“Profiles as Conversation: Networked Identity Performance on Friendster”
By danah boyd and John Heer
Using performance theory as a springboard, boyd and Heer jump from the premise that “communication is inherently embodied and contextually dependant” into the world of “Friendster.” In this fascinating study, the authors examine what, in the digital world of “Friendster,” constitutes identity, conversation, and social groups.
Frienster started in 2002 as a network of “gay men, bloggers, and attendees of the Burning Man festival.” This network went worldwide and broadened, and by the time this article was written “most early adopters have eschewed the service, calling it ‘so 2003.’”
Much like facebook and MySpace, Friendster has a place for a picture and profile on each member’s page. It also has a meeage board. Unlike facebook and MySpace (or like them, depending on the motives of the user) Friendster is primarily a sort of network for dating. It also has a space for testimonials, where members recommend each other to other members.
To study the dymanics of Friendster, Heer and boyd employed two methodologies: ethnography and visualization. They participated on the site, observed it, interviewed members, and gave surveys for nine months in 2003 (thus, the ethnography). The visualization portion of the study included surfing profiles, pictures, and “searching for common interests.”
Some questions boyd and Heer posed were:
- How is context transferred, created, and interpreted in digital environments?
- How are conversations initiated online?
- What are the goals of digital conversations and how are they maintained?
- What are the possibilities and consequences of replicability, searchability, and persistence?
A recurring topic in this study was the fact that in digital environments, social walls could be easily demolished. “For example, work and the pub are … geographically disjoint...” in networks like Friendster, “the office and the pub become one.” It was brought up again and again that one’s boss may happen upon one’s page, which may prove awkward. Even more, the boss may ask to be one’s friend, letting the boss another step further into one’s personal life. If this weren’t sticky enough, who one’s friends are say a lot about that person, and may arouse speculation. In one instance, a professor a (former?) student of hers started conversing over the site, and other students started asking the professor on dates, etc, and friends of the prof started wondering about the relationship between the prof and the one student she started talking to in this Friendster setting. In another situation, students of a high school teacher happened upon her site, and though her profile didn’t have anything particularly incriminating, her friend’s sites did. And the students questioned her about it. “The content provides both context for the service as well as information about an individual’s identity.”
So – that the barrier that shelters the private from the public/professional can be cracked causes the question of audience to arise. Who is the audience for these sites? For Friendster, users the ideal audience seems to be, ideally, lovers, friends, and friendly online acquaintances --but only ideally is this the case. In actuality, it can be, and likely is, much broader. There was even a case of a woman’s page being published in the Chronicle.
With the exception of instances where Friendsters meet outside of their Friendster site, the social set-up is largely superficial in the sense that identity as portrayed can obviously be skewed. This fact surfaced quite pronouncedly with the “Fakesters.” These were people who made fictitious profiles and posted them with corresponding pictures. This caused some sort of glitch in the system because of the degrees of separation factor (four degrees of separation – I didn’t get that part about the networking…?). These imposters also overloaded the network at times. The network providers started seeking out Fakesters, and deleted their accounts. This caused an uprising Fakesters deemed the “Fakester Revolution,” as these members went forth to avenge the “Fakester Genocide.” In this conflict, these “fictitious” members pointed out that “none of this is real.” (So, perhaps the Fakester profiles weren’t all that different in nature from the profiles some of those who considered themselves the “serious” users.) This was the most amusing part of the article for me.
But, it was all interesting to me, because I never though of online communities in such depth, though I did realize that some of these things (personal life being invaded by professional life, etc.) were happening in various online contexts (blogging, too).
By danah boyd and John Heer
Using performance theory as a springboard, boyd and Heer jump from the premise that “communication is inherently embodied and contextually dependant” into the world of “Friendster.” In this fascinating study, the authors examine what, in the digital world of “Friendster,” constitutes identity, conversation, and social groups.
Frienster started in 2002 as a network of “gay men, bloggers, and attendees of the Burning Man festival.” This network went worldwide and broadened, and by the time this article was written “most early adopters have eschewed the service, calling it ‘so 2003.’”
Much like facebook and MySpace, Friendster has a place for a picture and profile on each member’s page. It also has a meeage board. Unlike facebook and MySpace (or like them, depending on the motives of the user) Friendster is primarily a sort of network for dating. It also has a space for testimonials, where members recommend each other to other members.
To study the dymanics of Friendster, Heer and boyd employed two methodologies: ethnography and visualization. They participated on the site, observed it, interviewed members, and gave surveys for nine months in 2003 (thus, the ethnography). The visualization portion of the study included surfing profiles, pictures, and “searching for common interests.”
Some questions boyd and Heer posed were:
- How is context transferred, created, and interpreted in digital environments?
- How are conversations initiated online?
- What are the goals of digital conversations and how are they maintained?
- What are the possibilities and consequences of replicability, searchability, and persistence?
A recurring topic in this study was the fact that in digital environments, social walls could be easily demolished. “For example, work and the pub are … geographically disjoint...” in networks like Friendster, “the office and the pub become one.” It was brought up again and again that one’s boss may happen upon one’s page, which may prove awkward. Even more, the boss may ask to be one’s friend, letting the boss another step further into one’s personal life. If this weren’t sticky enough, who one’s friends are say a lot about that person, and may arouse speculation. In one instance, a professor a (former?) student of hers started conversing over the site, and other students started asking the professor on dates, etc, and friends of the prof started wondering about the relationship between the prof and the one student she started talking to in this Friendster setting. In another situation, students of a high school teacher happened upon her site, and though her profile didn’t have anything particularly incriminating, her friend’s sites did. And the students questioned her about it. “The content provides both context for the service as well as information about an individual’s identity.”
So – that the barrier that shelters the private from the public/professional can be cracked causes the question of audience to arise. Who is the audience for these sites? For Friendster, users the ideal audience seems to be, ideally, lovers, friends, and friendly online acquaintances --but only ideally is this the case. In actuality, it can be, and likely is, much broader. There was even a case of a woman’s page being published in the Chronicle.
With the exception of instances where Friendsters meet outside of their Friendster site, the social set-up is largely superficial in the sense that identity as portrayed can obviously be skewed. This fact surfaced quite pronouncedly with the “Fakesters.” These were people who made fictitious profiles and posted them with corresponding pictures. This caused some sort of glitch in the system because of the degrees of separation factor (four degrees of separation – I didn’t get that part about the networking…?). These imposters also overloaded the network at times. The network providers started seeking out Fakesters, and deleted their accounts. This caused an uprising Fakesters deemed the “Fakester Revolution,” as these members went forth to avenge the “Fakester Genocide.” In this conflict, these “fictitious” members pointed out that “none of this is real.” (So, perhaps the Fakester profiles weren’t all that different in nature from the profiles some of those who considered themselves the “serious” users.) This was the most amusing part of the article for me.
But, it was all interesting to me, because I never though of online communities in such depth, though I did realize that some of these things (personal life being invaded by professional life, etc.) were happening in various online contexts (blogging, too).
No comments:
Post a Comment