We will start with Ebay… you have a “profile” which can be “rated” by other members (buyers can rate sellers, other members can communicate with the member base at large about a given product, seller, or buyer.) Members can join groups of other members with interests in the same things… like “Apple” for example. A lot of social activity goes on… if you've ever gotten into a last minute bidding war with someone who you've lost to in the past then there is no denying the social aspect of Ebay. lol.

CragisList has tons of social… check this out: http://winnipeg.en.craigslist.org/forums/ those are all discussion threads where people talk to one another. And that is just winnipeg… CL offers lists for tons of cities in multiple countries all full of way more socializing than any one person could [should?] ever be able to consume in a single lifetime. Classified ads, open letters where people spill their emotions and wait for email replies, etc… it might not be a “wall” or a “comment on my profile” but it is human beings placing themselves in the arena of communication and interaction. That, to me, is “social”.

So while these places do offer a service that goes above and beyond a “social network” as “web 2.0″ would like to see it defined… a profile, a friends list, and the ability to comment back and forth (am I missing anything?) they are indeed, in my opinion, social sites. It grinds on me when people describe Web 2.0 as Web 1.0 with “Social” added… because of these very examples. Web 0.01 (a.k.a. the “pre-web”) started as “Social” with things like BBS then Email and IRC… the internet, by it's very nature, is a social medium.

Let me toss this nugget out there for consideration (perhaps a sprinkling of devil's advocacy for effect, but pretty much how I feel) : The fact that MySpace had already achieved mainstream success is the reason it got MSM attention for all of it's pedophilia. Not the other way around. Now having MSM attention (good or bad) certainly elevates awareness and can add to an already healthy mainstream user base. But creating a useful service that people want to partake in and share with others is the driving force behind becoming a successful company. I'm just eager to see the credit for major success given to the efforts of hard working web developers/feedback of early adopters rather than to the MSM, that's all. I'm a web developer so I'm biased in that way.

P.S. I wonder if Kara Swisher could have ever in her wildest dreams [nightmares] envision her blog post about Twitter eventually leading to very in depth discussions involving hookers and pedophiles. lol… gotta love social media.

It is my feeling that sites like Amazon, eBay and Craigslist made it to the
mainstream which they did as shining examples of Web 1.0 success stories
because they provided a direct service. Social networks in my opinion don't
provide a direct service in the same way.

As for the web in general being in the crosshairs of journalists I would
have to say that it does indeed but only if there is a way for them to
sensationlize what ever has caught their eye that day. and nothing
sensationalizes better than reports of pedophiles on MySapce or hookers
doing business on Craigslist or some videos of drug dealers or some kid
getting the shit beat of of them being available on YouTube. So MSM being
what is is pumps those up in order to sell more papers or get more viewers
(and hence make more money from advertising). You don't see feel good
stories ever causing the same reaction.

I will admit that expressing the viewpoint that *only* negativism of a web
service is a prequisite for going mainstream was over the top - to a point.
I still stand by the fact that things like I have mentioned has *raised* the
visiblity of said services to the person on the street and therefor bringing
it *into* the mainstream quicker.

As for overstaying your welcome - I don't think so. You are more than
welcome to comment as many times and as lengthy as you like. This is the
purpose of me doing this .. to engage in conversation about the things we
use daily. I greatly appreciate your input even if at some point we agree to
disagree as long as we do it in a thoughtful and friendly manner.

Again thank you for your input.

“Besides problem solving I think any app, widget or service also has to make it pass the cool factor and attract the negative mainstream press.”

So I opted to create an opposing view, hoping for a meaty discussion (I love me some discussion… I'm a conversationalist. You know as well as anybody that it might seem hard to avoiding sounding confrontational when arousing confabulation, but an argument is not what i had in mind.). I was unaware that being a “social network” was a prerequisite for your theory as that had failed to have been noted previously. Actually the opposite was flat out stated… “ANY app, widget, or service” … So I brought up Facebook, CraigsList, Ebay, [All social ... not sure I could explain how so to someone not already convinced, but their social-ness is rather inconsequential to my broader point], Amazon, and Google. To which you did say “NONE of the examples … fit the model of a social network”. I was stunned by the reply as it clearly avoided the fact that these “app, widget, or service”-s reached mainstream popularity without a mainstream-press-hammering. (Ebay's introductions to the mainstream had more to do with laser pointers and pez dispensers than it did negative press about stolen goods appearing for sale. And being as you requested us to “take a second and look at it realistically” I was simply offering the suggestion that you do the same and possibly admit that, “Ok. MySpace has gotten a ton of pedophiles on it, and YouTube has a fair amount of crime tapes… but the web in general is not fodder for journalist's cross-hairs. And sites that enjoy major mainstream success might possibly deserve some credit on their own merits rather than just assuming that they are only popular because of a couple of contrived pieces run by CNN, (who, like all mainstream media, thrive on highlighting the worst of human existence in spite of the fact that it represents a sliver of a sliver of the whole).”

So my second reply was intentionally snarky because I felt that my point was ignored and that we were simply hellbent on believing what we want to believe. Thus the “you win” statement.

So I'd just as soon not orate the multitude of evidence supporting my claims of Ebay and CraigsList being social applications… because I believe that takes focus away from the original discussion I was hoping would ensue. But then again, that was under the impression that “ANY app, widget or service” was not intended to include only social networks. So I think it's probably best if I maintain my forfeiture.

*Note to my friends: I don't want any emails, IMs, or phone calls about my super long blog comments anymore! So what… I'm long winded… I have a lot to say people! Leave me alone!! LOL … I'm pretty sure word for word the author of this post has me beaten on word count on this page…it's called engaging the web, hmmm kay? (Steve… If I've overstayed my welcome, please say so. Again.. It's never my intent to make enemies… i just see things differently sometimes, that's all. I'm a real opinionated guy and i like to get into conversations, wether they are debates or just explorations of multiple points of view. Agreeing all the time is boring.)

Logic has left the building.

I'll not be conversing in a world where 2+2=5. You can go ahead and “win”. (…extra).