A few weeks ago, a friend of a friend passed away. His friends were completely shocked – he was not ill; he simply fell asleep and did not wake up. In talking with my friend, i was surprised to hear how they reached out to all of his other friends: via Friendster. This man kept a very disparate group of friends, rarely connecting them. Yet, he maintained an active Friendster profile, allowing all of his friends to see each other and connect during this sad time. Not an expected use, but a valuable one.
Monthly Archives: August 2003
quotes by me in salon
[from the connected selves blog]
Faking out Friendster is a new Salon article about the fake characters that emerge on Friendster. It’s a fun new slant, and well written. [Of course, i’ve loved Katharine Mieszkowski ever since she wrote that fabulous article on Netochka Nezvanova] In the article, Katherine quoted me in reference to the passing fake characters that i found after friends of mine created one.
I disagree with Jonathan’s sentiment that fake characters will go away naturally. [Well, when/if they go away, so will a huge chunk of *real* structure.] I do agree that “Some people find it amusing, but some find it annoying.” The trick is how to help both populations coexist as they do in most places in reality. I do agree that it’s only a fraction of the network that has created fake characters, but i would also argue that much of this fraction is what made it get the eye of the press and of the more mainstream culture. Remember Hush Puppies? Trendsetters (mavens) are often far outside of the mainstream, yet they drive the mainstream’s behavior.
Jonathan argues: “A small percentage of people don’t really get the point. The point is not to add a ton of people you don’t know.” What he doesn’t realize is that the problem is far more nuanced than that. How well must you know someone before adding them? People often add people to show social face. People add Friendsters because they recognize the person. Perhaps its not the point, but a real social network is not articulated; articulating it clouds everything from the getgo.
Additionally, people don’t just create fake characters for fun; some create them to connect real-life groups of people who are affiliated but not necessarily friends. For example, creating “the Lex” is creating a character that represents everything that goes to the Lexington Bar. Aren’t friends of the Lex perhaps people that other Lex members want to date?
Salon on Fakesters
Faking out Friendster is a new Salon article about the fake characters that emerge on Friendster. It’s a fun new slant, and well written. [Of course, i’ve loved Katharine Mieszkowski ever since she wrote that fabulous article on Netochka Nezvanova] In the article, Katherine quoted me in reference to the passing fake characters that i found after friends of mine created one.
I disagree with Jonathan’s sentiment that fake characters will go away naturally. [Well, when/if they go away, so will a huge chunk of *real* structure.] I do agree that “Some people find it amusing, but some find it annoying.” The trick is how to help both populations coexist as they do in most places in reality. I do agree that it’s only a fraction of the network that has created fake characters, but i would also argue that much of this fraction is what made it get the eye of the press and of the more mainstream culture. Remember Hush Puppies? Trendsetters (mavens) are often far outside of the mainstream, yet they drive the mainstream’s behavior.
Jonathan argues: “A small percentage of people don’t really get the point. The point is not to add a ton of people you don’t know.” What he doesn’t realize is that the problem is far more nuanced than that. How well must you know someone before adding them? People often add people to show social face. People add Friendsters because they recognize the person. Perhaps its not the point, but a real social network is not articulated; articulating it clouds everything from the getgo.
Additionally, people don’t just create fake characters for fun; some create them to connect real-life groups of people who are affiliated but not necessarily friends. For example, creating “the Lex” is creating a character that represents everything that goes to the Lexington Bar. Aren’t friends of the Lex perhaps people that other Lex members want to date?
my participation at tribe.net
In my Master’s, i was obsessed with understanding how people structured their social networks. I chose to analyze one slice of it: email social networks. When Friendster emerged, i became very curious about what it’s impact would be. How on earth would be take on articulated networks? What would they do? What would the social implications be? I started surveying people (and love the folks who respond to me).
Of course, fundamentally, i believe in social networks. I believe in their power to provide far more than sexual hookups. I also believe that one size does not fit all when it comes to social networks. People have different needs, different levels of privacy. They manage their social network very intelligently, providing proper structural holes as appropriate (connecting people in ways that will benefit them for being a connector). To model this is complicated. To provide people with the tools necessary to empower all of the diverse ways in which people want to access their network is a fascinating challenge.
When the creators of Tribe.net (currently in early beta) asked me to help them conceptualize people’s diverse issues around their social network, i became curious and gladly took that consulting gig. Since then, i’ve been nothing but tickled with the approach that Tribe. net is taking.
