Class Segregation on the Internet?

[Woodie]

Take a read over here

 

It seems to apply equally well if you considered bmwst vs. AdvRider.

 

[DavidEBSmith]

Kaitlyn (14, Georgia): Facebook is for old people.

 

[Tony_K]

Personally my social networking begins and ends on this board.

 

My favorite line in the movie 'Funny People' involved a myspace and facebook rivalry.

 

"F**k Facebook in the FACE!"

 

Sophomoric yet apropo, in my opinion, for the entire social networking phenom.

[Dave McReynolds]

The thing I wonder about, is why it bothers people, or why they worry about whether people choose to associate with others whom they perceive to be in their same "class?"

 

The reasons people choose to associate with one another are probably as varied as there are different personalities. Some people might try to fit into a particular class because it makes them feel superior to people in another class. I would guess that most people stumble into a particular class because that's where they feel most comfortable, or least awkward. It's just a defining characteristic of humans that we form groups based on personality differences rather than all walking in a line like ants.

 

Given that if we just let nature take its course, we will end up in groups of more-or-less like minded people, the question is, should we go out of our way to associate with a more diverse group of people? What does "should" imply? Does it mean we will be be on higher moral ground if we do? That we will be happier? That we will learn more? Be more secure in our own personalities?

 

I live in one of the most diverse states in the nation, racially and culturally. I like it that way, and it would be a negative in my mind (maybe not a deciding negative, but a mark on the negative side of the ledger) if I were considering a move to a less diverse place than California. In the course of the day, I associate with as much of this diversity as a CPA is likely to encounter in business and personal interactions with other people. Which leaves a lot of this diversity out, both at the high end, where people have no desire to interact with a CPA, and have hired minions to do that and do their shopping for them, and at the low end, because I don't spend much time hanging around bus stations. But when it comes to close association with my friends, it's more likely to be like last night, when I went over to the home of friends I've known more than 30 years, and met other friends there I've also known for about as long.

 

I guess when I hear that someone is concerned that the internet is becomming statified socially, my response would be along the lines of "And is the Pope still Catholic?"

[David]

Saw this yesterday on Despair.com and thought it was hilarious:

 

[upflying]

I have never logged on to Myspace, Twitter or Facebook. I have no idea what a blog is. Don't care about them, don't want to know about them, don't have time to learn about them. I have managed to live almost 56 years without them and I don't plan to change now.

[Selden]

I'm probably going to ramble. I had to doublecheck the date of Danah Boyd's talk, because the Facebook = U vs Myspace = Non-U debate has been going on for some time. I have heard Danah at conferences and videoconferences, and nothing she has ever said has convinced me that she actually knows what she is talking about, or is capable of thinking beyond a very superficial level.

 

This dynamic was furthered by the press, an institution that stems from privilege and tends to reflect the lives of a more privileged class of people.

An institution that stems from privilege??? If you want an institution that stems from privilege, try the internet -- if you don't have the $$ to connect, you are effectively frozen out.

 

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed.

Why should we be truly alarmed? People are people, and the internet hasn't changed that basic fact. If anything, the interent is serving as an amplifier of pre-conceived ideas, since it's so easy to find something that supports your views.

 

There's a concept in sociology called "homophily." It means birds of a feather stick together. Whites know whites. Democrats know Democrats. Urbanites know urbanites. Tech people know tech people. Rich people know rich people.

I try to seek out diversity whenever I can -- to a point. I have lived in three countries (USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) and I have traveled to many others. There is nothing like living in another country to make you aware of what it means to be an American. It's a shame -- indeed, a national embarrassment -- that 2/3 of the members of Congress don't have passports and/or have never been outside the USA.

 

...when people are structurally divided, they do not share space with one another, and they do not communicate with one another. This can and does breed intolerance.

This is, in fact, one of the great worries I have about the internet (as well as cable TV), which amplifies such differences. I may just be turning into an old fart, but it seems to me that the tenor of public discussion has gone downhill more rapidly in the past 20 years, with the rise of broader access to the internet.

 

Not everyone has the skills or understanding to engage with the public sphere in a meaningful manner.

 

If you think that civics education is in bad shape in this country, take a look at media literacy. Digital publics combine the worst of both of these.

