Shh....it's a secret...

An arty shh, courtesy of Novembre85.

A recent report on the BBC has been jumped upon by many bloggers as evidence that there is in fact a 'class divide' between different social networking sites.

Well, considering there was another piece of research telling us that your average social networking person is a member of about four social networking sites, you could easily doubt the validity of the former. As I've stated before, I think the former is wrong-headed; it's not class based, it's design/intention based. And as for the other piece of research, it doesn't surprise me.

Simply put, people don't appear to have a great deal of loyalty.

But I would like to take issue with the conclusion of the latter. I'm a member of...oooh, quite a few social networking sites. But Facebook is the one I turn to most often (read: 90% of the time). And, given the recent widget explosion, it seems I'll be there for a while longer.

Though lots of people are very concerned that the widget explosion could lead to a mass commercialisation of the site, turning the clean and pleasant design into an ad riddled MySpace. Which, frankly, I don't think anyone wants to see (unless it's for something I actually want).

And these things lead me to think about another potential problem, highlighted by Mike Butcher, one of the speakers at the PSFK Conference I went to (yes, I will write the rest up, prompted by my reclaimed Moleskine).

Namely, what happens when some of these social networks become more closed circles, as he predicts they will?

I mean, will we have a Skull and Bones social network? Doubt it, to be honest (the fear it'd be hacked would put paid to that).

People will begin to get fed up with having so many friends, with their worlds converging (personally, I have 249 friends on Facebook at the moment, and I'm purposefully not putting my blog's URL up there - I'm trying to keep my home friends and my ad friends separate for at least a little while longer), and will begin to break away. I'm not sure whether I will...probably not, but who knows?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating lots of mini networks, where each one serves a purpose. No, I think that's equally as short sighted. But I am interested to note just where Facebook goes from here. I mean, it has countless widgets, unlimited groups and so forth. Yes, there are privacy settings, but the amount of people not using them is unbelievable. Most people, in my limited experience, don't self-regulate to that extent - and most of the time, it's unbelievably refreshing to see.

The title of the post references secrets - and with good reason; I do worry a bit, personally, about things I've said online (don't we all?), especially considering that they can be stored for all eternity - and I do wish there was a more secretive way of social networking (not blogging per se, but Facebook - do I really want potential employers to see me after a few beverages/in dubious fancy dress?). Of course, this matters less in a career like advertising, where a bit of character is encouraged. But imagine what it must be like for someone's political career/law career say.

The one saving grace is that the whole world is learning this, and growing up at the same time. People are beginning to realise that being an online presence, as it is, isn't all its cracked up to be, and you have to self-moderate. That said, if the worst it's doing is teaching a bit of common sense, it can't be that bad.

Again, I return to the darker element (and I wish I could have gone to this) of the internet. If this rise in social media leads to more private social sets online, what's to stop people destroying, say, other people's lives/careers with a well-placed lie? After all, if we believe James G Watt, "A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on".

Say, in this hypothetical situation, that a lie is told. The person who the allegation is about is say, on holiday. Days pass. People begin to wonder/believe what's been told, and the time away helps them decide. Simply put, people have to become their own PR entities, which shouldn't be the way it is.

So perhaps it is a good thing that we live in such social networked, open times. I'd rather have a single forum where I 'am' online, in addition to my blog. It'd probably save a helluva lot of problems in the long run, regardless of my worlds overlapping.

NB: Before you ask, yes, I have been looking at Orwell and Huxley's pages on Wikipedia, hence the Orwellian thinking in this post.

The Web 2.0 Goldfish Bowl?

Picture belongs to Michelle_Bower. Usual rules apply.

In the past week, I've signed up to CoComment (manages my conversations online if I want it to), MediaStarz (pure networking, but hey - I was invited, and it looks like good fun) and finally Wink (to track what I've signed up to and where I am on t'internet).

And it may yet get worse - what about WeFi? OrMyCyberTwin?

Tempted to sign up to both of them, to be honest (especially the latter - closer to realising my dream of auto-blogging).

And I'm just not sure where I stand on the ever increasing types of web 2.0 social networking. I do know that I can't stop signing up to the blighters - if they look vaguely useful. I do worry about the overlap, to some extent.

