Your friends will know you better in the first minute you meet than your acquaintances will know you in a thousand years.
-Illusions, by Richard Bach
It was remarked recently that friendship is the new capital. The implication is that people with few connections on social networking sites have less value than those that have lots of connections. I just read personal branding in a recession, and saw that the same sentiment was put forward there, as well. On the web, social equity is viewable through ... the amount of engagement you have on social networks. Quantity, not quality.
I strongly disagree with this idea.
First, I want to be very clear about my use of the word "friend". To me, a friend is someone to whom I will unconditionally give money. A friend is someone I'll go out on a line for. Someone I'll pick up in the middle of the night if they need a ride, no questions asked. It is someone in whom I can confide. I've long held a clear distinction between "friend" and "acquaintance," and the number of people I call friend is small. I'm careful not to refer to people as "friend" unless they truly are. If they're not a friend by my definition of the word, I'll call them a "buddy" or "a guy I hang out with" or some similar lexical indication of a casual relationship.
Following someone on Twitter does not make them my friend. To make the claim that someone with more followers is somehow a more "valuable" person is outrageous in my mind. In part, this is because I see friendship as a two-way street. I don't think it's possible for me to consider someone a friend (by my definition of the word) if they aren't capable or willing to reciprocate that relationship. In online relationships and social networking sites, the power users with thousands of so-called "friends" aren't really establishing friendships because the relationship is largely one-way. The social network power users aggregate and redistribute information, but what do they give back to the people from whom they glean the information they rebroadcast? Maybe a link? Maybe a "shout out"? That's not a very rewarding relationship, is it?
I think the fundamental issue here is the way in which folks use social networking sites. Some folks seek to use them for professional purposes, while others seek to use them for purely personal purposes. It's easy for people "doing business" on social networking sites to underestimate the importance of the social aspect of many of these sites and services, and to miss the point entirely on how they can be used to strengthen the bonds of real friendships. When using social networks for professional pursuits, quantity is important. Following a lot of people from which you can obtain information improves your chances of getting information worth sharing. But it can be a full-time job to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the people you follow aren't really "friends" are they?
I know that my stark separation of "friends" and "acquaintances" is not standard for most folks, and that's okay with me. It would be interesting, though, to see social networking sites offer some relationship indicator other than simply "friend". But I suppose terms like "leech" and "peon" aren't likely to get much use in a social networking site, are they?
Interesting article, especially in light of what you have written in the past about relationships that exist because of the interwebs. I tend to err on the side of having "friends", and "close friends". I consider Bryan Veloso a friend for instance, but I consider you a close friend.
"Close friend" is generally analogous to what you refer to as "friend". Those people whom I consider close friends are those I have been able to create an "offline" relationship with.
Great article!
I have found the entire "social networking" phenomenon with skepticism. I have some "Facebook friends" who I haven't spoken with in 20 years, and others who the last time I spoke with them we weren't exactly on friendly terms. But now they are my "friends", for some definition I'm not entirely sure of.
I do know that the intersections of the sets "friends" and "facebook friends" is almost empty, and that's at least one of the sites where relationships are reciprocal. So, why do I accept their connection invitation? Perhaps because I think it would hurt their feelings if I didn't. But it doesn't mean anything other than "I think maybe I met you once, although I wouldn't necessarily recognize you if you walked into my office."
Chris: you're right, in that I've evangalized the connecting power of the Internet in the past, and have some truly remarkable friends as a result (including you!). I think the distinguishing factor is that I don't set out to use the Internet as a platform to make connections. It happens naturally, and I think the benefits are greater that way.
Rich: I don't use Facebook for exactly that reason. All of my friends who have accounts have reported the same thing: many of the people from our high school graduating class "friend" them and then do nothing about it. This is not to say that Facebook is a worthless application, or that it can only be used to perpetuate these kinds of awkward, obligatory connections.
I did a quick analysis of folks I follow on twitter and found that the breakdown is kind of what I would expect for a "micro blogging" site: 2 coworkers, 9 acquaintances, 15 friends (?
I don't see Twitter as social networking, though. I see Facebook, Tribe, Friendster, and Myspace as social networking and LinkedIn as that same sort of thing, but Twitter is something else.
Re: Facebook - It's ok to ignore folks who want to be your "friend". I do it all the time.
"Someone I'll pick up in the middle of the night if they need a ride, no questions asked."
I'd turn this around to be "someone I'd call in the middle of the night if I needed a ride". If someone called me, I'd pick them up whether they were friend or acquaintance.
A recent Wired magazine article (can't find a link to it online) bemoaned the inability to let "friend"ships die because of facebook and the like. I agree--I've got "friends" on facebook whom I knew only vaguely in high-school. Lame. I've succumbed to the "must have as many friends as possible" but I'll admit that its done more out of a "follow the crowd" mentality than a real desire to connect with people. In fact, I recently sent a friend request to an old girlfriend whom I had cruelly broken up with 18 years ago. She hasn't accepted it.
So, Skippy, I agree with your thesis, and I too typically reserve the designation of "friend" in real life for very few.
Hey old friend,
Can you please send me some money? I need like a couple large.
Nope? Ooops.
Bob
Bob: I know this guy in Nigeria -- some banker dude -- who's looking to move some money. I can introduce you, if you'd like!
I agree with you Skippy. Friendship is not the new capital. Networking and having contacts is definitely important for many people professionally, but a friend is necessarily something else.
...services to get your name in front of people. Your job is to make yourself known: comment on blogs, friend everyone, and update your own blog(s) as often as you can, being sure to use valuable key words as part of y...
I agree that the word "friend" is very loosely used when it comes to web 2.0 and social networking. Funny thing is, that while the term is loosely used, it may be perceived to be rude if you were to start classifying your contacts on the web with personal vs professional. I think it is up to the individuals to be savvy enough to be able to know the difference. It's like reading between the lines.