But really, each of these has choices is distinct, and in many cases their use-cases do not overlap. Carrier pigeons, for example, are really point-to-point messaging mechanisms, unless you have a flock — and they take time to breed, so they are a poor choice if you have need to keep people updated on a variety of different topics. And unlike the owls of Harry Potter, carrier pigeons go to places and not people — so tracking down your significant other in either Greece or Italy — why won’t they call? — is out. (You may, of course, find different ways to make these work for you — in the digital age, square pegs can be refactored to fit in round holes, after all.)

Image via Wikipedia

Facebook

Facebook is the ideal place for keeping in touch with real people I’ve really met, especially if I’m likely to lose track of them otherwise. It’s geographically diverse, lets me share enough to give people a sense they’ve got an idea what I’m up to, and (despite its best efforts otherwise) lets me otherwise stay private (with caveats). So who do I connect with on Facebook? Friends (of various levels) from high school, college, postgrad. Friends — not professional colleagues — from work. Tricky decisions of categorization abound, of course: is this colleague enough of a friend for me to connect with them on Facebook, or do they belong on LinkedIn only? Segregating people into groups with various privacy settings help, of course, as does not sharing things I don’t want the public to possibly see. Sure, this is friend-stuff, but nothing I put on Facebook would be too embarrassing, or cost me a job. Facebook has been pushing pages (AP, PBS, BBC, business generally) that share non-personal information, but I’m increasingly finding this a distraction from the reason I use Facebook: people.

Image via CrunchBase

LinkedIn

LinkedIn has been touted as the professional version of Facebook, but that’s only partly true. LinkedIn is not really about sharing day-to-day details about me, but rather about highlighting my accomplishments and work. But beyond that, it’s mostly a Rolodex of up-to-date business cards of people I’ve dealt with professionally. I will connect with any colleague (or one of my undergrads) on LinkedIn without hesitation, unlike on Facebook. In terms of privacy, well, the point is to be visible and findable professionally. So that’s what goes up there. No home addresses, no home telephone numbers, just business contact details.

Image via CrunchBase

Twitter

Twitter is for link sharing and quick conversations (very quick, and very short) with absolutely anyone I find remotely interesting. I don’t refollow anyone who follows me, only those I think are interesting. I share things I want to broadcast with the world (but am too polite to get a bullhorn). Sometimes it’s personal, sometimes professional, but always with the idea that anyone might read it. It’s great for more distant connections with people I may or may not ever meet, but who say and write about interesting things.

Image via CrunchBase

Google Plus

Google Plus is the new player, but it brings in some of the best of both Twitter and Facebook. Yes, I can put my actual friends in circles and easily limit what I share with just them (so that’s a bit like Facebook, but more focused). No, not everyone I know on Facebook is on Google Plus (and may never be). Google Plus also lets me follow people I’ve never met who say interesting things, like Twitter, but it emphasizes longer posts and more detailed, threaded conversations — without forcing me to dance with privacy settings as on Facebook, and without assuming these people are actually my friends (even if they could be). In many respects, I’m finding that it challenges quick-blogging services like Posterous and Tumblr more than Facebook or LinkedIn. It does seem a potential threat to Twitter, which I am finding myself more and more viewing as a social link sharing service as opposed to a discussion mechanism (but it’s GREAT for that).

Summary

So, here it is in short form:

Facebook: real people, real sharing of personal (but not too personal) information. If you actually know me in “real life,” friend me. If not, go elsewhere. I share semi-personal stuff here (what I had for dinner and who made it).

LinkedIn: real people doing real business networking. If I’ve met you in a professional capacity, connect with me. If not, well, tell me why we can do business! I share only professional info here.

Twitter: on the Internet, no one knows if you’re a dog, but we do care if you have something interesting to share. If you do, follow me and I might follow you back. If you don’t, follow me and I won’t follow you back. I share thoughts and links here.

Google Plus: real people (for now) sharing what they found interesting today, including articles, thoughts, stories, and photos. If you actually know me, I might add you to my Friends circle; if not, but you are interesting, you’ll make Following. Please give me commentary with your links!

Maybe next week I’ll explain how I use carrier pigeons.

Related articles

• Google+ will be squeezed out of social world, says LinkedIn CEO – Computerworld (mbcalyn.wordpress.com)
• It’s Google Plus vs. Twitter, Not Facebook (scalableintimacy.com)
• Different social networks for different purposes (inpropriapersona.com)

Web marketing has grown since 1995, based on the idea that everything is connected. Click-throughs, ad networks, analytics, search-engine optimization  —  it all works because the Web is standardized. Google works because the Web is standardized.

