the new communities
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.”)
faceted identity != multiple personas
At FooCamp, i realized that many people have been misreading my pleas for contextualization of identity presentation. I have regularly argued that people facet their identity and present different aspects given the context. Although i’ve argued against the multiple personality approach that emerged in the 1980s’ cyberculture research, my statements keep getting re-read as promoting multiple personas.
The easiest way to talk about how people facet their identity is by talking about dualisms. Unfortunately, this segmentation creates confusion. It also creates the assumption that people are always hiding one aspect of their identity from groups of people. Additionally, this approach seems to indicate that only a small fraction of the population reads context into their identity presentation.
In fact, we all read context into our presentation of self. The vocabulary choices you make are dependent on the audience you are speaking with. You speak to your child differently than you speak to your lover; you use different vocabulary when talking to someone with shared expertise than you do to someone whose doesn’t know the terms common in your field. Depending on shared history, you provide a different level of background information. Depending on perceived shared interests, you magnify your favorite interests differently. We constantly alter what we are presenting depending on to whom and in what context. This is not about deception; this is about contextualization.
When i speak of faceting one’s identity, i am not speaking of the ability to explicitly segment a manageable number of identity components; i’m talking about the ability to constantly adjust what is being presented, to whom, and in what context. Without this ability, people rely on the least common denominator. (This is why the majority of personal webpages out there read like a resume – the aspect of one’s identity that one is most readily comfortable sharing with everyone.)
a smile will stop a suicide
From a suicide note: “I’m going to walk to the bridge. If one person smiles at me on the way, I will not jump.” The guy jumped.
There’s something utterly intriguing about leaving one’s fate to the probability of society outperforming its stereotype.
FooCamp
It’s been a long time since i had the opportunity to hang out with a large collection of geeks. I used to love the ridiculous shit that emerged in hacker culture. This weekend, i went and played at FooCamp – Tim O’Reilly’s collection of geeks. It was such silly fun (think water-bottle rockets).
Basically, it was an opportunity for geeks to gather and share thoughts and ideas. There was a fire on Friday nite where we stood drinking and talking, playing with good geek toys (like the Seque and this cute little robot). On Saturday, groups of folk met to discuss different topics of interest. Of course, i went to the discussion on social software. I can’t say anything was (re)solved, but it was really fascinating for me to hear the geek perspective on social issues. ::sigh:: Such a disconnect between average folks and geeks, which is utterly frustrating.
One great thing came out of that meeting – i got to meet Scott McCloud. My dear friend Henry adores Scott so i was quite delighted to get to sit down and talk with him for a few hours. He is such a lovable guy and reminds me of Henry in that he’s brilliant, but quiet, geeky, but fascinated by social culture.
Unfortunately, i had to leave after only a day (to go to Ubicomp), but i’m still quite delighted that i got to spend a day amidst the geek culture that framed my collegiate years.
genevieve in the BBC
Genevieve’s fantastic findings from her work in Asia are partially chronicled in the BBC.
friendster in the metro
I’ve gotten used to reading my quotes out of context (or otherwise made-up), but i was a bit dismayed at reading my blog quotes taken out of context and then theoretically responded to in a way that appears utterly ficticious.
In the Metro, parts of my blog are quoted concerning the longevity of Friendster. In those quotes, i was addressing my suspicion that Friendster draws people in because of their curiousity, but that it cannot sustain participation that way. Because the majority of users are not looking for a date, dating cannot be the long term model for Friendster. If they don’t switch that perspective, they won’t survive. Of course, that also implies that if they do switch focus, they will answer my concerns. Jonathan’s supposed counter does not contradict anything that i say or believe, even though it’s constructed that way. In fact, i’m glad to hear that he’s publicly considering other uses of the network than dating (as had been his public mantra for so long). And i *know* that users come and stay on for many months, but not infinitely; they do lose interest unless there’s another spark of curiousity, excitement, energy.
What i find the most disturbing is this quote by Jonathan: “Whoever this [danah boyd] person is, she has no access to our data. But everyone has their theories about stuff, I guess.”
There is no doubt that i have no access to Friendster’s data; i’ve never claimed otherwise. I simply have access to hundreds of surveys and other interactions with users. And i simply have access to the profiles of about 1M subscribers. But regardless, there’s no way that i believe that Jonathan feigned ignorance of my existence. Thus, i have to call into question the whole interview and specifically that segment of the article. I certainly wasn’t interviewed, only quotes from my blog. What was Jonathan really asked?
Very weird.
cell phone explosion
My primary cell phone is having a conniption fit and may not be playing during my tour-de-conferences. If you are planning on catching up with me at FooCamp / Ubicomp / AoIR, please drop me an email so that i can give you my temporary number.
Also, if you’re going to be at those places and i didn’t know it, please let me know! I’d love to meet up with folks since i’ve been so bogged down with school lately!
contextualizing a social network website
[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.)
separating SF from NY
A note on a friend of mine’s blog got me thinking. She wrote, “i am in new york now, where people are about Doing, rather than Being, as seems to be the case in san francisco.”
I know that she’s right. This is a constant battle for me because i came to SF to do and yet most of my friends are practicing being. Of course, perhaps that’s precisely why i like SF. I feel a constant state to rebel against whatever is the norm in a given location. If people are being in SF, no wonder i’m hyper-doing. Hell, my vegetarianism has gone completely out of the door in SF; i’ve stopped doing yoga; i have little tolerance for the new agey shit (even though i kinda adored it in Boston). I wonder how conservative i’ll get here…
At least i know that i’ll never get conservative enough to appreciate the circus that just abrupted here yesterday. And if one more person makes an Ahhhnold joke, i’ll kill them. (Hmm… i shouldn’t really not develop violent instincts in SF… that would be bad.)