k4t3.org blog

deconstructing internet culture and the social web

TED recently announced a new conference: TEDWomen. TPUTH‘s snarky headline said it all: “Sexist TED finally allows women on stage.”

TED’s rational for the gender segregation: “Over the past several years, our ideas on women have changed. A new lens reveals women and girls as powerful change agents in the area of economic growth, public health, political stability and beyond.”

Really? This is news? This JUST happened? We can do more than cook and clean? Did the feminist movement never happen?

Imagine if TED decided to launch a TED African American. Imagine the justifiable outcry. But apparently it’s still okay to marginalize women in the name of gender equality. And, this strategy of creating a new ‘special interest’ wing for an organization is a common strategy used to avoid the integration of women or blacks into the main organization, and thus accessing power and position.

Maybe TED should work on including women more in regular TED (should we call it TEDMen now? Or not, because apparently maleness is still the default and assumed gender). If the gender balance totally sucks, why not figure out why and fix it? If there are so many awesome women (enough to fill a new conference), it shouldn’t be a problem.

{ 0 comments }

I love Foursquare and any one of my friends will tell you how obsessed I am (complete with an eye roll). I’m a level 1 super user and religiously check in where ever I go. I’ve added a lot of new locations and will fix location information or duplicates when I see a mistake. I’m not entirely sure why I’m so taken with Foursquare, but I think that is part of why I’m so taken with it. I’m fascinated by this new way of experiencing the world and the potentials for privacy, identity and social interaction. And I’m fascinated with why my geeky friends and I spend so much time contributing to it without any financial incentive.

angry baby

But, as a woman, I am very aware of the safety issues inherent in sharing where you are and the places you frequent. When I was teen, I received death threats from some dick on IRC by who had managed to find my home address. I’ve spoken to other women who are Foursquare users and they, too, were concerned about stalking and were surprised how many guys check in to their homes on Foursquare. But, regardless of your gender, there are of course all sorts of potentials for misuse of this information by governments, law enforcement, businesses, marketing agencies and so on. This is why I used a fake name and profile photo on Foursquare (By default, a user’s profile URL is a number with a dash in front of it. The name used on the site is a user’s first name and last initial.)

The other day, I decided I wanted to twiddle with my settings and link my Foursquare account with my Twitter account. There were clear (or so I thought) options for deciding what this would mean. I could check or uncheck boxes saying what information I wanted to be shared on Twitter. What I did not realise was that linking my Twitter account would also mean that Twitter username would get pulled to Foursquare and become my new profile url. Sure, at first glance this seems totally harmless. But like may other internet users, I’ve consistently used the same nick for years, across many services. So, it’s pretty easy to link my ‘real’ identity with my online self through my nick. So, to put it simply, this was a pretty big privacy violation which comes with all the issues associated with outing. I no longer feel comfortable checking in as my activity is no longer anonymous. I’m not the only one with this issue.

But there’s nothing we can do about it. There’s no option to undo it (just like there was option to do it in the first place, it was just done without my permission. Foursquare hasn’t replied to any of my Twitter messages to them or my post on Get Satisfaction. What is so infuriating to me is that Foursquare provides no way to contact them about this sort of issue, except by posting on Get Satisfaction. Which is ridiculous, given 1.) the sensitive nature of the information gathered and shared on the site and the potential safety issues that could result and 2.) how much value I, like most users, have added to the site.

The situation also calls to mind a recent privacy issue with Google Buzz, where ‘feature’ aimed at making the service more intuitive resulted in a woman’s information being automatically shared with her abusive ex-husband. I think the same thing is going on here. The designers at Foursquare probably thought everyone would want to have the same username on Twitter as they did on Foursquare, so, of course, there was no reason to give the user a choice in the matter. A the Google Buzz incident shows, design choices online have real life implications, which is why designers need to start thinking beyond their own life experience and situations. They need to start designing for the rest of us.

But for now, if I don’t hear back from Foursquare soon, I’m going to cancel my account.

Update March 15, 2010: Finally heard back from a Foursquare employee named Chrysanthe on Get Satisfaction who contributed this nugget: “If you link your foursquare account to twitter, then your foursquare user URL will correspond to your twitter handle.” Really? You don’t say. Now how about warning people AND telling me how to undo it, like I was asking (pretty please)? And, not leaving it for three days would also be nice (timeliness is kinda important when privacy is an issue).