Not any more. Each new device has its own ad networks, format, and technology. Each new social site has its login and many hide content from search engines.

We call this new world the Splinternet (with a nod to Doc Searls and Rich Tehrani, who used the term before us with a somewhat different meaning). It will splinter the Web as a unified system. The golden age has lasted 15 years. Like all golden ages, it lasted so long we thought it would last forever. But the end is in sight.

Here’s what not to do: panic and try to unify things again. The shattering cannot be undone.

via The Splinternet means the end of the Web’s golden age.

I do not disagree with his advice (don’t panic!), but I do disagree with the widespread premise that somehow today’s Internet consists of more fragmentation that during the “golden age” of the World Wide Web.

First, the “golden age” Web was no more unified than today’s version. The fragmented players were different, but the fundamental difficulties were quite similar. Where once we had AOL and Compuserve, now we have Facebook and LinkedIn. Previously, Internet Explorer and its ecosystem of technology provided incompatible approaches to accessing data and sites. Users of, for example, Netscape on Linux were simply excluded from access to IE-only content, or saw a much degraded view of certain parts of the Internet. Video and sound content required custom plug-ins that would run on certain platforms and not others.

Second, the fragmentation is simply not as great as Bernoff and others maintain. 10 years ago I had to write custom (brittle) Web scrapers to pull in data from external sites. Today, I can use RSS, XML-RPC, or other “glue” standards to reliable access data on 3rd-party sites. Facebook may try to control its world, but I can access it from pretty much any device with a browser, from an iPhone to a home machine running Windows 7. Yes, it may look different (but isn’t Flash really just a flashback to the bad old days of proprietary plugins?), but the core is there for every visitor. Plus, while I can’t pull out every bit of data (friends…) from Facebook, I can get an RSS feed of status updates that I can do all sorts of programmatic stuff with.

In short, the “golden age” was hardly golden, and today’s Web is, if anything, better than it used to be in terms of interconnectivity. Certainly it’s important to recognize fragmentation issues today, but let’s not pretend it’s a new problem.

You see, the goal of “the cloud” isn’t simply putting all of your stuff into some stored space for access. It’s connecting your “stuff”  —  your apps, data, networks, etc. The how, if, why, when and where of that connecting (you could call it, for lack of a better word, “glue”) is wholly dependent on the terms of service around APIs.

via APIs, TOS, and building a hooked web | CloudAve.

In that spirit, lets review the highlights of some terms of service (Tos), current as of February 15, 2009:

Twitter

The main point of the Twitter API’s terms of service (which is surprisingly short!) is that you should get user permission first and not meddle with a Tweet’s content. Perhaps as a result of the very favorable set of terms, many applications access Twitter data, or leverage the Twitter stream.

Flickr

In contrast to Twitter, the Flickr API has a long and extensive set of terms as part of its terms of service. Like Twitter, none of these are too burdensome, although the pre-approval requirement for commercial apps could make basing a business on access to the Flickr API potentially problematic. Highlights include:

• Following all other Flickr and Yahoo terms of use
• Complying with user/owner terms and conditions (private flags, etc.)
• Have your own privacy policy
• Commercial applications have specific requirements and require specific approval from Flickr first (and may require payment)
• No warranty by Flickr, release of liability, etc.  —  plus some more legal terminology

Despite the longer language, most of this is not particularly onerous (possibly excepting the commercial-approval requirement), and there are thus many applications making use of the Flickr API in some form or another.

LinkedIn

The LinkedIn API terms of service are much more detailed and more restrictive. As a result, I know of very few applications that interface with LinkedIn. In reference to their API terms, Eric Norlin writes:

LinkedIn is famous in some circles (no names) for not playing so nice with their API. According to their terms, you can’t store anything other than a profile or ID  —  which is to say you can’t store the most powerful/useful thing about LinkedIn  —  the connections. Beyond that, their TOS says that you can’t use their API and “compete” (though it never defines what that is). And, to put the icing on top, they gain the right to “audit” you if you use their API.

Neither Flickr nor Twitter explicitly limit your ability to “compete” if you use their API (though Flickr might, since they reserve the right to deny “commercial use”), nor do they limit storage of the data you pull via the API. Certainly from a business perspective, it makes good sense for LinkedIn to take this approach  —  connections are the core of their offering, really, so allowing a competitor to leverage those connections via their API is a concern. Nonetheless, setting firm limits on use by everyone, potential competitor or not, severely limits the potential innovation of 3rd-party developers.

