Your friends are your friends, not your Friendsters

First Monday was and is a great journal - one of the first online magazines - that highlighted many of the early issues on the web. It is a wonder that they survive, and even more wonderful that they can publish stuff like this:

Friends, Friendsters, and top 8: Writing community networks into being on social network sites

The essence of the article is that "friends" in Friendster are something less than acquaintancies, and that the social networks that are displayed may (although that is my conclusion) be entirely bogus (many of the "friends" are). Interesting, then, to ask what this means for the "friend of a friend" project. Do you really know all those people? Or are they just out to build you into a network, where the winner is the one who has the biggest? Or if you do, does it mean that you are friends, and not acquintances?

Of course, one allure of the social networking sites is that you can see the result of your connection instantly. You get instant gratification from the relation, for the very reason that it is limited. Nothing unexpected can happen. You are reduced to a very limited set of social signals, and within those the role you can play is crystal clear.

Not like reality at all. None of this fidding around with agreeing on the phone on meeting in cafes. Objects are always available - it is almost better if they are not real people, just people acting out roles (objects, as a matter of fact). The connection is its own reward.
Of course, in real human relations, the connection is just the start. In Friendster, all you can do is connect, and then connect some more. You do not have to apologise when you are wrong - first finding out that you are wrong, and then figuring out what to change not to do it again. You do not have to make up. The gratification of a real human relation is limitless. Even a dog has a limited set of signals, even if they make up for it with unlimited love. No wonder children are so gratifying to their parents: All the signals of humanity, all the love you could ever ask for.

It certainly would explain why young women want to be like Paris Hilton, or assorted porn stars - they are objects, and the girls want instant gratification, so they have to play the role of objects, with the limited signalling schemes that entails. It certainly explains why Shibuya girls are exaggerating their social signals to the extreme: They want to become objects, not people. And it would explain why blondes are considered stupid. Their signalling scheme is limited.

Are social networks really about the objectification of humanity? Or just about objects?