<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Danah Boyd: The History and Future of Social Networking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fastwonderblog.com/2006/10/29/danah-boyd-the-history-and-future-of-social-networking/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fastwonderblog.com/2006/10/29/danah-boyd-the-history-and-future-of-social-networking/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on online community strategy, community management, blogging, social media, Yahoo Pipes and open source.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:59:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham</title>
		<link>http://fastwonderblog.com/2006/10/29/danah-boyd-the-history-and-future-of-social-networking/comment-page-1/#comment-12029</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 03:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastwonderblog.com/?p=232#comment-12029</guid>
		<description>It is always refreshing to read into danah&#039;s research. I just finished my thesis about identity construction in Facebook...to which I am very glad to be finished with. It&#039;s funny because if you are writing a research paper on social networking sites, you are bound to cite danah, as well as make sure to leave her name all lowercase :P 

As for the future of social networking sites, Facebook in particular, I honestly do not think it can sustain its large membership within the next five years or so. If Facebook doesn&#039;t continue to expand and create new and inviting applications, how can they keep the 70+million of people happy? I think the new generation of social networking sites are branching off into smaller sub-groups which are geared for a specific demographic. Like an SNS for fishermen, one for expats, one for tennis players, etc. I wonder if they will decrease Facebook&#039;s capital in the long run. Or perhaps Facebook could expand into that market. Whatya think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is always refreshing to read into danah&#8217;s research. I just finished my thesis about identity construction in Facebook&#8230;to which I am very glad to be finished with. It&#8217;s funny because if you are writing a research paper on social networking sites, you are bound to cite danah, as well as make sure to leave her name all lowercase <img src='http://fastwonderblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>As for the future of social networking sites, Facebook in particular, I honestly do not think it can sustain its large membership within the next five years or so. If Facebook doesn&#8217;t continue to expand and create new and inviting applications, how can they keep the 70+million of people happy? I think the new generation of social networking sites are branching off into smaller sub-groups which are geared for a specific demographic. Like an SNS for fishermen, one for expats, one for tennis players, etc. I wonder if they will decrease Facebook&#8217;s capital in the long run. Or perhaps Facebook could expand into that market. Whatya think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gmoney</title>
		<link>http://fastwonderblog.com/2006/10/29/danah-boyd-the-history-and-future-of-social-networking/comment-page-1/#comment-355</link>
		<dc:creator>gmoney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastwonderblog.com/?p=232#comment-355</guid>
		<description>I read your piece in the FT with great delight and interest.  We are launching an exciting site in late November-early December.  What strikes me as odd, is the narrow spectrum of thinking about the concept of social networking. When I ask people why a particular site, they respond typically with &quot;to connect with friend&quot; or &quot;keep in touch with people I know&quot;.   This is bound to get very old, regardless if it&#039;s Facebook, Myspace, Friendster or whatever.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I asked my wife if she believes people want to have a &quot;real&quot; conversation and she said, &quot;honey most people--especially young people do not.&quot;  I completely disagree with my wife and the bartender who echoes her same point.  It is time to evolve truly to a more legitimate social networking experience.  This is why large media are having such a difficult time with these sites, because at the end of the day, people don&#039;t seem to be expanding their horizons much.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please tell me that my wife and the bartender are wrong.  Because if they right in their perspectives, it says very little about how we have evolved as people. lhowell@schetikos.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read your piece in the FT with great delight and interest.  We are launching an exciting site in late November-early December.  What strikes me as odd, is the narrow spectrum of thinking about the concept of social networking. When I ask people why a particular site, they respond typically with &#8220;to connect with friend&#8221; or &#8220;keep in touch with people I know&#8221;.   This is bound to get very old, regardless if it&#8217;s Facebook, Myspace, Friendster or whatever.</p>
<p>I asked my wife if she believes people want to have a &#8220;real&#8221; conversation and she said, &#8220;honey most people&#8211;especially young people do not.&#8221;  I completely disagree with my wife and the bartender who echoes her same point.  It is time to evolve truly to a more legitimate social networking experience.  This is why large media are having such a difficult time with these sites, because at the end of the day, people don&#8217;t seem to be expanding their horizons much.</p>
<p>Please tell me that my wife and the bartender are wrong.  Because if they right in their perspectives, it says very little about how we have evolved as people. <a href="mailto:lhowell@schetikos.com">lhowell@schetikos.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

