Social Networking essay - Revised

Our Networks, Ourselves

Two years ago, a student I work with told me something terrifying. A recruiter at a job fair had told her she’d never get a job without a MySpace page. She wanted to know how I got a job without a MySpace page. I told her the truth: connections. I knew the person that hired me. I’d worked with him before.

“So, you networked,” she said.

“Um… yeah, I guess.”

She explained that this is what MySpace was for: networking, meeting people and getting jobs. I guess I didn’t get it then, and I still don’t. I don’t get the “networking” value of social networking sites. Social networking sites have given me something valuable: a replacement for my outdated address book, where the entries update themselves and I can always find who I’m looking for. They haven’t connected me with my dream job, or my future soul mate, or even any new friends, so why are they such a big deal?

People with titles like “ethnographic sociological researcher” are trying their best to figure it out, but most of us are out of the loop and behind the times. For example, Danah Boyd just published an essay on class issues in social networking Web sites. In her essay, she gives the history, and shows how it set up the class struggle. In 2003-2004, MySpace went from being a 20-30-something site to a teen site that helped bands promote themselves. In 2004, Facebook started at Harvard University. She doesn’t really touch on the why though. Why are Facebook and MySpace so popular? Before them, Friendster and other social networking sites could show you who you knew, and who they know so you can connect with new people (that’s what networking is, right?). But MySpace and Facebook took off because they had plenty of space for the users to talk about themselves. The theory is that you can list your favorite hobbies, or movies, or books on your profile and make friends with people with the same interests. It doesn’t work that way in practice though. Most people just write about themselves. These sites are called “Social Networking Sites,” but very little social networking really goes around. I can list my friends and you can list yours, and if we have friends in common, it will tell us.

But how is that really changing anything? Are we meeting new people? Are we finding people with similar interests? We can find them, but then we aren’t really making the effort to get to know them. And aren’t these things we could do before the Internet? Meeting people is pretty much the same. You have to make the effort. But now, we can make the effort in a passive way, and a much more creative way. We aren’t exactly tied to the physical and “real-life” attributes of ourselves, and can craft a persona better equipped to “social network” on the Internet.

I don’t know if this is true for everyone, but I’m not exactly the same person on the Internet that I am in real life. It’s not like I’m really a middle-aged man from Indiana in real life, but I’m less polished in person than I am on the Web. I’m sure everyone fibs a little bit, even those who say they aren’t fibbing. The Internet affords one luxury of communication you don’t have in person: time. I have time to cleverly concoct and assemble my lists of likes and dislikes for my social networking profile. It’s like writing your résumé, only it’s not to compete for a job, it’s to compete in the hierarchy of hip. You get to work on it for months, but your interview might only last 10 minutes. Even though I’m not any smarter, I can sound smarter on the Internet.

But it’s not all for the better. If people were trying to network with me based on my interests, though, they might be out of luck. Sure, my Facebook profile may list my favorite movie, but you know what? I lied. My favorite movie is “Caddyshack”; the profile says it’s “The Royal Tenenbaums.” “Tenenbaums” is one of my favorite movies, so it’s not an entire untruth, but it changes my entire online persona. Stoned frat boys like “Caddyshack,” but cool people like “Tenenbaums.” Did I do this consciously? Kind of. I thought of the movie that would give me something in common with the people I know. I didn’t pick the movie because it would help me get a job, or help me meet new people. I didn’t pick the movie that would help me “network.” I picked the movie that would prove I already knew the people I was supposed to know. And I picked the movie that would make me look cool.

But was it the Internet that influenced the decision to fib? Kind of. If I was at a dinner party with my hip, educated friends, I probably wouldn’t admit to be the type of philistine that enjoyed the story of golfers and an overzealous gopher. At a sports bar with my college-football-watching friends, I wouldn’t admit to being the hip poseur that likes “The Royal Tenenbaums.” Everybody fibs. Everybody bends the truth to their advantage, whether it’s in your job interview or your résumé or your MySpace. On your résumé though, it’s to get a better job, on your social networking profile, it’s just to be cool. It’s like that saying; On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re not cool. On the Internet, you can cover up all your insecurities. In Boyd’s research, she found that popularity of these sites peaked with teenagers. Isn’t this when you’re feeling the most insecure about yourself? Isn’t it nice to be able to go on the Web and make yourself cool?

And that’s the draw. That’s the attraction. You can talk endlessly about yourself, and make yourself so cool. And that’s also exactly why these sites aren’t promoting networking — social or employment or otherwise. People are all too busy making themselves look cool, and showing their intelligent and fascinating interests and hobbies, great photos of themselves where they look thin and pretty, and listing how many friends they have. The features that made MySpace and Facebook popular (photo sharing, detailed personal profile pages, etc.) are the exact things that are preventing people from meeting anybody new, from actually “networking.”

So really, the social networking site is the new Narcissus’ pond. I see how it can be so addictive to some people like plastic surgery and makeup and fashion are addictive. It’s just not for me, I guess. I’m content to wait it out, and meet people the old-fashioned way, network the old-fashioned way and even get a job the old-fashioned way. For everyone’s sake, let’s try not to drown ourselves.

