3 ms·

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, an

by 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.
  - true_religion 15y ago
    > 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. That is a very euro-centric, post-modernist way of thinking. What are caste system if not social? What are far-flung familial relations if not social? A definition of being "social" which only applies to societies where friendship is paramount, and friends come and go with ease is too limiting and leads you to solutions that can be awkward in other societies. For example, in my country, we care deeply about family and ancestory--so much so that in every generation one member of the family is nominated to be the "memory keeper" (sorry, there's no translatable word) who keeps track of the geneology of everyone, and is expected at a glance to determine if a stranger is at least vaguely related to us. Would a free form social graph be useful to us---not really. Our facebook pages are practically 90% family members, 10% people who through marriage will become family members.
    - pak 15y ago
      > That is a very euro-centric, post-modernist way of thinking. You're right, even the way I defined "social" is too limited. But that irony only helps my point. You cannot define social, but this is precisely what the "social graph" is attempting to do. As soon as you create a definition, people react to it and oftentimes rebel against it. And then you are right back to the drawing board.
      - __alexs 15y ago
        I agree with you but that doesn't make the creation of social graphs a waste of time right? It just means the market has a lot of niches for different types of graph that each provide limited and specific value. It's not about creating perfect Platonic models. It's about making cool things that people find useful. If you are trying to design a system that scaled to every single possible interaction from scratch then you've already failed, you can't compete with reality at that one.

by pak 15y ago

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.
- true_religion 15y ago
  > 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. That is a very euro-centric, post-modernist way of thinking. What are caste system if not social? What are far-flung familial relations if not social? A definition of being "social" which only applies to societies where friendship is paramount, and friends come and go with ease is too limiting and leads you to solutions that can be awkward in other societies. For example, in my country, we care deeply about family and ancestory--so much so that in every generation one member of the family is nominated to be the "memory keeper" (sorry, there's no translatable word) who keeps track of the geneology of everyone, and is expected at a glance to determine if a stranger is at least vaguely related to us. Would a free form social graph be useful to us---not really. Our facebook pages are practically 90% family members, 10% people who through marriage will become family members.
  - pak 15y ago
    > That is a very euro-centric, post-modernist way of thinking. You're right, even the way I defined "social" is too limited. But that irony only helps my point. You cannot define social, but this is precisely what the "social graph" is attempting to do. As soon as you create a definition, people react to it and oftentimes rebel against it. And then you are right back to the drawing board.
    - __alexs 15y ago
      I agree with you but that doesn't make the creation of social graphs a waste of time right? It just means the market has a lot of niches for different types of graph that each provide limited and specific value. It's not about creating perfect Platonic models. It's about making cool things that people find useful. If you are trying to design a system that scaled to every single possible interaction from scratch then you've already failed, you can't compete with reality at that one.