|
|
Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008, 11:08 am
The Local Pub and the Bazaar: the demise of the concept of "friend" in the online world.
Metaphors for online interaction are popular these days, and there's a reason for that. So let's explore some of the history, analogies and fallacies of online interaction. The metaphor hype quite possibly all started when ESR wrote his landmark essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Which by the way, I never really grasped. He compares "building a cathedral" with "getting your ideas in a bazaar-like setting", so the two nouns in the essay's title don't even serve the same semantic function. He's not building an actual bazaar, nor is he advocating a Catholic-type oligarchy for project management. But I digress. These days, social networking sites have their own broken metaphors. Myspace has a "wall" where -- I can only assume-- friends can deface your portal with graffiti. Livejournal has distorted the concept of " friend" to now mean "acquaintance". (the difference? an acquaintance won't mind if you ignore them for a while, a friend will.) This fallacy that, online, you must always include everyone you know, and everyone they know, into every social activity, has become pervasive in online social networking. Let's re-use a poor metaphor and call this the "bazaar"-style of online socializing: You walk around, and simply chat with everyone you know and don't know, about everything and anything. And everyone thinks that this is perfectly acceptable. Well, for me this is not acceptable. In real life, I distinguish between best friends, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. These four groups serve four distinct purposes in my life, so I believe there should be four distinct analogies in the online world. Yes, to meet strangers, please go "bazaar": join #efnet on EFnet, or set your ICQ to "free for chat" (yeah, I'm old-school). For acquaintances, let them twitter away or spam you on your Livejournal friendslist. But please, reserve a seperate place in your online life for actual friends. This brings me to the "local pub"-style of online interaction. When I'm at my local bar, I have beers with friends at a seperate table for just us, opening up about subjects I might not want to talk about in public. Now imagine how you would feel if every time you say something, someone from the next table would lean back, join your conversation, voice their opinion, and jot down everything you said on a notepad. It doesn't even matter whether that person is an acquaintance or a total stranger, this is not accepted in real life and should be unacceptable in the online world as well. I specifically opted to sit at a table with a certain group of people, friends. And nobody else. It is very important to me to have an online analogy for "friends", where I can feel secure to say whatever I want, without the risk of unwanted people eavesdropping, keeping logs, or chiming in with opinions I didn't ask for. Millions of years of human development have created the "best friends / friends / acquaintances / stranger" hierarchy, and there is no reason to reinvent a different social structure online. The reason why we have metaphors for online social interaction is precisely because we do have an intrinsic need for the online world to reflect real life. So as an exercise, evaluate your own online interactions, what target group (best friend/friend/acquaintance/stranger) they represent, which target you'd want it to represent, and whether you are OK with any discrepancies. And if you're not OK, speak up. For your own health. Oh, and my online analogy for "best friends"? For my money, there is no replacement for actually turning off your monitor, blackberry or iPhone, getting out of your house and simply drinking a real beer with them at your favorite pub. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 05:14 pm (UTC)
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) eliset
I differentiate between friends and acquaintances on LJ by how much they can read - eg, which friends groups they're in. I have an individual friends group for all of my best friends, as well as one for common groups of good friends. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 05:31 pm (UTC)
equiraptor
But... but... beer is icky! :) Wed, Feb. 6th, 2008 12:24 am (UTC)
captspastic
What in heavens name is WRONG with you? Wed, Feb. 6th, 2008 12:56 am (UTC)
equiraptor
Rheumatoid Arthritis. Thanks for asking. What's that got to do with icky beer, you ask? Methotrexate"Alcohol significantly increases the risk for liver damage while taking methotrexate, so alcohol intake should be eliminated or minimized to no more than two drinks per month." Wed, Feb. 6th, 2008 02:23 am (UTC)
captspastic
Whoa! I was just kidding around. Nothing serious. Just the way you had it there, made it appear as though you were singling beer by itself out, not alcohol. And since there was substantial amount of beer talk in the thread, was just having some fun. Wed, Feb. 6th, 2008 02:27 am (UTC)
equiraptor
