First of all, I'm not sure what calling social networks a "fad" really means. Second, it just sounds pathetic when Steve Ballmer is the one saying it (hint, MS CEO). Afterall, it's the basis for one of the fastest-growing new media giants' success. But there's something more going on here than a PR move against Google.

Here's the NYTimes blog post I'm referring to (don't worry, it's short...)

Two of the highlights:

"Mr. Schmidt (Google CEO) did say that over the next year, Google is planning to use information it has about the connections between its users, something techies call the "social graph," to improve searches and other Google services."

"There have been reports that Google will not only use its social graph information for its own services but it will also create a system for other companies to use the same data -- in other words, to "out-open" Facebook."

Google beat all the other search engines in large part because they recognized the power and inherent knowledge embodied in the act of people linking to other people. Their searches were the best because they based their ratings on how people choose to link to one another (among other characteristics, I'm sure).

But from the looks of it, "Social Networking" has taken on new meaning. Now, it appears, the term refers to the type of interconnections possible in MySpace and Facebook.

But aren't these derivative as well? What made/makes them unique? The character of their databases? The content of their databases? Their "openness?"

This article in the Washington Post today talks about how the "inventor" of the "electric slide" dance has been actively trying to stop people from posting YouTube videos that teach people the wrong way of doing it.

If you can't trust YouTube for dance moves, what CAN you trust it for?

For reasons I just don't understand, many of my conversations today have dealt with the quandry resulting from being stuck in the middle of a dispute between two loved ones.

I like to get myself in these kinds of jams, and I've often punished myself, thinking that you usually have to do something wrong to wind up in the middle. Maybe you've over promised, let confidences slip, really tried to help or simply gathered more information than was strictly proper about something that wasn't your business.

Either way, I've categorized the stuck-in-the-middle position as one you earn by doing something nefarious. True, some folks lie their way into this unenviable, if highly exploitable position.

But at a lunch meeting today, I realized that the over-caring sort of person gets stuck here as well. I arrived at the meeting with a stomach full of guilt about an argument I was trying to defuse between two loved ones without spilling any secrets. I wasn't sure how I'd fared. Then my associate told me about the complex relationship between her boyfriend, his daughter, and the girl's mother. This woman had tried to show the girl some attention and brighten her spirits, but had managed to spark an explosive argument between the two parents.

There was once a list of things you didn't talk about: someone's spouse, how much money something cost, who had a better job, etc. But today, while the number of socially unacceptable subjects is dwindling and relationships and family structures become ever more complicated, where do we draw the line?

The only answer it seems, is that we shouldn't ask questions we don't want asked of ourselves, we shouldn't ask for information that we won't want to divulge, and we shouldn't make promises we can't keep. Good luck.