There's a fascinating post up over on GigaOM which starts to address something that's been niggling at me for a while:
Much less noticeable is another trend: the rise of the web introvert. But while some web introverts might be introverted in the classic sense -- that is, uncomfortable in social settings -- many of them aren't shy at all. They are simply averse to having a public presence on the web.
I have several people like that in my immediate circle of friends and family, and I think this is rapidly becoming the elephant in the room of social media discussions. The rush by Google and Facebook to push social interactions into the public space to support their business objectives has made this problem even more acute. And the fact that even with privacy settings in use of, say, Facebook, you are beholden to the tagging behaviour of your friends to maintain discretion around social activities makes this even more acute.
Unless we can find a way to draw these people into the social web - and that probably means more thought around both privacy and data ownership - we're only ever going to get a subset of a subset of people involved. And that, in turn, will massively limit its potential.
What's the solution?
I'm one of those who tries, somewhat unsuccessfully I feel, to limit my personal information on the web. And I'm an IT professional who's not a wallflower.
It's partly privacy concerns, but mostly a feeling that it would be easy for my self to be compromised. What do I mean by that? Is this a high tec equivalent of believing my soul can be captured by a camera? I'm not sure I really know myself. An example: I don't accept friend requests from people I just happen to know because, well, they're not actually my friends... do I want them to have access to a list of my actual friends? Do I want them to see my every thought? Perhaps this is why I don't post much - my 'self' is private.
Lots of today's youth don't think like this. Is it because I just haven't adjusted to this new world yet, or do I, with more experience under my belt, realise that there's something vaguely wrong, dangerous or perhaps even sinister about social networking?
I see I can't comment without leaving my name AND email, or signing in to a social network site. Hmmm.
You've just opened a dance-club and you're seriously asking "How can I convince introverts to come dance in my club? They should!"
No, no they shouldn't. You're chasing the wrong people. They shouldn't, they don't want to, and they don't have to. They're not the kind of people that go to clubs, they have no interest in the kinds of things clubs offer, and catering to their wants and needs will destroy your business.
That's not smart, that's mistargeting.
Social networks work best when they transparently mesh with all the other socnet aps that people use, turning into the ocean of information we digital extroverts swim in. Now when they try to be everything to everybody.
Just to brutalize another metaphor, if I'm a heavy metal band, I don't need to worry that my fans are a subset of the subset of people who like rock music, and they a subset of people who are enthusiastic about music ... I need to play good damn metal music and build my fanbase by doing what it is I do best. I might get some cross-over interest by just being so damn good.
The very idea of social networks targeting the asocial should make your head hurt.
But the quote above specifically states that we're not talking about the a-social. We're talking about people who have concerns about the privacy and control around social networks.
To further abuse one of your metaphors, it's like enjoying dancing, but not going to a dance club, because you don't want a DVD of your dancing to be passed around your acquaintances and business colleagues…
We're talking about people who choose not to have public interactions because they're public. You want to encourage them to use your service to do public things ... ?
This has an obvious drawback: it makes no sense.
Social networking doesn't have to be public, though. Livejournal, which was an early social network in its own right, has always been great at letting you choose who can and can't see your posts, for example.
Social networking is a valuable tools for relationship maintenance of all kinds - some of which you don't want to conduct in public.
Suw has put it better than me.
With respect, I must say I find your point of view difficult to understand (perhaps you meant to say something else?). You seem to be saying that people generally should be drawn into the social web, but that many don’t wish to participate due to their aversion to having a public web presence. So what? Surely social networking just isn’t for everyone.
I personally like to follow some blogs and write in my own, but I perfectly understand there are people who do not wish to present themselves publicly on the Internet. Surely it’s much better to have social networks of like-minded individuals, who have an active interest to participate. The only point, I think, behind the desire to draw in everybody is from a purely personal data mining / statistical point of view. This is not a very compelling reason for someone to participate.
I'm reminded of the "Yes, Minister" explanation of What "with respect" actually means…
The confusion here seems to be arising because you're equating social networking with a public profile, and that doesn't need to be the case. Many social networks allow complete privacy of actions, only shared with people you choose.
In fact, that confusion is the key point I'm addressing here - the reflexive association of social networking with a kind of webby exhibitionism is the very idea that's stopping this being a more useful tool than it is right now.
Didn't mean to suggest what you had said was worthless - I like your blog! Must work on my tone in blogging ;)
It's just that I don't see why people should be convinced of social networking if they don't like it. But I agree with you that there probably is a lack of clarity about what it exactly is. People should make up their minds with the facts in mind.
For social networking to progress as a valuable tool, it needs to start being used by a certain mass of people, to become self-sustaining. I guess it needs more time as well as encouragement from people like yourself?