Barry wrote:
One problem with almost all social software is that it makes two false assumptions: (a) It assumes that relationships are dichotomous: Friend/Non-Friend. (b) It assumes that friends all belong to the same group.
false according to whose praxis? and whose defining the sameness of any group?
It also makes (at least) a third: (c) It assumes that relationships are symmetrical, though I'd wager more folks might identify Barry as a friend that Barry knows - or at least that plenty of folks consider him a friend whom he may not consider a friend, or even know.
According to my (Indian) junior high school "friends" (potentially - since I asked them about this in a face-to-face lecture setting in their school and have not connected with them on any SNS yet) on orkut most of them will let a familiar stranger on if they ask to "friend" them, but block this person from seeing their "real" friendsy stuff. I'd probably do this on my livejournal as well myself. So the word friend takes on different meanings in different settings - therefore is it not possible that we who are (in practice) using the word in specific offline contexts in particular ways are in fact assuming a dichotomy based elsewhere. Of course the use of the word by the designers of the software is probably also in that dichotomy (as Carolyn Marvin and others have pointed out habits and practices based in previous technologies do pile on onto newer ones). In actuality, its the people who inhabit these networks in their daily practices that are shifting the definitions/notion of "friend"? r
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php