Distinct social networks
With the number of people piling into Facebook and Twitter these days it is getting tougher to manage who is a friend, who isn't and how you define either. I still get jumpy about people who I don't know being able to call me a friend but am happy to call people who I only know online as friends - sometimes very good ones. At the moment I manage Linkedin and Facebook pretty strictly such that Linkedin is primarily business contacts and Facebook is people I actuall know - either business or otherwise. In Twitter I am more chilled about the definitions.
I think we have to loose up the "friends" definition. After all, our connection circles are far bigger today than they were at the time of our parents.
Posted by: Bruno Figueiredo | April 26, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Friends don't send spam to friends.
Posted by: Bernie Goldbach | April 26, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Maybe we need to move towards just calling contacts "contacts", and having some smarter (in part personal, in part shared => tag-like) way of "organising" our contacts.
Been wanting to blog about this for ages, actually... need to do it soon.
Posted by: Stephanie Booth | April 26, 2007 at 11:43 AM
It doesn't help matters that 'friends' has become so prevalent a term that anything more specific like 'acquaintance' and 'contact' seems comparatively cold, impersonal, and almost rude!
I always worry that with online relationships we often forget how much of those contacts and links we have are supported by massive amounts of supposition and assumption- we have evolved to enjoy rich multisensory contacts with other people, with signs and signifiers in many dimensions. when we squeeze relationships through the funnel of online text etc so much of that gets stripped off, but we mentally, unconciously, rebuild the whole person based on our assumptions. Reading this you may 'hear' a certain tone of voice, unconciously 'see' me raise an eyebrow, or cross my arms defensively. All of those stimuli would inform a face to face dialogue of we were having one- but we are not. To a large degree I, the writer of this piece, exist largely in your imagination. You have ascribed my motivations and attitude, not me.
So..? So be careful. You may be mistaken. If we've met before, and spoken of such matters before, then you may well have a good idea about what I was 'like' as I wrote this. If not, you'll be flying blind, and you're imagination will be filling the gaps.
Online friends are, to a large extent, imaginary friends.
Posted by: ant | April 26, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Ah so now I know it's unlikely you will allow me to be a friend in Facebook!
Personally I enjoy the randomness of Twitter and Facebook and the people I communicate with don't expect anything of me, nor I of them.
After a while, I feel I have a fair idea of what the people on Twitter are like because of what they say. Maybe having only 140 characters leaves less room for subterfuge!PS We do have several "friends" in common.
Posted by: Vivdora | April 26, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I agree Vivdora about the randomness in Twitter and I too enjoy that but with Facebook and Linkedin I feel the network I create is more public and therefore carries some sort of significance to others. It is also the language - the fact that Facebook asks you to verify that someone is a friend feels wrong if you have never heard of them before!
Ant I disagree totally about online friends being imaginary friends. You are such a Luddite!
;-)
Posted by: Euan Semple | April 26, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Hmm, wondering if you really did petulantly stamp your foot then, or did I just imagine it?
:o)
Posted by: ant | April 26, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Who makes the assertion? I say I know you know. You say you know me. If we both say that, perhaps we're friends. Otherwise we're actually stalkers/followers.
Posted by: Julian Bond | April 26, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Most of the comments so far have bene about what we mean by "friend" but I think the more interesting aspect is how ppl use the various social networks. I'm on Facebook, LinkenIn, MySpace, MyBlogLog, WAYN, etc. etc. and my use of each of them has evolved over time so, for example, I now only realy use MySpace for keeping in touch with my favourite bands and writers and I tend to communicate with friends, i.e. people I know and like, via our blogs.
Posted by: Matthew Rees | April 26, 2007 at 01:22 PM
The XFN microformat has a good take on this, it still doesn't solve the your my friend, but you think I'm only a contact issue. It describes relationships in richer terms, eg friendship, professional, geographic and whether you've met the person.
It is a pity that the majority of social network sites have reduced this to a two level friendship rating.
Posted by: Gavin Bell | April 26, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Hi Euan. I'm going to idiotify (new word) myself by posting this-- but, do (middle-age) adults really use Facebook? I always thought it was a teenage thing. I use LinkedIn, but why Facebook for our generation? How do you find it useful? Thanks!
Posted by: Susan Scrupski | April 27, 2007 at 01:57 AM
I am less worried about you "idiotifying" yourself than I am about me being considered "a middle aged adult"!
There are loads of my friends in Facebook and it is good at helping us be social. You can keep away from the teenagers quite easily.
Posted by: Euan Semple | April 27, 2007 at 07:05 AM
Okay, Euan. I'm going to open a Facebook account and you will be my first youthful, yet non-teenager friend. ;-)
Posted by: Susan Scrupski | April 27, 2007 at 01:10 PM