
The Social Graph is Neither - conesus
http://blog.pinboard.in/2011/11/the_social_graph_is_neither/
======
pak
This is a superb post. Social networks, starting especially from the era of
the Facebook era, have foisted increasing amounts of doublethink on their
users, and it's often difficult to make people realize this and explain the
reasons for it being that way. This essay not only lays out good examples of
that nagging cognitive dissonance, but then goes on to explain its necessity
at both the technical and business levels.

~~~
knowtheory
I disagree. The entire first point is merely a taxonomic complaint. Yeah,
taxonomies are hard to "get right" in the global sense. That's why we don't
employ globally correct architecture-astronaut taxonomies for everything,
there aren't very many accurate useful ones.

Instead life is made up of piles and piles of little taxonomies used for
specific purposes. I'm happy with that as both a mental model and a practical
one.

I agree that the notion of a single social graph is an incoherent one, but
Maciej's point is largely a quibbly one. There are graphs of human
interactions that can be mapped out. These interaction graphs are not static.
Data sets which purport to represent reality require updating, as they are not
the canonical source.

But so what? That's true for maps of physical locations too, or article
quality on wikipedia. Facebook shows, if nothing else, that it's possible to
not just track but mediate (and still track) these interaction spaces for
users as an end to itself (even if they are the product not the customers).

Does it matter that Facebrick isn't a perfectly synced representation of
reality? Well, does it matter that Wikipedia isn't a totally accurate
encyclopedia? You'd be right to ask for what cause, and to what end.

And that's the whole point. We dig up or create the little taxonomies that
bridge the gaps that we're looking to cross.

~~~
pak
I think you're missing his bigger insight, that is, building a social graph is
a fundamentally asocial act. And that extends to creating taxonomies, even if
they are localized to my concept of socializing. Nobody goes to a party to
create a taxonomy.

Being social is all about disorganization, spontaneity, creativity, breaking
_out_ of all the stupid taxonomies that we impose on other people and have
imposed on us. Trying to organize socialization to the extent that a "social
graph" can be created is a profoundly sociopathic act. To push this task on
users so that they do all the shoeboxing and tagging and linking, all in the
name of "fun," requires some coercive force. It is no surprise that many
Facebook users say that they don't really _enjoy_ using it, but they _have_
to. Part of that was the site's smart choice to maintain real names, so that
you are always fretting about your online appearance. It's not a "perfectly
synced representation of reality," but it is presented as such, almost like
your own personal Wikipedia page, and by the laws of social anxiety you are
compelled to check up on it! Shoebox, tag, link...

The line about Facebook rarely producing creative or original material really
hit home for me. 4chan and SA are creative because they are fundamentally
disorganized, and this freedom produces real moments of brilliance (and plenty
more of profound stupidity). Facebook and its ilk are like corporate jobs
disguised as consumer web products. You are constantly being shuffled from box
to box, task to task, and the blinders have to be tightened ever so constantly
to keep you from realizing why what you are doing really never will be "fun"
in the way that a raucous party is fun.

About those blinders: those are in a big way the "privacy options" that every
social network touts. Maciej points out, and I think that it's a salient
point, that if everybody was able to see the whole social graph, it would
dissolve. That alone should suggest that the social graph is an unnatural
concept. Yet there is somebody, the owner of the social network, that can
indeed see the entire graph, and there is a whole level of misdirection that
they must apply to make this seem completely normal.

Again, maciej said most of this better than I could, so I'm glad he did.

~~~
true_religion
> Being social is all about disorganization, spontaneity, creativity, breaking
> out of all the stupid taxonomies that we impose on other people and have
> imposed on us.

That is a very euro-centric, post-modernist way of thinking.

What are caste system if not social?

What are far-flung familial relations if not social?

A definition of being "social" which only applies to societies where
friendship is paramount, and friends come and go with ease is too limiting and
leads you to solutions that can be awkward in other societies.

For example, in my country, we care deeply about family and ancestory--so much
so that in every generation one member of the family is nominated to be the
"memory keeper" (sorry, there's no translatable word) who keeps track of the
geneology of everyone, and is expected at a glance to determine if a stranger
is at least vaguely related to us.

Would a free form social graph be useful to us---not really. Our facebook
pages are practically 90% family members, 10% people who through marriage
_will become family members_.

