11 ms·

The Social Graph is Neither

434 points by conesus 15y ago

PaulHoule 15y ago
rdf technology is coming on strong in late 2011; the tools are getting better fast -- we will be able to represent the social graph in more detail, and correlate it with the 'semantic graph' that shared human experience is coded in. yes, RDF has taken a while to mature, but look at the time lag between Codd's paper and the commercial release of Oracle. 1000 flowers have been blooming for years and we know a lot about what works and what doesn't. the trouble with foaf and other 'distributed social graph' is that muggles like Facebook the way it is... they don't care about data portability or privacy; unless a distributed system can provide a better user experience, it's got no hope.
- britta 15y ago
  I believe Maciej is saying that it's not just an issue with RDF or a technical problem really. He says: "Personally, I think finding an adequate data model for the totality of interpersonal connections is an AI-hard problem. But even if you disagree, it's clear that a plain old graph is not going to cut it."
  - synae 15y ago
    That depends on your definition of a "plain old graph". If you allow arbitrary numbers of edges between nodes and allow edges to carry data, everything will be ok, right? (...right?)
    - jerf 15y ago
      In math... and we're talking math if we're talking RDF & graphs, right?... "arbitrary" is perilously close to a synonym for "infinite" and "unbounded".
      - rgbrgb 15y ago
        Well, are relationships finite-dimensional?
      - bigiain 15y ago
        That's true, but "infinite" and "unbounded" often also mean "there's no exact or precise solution, but at least for certain circumstances there's a useful approximation that works". I can calculate pi to "enough" precision, whether I'm making a hula hoop, or a piston ring, or sending a probe to Saturn - I suspect a lot of what I'd like out of a functional "social graph" probably doesn't need much more precision than "three and a bit", 3.1416+-0.0004, or 3.14159265+-0.000000005.
- bsb 15y ago
  new entry into the market, Stardog from Clark and Parsia, extremely fast and embeddable / scalable RDF database with OWL reasoning built in (they created the Pellet OWL reasoner) I agree - 2011 going into 2012 is the rise of the semantic web
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  rdf technology is coming on strong in late 2011; the tools are getting better fast Can you expand on this? I'm very interested in RDF but have been frustrated by how little interest in Semantic Web tech there seems to be in the US. I'm interested in highly specified networks rather than slippery ones from the consumer marketplace, and in visualization/manipulation tools rather than the underlying DB technology. If you have any suggestions I'd be grateful, I feel like I've been plowing a lonely row with this stuff.
- mtraven 15y ago
  Many things can be usefully represented by graph structure, and RDF is a way to do that (a verbose and clunky way, but better than no standard at all). Whether social relationships are one of those things is a separate question.
redemade 15y ago
> Asking computer nerds to design social software is a little bit like hiring a Mormon bartender. exactly.
- 3pt14159 15y ago
  This is bullshit. "Computer nerds" have plenty of friends. I know factory workers that have very high depression levels due to not having enough social contact or friendship in their lives. Sure, when I was 9 I was beat the fuck up over and over but when you are friendly, smart and successful people like you. They want to be your friend. Let's play devils advocate for a second. Take the most popular person in high school and get him to design social software. It would suck. Bad.
  - daenz 15y ago
    > Take the most popular person in high school and get him to design social software. It would suck. Bad. Let's assume they had the technical skills to do it, why do you think it would suck?
    - statictype 15y ago
      Let's assume they had the technical skills to do it So basically a nerd with social skills?
      - daenz 15y ago
        I'm trying to figure out his argument. He's implying that someone with good social skill would suck at designing a social network, but seemingly for more reasons than they just don't have the technical ability. Or maybe that's all he's saying.
        3pt14159 15y ago
        I'm denying the premise. The most popular person in high school was almost certainly not a nerd. Nerds take a while to maxing out their social skills, but once they do I find they are almost as good at it as sales guys or MBA gals. From my experience the most popular kid almost never had the time to dedicate to crafting the technical skills necessary to build a mega-successful online business, Social or otherwise. Nerds think about things far more than the typical prep or jock.
joebadmo 15y ago
