Comments on: Doctor, my ambient intimacy is broken

By: Toby Beresford

Toby Beresford — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:52:04 +0000

I feel much the same way – the Facebook friend list tools are there but they do need improving – they are a bit secretarial at the moment (putting my friends into different folders takes time and is a hassle) – it might even be good if Facebook second guessed this for you a bit more

By: Edith

Edith — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:28:36 +0000

You can customise your privacy on Facebook more than you’ve said – if you set up friends lists, e.g. ‘trusted friends’, ‘people i don’t know’ and ‘inbetween’, you can then choose which of those groups can see each part of your profile. So you can’t customise the privacy of an individual status update but you can customise the privacy of all your status updates. You get the option to do this if you pick the ‘customize…’ option on your screenshot (and if you’ve already set up friend lists!)

I do think you raise a very interesting point though. I am constantly self-censoring myself because of the variety of people I’m friends with – no current colleagues, but ex-colleagues, people I barely know anymore, and even my in-laws!

By: asi

asi — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:03:01 +0000

Cheers for the link Andy W

Andy P:

Cheers for your thoughtful comment. you always add great deapth and value to the conversation…

I think that social networks needs to adapt their semantics to allow the complexity and multifacetedness of our offline relationships to carry on online.

The online and offline interweave almost perfectly today – for example, I feel much more ‘intimate’ with some blog buddies whom I’ve never met with in person than some old mates from uni. As you said this only adds to the confusion but at the end of the day it’s less about semantics and more about what level of intimacy (what you want to share or be share with) you want to have and with who.

By: andy

andy — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:25:36 +0000

you should swap some notes with noah:

http://www.noahbrier.com/archives/2007/08/twitter_and_opaqueness.php

By: Andy Polaine

Andy Polaine — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:22:11 +0000

I think what is really broken here is the semantics of friendship, as it were, as well as the nomenclature and control. (Wow, did that sentence ever sound wanky).

Facebook never really defines what a “friend” means all that clearly (I think Plaxo or LinkedIn makes a point of this in it’s connect-to-friend interface moment). There’s no “acquaintances” category, or “strangers I’m interested in being in contact with” or “people I don’t mind nosing in on me” category.

I suspect, though, it also reflects the confusion in real life too. A confusion that’s naturally more confused thanks to the interweb. I have become quite good ‘friends’ with a few people I have either never met in real life or have met briefly once and then carried on a correspondence with via e-mail or blogging. Of course that online part of the relationship will then affect how I am with them the next time I physically see them.

My point is that I wouldn’t know what to call some of these people even if the tools were there to categorise them. I’m guessing that’s why the tools aren’t there, because nobody can figure out what they should be doing.

I feel like we’re living an extended version of the When Harry Met Sally scenes about men and women being just friends.

So perhaps the first task is to develop those semantics and nomenclature. But then they’ll probably go awry cross-culturally too.