Thoughful post on the difference between symmetric (Facebook) vs. asymmetric (Twitter) relationships, courtesy of Wes @ Plinky. Advantage to Twitter for enabling attention inequality (receiving more attention than you give). Bottom line for me is that edges in the social graph should have (dynamic) meta-data as opposed to being hard-coded to “friendships” or “following” or whatever. Of course, this will be hidden from users in simple abstractions such as connecting/friending/following.
-
-
Top Rated
- Startup Anti-Patterns
- Startup anti-pattern: platform risk
- Apache Spark native functions
- Startup anti-pattern: ignorance
- Top Five Suggestions For Entrepreneurs From IDEO
- The best vesting schedule
- Founder Dilution
- Founder Agreements - Vesting, Vesting and more Vesting
- Monitoring Redis with MONITOR and WireShark
- Metcalfe's Law: more misunderstood than wrong?
@simeons on Twitter
- Excited to join my friends @Accomplices in funding @thefuturescore: a simple way to help both the climate and your… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
- RT @TS_Longevity: Applications for the next @Techstars Future of Longevity Accelerator in partnership with @pivotalventures, a @melindagate… 1 week ago
- To become the market leader in a huge market, first become the market leader in a (ideally fast-growing) niche market. 5 months ago
- I keep talking to startups that claim to be the leaders in large markets while having less than 1% market share. By… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 5 months ago
- There is no market leadership without market share leadership. 5 months ago
Adobe Advertising amazon web services Digital Media e-commerce entrepreneurship Facebook Google Industry News Life Macromedia Flash Microsoft Mobile MySpace Polaris Venture Partners SaaS Security Social Commerce Social computing social media social networking startups VC Venture Capital Web 2.0
HighContrast 
Twitter is pretty much in the spotlight nowadays, but isn’t the only asymmetric platform, neither the first. From personal experience, Flickr comes to mind as an example, also the humble Ecademy (nowhere near in membership size, but worth studying for its 10 years of consistent innovation and very advanced social functionality, populated by a small but very active constellation of communities)..
The asymmetric model better reflects real social relationships: parellel co-existence of (to use classical relational terminology) both one-to-one and one-to-many links from the same node.
An interesting aspect is the concept of ‘attention relationships’ vs ‘human relationships’. While ‘human’ relationships are the fundamental (and semantically superior) fabric of social networks, attention has become an extremely important attribute of human relationships. A scarce comodity in the IO (information overload) world, attention merits modelling as an entity / object in its own right – especially because its better understanding is expected to make it more manageable and yield economic (or political) benefits.
Before Twitter, ‘plain old’ blogging was the area where dynamic metadata was (nearly) mastered in assessing the attention ‘value chain’ and propagation. Volumes of such data were much smaller, as most models were based on links, talkbacks and quotes.There are also countless dispersed blogging platforms (and non-platforms :). Twitter, with the concept of ‘following’ brings an unprecedented volume of such data, concentrated on a single platform – perhaps, as Joshua Porter suggests, the key to its monetization?
But he is,IMHO, over-obsessed with Facebook’s copycat actions and the (perceived) war between the two. If they have anything to fight over, it is just the center-stage position in the hype circus, not much else.
Vlad, I think your point about attention meriting its own modeling is spot on. We are all short on time and how we spend our minutes says a lot.