Bay Area folks: The Commonwealth Club (San Francisco) is hosting a forum on Urban Singles on September 4th. Speakers include:
RABBI YAACOV DEYO, Founder, SpeedDating
TRISH MCDERMOTT, Vice President, Match.com
JONATHAN ABRAMS, Founder, Friendster
JEFF TITTERTON, Vice President, PlanetOut Partners
Also, for those who are curious, i suspect that the Fakester Revolution folks will be there protesting.
[temporary vacation pause as i haven’t left town yet.]
The more i talk with people, the more i feel as though Fakesters provide a very valuable role in the spread and value of Friendster. Let me explain.
How many users who surf Craigslist read Missed Connections or Best of Craigslist? Rarely do these have value other than humor, yet humor brings people back to the site for pleasure and fun.
Surfing Friendster for Fakesters is like treasure hunting… people love running across these icons of creativity. It motivates them to surf around the network, far more so than simply searching for a date. Dates happen accidentally this way. This is probably a preferable functionality anyhow, as desperate searching is rarely as meaningful as accidental connection.
When people are seriously looking for people, they don’t want Fakesters to be connectors (i.e. searching in the gallery), but when they come across them via surfing, they click on them only if they value them. If not, they’re ignored. Rarely do i run into someone who wants Fakesters obliterated; often, they just want them to not impact their network numbers or their Gallery.
Fakesters motivate people to be more creative with their Profiles. Fakesters remind users that Profiles are only an articulated performance of self and not to be taken seriously, even in the cases of Realsters. Fakesters remind users that an articulated network is not the same as one’s real social network and thus doesn’t have the same level of trust and accountability as one’s “real friends.”
Although Clay argues that Fakester.org is inherently stupid, i personally love that folks are tracking the issue. The tension between the Fakesters and Jonathan is growing and i don’t think that Jonathan realizes the impact of his decisions. Fakester Revolution may represent the extreme and opinionated minority of Fakester appreciators, but these voices are definitely being heard by the press and impacting the average user, who thinks that Jonathan’s censorship is just pushing things a bit too far.
Somehow, i’m guessing that Friendster will not be nearly as novel and interesting when the creativity is all obliterated. We’ll see when i return in September…
[back to genuine vacation. just out of curiosity, i wonder if Friendster’s traffic will be impacted by the rush to the desert.]
The Fakester Revolution community now has a website. It includes the the manifesto, links to news and discussion boards and a list of who’s on the team.
In order to view what was going on on other people’s bulletin boards, i created my own fake character a bit back. Needless to say, it was killed in the fakester genocide, but not before i added quite a few Friends whose posts to their B-Boards helped me understand some of the user sentiment. The manifestos come from this observation.
I have to say, i’m a bit sad to see my fake character go. I had a lot of fun crafting her and writing Testimonials based on her relationship with other fake characters. It was supposed to be simply research, but i admit that i actually found it far more enjoyable than negotiating my real identity, in part because that’s so politically limited.
The other irony is that there were actually a few people that i met through that fake character that i actually would’ve gone out on a date with, if i wasn’t so entrenched with work (and now they’re lost to the system). The creativity embedded in the conversation made those people so much more attractive than the atrocious small talk that usually accompanies most of the real messages that i get.
See, the thing is that Friendster does not get away from the coarse descriptors that make interactions peculiar and sexualized (see Sexing the Internet). When it comes to meeting people outside of the Familiar Stranger/Friend of Friend degree, the profiles collapse a person’s identity into a set of forms without much meaning. Most frequently, they give little to allow the start of a conversation. [I mean.. what am i going to say when someone writes: “Koyaanisqatsi: good movie!”]
Fake characters remove you from the ridiculous small talk into a state of activity. You have a reason to connect with someone, and you have to be creative, novel, entertaining. You get to practice your literary skills, your artistic flair. Instead of trying to articulate your identity, something actually comes out of the performance of it. The conversations are far more meaningful; they don’t have that painful explicit sexual tone; sexuality comes naturally and smoothly.
Connecting through Fakesters might not be real, but neither is going through a network full of people that you barely know, but have to articulate to maintain social face. And frankly, i’d have a lot more faith in dating someone because of their ingenuity in creating a Fakester than i would talking to someone who is arbitrarily 3 or 4 degrees from me.
