Google Buzz: Scoble’s Suggestions, And An Open But Safe Email System

Robert Scoble assails Google Buzz (Google Buzz copied FriendFeed’s worst features, why?) but if you dig into his complaints he seems to want a better Friendfeed.

Robert argues for features that will make it more usable for a guy like him, following bazillions and being followed by bazillions. No matter how you slice it, he is calling for a Buzz rebuzzed to suit his needs. Which is what he and Louis Gray did to Friendfeed. And which is why the average person stayed away.

I am still tantalized by the idea of open email, where a/ everyone knows it’s potentially open, and b/ where it can be made less than totally open, up to an including totally private.

But that’s not what Buzz is.

First, it is based on my existing gmail address, which has been (historically) a closed email solution. Big problem, since open is so different from closed that preceded it.

Second, it has this automated following stuff, which has caused all sorts of problems for privacy, but is basically a mess because it collapses all my circles into one fat circle. Not only is it insecure, but it doesn’t do much. (Unless you are a big A-lister who wants to have hundreds of folks comment on your every utterance.)

But imagine a different system, where I define different circles, and where I map email addresses to those different circles. Let’s imagine it is called Open Mail.

Imagine a project I am working on, called ‘AdjectiveNoun Design’. It might involve people from a company called AdjectiveNoun and also various other independents. I define a circle of people in Open Mail, and add various folks to it, using their Open Mail identities. I then can use the email address for the circle to share information with the group: adjectivenoun.stoweboyd@openmail.com.

In a sense this is similar to defining a project team in Basecamp, and there could be a web address associated with the group too, that might look something like a Buzz chat: adjectivenoun.stoweboyd.openmail.com. People could email new responses in, or add comments right on the page. If people wanted to, they could participate through Open Mail integration with email, Twitter, whatever.

Now, this is a private example, in that I might not want members of the group to invite other people into the thread, while I might be able to. Alternatively, the circle might have been formed under the agreement that all have to agree to anyone else being invited to the circle.

And in other examples, I might start a circle and grant everyone the right to expand the circle, and I might make it a copyleft sort of thing, where the members of the circle could pass that capability along to anyone invited. Or maybe not: perhaps I want the initial circle to be the only ones with the ability to bring in others.

And it might be possible to invite an existing circle to join a new circle. In the AdjectiveNoun example, I might have invited the AdjectiveNoun management team to join, and they would have the ability — if they wanted — to communicate within the larger circle of the project privately to each other, or openly with the larger circle.

Lastly, I might imagine the possibility of having greater openness in information moving from one circle out to other circles. THis lines up with the idea of circles of trust. Imagine I created a circle intended to focus on some cause, some sort of activism, but where some members might be concerned about their involvement causing them personal harm outside the initial circle. I could select the option that identities of some of the people would be blocked by the system, although their words could still move outward into other circles.

Consider that last case in a business situation. The CEO of a company may want to create a context in which the employees and management of the company can speak openly but in a safe way, so that people aren’t afraid that speaking out might harm them. In this way, individuals could create smaller circles with those they trust, in which identities are openly shared, and all or some of what is shared moves out of those circles into larger circles with identities concealed. It would also be possible to participate as a one person circle in which your anonymity could be completely guarenteed.

Obviously, such a system would have to be trustworthy, and identity would have to be complately in the hands of the individuals.

I also think of the JP Rangaswami example of open email, where all his incoming and outgoing business email is shared with his direct reports. This allows them to learn what is going on in his world, without having to brief them or send out memos. He is sharing moments, not memos with his team. He has said that the greatest benefits from such a system arise from his team being able to see how he handles situations that arise via email.

***

Here we see that some of the dangerous slippage of Buzz could be avoided. First, by creating something that is meant to have new notions of privacy and openness as a different email address. Buzz could still adopt that convention by moving out of Gmail to a new Buzz domain. But I think that fundamental design weaknesses exist in the system: it is too much like Friendfeed, and not enough like my hypothetical Open Mail.