I meant that with a humorous tone, as well. While it's 100% true, some things can be joked about, as well. I actually do dislike beer, as well as not really being able to drink it. But I suspect that's at least in part due to the fact that I can't drink it, and thus can't acquire a taste for it. Wine's pretty icky, too. Mixed drinks are frequently yummy, what few sips I take. :) Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 05:53 pm (UTC)
goulo
Although I think what you say makes sense overall (and I agree with what I take to be your core point, namely that online connections are no substitute for real life connections), I would pick a few nits (me being me): I think the problem with LJ friends is not so much a "degree of friendship" thing as that LJ foolishly conflated two different concepts into one word: 1. People I like (whether or not I want to read their blog). 2. People whose blogs I want to read (whether or not I like them). "When I'm at my local bar, I have beers with friends at a seperate table for just us, opening up about subjects I might not want to talk about in public." I hate to break it to you, but when you're at your local bar, you are in public. :) Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 06:55 pm (UTC)
ivo
I hate to break it to you, but when you're at your local bar, you are in public. :)I was hoping someone would comment on that. Yes, it is a public place, yet you have an expectation of privacy when you sit on your own table. That's the beauty of these types of public places. Similarly, I'm not advocating an IRC channel with NickServ authentication, channel keys, or moderation. I'm advocating that people go by widely-accepted rules of public behavior even while online. Wed, Feb. 6th, 2008 12:10 am (UTC)
_fool
frankly, i love it when strangers bring themselves into my conversation and had a really exquisite date last night with a girl who sat at my table at a bar randomly, and proceeded to be very friendly. i was there to see the music (and so was she) but we talked a lot in the breaks and afterwards she asked for my phone number and here we are. i love random unplanned encounters that i could never anticipate or seek. i love when random people find me. sure, sometimes it's an ass and we have to leave them, but almost everyone is interesting in their own way, and in a bar it's far less intrusive than say at the office where you're stuck seeing them again and again whether or not you want to. i also *do* invite practically everyone i know to do stuff. i like nearly all the people i know--there are only a couple of exceptions (whom i actually left off my friends list on here, since i like everyone whom i friend and want to spend time with them). now, i don't want to *live with* everyone i know, or see them every day or at everything i do--but people are pretty good at self-selecting things they have fun with and a wide range of interests filters the attendance list. sure, it's a bitch to be a party of 20 on friday night with no reservations, as your fallacy author (who has some good points) says, but i don't think it's inherently evil to be like that a lot of the time. i am also quite willing to accept that some people don't like things that way and i won't force them to do anything. if you're agoraphobic, i'm happy to make more intimate plans with you. you'll have to drive that, though, because my style is accepting and unconcerned about other peoples' interpersonal conflicts--if i invite you and an ex to my party, it's because i like you both, and would like to see you both. if you're too immature to be in eachother's presence (nobody is forcing you to talk or make eye contact or even be in the same room!) then you need to take precautions to make sure both of you don't show up--that's not my problem and i don't intend to take part in it. fortunately, i don't mind being excluded, and i don't feel the urge to invite everyone i know to someone *else's* event, so you're safe enough with me as a friend. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 09:07 pm (UTC)
ghewgill
Livejournal also conflates a third concept: 3. People who I allow to read my friends-only posts. This is almost completely orthogonal to the first two and is the cause for a lot of confusion. I recall a few years ago there was an effort to change the terminology used in LJ to try to separate these concepts, but apparently it hasn't gone anywhere. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 10:52 pm (UTC)
thomasj
This can be somewhat handled by using custom groups - you can build groups for 'best friends', 'cars people', 'cat people' and post your entries appropriately. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 07:01 pm (UTC)
nerfman
While I get the gist of what you're saying, your analogy of the online pub is fundamentally flawed. If what you want is a private conversation, you should be in a private place.
In fact, one of the main reasons to go out in public is to see and interact with other people. This is the purpose a local pub serves. If, on the other hand, you're that group
In fact, it's one of the nice parts about a local pub. People start talking about something you're interested in and you jump in with their conversation (and vice versa). Ive made some very good friends due to the ease of starting conversation (probably helped by evening libations).
