Facebook Timeline: Disliked by the Masses

What Is The Value Of A Facebook Fan?

The Truth About Facebook Depression

Source: mashable.com via Hitoshi on Pinterest

Ten Types Of Facebook Friends

Why Do Facebook Users… Add Friends? Remove Friends?

An Average Day On Facebook

The Basic Facebook Facts

Changes In Facebook Insights

Facebook Contests By The Numbers

Facebook MENA Statistics

via

A Check-in Button for Your Facebook Page

Localley is a tool that broadens the functionality of Facebook Places by letting you check-in to places using a date and time in the future. It also allows you to view your check-in history on a Google Map, visualise your friends' latest check-ins and view the people who are checked in around you.Localley has now released checkintab for Facebook pages. If your business or venue has a Facebook

A Check-in Button for Your Facebook Page

Localley is a tool that broadens the functionality of Facebook Places by letting you check-in to places using a date and time in the future. It also allows you to view your check-in history on a Google Map, visualise your friends' latest check-ins and view the people who are checked in around you.Localley has now released checkintab for Facebook pages. If your business or venue has a Facebook

SpotOn3D

Elevating virtual worlds history denial into an art-form #SecondLife

 

Apparently there is this controversy brewing over SpotOn3D and their web viewer “plugin”, in that they have the intention of filing for a patent on the process by which they have replicated a “viewer embedded in a webpage” experience. Most well respected open source contributors are up in arms over this recent move by SpotOn3D simply because it amounts to what can be describes as a stab in the back to all developers who are contributing to OpenSim development freely.

 

Of course, I had a wonderful opportunity to check this SpotOn3D “web plugin” out before it reached the ears of the media public, and I had then the same opinion that I do now concerning where they are headed with it all.

 

Let’s begin by stating what the SpotOn3D “plugin” is and is not, because it bares repeating in public to put the record straight.

 

It’s Not Really a Plugin

 

By most definitions it is simply a program wrapper that happens to embed a full program, which must be downloaded and installed as a standalone product, into a web page. In this manner, the comparison as a web plugin is laughable at best. It would be like saying that making a wrapper for LibreOffice to embed the program into a webpage is a “plugin”, even though you are downloading and installing a 300MB installation package which also works as a standalone product from your desktop. The reasoning is quite silly when you actually think about it.

 

In the case of SpotOn3D, they have a program that is separate as a wrapper (and provided as open source), in which certain arguments are called in launching the wrapper which tell it what fully installed program to embed into the web page – by their own admission, this plugin could embed just about any standalone program into a webpage, and I know this to be a fact.

 

So, too, SpotOn3D attempts to pass off a full standalone viewer, installation and all, as though it were a lightweight plugin when it’s really a separate plugin framework system calling a fully installed viewer that is a standalone product. But even the plugin wrapper isn’t even theirs to claim, unless they are willing to publicly acknowledge the other 28 programmers who contributed to the very open source project which made the SpotOn3D wrapper possible. I’d also think that those 28 contributors would be pretty pissed off to find some random company making an attempt to patent something based on Open Source works.

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly there is an icon on my desktop that launches the same viewer as the one that is embedded into the webpage via the program wrapper. To also say that this is a novel approach is also untrue in that the only way one can claim such a thing is if you were to entirely ignore the history of virtual world environments, much like the Pilgrims selectively ignored the Native Americans when they first arrived, and pretended the entire continent was uninhabited. (dramatization provided by Eddie Izzard: possibly NSFW)

 

 

 

You own the entire country, yet have no system of ownership? SpotOn3D to the Open Source Community

 

 

The point here is that unless they are willing to ignore everything that came before them, as well as the community which provided the open source software for them to modify in the first place, coupled with throwing gobs of cash into the arena in order to undermine and compete with underfunded and spare-time open source initiatives, then yes I suspect they can claim there is something to patent. It’s really deniability at this point, or at least willful ignorance of the subject at hand, although I suspect it is more like willful abuse of patent process in order to gain an upper hand in a competitive market.

