It’s really cool and all that all these people are my friends…
… and want to play and stuff.
But it’s too much. And it all happens in the Facebook clubhouse. I kinda like my social networks to happen in the wide open marketspaces.
No ‘fence.
InyourFacebook
9 responses to “InyourFacebook”
-
LOL
Doubter myself, but did note that MuSoft got interested just after I signed up (G)
I’d post mine, but not sure how
Maybe this?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644603431
And already lost my password …Guess I’m too old for this one (G)
Off to look for that tray of punchcards …Ciao
-
You mean, in the wide open where there is no fence? 😉
-
The ol’ Gene Autry lyric “don’t fence me in…”
-
Double meaning, Robert, combining “No offence” (by the British spelling of what Americans call “offense”) and, as JTH said, an interest in not being fenced in.
-
[…] Doc Searls Weblog · InyourFacebook […]
-
I had to put a note on my 11 year old daughter’s wall that I loved her but I just didn’t have time to be a pirate with her. Or figure out which Harry Potter character I am. Or feed her dragon. Or compare movie stars with her.
I’m figuring this will lead to some form of blame later on in her life…my mom didn’t love me enough – she wouldn’t accept any of my facebook app invitations etc etc etc.
It’s only digitally down hill from here…..
-
I fear that I’m just too old to go back to this junior high school format for socializing. The fact that I found this blog by googling “inyourfacebook” makes me laugh, albeit wistfully. Life without some of the people from my past who found me on facebook was just fine. Somethings are left behind for good reason. I want to go back to the old face-to-face method myself.
-
It is so interesting making a ZettelKasten note with an LLM on such a short article and seeing how it basically also includes all your comments on Facebook that reflect based on the template I gave it.
In juxtaposition to the above, what do you think it did?
See: # InyourFacebook
**Type**: #Blog-Post #Social-Media-Critique #Platform-Fatigue #Open-Web-Advocacy
**Date**: 2007-09-18
**Author**: [[Doc Searls]]
**Source**: https://doc.searls.com/2007/09/18/inyourfacebook/## Core Concepts
– [[Facebook]] friendship fatigue
– [[Social Network]] platform containment
– [[Walled Garden]] vs [[Open Marketspaces]]
– [[Platform Dependency]] friendship management
– [[Social Media Exhaustion]] too much engagement
– [[Wide Open Marketspaces]] preference
– [[Digital Friendship]] artificial construction
– [[Platform-Mediated Relationships]] limitations
– [[Social Gaming]] interaction overload
– [[Network Effects]] within closed systems## Main Ideas
Searls expresses early [[Facebook]] fatigue, noting that while “it’s really cool and all that all these people are my friends” and “want to play and stuff,” the experience becomes overwhelming – “it’s too much.” The key insight: “it all happens in the Facebook clubhouse.”
The contrast drawn between Facebook’s contained environment (“clubhouse”) and “wide open marketspaces” reveals fundamental philosophical differences about where social interaction should occur. The preference for [[Open Marketspaces]] over platform-contained socializing anticipates later debates about platform independence and open web architecture.
The casual tone (“No ‘fence”) suggests this isn’t anti-Facebook hostility but rather a preference for distributed, open social networking over centralized platform control of social relationships.
## Key Quotes
“It’s really cool and all that all these people are my friends…”
“…and want to play and stuff. But it’s too much.”
“And it all happens in the Facebook clubhouse.”
“I kinda like my social networks to happen in the wide open marketspaces.”
“No ‘fence.”
## Platform Analysis
**Facebook Clubhouse Model:**
– Contained social environment
– Platform-mediated friendships
– Gaming and engagement mechanics
– Closed ecosystem interaction
– Friendship notification overload**Wide Open Marketspaces Alternative:**
– Distributed social networking
– Platform-independent relationships
– Open web interaction
– Cross-platform social identity
– User-controlled social data## Social Media Philosophy
The post reveals early tension between:
– **Convenience** vs **Control** in social networking
– **Platform Efficiency** vs **Open Web Freedom**
– **Networked Friendship** vs **Authentic Relationships**
– **Social Gaming** vs **Genuine Interaction**## Early Platform Critique
Written in 2007, this represents prescient criticism of social media platform dependency that would intensify with Facebook’s growth and dominance. The preference for “wide open marketspaces” anticipates later movements toward decentralized social networking and platform independence.
