[pixelphantom]

Hm, this article didn't resonate very much with me.

"Currently, Facebook is the only company in the world with enough direct social graph data to create the most perfect form (at least comparatively) of implicit personalization. That’s what Facebook is – a platform for current evolution phase of content discovery and consumption. Do this for me: Go to any major publisher site (The New York Times, Huffington Post, or for sports fans, ESPN) and take a look at it for a bit."

Frankly I don't go to Facebook to get news, I go there to see what my friends and family are up to. They may share news articles they think are interesting, but often that doesn't coincide with what I'm into, which is ok.

I actually don't go to a publisher site. I prefer curated aggregation: techmeme & hacker news for tech news, memeorandum and google news for political news, longform.org, longreads.com and thebrowser.com for longer more thoughtful articles, and finally google reader for photography related sites. My friends are horrible curators... is that just me? Or do people really get all their news from their FB friends?

[tchae]

Facebook's social graph data is the closest digital form replication of our offline true social graph. Our true social graph is what affects every single innate decision and action we make and take, as well as structuring the way we are influenced.

While Facebook isn't a "news" platform, it is, however, a platform in its beginning stages (albeit, highly advanced) that shows you "content" that is most relevant to you - through the usage of the replicated social graph.

And you're right, I wouldn't ever go to state that "curated content" (if done right) will leave anytime soon, but the implicit personalization of everything on the web will become reality and nothing will nor should be static content.

[pixelphantom]

"Our true social graph is what affects every single innate decision and action we make and take, as well as structuring the way we are influenced."

This simply isn't true. If I decide not to go to the beach because it rained, I just based my decision on something that has zero to do with my "true social graph."

I think this might actually be where your deeper mistake in reasoning is - the assertion that relevancy is based solely on your social graph. The fact that this is NOT so is exactly why Facebook does NOT show me content that is most relevant to me - it simply shows me content that was shared or created by my friends and family. That in and of itself doesn't make it relevant to me. It simply means: "hey here is a piece of content and you happen to know the makers of or someone who likes it."

The tricky part is determining what relevancy really means. I think this changes in different contexts.

And finally, I also simply cannot agree with this statement as it stands: "implicit personalization of everything on the web will become reality and nothing will nor should be static content." I really do hope that the latest New York Times article on the conflict in Mali is the same text regardless of whether you are I read it - i.e. that it's static and doesn't change.

I think reality is a bit more nuanced than what sweeping statements allow for.

[tchae]

Yeah, I didn't do a great job conveying my perspective on what makes the true social graph. I don't believe social graph is just people. It's literally everything around you. Everything from TV show or broadcast you're watching or news you're hearing to even the environment and setting around us which is the weather.

Everything in life is connected - and that's the graph.