Comments on: Data-driven social interaction: The difference between analogue and digital part III

By: sladner

sladner — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:32:25 +0000

You’re absolutely right, Joan. I talk about this a little in my post about Facebook and how it jams everyone you know together, in a big, confusing and embarrassing mess. LinkedIn has the same potential, but it is more narrowly focused on business contacts. You can “break up” with someone you know through business through obscuring or masking the machinations of the online social network. You may have noticed we already do this; read the recommendations on LinkedIn and you’ll see what I mean.

The “real” relationship is not represented by LinkedIn or Facebook. The “real story” is less apparent. However, our “real story” may be blurred, affected or transformed by the online social network. In other words, it may lead us to believe that we are actually closer to or further away from people than we actually are.

By: Joan

Joan — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:59:39 +0000

Re the analysis end, aren’t these current tools also blind to the effects of time? Think about a Linkedin account. I’m sure I am not the only person with old contacts from prior jobs, schools, etc. Does anyone on a professionally-oriented site break a link to a former contact? I doubt it. How do you “break up” professionally – and if you can’t, what does that imply about the quality of relationships in network or assumptions made about them?

By: Raymond Pirouz

Raymond Pirouz — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:45 +0000

Hello Sam,

I totally agree re: the weaknesses inherent in data visualization of social networks. I think that if more contextual data entry points were made available at the user’s end, and ‘exploited’ by the data mapper, more meaningful mapping could take place.

For example…what if — say on Twitter — the user was able to expand on a follower’s portrait and (maybe via sliders or checkboxes — whatever) indicate whether that person is a real life friend or virtual friend, how long that person has been ‘known’, how important that person’s tweets are relative to other tweets, etc. etc.

In a way this is related to talk of a semantic web (given the fact that any semantic construct requires additional inputs for which a framework is required).

- Raymond

By: sladner

sladner — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:43:01 +0000

Freaky, Bryce! No wonder you’re having nightmares.

By: brycej

brycej — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:39:22 +0000

I guess I’m not really talking about AI. I wonder if people will have the attributes and behaviours of machines long before machines share our attributes. I Robot.

By: sladner

sladner — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:30:53 +0000

Well if it’s any consolation, Bryce, I’m with Hubert Dreyfus, who argues that we totally understate the requirements for AI, most of which are actually emotional, not mechanical or analytical.

And I DO think social analytics are evil! They’re getting a little too close to home!

By: brycej

brycej — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:37:56 +0000

This is Amazing as always Sam.

You and I have talked about my concerns about social analytics. A couple of weeks ago I did a session at BarCampSeattle09 called “Social Analytics are Evil”. While I don’t really think they are evil I do believe people need to concentrate more on the “Social� (conversations) and less on the “Analytics” (followers).

On a ridiculous note I have nightmares that as a society we don�t create a system like SkyNet but we create systems that turn society into SkyNet.