 

Case in point; The claim of bringing virtual worlds to Facebook. In the video above, the claim is that the entire continent is devoid of other people and the Pilgrims are the first to ever step foot there, despite staring point blank at Native Americans. In the case of SpotOn3D and their “plugin”, they are making a claim of doing something different and unique, and touting their “plugin” integration on Facebook, despite the fact I can claim I’ve seen this trick before in 2007 with ActiveWorlds (Press Release Located Here).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though we can say that the ActiveWorlds version used Internet Explorer exclusively for the ActiveX embed, and this only worked on Windows operating systems at the time (which wasn’t anything new since ActiveWorlds only works on Windows to begin with), there is definitely a precursor showing that a virtual environment company has embedded their “viewer” into a webpage and even Facebook using a “plugin”. The reason I say “plugin” again with quotes is because the ActiveWorlds variation of this method worked essentially the same exact way as Spoton3D and their “plugin”. It was a specialized wrapper that called the fully installed, stand-alone viewer and embedded it into a webpage via third party methods.

 

 

 

 

 

My Dragon is Bigger: Stealing FireBreath

 

The question becomes, how exactly does one patent something that is actually quite common, shows prior art, and is probably covered by GPL or BSD license and by law shouldn’t be hoarded – nor is actually patentable? The answer is simply that you can’t, but being an IP attorney, the CEO of SpotOn3D already knows this – and he also knows that the intention isn’t to actually patent anything but to get a patent pending in order to hang the threat of litigation over anyone who tries to follow in SpotOn3D’s footsteps, and since patent applications can take 4 – 5 years before they are accepted or rejected, this means that SpotOn3D is using the patent system in order to buy themselves a 4 – 5 year head start on using the external plugin system to embed SpotOn3D into webpages, keeping the entire Open Source community at bay (so they hope) while they reap the rewards.

 

Unfortunately, I’m going to take a moment and return their serve with a hope shattering volleyball spike to the face. Feel free to quote me.

 

The secret to SpotOn3D’s “web plugin” is not proprietary, nor is there any way they could possibly patent it, since both the viewer itself and the plugin system they are using are both covered as Open Source (GPL or BSD licenses). Anyone is free to go grab the “plugin” architecture and make their own embedded [insert any program] at will, and no amount of attempted patenting by SpotOn3D is going to change that.

 

Introducing FireBreath

 

A cursory look at the javascript on the SpotOn3D “web embed” points to FireBreath API calls. A five minute search later provided the link above, complete with source code and documentation.

 

In short, feel free to ignore SpotOn3D’s assertion that they are getting a patent on their plugin system, it’s just a sleazy tactic to give them a head start under threat of litigation. 

 

FireBreath is licensed under a dual license structure; this means you can choose which of two licenses to use it under. FireBreath can be used under the New BSD license or the GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1. Want to steal SpotOn3D’s thunder? Go ahead and download the entire sourcecode and examples for FireBreath.

 

Epilogue

 

If the viewer itself is open source and FireBreath is open source, I’d like to know at what point SpotOn3D is planning to make a case for filing patent claims based on entirely open source methodologies which would prohibit patenting the process to begin with. The odds are much higher that they are using this as a bluff in order to scare off competition in the web browser “plugin” realm, even knowing full well that when the verdict comes in on the patent process it’ll likely be rejected due to prior art, among many other reasons (like trying to patent open source work as your own and violating the initial agreements that came with it).

 

While I like to give companies the benefit of the doubt, in this case SpotOn3D’s tactics make me nauseous. It is this reason, among others, that I have no respect for SpotOn3D as a system.

 

I won’t even get into their “Double Dutch” Delivery system… I can’t support it simply out of principle because it goes against the very nature of cross platform interoperability.

 

As LiteSim developer Gareth Nelson said, “…people have the right to see the source code for the plugin.” and I agree 100%. That’s why I’m providing that to the public since SpotOn3D seems to want to hide the fact they are using FireBreath.

