SNS 1.0: By Geeks, For Geeks
I was reading up over at danah boyd's blog and came upon an interesting post titled "why i don't build (right now)". In it, danah talks about a common questions she gets regarding social software: "if you're so smart, why don't you do it?". Interestingly, danah makes a very interesting observation about the differences between the academic and business worlds:
Fast moving and highly complex spaces likes YASNS and social software require iteration. No one project is going to completely "get it." Lessons will be learned, features stabilized across different applications. I certainly have ideas for the next iteration, but to develop them means to stop paying attention to the larger picture and work on just building that next level.
Source: apophenia
Between danah's thoughts and the commentary, a number of different ideas emerged from the discussion.
Subject Boards and Missing Protocol
In the academic domain, testing on human subjects is quite guarded and is supervised by a Human Subjects Board. Ironically enough, commercial ventures are not subject to these contstraints. Undoubtedly, this is tied to the highly opt-in nature of commerce where sign-up/membership/trial equals consent in the highest, and often hidden, ways. I'm not sure regulation here is a requirement, but the contrast is certainly interesting.
Geek to Geek
An unfortuante side-effect of "networking" software, but all software in general, is that geeks are speaking to other geeks too often than not. Currently, the tools available to the average user are not ready for public consumption. While your average geek or technophile is concerned with web standards, an ever-growing list of acronyms, and utilities and services that foster the generation and connections between those entites, the average end user could care less and is immune from the majority of the impact "doing it right versus wrong" will have in the long run. I've commented (1, 2, 3) on aspects of this before, one commentator made this assessment:
My biggest complaint at the moment is that in most domains we're still building tools for geeks. Most of these YASNS systems are no exception, neither are most of the tools surrounding the blogging world.
The simplest problem to solve is naming. We're all cute with our RSSs and FOAFs and blogosphere's, but these are geek terms for geeks. I'm not talking about dumbing things down, I'm talking about perspective and accessability.
Academic versus Business Needs
I've just touched on the beginnings of this topic above. It's clear, however, that there are two driving motives which unfortunately must butt heads from time to time. Academia pursues discovery, knowledge and understanding as some of its primary goals with the intent of furthering and clarifying our current and future understanding. Business on the other hand is about leverage -- converting knowledge into assets that can be utilized by an audience. Naturally, a large part of academia is bent that business is the root of all evil and betrays us on many levels. Luckily not all are short-sighted and most realize the symbiotic nature of the two camps. danah makes an excellent comment:
Don't get me wrong - i LOVE folks who build stuff and i also realize that not all business is about corrupting people. But once software is built, one often has to choose between what is best for people and what is economically viable. There's a different decision making process. And i agree that it is the business world that lets folks get out of building tools for other fellow geeks.
Personally, I think I am fairly balanced in my motives. I surely am a business person focused on creating that leverage, but the academic in me keeps me true to the human cause.