Hilarious map of online communities from comic site xkcd.com. Click on the map to go to the full-sized version.

Alex Krupp, whose blog I haven’t come across before, makes a lot of sense in his latest post about social networking (which is fitting, since his blog is called Sensemaking). He notes that the term “social network” has become so over-sold that it now causes many venture capitalists to run screaming in the opposite direction, and startups are pitching their businesses in cliched Hollywood movie terms: It’s like MySpace meets Flickr, or Facebook meets Pornotube.

All of which is true, of course. But as Alex points out, that doesn’t mean the concept of social networking is dead or lifeless — not by any means. To me, the desire for some kind of connection with others, whether based on shared interests or location or both, is one of the most powerful forces around — so powerful that social networks are actually outdrawing online porn, if you can believe that. And Alex also notes that MySpace and Facebook and YouTube their ilk have only scratched the surface of what is possible, and each one focuses on a very different piece of the puzzle: Facebook is much more an instant-messaging and photo model, while MySpace is music oriented, LinkedIn is business contacts, etc.

Not only is the power of social networks not decreasing, I think it is increasing and expanding, and that can be seen in the growth of youth networks such as Gaia Online (which I wrote about here), Neopets, Webkinz and so on. And the draw of an online network seems to be pretty strong in Toronto: according to this post by Ryan Keeley, Torontonians are — per capita — much bigger users of Facebook than residents of other large cities. Maybe it’s the weather.

Forrester analyst Charlene Li thinks social media is going to be “like air.”

Digg continues to try and tweak its social-bookmarking service to make it harder to spam and “game” the system. But is it destroying the community at the same time? According to his post at the Digg blog, co-founder Kevin Rose believes that removing the list of top Diggers from the front page will help reduce the incentive for gaming the system — by Digging whatever your friends are Digging, among other things, or paying top Diggers to submit your site.

And yet, as my friend Tony Hung points out at Deep Jive Interests, getting your name on that top Diggers list is a significant incentive for people to submit links in the first place. What happens when that incentive is removed? (Tony thinks the changes are unlikely to cure the gaming problem anyway). Digg has so far resisted the idea of paying top submitters, a policy Jason Calacanis introduced when he Digg-ified Netscape.com.

In his post, Kevin says that Digg plans to introduce ways of helping Diggers find other Diggers with similar interests, and seems to suggest that the top Diggers list has outlived its usefulness, saying it “was created in the early days of Digg when there was a strong focus on encouraging people to submit content.” The implication is that with more than 5,000 submissions a day (and more than 50 million Diggs in two years), Digg doesn’t need to give people that incentive any more. Is that true? Digg is going to find out.

As Scott Karp (who writes about the recent Digg move here) says in a recent post, companies like Digg live by the community and die by the community. Steve O’Hear at ZDNet has some thoughts about the Digg move, and Josh Bokardo thinks Digg may be in for a surprise. Steve Rubel thinks Digg needs to start paying Diggers or it may be doomed. Mark Evans has a take on the recent move too. And there actually seems to be some support for the idea of removing the top Diggers list on the Digg site itself.

Update:

Jason Calacanis says he doesn’t think the latest change will work, and notes that thanks to Digg’s open API, it didn’t take long for someone to create a top Diggers list. And Chris Messina has an interesting post comparing community to the environment, and shifts like Digg’s recent one to changing weather patterns.

Update 2:

Svetlana Gladkova of Profy has an interview with a top Digger from Poland named Chrisek, who says that the changes won’t make much difference to Digg, and that they won’t affect him because he Diggs things for fun. And SEORefugee has some thoughts from another top Digger.

Facebook is a great service — my 17-year-old daughter and all her friends use it (I have an account too), and so does my cousin who is at McGill University in Montreal, where she engages in the typical sort of debauchery expected of second-year college students, and then posts pictures of said debauchery on her site for all her friends to see. I warn her about that from time to time, because you never know where those pictures are going to wind up.

What got me thinking about that again was reading on Engtech’s blog about a couple of employees of Farm Boy in Ottawa who were fired as a result of some stories they posted on a Facebook group, one of which allegedly involved theft from the store. There are more details in the Sun story, but in any case, they were fired despite having what was reportedly a stellar record at the store.

They were also fired despite the fact that Facebook groups are private, and you have to be invited to get into one. Similarly, Facebook profiles and pictures are not viewable unless someone invites you. However, in what was probably a poor decision, they all used their real names — and, as Engtech points out, one of them was fairly distinctive. That made it pretty easy to track down who it was. This kind of thing has happened before and likely will again.

Update:

A story from the Globe about well-known weatherman Percy Saltzman, who passed away recently, shows that it’s not just teenaged bloggers that need to think about the impact of what they are writing — 91-year-old weathermen might want to think about it a bit too.