1) Diverse users require diverse sets of tools; one size does not fit all.
2) Groups/Collectives/Tribes are also a key part of people’s social network and must be taken into consideration when modeling networks.
3) People invest time in building their social network. Paying to use it for non-commercial uses is horrifying to most.
4) User feedback loops are essential for understanding how to make things better. Theory is useful for providing essential models. Research is a useful tool for iterating these systems.
I state all of this publicly because folks keep wondering what my role is in all of this. The social network software community is small and awefully incestuous and i’m certainly embroiled in that. Fundamentally, i want to see that people are empowered to control and utilize their social networks in a meaningful and protected way. I believe that this will require many iterations from what is currently out there. And i’m certainly going to enjoy helping that process along.
a difficult decision
My love for V-Day runs very deep. For the last five years, i’ve watched as digital community expanded and allowed for more people to participate to end violence against women and girls. I’ve met so many amazing people and done so many amazing things due to my relationship with V-Day.
Thus, it breaks my heart to realize that it’s time to move on. I’m becoming more and more entrenched in my research and too spread thin to give anything the attention it deserves – my family, my research, V-Day, my friends… Basically, i’ve just been struggling to keep going and dropping the balls i’m juggling left and right. Yet, it’s so hard to give up something i love so very much.
I still don’t know if i’m being foolish, but i need to be honest with myself and with V-Day, because i love us both dearly.
Attack of the Smartasses
Attack of the Smartasses is the front page article of the SF Weekly, chronicling the fight between the Fakesters and Jonathan.
The article is not kind to Jonathan, portraying him as pretty skeevy. The language of the article also indicates that there is a war on. [Of course, the idea of Jonathan vs. the Fakesters in the Thunderdome makes me
Somehow, i don’t think it’s a good idea to piss off the mavens or the journalists.
Identity Crisis
Meet Michael Berry: political activist, cancer survivor, creditor’s dream. Meet Michael Berry: scam artist, killer, the real Michael Berry’s worst nightmare.
And so begins Identity Crisis, a Washington Post cover story about privacy and identity theft.
the economics of networks.
Friendster is still free. Of course, Friendster is still in beta. All indicators suggest that Jonathan will turn on pay when Friendster stops being free; these indicators also suggest that he will use a Match.com model and charge people to message those that they’re interested in.
This makes me sad.
As i discussed before, people are dating via Friendster. Of course, once there is pay, those not interested in dating will not have many of the tools necessary to maintain their network in a meaningful way, nor will they see the value in paying to do so. Those who are dating will only pay for one type of dating activity: reaching out to people beyond their immediate network (i.e. 4 degrees and effectively random).
People are still responding to my survey. It’s pretty clear that they view that providing Friendster with data about them and their friends is their contribution. They feel as though they own their data and that they have no reason to pay for abuses of that data.
I have a funny feeling that when Friendster turns pay, its usage will change dramatically and not in a way that will make the network more valuable.
Tribe.net hits the blogs
Tribe.net is currently in early beta, yet it has already appeared on a wide variety of blogs. [Tribe.net is YASNS focus on 1) Recommendations and listings (housemates, for sale, etc.) and 2) Letting people connect with their groups of friends.]
Marc Canter [29 July 2003] – reflections by Marc on Tribe and the lessons that are being learned; references to other’s experiences
Jason Lefkowit [28 July 2003] – Jason is frustrated with the YASNS phenomenon, particularly because of its requirement to harangue one’s friends. His friend points out that it would be far more useful if those with power and influence were a part of the system.
Michael Radwin [4 August 2003] – puts the YASNS phenomenon in historical context and hints at why he’s hesistent to use these systems. [Sidenote: Michael was one of my TAs at Brown! How cool to run into someone this way.]
Pedro Alocer [8 August 2003] – without the sex, what’s the point?
Where’s the Smoke? [5 August 2003] – the author asks what the difference is between Tribe.net and Friendster and his readers comment back that it is both the focus on Tribes and the blending of Friendster meets Craigslist
William Blaze [28 July] – William notes that Tribe’s look and feel doesn’t work for him, but also likes that Tribe seems open to changes
Liz Lawley [6 August 2003] – Fake characters appear early on Tribe.net. Liz is asked if she’s a friend of Jesus.
Popdex – a list of links to blogs that are talking about Tribe.net
friendster in the onion
