Can you really make a ‘personal’ social network?
A new social networking trend has users getting increasingly personal with their digital content.
We are inundated with ways to share. Photos, food, news, videos, games, you name it there are innumerable platforms for sharing content with the World Wide Web. Privacy has become an increasingly important aspect of these social networks, and applications have responded to varying degrees. Google+ Circles were arguably one of the most distinct steps toward more customized sharing, and a Facebook Lists refocus followed suit.
Not good enough, say some. The private social network may sound like an oxymoron, but it is a very real emerging trend. Path could be seen as the grandfather for this momentum. The app originally introduced itself with the idea of whittling down your friend list to a select 50 people. But some other networks that have hit the market are trying to go even smaller. FamilyLeaf is a new application to connect your relatives, Nextdoor is only for you and your neighbors. Smaller yet: applications like Pair and TheIcebreak are for couples only (the latter, to be fair, is also a curated activity guide but there is a strong social element). Thats as small as your social network can get.
So whats the impetus for these increasingly exclusive platforms? You can chalk part of it up to privacy fears. Social networks have gotten big, cumbersome, and laden with concerns over where your data is going and what is being done with it. Consider that fact that these sites are go-tos for employers, users have to keep strict tabs over whats made public, whats showing up, and who they are friends with. Its a lot of work, admittedly.
At the same time, the question of whether a private social network needs to exist is begging to be asked. Isnt that what phone calls or text messages or Skype chats or emails are for? The problem of private, digital communication was solved a long time ago. Social networks became a thing because we hadnt yet found a way for mass, community-driven digital experiences. Then the Myspaces and the Friendsters came along and started that evolution, setting the stage for what we know and use today.
You could argue that the purpose of the truly private social network is to offer up all the features that public platforms do for you and your significant other. The ability to communicate via a News Feed-like function, to post and share photos and links and videos. Its more visually rich and interesting than an email or text thread maybe only slightly though. In fact ,most of the screenshots from Pair just look like an iMessage thread.
While all of these options come with their benefits (for instance with Pair you can log details like anniversary reminders and touch each other with virtual fingerprints; with TheIcebreak you get points that can be redeemed for date nights), the overwhelming emotion these platforms seem to be preying on is narcissism.
The easy culprit is to place the blame on the privacy fears that come with using sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Google+, but those alone arent entirely responsible. Part of the draw is the unquenchable thirst to digitally document ourselves that social media has created. Jon Mitchell over at ReadWriteWeb recently wrote about quitting Path:
I had my doubts about Path 2.0 when it launched. It was like a gorgeous mirror for gazing at oneself. It seemed vain and unnecessary.
Read this article:
Can you really make a ‘personal’ social network?