New Tech Really Not That New: Social Networking and The Next Big Thing

A big driver for pushing the Internet and networking technologies forward is our human need to connect and share information. As we become increasingly efficient at consuming and producing information, we easily forget where “it” all started. Ask yourself: “What is a social network?” and you will likely think of the new big players on the Net. MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn will likely come to mind. Facebook just recently celebrated its fifth birthday (and in cyber years, that’s middle aged), but the recent presidential election really boosted the site’s visibility in the public eye.  So, Facebook is new to most users and relatively new to anyone who uses it. But in the broader context, sites like Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn are new social networks that borrow from a much older context–one that has been around even longer than the Web itself.  So, what is really new as far as technological advances in social networks?  What new technologies have these newest kings of social content brought to the table?

I won’t pretend to be the expert in this area, but I am of the opinion that new players in social networking really haven’t performed any amazing feat of innovation. Much of Facebook and MySpace’s success is driven by viral marketing, simple design and a bit of luck.

Lets consider some examples that help my point:

The community space, the socialnetwork.com site is employing the most current and relevant platforms to create a network accessible space. Take a one-generation step back…In the early 1990s, that space was created via proprietary networks like CompuServe, eWorld and AOL. Users had to install client software on their machines to access and interact.  But, the functionality offered was almost identical to the current big players. Creating profiles, sharing comments and posts, chat rooms, groups and causes, photos and links to other information were all core functionality of AOL and CompuServe back in the day. The biggest constraint was bandwidth; users were only able to access data at modem speeds over the phone lines. But the ability to connect, share and search were all there in that one-generation old social network. The commercial points of these site were also nearly identical. Advertising, creating evangelist by promoting user generated content about products and selling user data to businesses were all part of this old tech. What are the salient differences with Facebook? Primarily video and mobile accessibility, but those are basically extensions of serving binary files and core functionality to different platforms.  In essence, not much changed if you broadly define innovation.

Lets take another generational step back to MOOs, MUDs and BBSs.  These largely text based virtual communities offered efficient (for the time) access to network information. Many times, these early social networks were hosted on individual computers and were accessible via dialing into a modem with only one number. What  these environments offered were similar to the social networks of today. Setting up profiles, accessing user generated content, sharing content, interacting and transacting and even downloads of programs and binary files (images) were all part of this era in social networking. In fact, one of my first experiences with a MUD was downloading and hand decoding a pornographic image for kicks.  The JPEG file needed a special decoder to view the rendered image, but still–photo sharing was part of the deal. Again, the constraints were client horse power and bandwidth. The goals were nearly identical to Facebook an d MySpace. Commerce in the social networks revolved around shareware and support services for other MOOers.  BBSs offered a space for classified ads, groups and interests.  Ironically, kicking off a precursor Newsgroups trend that lasted more than a decade.

I can go back further than this, but I think my point is made. What have we done to really and truly innovate in the social network space? Not much if you look to the “A-List” players of today. The interface is different, the technological constraints are different and the number of users is much greater, but the goals are still the same and so is the lack of imagination in how to bring people and information together.

This leads me to the question “What’s next?” When are we going to see something truly new? If you take a close look at Second Life, I think the innovation is taking shape there.  But it is an awful lot for people to swallow in one shot. Second Life requires users to interact with technology in a whole new way and it takes time and investment to dive deep in that social network. But Second Life is, indeed, doing something new unlike Facebook and MySpace. Posting text and binary files is not the focus (as with Facebook, et al) for Second Life for its goals are literally to allow users to set up a complete virtual life in cyberspace beyond the meatspace.  

Completely opposite of Second Life in complexity and elegance is Twitter, an almost accident of innovation. Its an amazingly simple, yet powerful community building tool.  It allows users to connect in myriad ways through myriad media. All while holding true to the 8-bit rule of 140 characters. I cannot think of other examples that match Second Life and Twitter in the social networking space for innovation. All the other offerings out there are either assembly of mash-ups or simply copies of the MOO/CompuServe metaphor.

Instead of recreation of old ideas, we in the tech community need to push to improve or invent ideas. Seek to improve on a concept and the journey may lead us to true innovation. But our community of creators and innovators need to know our place in the space and the context in which we function and create. Motivation to invent again may just come from unrest with the status quo.

~DK