 

As an official quote from Hypergrid Business (and NWN) with a statement  from Steven Lieberman states:

 

According to SpotON3D cofounder and CEO Stevan Lieberman, who is also an intellectual property attorney with Greenberg & Lieberman, the company is in full compliance with GPL license requirements and has publicly released the relevant code elements.

 

“The plugin is an entirely separate program that has been designed to and does work on not only OpenSim, but also on numerous other programs,” he said in a comment at New World Notes.  ”The technology encompassed in the plugin is patent pending world wide as well as copyrighted.”

 

 

That is probably the single most misleading statement I’ve ever heard, but considering he’s also an IP Attorney, that doesn’t surprise me at all.

 

Here’s the link to steal their thunder (or in this case, fire):

 

FireBreath 

 

 

 

Don’t Be Stupid.

Amending #Google’s motto into something more realistic.

 

I believe Google should be amending their slogan from "Don't be evil" to "Don't be stupid". They've essentially thumbed their noses up at the very nature of the Internet and the roots of what makes it great. Pseudonyms are a part of the very fabric of what make the Internet what it is, and the culture that has given rise to what we know as Cyberspace. While this has brought both good and bad as a result, I believe the very existence of the Internet as we have today is ongoing proof that the good far outweighs the bad.

In a digital culture such as we have today, everybody is famous in their own way, and pseudonyms comprise an irrevocable part of that culture. To make any attempt to deny that history and legacy is to do so at their own risk.

 

 

 

We live in an era of multiplicity of identity, each having proper context and just as much weight as any other name we may use. In that Google wants only a wallet name shows only willful ignorance on their part in failing to understand that they are dealing with people who are represented by multiple identities, interests, and behaviors, all which are a part of a greater whole of the individual.

In a court of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty. So too should pseudonyms be addressed - they are acceptable until proven otherwise. It is the individual's right to choose what name they use, not a corporation. This is why there are laws in nearly every country on Earth defining the very legality of using a pseudonym at will for a myriad of purposes farther reaching than a simple social network.

While the Electronic Frontier Foundation states in a recent write-up “A Case For Pseudonyms” that companies like Google and Facebook are entirely within their right to forbid pseudonym usage, they also point out that it is horribly short-sighted and often times damaging and even life-threatening to do so. I'd like to believe that Google is not so blinded by short-sighted goals and profits that they are willing to jeopardize the well-being and even lives of others in the process.

If the purpose of Google is stated as being the intention of bringing all the world's knowledge and information together, as well as the people, then they must understand that they simply cannot exclude a majority of the people or outright deny the culture that gave them this opportunity. If it wasn't for a world full of pseudonyms, Google would have no Internet to dominate. For every person, there are multiple identities, each with distinct metrics and differentiation of personality in context of the virtual space in which they inhabit as their domain. In the eyes of Google, this should account for much more opportunity than they currently seem to grasp.

Yet, while Google and Facebook are entirely within their right to deny the use of pseudonyms and demand a wallet name, the price they pay for doing so may, in turn, be far too high for even them to accept. This fiasco is reaching mainstream media, and even celebrities such as William Shatner are lamenting over their profiles being suspended, while others such as @Skud are continuing with interviews in mainstream media railing against these policies, all for the world to read. Twitter is alight with similar discontent from users who have had their profiles suspended for pseudonymous usage, and as these personal accounts continue to mount in public view, the future of Google+ does not look as bright as it once did. While Google+ may, indeed, enjoy a fair amount of success, it will have willingly sabotaged its own growth and success from what could have been a true game changer.

While Google and Facebook are within their rights to deny pseudonyms and even anonymous usages, surely they are not so ignorant as to fail to understand the maelstrom of bad PR and ill-will they create worldwide in doing so. 