Facebook

Facebook has detailed, relatively easy-to-understand policies use of its APIs. Most of the complexity emerges from the fact that there are multiple ways for developers to interact with Facebook. Nonetheless, there are extensive examples and explanations provided by Facebook. There are a variety of limitations placed on developers, but this hasn’t hampered rampant Facebook application development. The biggest limitation  —  similar to LinkedIn’s restriction  —  is that Facebook data cannot be stored for more than 24 hours.

Unlike LinkedIn, commercial application development is clearly encouraged, although there are extensive limitations on how those applications can interact with Facebook. Like Twitter, Facebook’s stream is now available, and applications are starting to leverage it. But like LinkedIn, connection data cannot be stored, even if it can be accessed while a user is connected.

Conclusion

Despite the extensive limitations of Facebook, it is one of the #1 platforms for which 3rd-party developers write applications. LinkedIn, by contrast, has not developed the same number of application developers. Twitter, which has very loose terms, has extensive developer support.

In my opinion, developers write for Facebook because (1) that’s where the users are, first and (2) commercial applications are allowed and even encouraged. Developers write for Twitter because (1) it has users and (2) terms of use are straightforward. Similarly, Flickr has rich content and access is straightforward. LinkedIn, on the other hand, has a complex API and terms of service that appear limiting, especially when it comes to commercial use.

Terms of use are critical. Most allow for the revocation of access if the API provider decides to do so. If that happens to you, you may have little recourse. Make sure you understand the terms before you build a business on top of someone else’s API.

What does this mean in terms of “actually building things”? For software developers, not much. Technical utility of the API itself is much more important. For business developers, they can mean the difference between a neat toy and a profitable venture.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 35 APIs in 7 Days: Facebook, Flickr, Foursquare, Google, Twilio, Twitter, Yelp, and YouTube (programmableweb.com)
• Making a personal site more dynamic (inpropriapersona.com)

Image via CrunchBase

Soren Gordhamer at Mashable has a good reminder of the differing purposes and uses of social networks  —  in this case, Facebook vs. Twitter:

There is growing body of people who actively use more than one social network, and do so with quite different purposes. Though on the surface many social networks seem similar, to use them skillfully it helps to better understand the different roles they can play in one’s online activity.

via When Do You Use Twitter Versus Facebook?

A quick summary:

• Twitter for connecting with someone you don’t know.
• Twitter for breaking news.
• Discovery and new learning on Twitter.
• Facebook for local news and events.
• Facebook for connecting with someone you know.
• Looking for help on an issue? Soren prefers Facebook.

The Mashable tips are useful, although leave off other social networks, particularly Linkedin. Nonetheless, they are useful tips. Here are my additions:

• Linkedin for professional networking, as long as I’ve interacted with the person previously.
• Facebook for personal networking  —  and professional contacts I would consider closer than acquantances
• Twitter for broad-based networking with those I may or may not have met, but want to keep up with
• Friendfeed as a supplement to Twitter

The more you mix professional and personal contacts, the more careful you need to be with your posts. So while I do add professional contacts to Facebook on occasion, I always remember they may see my status updates, and post accordingly  —  but remembering, too, that Facebook is personal in tone, while Linkedin is professional. (Twitter is somewhere in the middle). And I always use Facebook groups to segregate types of connections.

Finally, I always try to remember that, regardless of segregation, any of my online posts could be read by anyone. So I make sure to moderate my postings, just in case.

Facebook

Facebook is a social networking Web site focused on connecting people with each other. Many of us have now experienced the joy (and occasional pain) of (re-)connecting with people from high school, college, or law school through the site.

Many people have decried the negative aspects of Facebook in the job search, primarily the ability of potential employers to find personal information (such as drunken party photos, political/social leanings, etc.) out about you through the service. Although this can certainly be a problem for a naive individual, it should not keep you from using the service, provided you: (1) do not post photographs (or better yet, do not participate in situations) that you would derail your chances of employment (drunkenness, drug use, etc. – this is particularly true for legal professionals) and (2) keep your personal life confined (through various Facebook limiting mechanisms) to those who know you. If in doubt – don’t put it online.

From a job seeking perspective, Facebook will not find you a job. It is not Monster.com or similar job search site. Instead, it is an extension of old-school networking – meeting people, connecting with people, sharing with people. Use similar approaches on Facebook that you would use in person, but remember: Facebook is focused more on personal connections that professional ones, so treat it accordingly.

• Do not attempt to “friend” business connections who you barely know via Facebook. (Save those for LinkedIn, next on the list).
• Do let your actual friends know via Facebook that you are looking for a job.
• Do search for people you may know who do work like you wish to do, or who work where you want to work. You may be surprised that you actually know someone who can put in a good word for you.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn is like Facebook for professionals, minus the games, the sharing, the pictures, and everything else that makes Facebook so “sticky.” But these limitations are its biggest asset, because they turn it into a truly professional zone. Everything you put on LinkedIn should be professional, with only a passing nod to your personal life (to make you real). In terms of posting information to LinkedIn, it is best to think of it as an in-depth, network-enhanced resume. It is not for arringing to meet friends at the movies, nor for sharing your vacation pics to Cancun.

Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn is the perfect place to connect with business acquantances who you do not know well. In this sense, think of LinkedIn as your social Rolodex of business contacts, with recirocal connections, recommendations, and easy searching.

• Do connect with those you meet.
• Do not connect with people you have never met, unless you arrange an introduction (supported by LinkedIn). To do otherwise is to invite trouble and do your reputation more harm than good.
• Do update your status on LinkedIn with professional information related to your job search.
• Do search for companies and look for people you know there.
• Do pay attention to “friend-of-friends” who you may be able to be introduced to through LinkedIn. This is a very valuable part of LinkedIn networking!
• Do get recommendations from current and former co-workers. A LinkedIn profile of an active job seeker with no recommendations is potentially problematic, as it suggests that no one wants to recommend you!
• Do keep your profile updated with current information.

Plaxo

Plaxo is in some ways like LinkedIn and Facebook: it connects people with each other. It has a more professional bent than Facebook, and in that way is more similar to LinkedIn (including an online profile hat is more like a resume than Facebook’s, for example). Its current incarnation is more focused on “lifestreaming”: gathering up and synchronizing your online life in one place:

Plaxo is about synchronizing all that’s important to you in one single place. It’s about staying in touch with all those who you care about… your family, your friends and your business contacts. With Plaxo’s Pulse, we keep you up to date with what your friends, family and Business contacts are up to.

• You can Share photos, videos, reviews and more…
• You can share content from the websites you use like Flickr, YouTube, Digg and a growing list of activity stream sites you can activate.
• You can represent yourself on the web with your own profile. Choose what to share and with whom.
• And with the Plaxo Address book, get the information you need for the people you know and Sync it to places you already use.
• You Plaxo calendar syncs with Yahoo!, Gmail, Outlook, Mac and a growing number of sync points to make sure you don’t forget what you’re doing.

Plaxo is all this in one place and that’s why it’s the most efficient and fun place to be in. And most important of all, you decide who gets to see what.

It is worth it to establish a Plaxo profile while job searching, and keep it updated. (Not having recommendations on Plaxo is also less of a problem, as long as you have them on LinkedIn.)

Plaxo’s aggregation support for your online activities is powerful, but has the potential to mix your personal and professional lives together. Thus, be very careful of this.

• Do establish and maintain your profile.
• Do use the aggregation and synching tools, if they are useful to you.
• Do not mix personal and professional updates.
• Do use Plaxo’s tools to contain your personal updates to your personal friends.

Twitter

Twitter is a newer contender to the social media landscape. It permits posting short status messages, which may include links to articles, blog posts, pictures, etc. In a professional context – remember, you are job seeking – these status messages should stay away from “crazy party last night” and steer more towards the “excellent article, I recommend you read it.”

Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, and Plaxo, connections in Twitter are one way: you can follow people, or they can follow you, but reciprocity is not required.

To find useful people to follow, look for those in your field. A good place to start is LexTweet, which aggregates legal Tweets – consider joining as well and participating.

My recommendations:

• Do read about how others are using Twitter professionally.
• Do keep your postings professional.
• Do mix in some personal updates to be “real,” but remember – a potential employer may be reading them, so be judicious.
• Do “add value” by Tweeting useful information.
• Do not use tools to mass add followers, or similar “spammy” behaviors.

JD Supra

JD Supra is a different alternative to the above sites. Unlike the four above, it is focused exclusively on the legal community:

As a legal professional, you post your court filings, decisions, forms and/or articles to JD Supra’s database, a free tool for legal research. You also create an in-depth professional profile that is freely available simply by browsing or keyword searching, or via link from any of your posted documents.

A profile on JD Supra provides a useful addition to your LinkedIn and Plaxo profiles – but that’s not the core value of the site. The main point is to demonstrate your value to potential employers (and clients, for that matter) by sharing your work via JD Supra: filings, briefs, articles, etc.

At first glance, it may seem like you are giving your work away for “free” – but in reality, you are receiving value: respect. Your value as a lawyer, after all, does not come through directly selling your prior work – but rather in using your prior work to sell yourself.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Brief Guide to Personal Branding using Social Media (socialmediatoday.com)
• Using Social Networking in Your Job Search (lateralattorneyreport.com)
• Social networking your way to a job (marketplace.publicradio.org)