Capping IT Off
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 is on a day to day basis working on social media (strategy) cases for several (Fortune 500) clients. He lives and loves social media, helping people and enterprises in using social media in a way that adds value for them. He also gives guest lectures at several universities to make students aware of the impact social media will have on their life in general and on enterprises in particular in the near and not so near future. Is he a geek? Well… yes. A geek with a social life though. Even one with a wife and a young son, who’s first English words were ‘Social media’.
- More at
yep, i don’t follow people back anymore that have protected updates.
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 :-)
@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…
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.
@ 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.
@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.
@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!
@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.
@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.
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.