As ever, in times of need, I decided to visualise it. Trust me, when you click below, you'll realise why it's often a last resort. Needless to say, it explains in my mind how things are constantly changing, overlapping, and why.

It also provides most of the similarities in my mind:

NB: I would suggest clicking on it and viewing it full size.

But yes, this does link to Faris's post a little earlier on continous partial presence (read the comments as well - they are excellent). The rate I'm going, there will be no more Will to spread around. At the moment, my Facebook is largely populated with my old mates, as opposed to my newer advertising/work friends (though the ad community is trying to usurp that - I think half the plannersphere who weren't members of Facebook joined in the last month - and God knows, this article sheds a bit of light).

And with the comparable measures some of these social networking sites are trying to implement (Technorati's WTF being a prime example - it's a wee bit like Digg), it may not be long before they are all linked together, as I've expressed in my Powerpoint slides.

However, is this a bad thing?

Certainly, more of my communities are mixing together than ever before - some ad folk now know some of my other mates, some are doing social stuff with me away from work, and some even go to the pub with me (poor them - even more rubbish talked).

As Amelia outlines on Faris's blog, the mystery is in danger of being lost, and like her, I worry about this. But then, take the this week, and some of the discussions I had:

I met Helen for a very pleasant smoothie at Angel's Breakfast Club, where we had a chat about (amongst other things) how people are different offline, to how they are online. Online, you feel you can get a sense of someone's personality, only to meet them, and to be astounded about how introverted or extroverted they are. OR.. they can be precisely as you think. I like to think I do the latter, but eh, could be wrong.

We concluded that the mystery is still there, a point I (sort of) alluded to in my post about thin-slicing people. You can meet someone on an off day, or in a new situation - and you never truly know how people will react unless you're right there with them; and even then it's not always completely clear.

So that was one discussion - and one airing of views Helen and myself would never have been able to have without the medium of bloggery and our overlapping Web 2.0 ways - I tweeted whether she'd be keen to meet for a coffee, and voila. Helps that I only live 15 minutes from the Breakfast Club and she works in Islington, of course. So there's a point for the t'internet - and of course, we each know different bloggers - and we both got more of an insight into our respective disciplines, which was great. As a result of our conversation, I'm not sure whether I'm introverted or extroverted though. Got to do a test...

Anyway, today I met Lauren (Sheseesred) at the Tate Modern. We took this discussion on in a slightly different way (note - I only have 3 actual lucid conversation topics - the rest are about taxidermy, badgers and maypole dancing - not fit for human consumption), by wondering what some of the bloggers we'd not met were like (are you reading this Rob? ). Neither of us could be really sure, but could make educated guesses, as you'd expect - any blog friends of ours who were willing to do a bit of Ipod singing (see below) had to be a bit different and interesting in the flesh:

Above: Proceed with extreme caution...

And yes, no amount of transferable identity could stop us reminiscing about that particular moment of blog history.

But it got better (and this is material for a separate - long discussed - second part post about the Tate). Due to Lauren's background, my uncultured arse got to learn a bit about art.

Yes, more than 'I know what I like'. Actual background on the artists/movements themselves. Hot damn. She also learnt a bit of bollocks about history and the writers of the English Renaissance (I know what you are thinking - good trade on my part). She did parallel me with 'Where's Wally' (on account of my tremendous sartorial choices) though, so I didn't get off that lightly...

And without my 'Goldfish Bowl', if that's what it is, I would never, ever have been able to learn about some these things (short of paying people to tell me - which would never happen).

If it does exist, it's constantly shifting, and, inevitably, there will be crossovers. But to claim that my Facebook profile will always contain the same in jokes, in my limited experience either doesn't matter, or won't happen - social networks are for making friends, and whilst it does promote a bit of 'us and them' (those who participate, those who don't), it allows interesting overlaps (just this week I met someone via Mediastarz who knew a mate of mine from University) and most importantly, new and interesting conversations.

And if the mystery is lost, for the most part.. well.. I don't agree completely. I like to think I'm always changing. You can't ever know someone so well both online and offline that you can predict their every move. People continue to surprise you, and that's great.

What do you think readers - is there a goldfish bowl in web 2.0? And is it a bad thing? And DO I look like Where's Wally?