I refer you to an earlier entry about this site, which I will now discuss as it's not 3 in the morning right now.
By Shirky's definition, he finds the table to be the simplest form of social software. This is because the table is conducive to and promotes discussion amongst a group. Using this definition, we can see where current social networks succeed and where they fail. Software that promotes interaction , like Facebook's wall, succeeds; Myspace's profiles fail because owners cannot post on their own comment section. "Poking," not necessarily the coolest function in my opinion, is still conducive to social interaction because it mimics a tangible real-life action. We can see though that applications that add music or share games are more commercial than they are networking tools. Myspace has already been consumed with this junk; on Facebook it is still optional, but the unnecessary clutter is definitely increasing.
Shirky provides great insight to those who would attempt to manage a social network. Social networks cannot grow without easy access to membership but that same principle allows dissidents to enter and undermine the network if they so choose. Networks require defense systems that are operable by the so-called veterans of the network in order to maintain stability. Yet allowing these veterans to use these privileges at the same time grants them powers that can be abused. Look at 4chan ( or don't- many boards are extremely NSFW.) It was created in response to administrative abuses on 2chan, a Japanese image board. Yet the 4chan community constantly cries for more or less moderation. YTMND, mentioned earlier, has the same problem. Wikipedia used to, but the use of bot moderation has limited most vandalism.
Let's take a look at Something Awful, though. (You'll notice alot of the same memes run through these communities, as their members overlap in many areas.; Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica document this particular web niche's adventures. N.B. both NSFW) Anyway, Something Awful's forms are infamously large and of high quality; the members are for the most part literate, humorous tech geeks. They find particular pride in the quality of their community to the point where with minimal social software (basically a forum) they have built a social metanetwork. This is in part because of the member access method they use; it costs 10 dollars to permanently join the forums of "Goons" as they call themselves.
This method keeps out the scum and keeps the servers maintained. It is a perfectly reasonable answer to Shirky's problem of how to filter through the motives of users that try to join. No one is willing to pay 10 dollars just to be an asshole to some people on the internet. However, this solution does not speak to larger social networks, where the aim is to establish a community of millions. It works on Something Awful because the forums were of high quality when the pay-to-join was instantiated. Social networks, starting out, do not have the inertia to suck in members when they ask for money. They must be maintained through passive advertisement.
I would say the best way to deal with the "jerks" who try to join is to provide a niche in which they can exist amongst themselves. Categorizing users by motive leaves the user to decide upon joining what 'mask' they wish to don; if there were but a better way to be sure of motive then upkeeping social networks would be much easier. The best plan is to have a separate place for these would-be subverts to go; one that is more attractive to them. Unfortunately they usually enjoy most to molest the stablest or at least most easily victimized communities. I guess that it's good that community rings like 4chan, SomethingAwful, ytmnd and the like exist; they give the potential trolls a home in which to take pride. Funny, though, that even these trolls get trolled...
Anyway, I can't possibly hope to discuss all the points Shirky brings up. I'll sort of summarize from him here by taking his Three Points to Accept and his Four Things to Design for
Three Points to Accept:
1.You cannot completely separate technical and social issues
Me: Basically, he's saying you can't govern a social network without touching on both realms
2.Members are different than users
Me: This is just Veterans vs. Trolls; how do you separate the two?
3.The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations
Me: You must use moderation towards the majority's benefit if such a conflict cannot be resolved to both sides' benefits
Four Things to Design for:
1.Handles the user can invest in
Me: If a person's avatar isn't dynamic and does not store their actions, what will tie them to the network?
2.You have to design a way for there to be members in good standing.
Me: Veterancy has to be acknowledged to track motives
3.Barriers to participation
Me: SomethingAwful's payment; Facebook's network email verification in example
4. Spare the group from scale
Me: When niches overlap, conflict appears. The greater the sampling of a population, the greater the diversity of opinion.
Just some ideas for those who would create a social network (maybe a good idea in today's atmosphere; estimated value is enormous for the popular sites.) Yet the profitability may lie in those very same applications which I deemed inconducive to social interaction. Check out this guy.
It seems, according to this article, that social networks are being used as more of a canvas for entrepreneurship than a business model itself. The applications that clutter Facebook (as Wired agrees they do) are just stores on a virtual mall front; Facebook is the boardwalk on Senior Week and its applications the walk's cheap gimmicks. No doubt about it, social networking on massive scales requires great upkeep funds, and taxing the populace that uses it causes unrest. Perhaps the apps will become necessary to sustain the social environment. This could end up being a good thing, as capitalism often drives out great quality. Yet Facebook may fall and become another Myspace, riddled with crap, overloaded by the numerous attempts to harvest its potential.
Why does it seem that this pattern occurs everywhere on the internet?
1. A good idea is born
2. Users flock to said idea and it grows popular
3. Corporate interest is generated
4. Idea is shackled by chains of corporate interference
5. Users flock to next good idea