I read this article about social networking entering the enterprise and i couldn’t help but hold my head in dismay.

I love social networks. They are a part of all of our daily lives and i’m in awe of the sociologists who have dedicated themselves for so many years to figure out how people negotiate them. But as more and more technologists take on the social networks meme, they continue to mutate the concept and thus destroy much of the underlying theory that relies on certain fundamental ideas about interaction.

For me, this creates a linguistic-conceptual nightmare. With every meme that emerges in the tech world, i’m amazed at how much gets attached simultaneously to one concept or phrase. Identity, blogging, social networks… My auto-reaction is to constantly and continuously unpack what people _mean_ when they use these terms. This has become quite challenging lately because the reason people collide them in their heads is to make metaphors work. I never realized how important these metaphors are to people’s ability to construct technology.

The first two of my examples are easier than social networks. As a term, identity is often used to mean authentication. Sometimes, it is meant to mean social stature; sometimes, reputation; sometimes, the more classic psychological notions of one’s id/entity. Blogging has come to represent people who blog, people who journal, people are embedded in the blogging culture (and lately, i’ve watched it get further extended to discuss anyone who updates a site regularly). [One thing that continues to amaze me as i meet self-described ‘bloggers’ is how often they don’t realize that most people’s goals in blogging are vastly different than their own…]

Social networks are harder to tease apart because it’s the framework that’s different, yet there is an expectation that the classic theories apply. Until new theories are developed to address the digital social network tools, it’s quite a bit harder to unpack this concept, to discuss why it’s different online than off. Of course, that’s my job….

It’s been a while since i flew on an almost empty airplane. The kind flight attendants told me that there were only 35 passengers in coach (and it was one of those planes with 7 seats per row). The business class folks were crammed compared to us in sardine class.

So, Joi wins… plane travel is much better with the proper equipment. The little Shure earphones (while still not entirely fitting my small ears) made the baby non-existent (as well as the flight attendants who were awefully confused by my inability to hear them as they hovered above). IMing on the toy up until takeoff felt much less offensive than my normal chatter-box approach to the airport. And love to the Mac with an extra battery. So, i lounged, read 1.5 books, listened to music and felt yummy getting off the plane, where i rented a car and drove for 4 hours revelling in the wonderfulness of I-95 (with new pavement). Of course, i got out at my usual Exit 40 CT stop (24 hour Wendy’s) only to discover that ice still exists on the east coast and i still always find it and slip. Hrmpft.

It’s funny… i’m having complete deja-vu. I’m back on the east coast, touring between family and friends in the middle of winter, driving up and down the coast and even my dear friend who through my goodbye party last year is hosting a potluck this year. Ah, nostalgia.

Ryan (F.I.S.T.) did some more data crunching for me based on his network.

I will analyze them with greater detail later, but in short, 8% of Ryan’s Friendster network identifies as queer (mind you, not everyone identifies because of it having to do with being in a relationship). 13.3% of Ryan’s Friendster network is from Philippines. Anyhow, check out the numbers. Fun fun.

Continue reading →

Steven Johnson just wrote an interesting article in the NYTimes that is quite relevant to my latest commentary on Vannevar Bush, the Memex and trails.

Continue reading →

Here’s a fun little NYTimes commentary on the emergence of social networks as a hot topic.

Continue reading →

I spent a lovely weekend offline. While i was ecstatic to take a genuine break from my email disaster, i was quite humored to listen to friends who were less than thrilled to be offline – the twitches started early on. No wifi, no high speed, no cell phone coverage…

Then, upon going back to my email disaster, another group of friends told me about WiFi-SM. It’s a device that sends electric impulses every time the news reports on violence and anger around the world. Little reminders to make you feel the global pain.

Somehow, i suspect that my friends who twitch from being offline would love these little connections to their blog world… This would definitely be the way to create a group of SM boys…. ::giggle::

As i swooned earlier, Amazon’s decision to allow text-based search was brilliant. Unfortunately, not all publishers have agreed.

Currently, i am sitting amidst 15 (yes, i counted) anthropology, rhetoric and philosophy books. I own these books; i have read large chunks of these books, underlining points that were relevant then. But here i am, trying to construct a meaningful response to whether or not culture is an ensemble of texts (recursively), frustrated. Why am i frustrated? I am frustrated because i _know_ that the tool to find the various quotes floating in my head to support my argument exists, but that publishers have prohibited it. (A moment of silence for ignorance is bliss.)

Here’s what i propose.

Amazon, you know what books i’ve bought, or at least a large chunk of them. You currently use this to successfully incite me to buy more books. Why not let me search _my_ books, regardless of the publisher’s opinion?

One might ask why Amazon would want to do this. Silly, silly. This would motivate me to buy ALL of my books from Amazon, particularly those dense theoretical texts that are dreadfully indexed.

One might ask why publishers would want to do this. Why? Because i’m now keeping tabs of which publishers are cruel and am far more incented to buy books when i know that i can search them. This actually affected my decision between two anthologies last week.

The biggest uproar over Amazon’s decision is one of copyright fear. Fine. I understand if a publisher is worried that the searchability of certain types of texts might discourage someone from buying the book, but in the purchasing of my books, i already have permission to the copyright. Now, i simply want easier access. Trust me, folks, if you can give me ‘grep’ on my books, i’ll never switch to a digital format. The smell of paper is just too enticing.

::sigh:: Because of Basic Books and The University of Chicago Press, i’m back to screaming ‘grep’ at Geertz and Levi-Strauss. This could be a lot easier…