Web Politics

I think I get an email a day from Barack Obama, or his people, or his e-mail minion David Plouffe (when you Google search Mr. Plouffe you get the phrase "one of the most experienced and successful strategists in the Democratic party." Apparently, his strategy now is to e-mail me all the time and blog. Mr. Plouffe's blog is just one of the many ways politicians are trying to use the web to attract young, democratic voters. Good luck to them, because it didn't really work last time. I just re-read Stephen Elliott's book "Looking Forward To It," a Hunter-S.-Thompson-esque romp through the 2004 democratic primaries. It includes such salacious tales as being on a bus with Howard Dean and eating buffets with second-rate media correspondents. Its point, however, is that no matter what weird, wacky things you do, you will not win an election on new voters. Period.

It isn't stopping the candidates from trying though. Yesterday, the kind-of-political (and well-named) site BarelyPolitical.com (possibly not safe to open at work) crashed due to traffic for the "Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl" video. Their clothes stay on, and they sing-debate. Of course, it's also on YouTube.

Since I started typing this entry (a whole six minutes ago) I've been trying to think of a word to describe YouTube. It's weird. Where else can you go to watch :30 second clips of dogs on skateboards and teenage girls talking? (Well, I guess you could go to Google Videos.) But, right now on YouTube, you can watch a lot of videos about politics. You can watch more than 26,700 by searching for "Obama." And next Monday, you can watch a debate. Specifically, the CNN-YouTube debate coming to you live from Charleston, S.C. And there's CitizenTube, the YouTube political vlog.

Here's the issue Elliott proved in his book. Yes, you can draw potential voters in with your snazzy bells and whistles aimed at them. You can get them to donate money. You can get them to buy a t-shirt with your candidate's face on it. But in this bells-and-whistles society, that doesn't always translate into getting them to actually drive to some weird municipal building with total strangers and actually vote for you. Maybe this election will be different. Maybe this will be the turning point. The presidential elections are only 219 years old, which is practical infantcy as far as governments go, so maybe we can enter our rebellious teenage years and people 18-24 will actually vote.

The "Obama Girl" video has more than 2 million views on YouTube. In South Carolina, where this CNN-YouTube debate will be held, there are about 2.5 million registered voters, and only 45% of them voted in the last election. Does this mean viewership of the "Obama Girl" video could sway the electoral votes of a whole state? By the numbers, sure, but in practice, probably not. Definitely not. No way. In the 2004 election, 64% of eligible voters nationwide voted (way to bring down the average, S.C.). While I'm sure getting the other 36% to vote for you in the next election would definitely sway things your way, getting the 64% of people that actually have a proven track record of voting might be a better gamble.

So who has a proven track record of voting? Old people. Citizens age 65 and up have a 79% turnout rate! People 45 and up have a 70% turnout rate. Your voter turnout rate also increases the more education you have. Of course, you also have to consider who old, overeducated people vote for: republicans.

While I guess bombarding YouTube and e-mail boxes and other hip new media with your candidate can't hurt you, time will tell if it can actually help you.

Keen on it

I found Andrew Keen's book and put a library hold on it. Hopefully I'll get it this week and have some interesting responses next week!

Harry Potter and the e-book pirates

Let me preface this by saying I've never read any of the Harry Potter books. Not because I'm a philistine or a snob, but becuase I don't read much fiction, barely any fantasy fiction, and haven't read a book about children since I was a child. It just doesn't interest me. It's not because I'm heartless.

Anyway, the sixth Harry Potter book comes out on Saturday. And, like many media products with devoted fan bases, will have many 12:01 a.m. releases around the country. But it's too late. The thing's online already. And the publisher spent about $20 million to keep it secret. Money well spent? Hmmm.

So what happened? Well, someone got a hold of it, took a photo of every page and uploaded it on a bit torrent page. Then someone else scanned it in, put it through some optical character recognition software, proofread and then put it up. Who are these people? It's simple. They're fans. And mostly, the same dedicated fans who will line up Friday night at bookstores around the country to fight for their right to take home the book and stay up all night reading it. How come the publisher didn't decide, hey, maybe this is the time to release an official e-book? How come e-books aren't nearly as popular as downloading music? I think the answer is human conditioning on intake methods.

I was born in 1981. I grew up watching television on a television, watching movies in a movie theater (or on Betamax at my rich friends' houses), listening to music on the radio or on a cassette deck or record player, and reading books, you know, out of actual books. After 25 years, really only one of these methods has changed drastically, and another has changed mildly. First, I still watch movies in movie theaters, but a DVD player has eclipsed the Betamax. And second, I listen to music on my computer mostly, but sometimes still on a record player. Most importantly, I still read actual paper-and-ink books.

Partially, I think, it's because I have easily-tired eyes, and reading on a computer screen for long periods of time makes me sleepy. Second, maybe, it's because I sit at a computer for 9 hours a day, 5 days a week and when I get home, I just don't want to sit at a computer anymore. But overall, it's conditioning. I learned to read books. If I were to read the Harry Potter book, I'd be buying it in a bookstore (or on Powells.com). But I guess, if I were desperate to read it, I might download it, print it out and read the pages that way. I feel like an official e-book could have made the Harry Potter publishers a lot of money, could have alleviated the leaking problem and could have said to fans "We appreciate you," instead of saying "We don't trust you."

News coverage of this event: LA Times, Boston Globe, Salon.com.