There’s definitely an art to fake characters. But just like graffiti, not everyone appreciates it. Of course, the trick is to figure out how to live symbiotically. And for the high art elite to realize that there is value in the art of graffiti, just like there is meaningful dating potential through fake characters.
[from a Friendster Bulletin Board]
Date: August 6, 2003 12:23 AM
Subject: Warning: I Am A Big Loser
Message:
Hello my dear friendsters,
I recently penned a rant against friendster, advocating a sort of poll tax rebellion. A friend of mine informed me that their payment structure might allow users to remain on friendster without charge, but that they could charge to add new friends to your network and for other functions. This is devious, tricky, and skillful on their part if true.
The form of resistance, then, has to take this into account. I would still be ready to join a mass exodus, but it is now doubtful whether that will occur as spontaneously as I originally imagined.
There are many options open to us for potentially effective collective action, ranging from abstention to physical or electronic sit-ins, lockdowns, public relations subversion and other sabotage, counter-media, well coordinated email
or petition campaigns, anti-friendster websites, promotion or creation of an alternative competitor, and so much more. We could pie someone in the face or lock our necks to the doors of Evil Friendster Technocrat HQ as a publicity stunt. It is clear that the technocrats are too hubristic to take any heed of our desires, and see us merely as a herd of cattle to be milked for their profit.
However, if we are to take any action, we would have to discuss and plan it in a secure forum (which this clearly is not), and we should attempt to agree on clear goals and demands.
For goals, I would tentatively suggest:
(1) Given that the friendster corporate technocrats lured us into this addictive little electronic fantasyland, and now are attempting a bait-and-switch scam on us en masse, we should summon the collective will to assert our right to exist as a community. Just because someone else built the city you live in does not mean they or their heirs get to dictate your conditions of life, or to arbitrarily cast you into exile.
(2) Should Goal #1 fail, I suggest we tear the sucker down. In fact, we must be prepared for this in order to be taken seriously enough to attain Goal #1. The technocrats have used us to build a community they intend to parasitically profit from. They already profit from massive free word of mouth and press publicity. They already run advertising, which has to be making them piles of money. Just as our word of mouth, time, energy, and unique personalities made friendster, we can just as easily unmake it if their profits cut into our community. If we can�t retake our city from its tyrannical architects and urban planners, we should empty it as we collectively flee to a safer and freer haven, possibly even one of our own creation.
(3) This is simply a personal goal. I want to keep it fun, or drop it and walk away (if it comes to that, though, I would like to walk away with several thousand others). I don�t intend to throw my entire life into this struggle. This entire friendster fantasyland is a fun diversion, a sort of game. However, there are very real issues at stake, regarding what is appropriately common and what is appropriately private, rights of a community vs. plundering parasites, intellectual property (who owns my profile, me or friendster?) and so forth. It�s a game worth winning.
For demands I would suggest:
(1) All basic user functions must remain free of charge – including adding friends, sending messages, account creation, posting bulletins, uploading photos, and so on.
I would be willing to accept restrictions – like a tighter, but reasonable, limit to the number of times one may use each of these functions per day (they could then offer perks that would allow more use for a fee). In addition, there are a number of ways by which the friendster technocrats could make mad cash � job listings where the prospective employers pay to post, perks users could pay for that are nice but fully optional (like the option not to have to see advertising), merchandising like hats and t-shirts, and other tried and true web revenue methods. I, for one, can�t and won�t pay for anything on this or any similar website. Tribes.net states its commitment to making its service free to users. It is certainly possible, as has been proven by the majority of successful (non-porn and non-specialist/academic) websites.
(2) The establishment of user rights for �fakesters� � parody or homage profiles of celebrities, religious figures, philosophers, abstract concepts, clothes, bands, fictional or mythic characters, martyrs, pop culture icons, household items, and the like. All existing fakesters should be left intact, recognizing the creative rights of their authors and creators � as Roy has more thoroughly discussed in relation to fair use, parody, and intellectual property. All users should be allowed to create and maintain fakesters.
I personally would be comfortable with a limit to the number of fakesters allowed to each real person, and there are many ways this could be verified (as is currently done by many websites). This would be a basic user function, but, again, one could pay for more extensive use of this function.
