I’m With Stupid: How Having Friends Might Be the Key to Both Privacy and Identity is a great article by Robert X. Cringely. In it, he addresses what the key questions are when we talk about privacy and identity. He teases apart the difference between “is this accurate data” and “are you who you say you are.” He addresses both extremists. And finally, he suggests how spam and other privacy issues might be addressed through a friends of friend network. A good read!

Annalee Newitz’s latest “Techsploitation” addresses reality RPG (role-playing-games) with a funny address to Tribe.net:

Yet another kind of reality RPG is Tribe.net, an uncensored online community that resembles Friendster in almost every way except for the fact that there is no autocratic dictator named Jonathan Abrams running the thing and deleting the accounts of people who freak him out. At Tribe.net you log in and create an identity for yourself, complete with as much or as little real information as you like. You can be an entirely fictional creation, complete with fake photos, or you can document your every little personality quirk, from a love of data mining to a predilection for farting quietly in movie theaters. The game of Tribe, such as it is, is to accumulate as many friends and tribal affiliations as you can. The more often you log in and post messages to tribe discussion boards, the more friends you’ll get and the more satisfied you’ll be. It’s like creating a group of Sims characters. “You” watch “yourself” moving around in a social space, and “you” interact with a bunch of other “people” in “rooms.”

Who are all these people on Tribe anyway? As if I were some wide-eyed social critic from the late 1980s, I find myself discovering once again that people are different online than they are in person. Shy people are eloquent. Sexy people are boring. I have two busy friends, whose presence I often miss in real life, whom I now get to see nearly everyday on Tribe.

“Wow, Jason and Liz are so cool!” I think as I read their Tribe posts. “I wish they existed in real life!” And then I realize they do exist; I saw them last year at a party, and they are indeed as funny and smart as their “selves” on Tribe.

Am I confused or just happy to see them? Am I going to the store or is this just a game? I’ll have to decide.

(Bolding for the sentence that humored me the most)

eMode just launched Tickle publicly (YASNS). Read more at CNet

Here’s an article on the business side of “the new communities” sites. And here’s one telling us that viral communities are back. (An example quote from the former: “models like Friendster, Ryze and Deanlink are milestones on the road to what could be the most powerful online marketing model yet.”)

[posted to Many-to-Many]

Recently, i’ve heard people moan about having to maintain multiple profiles and social networks on the myriad of YASNS. I totally understand the hassle. In real life, i seem to do fine with one faceted social network and i only have on identity, right?

Unfortunately, the problem is that the sites actually play a significant role in shaping what we present. The clearest separation is between Friendster and LinkedIn. When people have accounts on both, they tend to put forward their goofy side on Friendster and their professional side on LinkedIn. Plus, while you may be able to recommend your party buddy as a date, could you properly recommend her in a work context? The sites provide the context so as to encourage a fracturing of the social network and identity presentation.

This is not identical to our offline behavior. In RL, we own our identity; we live it; it is who we are, not some articulated presentation of self maintained by a third party. Thus, the context shifts as our interaction shifts. But online we turn Goffman on his head. The context is stable; each site has a clear look, feel and purpose. Thus, we articulate and give up ownership of a constructed snapshot of our identity to each given site. We choose the contexts based on where our identity fits.

By restructuring the context-driven identity presentation model, we create new dilemmas. Do we really want to collapse the different networks? To do so would mean a collapse of contexts. Isn’t this fundamentally the concern? Each site is trying to make its niche by targeting a specific population with specific contextualized needs.

Of course, in my ideal world, we want to restructure these social networks to more closely resemble the offline behavior. Personal ownership of one’s social network with properly faceted social networks and presentations of self. (Note to FOAF folks: build in faceting, please.)

Will You Buy a Car From This Man? is a new Wired article about Tribe.

Cash from contacts is a BBC article that discusses LinkedIn’s model of letting the have nots have access to the haves.

Continue reading →

Abe’s latest reflections on Friendster are fantastic. He iconifies Jonathan as an idiot savant, accidentally stumbling on brilliance.

[Side note: the notion of Friendster as the product of an idiot savant makes me deliciously happy as my dear friend used to pound a mantra in my head during college: don’t attribute to maliciousness what you can attribute to stupidity. Perhaps a rephrasing is due… Don’t attribute to brilliance what you can attribute to luck.]

In his entry, Abe argues that Friendster’s success is going to be hard to top, that its growth must be analyzed and that much of it can be attributed to Friendster’s simple no-nonsense style. He does directly attack my point about Friendster fading, which makes me think that i need to readdress it since i still believe in it, but also believe in what he is saying.

The problem with Friendster (in its current incarnation) is that it has little motivation for people to return, manage their network or otherwise keep coming back after the fun wears off. Unless Friendster figures out how to address these problems, it will fade. To do so, Friendster needs to evolve beyond a dating-only model, which seems unlikely. That is why i see Friendster as fading and others emerging. Of course, an alternate course would be that Friendster figures out that it cannot squeeze a square peg into a round hole and adjust its model. Somehow, the savant part of Abe’s conception is dropped here.

I *definitely* agree that conversion is dreadfully impossible. But i also believe that conversion implies that the best model is to maintain an articulated network. I think that’s going to continue to be problematic and i think that the next evolution of these networks will have to address that head-on. That said, i also know that the dating model does not appeal to everyone and that there is an age cut-off on Friendster that allows for a larger market than Friendster currently addresses. I definitely think Friendster will be around in a year, but i don’t think it will be the same tool. I think that it will be a dating site with limited appeal and a lot of folks who had “been there, done that.”

Of course, i’m speculating like the next person and will enjoy being proven wrong.

Geekbox (an early user of Tribe.net) blogs about how Tribe.net is focusing on meeting the needs and interests of users. He addresses various features and comments on how creating Tribes addresses some of the weaknesses of articulated networks.

In The Network is the Market, Ross Mayfield argues for the value of reputation and networks when engaging in economic transactions. In his discussion, he evaluates Tribe.net as a means of addressing this in the digital domain.