The concept of over-sharing is straightforward: sharing only has value if it is in some way special - rare or personalised, and if it becomes too ubiquitous then it simply becomes spam. The problem is that Facebook apps are now generally sharing every single little detail of what you do online that the noise is deafening. In other words you're constantly receiving hundreds of shared links, videos, info etc that they tend to lose their value (i.e. their ability to warrant your attention).

Most people start to switch off when this happens, which is a big potential problem for Facebook if their innovative Like button ceases to actually function - or rather has its functionality made irrelevant by the simple fact that Likes just get drowned out in the sea of info shared by user apps.

JD Rucker, who runs the Soshable blog, makes the obvious and pertinent point - sharing is already super easy. People are doing it a lot anyway but that doesn't mean that they don't make value judgements about what to share/like. Apps are not capable of making such value judgements - they just pump out the info because they can (in the hope it will benefit them).

The only solution is to remove apps which you don't want or use in a last ditch attempt to clean up your newsfeed so that you can actually use it how you like to. In the long run though, this surely represents a challenge to Facebook (I've written previously on this most pressing of issues for the network - too much data) and the only real threat to user numbers by virtue of the fact that it can very directly impact upon their UI, which is a highly visible turn-off for users if it doesn't work satisfactorily (privacy issues meanwhile tend to be more latent and only bother certain sections of users, meaning it's unlikely the company could shoot itself in the foot as badly in this department).

Ultimately though, the end result might be that users really evaluate a little more thoroughly which apps they want to install (just like they should evaluate which friends they want to add) and this might overall reduce the volume of spam on the network if the bar for app success gets raised that little bit higher.

The only way this will happen though is if users realise the need to de-clutter their apps before they simply decide to use Facebook less because they enjoy the experience less than they used to - but aren't quite sure why (since not everyone is likely to figure out that over-sharing is the problem).

Parallels with the record industry's efforts to discourage illegal downloading with much-publicised lawsuits come to mind. Despite generating quite a few short term headlines, the lawsuits rarely achieved their purpose of scaring downloaders into paying or abstaining. The odds of getting caught were simply far too remote to warrant desisting.

In the case of Myspace spammers I feel it is all too likely the same will prove true. The case mentioned above may have seen Myspace win a record sum - but it is unlikely to ever re-coup any of this money (the two spammers didn't even appear in court; in all likelihood they might not ever be tracked down by the law). Myspace of course was not in it for the money - though the size of the sum will certainly help the cause of grabbing column headlines, which was surely the real objective of the exercise.

Myspace does however have one advantage over the record industry in the legal arena and it is that, unlike in the case of the music labels, they are prosecuting people whom they have nothing to lose by alienating. The record industry meanwhile must consider the fact that those being sued are also often their best customers on whom they otherwise rely.

The folks at Myspace are far too familiar with the extent of the problem to be so naive as to think they have solved it. The maths of prosecuting offenders means that it will never represent a totally effective deterrent in this sense. What might work though is a tightening of the system itself, so that spammers find the going a little less profitable and straightforward.

Much has already been done in this area, including the introduction of security verification codes into the message sending process (they are currently non-mandatory). The messaging service is now much healthier looking since this move, though the codes are not without their drawbacks; they can be quite annoying when trying to send multiple messages quickly - but all in all the trade-off is worth it. Unfortunately the problem has now simply moved to comments boards, on which most spam is now posted.

Myspace could make all comments require user pre-approval, or introduce mandatory security codes. But in the end this would only re-configure the problem. A certain level of spam is the price we pay for the openness and ease-of use inherent to services like Myspace. Shifting the balance too far towards the security end would make the service far less appealing (though spam free), and Myspace knows this.

Perhaps that is why the legal avenues seem like the only reasonable alternative. Deep down the whole thing is largely a PR exercise - Myspace is at least (if only) appearing to take the fight to the spammers - and both they and the spammers know it. Myspace will continue to send its message, but I doubt they seriously believe the spam gang will take much notice - It looks like we'll have to get used to junk mail being around for a good while yet...

Dejan Levi