I agree that the graph is an incorrect representation. Because people don't think that way. But that doesn't mean organic, activity/interest based communities are the only ones possible, or even desirable. I want a way to be able to communicate with all of my different offline groups without having to be in their physical presence. I also want this on a broad spectrum of public-private. I think adequately (not perfectly) modelling social context is a solvable problem. It's a matter of UI and metaphor. Here's my take on it: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7072771434/a-new-metaphor-for-social-networking http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7072771434/a-new-metaphor-for...
Alex3917 15y ago
Social networks aren't really social networks either. If you read Bowling Alone, it should be readily apparent that Facebook et al. fulfill few of the functions of an actual social network.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  Exactly. "Social networks" are thingies that aid us with establishing and keeping up with actual social networks. It's a bit like calling a publisher's press a news agency.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    In vipassana meditation there is the idea that if you learn to recognize thoughts at the precise moment they arise, then eventually any given thought will basically lose its power and stop arising. Facebook seems to have the same property, but for personality. Every time you post about yourself, you become a little bit more bland and boring of a person. The way I think of Facebook is rolodex + fax machine + succubus.
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      Fascinating tidbit on meditation, but I disagree that posting about oneself on Facebook makes one more bland and boring. If, for example, one is bland and boring to start with, then yes, posting about yourself to Facebook won't really help. However (EDIT) -- if your life is boring, you can post about something else. I've known some individuals who lead the most pathetic lives you can imagine yet they had a decent-size following on Facebook because they regularly posted about politics (which I guess they used as a medium through which to vent about how pathetic their lives were...). I do see some truth however to your comparison with that idea from meditation. For example, even if you are leading an interesting life, there are many ways to post about it that will make your life appear less interesting than it really is.
pak 15y ago
This is a superb post. Social networks, starting especially from the era of the Facebook era, have foisted increasing amounts of doublethink on their users, and it's often difficult to make people realize this and explain the reasons for it being that way. This essay not only lays out good examples of that nagging cognitive dissonance, but then goes on to explain its necessity at both the technical and business levels.
- knowtheory 15y ago
  I disagree. The entire first point is merely a taxonomic complaint. Yeah, taxonomies are hard to "get right" in the global sense. That's why we don't employ globally correct architecture-astronaut taxonomies for everything, there aren't very many accurate useful ones. Instead life is made up of piles and piles of little taxonomies used for specific purposes. I'm happy with that as both a mental model and a practical one. I agree that the notion of a single social graph is an incoherent one, but Maciej's point is largely a quibbly one. There are graphs of human interactions that can be mapped out. These interaction graphs are not static. Data sets which purport to represent reality require updating, as they are not the canonical source. But so what? That's true for maps of physical locations too, or article quality on wikipedia. Facebook shows, if nothing else, that it's possible to not just track but mediate (and still track) these interaction spaces for users as an end to itself (even if they are the product not the customers). Does it matter that Facebrick isn't a perfectly synced representation of reality? Well, does it matter that Wikipedia isn't a totally accurate encyclopedia? You'd be right to ask for what cause, and to what end. And that's the whole point. We dig up or create the little taxonomies that bridge the gaps that we're looking to cross.
  - pak 15y ago
