At first I thought that the success of a network depended on how much it acted as a site-independent platform. You can see with Facebook and Twitter in particular that they have a useful API that has encouraged a ecosystem of applications and tools to flourish around them. New challengers have to compete, not only with the application itself, but the way it has embedded into the web.

But now, I’m starting to think that the distinction between Facebook as a website and Facebook as a platform is a natural extension of the fact that these sites must mirror offline relationships to be successful. If I have a close circle of friends, I don’t have to leave them behind in one place and then reassemble them in another. The tools exist (phone, IM, email) to communicate at all times, around any subject.

We don’t need a new social network for every conceivable topic because Facebook already fills that need. But conversely, we ultimately don’t need Facebook because even without it,  our relationships still exist.

from flickr: dbarronoss

I was challenged to try twitter for two weeks. It’s taken me around 24 hours to love it. It’s like the bodysnatchers.

One thing I happened to read a few days ago was someone proclaiming how sad it was that we needed these shallow social apps to keep in touch. Why don’t we just pick up the phone?

Pretty true I thought. But in practice, I’ve found that friendships run deeper when there is some kind of web connecting them. People I don’t see every day, whether online or off, tend to fall off my radar. Not because I don’t like them or because I don’t care but because that’s human nature.

Or maybe I really don’t care. Whichever, I think that it’s better to actively maintain relationships by any means that work than see them dissolve through inadvertent neglect.