The Facebook Effect

Infinite Facebook Loop
Image by Aaron Brazell

Whenever there’s a big or small Facebook announcement, it essentially derails the entire communications social web conversation for hours or even days. An ensuing rant/rave conversation occurs about the deep meaning of Zuckerberg and crew’s latest wrinkle. This disruptive force should be dubbed the Facebook Effect.

Whether we’re talking Profile Page updates, Zuckerberg’s donation of $100 million to Jersey schools, the addition of Facebook Questions, Zuckerberg’s decision to take the Pledge, Facebook Open Graph for Mobile, Zuckerberg’s new hubcaps, etc., the entire space just seems to get derailed. It’s worse than a presidential speech during prime time TV.

Trying to blog or hold a normal conversation in the midst of the first few hours of any Facebook announcement is like paddling upstream in the face of Class 4 rapids. It’s gotten to the point where one should consider the weight of their topic before deciding to compete with the latest Facebook blah blah. This weighty Facebook Effect is even impacting traditional media now!

This morning’s announcement that Zuckerberg won Time Person of the Year was a classic example. Granted, Time Person of the Year is a significant cultural conversation. And many social media wonks argued Zuckerberg’s merits online, an almost crowning of the medium as a critical force in society (right or wrong). Of course, the counter argument is that he won because Hollywood crowned him (possibly as a tyrant) this year in the movie The Social Network.

Based on the magnetic chatter value of anything Facebook these days, it’s hard to completely disagree with the choice. Welcome to the world of the infinite Facebook Loop. Kudos to Facebook PR for their masterful (and somewhat annoying) job.

How Social Semantic Search Defines People

BORKER-2-popup.jpeg
(Cartoon by David G. Klein from the New York Times)

Search is the underpinning of the Internet today, from the 1 billion traditional searches everyday on Google to providing references about a person on Twitter and delivering their stream feed on Facebook. Search has moved from simple page rank to an increasingly complex algorithm that weight’s social and semantic data points to deliver the outcomes most likely to please you. Personalization of search continues to evolve, but in turn it defines people and their choices.

Search — the technology itself — doesn’t bear responsibility for this. People do. People who use the Internet and its many free tools without understanding how the information is provided to them. They blindly accept search results or the search-based content feed without considering the source.

Consider the DecorMyEyes fiasco broken by the New York Times. Owner Vitaly Borker explained how he used intentionally created negative complaints about DecorMyEyes to game search results and place himself as a top ranked eyeglasses vendor. To Google’s credit, they promptly changed their algorithm to include more semantic weight (all negative or all positive disqualifying you), and the Department of Justice followed up with charges.

Social networks and applications also use search to source preferred content. Facebook’s activity feed is designed to source the most “interesting” content to people in your friends network are using the Open Graph API and likes. Search on Facebook is completely driven by the Open Graph (Like) protocol.

Of course, hashtags have demonstrated the power of search on Twitter. Twitter search was originally based on the acquired Summize search technology, and has been used to reference mentions and trends, too. Now Twitter (and other services) suggests people like you using semantic data.

The Danger of Homogeneous Definition

Google Organic.jpg

The danger in all of this personalized search — particularly when it’s largely based on peer interests — is creating a society of homogeneous sycophants that blindly accept the content sourced to them, either via search or feeds. Lest we think that people actually think through the click, consider organic click through rates on Google (as pictured above by SEO’s Neil Walker). Clicking through on the first few search terms is and has been the norm.

The addition of local semantic data to search only further complicates concepts of popularity. Algorithms tell people which burger joints, music venues, theaters, etc. are most likely to meet their interests.

When popularity is defined by an algorithm and served to people, homogeneos or mob thinking becomes the norm. This thinking feeds on the popular. Society is not currently trained to question the information presented to it. Thus algorithms — designed to create the output that will generate the most click throughs — become a critical determinant in defining people’s lives, and society as a whole.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Semantic information can weigh in when a system is gamed, and social search can provide the latest information based on people’s actual use and check-ins. However, idea markets are increasingly influenced by the popular, and not necessarily in a good way. Algorithms can keep bad ideas popular for longer periods of time.

It all points back to the need for society to teach better information skills. In an information economy, the ability to question and discern quality data presented via a plethora of media is an essential quality for democracy and individualism. It’s important to look deeper at online search, whether that’s because a search provided direct information or because an algorithm sourced a friend or influencer touting an idea or product. Quoting Doug Haslam, “Think for yourself. …you needn’t be part of some pack that can’t brook disagreement with your heroes.”

An educated Fifth Estate creates an evolutionary society, a mindless one creates results like Kim Kardashian as the number one search term on Bing for 2010. While many people find Kardashian attractive, should social semantic search tell every person — man and woman alike — what the icon of attractive is? Parents across America may object.

What do you think about how search and algorithms are defining our society?