Now that most of the overblown hysteria has died off (see Stewart’s response on the Flickr Blog
and a BBC followup [speaking of ulterior motives, the most interesting tidbit: He indicated too that more than half of the comments were found to have been posted by members representing rival photo sharing services.
] ), it might be easy to look at the whole hubbub as a non-story and move on. However, there are definitely interesting lessons to be learned from all this, both from the sensitivity of the issue, and of the subsequent follow up.
On the surface, it seems like the change is pretty trivial. At the technical level, all that’s happening is that one form of authentication is being swapped for another, practically equivalent form (from an arbitrary email/Flickr-specific password to a Y!ID/Y!-specific password). Flicker User IDs, aliases, etc. all remain the same. What’s the problem?
A couple things, I think. Firstly, activation of previous latent fears of Yahoo!’s acquisition – lots of people have written (much more intelligently) about what happens during this sort of community/cultural… integration. This is one of those things where people already looking for an excuse can point “You see! You see!” and a where a whole host of other interesting social psychology issues plays out on a community-scale… the Flickr guys, as has been their M.O., have once again shown exactly how it should be handled.
I think, however, that there’s a bit more to this. Part of the reaction, it seems, is a (not yet fully formed, certainly not well vocalized) recognition by end-users (regular folks) of how important Digital Identity is becoming in their lives. And, in that regard, on how powerless they are in its progression.
At this point, I’ll very carefully phrase that Flickr management is being slightly disingenuous when it says “There is no angle.” This is definitely more than an account management issue, as the careful weaving of these accounts is of tremendous long-term strategic importance to Yahoo! (as well as its competitors). Now, this isn’t to say that this will be bad for users. In the same paragraph, future benefits of integration are mentioned, and I can visualize just some of the amazing possibilities. My personal belief is that this will be great for end users. However, it’s probably important to recognize there is an agenda (even if the intent a mutually beneficial one), and that this is part of a much larger battleground over, in at least some sense, ownership of identity.
Here is where I’m still digesting/processing. It’s sort of a Wild West period and things could tip in any number of ways. From my involvement via academia (I2-MI, NMI), research work, online experiences, and I guess my political leanings, I’m biased towards an open, federated, system, and while I see that as an obvious endpoint (and a distinct possiblity in the mid-term), it seems a bit unlikely in the short term. That being said, as long as there’s a level of parity in the competition, I’m not too worried about. My only fear is reaching a point where you literally won’t have an alternate choice on many (high-barrier, resource intensive) “basic” online infrastructural components, where the competitive landscape reaches some sub-optimal metastable state *cough* *windows* *cough*.
My current optimism, however, is based partly on the idea that with the increased relevance/enabling of network effects (specifically network economics!), enough turbulence will be generated to keep the life of false vacuums relatively short). And secondly, and more importantly, on my faith in my friends and fellow web geeks, who over the past few years, time and time again, have shown that a few, motivated and dedicated people can change the course of the Web for the better. *everyone sings kumbaya*