Update April 12, 2010: Still nothing back from Foursquare. But David Fono had the smart idea of unlinking my Twitter and Foursquare accounts, which worked like a charm. This was counter intuitive to me – usually moving from a random number to a nice username is seen as ‘upgrading.’ Plus the person designing it obviously thought it having a nice username was feature users would want, so why would they want it to go back to the ugly random number again? But Fono’s a coder (so he has better insight into that kind of thinking than I), and he said it made sense that it would work from his perspective. This again speaks to my observation that the people making social media think differently than most of the people using it, which is why we get ourselves in such situations.

So, what’s the big takeaway? If someone at Foursquare had just TOLD me this solution (like I had requested) none of this would be a problem! You gotta be responsive to privacy concerns when you’re playing with such sensitive data, guys.

PS if you’re in Toronto on June 19th, this incident was a big motivator in my decision to put together a Privacy Unconference on these very issues – PrivacyCampTO: Privacy for everyone!

{ 0 comments }

In October I took a trip to the US Midwest for Internet Research 10. I had heard horror stories from friends and the internets about surprise $3000+ roaming bills. So, of course, checked to make sure my data roaming on my iPhone was set to off (you know, that setting where it clearly says “turn this off to avoid substantial roaming fees”) as I got on the plane and stashed my phone, not even wanting to use it to make calls that would cost me almost $2 a minute. But you know how this story ends.

Even though I had data roaming set to off and even though I didn’t check my email or use Google maps or do anything else that would’ve been super helpful on my trip in an unfamiliar city, I got charged over $300 for data roaming by Fido on behalf of AT&T. I explained that, as he could see from my call record, I didn’t use my phone at all during the trip (not even for calls) and half the time the battery was dead. Some of the data charges were even at 1am (while I was sleeping!) The customer service guy said that turning data roaming off wasn’t enough and I had to turn 3G off as well and “that this was a well known fact.” (In reality, it’s total BS). I asked that they do an investigation and find out exactly what I was supposedly downloading, but he told me that this was not possible. So, I was basically being charged $300 for a service without my consent or knowledge, without any ability to see how this actually happened. The kicker is that in total, the $300 charge was for only about 50 megs of data use. Think about how ridiculous that is.

Anyway, after about 45 minutes of arguing and going back and forth with the customer service guy’s supervisor (who also agreed it was my fault for not turning of 3G), I was offered a 50% refund. I said I was not going to pay any amount for a service I didn’t use and asked to speak to the supervisor. I was put on hold for another 10 minutes, and was then informed I would be called back later.

Twitter-enabled public shaming

12 hours later, and I still haven’t heard back from anyone at Fido, so I decide to do some research (with the help of the awesome folks on the HacklabTO mailing list, my local hacker collective) and start posting on Twitter. After my first post, to my surprise, a Fido rep starts messaging me from a group Fido account (@fidomobile) on and then individually (@rogersmary) follows my account. By this point, a few people are retweeting my post and I decide to tell CBC radio’s Spark (@sparkcbc). I also write a message to @rogersmary about a story in the LA Times about the same situation happening to a bunch of other people. About an hour later, I get a call from Asja Asanovic at the “Office of the President” at Fido. She is very apologetic and nice and helpful and reverses all the charges, and says she will “start an investigation with Apple.” But, as far as preventing this from happening again, she has no suggestions. I can either turn off the internet entirely (which defeats the purpose of having an iPhone) turn off voice AND data roaming entirely (making my phone useless outside of Toronto) or just leave my phone in Canada when I travel. Three completely ridiculous “solutions” for an iPhone user.

I’m happy it’s resolved, but I am very unhappy at how much time/stress Fido/Apple’s mistake cost me. I’m also very disappointed that I didn’t have my issue fixed right away when I first called Fido. Instead, Fido only treated me reasonably after I publicly shamed them on Twitter. It is wrong that I get better service from an unadvertised customer service rep on Twitter, rather than 1800 number provided on their site, and only because I made a big stink. How many other people have been screwed by this? Apparently a bunch.

