Comments on: From circles to networks

By: Patti Anklam » Socializing

Patti Anklam » Socializing — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:26:54 +0000

[...] recently tweeted an observation of David Weinberger’s on how our language has shifted: Over the past decade, weâ€™ve gone from talking about social [...]

By: Recommending Patty Anklam’s Socializing « Fredzimny's Blog

Recommending Patty Anklam’s Socializing « Fredzimny's Blog — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:53:03 +0000

[...] tweeted an observation ofÂ David Weinberger’s on how our language has shifted: Over the past decade, weâ€™ve gone from talking about social [...]

By: BookBlog » Blog Archive » The revival of groups in the age of the network - Adina Levin's weblog. For conversation about books I've been reading, social software, and other stuff too.

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:25:42 +0000

[...] a recent blog post, David Weinberger writes about how networks have surpassed groups in recent years, as ways of [...]

By: pligg.com

pligg.com — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:02:44 +0000

Joho the Blog Â» From circles to networks…

Joho the Blog Â» From circles to networks…

By: Adina Levin

Adina Levin — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:46:40 +0000

Networks are more visible and addressible now, but I don’t see groups becoming obsolete. It’s useful to be able to see who else is participating in a given thing, and useful to coordinate a set of people for action. People like affiliating and that isn’t going away. Today’s leading models of online social networks, Facebook and Twitter, have very weak support for groups, but that doesn’t mean the phenomenon is dead. There will be interesting interrelationships and overlays.

By: Matthew Theobald

Matthew Theobald — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:31:11 +0000

nor has it ever been as global and instant.

By: davidw

davidw — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:23:28 +0000

Marc, of course we’ve had networks, but we haven’t had networks as a communications medium. At least not of this sort.

By: marc libarle

marc libarle — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:56:54 +0000

are you serious? networks have been around since homo sapiens began communicating. as a concept to characterize an age, I don’t think so. it shares the same problematic operational saliency as information age.

By: Matthew Theobald

Matthew Theobald — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:45:23 +0000

always thought “information age” was wrong. Ag, iron, industrial, even nuclear ages were all information ages. Agreed the new term is and should be Network Age

By: davidw

davidw — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:58:07 +0000

Ehud, I get your point about circles, but I don’t see how networks exclude. Networks connect; that’s why they’re networks.

Of course, actual social networks can exclude people — you don’t have to friend everyone who asks — but as a mere shape, networks connect.