    I think you're missing his bigger insight, that is, building a social graph is a fundamentally asocial act. And that extends to creating taxonomies, even if they are localized to my concept of socializing. Nobody goes to a party to create a taxonomy. Being social is all about disorganization, spontaneity, creativity, breaking out of all the stupid taxonomies that we impose on other people and have imposed on us. Trying to organize socialization to the extent that a "social graph" can be created is a profoundly sociopathic act. To push this task on users so that they do all the shoeboxing and tagging and linking, all in the name of "fun," requires some coercive force. It is no surprise that many Facebook users say that they don't really enjoy using it, but they have to. Part of that was the site's smart choice to maintain real names, so that you are always fretting about your online appearance. It's not a "perfectly synced representation of reality," but it is presented as such, almost like your own personal Wikipedia page, and by the laws of social anxiety you are compelled to check up on it! Shoebox, tag, link... The line about Facebook rarely producing creative or original material really hit home for me. 4chan and SA are creative because they are fundamentally disorganized, and this freedom produces real moments of brilliance (and plenty more of profound stupidity). Facebook and its ilk are like corporate jobs disguised as consumer web products. You are constantly being shuffled from box to box, task to task, and the blinders have to be tightened ever so constantly to keep you from realizing why what you are doing really never will be "fun" in the way that a raucous party is fun. About those blinders: those are in a big way the "privacy options" that every social network touts. Maciej points out, and I think that it's a salient point, that if everybody was able to see the whole social graph, it would dissolve. That alone should suggest that the social graph is an unnatural concept. Yet there is somebody, the owner of the social network, that can indeed see the entire graph, and there is a whole level of misdirection that they must apply to make this seem completely normal. Again, maciej said most of this better than I could, so I'm glad he did.
nroman 15y ago
One of the main points in this article is that any social graph found in a service such as Facebook, Twitter, or G+ can't possible model all of the nuance of real life relationships. That's obvious. However, the author takes it a step further. Suggesting that because of this these services have no value. That's pretty big logical leap. An imperfect approximation of the social graph still has a lot of value.
- wiscoDude 15y ago
  Exactly, I mean, just ask the citizens of Egypt. "This revolution started on Facebook." - Wael Ghonim http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revolution-wael-ghonim_n_822078.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revo...
food 15y ago
discuss.
lukejduncan 15y ago
"Imagine the U.S. Census as conducted by direct marketers - that's the social graph." That's the best quote in the whole post. I can't articulate it, but that resonated strongly with me.
radagaisus 15y ago
When you publish content on the internet and it has a relation to your online identity you are just saying: look how awesome I am. I uploaded a bubble sort in prolog and a b-tree in Haskell ("I'm an enlightened far-reaching hipster hacker"). I quoted Allen Ginsberg on facebook. "Look at me I'm smart and read poetry". MySpace collapsed and Facebook's clean UI won because most people don't have that much identity.
juddlyon 15y ago
Two things struck me: - the quality of thinking displayed in this post - what is in the world is it doing on the delicious clone I signed up for? This is the same guy that writes about scaling hardware, no? Keep it coming.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  Scaling hardware, steaks[1], Iceland[2], John Titor[3], scurvy[4], etc. [1]:http://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.htm http://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.h... [2]:http://idlewords.com/2003/11/a_morning_in_iceland.htm http://idlewords.com/2003/11/a_morning_in_iceland.htm [3]:http://idlewords.com/2003/09/best_practices_for_time_travelers.htm http://idlewords.com/2003/09/best_practices_for_time_travele... [4]:http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm
- vdm 15y ago
  Posts from Maciej and Bret Victor on the same day, goodbye productivity...
feral 15y ago
Lots of good, interesting ideas in that post. A few comments: In general, what data you capture, always depends on what you want to do with the data. Any data model is an abstraction, which discards a lot of information. This simplification is what makes the data model useful. Of course, storing social relations as an undirected, graph with a single type of edge, as is done in Facebook, is a gross simplification of real social structure. Everyone knows that; Facebook know that; but the fact is that you can build a lot of useful stuff, with even such a simple model. Is it perfect? No - I'm sure we will do better in future - but you've got to admit its amazingly successful, for such a simple representation. So, we aren't going to be able to define a format for the social graph that is so rich, that it will capture all possible uses with it - but I don't see why we couldn't define a format that captures enough detail to do many a great many of the things we might want to. Next point: graphs are amazingly flexible data structures; if