I can't imagine anything more anti-social and against the tens of thousands of years of human development than being in public and being upset when someone interacts with you. Honestly, this is one of the things that's really wrong with society today. People sit in their houses alone or in their cars alone and don't have human interaction with strangers/acquaintances. This is what leads to things like road rage. We need to be more interactive, not less. Putting up arbitrary walls in random places in your life makes it easy to forget we're all supposed to be getting along here.
In fact, the best part of a local pub is you get to interact with all four types of people you describe, and they with you. If you want privacy, go somewhere private. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 07:27 pm (UTC)
ivo
See, I think my analogy is right on. First, there's a difference between a college-age shot bar where you want to pick up a one-night-stand, and a friendly neighborhood bar. And while new interactions might be the primary goal of a college-age shot bar, it's only secondary at your local pub. Yes, sure, people might every now and then come up to you and start interacting. I know that and I like that. But there are subtle socially accepted behaviors that dictate how and when these new interactions take place. Online, this behavior is often not present because people don't understand the type of social interaction they are actually in. How would you feel if that person starts assuming he can be part of your crowd? The beauty of the pub analogy is that you indeed can have a semi-private conversation with friends in a public setting, where you can decide (but are not obligated to!!) whether to broaden your circle with new friends. I'm not trying to say that you should sit in your house alone or in your car. In my post I'm advocating to live your social life to its fullest, in real life and online, as long as you understand the accepted behavior underlying the venue. Thu, Feb. 7th, 2008 09:35 pm (UTC)
nerfman: To continue the analogy...
I guess the proper way of handling the situation in the bar would be to run off and write vague things about them in the men's room?
Being passive aggressive doesn't get you very far in the respect department. Mon, Mar. 17th, 2008 08:23 pm (UTC)
silona
ah but what about in japan - where you are constantly bombarded by the presence of people and "public" is something that cannot be avoided. What makes something a "private" space? absence of people? or the setting of expectations? I would say that when I go to a swanky restaurant I have the expectation that a random person isn't going to interrupt my date. What if you are on the subway? how is that different than riding in a car with your friend that you want to talk to? Conflict really is about differing expectations here and online and the lack of definitions being appropriately set. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC)
ghewgill
One of the things I've found disappointing about all the "social networks" so far is the inability to declare the strength of a friend-type relationship. Before I started playing with Facebook, I had heard that it was different from all the others because it allowed you to declare what sort of edge you wanted to use to connect to neighbouring nodes. As it turns out, while it does let you declare how you met somebody, that doesn't translate into any kind of strength. The "what are my friends doing" page still gives you all the same kinds of info from the whole stack - best friends all the way down to the kid who bullied you back in primary school (well, assuming you've set up such a connection). brad has been doing a bunch of work with this stuff, but even his stuff doesn't talk about strength of edges (only public/private). Maybe I should try to push this with him. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 10:43 pm (UTC)
goulo
The "social network" sites seem inane to me (when their primary purpose is simply to model who knows who). I'm not sure exactly what you want out of the "strength" of the relationships, but couchsurfing.com has a bit of that concept (though they probably don't use the information as you are envisioning). For each friend/connection, you indicate: * whether you've met in person or not * type of friendship from the set {Haven't met yet, Acquaintance, CouchSurfing friend, Friend, Good Friend, Close Friend, Best Friend} * date you met * how you met from a large set of options * how well you know the person from a range of 7 options * how well you feel the person knows you from a range of 7 options * how well you trust the person from a range of 5 options (plus don't know them well enough to decide) Wed, Feb. 6th, 2008 12:15 am (UTC)
_fool
there is a lot of interesting work to be done on this topic (imho). if you haven't read doctorow's down and out in the magic kingdom, i think it would be worthwhile considering your interest in what i'd call quasi-objective reputation representation. i think his concept of "whuffie" is really a powerful one and hope to someday live in a society where karma is an active process. actually that kind of deviated from what you were talking about maybe, but it seemed connected enough to bring up. i do hope social networking sites evolve in that direction myself--they would be far more useful to me, too. |