(3) The friendster ruling class has begun arbitrarily deleting real user profiles, as well as fakesters. They have refused to comment on why, after repeated inquiries, but it seems to be happening to people with a large number of friends in their network. This must stop immediately.
(4) Accountability and the right of appeal. Anyone deleting or suspending profiles must be justified and answerable to the community of users. All deleted and suspended profiles must be reinstated until such a standard is met.
The bulletin board forum here is far from ideal for this sort of conversation, for reasons of utility as well as security. The bulletin board isn�t a very good forum for an ongoing discussion among many participants. Also, if we want to change friendster, we have to be able to discuss and plan strategy freely, away from the prying eyes of the friendster overlords and their technocrats. As such, these are just some preliminary thoughts of mine.
I�ve been told about a Yahoo Group called Friendster Revolution. It would certainly be a preferable forum. I just joined. I�m going to post this screed on there, too. I would appreciate it if any responses intended to be a constructive part of this dialogue could be posted there, instead of sent to me alone. The web address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FriendsterRevolution The email address to subscribe is: FriendsterRevolution-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Sorry for my lack of concision. I�ve done my best.
In love and insurrection
p.s. I was deluged with new friend requests after I posted my last bulletin on this subject. I added a ton of them and rejected many more, but I am not a �friend collector� seeking to maximize my connections. I do have some fakester friends, but they are all things I really like a lot. I want my friend network to be made up of people I really know in some capacity, or fakesters I can�t resist. Please don�t be offended if I reject your add friend request, or delete you. Feel free to send me a personal message, if you like.
p.p.s. Of course, feel free to copy and repost this if you like. I wrote it, it�s mine, and what�s mine is yours. Do as you will. All property, especially intellectual property, is theft.
[from a Friendster Bulletin Board]
Date: July 30, 2003 9:48 PM
Subject: The Fakester Manifesto
Message:
In light of recent developments, and in defense of our right to exist in the form we choose or assume, I hereby scribe this credo.
I. Identity is Provisional
Who we are is whom we choose to be at any given moment, depending on personality, whim, temperament, or subjective need. No other person or organization can abridge that right, as shape-shifting is inherent to human consciousness, and allows us to thrive and survive under greatly differing circumstances by becoming different people as need or desire arises. By assuming the mantle of the Other, it allows us, paradoxixcally, to complete ourselves. Every day is Halloween.
II. All Character is Archetypal, Thus Public
There is no aspect of every person�s personality that is not shared to some degree by all. Carl Jung called these archetypes, and recognized (and did Joseph Campbell and many others) that these traits are universal. Famous people and fictional characters merely magnify facets of our own personalities or fantasies, and these larger-than-life identities are created as much by society at large as by the famous individuals identified with them or the authors who utilized them. Such personalities are iconic and universal, and thus are created on a societal level by all of us. These public identities � very different and separate from private identities � belong to us all, and we are all free to use them and assume them as we wish. The price of fame or notoriety is that an identity, as a kind of public intellectual or emotional shorthand, becomes a form of public property and currency to be freely exchanged in our interactions and conversations. Art and media are forms of public discourse, and therefore are free and open forums for the unimpeded trading of these public identities.
III. Copyright is Irrelevant in the Digital Age
20th century notions of copyright are in reality bounded by 19th century upper-middle-class notions of property in which a thing that is �owned� cannot belong to more than one person at a time. Since this antiquated notion has often ruthlessly extended to human beings, such as slaves, women, and children, it�s only a short sideways step to imagine the ridiculous notion that identity is also property. This concept shortsightedly ignores the concept of community assets, and cannot easily wrap itself around non-material goods like ideas; how can one �own� the public perception of oneself? How the public perceives or internalizes the personality of a famous individual or fictional creation is not necessarily that person�s true character, it is instead a symbolic part of public cultural consciousness, and not �property� in the accepted sense of the word. It is important to note that ideas cannot be copyrighted � only manifestations of ideas � so even copyright law as originally envisioned takes into account the ephemerality and intangibility of concepts. The term �intellectual property� is a kind of logical dead-end, as ideas supposedly generated by individuals are in truth the result of the sum of their exposure to the total ideas of a civilization.
– “Roy Batty”
[pulled from a Friendster Bulletin Board; written by “Roy Batty”]
Date: July 30, 2003 9:43 PM
Subject: fwd: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE FRIENDSTER COMMUNITY AND MANAGEMENT
Message:
The corporate masters at Friendster should be thrilled that they have such a vibrant online community as they now have on their hands. What they forget is that a living community, by definition, has a life of its own.
