Since the spot light is on net neutrality and potential government regulation, I considered the analogous developing social web. I suspect my friend and facebook guru Jesse Stay may not agree. My premise, If I introduced two people, I don’t own that relationship, so why should a social site?
It Begins With Net Neutrality
The Internet and Web are founded on open architectures. As long as your data satisfies the protocol any linked systems can access your data.
The connectivity of the Internet has evolved in stages. Early phone lines of varying bandwidth were followed by cable and wireless providers. We’ve taken our net connections from work, school, home, and now mobile. (here’s some collected background info on protocols).
The strength of the net is that judgement of data is withheld. I’m free to create and share any data or software I wish as long as I follow the protocol, and respect media ownership (this is a changing ruleset). Ideally, the businesses and governments which provide the pipes are NOT supposed to regulate the data that goes through the network. But a conflict of interest has risen for many large teleco providers as well as nearly all nations (who wish to restrict access) who block or artificially limit access. I suspect a similar conflict is happening within large social sites.
Ultimately new net based business, and business growth is fueled by access to wider bandwidth. This paid for access will have no constraints on how businesses and individuals use their access. This is the holy grail of dumb pipes (they don’t control what goes through the netwok).
The Rise of Social Media
Not too far back, specialized web spaces were created to empower individuals with the ability to self publish dynamic information. Beyond this assisted publishing, average folks were able create virtual connections to old and new friends. This additional social channel interest summoned (can user need summon products?) a series of social web serviced.
From crowd sourced search and filtering (Digg, Stumble Upon, Hacker News, Reddit), to shared media (YouTube, blip.tv, Pandora, Last.fm) a huge variety of social sites have sprung to life on the net. Meanwhile battles raged over content ownership in an attempt to restrict social sharing. It became all to easy to email your favorite song or book to dozens of friends. Old distribution channels were being bypassed entirely. And yet, devoted fans still purchase the media they wish to support. The price structure has changed drastically from the media substrate (8tracks, cassettes, CDs, DVDs) to the value of the content.
But sites and services weren’t enough. We wanted to used these new social functions in our own way. SaaS (software as a service) and APIs allowed web businesses to discover new markets by opening design to users. This fostered creation of new business ecosystems, a pretty amazing dynamic of net business.
Why isn’t the net social neutral?
Many of the services on the web are landing pages, or dead ends. If I can’t easily transfer out my social network and information (data!) to other networks, the social site has restricted access. They are no longer a neutral entity. I would argue all current social media sites have redtricted data flow in one way or another. No matter how open a business claims it’s site and data to be, they force you to visit and access their site through their portal.
A solution to this lack of data neutrality isn’t goverment enforcement. We require a clear separation of what data a user owns, and what data and value the social site owns. The clearer this distinction is, the faster the social web and it’s multitude of users can move on to discovering new value. The secret sauce of social is mutual participation, and shared ownership.
Some would argue that services like Twitter and Facebook have advanced APIs which enable remote access. This is a great start, but the true test is when the main sites of social media go down or evaporate, and we are still able to maintain protocol level connectivity to our social graph and use our data.
Distributed protocols and servers, external to the social business will aid in shifting the social net to data neutral.
Mark, interesting read.
Since the Salesforce chatter announcement, http://bit.ly/7jmNmI, I've been thinking about how social media really needs to move inside of the enterprise but by all definitions of the enterprise today, just can't without a negative transformation.
Nothing net neutral about a controlled environment where APIs parse input from Facebook and Twitter and shovel them into another corporately governed social camp.
This is one of the next frontiers. Any ideas on how this would look from an infrastructure perspective?
Well folks much smarter than myself came together and put together an open social protocol not too long ago. I don't think it has gained major steam but it's still out there, and several services support it. The main ideas were portability and open design in social media.
With real time RSS from pubsubhubbub and RSSCloud, blogs are open social architectures. And the comment aggregators Disqus and Js-kit Echo are data portable (we can pull our comments out of their systems any time).
Thanks for the history lesson
Much appreciated.
Controlled environments generally are a product of fear and it is fear which we sometimes overlook in the speed of technology development. We don't think we have time to contemplate consequences and take the time to appreciate the effect on the total system.
The idea of openness is something that the social media plane provider obviously grasp (open social and application protocol's exist, cloud computing apps exist because this deep innovative potential now clearly exists). My concern is the high-flyer plane providers and pilots are travelling at a breath-taking speed compared to slower plodding social media passengers, for passengers usually grasp opportunity at a surface layer, when the real opportunity for social media is in depth between the cloud and human reality and not just in the cloud.
The passengers of social media have the platform created for them, get a free ticket if not a free social media ride and the passenger of this flight into the new simply learns to buckle up and then maybe learn how become a great follower, which in turn means that the mirror neuron must surely exist for this followership is one kind (not the only kind) of learning. This behaviour pattern lies at the heart of social aggregation and the value of the network is consequently scored by size of community body but not as much depth of individual mind.
