A social network caught in the web is a new paper out of HP Labs looking at social networks online.

One of the more powerful concepts that i learned in the last few years is the notion of “familiar strangers.” The term comes from Stanley Milgram and it refers to the people that we see regularly in a non-intimate fashion that we develop a sense about, but never directly interact with. A good example is the person that one sees on the bus every morning. If that person fails to appear, we notice. What is cool about familiar strangers is that when we see them out of the context of non-interaction, we will immediately interact with them, because there is a presumption of shared knowledge. The further we are from our normal interaction with this person, the more likely we are to connect. Thus, we are likely to treat our bus buddies in New York as close friends if we run into them in Italy.

Underlying this behavior between familiar strangers is the function of multiple contexts in common. In common social introductions, we proceed through a ritual of figuring out what we have in common – what people/institutions/cities/interests we have in common. We do this to develop a common grounding. Likewise, when we see someone in an additional social setting, we feel as though we have exponentially more in common with which to bond.

The power of the familiar stranger is ringing loudly in my head right now because i continue to talk with folks about LinkedIn. I fear that too many of the social software folks don’t realize why context is essential for giving folks a reason to interact, to connect, to bridge one’s social network. People are not simply motivated by what they need or could give, but by what fundamental reasons they have to connect… Introduction rituals are essential for connections and to properly do so, one needs more contextual information than a limited version of one’s resume. Social negotiation, even in the professional realm, is not limited to strictly business… it is inherently social.

Continue reading →

Nalini P. Kotamraju has a great collection of fantastic references concerning mobile phone/SMS/IM use. I’ve always adored Nina Wakeford’s work on messaging and this reminds me of how badly i need to spend some time outside of the US. I’m still aggrevated that SMS doesn’t really exist here. ::sigh::

The No-Contact Jacket is a wearable defensive jacket created to aid women in their struggle for protection from violence. When activated by the wearer, 80,000 volts of low amperage electric current pulses just below the surface shell of the entire jacket. This exo-electric armor prevents any person from unauthorized contact with the wearer’s body. If an assailant were to grab hold of the wearer the high voltage shocking exterior would interrupt their neurological impulses which control voluntary muscle movement. The neuromuscular system would be overwhelmed causing disorientation and loss of balance to occur and of course pain. The pain experienced is non-lethal but is enough of a shock to effectively and immediately deter contact with her body and provide a critical life saving option for escape.

Social Network Fragments was just linked on the blog at Smart Mobs.

Clay Shirky posted a really interesting article on Many to Many today – “Hot Tubbing an Online Community”

No.. this has nothing to do with getting online community people together in a hottub. Read it – it’s fascinating (particularly to those interested in what to do when a community gets too large).

After waking at an absurdly early hour this morning, i briefly checked in with various blogs that i check in with only to find Liz’s bet. Of course, it got me all contemplative, at 8AM and then i remembered that i was up at that hour to go to a meeting and had to rush off before being able to articulate why i think that Liz is correct – in 3 months time, women will represent only 10% of the participants in the top 500 of those on LinkedIn.

Frankly, i’d extend her bet to include all marginalized populations in the business structure (people of color, queer folks, etc.). I would bank that these populations would be farther underrepresented on LinkedIn than they are in the real world (where they are poorly represented to begin with). Personally, i believe that genuine changes are needed for LinkedIn to be widely effective.

In an ideal world, we’d live in a meritocratic society where someone’s value in the job process is based on their previous jobs, which are inherently based on skills. But we don’t live in that world. We live in one where social networks are everything. LinkedIn appears to be trying to allow people to find each other through their merits (under the assumption that you are connected) and then give you the the social network to contact that person; normally, this is done the other way around.

The problem is that their approach emphasizes a limited perspective of the individual. There is no consideration for a person’s education, their personal interests, or most of all, presenting their character. The only character component is through the linkages. Since character is determined through linkages, you have to decide to request an introduction before you figure out through which path they are connected. This is problematic because people rely on their assessment of my friends’ expertise to evaluate whether or not they would trust their opinion of a friend. While my HR friends could help me find a great HR person, i wouldn’t trust their opinion on a programmer.

