Brunton-Spall says that while the site is still under development, he’s tempted to monetise it in order to pay for a bigger server to keep it running.
The Guardian allows developers to profit from apps that use its API on a revenue sharing basis. “It’s liable to forever remain an experiment,” says Brunton-Spall, “although I dare say over the next few weeks it will result in several conversations about what’s good and bad about its approach to social news.”
If Brunton-Spall is employed by The Guardian, this revenue-sharing model is a rather curious one, and possibly a game-changing way to work.
The developers at Facebook overlooked one of the crucial components in the complicated business of how we create relationships: our minds.
Put simply, our minds are not designed to allow us to have more than a very limited number of people in our social world. The emotional and psychological investments that a close relationship requires are considerable, and the emotional capital we have available is limited.
Indeed, no matter what Facebook allows us to do, I have found that most of us can maintain only around 150 meaningful relationships, online and off — what has become known as Dunbar’s number. Yes, you can “friend” 500, 1,000, even 5,000 people with your Facebook page, but all save the core 150 are mere voyeurs looking into your daily life — a fact incorporated into the new social networking site Path, which limits the number of friends you can have to 50.
What’s more, contrary to all the hype and hope, the people in our electronic social worlds are, for most of us, the same people in our offline social worlds. In fact, the average number of friends on Facebook is 120 to 130, just short enough of Dunbar’s number to allow room for grandparents and babies, people too old or too young to have acquired the digital habit.
This isn’t to say that Facebook and its imitators aren’t performing an important, even revolutionary, task — namely, to keep us in touch with our existing friends.” —You’ve Got to Have (150) Friends - NYTimes.com
There is constructively anonymous and cowardly anonymous - neither of which should be confused with pseudonymous.
Sadly, the distinction is nearly impossible to make a priori.