<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Fair Use Lab &#187; ecosystem</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fairuselab.net/tag/ecosystem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fairuselab.net</link>
	<description>Re-Imagining Accessibility, Disability &#38; the Public Sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:03:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is Facebook Too Big To Fail?</title>
		<link>http://fairuselab.net/2010/03/14/is-facebook-too-big-to-fail/</link>
		<comments>http://fairuselab.net/2010/03/14/is-facebook-too-big-to-fail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Willis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dunbar number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[network effect]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fairuselab.net/?p=777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you think Facebook is too big to fail, think again and mumble the mantra, "AOL." Network effect notwithstanding, bigger may not be better. As John Naughton writes in Guardian.com, "If you have too few friends then people think you're a loser; but if you have too many, they think you're either a social slut or a self-publicist." <a href="http://fairuselab.net/2010/03/14/is-facebook-too-big-to-fail/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you think Facebook is too big to fail, think again and mumble the mantra, &#8220;AOL.&#8221; Network effect notwithstanding, bigger may not be better. As <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/14/facebook-john-naughton-the-networker">John Naughton write</a>s in Guardian.com, &#8220;If you have too few friends then people think you&#8217;re a loser; but if you have too many, they think you&#8217;re either a social slut or a self-publicist.&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p>Is Facebook now &#8220;too big to fail&#8221;? I don&#8217;t mean in the sense that the  taxpayer would have to pick up the pieces if it went under, but in the  sense that the social networking service has achieved a position of such  dominance in the online ecosystem that its eclipse is unthinkable. Is  Facebook, in other words, the next Microsoft or Google?</p>
<p>The  question is prompted by a couple of milestones recently passed by  Facebook. The first is that it now has more than 400 million members.  The second is industry gossip predicting that its revenues for 2010 will  exceed a billion dollars. Other straws in the wind are estimates of the  size of the &#8220;<a title="Facebook economy" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/10/facebook-economy">Facebook economy</a>&#8221; – ie the ecosystem of  applications, services and products that has evolved around the service;  and the <a title="moral panics it now triggers" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/11/facebook-daily-mail">moral panics it now triggers</a> in  the mainstream media – a sure sign that they fear a competitor&#8230;</p>
<p>By gradually breaching their walled garden, the Facebook founders have  managed to avoid the fate of AOL – so far. Their boldest move was the  launch of Facebook Connect – which allows external services like Twitter  to interact directly with subscribers&#8217; Facebook accounts. What this  means is that people can interact with their Facebook friends without  being logged in to the site. This has triggered an avalanche of  development as companies strive to cash in on the network effects of  such a large subscriber base. The metamorphosis of Facebook into a  platform on which other people do interesting stuff was not just a smart  move; it was also a necessary one, because social &#8220;networking&#8221; is  intrinsically self-limiting. <a title="If you have too few friends then people think youre a loser; but  if you have too many, they think youre either a social slut" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200901/facebook-friends-too-many-too-few">If you  have too few friends then people think you&#8217;re a loser; but if you have  too many, they think you&#8217;re either a social slut</a> or a  self-publicist. As we know from the anthropologist Robin Dunbar – see My  Bright Idea, page 26 – the cognitive capacity of the primate brain  limits the size of the social network that an individual can develop.  Last year <a title="a study by Facebook's in-house sociologist" href="http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13176775">a study by  Facebook&#8217;s in-house sociologist</a> calculated that the average number  of friends in a Facebook network is 120. And when it comes to real,  intensive interaction, that number shrinks dramatically. It turns out  that the average Facebook male interacts with only four people and the  average female with six. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/14/facebook-john-naughton-the-networker">Raed more</a>.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://fairuselab.net/2010/03/14/is-facebook-too-big-to-fail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Is A Maker, Not Just A Taker</title>
		<link>http://fairuselab.net/2009/11/13/google-is-a-maker-not-just-a-taker/</link>
		<comments>http://fairuselab.net/2009/11/13/google-is-a-maker-not-just-a-taker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:51:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Willis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Future of Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publishing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fairuselab.net/?p=664</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joseph Esposito identifies himself as a traditionalist on copyright (“during the term of copyright, copyright serves the interests of the producer”), but he challenges the assertion that Google is “a taker, not a maker” in Publishing in the Google Ecosystem (in The Scholarly Kitchen) <a href="http://fairuselab.net/2009/11/13/google-is-a-maker-not-just-a-taker/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joseph Esposito identifies himself as a traditionalist on copyright (“during the term of copyright, copyright serves the interests of the producer”), but he challenges the assertion that Google is “a taker, not a maker” in <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/11/13/publishing-in-the-google-ecosystem/">Publishing in the Google Ecosystem</a> (<em>The Scholarly Kitchen</em>).  For example, Google made an API that enables publishers to add book search features to their websites that they were unlikely to create on their own. Esposito writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>Whatever one thinks of Google (and all publishers think about Google), there is little doubt that in just a few years, Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have become the most influential people in the publishing industry, at least in the U.S., taking that distinction away from Jeff Bezos.</p>
<p>&#8230; Google is now the defining entity in the information landscape.  To flourish, as best as publishers can hope to flourish, it’s necessary to find a place within the Google ecosystem.  There is no world elsewhere, no little pocket of commerce beyond the reach of Google’s audience aggregation, no opportunity to erect protectionist barriers or to appeal to the legacy of one’s own institutions.  To those who resent Google’s huge bulk and ambition, it has to be said:  Get over it.</p>
<p>&#8230; With the invention of the motion picture by Thomas Edison, the book lost its place as the center of the media universe.  All other innovations, from radio to television to the Internet, helped to push the book out further.  Now we live within a media landscape that has no center, but which does have a dominant issue, and that is the matter of online discovery, for which search engines, and Google in particular, are the dominant modes.</p>
<p>For publishers, this is the Google century, or maybe just the Google decades, but either way, not to engage this extraordinary organization is likely to lead to obscurity. <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/11/13/publishing-in-the-google-ecosystem/">Read more</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Thanks to Eric Rumsey (<a href="http://blog.lib.uiowa.edu/hardinmd/">Seeing the Picture</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/ericrumsey">@ericrumsey</a>) for pointing me this post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://fairuselab.net/2009/11/13/google-is-a-maker-not-just-a-taker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

