Social Networks seem to be neither
I have spent the last few months trying to get my head around the effects of the new kids in town, the big social networks, the Web 2.0 darlings, the perceived shift of "ownership" of the web from companies to users and how companies relate to all this. My week at the Web 2.0 conference, while not exactly an overwhelming experience, nevertheless seems to have pushed my brain over a steep ridge where the shadows aren't so deep.
If you read this by Nick Carr, you can pick up on the various camps, exagerated as they may be, to prove his point. I mostly agree with what Nick is saying here about MySpace and other high volume social sites. The game is up, it's time to accept the fact that this is a mass media show run by the media companies now. I did my best to stomach my own profile experiment on MySpace and was amazed that people could even think of the connections they made there and the word "friend" in the same sentence. Popularity contest is probably more like it with friend described in only the most cynical, one sided fashion. Still, my own kids at one time were making connections they felt stronger about in LiveJournal and DeviantArt not so many years ago. Today, none of those relationships have survived.
I am probably by my nature more on the side of Esther Dyson described in Nick's post. While at the same Web 2.0 show I had dinner with an old San Francisco designer who like me was around at the very early stages of the web. We reminisced about our heady visions, utopian values and outright excitement that pushed us on at least as much as the steadily rising paychecks. At least the paychecks have been steady. There is another side to the discussion though. It's not just the utopian view vs the crassly commercial view. Viewing MySpace or vendor maintained CRM systems, or LinkedIn as posters of failures in bringing people together into meaningful relationships is a big mistake. I am sure there were some people who may have had those hopes, but the truth is, we have so many defense mechanisms in place to help us discriminate between friends and foes, the tools simply don't have the stuff that could overcome the barriers to real relationships. People have to work at that, overcome fears, reveal themselves, risk something. The social tools actually hinder that because you can remain carefully hidden behind a carefully constructed, mostly anonymous veneer as long as you like. In the end, they can help you *find* people with your unique mix of interests, but after that it's still up to you to make a relationship.
One more thing. When I first read Doc Searls views about how shallow and one sided the "relationships" are as maintained by a company CRM system, I was impressed with the message. But since, I've changed my mind because of my thoughts about social networks in general. I won't EVER want my bank to know about my ski coaching, jazz playing, kids names, dog and so on. I want to preserve the feeling that my relationship with my bank is just business, carefully cordoned off. I don't want to "make love" to the ATM or teller. And please don't ask me to remember the details that the bank is interested in. I'm happy with them taking care of all that in their CRM system or however they want to do it. I'd be happy if I could maintain my password and possibly my address information in the CardSpace style that MS' Kim Cameron is working on.
I heard that Google will allow me to download my search history at some point in the future. Yep, those are interesting facts about me, but knowing those facts will not make you know me. We need a new name to replace relationship in these discussions. Something more like neighbor and less like family or friend.