~~~
pak
> That is a very euro-centric, post-modernist way of thinking.

You're right, even the way I defined "social" is too limited. But that irony
only helps my point. You _cannot_ define social, but this is precisely what
the "social graph" is attempting to do. As soon as you create a definition,
people react to it and oftentimes rebel against it. And then you are right
back to the drawing board.

~~~
__alexs
I agree with you but that doesn't make the creation of social graphs a waste
of time right? It just means the market has a lot of niches for different
types of graph that each provide limited and specific value.

It's not about creating perfect Platonic models. It's about making cool things
that people find useful. If you are trying to design a system that scaled to
every single possible interaction from scratch then you've already failed, you
can't compete with reality at that one.

------
juddlyon
Two things struck me:

\- the quality of thinking displayed in this post

\- what is in the world is it doing on the delicious clone I signed up for?

This is the same guy that writes about scaling hardware, no? Keep it coming.

~~~
GHFigs
Scaling hardware, steaks[1], Iceland[2], John Titor[3], scurvy[4], etc.

[1]:[http://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.h...](http://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.htm)
[2]:<http://idlewords.com/2003/11/a_morning_in_iceland.htm>
[3]:[http://idlewords.com/2003/09/best_practices_for_time_travele...](http://idlewords.com/2003/09/best_practices_for_time_travelers.htm)
[4]:<http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm>

------
Alex3917
Social networks aren't really social networks either. If you read Bowling
Alone, it should be readily apparent that Facebook et al. fulfill few of the
functions of an actual social network.

~~~
bluekeybox
Exactly. "Social networks" are thingies that aid us with establishing and
keeping up with _actual_ social networks. It's a bit like calling a
publisher's press a news agency.

~~~
Alex3917
In vipassana meditation there is the idea that if you learn to recognize
thoughts at the precise moment they arise, then eventually any given thought
will basically lose its power and stop arising. Facebook seems to have the
same property, but for personality. Every time you post about yourself, you
become a little bit more bland and boring of a person.

The way I think of Facebook is rolodex + fax machine + succubus.

~~~
bluekeybox
Fascinating tidbit on meditation, but I disagree that posting about oneself on
Facebook makes one more bland and boring. If, for example, one is bland and
boring to start with, then yes, posting about yourself to Facebook won't
really help. However (EDIT) -- if your life is boring, you can post about
something else. I've known some individuals who lead the most pathetic lives
you can imagine yet they had a decent-size following on Facebook because they
regularly posted about politics (which I guess they used as a medium through
which to vent about how pathetic their lives were...).

I do see some truth however to your comparison with that idea from meditation.
For example, even if you are leading an interesting life, there are many ways
to post about it that will make your life appear less interesting than it
really is.

------
lukejduncan
"Imagine the U.S. Census as conducted by direct marketers - that's the social
graph."

That's the best quote in the whole post. I can't articulate it, but that
resonated strongly with me.

------
nroman
One of the main points in this article is that any social graph found in a
service such as Facebook, Twitter, or G+ can't possible model all of the
nuance of real life relationships. That's obvious. However, the author takes
it a step further. Suggesting that because of this these services have no
value.

That's pretty big logical leap.

An imperfect approximation of the social graph still has a lot of value.

~~~
wiscoDude
Exactly, I mean, just ask the citizens of Egypt.

"This revolution started on Facebook." - Wael Ghonim

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-
revo...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revolution-
wael-ghonim_n_822078.html)

------
redemade
> Asking computer nerds to design social software is a little bit like hiring
> a Mormon bartender.

exactly.

~~~
3pt14159
This is bullshit.

"Computer nerds" have plenty of friends. I know factory workers that have very
high depression levels due to not having enough social contact or friendship
in their lives. Sure, when I was 9 I was beat the fuck up over and over but
when you are friendly, smart and successful people _like_ you. They want to be
your friend. Let's play devils advocate for a second. Take the most popular
person in high school and get him to design social software. It would suck.
Bad.

~~~
daenz
> Take the most popular person in high school and get him to design social
> software. It would suck. Bad.

Let's assume they had the technical skills to do it, why do you think it would
suck?

~~~
statictype
_Let's assume they had the technical skills to do it_

So basically a nerd with social skills?