There are many of us here who play at being an alter-ego, and take the guises of celebrities or fictional characters, and are typically known as �Fakesters.� It is true that we appropriate imagery in theoretical violation of both the Friendster user agreement and copyright law. However, I believe both recent legal developments and legal precedent are on our side.
Three issues come to our defense:
1) PARODY.
Famously, as depicted in the film �The People vs. Larry Flynt,� parody is constitutionally protected free speech. The court�s defining test in that case, as successfully argued by Flynt�s lawyer against Jerry Falwell, was that nobody would ever believe that Falwell had really slept with his mother in an outhouse. In exactly the same way, nobody in their right mind believes for a second that Bj�rk or William Shatner (two of my Friendsters!) are really posting on this network � not to impugn their excellent skills as convincingly whimsical impostors, by the way! By violating our right to freedom of speech via parody, it opens the door to a potential legal challenge. (Anyone got a connection at the EFF who would like to elaborate on this angle?)
2) FAIR USE.
It�s been pretty well established that the age-old practice of Fair Use governs much of what transpires in the digital age. Quoting other authors� material in articles, sampling in music, and the regular referencing of other artists� visual ideas and motifs in mainstream media such as TV and movies occur thousands of times on a daily basis. When we �play� a famous person or character, we are doing exactly the same thing, and paying that person or creator the highest compliment we know. We wear their skin like a costume, and become not them, but postmodern referential versions of these icons blended with our own personalities and individual senses of humor.
3) COMMUNITY STANDARDS.
While the Friendster �berlords may have built the playground, they can�t shoo away the mischievous kids who don�t follow their unrealistic rules. This community is also defined by the individuals who comprise it, not simply by the people who mixed the cement for its sidewalk. They wanted people to visit their little world, and here we are � they can�t just ask us to leave or behave in exactly the way they want us to now that we�re just as responsible as anyone else here for getting the party really rolling. By current legal and ethical standards, Friendster, Inc. is not responsible for its members� behavior, nor should they be in the position of playing cop. Believe me, if somebody here didn�t play fair, or was abusive in any way, we�d report that person to the Principal in a nanosecond. Why? Because we care about this community as much as its builders, and have a very strong idea of community standards � we aren�t just errant scofflaws or out to mock the system (not all of us, anyway � and so what if we are?), but are here for entertainment, amusement, and personal connection � just as Friendster�s builders intended, right?! And damn, do some of these people make me laugh like I haven�t laughed in a long time. And the guys in charge want to STOP that? Are they HIGH?! They can�t buy publicity like the word of mouth this site now has � and it�s precisely because of so many clever, talented Fakesters that Friendster is worth visiting at all.
Deleting the photos and/or entire accounts of Fakesters is going to rudely, terribly backfire against the management of this site, and will ultimately take the entire community, real or parodied, down with it. The rumblings of dissent are already growing, getting louder by the minute. If Friendster wants to see all of the good will and excellent word of mouth it has generated go down in scorching, smoking, very public flames, then they can go right ahead with their little extermination campaign. The Internet is a big place, and we can easily take our party somewhere else � to a site where we are not only tolerated, but enthusiastically embraced.
Please pass the word and help fight the good fight. This is our home, too.
I thank you all, my dear new friends � both real and imaginary.
“Roy Batty”
Replicant and Fakester
Fu@!k Friendster is the latest Village Voice article about Friendster. Although the last one was nothing but positive, this one suggests that all is not well in wonderland, referencing the fakester genocide once again. The article references all of the Gawker blogging as well as pointing to alternative social network sites and Fallen, a graveyard for fallen Friendsters.
Even if he calls me obsessive, Ryan’s posting on Real Life Friendster Power Games is quite entertaining. He considers the impact of Friendster discussions in RL situations where guilt, social banishment and attitude are all critical to indicating prowess wrt Friendster.
The articulated nature of Friendster generates serious political issues around social relationships. Determining where the cutoff is in a social hierarchy is challenging, but one’s decisions around this issue reflect one’s demeanor and presumed self-importance. Depending on the poignance of Friendster in certain groups, hierarchy tension is increased through the power playes regarding Friendster.
[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?