My first introduction to social networking was when I joined a new site called Friendster in 2003. It was a fun site and social networking was the new, "coolest thing" to do on the internet. Essentially Friendster was used as an online dating tool, which itself spurred online dating sites such as Match.com. I personally never used Friendster as a dating tool, but then again, I have never used the internet to hook up, not even from the old AOL Chat Room days in the 90's. (Not that there's anything wrong with using social networks as a dating tool - no judgements here. Personally, I prefer the old fashion way of hooking up - you know, going to a bar or club, actually talking to someone face to face....plus I always heard too many horror stories from my friends who did hook up online).
A year or so after Friendster, I joined a mostly gay dating site called Connexion. Continuing with the rapid evolution of social networking sites, I then opened a MySpace account for my African grey parrot, Wheaton. And now, inevitibly, I am asked the question everyone has been asked, "Are you on Facebook?" (Side note - my ex boyfriend made me take down my Friendster and Connexion accounts. Wheaton's My Space still exists, but it sits dormant 99% of the time).
As someone in love with technology, I find the historical evolution of social network compelling. In Asia, Friendster is the application du jour. In the U.S. & Europe it was My Space. In Brazil, as part of the BRIC countries with their own unique culture, it's Google's Okrut. And now, as Facebook hits 200 million users (nearly 1 million users added daily), it is rapidly becoming the first worldwide social networking site. Where Friendster was rather rudimentary, My Space was nice evolution, but it was mostly a site where you told the world everything all about you. Facebook is much more of a social networking site in the sense that you socialize more and it's as much about your "friends" as you.
I'm not on Facebook, and I do not have any intention of joining anytime soon. Why not? Well, the fundamental reason is that I put a very high price on my privacy. Too many people, especially young people, have put WAY TOO MUCH of themselves online and inevitably can pay dearly for too much open disclosure online. For me, the internet has always been where I put only the a PG version of myself online. There are no nude photos of me online, pictures of me drinking or throwing up, homemade sex videos, or any other of the range of embarrassements that one inevitable commits in real life that can be forever enshrined digitally. People use Facebook to judge you and even make decisions about whether they want to be your friend or lover. Someone told me they use it to see who their potential lovers "friends" are before deciding whether to hook up with them or not. Regardless, I think my life is interesting, but interesting enough for my friends, or anyone else for that matter, to follow my daily comings and goings? There's no way I'm that interesting, and I think I lead a great life, but not so compelling that I should star in my own reality show.
I lead a good deal of my life online. I have this blog, an online photo site on Picasa, a video site on You Tube, and I'm moving a great deal of my life into Google's Cloud (GMail & Google Calendar). I come from the generation that believes in harnessing technology for your own personal benefit, not to throw up digital roadblocks by exposing too much of your life in the digital equivalent of the Roman Forum at Circus Maximus. Technology exists to make my modern life into an easier digital modern life. My next digital step is moving my work into the cloud utilizing Microsoft's Office Live.
Facebook is a great tool, and very valuable, but I have too many concerns about my privacy to open an account. I want a Facebook for my professional life (work - G rated), my personal life (my gay life - PG-13 rated), and my family (G-rated). Facebook does allow for this, but there's too many back doors, technical errors, and workarounds that there exists the very real possibility of too many worlds colliding, with potentially negative benefits. It's one thing to have a good time on Friday night, it's quite another for your boss to be able to see what you did all weekend long. And Facebook takes up so much time, that as I get closer to the magical 40, I have too much else I would rather be doing than updating my Facebook status on a daily basis.
And Twitter, well, Twitter is very rapidly becoming a mini-marketing tool. The microblogging site is interesting, and it's the celebrity Twitters that make for compelling reading. But really, celebrities have such a short attention span, that Twitter looks like it will burn out after a year or 2. The last time this happened is when micro-celebrities (Ashlee Simpson, Pete Wentz, Lindsay Lohan) blogged on their MySpace account. Twitter is the same thing. It started as a publicists worse nightmare (a celebrity end runaround, where a carefully crafted public image and be wiped away in under 140 character tweets). Again, I think I lead a fascinating life that I really enjoy, but does anyone really want to follow my every move in under 140 characters. I think not.
My favorite quote so far on Twittering is from Stephen Colbert. When asked on national television on the Today Show if he Twitters, Mr Colbert replied, "Yes, I have Twatted." Hilarious!
UPDATE: Turns out I'm part of what's called an "ambivalet networker"
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090408/ap_on_hi_te/tec_sociability_fatigue
No comments:
Post a Comment