Facebook == Hypercard ... ?

The New York Times is reporting [1] that LinkedIn is valued at $1b. This is deeply troubling.

Whilst I have a lot more time for LinkedIn than I do for FaceBook (because it actually has a purpose), I'm still deeply concerned about a $1b valuation for it.

If ever there was a "HAM radio for the Internet", it's social networking. And if you need proof, take a look at OpenSocial. This platform takes the data model that underlies any kind of social graph and makes it open and public. In the (very near) future, simply being a social networking site won't be enough, because every site of any form will be able to expose its social graph and interact with other nodes in the wider, semantic web.

FaceBook (and to a lesser extent LinkedIn) have done a great job kicking off the idea, but because they are both closed systems, they will inevitably be overtaken by things like OpenSocial and the rest of the long tail Internet making use of that library and API.

Here's an analogy:

FaceBook == Hypercard
OpenSocial == Internet

Where are they both today?

BTW: If any of the social network sites has a chance of breaking out of simply representing a social graph, it's probably LinkedIn (or maybe Plaxo). Both of these sites actually do something with the graph that is useful to people. LinkedIn is monetising its data through an alternative to traditional job ads, and Plaxo provides a way for poor, troubled Windows users to sync address/calendar across multiple devices (wait until MobileMe arrives!)

FaceBook, on the other hand, just fills your inbox with crap.

And don't just take my word for it. Google agrees: [1].

For the record, I actually think that Hypercard was a far, far more revolutionary idea (for its time) than FaceBook. Had they just made the leap to allow cards to link to cards on other machines, then the web may have been kick started a few years earlier.

M@

[1] A social site, only the businesslike need apply
[2] Google's view: 3 trends in social networking