Summarized more succintly in The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots.

[SeanC]

I have never logged on to Myspace, Twitter or Facebook. I have no idea what a blog is. Don't care about them, don't want to know about them, don't have time to learn about them. I have managed to live almost 56 years without them and I don't plan to change now.

I think that's for the best, Bob. I mean, you probably don't want to read all the stuff we've said about you on Facebook.

[Bob Palin]

I have never logged on to Myspace, Twitter or Facebook. I have no idea what a blog is. Don't care about them, don't want to know about them, don't have time to learn about them. I have managed to live almost 56 years without them and I don't plan to change now.

I don't intend this as an insult at all but given how much you enjoy this board isn't that a bit narrow minded of you?

[John Ranalletta]

I'm still intrigued by the "Grow your business through social networking" pitches.

 

Who in the hell would want to join a "social" network where half or more of the participants' pages are pseudo storefronts, come ons and feints?

 

Social is social and business is business.

[Paul Mihalka]

I have never logged on to Myspace, Twitter or Facebook. I have no idea what a blog is. Don't care about them, don't want to know about them, don't have time to learn about them. I have managed to live almost 56 years without them and I don't plan to change now.

I don't intend this as an insult at all but given how much you enjoy this board isn't that a bit narrow minded of you?

Well I'm with Upflying, except I've managed without those things for 78 years . I don't think it is narrow minded to not pick up new stuff when it comes out. I love this board but I don't need more exposure to more high-tech. By the time I would learn it (if ever) it would be obsolete. Yeah, I know, I'm a Luddite old fart...

[Bob Palin]

I'm still intrigued by the "Grow your business through social networking" pitches.

 

Who in the hell would want to join a "social" network where half or more of the participants' pages are pseudo storefronts, come ons and feints?

 

Social is social and business is business.

That's not my experience on FB at all, there is a column of ads on the page I look at most of the time but that's true of a lot of sites. I don't go to the commercial pages unless I'm looking for something they might have, some of them are also very entertaining, much better than the majority of TV ads.

[John Ranalletta]

I have never logged on to Myspace, Twitter or Facebook. I have no idea what a blog is. Don't care about them, don't want to know about them, don't have time to learn about them. I have managed to live almost 56 years without them and I don't plan to change now.

I don't intend this as an insult at all but given how much you enjoy this board isn't that a bit narrow minded of you?

Bob, I'd offer you're just as narrow-minded as your reply infers that anyone who doesn't find value in using those social networks just doesn't know what s/he's missing.

 

I'd also suggest that few of us buy items just to figure out whether they're useful. Engaging in social networks has a cost. If social networks were to shutdown instantly at midnight, what of quantifiable value would be lost? Not much, IMO. The true test of value for social networking will come when each of them charges a membership fee or a per/post or per view fee. They will evaporate overnight.

 

People might have to resort to writing letters again which would require intentional effort, forethought, discipline and good handwriting all of which are obviated by social networks.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

I have never logged on to Myspace, Twitter or Facebook. I have no idea what a blog is. Don't care about them, don't want to know about them, don't have time to learn about them. I have managed to live almost 56 years without them and I don't plan to change now.

I don't intend this as an insult at all but given how much you enjoy this board isn't that a bit narrow minded of you?

Well I'm with Upflying, except I've managed without those things for 78 years . I don't think it is narrow minded to not pick up new stuff when it comes out. I love this board but I don't need more exposure to more high-tech. By the time I would learn it (if ever) it would be obsolete. Yeah, I know, I'm a Luddite old fart...

Paul,

By your own account you may be a bit of a Luddite, but you're hardly an old fart.

[David]

I know some of you saw this article on social media that I published a few days ago, but for those of you who didn't and need help with insomnia, here you go:

 

http://www.recourses.com/2009-06

[Woodie]

If social networks were to shutdown instantly at midnight, what of quantifiable value would be lost? Not much, IMO.

A very good question. I will disagree with your answer. I find it a highly cost-effective (and effective) way of seeing my sister, who lives some 3,000 miles away. It also allows me some insight into her daily life, and what is going on there, not to mention the current state of my nieces.

