Friends, Followers and Openness

Jul
22
2007

Friends, Followers and Openness

The topic of Internet friends or followers has really erupted into a great debate. A lot of very influential bloggers are not thrilled with the random “friending”that Facebook, Twitter, Pownce and other social networks enable. They would prefer to select friends or sign-off on someone following them on Twitter or Pownce.

These are people that have earned my respect, so this kind of trend or behavior demands attention. You have to appreciate their choices. There’s much to be determined with this friends debate, and many people feel very differently. There seems to be no wrong or right.

For this blogger, it’s important to remain open to being friends with anyone who’s interested in content, happenings or thoughts. You can find me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Pownce and Twitter. There are several reasons for this open “friendliness:”

Nomenclature: An internet friend is not a brick and mortar friend. Yet folks get really wrapped around the axle about this terminology, associating it with close relationships past and present. Associating the two seems to be an error.
Nomenclature: Once can only hope the same is true for followers. A brick and mortar connotation: An attendant, servant, or retainer. Another reason to feel uncomfortable with Twitter. Again, associating the two seems to be an error.
Internet friending/following occurs for several reasons: Genuine interest, wanting to belong, belt notches (most friends). As a marketer, the reason should be irrelevant, it’s an opt-in.
Opt-ins don’t mean shameless promo, but in a participatory sense Internet friends are interested in content generated by their network. That means they may be interested in a book, a blog or an application you are developing.
Once something is on the Internet, it’s really available to just about anyone. So rather than fret about who’s seeing what, it’s safer to assume that anyone and everyone can see it.
Adhering to the principle of openness in general has been critical to much of the Internet’s success.

The Principle of Openness

The principle of openness on the Internet must be considered a very serious consideration for any going concern, whether it’s an individual blogger/small company or serious application. Openness on the Internet has caused the social media revolution and many other great peering benefits, such as Wikipedia.

Openness created democracy. Openness via net neutrality allowed Google and Yahoo! to prosper. Open APIs have driven great applications and exciting communities such as Facebook, file sharing and also disasters like the widespread adoption of Windows!

Yet in closed, controlled environments, limited opportunities occur. Consider Macintosh versus Windows. Macs are better, but the closed licensing process almost killed this OS. Historically, closed communities can also become stunted and parochial (From the Amish to AOL, and please don’t get PC on me about the Amish thing).

What exactly is the principle of openness? One of Dictionary.com’s definitions for openness, “Relatively free of obstructions to sight, movement, or internal arrangement: an open floor plan.”

Here’s another suggested definition for the principle of openness as it relates to social media participation: Our membership ought to include all who are interested in sharing information. We should refuse none who wish to participate. Membership should never depend upon money or conformity.

It’s a healthy discussion, and really when it comes to the Internet, how relationships evolve are truly up to the entity or individual. The chosen approach dictates how everything will happen for that entity or individual.

Technorati Tags: friends, openness, followers, Twitter, Pownce, Facebook, Kami Huyse, Brian Oberkirch, Jeremiah Owyang, Ken Yarmosh

by Geoff Livingston | Internet Marketing |

10 Responses to “Friends, Followers and Openness”

ob81 Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am

I do think that the random friend thing on social networks is kind of outlandish, but most sites do give you a decision of who you want to interact with. I personally, use the “Genuine interest” aspect when it comes to internet friends. Ironically, I am pretty much interested in being friends with anyone that communicates regularly.
Alice Marshall Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 am

You may be on to something. I am not on Facebook, so can offer no opinion. As far as LinkedIn is concerned, I consider it a kind of professional recommendation, so I only link to people I admire. If I link to someone, that means I think that they are good at their job.

Twitter is altogether different from my point of view. It is a shorter and more lighthearted version of blogging. More “followers” is good. I feel the same way about del.icio.us, I will put anyone on my network who links to mine.
chapel Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 am

I agree wholeheartedly about being open to anyone that wishes to be a beneficial part of your network. You and I are friends on Pownce, I came here to read this after you posted a note about it on Pownce. Now I am commenting and sharing in this social process.

If you never would have befriended me, someone you don’t know as I only know of you from our interactions on Pownce, this comment would have never come to life, I would never have found your blog (well never say never, lol).

There is something that even in real world terms that the people that have the best friends are the ones that are open to new things and people. Why should the internet be any different?
Brian Oberkirch Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm

I think any system design should default to open and give serious consideration to the specific increase in experience that comes with a decision to close off aspects of the design. But default to open as the benefits are pretty obvious.

That said, this post conflates privacy options with open system design. Part of the magic of LiveJournal (and later Vox) was that you could write for a specific audience. More granular privacy options are going to be a preferred design pattern as we put more of ourselves online.

I also think that different sites are built for different purposes. One of the reasons I prefer to blog thoughts (vs leave them in comments or share them via email discussion lists) is that I want them open to anyone who cares to find them. I also have a very liberal comment approach (use your name and don’t be a complete asshole). So the blog is the perfect place for me to get new contacts, etc. I have a big list of ways people can contact me (IM, etc), which works great.

I use Twitter for updating my friends and scanning what they are up to, and there is certainly a limit to how much you can add to that stream before it is less effective. I also don’t want my tweets on the Google and want to be free to post off color or snarky things to my tribe. Facebook and Pownce are much the same for me, though I use them in different ways. So, the approach I’ve come to for twitter, linkedin, etc. is that I have to know the person in some way.

I think future social apps are going to be hit much harder with this issue, as there is only so much we can track in minute detail.
ob81 Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm

I agree Chape. People MUST be open to new things and people in any situation. If they want people to listen at least. :D
Geoff Livingston Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Great discussion so far. Brian, you are right… I took a very liberal paint brush to drive home the principle of openness. There are great differences between open technological/software system design and personal privacy.
Kami Huyse Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm

My problem is not with openness but with measuring a social media index by counting the number of friends one has on each network. I think measuring it in such a way undermines the value of such platforms, which can serve to facilitate better two-way conversations and relationship building. I just wnated to make sure my view wasn’t misrepresented.

Trackbacks

Managing Digital Identity Says:

August 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

[...] Concluding Note: For a different take on the issue, read Geoff Livingston’s Friends, Followers, and Openness. One observation: I agree with much of what Geoff writes but not in the sense of a singular [...]
Business News » Managing Digital Identity Says:

August 28th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

[...] Concluding Note: For a different take on the issue, read Geoff Livingston’s Friends, Followers, and Openness. One observation: I agree with much of what Geoff writes but not in the sense of a singular [...]
Social Disease Media from Spin Thicket Says:

October 26th, 2007 at 9:02 am

[...] [...]

Blog

Musings and analysis on marketing, buzz, PR and Washington, DC ...