you have a multigraph or hypergraph representation, or a set of graphs, you can represent an awful lot of rich information. Don't knock graphs too much. You could build an awful lot of cool communication functionality, if you had really any rich social graph representation, not necessarily the 'perfect' one. The author also writes: "In other domains, a big graph would be good for recommendations, but friendship is not transitive. There's just no way to tell if you'll get along with someone in my social circle, no matter how many friends we have in common." Of course, friendship isn't strictly transitive; otherwise the giant connected component of a social graph, would be one big clique; but friendship is highly transitive. That's why recommendation works so well in Facebook. If A is friends with B, and A is friends with C, then there is a vastly higher chance that B is friends with C, than with some other random person. Sociologists have called this 'triadic closure' and studied it for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triadic_closure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triadic_closure So, while the recommendations won't be perfect, as things like friendship aren't perfectly transitive, they'll potentially be very good. But what recommendation engine is perfect, anyway? Finally, the author refers to the problem of finding an adequate model as 'AI-hard' - well, as I've said, any model - even the most perfect one (unless we go and make a copy of the entire state of the world) - is going to sacrifice something. So I see why coming up with a perfect model is impossible. But as to coming up with a model that is adequate for a great many of the possible things we might want to build; well, I'd say 'AI-hard' is an exaggeration.
- 15y ago
gcb 15y ago
""" Right now the social networking sites occupy a similar position to CompuServe, Prodigy, or AOL in the mid 90's. At that time each company was trying to figure out how to become a mass-market gateway to the Internet. Looking back now, their early attempts look ridiculous and doomed to failure, for we have seen the Web, and we have tasted of the blogroll and the lolcat and found that they were good. """ i've been saying this for ages but this guys puts it so much simpler i'm ashamed.
joe_the_user 15y ago
Hmm, I seems like the post is saying "The Social Graph" isn't a graph 'cause it is a multi-graph with different kinds of connections. That part seems obvious. But the "it's not social part" is more saying "it's not something to publicly mess with", ie, take the question of signaling interest seriously. That's true but the thing remains a social graph. I would put it another way. The social graph exists, touching it can be dynamite, yes, can breach some boundaries, yes, publishing a connect is further social act, yet. But technology is about breaching boundaries. Facebook doesn't allow the touchy, fine-grained quality of real world friendships - and there are advantages to this. It has created a lot of connections which wouldn't exist before it. Sure, further refinements may make things more nuanced as in the real world. But the crude, glad-handing Internet world is now also the real social world and won't be going away. There are ways that this is quite good.
RusAlexander 15y ago
Russian guys on the photo
araneae 15y ago
Ugh, I hate titles like these. It's not a graph? Of COURSE it's a graph. It's just a very complex one. Just because you could make many such graphs representing the same relationships doesn't mean it's not a graph. And it's not social because you're missing someone's crush? Uh, no. It's still social, just incomplete. A better title for this would have been "The Social Graph is incomplete and complex."
- akmiller 15y ago
  A better title for this would have been "The Social Graph is incomplete and complex." A more accurate title perhaps, but definitely not a better title!
- wiscoDude 15y ago
  Yes, it's like he wanted to complain about Facebook, came up with a really awesome title, and then had to backfill content. Which utterly failed, wait, didn't even attempt to support the title of his post. I wrote a rebuttal titled The Social Graph is Both http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-is-social/ http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-i...
guscost 15y ago
Well said. The ideal "social graph" is just an advertiser's wet dream, and they forget to consider whether it would be useful to the user. Or even possible.
wiscoDude 15y ago
I put my thoughts on this article in a blog post. Too long for a comment. "The Social Graph is Both" http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-is-social/ http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-i...
- billswift 15y ago
  Good essay, thanks. >They are useful graphs with deficiencies. This describes all graphs representing real-world, as opposed to purely mathematical, objects and relationships.

