i think web feeds are soliving the problem, like spiders pull the information from one site to gather it up into one area – where it can be seen, but, it’s still in principle, pointless having different people using so many different sites.

its like resubmitting forms every time you join a new site, why not one (or two max) permanent ‘profile’ data files, like, ONE or TWO of them, and that sits on your computer and sends itself to forms like a key, so your data ‘web feeds’ to the site automatically.

we’ve got the technology ut we’re clogging up the net with same old ideas…creativity is great but copying formulaes is not..

While you are correct that anybody can join a social networking site (at least with some sites), anybody can access any site on the Internet just by typing in the URL – no membership required. So, social networking access isn’t the same as Internet access, because you have to be a member.

It would be different if an open standard for social networking (similar to HTTP) was developed, and you could access the network using a social networking client program. All you’d need to know is the name of the person or entity you’re trying to reach, and you could reach them through the program. There could be different social networking clients just like there’s different web browsers, and there could even be different “sites” with different features – they’d just have to interoperate with each other, using the social networking standard, so anybody could access anybody anywhere on the network.

I don’t see sites like Etsy, Artfire, and 1000 Markets the same way. They’re basically like online shopping malls – they differentiate each other through features, layout, structure, types of shops, etc. You wouldn’t want to standardize shopping malls, since having different malls with different stores and layouts benefits the consumer. If I don’t like one I can go to another one. But social networking sites are a communication medium. Just like the telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, and email, they’re supposed to facilitate more efficient communication between people. The problem is, the current social networking landscape is anything but efficient or easy, because there’s too many sites, none of them work with each other, and they all work differently (not to mention you have to be a member of each one).

I’m not sure that I understand your analogy about the station and the tracks. Well I do understand, but not how it applies in this situation. What I see is that anyone with a computer and knowledge can join a site and begin using the social networking aspect. They may not like the interface, but they still have access and the ability to try and learn how to use. I would draw the analogy of airlines. Not all airlines go to all cities. They all have a different way of doing business…how they handle their customers. I may not even like airline XYZ, but if I want to visit a city that they only service, then I have to use their service, or take a different transportation method.

Don’t you think that sites like Etsy, artfire, 1000markets are in the same boat as Social Networking…once again there is no standard?

You are right, the phone system did start out as somewhat of a monopoly. I used it as an analogy to illustrate how a network needs to be based on a single standard that works the same way everywhere to gain mass adoption. However, not all networks became standardized as monopolies. The Internet became popular because HTTP became a standard, so that anybody could access any website using any web browser. Same with SMTP/POP3 and email. Those are all open standards, controlled by open standards bodies like the W3C, instead of companies. This is what the web was built upon.

Even in the 19th century, the railroads had to agree on how wide the tracks would be so that they could inter-operate with each other for their own mutual benefit. If one railroad deviated from the standard, they’d lose business.

Right now, the social networking sites are like if the railroads all used different trains that ran on different tracks and if you bought a ticket, you could only access destinations that that railroad served. You couldn’t transfer. If they didn’t serve your destination, you would be out of luck. You could say everybody has access to the stations, but that’s not the same as having access to the railroad. So I’d disagree that everyone has access to social networking, at least not in the sense that everyone has access to the Internet.

There needs to be a standard for social networking. It could come in the form of a nice open standard like HTTP, a “collaborative” standard like the railroads, or an oppressive monopoly like Mircrosoft or Google. I’d hate to see it go down that latter route – all that data being controlled by a single network like Facebook would not be a good thing. It would pose a significant threat to privacy, security, and freedom of speech, among other things. Already, Facebook’s CEO has said "the age of privacy is over", which is scary if you think about it.

Anyway, thanks for commenting on my thread. One thing that I think is interesting is that social networking beginnings are the opposite of Bell/AT&T. Whereas the bells had a monopoly on the market of communication. Social Neworking is everywhere and everyone has access to it, basically for free. I think eventually the stronger players will remain, pushing out the weaklings. Then we will have a monopoly in this market. Which will then lead to standards and then perhaps pay to play. I saw something this morning that Facebook will be going public next year…

I think with so many places to be seen it is causing a lot of stress. I also think that it is wasting a lot of people’s time and keeping them from their creative efforts. So, my point in writing my articles is to help people focus in on where they need to spend their time. I think there are a lot of people out there without the experience or formal education to understand business, marketing, or advertising. They spin their wheels a lot and get taken in by other’s making promises. Mostly because they don’t know how to measure performance. Thanks again!