Social Network aggregation is a great personal service that allows me to see updates from all my social networks in one place. There are a number of services that provide this functionality:
chi.mp and
AOL Lifestream to name two. As long as I'm the only one viewing these aggregations, there are no privacy concerns.
However, the problem arises when content is shared (cross-posted) between social networks and then re-aggregated by the social aggregation service. Take the following scenario as one possible use case.
Alice participates in 3 social networks,
statii (a real time micro blogging site),
snaps (a photo sharing site), and
frendz (a social network of my personal friends). In addition, Alice uses a social network aggregation site called
socialview to give her a global view of all her social network activity. All of these social networks allow Alice to establish connections with her friends within those networks. Each of the social networks has it's own privacy mechanisms that allows Alice to share information publicly, or just with a certain set of friends. Even
socialview allows Alice to establish relationships with other
socialview users and share their aggregated social network activity streams. In addition,
socialview allows Alice to cross-post status updates to both
statii and
frendz.
In this example, all of Alice's micro blog updates to
statii are public. In addition, most of the photos she uploads to
snaps are also public. On
frendz, Alice is a little more careful and only shares information with friends. She does allow friends-of-friends to view her updates and any comments her friends leave.
Now, let's say that Alice uses
socialview to post a status update to both
statii and
frendz. Let's also assume that Alice has decided that all her updates originating from
socialview should be public. When Alice's status update appears in
frendz, her friend Bob thinks it's relevant and leaves a comment in
frendz on her status. Then
Socialview, during it's normal aggregation cycle, sees the new comment from Bob and adds it to Alice's aggregated view.
This is where it finally gets interesting. Should Bob's comment be made public (given that Alice's privacy settings at
socialview state that all her posts are public, and Bob is commenting on a "public" post?) or should his comment be visible only to Alice (because Bob didn't know he was commenting on a public post).
What I think is missing is a "visibility" scope attribute that needs to be attached to the activity as it navigates across social networks. In the above contrived example, this would allow
frendz to make it clear to Bob that Alice's status is really public. It would also allow
socialview to honor Bob's privacy settings that he only shares comments with friends when aggregating his comment back into Alice's aggregated view.