 

While it has been claimed that I somehow believe that avatars are real people, I must contest the oversimplification and misstatement of such. Avatars to me are merely digital representations of a person which bare the context of a virtual environment space pseudonym. As I believe that pseudonyms are just as legitimate as a wallet name in all but the most well defined cases, and are protected and sanctioned by nearly every country on Earth through law, I make my claim that I believe that the context of the pseudonym matters little while the actual usage of the pseudonym matters most. In a digital world, we carry many pseudonyms or possibly just one that is well known or chosen, and each usage of such is entirely dependent on the use context – that being the scenario by which the individual decides what personality best suits the digital arena by which they will participate, while retaining the right to manage their multiple personality order as they see fit.

 

In the context of social media, such as Facebook or Google+, the right of the individual to freely choose their forward facing personality and context of immersion is a cherished right and not a privilege. As such, an avatar to me constitutes as much of a real person as I would attribute to that of Mark Twain and the works and actions thereof. Simply using a pseudonym in context does not invalidate any part of the person using it, nor does it make the person behind the pseudonym any less real. By association, therefore, an avatar is the representation of a real person and fueled by the actions of the very real person behind it (excluding the actions of an artificial intelligence bot at this time). However, just like anything having to do with digital representations, an avatar on it’s own does not constitute a real person, but instead constitutes the forward facing chosen identity of a real person in proper context to the digital environment space they are currently participating in. Whether that space is a virtual reality or a social media hub is inconsequential as our multiplicity of identity will eventually become cross-domain and interchangeable, and indeed already has despite efforts by companies to the contrary.

 

This, in and of itself, offers a very profound glimpse into the future of our digital multiplicity, or multiple personality order, in that the concept of “True Names” takes on an entirely different meaning in today’s society than it did prior to the digital age. As a result of this profound paradigm shift, we see today that even large corporate entities such as Google and Facebook somehow are unable to understand the importance of multiplicity of identity, and continue with their attempts to reshape the entire fabric and legacy of what made the Internet and digital culture what it is today.

The final question remains - At what point does the price of their policies become too much to continue? From a perspective of simple common sense, I'd say they've already reached that point, causing more harm to their reputation and social media product than may be reversed before they've managed to make it to an actual launch.

In the end, the point remains: What people are angry about is that their common names are not recognized by Google, and simply offering those people the chance to comply with practices that they already are against is not an answer, in the same light as this "solution" is really further proof that Google is willfully ignoring the very premise of the debate and in doing so, are blatantly insulting the world. If a common name happens to be a Pseudonym, then so be it. There should be no obligation to fill in a field with a wallet name, and a pseudonym should be just as acceptable - if not more acceptable since in many cases, the world is more likely to know the pseudonym than the wallet name.

 

While I’ve heard the opposite take on this subject, being that we are not “forced” to use Google+ or any of Google’s services, that is much like asserting that a near monopoly of services aren’t forcing you to use them. Simply because a company offers great things, and arguably better than competition, does not constitute a right to demand things from your users that can be dangerous. Yes, as users, we are the commodity not the customer, however I challenge that notion since we are willingly trading mountains of information about ourselves on a daily basis for access to a service, which in turn make these companies a lot of money. We are, indeed, customers in that we are paying for these services with something vastly more valuable than money – our own privacy and identity. The very least we can do is draw a line in the sand for one crucial piece of information that we alone should have control over – and that is our own identity and how it is presented.

Because of this, I have chosen to refer to Google as a company whose motto should be changed to "Don't be stupid." It is far more fitting given the current situation, and bares repeating when a company such as Google seems to have entirely missed the obvious.

Signed,
Will Burns
Object Interoperability Lead | IEEE Virtual World Standards
Aeonix Aeon in SecondLife

diaspora*

How #SecondLife may find their social media answer blowing in the wind…

 

 

Social Media Networks are essentially all the same on the surface. You’re connecting with friends, relatives, co-workers, and sharing information on a feed wall. Of course there is the addition of games, applications, and other plugins which give our social networks a sense of further connectivity, but in the long run they are all essentially laid out the same. When we take a look at the varying social networks, we have to ask ourselves what it is that makes one better than another, and at first glance we are hard pressed to see any real differences.

