Whenever i read about or hear about the Friendster/Fakester Revolution, i can’t help but think back to Kate Bornstein’s “Nearly Roadkill”.

For those who haven’t read it, it’s the story of a point in time where the Internet is controlled by corporations who serve the needs of the government. Outraged at having to constantly identify themselves online, a group of netizens gather to revolt. Of course, this is all told through a fun erotic story between two characters who refuse to reveal their gender, instigating an FBI search.

Check out Pretendster, a site that generates and manages Pretendsters on Friendster.

In a conversation today, i learned a new word/concept that intrigues me, but i still don’t fully grasp…. dtournement. It seems to be somehow related to parody… deconstruction… creative destruction and intertwined with the Situationists and Culture Jamming.

“It was Guy Debord and the Situationists, the muses and theorists of the theatrical student uprising of Paris, May 1968, who first articulated the power of a simple d[acute{e}]tournement, defined as an image, message or artifact lifted out of its context to create a new meaning.”

Something to figure out when i’m breathing again…

A community of people connected via their participation on Metafilter are discussing the notions of community on Friendster and Tribe, all in the process of one of them trying to convince others that Tribe has features that will help them connect. [Oh, and then make references to bowling… tehehe.]

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.

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.

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.

Continue reading →

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.

Roy Hornsby is interested in understanding how people use blogs. Feel free to give him feedback through his survey