General

All hail anti-social media: Chatterous, LinkedIn, Xbox Live

It might seem odd to group these three services together with the broad label of ‘anti-social media’. Allow me a moment of indulgence.

One of the characteristics of various sites labeled as ’social media/networks’ is the outright display of friends/followers and subscribers. Perhaps this is useful or perhaps this accelerates a certain type of alpha-monkey behavior. Regardless, these three services have unique anecdotes as they relate to me and more importantly, anti-social media.

Chatterous is a simple, web-based chat service that has the persistent archival that Twitter does. (While Twitter was originally designed as a status/presence updater, emergent user behavior turned parts of it into a chat room.) 140 character limits mean nothing if we can keep posting over and over and over). Chatterous does not currently make a big deal about who you know, only who is present. This could reflect natural behavior. Someone coming and going has a much different feel than someone following and un-following. Even then, does it matter who follows me? Maybe it does, but we’ll get to that a bit later. Sitting idle in a Chatterous room feels similar to sitting idle in IRC or other chat service. The conversation is happening and you can choose to jump in or not. The volume can be heavy, when conversation is heavy, but goes in waves and is perhaps more relevant because of a slightly higher and more controlled barrier to entry. (Although, not much)

Chatterous also makes the ‘chat’ (they call them groups), password protected by default (while providing outstanding interfaces to the service by way of web, sms, gtalk and e-mail). To me, it’s not so much to be private (I’ve published the password to my little slice o’ web chat), it’s more about discrete, off-to-the-side/background communication. While we’re being social, we’re being somewhat anti-social, but not broadcasting to the world everytime we blink.

XBOX Live might seem like an unlikely service to write about, unless one considers the buddy list and its existence on the console and the web. Microsoft, getting into the social game a bit deeper, opened up the ability to view anyone’s buddy list (18 and up), without asking permission.

The difference between broadcasting a gamertag and broadcasting a buddy list is that I made a decision to share my gamertag on Xbox Live. I did not choose to share my buddy list– Microsoft did that for me– and I had to block the viewing of it. Anti-social, indeed. And respectful of my circle of friends.

Finally, we come to LinkedIn, a business-oriented social network that focuses on the networking, minus all the silly Facebookian pokes and vampire bites. Trouble is, not always does one wish to share relationships in public. Can a judgement be made against me based on perceived associations? Can my connection to another be manipulated where a third party uses me to get through to someone I know? (Would you want to be connected to, say, a talented programmer who is a known Scientologist? Heh) Finally, does that publicly-displayed number of ‘connected’ people change my behavior for better or worse?

Naturally, the notion of throttling is waving a middle finger in the face of ‘openness’ and ‘transparency’– two ideals that are thrust upon us by the designers of such sites. Nothing in social media is new– only that technology adds hyper-magnification to an already established structure of social graces. Some people show off, some people manipulate, and others sit back quietly. Our gossip and speculation is driven by what we see, rather than what we’ve been told or heard through a grapevine. Social media is just humanity, magnified by technology, and not an industry or ’space’.

At the beginning of the year, I proclaimed 2008 the year of anti-social media– something not remedied by lack of participation or involvement, but being allowed the choice of discretion and control that isn’t always assumed in modern-day socially-driven software architecture.

© 2008 infocalypse.