~~~
daenz
I'm trying to figure out his argument. He's implying that someone with good
social skill would suck at designing a social network, but seemingly for more
reasons than they just don't have the technical ability. Or maybe that's all
he's saying.

~~~
3pt14159
I'm denying the premise.

The most popular person in high school was almost certainly not a nerd. Nerds
take a while to maxing out their social skills, but once they do I find they
are almost as good at it as sales guys or MBA gals.

From my experience the most popular kid almost never had the time to dedicate
to crafting the technical skills necessary to build a mega-successful online
business, Social or otherwise. Nerds think about things far more than the
typical prep or jock.

~~~
mixmastamyk
I think it was Adam Carolla who said that the guys who get laid consistently
in high school don't go on to achieve anything. They don't have the drive.

------
araneae
Ugh, I hate titles like these.

It's not a graph? Of COURSE it's a graph. It's just a very complex one. Just
because you could make many such graphs representing the same relationships
doesn't mean it's not a graph.

And it's not social because you're missing someone's crush? Uh, no. It's still
social, just incomplete.

A better title for this would have been "The Social Graph is incomplete and
complex."

~~~
akmiller
_A better title for this would have been "The Social Graph is incomplete and
complex."_

A more accurate title perhaps, but definitely not a better title!

------
radagaisus
When you publish content on the internet and it has a relation to your online
identity you are just saying: look how awesome I am.

I uploaded a bubble sort in prolog and a b-tree in Haskell ("I'm an
enlightened far-reaching hipster hacker").

I quoted Allen Ginsberg on facebook. "Look at me I'm smart and read poetry".

MySpace collapsed and Facebook's clean UI won because most people don't have
that much identity.

------
joe_the_user
Hmm,

I seems like the post is saying "The Social Graph" isn't a graph 'cause it is
a multi-graph with different kinds of connections. That part seems obvious.

But the "it's not social part" is more saying "it's not something to publicly
mess with", ie, take the question of signaling interest seriously. That's true
but the thing remains a social graph.

I would put it another way. The social graph exists, touching it can be
dynamite, yes, can breach some boundaries, yes, publishing a connect is
further social act, yet. But technology is about breaching boundaries.
Facebook doesn't allow the touchy, fine-grained quality of real world
friendships - and there are advantages to this. It has created a lot of
connections which wouldn't exist before it. Sure, further refinements may make
things more nuanced as in the real world. But the crude, glad-handing Internet
world is now _also_ the real social world and won't be going away. There are
ways that this is quite good.

------
joebadmo
I agree that the graph is an incorrect representation. Because people don't
think that way. But that doesn't mean organic, activity/interest based
communities are the only ones possible, or even desirable.

I want a way to be able to communicate with all of my different offline groups
without having to be in their physical presence. I also want this on a broad
spectrum of public-private.

I think adequately (not perfectly) modelling social context is a solvable
problem. It's a matter of UI and metaphor. Here's my take on it:
[http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7072771434/a-new-metaphor-
for...](http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7072771434/a-new-metaphor-for-social-
networking)

------
wiscoDude
I put my thoughts on this article in a blog post. Too long for a comment.

"The Social Graph is Both"

[http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-
it-i...](http://lesspostmoreget.com/2011/11/09/it-is-a-graph-and-it-is-
social/)

~~~
billswift
Good essay, thanks.

>They are useful graphs with deficiencies.

This describes _all_ graphs representing real-world, as opposed to purely
mathematical, objects and relationships.

------
feral
Lots of good, interesting ideas in that post.

A few comments: In general, what data you capture, always depends on what you
want to do with the data. Any data model is an abstraction, which discards a
lot of information. This simplification is what makes the data model useful.

Of course, storing social relations as an undirected, graph with a single type
of edge, as is done in Facebook, is a gross simplification of real social
structure. Everyone knows that; Facebook know that; but the fact is that you
can build a lot of useful stuff, with even such a simple model. Is it perfect?
No - I'm sure we will do better in future - but you've got to admit its
amazingly successful, for such a simple representation.

So, we aren't going to be able to define a format for the social graph that is
so rich, that it will capture all possible uses with it - but I don't see why
we couldn't define a format that captures enough detail to do many a great
many of the things we might want to.

