Around April, Facebook unveiled new default privacy settings which changed many personal details from private to public by default and overhauled the privacy settings page by removing many of the existing, granular controls. All the while Facebook claimed the settings offered “greater” control. Articles questioning the modifications quickly spread from tech blogs to the mainstream media, resulting in a public relations trainwreck for Facebook.
Open source social networking websites took the opportunity to capitalize on the controversy, the most prominent of which was Diaspora. After raising over $200,000 on Kickstarter, a distributed seed funding website, it has received the bulk of the press’s attention.
Despite all the good press, many are skeptical of Diaspora’s ability to dent Facebook’s armor. Backupify just posted an article voicing similar ideas.
But the case against Diaspora is flawed. First is the silly argument that a service or website isn’t “dead” until it’s completely offline. This is just a bit of semantics, and there is no doubt that MySpace and AOL are both effectively dead. MySpace seemed unstoppable back in the day even with its disgusting user interface, glitter graphics and horrible themes until Facebook rolled in and demonstrated that people do care about a quality user experience. AOL’s walled gardens appeared similarly impenetrable until they too, fell. Times change, and even giants fall.
Second is the idea that users don’t care about privacy. This is a possibility with a large majority, but it could very well change in the future. People never know what they truly want until they see it, but privacy is only part of puzzle as user control of data is another aspect. People also want to be in control of their documents. People want to own things. People like to know that something is completely theirs.
Third is the idea that the service is a niche product that serves only geeks. This cannot be denied, but it is a hidden advantage. The first users of a product are typically the most passionate about it and thus have a tendency to champion the product. These people also tend to be more influential, and ironically it is these cool, geeky enthusiasts of Diaspora that will make it mainstream.
This is a pattern that has repeated itself many times. Products initially go through a niche phase, gaining traction in the market very slowly before exploding into the mainstream as something hot, new and desirable once it gains enough positive recognition.
Facebook’s rise followed a similar pattern. It was introduced to only a segment of the market, the college students. Being teenagers and twenty somethings, they are viewed as the height of “cool”. The closed walls of Facebook gave it the aura of a hip club that everyone wanted to be a part of. Once it had established sufficient cachet as the Mecca of “cool”, the mainstream naturally wanted in. With its hip reputation and social networking effects, Facebook effectively transitioned from niche to mainstream, resulting in an explosion of users after a slower period of growth.
There are many problems with a centralized social networking model, including less control over the website, loss of control over data and potential abuse of user data. The benefits of Diaspora are obvious, and the future will be a distributed one.
Diaspora