The true test of value for social networking will come when each of them charges a membership fee or a per/post or per view fee. They will evaporate overnight.

 

People might have to resort to writing letters again which would require intentional effort, forethought, discipline and good handwriting all of which are obviated by social networks.

Effort is still required, although I'll grant you the other ones. It's so much easier to attach a digital photo, and type a quick note, that letter writing is far less likely to be done. Getting photos printed, then writing the letter, then going to the post office to get airmail stamps (because she couldn't be bothered to live on this side of the pond, could she??).

 

Crafting any communication can take considerable thought, and planning, and a certain amount of re-writing (for some of us.)

 

I'm still waiting to find out what happens when MySpace or FaceBook goes down. Will it be as bad as when BMWST goes down?

 

[leikam]

I know some of you saw this article on social media that I published a few days ago, but for those of you who didn't and need help with insomnia, here you go:

 

http://www.recourses.com/2009-06

 

Very devious of you, David. This is exactly how luddites end up on blogs: a well-respected somebody links to one with an introduction that makes it seem interesting and approachable. And nice planning to write the article before this topic came up.

[leikam]

Engaging in social networks has a cost. If social networks were to shutdown instantly at midnight, what of quantifiable value would be lost? Not much, IMO.

 

How does this site differ from a "social networking" site? If it were to be shutdown at midnight, what value would be lost?

[Selden]

I know some of you saw this article on social media that I published a few days ago, but for those of you who didn't and need help with insomnia, here you go:

 

http://www.recourses.com/2009-06

I missed that article, which is pretty much spot on, but reading it reminds me how little there is that is truly new. If you have never read the Cluetrain Manifesto (now 10 years old), it's worth your time.

 

A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies.

 

These markets are conversations. Their members communicate in language that is natural, open, honest, direct, funny and often shocking. Whether explaining or complaining, joking or serious, the human voice is unmistakably genuine. It can't be faked.

 

Most corporations, on the other hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do.

See especially the 95 Theses.

[John Ranalletta]

Engaging in social networks has a cost. If social networks were to shutdown instantly at midnight, what of quantifiable value would be lost? Not much, IMO.

 

How does this site differ from a "social networking" site? If it were to be shutdown at midnight, what value would be lost?

This site wasn't a product of the web. It was (is) the product of a group of people sharing common interests in a hobby/sport. The web was a handy medium for meeting and discussing common interests.

 

IMO, social networking sites, i.e. FB, etc., don't have a raison d'être. I don't want to infer that some people may not get value, but if the web were to cease to exist, I'd bet a fair number of us would find ways to keep the BMWST channel open or find an alternate channel. If all the FB models failed, likely the users would wait around until "somebody did something" rather than try to recreate or even (God forbid) pay for it.

 

Social web networking is superfluous and because it's FREE, it is used indiscriminately.

[DavidEBSmith]

I know some of you saw this article on social media that I published a few days ago, but for those of you who didn't and need help with insomnia, here you go:

 

http://www.recourses.com/2009-06

 

Can you summarize that in a tweet for us?

 

[Woodie]

Can you summarize that in a tweet for us?

 

ROFLOL

[Woodie]

IMO, social networking sites, i.e. FB, etc., don't have a raison d'être. I don't want to infer that some people may not get value, but if the web were to cease to exist, I'd bet a fair number of us would find ways to keep the BMWST channel open or find an alternate channel. If all the FB models failed, likely the users would wait around until "somebody did something" rather than try to recreate or even (God forbid) pay for it.

 

I disagree. FB, BMWST exist because they provide an easier, cheaper way to do what we were already doing. That's their "raison d'être". Talking to folks on the phone, writing letters, meeting people. For BMWST, it was the MOA, the rallies, planning group rides. Word of Mouth, monthly newsletters, etc. BMWST might be harder to create in the non-web environment (keep in mind it was created after the web), perhaps going back to a real bulletin board (modems????).

 

Actually, I don't think BMWST could have become more than a regional group without the internet. Hah, there it is: social networking! The key is the ease and low cost, combined with the network volume effect: Any communications network increases in utility in geometric proportion to the number of nodes. (I forget exactly where I got that, but it related initially to telegraph, and especially to telephone service.)