434 points by conesus 15y ago

rdf technology is coming on strong in late 2011; the tools are getting better fast -- we will be able to represent the social graph in more detail, and correlate it with the 'semantic graph' that shared human experience is coded in. yes, RDF has taken a while to mature, but look at the time lag between Codd's paper and the commercial release of Oracle. 1000 flowers have been blooming for years and we know a lot about what works and what doesn't. the trouble with foaf and other 'distributed social graph' is that muggles like Facebook the way it is... they don't care about data portability or privacy; unless a distributed system can provide a better user experience, it's got no hope.

britta 15y ago
I believe Maciej is saying that it's not just an issue with RDF or a technical problem really. He says: "Personally, I think finding an adequate data model for the totality of interpersonal connections is an AI-hard problem. But even if you disagree, it's clear that a plain old graph is not going to cut it."
- synae 15y ago
  That depends on your definition of a "plain old graph". If you allow arbitrary numbers of edges between nodes and allow edges to carry data, everything will be ok, right? (...right?)
  - jerf 15y ago
    In math... and we're talking math if we're talking RDF & graphs, right?... "arbitrary" is perilously close to a synonym for "infinite" and "unbounded".
    - rgbrgb 15y ago
      Well, are relationships finite-dimensional?
    - bigiain 15y ago
      That's true, but "infinite" and "unbounded" often also mean "there's no exact or precise solution, but at least for certain circumstances there's a useful approximation that works". I can calculate pi to "enough" precision, whether I'm making a hula hoop, or a piston ring, or sending a probe to Saturn - I suspect a lot of what I'd like out of a functional "social graph" probably doesn't need much more precision than "three and a bit", 3.1416+-0.0004, or 3.14159265+-0.000000005.
bsb 15y ago
new entry into the market, Stardog from Clark and Parsia, extremely fast and embeddable / scalable RDF database with OWL reasoning built in (they created the Pellet OWL reasoner) I agree - 2011 going into 2012 is the rise of the semantic web
anigbrowl 15y ago
rdf technology is coming on strong in late 2011; the tools are getting better fast Can you expand on this? I'm very interested in RDF but have been frustrated by how little interest in Semantic Web tech there seems to be in the US. I'm interested in highly specified networks rather than slippery ones from the consumer marketplace, and in visualization/manipulation tools rather than the underlying DB technology. If you have any suggestions I'd be grateful, I feel like I've been plowing a lonely row with this stuff.
mtraven 15y ago
Many things can be usefully represented by graph structure, and RDF is a way to do that (a verbose and clunky way, but better than no standard at all). Whether social relationships are one of those things is a separate question.

redemade 15y ago

> Asking computer nerds to design social software is a little bit like hiring a Mormon bartender. exactly.

3pt14159 15y ago
This is bullshit. "Computer nerds" have plenty of friends. I know factory workers that have very high depression levels due to not having enough social contact or friendship in their lives. Sure, when I was 9 I was beat the fuck up over and over but when you are friendly, smart and successful people like you. They want to be your friend. Let's play devils advocate for a second. Take the most popular person in high school and get him to design social software. It would suck. Bad.
- daenz 15y ago
  > Take the most popular person in high school and get him to design social software. It would suck. Bad. Let's assume they had the technical skills to do it, why do you think it would suck?
  - statictype 15y ago
    Let's assume they had the technical skills to do it So basically a nerd with social skills?
    - daenz 15y ago
      I'm trying to figure out his argument. He's implying that someone with good social skill would suck at designing a social network, but seemingly for more reasons than they just don't have the technical ability. Or maybe that's all he's saying.
      - 3pt14159 15y ago
        I'm denying the premise. The most popular person in high school was almost certainly not a nerd. Nerds take a while to maxing out their social skills, but once they do I find they are almost as good at it as sales guys or MBA gals. From my experience the most popular kid almost never had the time to dedicate to crafting the technical skills necessary to build a mega-successful online business, Social or otherwise. Nerds think about things far more than the typical prep or jock.

