I just got this comment from someone named Andre Taliercio. He says:

Trying to build an ID hub into a social networking will not work, because it will result into a social network with no identity or if you will, no culture, so it is a born-dead network.

So let me take this opportunity of not only explaining our ID Hub strategy and principles, but also to talk a little about white labeling solutions and selling infrastructure.

1. The whole point of building ID Hub technology into PeopleAggregator was to enable folks to easily move their personal data in and OUT of the system. Believe it or not we are not looking to lock users INTO our system. We believe that is a Web 1.0 principle.

We believe that any self respecting New Web app or service must give their users the ability to easily move their personal data anywhere - and that certainly means OUT of our system. So by Andre assuming that we want users to move in and stay - is a misnomer and incorrect.

2. An ID Hub supports any or all user centric ID standards for a reason. By enabling end-users to use their existing ID handles, usernames and passwords - we cleanly integrate our software into other end-user experiences. But the end game here is NOT to simply SSO (single sign-on). That’s all that these ID systems do TODAY.

The end game here are VERBS! Actions! Doing something with all those people, groups, blog posts, photos, videos, etc. But it turns oiut you can’t safely and effectivey communicate, mesh or connect disparate systems together without SSO, authentication, security and the whole infrastructure layer that user centric ID systems give us. That’s why we support OpenID, but also Cardspace and Liberty as well.

The fact that we support all three and one can take advantage of that to move BETWEEN these different ID systems, is even cooler. That’s why we call it an ID Hub.

3. Andre also brings up the subject of culture and how if we don’t lock our users in - how can a network ever develop its own unique culuture. This is a two part answer as it combines both what I said above in #1 and #2 and something that Andre has to understand about white label licensing.

We do not offer our solution directly to end-users (well - we MIGHT but that’s besides the point.) What we do is work with our clients and OEM reseller partners so that THEY can offer these sort of solutions. So each of OUR customers can treat THEIR customers the way they wish to - without our interference or limitations.

Some wish to offer reciprocated relationships, validated email verification and set up rules governing behavior and content submissions. Others do not, or bring with them notions and policies - that I never even thought of! Certainly each of our customers wants to develop trust and their community - their own way - and may or may not wish to have us help them in that process.

In a world where p0rno folks are offering the same basic technology as religous and clean networks - it’s the policies and rules of the networks that differentiate these different ‘contexts’. Its our job to make our technology flexible enough - so that practically anything a customer asks for can not only be satisfied quickly and easily, but it also might end up as a web based admin control. What we call ‘network operator controls’.

Who knows - folks might even change their minds on these rules and policies and wish to change them - so lord help us if we’ve hardwired these networks to only ONE way of working. We pride ourselves in our flexiblity and the power that begets.

So we actually do NOT take on the responsibility of developing the culture and ‘vibe’ of the communites we build for folks. We could and have in the past, but in general - its our CUSTOMERS who do that.

4. Finally Andre has to realize that in today’s vibrant, dyanmic, ever changing world of social networking and blogging - its a battle between the open and closed approaches of life - that typifies everything and casts its mark down upon this very page.

Broadband Mechanics has made its intentions and allegiances clear.

We feel that until closed systems enable their end-users to move THEIR data around, the war isn’t over. We feel that the ONLY way to think about social networking - is in an inter-connected mesh of smaller, distributed, decentralized networks.

So Andre does not take any of these beliefs or principles into account when he makes the statement he did. He treats us like some capitalist pigs, exploiting our end-users like - well like Jonathan Abrams wants to.

On one hand social networking developers have to do the right thing, offer the right features and provide their end-users flexiblity to move around. On the other - as Andre aptly points out - without a unique culture, context and installed base of interesting people - a network falls dead.

This is actually the touchpoint where I think most new kinds of networks will discover - debunks Metcalfe’s Law of networking. Up until now, we’ve all presumed that the more the merrier. The more people in a network, the better it is.

But I think that’s getting played out - right in front of our eyes. More is not necessarily better.

Nowadays - and moving forward - I believe that the quality of the people in the network will be more important than the quantity. Sure if you’re looking for a job or trying to promote an event you want the most people as possible, but do you really want all these 16 year old Asian girls or pimple faced game nerds coming to your event?

Do you really want to flood your network with kids uploading videos when you’re looking to develop a sophisticated network of baby boomers? So I’d like to make this statement right now:

METCALFE’s LAW NO LONGER APPLIES - to QUALITY social networking

So dude - please do not put us into the same category or even CONTINENT as Jonathan Abrams or anybody else who sees monetizing end-users as a business model and pursue sthe notion of “the more the merrier”. We do not wake up in the morning - trying to figure out how to make more money.

Software is a powerful tool that can be used effectively to change the world. If along the way, we can make money, feed our kids and keep roofs over our heads, we will.

And since social networking is the buzzword du jour, please do not assume that by flooding a network with millions of kids - that that’s a god thing.

5. That all said Andre brings up a traditional attutude and POV that I want to dispel.

Software today is hardwired into one specific configuration and target audience - as that’s just how it works. We can talk about flexibility and a ‘new paradigm of tools’ - but we still just keep cranking out the same old stuff - based upon cookie cutter models and predefined notions.

But what if software coudl adapt to end-users dynamically, morphing itself on the fly - based upon the end-user’s competency level, aesthetics, sex or age?

That’s where we’re going with all this - and an ID Hub is just the first in a long line of new ideas that need to be offered to end-users to get us there.

Hang in there - we ain’t done yet!

This entry was posted on Monday, January 29th, 2007 at 10:21 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.