The fundamental design flaw in Twitter and Friendfeed

Rick Mans

10 Comments

July 31, 2009

Category : User Experience

Both in Twitter and Friendfeed (and probably an awful lot of other applications) there is a design flaw regarding users protecting their updates. As you might know you can only read updates of users that protect their updates after they gave you permission for it.

However if you do not protect you updates (and give it a thought, why would you want to protect your updates, or are you talking about homeland security? Then you should not use these tools at all), the users that protect their updates are free to add you to follow you. However if you want to follow them back, you have to do a request...

I understand the technical decision why you have to do a request: the user protected his updates and to see them, he has to approve you. However it does not feel right and it feels morally wrong to me, also there is an inequality created in the relationship of the users . Especially since if you want to get to know that person, or if you want to know what subjects this person is talking/ tweeting about, you first have to request and then you can decide whether if you want to follow back or would rather like to block this person since his content is objectionable.

The correct design for these kind of systems should be that if an user that protects his updates starts following somebody, he automatically grants that person access to his updates. With this method you create transparency between follower and followed one, and also you create an equal starting position for both parties. They both can see what the other one is talking about and decide whether the relation that is started by the one is worth to be mutual or should be ended as soon as possible.

Why would you want to keep your updates protected for a person if you follow that person? It would be like wearing a ski mask: the person wearing the mask can see you, and even follow you around, while you have no clue who that person is, and why you are so interesting to him. You won't even have the opportunity to ask him!

So: if you would like to follow someone, take of your mask, or let the network do it for you.

Rick Mans is a social media evangelist within Capgemini. You can follow and connect with him via Twitter or Delicious

About the author

Rick Mans

View my profile View all my posts

10 Comments Leave a comment

Lee Provoost:
July 31, 2009 at 11:28am

yep, i don't follow people back anymore that have protected updates.

Jeroen Trappers:
July 31, 2009 at 4:41pm

I don't agree with you. Why should anyone open their updates just to follow anyone else. I don't see a problem with people protecting their updates and still following others. It's a design _choice_, not a flaw, and certainly not a fundamental one. It's just your opinion :-)

rimans:
July 31, 2009 at 11:13pm

@Jeroen
Off course is everything a design choice, although this design choice creates an inequality between users. If you choose to follow somebody, why not open up your updates yourself for that person. Unless somebody has something to hide...

Jeroen Trappers:
July 31, 2009 at 11:38pm

I understand what you mean, but still I don't like the title of the blogpost. The inequality is by design and I'm happy it is the way it is. Saying it is a fundamental design flaw is just incorrect.
Take the following usecase: I want to share stuff only with people I _know_ and follow public and interesting 'feeds'. In your world, that would force me to create two accounts. Now I can do it with just one.
Twitter is a directed-multicast medium, it's not meant to be bidirectional only. You don't have to follow people that follow you -luckily-. You just follow people you're interested in. If people don't want to share with the world, thats just fine. They can still follow others, who choose to tweet publicly. And thats part of the success. You can watch, without being watched.

Priv:
August 2, 2009 at 4:13pm

@ Jeroen
I agree, saying the design is a flaw is just getting it wrong, rather it adds to its appeal. I can follow Capgemini, public and other 'technologically interesting' persons without worrying about them seeing my personal tweets.
@Rick
Its not about wanting to hide anything but keeping some things within a small circle of people you trust and having the luxury of seeing what other 'people' are up to.

rimans:
August 2, 2009 at 4:20pm

@Jeroen @Priv it is not about protected accounts itself, its about the inequality that is created when somebody with a protected account starts following somebody. Before you know what the person with the protected account is up to to, you (as the person who is followed) have to do a request to get to know somebody.
That is wrong in my opinion, since if you want to follow somebody you want to have an equal starting point, both should open up and share the same information. If you follow somebody you will not have a problem that that person will follow you back, so why not design the system that the protected updates are available for all the people you follow, whether or not they follow you back.

gasharma:
August 3, 2009 at 8:47am

@Jeroen has put it rightly.
I can't see how "man in ski mask" argument fit on internet! If someone want to follow you on twitter he can still do this without even being(registered) on twitter. So whats big deal if a person on twitter but with protected updates follow you!

rimans:
August 3, 2009 at 8:59am

@guarav everything you put on the web is public (eventually). However that is not the case I am describing. The thing I describe is the unequal start of a relationship. Just watching unregistered somebody's twitter page is not a relationship. Starting to follow somebody is a relationship.
This item is not about that the protected updates feature is a flaw, but the implementation of it as soon as a user with protected updates starts to follow somebody. In that specific usecase inequality is created. There is no equal relation since one is not telling what he or she is doing.

gasharma:
August 3, 2009 at 11:17am

@Rick I know what you are trying to say with emphasis on "inequality" but isnt that the benefit of twitter !! Twitter "relationship" are not supposed to be equal in any case.
Twitter works on relationship asymmetry which makes it different it from platforms like facebook. Unlike facebook , twitter doesn't aim to re-create your social graph or relationships. "Attention inequality" is basic nature of twitter. Any person who uses Twitter can have larger number of followers than people he follows, giving them more attention than they give and scenario you described above is part of that inequality and asymmetry.

Till:
August 10, 2009 at 2:57pm

I also do not agree. The design paradigm is completely opt-in. As Guy Kawasaki likes to put it: you can always UFM (unfollow me).
And it's completely opt-in if you want to be followed. On FF as well as Twitter you can also follow people unsing RSS. So you can always follow someone. No matter whether you are signed up to Twitter or FF or not.
So as I said: I fully disagree with you. sorry.

Capping IT Off