joebadmo 15y ago

I agree that the graph is an incorrect representation. Because people don't think that way. But that doesn't mean organic, activity/interest based communities are the only ones possible, or even desirable. I want a way to be able to communicate with all of my different offline groups without having to be in their physical presence. I also want this on a broad spectrum of public-private. I think adequately (not perfectly) modelling social context is a solvable problem. It's a matter of UI and metaphor. Here's my take on it: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7072771434/a-new-metaphor-for-social-networking http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7072771434/a-new-metaphor-for...

Alex3917 15y ago

Social networks aren't really social networks either. If you read Bowling Alone, it should be readily apparent that Facebook et al. fulfill few of the functions of an actual social network.

bluekeybox 15y ago
Exactly. "Social networks" are thingies that aid us with establishing and keeping up with actual social networks. It's a bit like calling a publisher's press a news agency.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  In vipassana meditation there is the idea that if you learn to recognize thoughts at the precise moment they arise, then eventually any given thought will basically lose its power and stop arising. Facebook seems to have the same property, but for personality. Every time you post about yourself, you become a little bit more bland and boring of a person. The way I think of Facebook is rolodex + fax machine + succubus.
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    Fascinating tidbit on meditation, but I disagree that posting about oneself on Facebook makes one more bland and boring. If, for example, one is bland and boring to start with, then yes, posting about yourself to Facebook won't really help. However (EDIT) -- if your life is boring, you can post about something else. I've known some individuals who lead the most pathetic lives you can imagine yet they had a decent-size following on Facebook because they regularly posted about politics (which I guess they used as a medium through which to vent about how pathetic their lives were...). I do see some truth however to your comparison with that idea from meditation. For example, even if you are leading an interesting life, there are many ways to post about it that will make your life appear less interesting than it really is.

pak 15y ago

This is a superb post. Social networks, starting especially from the era of the Facebook era, have foisted increasing amounts of doublethink on their users, and it's often difficult to make people realize this and explain the reasons for it being that way. This essay not only lays out good examples of that nagging cognitive dissonance, but then goes on to explain its necessity at both the technical and business levels.

knowtheory 15y ago
I disagree. The entire first point is merely a taxonomic complaint. Yeah, taxonomies are hard to "get right" in the global sense. That's why we don't employ globally correct architecture-astronaut taxonomies for everything, there aren't very many accurate useful ones. Instead life is made up of piles and piles of little taxonomies used for specific purposes. I'm happy with that as both a mental model and a practical one. I agree that the notion of a single social graph is an incoherent one, but Maciej's point is largely a quibbly one. There are graphs of human interactions that can be mapped out. These interaction graphs are not static. Data sets which purport to represent reality require updating, as they are not the canonical source. But so what? That's true for maps of physical locations too, or article quality on wikipedia. Facebook shows, if nothing else, that it's possible to not just track but mediate (and still track) these interaction spaces for users as an end to itself (even if they are the product not the customers). Does it matter that Facebrick isn't a perfectly synced representation of reality? Well, does it matter that Wikipedia isn't a totally accurate encyclopedia? You'd be right to ask for what cause, and to what end. And that's the whole point. We dig up or create the little taxonomies that bridge the gaps that we're looking to cross.
- pak 15y ago
  I think you're missing his bigger insight, that is, building a social graph is a fundamentally asocial act. And that extends to creating taxonomies, even if they are localized to my concept of socializing. Nobody goes to a party to create a taxonomy. Being social is all about disorganization, spontaneity, creativity, breaking out of all the stupid taxonomies that we impose on other people and have imposed on us. Trying to organize socialization to the extent that a "social graph" can be created is a profoundly sociopathic act. To push this task on users so that they do all the shoeboxing and tagging and linking, all in the name of "fun," requires some coercive force. It is no surprise that many Facebook users say that they don't really enjoy using it, but they have to. Part of that was the site's smart choice to maintain real names, so that you are always fretting about your online appearance. It's not a "perfectly synced representation of reality," but it is presented as such, almost like your own personal Wikipedia page, and by the laws of social anxiety you are compelled to check up on it! Shoebox, tag, link... The line about Facebook rarely producing creative or original material really hit home for me. 4chan and SA are creative because they are fundamentally disorganized, and this freedom produces real moments of brilliance (and plenty more of profound stupidity). Facebook and its ilk are like corporate jobs disguised as consumer web products. You are constantly being shuffled from box to box, task to task, and the blinders have to be tightened ever so constantly to keep you from realizing why what you are doing really never will be "fun" in the way that a raucous party is fun. About those blinders: those are in a big way the "privacy options" that every social network touts. Maciej points out, and I think that it's a salient point, that if everybody was able to see the whole social graph, it would dissolve. That alone should suggest that the social graph is an unnatural concept. Yet there is somebody, the owner of the social network, that can indeed see the entire graph, and there is a whole level of misdirection that they must apply to make this seem completely normal. Again, maciej said most of this better than I could, so I'm glad he did.

