Are web giants like Facebook exempt from the same polices of major brick-and-mortar corporations? Can they just spend a googleplex (Google’s new number for how much cash they have) of dollars on each competitor to make sure they remain the social king? Sarah Perez, at Techcrunch.com, posted a great commentary on the social backlash that has followed Facebook’s billion dollar acquisition of the popular photography app Instagram. With all the insta-hipsters, as she calls them, up in arms with the apparent sell-out of their niche app, are we seeing social media users demand smaller, more intimate networks?
A completely believable future of social networks will follow trends of every other pop culture industry passed. Users join these networks, if for nothing else; to be a part of something larger, but is there such thing as too large? We want to be part of something but, we want that something to be special, unique, and more importantly, exclusive. Now that everyone is jumping on the Instagram bandwagon, a lot of users are hopping off the other side with concerns for their privacy.
The future of micro networks provides some sort of escape from the Facebook world. Users want to post pictures, videos and what have you without the threat of being crucified by say, their workplace, family members, or that dude you knew back in high school… but not really. If major networks like Facebook and Twitter continue to swallow up this indi networks we are going to see a complete monopolization of social networking and nobody wins in that situation (especially if those privacy issues permeate into the digested networks).
What kind of social media do you want? Do you want everyone in your life to participate or do you want that level of anonymity that the internet provides? Let us know.