Why Dana Boyd should perhaps re-think her indictment of Facebook…

The technogeek blogosphere is abuzz with the

Scobleizer v. Dana Boyd throwdown over Facebook.  Facebook is preparing to open its profiles to Google search.  Maven and interactive web theorist Dana Boyd outlines some fundamental concerns with Facebook and it being the golden chalice of social networking.

 

Dana is correct to be worried about privacy concerns.  However, I believe consumers should have the control over their privacy rather than a closed garden model which keeps people in informational and community silos.  A failure to take those walls down lives short of the vision of a flat earth and instead installs artificial walls on communication, conversation, and community.

Boyd is correct about one thing–there are too many hoops, rules, and regulations. Dana mentioned the Baratunde’s recent struggles with Facebook and I think they are both probably 100% correct. Additionally, the inability to have over 1000 people in a group is disasterous for non-profits and organizations who want to maintain a decent email list in Facebook. For me, this is a metaphor for the walled garden effect that Dana seems to be indicting, yet wanting for privacy reasons. 

Facebook is (potentially) useful for 1) integrating my social networking lifestream (although plaxo seems like it has the distinct edge for the near future).  2) Real time social networking probably via chat.  (I can’t stress this enough, because otherwise the communication is rather static) 3) Hopefully will serve as a search portal too or at least will have easy integration with google.  It needs more community friendly features.  4) So 99% of apps are rather useless and whimsical.  Bookshelf, music, and movie apps are moderately helpful.  I imagine the friend ranking (which seems ikky for some reason) will eventually prove to help in developing more three dimensional social networking.  However, I don’t need 14 different ways to post on someone’s wall. 5) Facebook even has additional advantages for non-profits, as Beth Kanter point out.

Overall, Boyd’s indictment seems to lean far too much toward techno-pessimism and ignores the promise of what Facebook will be 3 months and 3 years down the road.  If there is to be a walled garden in any respect, the consumer (or rather pro-sumer) should be in charge of its shape and size, instead of Web 2.0 execs or developers.  Keep in mind, I mean no ill will to Ms. Boyd. I like her work a great deal and respect her, I just kindly disagree. I think she and Scobel did a great job of getting the conversation going on this issue so important to identity 2.0 and online communities. Surprisingly probably agree far more about online communities and social networking than the above might imply. If you would like to see my other indicts of the Facebook platform and musings about the future of social media/networking, you can dive in here (and scroll down).

Thanks to Susan Kitchens at 2020hindsight and Jill Davis Doughtie at Eyelevel Pasadena for the top photo.