The trouble is this assumption that Facebook as it is now is “messed up”. What if it's not messed up? What if, for the simple majority, even the vast majority of people, Facebook is actually just fine? Maybe we like the fact that we see updates from people we don't know as closely. Maybe we enjoy being able to stay in touch with people we maybe weren't that close with in person? What if perhaps we're interested in hearing at least the stuff they post on Facebook? Maybe we establish relationships that couldn't have been established otherwise, because of circumstances, distance, opportunity, whatever? Maybe we're willing to deal with the noise, because we end up with signal we wouldn't have otherwise? Maybe it's just an appeal to a base desire for gossip?
In short, maybe Michael Arrington's (and the author's) aspect of what could make Facebook better is just... Wrong? Maybe the reason Facebook is so successful is because they picked the right path, not the wrong one.
The question of "is this assumption even right for most people" is certainly a fair one. My observations which were driven from personal experience as well as various data/user research suggest that at least SOME meaningful percentage of people find utility decay in social network design.
My main point is that just restarting these systems won't solve this problem for those who have it, because we'll rush towards this same race condition. Rather my product suggestions allow for release valves without fundamentally altering the value that a Facebook, G+, Twitter, etc deliver.
"...that at least SOME meaningful percentage of people find utility decay in social network design."
Define "Some"? I mean, you can never please 100% of your user base. Ever.
And to be crude, who cares if 5% of the user base doesn't like the service? Then leave. You don't have to be on Facebook. You don't have to be on Twitter. Or do you?
my hypothesis is that (a) no one likes "noise" (b) everyone has a different notion of what "noise" is and (c) these systems are designed to amplify noise (but there are ways to create noise dampeners).
Personally I find my direct usage of some mature social networks decreasing for the reasons that Mike and I outlined.
But it's also important to know that the tools are there in all service sto decrease the noise and increase the signal.
You can unfriend people. You can unfollow. You can unsubscribe. You can hide/block/remove almost everything you don't like.
I get your point that human nature makes it a lot harder to do these things, but the tools are there. Every time I meet people who complain about some social services I tell them that the services are exactly what you make them, and not the other way around. They are so broad, so general, and so open that you can make your experience exactly as you want it.
And that's important to remember. If Facebook sucks for you, it's mostly because YOU made it suck. :)
I would disagree with you on this part. Noise is the social. The lack of "noise" is what made G+ sooo boring for so many. I know once I added the noise of HN circle on G+, even though I didn't know any of these people, I enjoyed G+ tremendously more.
How much of this comes from just pure boredom and/or an addiction to social networking?
From boredom can come great ideas for a business or personal analysis. Two of the great tech titans in this industry in Gates and Jobs did not have this addiction and limited web access to their children. They did not grow up with the web. What is the effect of a lack of boredom? Does forward progress suffer as a result?
>Maybe we establish relationships that couldn't have been established otherwise, because of circumstances, distance, opportunity, whatever?
I wonder if that's true for most. I'd suspect that most of the youth that uses Facebook would not know where to start in finding interesting posts.
It may be what people want but it may not be what they need.
I'm not saying that's not possible. But there's a pronounced tendency in human nature to assume that because we don't like something no one does, or because something isn't good for us it isn't good for anyone (or, in reverse, because something is good for us it must be good for everyone). I think it's important to take a step back when we make pronouncements like this and consider whether we're actually right in thinking that or not.
And I suspect we have no idea what kinds of crazy things youth are doing with Facebook. Crazy meaning, useful but in a way that isn't immediately apparent to us. The thing about networking is, its utility goes up with time. The guy you chilled with at some party yesterday may be useless to you today or tomorrow or next year, but maybe in five years you'll issue a general request on facebook to see if anyone has a couch you can crash on in Chicago, and he'll volunteer. This is the kind of interaction that's honestly a bit new, and we're still getting comfortable with it.
Is it what we need? Maybe not, but then again it's stupendously difficult to figure out what it is that we “need”—indeed, every person's definition varies.
In short, maybe Michael Arrington's (and the author's) aspect of what could make Facebook better is just... Wrong? Maybe the reason Facebook is so successful is because they picked the right path, not the wrong one.