The idea of the social media passenger fits neatly with Guy Debord's conception of the “spectacle” or spectator. It also fits with Marshall McLuhan's view of systems being extensions of the nervous system. The question at the enterprise level therefore IMHO is how does one motivate social media passengers to become social media travellers?
The enterprise and social media relationship is not a chicken and egg situation, it is not a Wright Brother problem either. It is a great moment when human beings learn to fly in any walk of life and social media is no different. The physical flying experience is bereft with problems because airports in the modern age have become even more controlled environments, the joy the Wright Brothers had regarding the discover of human flight, isn't the joy a modern passenger feel, for they continue to simply be cogs in a flying system.
So fear is what keeps people being social media passengers, but to become social media travellers, it requires a different relationship between social media plane providers and pilots, and how this can translate to the generation of high-flying enterprise capability. So it is fear and not the “enterprise” which is the chief transformation point in human experience. Attack is not synonymous with fearless beings, when we attack anything we do so because we emanate from a place or state of fear ourselves. We then don't enjoy difference, we fear it.
How do we get social media passengers see that they can fly in the social media space? Such “flying” ability is the real transformation point of both social media and enterprise, especially when the passenger of social media does not notice the plane. At that point social media travellers are born, freedom is realized and this is nothing new, from scientific observation to biblical interpretations, fear has yet to be conquered, even as we marvel at technology, we are still flummoxed by the power emanating from pea-brain sized amygdala.
Social media providers and/or pilots need to pay as much attention to long-term destinations as they do to plane design as well as hub and spoke infrastructure. A passenger is simply a tourist, but there is a huge difference between a tourist that exists as an extension of social media and a traveller who takes social media as a given reality and becomes emergent and conscious of greater opportunties.
That consciousness is an awakening, and such an awakening is that the issues of enterprise are also the issues of social media, it is more of a question of how it is we learn to see, especially if we are no longer focusing on just our singular part of the total being. If fear is the mechanical misfit that disrupts the biology of any living system, then we are not creating a new form of humanity but human beings being taught to operate in a different kind of mechanical system, and there in lies the most basic relationship opportunity that equates social media and enterprise, to utilize this new resource to create neural confidence to enable this new reality.
[Em]
Em,
. I'm humbled by it.
First, thank you so much for your well thought and generously shared comment. It's rare that a post of mine recieves a comment of greater length and depth
Your passenger/social media analogy was both fitting and informative. I hadn't considered the systematic effect fear has had on joyous human experiences.
Emergence matters to me not because it is a property of nature but because human's have the capacity to think. So depth for me begins with getting beyond the first page and how we also find value in any given paragraph of human thinking that surprises us.
When I hit the link to Kevin Kelly, I was awashed in an ocean of information food from a man who has gone beyond the first book (never mind the first paragraph or page!) and whose life decisions have accumulated a rich nutritious specialism that defines Kelly who has reached the nirvana of depth – a life in flow.
How did I go beyond the first page once I arrived at Kevin Kelly's page? I simply scanned for anything that has the highest personal resonance to my own life. That wasn't hard to find which is Kelly's treatise on the scientific method:
http://fora.tv/2006/03/10/Next_100_Years_of_Sci...
That is what I mean by “depth”. It is a personal discovery, and why I consider following “size” not depth. Until I see a valid purpose for accumulating “size” for my own life, I will prefer to pursue “depth”. Depth he does not mean “a deep thinker” but the discovery of thinking that is relevant to one's own being.
Fear as a human mechanism is meant to help us but the kind of fear that I refer to is linked to our ancestral past, a DNA linked to life experiences that even a caveman could relate to. To understand fear in the modern context is to appreciate its opportunity, and this opportunity is evaporating the illusion of fear so we free joy and access new life energy – and also realizing where fear is helpful i.e. as a caring and protective intelligence.
The question then becomes how does “fear” affect our “follower behaviour” (our “need” to live with size) and how does it release and renew our own capacities and freedom to think (to establish depth that may even question the need for size).
My twitter usage is therefore based on depth rather than size (and there is nothing wrong with accumulating size, if it serves purpose – and in my own particular case size does not serve me at all).
This depth has an “emergence” that the pursuit for size IMHO does not, for the pursuit of size is IMHO a dependency not a personal freedom. When we therefore add depth as a perspective along with the common perspective regarding size, the combined choice produces breadth. I do not know my breadth yet because I have not begun appreciating depth but this is what I am pursuing now.
By hearing what Kevin Kelly thinks about science in the Fora.TV presentation link above, it arrives at a time when I have also begun to open the book on who Descartes was (something I have recently decided). I am not a follower of Descartes but there is something to his “Discourse on Method” and “Rules for the Direction of the Mind” – that prompts me to pursue another aspect of depth – not to become a know-it-all, but to simply appreciate new layers of human experience. I am new to the scientific method, therefore I found this strand of value in the rich field of knowledge that Kevin Kelly provides – and by pursuing these single strands I benefit from depth, rather than get irrevocably lost in his breadth.