 

Back to the original topic, BMWST as an extension of an already existing social group (Dry Town Riders, the local SJ customers, etc.), has grown somewhat in diversity, but not much. It's a larger group, but I would argue it has very similar demographics, regardless of the geographical diversity.

 

[Ken H.]

I know some of you saw this article on social media that I published a few days ago, but for those of you who didn't and need help with insomnia, here you go:

 

http://www.recourses.com/2009-06

Yes, I thought of that first when I saw this thread this morning. Quite a coincidence.

 

Don’t have a lot of time to comment at the moment, but one thing to consider I believe is that if you consider the definition of “networking” beyond “the Internet”, Social Networking is nothing new. People have been gathering together toward common goals, seeking out and obtaining answers and ideas, commonality from/with others, etc. for eons. Only the method has changed.

 

Social networking, even in this discussion's narrow context, is extremely important IMHO, because it is through civil discourse with others that we advance both individually and societal. Even in business "crowdsourcing" is increasingly be recognized as a valid methodology. Indeed, that is exactly what the technical forms here at BMWST are at their core.

 

[Selden]

Tongue in cheek, but not far off the mark; from The Onion, June 24, 2009:

 

Creator Jack Dorsey was shocked and saddened this week after learning that his social networking device, Twitter, was being used to disseminate pertinent and timely information during the recent civil unrest in Iran. "Twitter was intended to be a way for vacant, self-absorbed egotists to share their most banal and idiotic thoughts with anyone pathetic enough to read them," said a visibly confused Dorsey, claiming that Twitter is at its most powerful when it makes an already attention-starved populace even more needy for constant affirmation.

 

[Bob Palin]

IMO, social networking sites, i.e. FB, etc., don't have a raison d'être. ... If all the FB models failed, likely the users would wait around until "somebody did something" rather than try to recreate or even (God forbid) pay for it.

 

Social web networking is superfluous and because it's FREE, it is used indiscriminately.

I don't think you could be more wrong. At least 75% of my interactions on FB are not the result of the existence of the web, they are people I already knew who I now have a convenient, effective and timely method to exchange news, ideas and idle chatter with. Some of the other 25% have resulted in new meatspace friendships and some have remained just internet friendships (Like Francois for instance). What's more it has put me back in touch with long lost friends like the kids I grew up with, I had no idea how else to contact them. As well as all that it allows me to discuss subjects which are forbidden here, politics etc.

 

I would happily pay for FB!

 

Edit: And, if FB was to go away I would immediately start work on developing a replacement.

[Woodie]

Makes me think: I overheard some kids talking, they referred to "friends" and then "facebook friends". Leads me to believe that Killer is on the right track, at least for adult users, who likely already have fairly large networks of friends or associates.

 

I wish they (FB)had a category for "associates", where you can keep general tabs on people, but not see their every move. Like people I knew, but haven't been friends with in 20 years--They're still not friends, but it's interesting to see where people have gone.

[Selden]

I wish they (FB)had a category for "associates", where you can keep general tabs on people, but not see their every move. Like people I knew, but haven't been friends with in 20 years--They're still not friends, but it's interesting to see where people have gone.

That's easy enough to do: just "friend" then immediately hide someone. You can always go to their FB page when you want to, but you don't automatically see everything they do.

[John Ranalletta]

I wish they (FB)had a category for "associates", where you can keep general tabs on people, but not see their every move. Like people I knew, but haven't been friends with in 20 years--They're still not friends, but it's interesting to see where people have gone.

That's easy enough to do: just "friend" then immediately hide someone. You can always go to their FB page when you want to, but you don't automatically see everything they do.

You mean, like, stalking...

[Woodie]

I have done that. However, I have to "friend" them in order to do that. I'm a bit hesitant to approach people I haven't seen in 20 years, and tell them I want to be "friends" again.

 

Maybe it's the terminology, I just feel funny asking someone: "Can you be my friend, now that it's really, really easy for me to be your friend? I still won't write or talk to you."

 

[Bob Palin]

I have done that. However, I have to "friend" them in order to do that. I'm a bit hesitant to approach people I haven't seen in 20 years, and tell them I want to be "friends" again.