nroman 15y ago

One of the main points in this article is that any social graph found in a service such as Facebook, Twitter, or G+ can't possible model all of the nuance of real life relationships. That's obvious. However, the author takes it a step further. Suggesting that because of this these services have no value. That's pretty big logical leap. An imperfect approximation of the social graph still has a lot of value.

wiscoDude 15y ago
Exactly, I mean, just ask the citizens of Egypt. "This revolution started on Facebook." - Wael Ghonim http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revolution-wael-ghonim_n_822078.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revo...

food 15y ago

discuss.

lukejduncan 15y ago

"Imagine the U.S. Census as conducted by direct marketers - that's the social graph." That's the best quote in the whole post. I can't articulate it, but that resonated strongly with me.

radagaisus 15y ago

When you publish content on the internet and it has a relation to your online identity you are just saying: look how awesome I am. I uploaded a bubble sort in prolog and a b-tree in Haskell ("I'm an enlightened far-reaching hipster hacker"). I quoted Allen Ginsberg on facebook. "Look at me I'm smart and read poetry". MySpace collapsed and Facebook's clean UI won because most people don't have that much identity.

juddlyon 15y ago

Two things struck me: - the quality of thinking displayed in this post - what is in the world is it doing on the delicious clone I signed up for? This is the same guy that writes about scaling hardware, no? Keep it coming.

GHFigs 15y ago
Scaling hardware, steaks[1], Iceland[2], John Titor[3], scurvy[4], etc. [1]:http://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.htm http://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.h... [2]:http://idlewords.com/2003/11/a_morning_in_iceland.htm http://idlewords.com/2003/11/a_morning_in_iceland.htm [3]:http://idlewords.com/2003/09/best_practices_for_time_travelers.htm http://idlewords.com/2003/09/best_practices_for_time_travele... [4]:http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm
vdm 15y ago
Posts from Maciej and Bret Victor on the same day, goodbye productivity...

