Yesterday I took a first look at Diaspora, a new open source social networking platform that some are already dubbing a "Facebook Killer." Plagued by many user concerns regarding privacy and the commercial direction the site is going in (which led, in my opinion, to an unnecessary and unaesthetic change to the user-interface), Facebook isn't liked as much it used to be, even if it did hit the 500 million user mark this year. Others, such as Ethan Zuckerman, charge that it also leads users into a sense of what he calls "imaginary cosmopolitanism."

In that previous post, I highlighted some of these concerns, along with with the need for it to become more privacy conscious in another specifically focused on the area of peace building. However, my first impressions were just that -- an initial reaction to how Diaspora appeared to be shaping up in its very basic Alpha version. With even mandatory functions such as proper link sharing yet to be implemented, much will have to be added to Diaspora before we'll really get an idea of whether it can take on a giant such as Facebook. Even so, I am assessing it constantly, and have some more thoughts.

Firstly, I might have been a little too unfair regarding its focus on 'aspects,' pretty much selective lists of people who you can choose to share and communicate with over others. I only briefly mentioned the possibility to share globally across all contacts, probably because at first it's not so clear that this is the default option. As I'm adding more users, however, it does become clearer. And with more authors from Global Voices being added to my contacts, it also got me thinking about another significant issue -- language.

Global Voices has hundreds of authors from around the world most of whom speak languages other than English, although they are all conversant in that, it's true. However, for the sake of social networking within their own linguistic group, aspects in Diaspora could prove very useful indeed and effectively filter out posts and links other users who don't share the same language can't understand. In this context, if used as such, aspects could be a way to filter out a lot of unnecessary and unintelligible information we have at present with Facebook.

This could also be used, for example, by activists needing to target language-specific information to particular linguistic groups if the relevant aspects are set up. Again, this could prevent needless posts from turning up on someone else's page. For example, for my own cross-border Armenia-Azerbaijan project, material is available mainly in English and Russian. However, there is also a lot in Azerbaijani and a little in Armenian. Occasionally, there's some in Spanish, and sometimes, thanks to GV Lingua, in French, Italian, Chinese, Bangla, and many others.

Using language-specific 'aspects,' such material could be targeted properly to specific linguistic 'aspects,' if defined, instead of cluttering up the feed of someone who can read only one or two of those languages. Of course, this still "segregates" users, which makes me feel a little uneasy, I have to admit, but a lot will be dependent on the way in which the majority of users adapt to Diaspora. So, some more thoughts, even if, and certainly until link sharing is properly implemented, it is still too early to tell whether it can take on Facebook.

On that, the main unanswered question is how will link sharing be implemented and specifically what options will be available for other users when I share a link. Will they be able to share it over their own aspects at a click of a button, or will that only be if I post a link globally, or maybe they won't be able to share it at all? But even if they can, will their share of the link from my own page be highlighted as via my account or not? This obviously has connotations in terms of privacy, but it's also a way to stumble upon contacts users might not otherwise.

For now, though, as a second impression, all I can say is that Diaspora shows much promise, but a lot will be dependent on how other social networking features are implemented and how users adapt to a new, more privacy-conscious way of interacting with others. Although Facebook has been indispensable in my own work over the past few years, I have to say that unless it counters some of the many concerns emerging, I can only hope that Diaspora gets it right.

Just one more thought, though. With a tagline of "Share what you want with who you want," one of the first issues that might confuse new users is the idea of 'aspects' and selective sharing and communication. The way Diaspora is marketed at present, it would appear as though this is the intended use of the site whereas perhaps it would be less confusing if they marketed it as a social networking site to globally share and communicate, a la Facebook, but with the option to choose to share selectively when the need arises.

This is what Diaspora actually is, of course, but that's not the first impression new users have when one of the first things they have to do upon joining is to add contacts to selective 'aspects,' and with the option to create even more.

In a sense, of course, this is how human beings operate in the real world. Already, for example, there are one or two people I know in person who I haven't added to Facebook simply because I know I would be opening up my page to nationalist comments and links which would only disrupt what activity is occurring there, and perhaps even expose others to personal attacks and criticism. It's possible, but so far not certain, that Diaspora could allow me to extend my networks while avoiding such dangers.

Cross-posted from from my personal blog. For more coverage of the use of new and social media in conflict resolution and transformation in the South Caucasus, see our special coverage on Global Voices.