This is not specific to LinkedIn or job markets. In Friendster, i have added many people whose friends i would be wary of dating. On the other hand, through surfing the system, people whose friends i would automatically discount seemed to shed new light on my friend. But it is unreasonable to assume that i would trust any of my connection’s connections.

LinkedIn does not allow you to navigate the structure. They see this as a feature, but i see it as a fatal flaw. Women, minorities and other underrepresented groups are notorious high self-monitors. Generally speaking, they are unlikely to put themselves out blindly, to cold call or to message someone without knowing the path that they’re dealing with. They are unlikely to evaluate and then approach someone simply through their self-professed professional listing. There are no testimonials, no validation of the individual ahead of time. Mostly, there’s little to grasp onto other than jobl listings. (Women are notorious for getting to know a potential employee/collaborator on topics other than work to get a common grounding for power purposes.) Yet, the biggest problem is that the mechanism for surfing the network emphasizes one’s numerical worth because the system lists people in order of their number of connections. Searching based on anything meaningful is impossible; you can’t even search by name to find out if a known friend is on the system. Frankly, most women don’t feel the need to show their worth numerically, and often feel slighted in a situation where they are expected to.

Jessica argues that one of the problems is that networks are self-selecting. I would agree with her, but Friendster reminds me that women are quite comfortable inviting people and connecting them, but the first priority is social (although i’ve noticed that friends of mine have found job connections on Friendster as well as dates). For women, the social is inherently part of the professional. The problem is the format, the UI, the feeling that the system presents. My female friends were by far the more viral in their habits on Friendster than my male friends. Yet, even the most viral Friendster female friend of mine got bored and annoyed with LinkedIn within moments and hasn’t logged back in since.

I suspect that, even with effort in inviting women, LinkedIn has little appeal for women. They are the most sufficient at negotiating their social networks, but they do so systematically and via the network first.

It’s always fun to run across old friends and find out what new adventures they’re up to. It seems as though Mark Amerika has his fingers in a collective called the “US Department of Art & Technology”. The site, “Political Art Creates a Shadow Government,” is a nice little play on our current government agencies, complete with lots of undersecretaries and directors (Mark is the Director of the Office of Freedom of Speech).

I really like the Creative Commons project because it approaches the notion of copyright from the perspective that i believe it was originally intended. Copyright was to protect individuals so that they could keep producing more of whatever they produced. It was intended to go into the public domain after a set period of time so that it could be expanded and furthered. Likewise, original copyright laws protected those who wanted to comment on and build upon copyright, since it was for the good of all. With new copyright laws (most notably the Sonny Bono act), it seems as though the public good part of copyright is completely gone.

The web takes issues of copyright and IP to a new level. In particular, i’m fascinated by the impact of persistent data and archivability of data on the social quality of the web. The US Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, but it does not guarantee that you own your own speech. What happens when you post your opinion to another site? Do you own your words or does the site owner (or the collector of public discourse)? Deja made lots of money off of selling its archive of Usenet posts. What control do you have over your persistent presence on others’ sites? Do you own your Friendster profile? What about information about you that you did not authorize (such as videos of you going into Planned Parenthood)? Issues of databases and persistent data bring up new issues in data control.

Of course, this is where i’m fascinated by Creative Commons. Is it possible for sites to create an equivalent stating that anything that you post to this site is your property? Would this type of action be protected by law? Could it help build trust and safety (furthering TRUSTe)? Should they vow not to sell your data in any form (including in aggregate)? How would such a system work and be effective?

I went to Emerging Tech this week, which was a wonderful opportunity to interact with hacker culture and technologists in general. It was also an odd reminder of what it’s like to be one of a small handful of women in a space. Although my primary reason to be there was to meet interesting people, one lecture stood out. Clay Shirky explicitly addressed the hacker community and related why social issues were pertinent to them. It was the first moment i’ve been in a tech conference and wanted to hug a speaker.

But the bigger question is… why didn’t i know about Clay Shirky before? He appears to be a demi-god in the eyes of some. Hmmm..