Which choice provides the best answer for the statement,
An online social network requires each of the following, EXCEPT:
A. a computer or mobile device
B. an Internet connection
C. people you like, know, and trust
The correct answer, of course, is C. No need for familiarity, either. “You have one friend request. Click to confirm.” Done!—without even shedding your fuzzy bedroom slippers. But is your social network a trusted community of valued connections, or simply a collection of names?
Marketing technology has met social networking, and changed it. Whether it's for the better is another question. Once-private “black books” are open to the world. I can “connect” with people I don’t know. From the comfort of my office, I can solicit thousands [1] who have never heard of me or my company to follow me on Twitter, to join my network on LinkedIn, or to become a friend on Facebook. Anyone can connect with anyone—or anything. No additional charge!
“Community” now grows at warp speed—but assumptions struggle to keep pace. Why? Because many people maintain that “social network” and “trusted connections” are intertwined ideas. True--before “click to connect.” But zero-cost Web 2.0 social connections mean there’s a significant likelihood that any two connected individuals have never communicated beyond a perfunctory default email invitation, and a single mouse click. Compare that process to laborious face-to-face meetings, and it’s easy to understand social media’s stunning popularity for building community. Scalable workflows and simple user interfaces have obviated the need to shake hands.
Has the concept faded that social connections are spawned when people mingle with like-minded people? As web-based communities erode boundaries between personal and professional domains, are we more open-minded to different beliefs and ideas—or just more dispassionate? I floated a related question on LinkedIn: “Would you sever a social network connection if you learned the individual belonged to a group, or held an opinion, that was diametrically opposed to a matter important to you?”
Some people drew an almost-crisp line. Mike Stankus, CEO of STM/360 said “if the person was part of a movement (or) group that was pushing hate or some other seriously negative agenda, I probably would sever the connection.” Sales expert Christian Maurer shared that he recently cut a tie. “I did not want readers of my profile (to) draw the conclusion that I could possibly be supporting an idea by being linked to this individual.” Others were ambivalent. A few wrote they value diverse opinions, and social media allows people of adamantly opposing viewpoints to connect. In a sense, we’ve come a long way. Although the same individuals might never socialize over a beer, they remain happily connected in the virtual Web 2.0 world.
In three years, social media technologies have undermined basic assumptions about connectedness. In January, 2007, blogger Guy Kawasaki wrote, (“10 ways to use LinkedIn”) [2]
“By adding connections, you increase the likelihood that people will see your profile first when they’re searching for someone to hire or do business with. In addition to appearing at the top of search results (which is a major plus if you’re one of the 52,000 product managers on LinkedIn), people would much rather work with people who their friends know and trust.”
Feel the love! But not everyone looks at connectedness that way, as blogger Joe Bartling describes: (“LinkedIn: The Myth of Having "Too Many Connections") [3]
“To me, having too many connections is like having too much MONEY. Bring me the connections, and bring me the money! People seem to think that a person who has ‘too many connections’ doesn't have a life. Though that may be true, it's not because he/she has too many connections.”
Want to understand “connection” and “connectedness” in the context of social media? It’s hard to reconcile those two statements. While both tout the benefit of numbers, one statement assumes "know and trust," while the second one doesn't make any mention of either. If you believe the concepts of social networks and meaningful connections are inextricable, then indiscriminately adding connections erodes the value of the network. If networks are valued for quantity of connections, then the assumption of trust between connections adds risk, because there is little that coheres individuals. These risks create costs, a reason that people are driven to B2B communities that are “’gated’ or have a threshold for membership,” as Vanessa DiMauro describes in her blog, “Moderating B2B Communities: Keeping the Fire Lit” [4].
The future of web-based social networks will be determined more by the requirements of people who use them, than by the technologies that enable them. If societies value true communities, then shared beliefs, trust, and common purpose must exist within those communities. Easier said than done! With 230 million and 50 million members respectively, Facebook and LinkedIn undoubtedly know that it’s harder to measure the intangibles that flow between connections—knowledge, innovation, inspiration, and energy—than it is to collect data about individuals.
Further reading:
Lynn Townsend White, Jr. [5] versus: Technological Determinism [6]