 

Maybe it's the terminology, I just feel funny asking someone: "Can you be my friend, now that it's really, really easy for me to be your friend? I still won't write or talk to you."

Most people on FB know what 'friend' means so they probably won't expect too much, however there are some that latch on to you and demand too much, they soon lose interest if you don't respond and you can always unfriend them if it gets too much.

[Selden]

I know how you feel about the whole "friending" thing, but as Killer observed, most people on FB are pretty relaxed about it. The person who is approached can always so "no".

 

The only reason I joined FB was because I got an invite from my daughter, and the only "friends" I haven't hidden are family members. I remain acutely uncomfortable about broadcasting the details of my personal life on something like FB -- which seems to make me a distinct minority. My photo there has a blue bag over my head.

[Tony_K]

Most people on FB know what 'friend' means so they probably won't expect too much, however there are some that latch on to you and demand too much, they soon lose interest if you don't respond and you can always unfriend them if it gets too much.

 

Bob, I would like to relate a quick story of how FB can actually be a detriment to a life long friendship.

 

My better half is on FB and for the most part it's enjoyable for her. Her best friend since childhood is on the other side of the county. Lori explained FB to the friend who had apprehentions about joining.

She finally joined. Very slowly this person explored the FB world then became engulfed in it.

 

Now Lori's life long friendship is in shambles. The friend ignores direct emails with requests for responses, dosen't call and for the most part dosen't talk to my wife like she used to.

 

Why? Because Lori didn't respond to every inane FB update of her life. This person is on FB constantly. Lori can see this. Yet this friend has decided to punish Lori for not being a ideal "FB friend"

 

I realize this is a personality flaw in Lori's friend and FB is not to blame but it's still hard to see my wife so upset when FB should have made contact so much easier with her life long friend.

 

[Bob Palin]

Tony, just as in any other environment some people will abuse the tools they are given. If Lori's friend is unable to prioritize her interests sensibly that's a shame for both of them but you can't reasonably blame it on FB or even use it as a reason not to use it yourself. I've unfriended a couple of people including a member of this board but in both cases I only accepted their requests in the first place out of politeness. The positives are way ahead of the negatives for me, I really enjoy FB, it's been a very positive experience for me.

[Tony_K]

The positives are way ahead of the negatives for me, I really enjoy FB, it's been a very positive experience for me.

 

I totally understand where you are coming from. I do "get it". I'm just muleheaded and take signicant amounts of time to join in on the fun!

Usually after the party is over

[Selden]

Completely off topic, but Tony_K, I love your animated avatar. I googled and found the clip on Youtube, then showed it to my wife, who at first flat out didn't believe it was possible for a cat to squeeze itself into a fishbowl.

[Woodie]

Abuse of FB:

 

1. There's current commercial where the kids are complaining to their parents about their (the parents) excessive use of FB/twitter. "Mom. Just because you're my friend, doesn't mean you can write 'I love you' all over my wall!"

 

2. Came in to work today. A co-worker had posted some very vague information about the success of some unnamed medical procedure. 3 replies down, her Mother in Law posts "Great! I'm going to be a grandma again!"

[Ken H.]

While we’re talking about FB (vs social networking in general) it’s worth noting that they specifically have been charged in Canada with violating privacy laws (which are stricter here than in the USA) for releasing personal information to 3rd party FB application developers. This coupled with FB long history of being hacked = be careful what you put up there. Of course this is true for anywhere on the net. But FB seems to be more grievous than many others.

[Bob Palin]

While we’re talking about FB (vs social networking in general) it’s worth noting that they specifically have been charged in Canada with violating privacy laws (which are stricter here than in the USA) for releasing personal information to 3rd party FB application developers. This coupled with FB long history of being hacked = be careful what you put up there. Of course this is true for anywhere on the net. But FB seems to be more grievous than many others.

Don't know the specifics of this but it's worth noting that the default on FB is share everything, you can and should reverse that policy in your settings. You should also never upload any information you consider private to an unsecured web site!

[John Ranalletta]

Twitter has opened the door for advertisers to target its millions of users for the first time, as it desperately looks to find a way of making money from the "micro-blogging" phenomenon.