I came across this post, Social Networks 3.0, at VentureBlog last week when I checked my mail (that one time) and wanted to comment immediately but couldn’t.

This morning, I noticed that Charlie also mentioned it which reminded me of my intentions.

David explains SNS, from his perspective. He outlines 3 versions to SNS. 1.0 was the original internet and built in to a suite of tools and applications (like IM) that provided connections between networks of users. 2.0 is what most of us would call 1.0, the LinkedIns, Friendsters, etc. 3.0 is where we are today with consumer experiences being integrated into all sorts of things.

It’s been some time since I exerted this part of my brain, so I had to check back to see what I had written on this previously. My only minor quibble is that I don’t necessarily consider the original network to be SNS 1.0, but I certainly see his point, and thinking in most abstract forms, it certainly is as David describes.

I had to go back almost two years, but I found a pocket of posts where I was looking at the problems with SNS 2.0 (what I called 1.0). Here’s an excerpt:

There are thousands of potential reasons that users will be attracted to one SNS over another, however, I am confident that the battle will be fought largely over social context and the ability to manage them. As anyone can relate, our world is built of a series of often-interlocking social circles and contexts. Within each of these contexts, we carry different identities and personalities that facilitate our role and participation in that context.

[…]

SNS 1.0 is at risk from another powerful force, however. Although the feature sets of these tools will often fail to accommodate user’s needs, a far more fundamental problem may exist in the very foundations. As mentioned we all interact within different social zones and contexts. As mentioned, our circles are interconnected and often linear (although promotions and demotions can be accelerated for any arbitrary reason). I call this the Social Context Continuum. Relationships evolve, or devolve, over time. As more information is exchanged, the bonds change based on a number of criterion — trust being near the top of that list.

Source: SocialTwister.com, “The SNS Differentiaion Challenge”

Ironically enough, the problems I identified then still exist in very significant ways. The SNS 2.0 crowd has made many efforts to embed these networks (as expected) - some with success, some with failure. Others have bastardized the concept beyond recognition, slapping the SNS moniker onto anything that has a contact list.

Unfortunately, the two main components, identity and relationships, still remain mostly binary, a shame, but definitely an area for future growth.

For anyone interested, here are some of the posts that touch on these issues: