Swap in the Name of Love is an ABCNews article that seems to think that ‘Friendster uses “peer-to-peer” technology to connect members to each based on their own personal profiles and those of people they know online.’ I don’t think ABC knows what P2P is…

Continue reading →

Once again today, i read about someone’s concern about the fake characters on Friendster. Of course, the creator despises these fake characters. Although i’ve never created them, i find them utterly fascinating. Given my appreciation of Morningstar & Farmer’s paper on why it is necessary to pay attention to what users do not what designers want them to, i’m also fascinated by the uproar over what the users have chosen to do.

People create fake characters to show their allegience to a certain element of culture. When Burning Man existed, people showed that he represented their interests. No one is going to make friends with LSD or Ecstasy if they are anti-drugs, because one’s appreciation of that type of humor requires an appreciation of the culture embedded in it. Conversely, when one makes friends with God on Friendster, one is probably not Christian.

Characters are just another way that people game Friendster, indicating that its primary purpose is not dating for most people. It is a fun experiment in social behavior and identity development/manipulation. People want to see who all they can access; they want to see their numbers grow (even if those numbers are utterly meaningless); they want Friendster to be fun fun fun.

Of course, this begs the question: can it be both fun and meaningful?

Visualizations of Friendster have begun – Dav has created a visualization of the locations of Friendster participants.

There’s something magical about seeing one’s thoughts in the media. Namely, the awe that is generated when one barely recognizes oneself. I spoke with a columnist from the NYTimes about Friendster and in the printing/editing process, my name ended up being unrecognizable. Not only did it acquire capital letters accidentally, it also morphed into either Danah Boyle or Danah Doyle at various points in the paragraph. I can’t help think i’ve become a digital doily. Boing boing. Splat.

Well, given that i have a blog, perhaps i should dispel the myths that i accidentally generated in the Times. Of course, one day when i have more time, i will actually structure a full story around Friendster, so long as folks continue to contribute their thoughts.

First, i have to smile about my quote that includes the word nuanced… ah, danah speak. The ironic thing is that i cannot make the connection between that and the 60,000 number. Aside from the fact that my 4 degree network is almost 100K in size (which is absurd), the subtle nuances that i would like to see in Friendster concern the structuring the different relationships that we manage. When asked who my friends are, i’m likely to provide lists from a variety of different contexts in my life – lovers, family, professors, colleagues, etc. Of course, in the context of dating, i am not interested in actually dating many of their “friends.” This constitutes a major problem when you have a social networking system that is limited in scope.

60,000 people are not unwieldly, just meaningless. This has mostly to do with how many degrees you are willing to introduce through. For example, i’m glad to introduce friends to friends (and they’re comfortable contacting one another without going through me, although i find that i tend to get a “is this person OK?” message). But when there are two people in between, it’s hard to negotiate. For example, if Alice wants to meet Cathy and Alice is my friend and Cathy is Bob’s friend, it becomes odd. Do i say to Bob, tell me about your friend Cathy and i’ll tell you about Alice and perhaps we can see if they have something in common? Dating networking works best when someone can vouch for both unknown folks. The more degrees, the less meaningful the connections mean. That said, it’s fascinating at how much breadth is covered in 4 degrees.

Oh, and for the record, the defunct Six Degrees is the first site that i know of for non-business digital networks. Of course, it was before its time and died a terrible death due to poor ideas surrounding money and spamming.

::sigh:: I think that my biggest sadness is that there is a lot of interesting concepts that should be addressed in a discussion of Friendster and i have yet to see anyone in the press take them on. For example, 1) what is it about humanity that makes this meme so popular; 2) what are the social reprecussions of such a system; 3) what are the underlying structural flaws that limit the system’s growth? Hopefully as articles emerge, folks will delve into what i think is interesting about Friendster.

Continue reading →

Six Degrees of Sexual Frustration is a Village Voice article on Friendster. I have a feeling that we’ll be seeing a lot more of these and it makes me curious to know what the impact will be on growth. I’m also very curious about the article, because it makes Friendster appear to be more expansive than dating. While i know that’s how people use Friendster, i keep wondering how Jonathan Abrams feels about this (as he constantly gives me the impression that his only goal is to replace match.com). Does he realize the value of the diverse usages? Might he recognize that it’s valuable to pay attention to what people are doing and why?

Continue reading →

Jun. 2, 2003
Time Magazine: A Friendlier Way to Date Online

If you’re an SBF or a DWM looking for love but think online dating is rather creepy, Friendster.com might allay your fears. The site enables you to meet prospective dates exclusively through your friends. It works on the six-degrees-of-separation principle: Jon invites you into his network, you invite your friends, they invite theirs, and so on. (Note: Friendster stops at four degrees.) The whole group can then peruse one another’s profiles; no strangers allowed. With 268,000 members from San Francisco to South Korea and a weekly growth rate of 20%, Friendster has to work hard to keep up with…

I’ve really enjoyed watching the Friendster meme percolate. I’m trying to get a grasp on how people are using it, why they like it, what they’re doing with it and as many anecdotes as possible that will help me grasp usage. Free free to send me your random thoughts or perhaps answer some of the questions that are floating in my head.

[updated 05/12] Good public commentaries on Friendster:
– Adam Greenfield
– An addict’s perspective by Terbo Ted

[updated 6/4] vanderwal on Ryze vs. Friendster

Continue reading →

It made me really happy to read about this individual’s Friendster addiction. Unfortunately, it made me really sad to think about how strict and narrow minded these sites are, because they could have such interesting social ramifications if they just allowed for some breathing room.

When i first signed up with Friendster, it was fairly small and i didn’t know anyone on it. Since then, thanks to so many crazy blogs, it has blossomed into this intense social network that fascinates me on every personal and research level.

Of course, i look at it and the first question that comes to mind is whether or not folks who are high self-monitors will feel comfortable using it. Your friends are all equally accessible to anyone that you are friends with (or are friends with them recursively). What does this mean for the classic gay man who is closeted at work? Would he have two different profiles? Would he not accept friendships from folks from one community?