EOF - Waving Goodbye to Facebook

We need an alternative. Google Wave is one possibility.

In a blog post last April titled “Building the Social Web Together”, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook wrote, “The power of the open graph is that it helps to create a smarter, personalized Web that gets better with every action taken.” The “open graph” of which he speaks is your social graph—your collection of contacts—on Facebook, augmented by “personalized experiences” with the likes of “Microsoft Docs, Yelp and Pandora”—which are Facebook's “three pre-selected partners”.

Responding in his own Newsweek blog, Barrett Sheridan called Zuckerberg's plans a “Play to Take Over the Entire Internet”. In TechCrunch, MG Siegler's headline read, “I Think Facebook Just Seized Control Of The Internet”. Whether or not Facebook is that ambitious, it won't succeed at anything other than enlarging itself. The limits to that are those of any private architecture. It can get big, but not bigger than the planet. What Facebook has built is the Great Indoors. A lot of people like going there, just like a lot of people like going to shopping malls. But Facebook is a building, not geology.

The Web is geology. It is a wide-open public space on which private and public structures can be built in boundless varieties. Linux is probably the most widely used building material below and within those structures. Calculating its value is pointless, because—as Eric S. Raymond made clear long ago—Linux has use value more than sale value. As useful stuff, its leverage is boundless and, therefore, incalculable. It also will last as long as it remains useful.

The same cannot be said of Facebook, whose value is quite calculable and which will thrive only as long as its revenue model and its investors' patience holds out. Both of those will be shortened by the dissatisfaction of users, which Facebook has been risking increasingly over the years.

To see how this has been going, it helps to check with Facebook's “Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline”, by the EFF. It shows how, during the five years of its existence, Facebook's privacy policy has ratcheted down from respectful to exploitative. And, why not? Facebook's customers are advertisers, not users. As a user, your influence on Facebook rounds to zero. The company is far more interested in making you into better bait for advertisers and visitors who click on ads. A side benefit is “a smarter, personalized Web” that is not the Web at all, but rather an indoor commercial habitat with some nice conveniences.

We've seen this movie before, many times. The most important and dramatic example is Microsoft's “HailStorm”, which arrived and flopped in 2001. As with all heavy weather, it threatened to change (at least superficially) the Web's geology...

The HailStorm architecture is designed for seamless extensibility and consistency across services. It provides common identity, messaging, naming, navigation, security, role-mapping, data modeling, metering and error handling across all “HailStorm” services. And rather than risk compromising the user-centric model by having advertisers pay for them, the people receiving the value—end users—will be the primary source of revenue. “HailStorm” will help move the Internet to end-user subscriptions, in which users pay for value received.

...by putting the Net itself inside Microsoft's own building. That didn't work. Nor will anything Facebook does for roughly the same purposes.

Of course, Microsoft wasn't talking about the real Internet. It was talking about the commercial activity happening on top of the Net. Likewise, Facebook isn't talking about the Web, but rather the “social networking” that's been all the craze during the past few years, and which seems to be happening mostly within and between commercial entities.

As Facebook seems determined not to learn from the failings of its elders, how about moving past all the commercial interests here? How about making our own social networks—ones that are owned by nobody (or close enough), used by everybody and improved by anybody? How would we do that?

One possibility is Google's Wave. It's a way to meet, collaborate, share files and do other literally social stuff. It's also an open-source project that still needs a lot of shaking down. And, although Google hosts the first incarnation, it's still there for anybody else to run with it, fork it or whatever. Here's how Joel David Palmer summed up the possibilities, in a blog post by Steven Hodson:

At the extreme in personal control, we could each configure our own computer as a little wave server and have primary control of our social networking server logs. Less extreme than this, any community or association that's used to serving e-mail could as easily and securely serve waves to their group.

Widespread adoption of waves would automatically reclaim a lot of user privacy and personal responsibility for on-line communications of every kind. The contents cannot be mined by outside interests without committing criminal acts—waves are as private as e-mail.

Waves give you and your connections complete control over your social networking experience, and real opportunities for creative collaboration. A wave can be e-mail, telephone, IM, videophone, collaboration platform, art form, performance venue. Transitioning to waves appears to be a good strategy toward a collaborative social Web that is peer-to-peer rather than server-client.

Sounds good to me. If you've got any better ideas, let's hear them. Maybe we can coax some Facebook occupants—including ourselves, in many cases—to come enjoy the Great Outdoors.

Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal. He is also a fellow with the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Center for Information Technology and Society at UC Santa Barbara.


Doc Searls is the Editor in Chief of Linux Journal


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Anonymous's picture

The problem is we still are 'stuck' with HTML etc... to provide a cross-platform link from user to user.

Facebook is a 2.0 portal that is not aligned with a provider or ISP (or MS) and in the end it is just a building with servers and bandwith.

How can you deliver a web page that does not intrude or impair the message?

E-mail was/is a 'killer-app' because there is a shared standard with server and client across platforms with minimal user intrusion.

FAIL......How about.......

Xelement!'s picture

The title be called "Waving Goodbye to Wave". You should honestly do some research prior to embarking on an article like this.

Can't we do anything about the spam?

mikesd's picture

Surely there's ways of filtering out spam. If email can do it, surely forums can.

That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.

what about retroshare

Anonymous's picture

go retroshare.

Not totally dead (yet :)

Zoran's picture

I'm surprised no has

Anonymous's picture

I'm surprised no has mentioned gnu social
as a possible alternative:

GNU social, true to the Unix-philosophy of small programs to do a small job, will be a decentralized social network that you can install on your own server

Sounds just like what the article is describing.

What about diaspora?

Willem Voogd's picture

To me diaspora sounds like something going into the right direction. What we need are standard protocols for social networking on the net. Webservices, or something similar, then tie the different 'human repositories' together, where every human can control all information itself. whether that information is histed at myspace, facebook, diaspora, hyves, or any other local alternative, like my home server... We chioose our social 'dashboard' provider independently. That social dashboard could be enriched, or polluted, take your pick, by commercial information targeted at the user of the dashboard. So that's where to money is. Of course I could also implement and host my own dashboard at home. Or just have a plain old desktop application as dashboard.

So the ultimate answer to facebook is open social networking standards, to be implemented by anyone. use an uddi like discovery method and we're in business. The thing is, who will sponsor such an effort?

I will join, as I won't join facebook,



This is a much more dangerous

Imaginary Man's picture

This is a much more dangerous move then you are giving credit for. Especially when you consider Comcast and Verizon play penning such a creation and charging to reach areas of the web outside the monster.

Its not a dooms day scenario but it is the first logical steps to locking down the net. You would have to shape off a chunk of the internet to pacify normal people. They of course they would only want the people who spend money.(Thank God the people who keep it running are not the ones who spend money)

On a similar note please help wikipedia keep its lights on being able to access the worlds knowledge is a neat thing.But thats the whole crazy problem how can we make people who cant follow a crazy ranting post like this understand how important it is that the current impression of the internet needs to be drastically reformed.

PS. The human race needs to evolve a fair bit more before we can use Google wave. It makes my head explode. Its like creating YouTube before the words broad band ment anything.

foss social network

crlsgms's picture

we use noosfero here - http://noosfero.org/

a nice mashup always updating framework, wich we created our own social networks with no strings (mostly) attached.

Waving goodbye to facebook - Wave as a replacement?

Anonymous's picture

I agree with your comments on Facebook, but I'm having difficulty seeing Google Wave as a replacement. Wave looks like it has a lot of potential for collaboration on a project, but I don't see being able to use it for social networking. My social networking doesn't consist of project collaboration.

I recently started using Dropbox, just the free account to try it out. Seemed pretty good (for limited purposes), so I clicked on their link to share it on Facebook. Facebook informed me that Dropbox wanted permission to: Access my basic information; Post to my Wall; Access my data any time; Access my photos & videos.

I had no problem with the first 2. I thought the rest was a little much.

I don't know how much Dropbox has to do with exactly what is being asked for. It was my impression that that is just the way Facebook sets things up.

Other Social Network systems

crosstopher's picture

I have recently been looking into this for a project that I have started and found that elgg. and Mahara look incredibly promising. More so than the current state of Wave.


mikesd's picture

Hasn't Google Wave died?

That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.

Wave is DEAD - pay attention Doc!

Anonymous's picture

@Doc - you've been hiding under a rock, my friend. Google pulled the plug on wave http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-google-wave.html

Wave was a good try, but it wasn't even close to being anything like facebook is today. Yes facebook has had privacy issues, but so will all these other social sites that need money to run and have a 20 year old trying to figure out the business plan.

Diaspora is promising, but way behind. We need an innovative facebook/diaspora/twitter/identica/foursquare/gowalla/posterous mashup - not a copycat.