 

Take for instance, Facebook. It’s essentially a three pane layout with your controls on the left side, different information feeds in the center (wall) and on the right hand side are advertisements, and other things.

 

 

 

 

I’m sure the image above looks familiar. To me, this is a social media network that is showing its age in the amount of clutter that has managed to cram itself into the interface over time. If we take into account the addition of the Chat Sidebar view (which I’ve turned off) the far right side of the screen becomes a contact list. Aside from aesthetics, this sort of feature creep has turned what once was a clean layout without too much clutter or distraction into the digital equivalent to an advertising back-alley. Myspace had the same issue as well before its demise, when NewsCorp initially bought it up and then opened the flood gates for marketing. Now that Myspace is trying to be the place where musicians and artists can connect (read: spam) you, it is little wonder why anyone uses it any longer.

 

For the longest time, Facebook was the center of the social media world. Everyone was compared to them, and their 500+ Million users. Even today that happens, because that’s where everyone is at this particular moment. But there is always a paradigm shift on the horizon, and even Facebook knows that, which explains why they are looking for an IPO – the cash out. This can be seen in Zynga’s (Farmville, etc) sudden interest in an IPO as well.

 

Of course, this can also be explained in conjunction with the behemoth of media, Google, gaining ground with their Google+ Social Network. But something isn’t quite right…

 

 

 

 

With all of the hype surrounding Google+, for those that actually have gotten into the service have likely noticed that there is little difference between Facebook and Google+, other than the obligatory integration of Google services. Yes, Google+ has Circles and Sparks, and Hangouts, but Circles are a fancy way of saying “Groups”, Sparks is a fancy way of saying “RSS Search” and Hangout is just a Group VideoChat. Are these the killer features of the Google+ service? Sure they’ll throw in Games, because that’s obligatory for a social media network, and they’ll probably use their acquisition of Aardvark to offer a “Live Answers from Real People” service powered by the network.

 

I’m still unconvinced this is anything to really be excited about, especially when we take into account the Google+ stance on the use of pseudonyms as your profile identity, which you are not allowed to do based on their terms of service. People leaving Facebook based on privacy concerns to go to Google+ are finding out that they’ve essentially jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire as Google has decided to make all profiles public without an option to make them private, and they also insist you use your “wallet” name – that is a birth name on your profile or come under the scrutiny of the digital inquisition.

 

While the media has been focusing attention of Google+ and whether or not it will be a Facebook killer, there has been an ongoing development called Diaspora* in the background. A tech startup that is taking a different approach to all of this. But diaspora* isn’t a fly by night sort of operation that suddenly came out of nowhere; They’ve been around for a few years now, working diligently to create a social media network that is very different than Facebook or Google+.

 

 

 

We already know from the pictures that there is essentially little difference to the layout of these social media networks, so what are the underlying things that make these social media outlets different, and why should we care?

 

Privacy is Dead. (Or is It?)

 

When it comes to Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg once said “Privacy is dead” and when it comes to Google+ they are taking a similar stance in that your profiles must be tied to a real person (wallet name) and they will be insisting on making all profiles public. Aside from this very telling stance, Facebook and Google have a very large incentive to keep you public and “authentic” in that they earn their money on the zeitgeist advertising metrics. In this case, there is no room for the myriad of other ways we may present ourselves online, such as anonymously or through a pseudonym; Whether the pseudonym is a pen name or of your virtual world avatar is irrelevant, because they both act like a digital inquisition when challenged – asking for a cell phone number or other “approved” methods by which to validate your identity, which in turn defeat the point of anonymity or pseudonyms because those validation methods divulge private information about yourself that you had no intention of divulging – and more often than not shouldn’t be legally forced to divulge for something like a social media network.

