Our Thoughts Rich, 24 October 2011
It’s been a few weeks since f8, and we’ve been having a play with the new timeline functionality that Facebook is planning to roll out, as well as getting used to the ‘frictionless sharing’ that Facebook has already rolled out with selected partners. There’s not much point in us writing about timeline – yes we’re running it, yes it’s aesthetically a great interface, yes it’s easy to use, yes there will be an inevitable ‘the sky is falling on our heads’ reaction when it finally launches – for about a week until everyone gets used to it, and yes, lots of people have already written about how great it is.
Instead, we’re interested in the ‘frictionless sharing’ that Facebook have been trumpeting and that is a result of the changes they’ve made to Open Graph.
Lots of commentators have already talked about the possibilities that Open Graph apps open up, and the effect they’re going to have on brands – how pages will become less important, how a brand’s updates will show up in feeds much less often and how therefore in order to connect with their audiences, brands need to start developing their own Open Graph apps. You can read about this elsewhere. The important thing to note about frictionless sharing is that if it heralds a new way of sharing content across the web, it means that the sharing of what we are reading, listening to or watching will increasingly become automatic – it will no longer require a manual action such as liking, tagging, or tweeting.
This is what we’re more interested in right now: the act – or rather non-act – of frictionless sharing. Neil Perkin wrote an interesting column on frictionless sharing on NMA recently. He makes this point, which I shall quote in full:
I’m in full agreement with this – aside from the obvious ‘filter bubble’ issues around both social and algorithmic curation, I do get most of my daily intelligence (if you’ll forgive the pretension of the term) via social curation and this will immediately be devalued by frictionless sharing.
Why? Well, if I’m now not only being passed a ‘piece of content deliberately selected, judged, commented on’ by one of my friends, but also the stuff that one of my friends has read, listened to or watched, but thought was a bit rubbish and not worth passing on, then social curation is useless. After all, you wouldn’t necessarily buy a book just because you saw a mate reading it on the bus. You’d want to know whether it was any good first.
Photo (cc) Katie Sayer.
+44 (0)20 7404 3300

Interesting post – and full disclosure, I worked on the Guardian app that uses frictionless sharing. I think it is important to note that frictionless sharing does not take away the ability to ‘like’ or ‘comment’ on an article. These are still very strong social signals of selection and judgement. It is early days for frictionless sharing, and not that many apps are using it yet. I think people will get much more literate in recognising the difference between the ambient share and the considered share. Don’t forget that in 2006 Mark Zuckerburg was forced to apologise for introducing the news feed – http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/sep/08/news.newmedia1 – and I don’t think anyone could imagine now what Facebook used to be before you could see what your friends were doing on the site.
Hi Martin – and thanks for your comment.
I’m not ‘against’ frictionless sharing per se: I can see the advantages for both Facebook and the user. I guess my concern is more around a possible future where the considered share and the ambient share are not differentiated, or not sufficiently differentiated.
Of course there are lots of other concerns around the ambient share – not least the sheer volume of content being shared and the increased possibility of missing more valuable content amidst the ‘noise’.
Having said all of that, I love the Guardian app, and we’re already looking at developing Open Graph apps for our own clients – this post was definitely more of a musing on what might happen than a hysterical cry of dismay!