I’ve gotten used to reading my quotes out of context (or otherwise made-up), but i was a bit dismayed at reading my blog quotes taken out of context and then theoretically responded to in a way that appears utterly ficticious.

In the Metro, parts of my blog are quoted concerning the longevity of Friendster. In those quotes, i was addressing my suspicion that Friendster draws people in because of their curiousity, but that it cannot sustain participation that way. Because the majority of users are not looking for a date, dating cannot be the long term model for Friendster. If they don’t switch that perspective, they won’t survive. Of course, that also implies that if they do switch focus, they will answer my concerns. Jonathan’s supposed counter does not contradict anything that i say or believe, even though it’s constructed that way. In fact, i’m glad to hear that he’s publicly considering other uses of the network than dating (as had been his public mantra for so long). And i *know* that users come and stay on for many months, but not infinitely; they do lose interest unless there’s another spark of curiousity, excitement, energy.

What i find the most disturbing is this quote by Jonathan: “Whoever this [danah boyd] person is, she has no access to our data. But everyone has their theories about stuff, I guess.”

There is no doubt that i have no access to Friendster’s data; i’ve never claimed otherwise. I simply have access to hundreds of surveys and other interactions with users. And i simply have access to the profiles of about 1M subscribers. But regardless, there’s no way that i believe that Jonathan feigned ignorance of my existence. Thus, i have to call into question the whole interview and specifically that segment of the article. I certainly wasn’t interviewed, only quotes from my blog. What was Jonathan really asked?

Very weird.