset when I visit LinkedIn (career networking) than when I visit Facebook (fun / interest-oriented). The UI, configurability, and privacy options of each are well suited for their purposes.

The benefit of having walled gardens is that they compete against each other. Yes, as users, we look for a single standard and don’t like the switching costs of going from one network to the other (same thing with switching cell phone providers). But we benefit from the innovation that occurs when multiple closed, competing networks battle it out.

Technorati Tags: , ,

August 18, 2007 | Filed Under Uncategorized 

Comments

One Response to “Social networks as walled gardens: what’s the issue?”

  1. Dad on August 22nd, 2007 12:08 pm

    While at Jim and Pam’s place in Aptos, I started to read “Six Degrees”, left on his coffee table (which is all about social networks from a physists viewpoint). Was interesting to read about his view of fellow physists but his mathematical approach to social networks was so “linear” and devoid of “agency” that I stopped reading about half way through. Don’t think he grasped the variables introduced by “heuristic” humans.

Leave a Reply