 

Diaspora, on the other hand is the polar opposite to this “Privacy is dead” approach by stating it is specifically designed to facilitate your privacy in a decentralized and agnostic manner which each person is free to control entirely, while also giving users and entities the right to start their own “pod” in the network with the source code. This is a stark contrast to Google+ and Facebook where your information is housed centrally (thanks to Google and Facebook) and where Google and Facebook control what privacy (if any) you are allowed to have.

 

So while on the surface, these social media networks look essentially the same, the ideals of Diaspora and how it works are in stark contrast, almost in total defiance, to mainstream social media networks.

 

While Diaspora isn’t as fully featured as Facebook or Google+, you have to hand it to their small team in that they are diligently working on the code and making it better over time. Their greatest concern isn’t whether or not you can play Angry Birds, or beg for CafeWorld items on your stream, but in making the underlying system secure and privacy aware, even with encryption. Unlike Google+, they aren’t subject to corporate sponsor (or even intelligence agency) pressures to make everyone “authentic”. No, they simply care about whether or not you can control all the aspects of your privacy and persona.

 

Personally, I believe this is a “killer" app” for social media. It’s not the widgets, it’s not video games, it’s not a little “Like” button on websites. The killer application of social media is (and always should remain) the ability to represent yourself with privacy and security in whatever manner you decide. Advertisers and corporate entities will realize that reaching demographics is a privilege and not a right, and more so that the individual right to privacy will always trump their right to make a buck.

 

As of this moment, think about all of the information you voluntarily give them. Photos, videos, comments, likes, and all manner of user habits as they keep an eye on you. You’d think that would be enough to satisfy them, but now with Google+ they are extending that boundary further by insisting on a real name and not anonymous or pseudonym. If they challenge your “name” on a profile, they ask for a phone number to verify your identity or any other amount of “approved” identification methods such as maybe ID cards, or mainstream media references where your name is shown. Maybe a home address too?

 

Is it just me, or is all of this invasion of privacy becoming too much? If you use FourSquare, you’re already broadcasting everywhere you go, and I made a joke on Twitter about this to the tune of how the NSA can essentially track you without needing a warrant: Just make it into a game called FourSquare and you’ll be volunteering your whereabouts.

 

It’s one thing to make these privacy options… optional. But it crosses the line when these companies begin demanding instead of asking. That’s the one thing I will not stand for… will you?

 

Is there a SecondLife for Diaspora?

 

By now you’re probably wondering what any of this has to do with SecondLife since I’ve tagged the article for Twitter as such. Actually, this article has quite a lot to do with SecondLife and Linden Lab if we think about it.

 

Linden Lab wanted to create some sort of social media connection between their existing users and social media services that they use outside of SecondLife. Their initial thought on the subject was to find ways to integrate into Facebook (Skylight, etc) but found that when they put all their chips on the table to make that happen, they were shot down. Facebook decided to enforce their T.O.S. and wiped out quite a lot of Avatar Identity Profiles on the Facebook service. Since connecting SecondLife to Facebook would require Linden Lab to follow the Facebook terms of service, they would be forced to only allow “authentic” users to connect, which is a very different reality to what sort of user they already have of their service in Avatar identities. With Google+ the option wasn’t even on the table, as Google began enforcing their T.O.S. even in closed beta, removing “fake” avatar identities which were really SecondLife citizens looking for a privacy aware alternative haven for social media.

 

It is possible that the push for “Display Names” came about as a short sighted workaround to address the “authentic” names issue on Facebook, but then it was realized that not many people were going to change their display names to a real name, thus making that idea bunk. However, Display Names does have at least the side effect of allowing people to choose a name – so whether that is putting your real name over your head or just choosing something less arbitrary than the name you were assigned on rez-day is inconsequential.

 

The answer, at least in the short term, for Linden Lab has been to simply develop Social Profiles for their citizens – a walled garden social network for their own avatar users where they can have a safe haven. If you can’t join them, then you make your own… But this isn’t entirely the best idea either, even though it shows that Linden lab is at least thinking forward on this in terms of their own users. I mean, if we ignore the acquisition of Avatar United and shutting it down in the first place.