This depth then is at best a form of emergence, but it can easily be a pathway into the information swamp. The joy for me is in the simple sum of discoveries that hopefully add up to a series of experiences that fundamentally shift or lift my own thinking.
There is nothing more awful for me than for others to follow my thinking, when IMHO they have the opportunity to discover their own path and way, which is as divergent as human experience can possibly be. The former is an act of “size”, the latter is an act of “depth”.
Mark, what I have learned about Descartes (again for my personal relevance) is how much importance he attached to method rather than ad hoc behaviour. So now I am going to miss a sports event and substitute my attention to Kevin Kelly presentation – for if one pursue's depth, these golden nuggets become fruit rather than metal – and what is one of the great aspects of joy itself, but go forth and multiply – and this joy is a highly personal experience, a life decision that is an individual discovery.
[Em]
I'm very glad Kevin's work resonated with you. I had hoped it would, and I see you have experienced it in a completely novel way compared to my experiences with reading his work. It's been a long time (18 years) since I've read Descartes in my freshmen year of college.
I had to review his work at wikipedia to refresh my memory. What a joy it is re-experiencing his philosophy and feeling a powerful resonance with my own thinking.
I think the primary “novelty” is that one is absorbed in a particular discipline, one ceases to see it from the outside. When one is absorbed in one's work, one cannot imagine what we look like when someone passes by on the street, who may see us through a window busy with our thinking.
I watched the latest rendition of the Prisoner (which originally featured Patrick McGoohan), and I also watch movies like the Matrix and therefore am very cogent that I don't want to be sitting on the inside of things. This attitude is supported by my high regard for the Founding Fathers of the US, the difference between men who risked their lives for freedom and those who grew the system into new empires.
Right now I am reading “Tom Sorrell” Descartes – A Very Short Introduction. This is the way I am easing into the huge breadth and information footprint that Descartes left behind. I think that Sorrell has done a great job of “introducing” Descartes the man.
For sure, the moment I first saw Kevin Kelly's page, I simply sat back and thought WOW! but how do I eat this
That answer is simple, through the knife and fork of my own life goals and the emergent reality that emanates as my own way of discovery sits both in parallel and paradox to this. In that regard I welcome the humanity of the network (because it is an extension of my own consciousness) but I am rather guarded about networked humanity because again – it is easy to lose sight of our life goals because we stood in a forest of information overload. That is why I also associate the word “Cloud” with flying i.e. The Provider, The Pilot and the Passenger. Which brings me back to Sorrell's book who talks about the quadrivium – arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Oh yes music:
In that regard Tom Petty sums up my present state so well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mX9-2xuyP8
I am simply learning to fly . . . but most of all thanks Mark for allowing me to think in this particular thread.
[Em]
I'm playing catchup with Kevin's New Rules for a New Economy ebook.
Although I read his blog fairly regularly, some of his posts are tremendous in depth and detail and I lose the time to drink it all in.
I'm thrilled I was able to give you something to intellectually chew on Emeri.
Again my thanks to you Mark also.
BTW I did post a response at AlwaysOn to your recent visit, which you can find here.
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/33198
Beyond this, I wish you happy holidays and a happy new year since I have to focus offline on a professional commitment that requires my full focus. I am looking forward to 2010 but like the promise of any good year, we harvest tomorrow what we sow today.
The very best to you and your family.
Regards
[Em]
Again my thanks to you Mark also.
BTW I did post a response at AlwaysOn to your recent visit, which you can find here.
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/33198
Beyond this, I wish you happy holidays and a happy new year since I have to focus offline on a professional commitment that requires my full focus. I am looking forward to 2010 but like the promise of any good year, we harvest tomorrow what we sow today.
The very best to you and your family.
Regards
[Em]
ADDENDUM: Re: KEVIN KELLY
Having listened to the Kevin Kelly fora.tv (longnow.org) presentation. It links first to existing material that I have paid attention to i.e. Steven Baker talking about the rise of the Numerati:
http://thenumerati.net/
and also many years ago I came across Michael Schrage writing about “Serious Play”, Schrage talks about prototyping which fits Kelly's view of synthesis (simulation) :
http://danbricklin.com/log/seriousplay.htm
The presentation also made me aware of the connected relationship (using Twitter as a linking point rather than perspective point here), here it reminds me also about McLuhan's refrain “The Medium is the Message” because as Kelly points out the “Third Way of Science” is our collective ability to look at science in different ways, especially enabled by new medium's such as modern technology :
http://twitter.com/NNTaleb
http://twitter.com/AlexIskold
Above all, the ideas of Kevin Kelly support my developing interest in Buckminster Fuller ( http://www.bfi.org/ ) and in terms of emergence the relativity and resonance of his work is now absolutely clear in my mind.
This is a long PS but it is a great way to communicate how I am approaching the door you opened regarding my own emergent inquiry. This also demonstrates why “followership” distracts me from this path, rather than enhances my own form of personal discovery.
[Em]
GoAL #19
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/33377