Next point: graphs are amazingly flexible data structures; if you have a
multigraph or hypergraph representation, or a set of graphs, you can represent
an awful lot of rich information. Don't knock graphs too much. You could build
an awful lot of cool communication functionality, if you had really any rich
social graph representation, not necessarily the 'perfect' one.

The author also writes: "In other domains, a big graph would be good for
recommendations, but friendship is not transitive. There's just no way to tell
if you'll get along with someone in my social circle, no matter how many
friends we have in common." Of course, friendship isn't strictly transitive;
otherwise the giant connected component of a social graph, would be one big
clique; but friendship is _highly_ transitive. That's why recommendation works
so well in Facebook. If A is friends with B, and A is friends with C, then
there is a _vastly_ higher chance that B is friends with C, than with some
other random person. Sociologists have called this 'triadic closure' and
studied it for years: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triadic_closure>

So, while the recommendations won't be perfect, as things like friendship
aren't perfectly transitive, they'll potentially be very good. But what
recommendation engine is perfect, anyway?

Finally, the author refers to the problem of finding an _adequate_ model as
'AI-hard' - well, as I've said, any model - even the most perfect one (unless
we go and make a copy of the entire state of the world) - is going to
sacrifice something. So I see why coming up with a perfect model is
impossible. But as to coming up with a model that is _adequate_ for a great
many of the possible things we might want to build; well, I'd say 'AI-hard' is
an exaggeration.

~~~
andrewflnr
Facebook has a heck of a lot more info on relationships than an undirected
graph with a single edge type. In the front end alone, they now have a
directed "follows" relationship. In their backend, they're keeping track of
how much you pay attention to people, comment on their posts, click their
links, etcetera, and using it, among other things, to decide what shows up in
your news feed and what is silently dropped. Someone posted a link here not
too long ago describing how to get the weights Facebook ascribes to your
social connections, based on the above sort of metric.

~~~
feral
Yes, of course they do; they have vast amounts of data; click streams, likes,
comment text, etc.

But I guess I'm saying that the core metaphor, with which Facebook did much of
its early growth, was that two people are 'friends', or are they are not; and
that you see the activity of your friends, and sometimes see activity, and get
recommendations, from the friends of your friends.

They built many iterations of the product, and got a very long way, by
exposing a very simple social graph metaphor to their users. Even though that
model drastically simplifies the world, it has proven to have a lot of utility
for users.

Maybe now, because the users are consequently more educated about social
networks, a more sophisticated metaphor would go further.

------
PaulHoule
rdf technology is coming on strong in late 2011; the tools are getting better
fast -- we will be able to represent the social graph in more detail, and
correlate it with the 'semantic graph' that shared human experience is coded
in.

yes, RDF has taken a while to mature, but look at the time lag between Codd's
paper and the commercial release of Oracle. 1000 flowers have been blooming
for years and we know a lot about what works and what doesn't.

the trouble with foaf and other 'distributed social graph' is that muggles
like Facebook the way it is... they don't care about data portability or
privacy; unless a distributed system can provide a better user experience,
it's got no hope.

~~~
britta
I believe Maciej is saying that it's not just an issue with RDF or a technical
problem really. He says: "Personally, I think finding an adequate data model
for the totality of interpersonal connections is an AI-hard problem. But even
if you disagree, it's clear that a plain old graph is not going to cut it."

~~~
synae
That depends on your definition of a "plain old graph". If you allow arbitrary
numbers of edges between nodes and allow edges to carry data, everything will
be ok, right? (...right?)

~~~
jerf
In math... and we're talking math if we're talking RDF & graphs, right?...
"arbitrary" is perilously close to a synonym for "infinite" and "unbounded".

~~~
rgbrgb
Well, are relationships finite-dimensional?

------
guscost
Well said. The ideal "social graph" is just an advertiser's wet dream, and
they forget to consider whether it would be useful to the user. Or even
possible.

------
RusAlexander
Russian guys on the photo

------
gcb
""" Right now the social networking sites occupy a similar position to
CompuServe, Prodigy, or AOL in the mid 90's. At that time each company was
trying to figure out how to become a mass-market gateway to the Internet.
Looking back now, their early attempts look ridiculous and doomed to failure,
for we have seen the Web, and we have tasted of the blogroll and the lolcat
and found that they were good. """

i've been saying this for ages but this guys puts it so much simpler i'm
ashamed.

------
food
discuss.