 

The problem still remains that the avatar identities are still blacklisted from mainstream social media, and those that are not have either given their real names, are on borrowed time, or have invented some plausible name that will escape detection from the digital inquisition. Creating an entirely new network specifically for just avatar identities is not solving the overall problem either, because the situation is reversed – in that instead of avatars being persecuted on social media, now “real people” are persecuted since they have to have an avatar to participate in Social Profiles.

 

This is where a stroke of genius comes in.

 

Diaspora is open source, and they wholly encourage people to set up their own “pods” in the decentralized network. They are privacy aware, and don’t care if you are anonymous, pseudonymous or authentic. Why build a social media network from the ground up that will only service a walled garden, when you can connect to an open source framework that prides itself on privacy and user identity in all forms?

 

I propose, then, that the SecondLife Social Profiles run on Diaspora as part of the decentralized social network infrastructure. This is the secret as to how we can bring the “authentic” people and the “avatar identities” together under a single banner, while remaining accessible to the outside world and cross platform. Why not? Diaspora seems to be the social network of choice gaining favor quickly with Avatar identities. It meets all of the needs for a Social Profile in SecondLife, and for the needs it does not meet, the code is open source and extendable freely as needed.

 

Diaspora + SecondLife, think about it.

 

There is also the main reason why I really believe that SecondLife should be using Diaspora as their Social Profiles system, and it’s the biggest reason:

 

Time and again I find myself writing about interoperability and the future of the Metaverse. More recently in the context of research papers and now as the Object Interoperability Lead for IEEE Virtual Worlds Standards Workgroup. The most consistent thing I find myself saying, and getting agreement on, is that open formats and methods are favored over proprietary methods at all points. The agnostic descriptions usually state things such as that the methods must be available via open source, without patents or litigation, and must be implementable by anyone who wishes without royalty, fee or restrictive license.

 

In the recent research paper with Dr. Dionisio and Dr. Gilbert, there exists a chart to illustrate how Social Media and virtual Environments offer two different forms of ecosystem, in that social media freely shares with each other, and while virtual environments sometimes connect to those social media outlets, it is often a one way street as virtual environments remain within their walled gardens.

 

Social Profiles as they exist today do not qualify for standards compliance, however the introduction of Diaspora as the backbone method by which to integrate Social Profiles for SecondLife would have far more benefits and easily qualifies under standards compliancy, while truly offering a method to reach outside of the walled garden, and reach back in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drive a Mini on Google Maps

Mini Maps on FacebookMini Maps is a great driving game for Facebook that lets you race anywhere in the world on Google Maps. You can race on tracks created by other players, competing against the best track times or even race against others by inviting your Facebook friends to play. Alternatively you can create your own tracks, set the best time and challenge others to try and beat you.The game

Drive a Mini on Google Maps

Mini Maps on FacebookMini Maps is a great driving game for Facebook that lets you race anywhere in the world on Google Maps. You can race on tracks created by other players, competing against the best track times or even race against others by inviting your Facebook friends to play. Alternatively you can create your own tracks, set the best time and challenge others to try and beat you.The game

Google Maps of Your Facebook Friends

MapMyFriendsMapMyFriends lets you view all your Facebook friends on a Google Map.To create a map of your Facebook friends all you need to do is sign in to the map with your Facebook account and your friend map is created automatically. The map uses the Facebook profile pictures of your friends to indicate their location.If you click on any of the mapped profile pictures you can click through to

Google Maps of Your Facebook Friends

MapMyFriendsMapMyFriends lets you view all your Facebook friends on a Google Map.To create a map of your Facebook friends all you need to do is sign in to the map with your Facebook account and your friend map is created automatically. The map uses the Facebook profile pictures of your friends to indicate their location.If you click on any of the mapped profile pictures you can click through to