A funny thing happened on the way to the Internet: social media schisms are once again starting to emerge. When I first used the Internet, there was no such thing as “social media”. If you were a defense contractor, a researcher at a university, or part of the telecommunications industry, then you might have been invited to participate in the early versions of the Internet. Since then, we have all seen early email systems give way to bulletin boards, Usenet newsgroups, and early commercial offerings (like CompuServe, Prodigy, and AOL). These systems then gave way to web servers in the mid-nineties. And by the late nineties, web-based interactions began to flourish – and predominate.
History Repeats Itself
Twenty years ago, people began to switch from AOL to services like MySpace. And just after the turning of the millennium, services like Twitter began to emerge. At the same time, Facebook nudged its way from a collegiate dating site to a full-fledged friendship engine and social media platform. With each new turning of the wheel of innovation, the old has been vanquished by the “new and shiny” stuff. It has always taken a lot of time for everyone to hop onto the new and shiny from the old and rusty. But each iteration brought something special.
And so the current social media title holders are entrenched. And the problem with their interaction model has been revealed. In the case of Facebook and Twitter, their centralized model may very well be their downfall. By having one central system, there is only one drawbridge for vandals to breach. And while there are walls that ostensibly protect you, there is also a royal guard that watches everything that you do while within the walls. Indeed, the castle/fortress model is a tempting target for enemies (and “friends”) to exploit.
Facebook (and Twitter) Are Overdue
The real question that we must all face is not if Facebook and Twitter will be replaced, but when will it happen. As frustration has grown with these insecure and exposed platforms, many people are looking for an altogether new collaboration model. And since centralized systems are failing us, many are looking at decentralized systems.
A few such tools have begun to emerge. Over the past few years, tools like Slack are starting to replace the team/corporate systems of a decade ago (e.g., Atlassian Jira and Confluence). For some, Slack is now their primary collaboration engine. And for the developers and gamers among us, tools like Discord are gaining notoriety – and membership.
Social Media Schisms Are Personal
But what of Twitter and what of Facebook? Like many, I’ve tried to live in these walled gardens. I’ve already switched to secure clients. I’ve used containers and proxies to access these tools. And I have kept ahead of the wave of insecurity – so far. But the cost (and risk) is starting to become too great. Last week, Facebook revealed that it had been breached – again. And with that last revelation, I decided to take a Facebook break.
My current break will be at least two weeks. But it will possibly be forever. That is because the cost and risk of these centralized systems is becoming higher than the convenience that these services provide. I suspect that many of you may find yourselves in the same position.
Of course, a break does not necessarily mean withdrawal from all social media. In fairness, these platforms do provide value. But the social media schisms have to end. I can’t tolerate the politics of some of my friends. But they remain my friends (and my family) despite policy differences that we may have. But I want to have a way of engaging in vigorous debate with some folks while maintaining collegiality and a pacific mindset while dealing with others.
So I’m moving on to a decentralized model. I’ve started a Slack community for my family. My adult kids are having difficulty engaging in even one more platform. But I’m hopeful that they will start to engage. And I’ve just set up a Mastodon account (@cyclingroo@mastodon.cloud) as a Twitter “alternative”. And I’m becoming even more active in Discord (for things like the Home Assistant community).
All of these tools are challengers to Facebook/Twitter. And their interaction model is decentralized. So they are innately more secure (and less of a targeted threat). The biggest trouble with these systems is establishing and maintaining an inter-linked directory.
A Case for Public Meta-directories
In a strange way, I am back to where I was twenty years ago. In the late nineties, my employer had many email systems and many directories. So we built a directory of directories. Our first efforts were email-based hub-and-spoke directories based upon X.500. And then we moved to Zoomit’s Via product (which was later acquired by Microsoft). [Note: After purchase, Microsoft starved the product until no one wanted its outdated technologies.] These tools served one key purpose: they provided a means of linking all directories together
Today, this is all done through import tools that any user can employ to build personalized contact lists. But as more people move to more and different platforms, the need for a distributed meta–directory has been revealed. We really do need a public white pages model for all users on any platform.
Bottom Line
The value of a directory of directories (i.e., a meta-directory) still exists. And when we move from centralized to decentralized social media systems, the imperative of such directory services becomes even more apparent. At this time, early adopters should already be using tools like Slack, Discord, and even Mastodon. But until interoperability technologies (like meta-directories) become more ubiquitous, either you will have to deal with the hassle of building your own directory or you will have to accept the insecurity inherent in a centralized system.