Social Software

The history of social software and related earlier concepts (groupware, etc..) is narrated in this excellent overview, at http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html

The development of 'gifting technologies' is described here at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_12/mcgee/index.html

Examples of software for cooperation

The Shinkuro Collaborative Platform, http://www.shinkuro.com/

Shinkuro is a research and development company with a strong interest in information sharing across organizational boundaries. For a review at http://blog.realworldsystems.net/blog/_archives/2004/4/9/118359.html

Examples of MoSoSo, mobile social software

"Typically, users set up a profile listing interests, hobbies and romantic availability. They also state what kind of people they'd like to meet. Because the service is tied to a mobile device, it knows when people with similar interests are near each other. Not surprisingly, MoSoSos are ideal for hooking up young, active professionals tied to their mobile phones or laptops, and they're starting to take off. Here are some of the leading players:

Dodgeball: Currently rolled out in 22 U.S. cities, and with about 15,000 users, dodgeball is the American MoSoSo standard-bearer. It works, explained founder Dennis Crowley, by having users check in with text messages announcing where they are. Then, because dodgeball maintains a database of hundreds of nightspots in each city, anyone on a user's friends list who is within 10 blocks gets a message that his or her pal is nearby. The service also has a "crush" feature. Users view profiles of other members and designate ones they'd like to meet. If the object of a crush is nearby, he or she gets a message to that effect. The system maintains privacy by identifying users only by screen names. "I can't tell you how many people I've met through this," said McGunigle. "It has not only simplified my socializing habits, but has allowed me to meet people I would not have met otherwise."

Playtxt: Playtxt's 6,000 members key in the postal code where they want to be found when they're on the go. Then, like dodgeball, anyone can see which friends, or friends of friends, are within that postal code." (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66813,00.html? )

Embedding Participation through Social Protocols and Social Physics

"An example of research into social software is the following:

Social Protocols define a social group as a particular kind of social network, and consistent with our algorithmic notion of Social Physics, groups are treated as an emergent property of certain types of rules, e.g. Social Protocols. Social Protocols frame the following seven conditions for any social network:

1. Fine grained tagging of the types of content that can be shared;

2. Terms and conditions under which certain types of content can be shared/distributed;

3. Types of interaction between parties, specifically, "speech act combinations" (request, question, introduce);

4. Network roles of participants in interactions between the parties;

5. Rules for inclusion and exclusion.

6. Triggers for dynamic assignment and revocation of participation rights.

7. The behaviors and metrics parties can see about one another.

The premise is that social control is not simply the consequence of brute force and coercion, but rather that people have evolved elaborate forms of self-organizing social control through innate "social emotions" such as, "shame and fame", a sense of reciprocity, affiliation, and peer based reputation. Hence, self-organization and social control can be scaled for large distributed networks of strangers and familiars through Social Protocols enable selective visibility for social signaling." (http://www.jclippinger.com/social.html)

The following blog entry in Centrality Journal about the evolution of Social Software, distinguishes three periods, culminating in Software 3.0, in which social software is becoming goal-oriented.

URL = http://www.centralityjournal.com/archives/david_hornik_on_social_networks_30.html

"Social Networks 1.0 were built during the late 1990s to enable the initial set of consumer services that created such excitement about the promise of the web. Services like eGroups/OneList, ICQ, Evite and many many more relied upon groups of users organizing and communicating on the web through coordinated networks. Those networks were not explicitly described as such but they were the underpinnings of these communications platforms.

Social Networks 2.0 began in the early 2000s when entrepreneurs got to thinking about the nature of their online networks and the power that could come of making those networks explicit. Services like Friendster, Tribe, Orkut, LinkedIn, Spoke emerged to allow users to organize their recreational and business networks. The focus of those services as they were first built was to enable the creation, growth and management of an explicit social network. In other words, the consumer experience of Social Networks 2.0 was around the creation and discovery of the network itself, rather than a particular use of that network.

I believe that we are now in Social Networks 3.0. After a fair bit of excitement and energy around pure play social networks, it became clear that the building and management of a social network was not, in and of itself, a compelling consumer experience. In a nod back to the earliest instantiations of social networking, entrepreneurs have come to realize that social networks are enablers of other compelling consumer experiences. Thus, social networks are becoming an important ingredient of all sorts of consumer experiences. Social networks inform the conversations that take place among friends on LiveJournal. Social networks enable the discovery of new music on MySpace. Social networks enhance the multi-player gaming experience at Xfire. Social networks now empower recruiting on LinkedIn. And dozens of new social networks are emerging to enable specific, valuable consumer experiences that are enhanced by the underpinnings of the network."