We’re NOT Friends, Sorry
Twitter and Pownce are broken. MySpace, too. Oh, and pretty much every social networking site on the planet, too. For me, at least.
It’s not the technical aspect. Not the concept, either.
(Well, I don’t understand the hype and/or praise sites like Twitter is getting. From a technical standpoint, it’s well done, I won’t argue that, but I don’t get the point of the sites. But back to the topic.)
No, it’s the semantics.
You see, offline, I don’t call many people “friend”. This doesn’t mean I am surrounded by unpleasant people, quite the contrary. But I make a difference between friends and pals or contacts. A friend is someone I would risk my life for. Usually this two-way trust has grown over a few years, and is something important to me.
Now, online, I am expected to call every Tom, Dick or Harry “friend”, and somehow, that doesn’t work for me. I create an account at, let’s say, Pownce, and am instantly bombarded by new friend requests. Usually by people I haven’t spoken to before, let alone met.
Yeah… I am afraid I can’t do that, Digital Dave.
Sites like Flickr do it differently. People are “contacts”. If I decided I like them, I can promote them to “friends” or “family”. Which is okay. If we have spoken online, maybe in the office, maybe even met, then I am willing to add you as “contact”. That’s cool and not diminishing our relationship.
And this is my point: just calling someone “contact” instead of “friend” doesn’t mean I don’t like that person. It just means I don’t know him/her well enough to consider him/her a “friend”. Because to me, this word has a meaning. Shying away from labeling you “friend” isn’t impolite, it’s honest. Because we are not friends.
There are people I am fond of, people I like, but with whom I am not that close. I enjoy hanging out with them, and I enjoy their company, but they’re not my friends. And that is perfectly alright, for both them and myself.
(Truth to be told, it wasn’t always like this. But I’m growing older, and my views change.)
Another example: The other day there was a bit of drama in our little WoW guild. There was a younger lad who we were playing and chatting with quite often. At some point, he felt thoroughly insulted when Christian (pal of mine) and I kindly tried to explain to him that we were not his friends. Heck, we had never met. We were playing an online game together, and chatting a lot while doing so. We tried to get the message across, tried to explain that we liked him, but we didn’t consider him a friend in the true sense. He got upset and left the guild in anger.
Well, it happens. Not much I can do about it.
The net is our (relatively) new world. Our habits are changing, human relationships might, too — at least a bit. Still, should we abandon our values? If everyone is a “friend”, it means nobody is. For me, this prospect leaves a lot to be desired.
Dear site builders, please stop trying to build a virtual Woodstock. I know you’re probably just trying to achieve a feeling of “I belong here” for your users so they come back, but for God’s sake, stop making me pretend I care equally about everyone. Because I don’t.
—
Update, 2007-07-25, 9:18 CEST: jr suggested the use of a new word for this type of online kinship, and I like the idea. His suggestion was “webbie”, but to me that sounds too much like a certain online award.
Anyways, my personal proposal is the use of “webster”. I’ve checked Wikipedia, the original meaning of the word has kind of “expired”, so let’s re-use it. :) Are you with me, people?
SO well-put, Carlo! I despise getting “friend” requests from people with whom I’ve never even exchanged a word! What? It’s supposed to make me popular because I have 6,437 “friends” on MySpace? Whatever. You said it all quite well! Thank you!
I think there needs to be a new word.
You’re right about “friend”, and I think the majority of sites use it much as some sentry on watch calling out if your friend or foe. (Always made me wonder who responds “foe” to that, but that’s beside the point.)
Likewise, I’ve got some folks I deal with on a fairly regular basis whom I’ve never met. I agree that I’m also a bit reluctant to call them “friends” but then, one is flying down from Alaska in a few weeks (I’m not the reason he’s coming down, but I do plan on meeting up and buying him lunch).
Your WoW clan buddy definitely fits that category, but for a lot of folks, that category is about as far up socially as they progress. They don’t have “friends” like we traditionally think of them and have no context to work in. To not agree that you are his “friend” means that you, like the guy the sentry is calling out to, must be a “foe” and he felt betrayed.
“Contact” while technically correct, always seemed a bit formal. Perhaps “webbie” might suffice, since nobody knows what the hell that is either.
—
your webbie
jr
jr,
You know what? I agree 100%. The landscape of human relationships is changing, especially when looking at an online environment, so why not use another word for this type of relation.
I don’t think “webbie” is suited, mostly because I always think about online awards when hearing it.
I propose the use of “webster”. I’ve checked Wikipedia, the original meaning of the word has somewhat “expired”, so let’s re-use it. :)
Sincerely yours,
your webster Carlo
Why a new word? For years, if you weren’t a friend, you were an acquaintance… Definition from dictionary.com:
1. Acquaintance, associate, companion, friend refer to a person with whom one is in contact. An acquaintance is someone recognized by sight or someone known, though not intimately: a casual acquaintance. An associate is a person who is often in one’s company, usually because of some work, enterprise, or pursuit in common: a business associate. A companion is a person who shares one’s activities, fate, or condition: a traveling companion; companion in despair. A friend is a person with whom one is on intimate terms and for whom one feels a warm affection: a trusted friend.
Sadly, for a number of folks “acquaintance” is a loaded word. Possibly from over use in one too many 80’s romantic comedy movies. Possibly “associate” might work better since there’s the more serious work baggage attached to that.
If you are friendly with one another on a regular basis, are you not friends? A friend is not limited to those people that would help you dispose of a body. I think you are raising the bar too high. If I enjoy someone’s company, they enjoy mine, and we spend time together regularly, then they we are friends. Perhaps not best friends, or close friends, but friends.
I get what you’re saying. In the particular context of social networking sites, contacts usually don’t even meet my fairly loose labeling system. But I think you go a bit too far.
To be fair, I generally refer to these folks as “buddies”, which may or may not jive with your classifications.
I’m a strong believer in what you’re saying. The word friend is Facebook’s biggest limiting factor.
But as for twitter, I don’t think it uses the word friend. They have followers and followees.
@Elly: As JR said, “acquaintance” is rather loaded for most people. I am among those.
@Dan:
No, I am not. By your definition, many of my coworkers would count as friends. I would “label” them as “buddies”, mostly. (Again: this is not a sign of disrespect, as I still respect and like them.) As for “buddies” — again, for me, that stands mostly for offline relationships, not online. Hmm.
@Udi: yes, they’ve changed that only a few days ago. When I wrote the post, I had forgotten about it. Good move, tho.
Thanks for the input, guys. I appreciate it.
I was just about to post a comment regarding the new twitter nomenclature, but then I noticed Udi’s comment. Hooray for reading before posting.
BTW, I just singed up for a twitter account (mostly so I could follow fredrin and megatokyo) I think I try to grab accounts on jaiku and pownce, too.