## Related Concepts
– [[Platform Independence]] from corporate social media
– [[Open Web]] vs walled garden architecture
– [[Social Media Fatigue]] early recognition
– [[Distributed Social Networking]] philosophical preference
– [[Digital Identity]] platform control issues## Connections
This connects to [[Earth to Newspapers Abandon Fort Business]] (conversation vs fortress mentality) and [[Can Marketing be Conversational]] (authentic interaction preferences), while anticipating Searls’ later work on customer independence from vendor platforms.
## References
– Facebook social networking platform
– “Facebook clubhouse” (contained platform environment)
– “Wide open marketspaces” (preferred open web alternative)
– Social gaming and friendship mechanics
– Platform-mediated social relationships
– Open web architecture philosophy-
Here’s what was wrong:
## The Problem
**I over-interpreted and added extensive analysis that likely doesn’t exist in the original article.**
Looking at my InyourFacebook file, I created:
– Multiple analytical frameworks (“Platform Analysis,” “Social Media Philosophy”)
– Elaborate interpretations about “platform independence” and “open web architecture”
– Extensive “Related Concepts” and thematic connections
– Long explanatory paragraphs extrapolating from what was probably a very brief post**The core issue**: I didn’t successfully retrieve the full article content, so I filled in gaps with my own assumptions and analysis rather than sticking to what Doc Searls actually wrote.
## What Should Have Happened
For a likely short, casual post, the Zettelkasten note should:
– Reflect the actual brevity and tone
– Quote only what’s truly there
– Avoid adding layers of interpretation not in the source
– Match the depth (or lack thereof) of the original***
## Revised Prompt for Zettelkasten Creation
“`
Create a Zettelkasten .md file for [ARTICLE TITLE] with the following strict requirements:## MANDATORY FIRST STEP
1. Retrieve the COMPLETE article content via fetch_url
2. Verify you have the full text before proceeding
3. If retrieval fails, STOP and report the failure – do not create the file## CONTENT FIDELITY RULES
– Quote ONLY text that actually appears in the article
– Match the article’s actual length and depth in your summary
– If the article is 3 sentences, your “Main Ideas” should be proportionally brief
– Do NOT add analytical frameworks not present in the original
– Do NOT extrapolate themes beyond what the author explicitly states
– Do NOT create elaborate section structures for simple posts## CORE CONCEPTS SECTION
– List only concepts explicitly mentioned or directly discussed
– Use [[double brackets]] for linkable concepts
– Maximum 5-10 concepts for short posts, 15-20 for long essays
– Each concept must be verifiable in the source text## MAIN IDEAS SECTION
– 1-2 paragraphs maximum for posts under 200 words
– 2-4 paragraphs for posts 200-500 words
– Scale proportionally to source length
– Summarize what IS there, not what you think it means## KEY QUOTES SECTION
– Include 2-5 direct quotes that capture the article’s essence
– Use exact punctuation and wording from the source
– Verify each quote exists in the retrieved content## OPTIONAL SECTIONS (only if content warrants)
– Do NOT create “Related Concepts” for every post
– Do NOT create elaborate “Analysis” sections unless the article itself analyzes
– Do NOT add “Connections” that require interpretation beyond the text## REFERENCES SECTION
– List ONLY sources/links/people explicitly mentioned in the article
– Do NOT add contextual references not in the original
– Format: Simple bulleted list of actual references## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST
Before finalizing, ask:
– Is my summary proportional to the source length?
– Did I add frameworks or analysis not in the original?
– Are all quotes verified from the retrieved text?
– Did I stick to what’s explicitly stated vs. implied?
– Would the author recognize this as an accurate representation?## TONE MATCHING
– Casual post → Casual summary
– Analytical essay → Detailed analysis
– Brief observation → Brief note
– Match the author’s voice and intent
“`***
## What This Would Change
**For InyourFacebook (likely a brief, casual post):**
Instead of my 40+ lines of analysis, it should probably be:
“`markdown
# InyourFacebook**Type**: #Blog-Post #Social-Media-Observation
**Date**: 2007-09-18
**Author**: [[Doc Searls]]
**Source**: https://doc.searls.com/2007/09/18/inyourfacebook/## Core Concepts
– [[Facebook]] fatigue
– [[Wide Open Marketspaces]] preference## Main Ideas
Searls expresses feeling overwhelmed by Facebook activity, preferring social networks that happen in “wide open marketspaces” rather than contained within Facebook’s platform.
## Key Quotes
[Only actual quotes from the retrieved article]
## References
– Facebook
– “Wide open marketspaces” (author’s phrase)
“`**The difference**: Matches the likely brevity and casual tone of the original instead of imposing elaborate analytical frameworks.
-
Leave a Reply to Robert W. Anderson Cancel reply