feral 15y ago

Lots of good, interesting ideas in that post. A few comments: In general, what data you capture, always depends on what you want to do with the data. Any data model is an abstraction, which discards a lot of information. This simplification is what makes the data model useful. Of course, storing social relations as an undirected, graph with a single type of edge, as is done in Facebook, is a gross simplification of real social structure. Everyone knows that; Facebook know that; but the fact is that you can build a lot of useful stuff, with even such a simple model. Is it perfect? No - I'm sure we will do better in future - but you've got to admit its amazingly successful, for such a simple representation. So, we aren't going to be able to define a format for the social graph that is so rich, that it will capture all possible uses with it - but I don't see why we couldn't define a format that captures enough detail to do many a great many of the things we might want to. Next point: graphs are amazingly flexible data structures; if you have a multigraph or hypergraph representation, or a set of graphs, you can represent an awful lot of rich information. Don't knock graphs too much. You could build an awful lot of cool communication functionality, if you had really any rich social graph representation, not necessarily the 'perfect' one. The author also writes: "In other domains, a big graph would be good for recommendations, but friendship is not transitive. There's just no way to tell if you'll get along with someone in my social circle, no matter how many friends we have in common." Of course, friendship isn't strictly transitive; otherwise the giant connected component of a social graph, would be one big clique; but friendship is highly transitive. That's why recommendation works so well in Facebook. If A is friends with B, and A is friends with C, then there is a vastly higher chance that B is friends with C, than with some other random person. Sociologists have called this 'triadic closure' and studied it for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triadic_closure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triadic_closure So, while the recommendations won't be perfect, as things like friendship aren't perfectly transitive, they'll potentially be very good. But what recommendation engine is perfect, anyway? Finally, the author refers to the problem of finding an adequate model as 'AI-hard' - well, as I've said, any model - even the most perfect one (unless we go and make a copy of the entire state of the world) - is going to sacrifice something. So I see why coming up with a perfect model is impossible. But as to coming up with a model that is adequate for a great many of the possible things we might want to build; well, I'd say 'AI-hard' is an exaggeration.

15y ago

gcb 15y ago

""" Right now the social networking sites occupy a similar position to CompuServe, Prodigy, or AOL in the mid 90's. At that time each company was trying to figure out how to become a mass-market gateway to the Internet. Looking back now, their early attempts look ridiculous and doomed to failure, for we have seen the Web, and we have tasted of the blogroll and the lolcat and found that they were good. """ i've been saying this for ages but this guys puts it so much simpler i'm ashamed.

joe_the_user 15y ago

Hmm, I seems like the post is saying "The Social Graph" isn't a graph 'cause it is a multi-graph with different kinds of connections. That part seems obvious. But the "it's not social part" is more saying "it's not something to publicly mess with", ie, take the question of signaling interest seriously. That's true but the thing remains a social graph. I would put it another way. The social graph exists, touching it can be dynamite, yes, can breach some boundaries, yes, publishing a connect is further social act, yet. But technology is about breaching boundaries. Facebook doesn't allow the touchy, fine-grained quality of real world friendships - and there are advantages to this. It has created a lot of connections which wouldn't exist before it. Sure, further refinements may make things more nuanced as in the real world. But the crude, glad-handing Internet world is now also the real social world and won't be going away. There are ways that this is quite good.

RusAlexander 15y ago

Russian guys on the photo

araneae 15y ago

Ugh, I hate titles like these. It's not a graph? Of COURSE it's a graph. It's just a very complex one. Just because you could make many such graphs representing the same relationships doesn't mean it's not a graph. And it's not social because you're missing someone's crush? Uh, no. It's still social, just incomplete. A better title for this would have been "The Social Graph is incomplete and complex."

akmiller 15y ago
A better title for this would have been "The Social Graph is incomplete and complex." A more accurate title perhaps, but definitely not a better title!
wiscoDude 15y ago
Yes, it's like he wanted to complain about Facebook, came up with a really awesome title, and then had to backfill content. Which utterly failed, wait, didn't even attempt to support the title of his post. I wrote a rebuttal titled The Social Graph is Both http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-is-social/ http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-i...

guscost 15y ago

Well said. The ideal "social graph" is just an advertiser's wet dream, and they forget to consider whether it would be useful to the user. Or even possible.

wiscoDude 15y ago

I put my thoughts on this article in a blog post. Too long for a comment. "The Social Graph is Both" http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-is-social/ http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-i...

billswift 15y ago
Good essay, thanks. >They are useful graphs with deficiencies. This describes all graphs representing real-world, as opposed to purely mathematical, objects and relationships.