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.

Continue reading →

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?

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?

Continue reading →