So, what is the main takeaway from my lil adventure?

1.) Data roaming charges completely unfair and do not reflect their actual cost (how can the CRTC allow telecoms to charge us up to $30, 000.00 per Gb?)

2.) There is something very fucky about the iPhone data roaming on/off switch (See the Apple forums and LA Times). Be careful when traveling internationally.

3.) Sadly, the strategic use of social media (and your local hacker collective) is the only real way of getting proper, reasonable service from Canada’s ridiculous wireless oligopoly.

{ 1 comment }

Facebook Friend Switcharoo

by on March 20, 2009

in Uncategorized

Another strategy I’m noticing to avoid Friending angst/rudeness – you receive a request from someone you don’t want to Friend, but don’t want to offend. So, you add them with the intention to delete them after a short while, that way they see they’ve been accepted and everyone is happy. Then, after a few weeks when they won’t notice (since you aren’t really close anyway), you defriend them. They feel validated that you’re friends or you trust them or whatever they’re looking for, but you don’t have to share your ongoing life with them.

This tactic suggests the act of Friending is sometimes more important than the ongoing lifestream access.

I think this may be a more recent thing too (it’s only in the past 6 months or I’ve started hearing a few people say they’ve done it)

Anyone use this as a strategy? How frequently? What type of person do you do it with? How long have you been doing it?

14 comments | Leave a comment

A few years ago Fono and I wrote a paper that was basically about LJ drama, even though we gussied it up with a fancy academic title and invoked Baudrillard. The main thing we found was that people had all these different ideas about what being Friends on LiveJournal meant. The main reasons people Friended each other were:

  • to add journals to their reading list.
  • to facilitate relationships (both offline and exclusively online).
  • to indicate trust.
  • as a courtesy.
  • as a declaration of some sort of relationship.
  • for entertainment, friend collecting, as a game etc.

As a result of all these differing meanings for different people, the act of Friending or defriending could mean a lot to someone, while another person wouldn’t even give it a second thought. One person could defriend a friend because they were bored of reading their journal, while their now defriended friend might take the action as a commentary about their relationship. Throw in the fact that LJ Friending is essentially a way of controlling privacy (so it’s functional AND meaningful) and you have a recipe for DRAMA!

Now think about Facebook. This all sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Well in analysing my fieldwork last year I’m realising that even though the meanings of Friending on Facebook and LJ are both ambiguous, the way people react to that ambiguity is different.Now think about Facebook. This all sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Well in analysing my fieldwork last year I’m realising that even though the meanings of Friending on Facebook and LJ are both ambiguous, the way people react to that ambiguity is different. On LiveJournal, people acted on the angst caused by the Friending feature by writing angry posts or comments about when they were defriended, for example, to which the defriender would usually angrily reply, and then all the friends of both parties would reply and everyone else could watch and be amused. This dynamic gave birth to the very hilarious ljdrama.org, which sarcastically chronicled the latest disputes over who defriended who and why. (There’s still an awesome archive of everyone’s favourite LJ drama moments here.)

Yet there isn’t an fbdrama.org. How often do you actually see serious flamewar style drama playing out on someone’s wall? Hardly ever, right? So even though Friending on Facebook and Livejournal both cause angst because of the differing meanings it has for different people – we’ve all wondered why a certain person has added or removed us, or if we should accept a Friend request from someone we don’t really like – on Facebook, no one really seems to act on that angst so it never evolves into drama. Most of the angsty situations I’ve seen involve people telling their close friends that they’re unsure about adding someone, but I’ve never seen anyone actually confront a sketchy Friend requester or someone who has defriended them.

So, I wanna throw this out to everyone, especially people who are participating in my ethnography (you know who you are;) ). Do you think my observations are correct? If so, why do you think it’s the case? Your answers will influence what I write in my thesis, but do let me know if you don’t want me to quote you.

My initial hypothesis is that engaging in drama on Facebook would have social repercussions that wouldn’t happen to the same degree on LiveJournal. The stakes are higher on Facebook because you use your real name and personal info, and usually have most of the people you know from all aspects of your life as Friends. Messing with the people you only know online on Livejournal is a much lower risk than messing with someone who you work with or shares mutual friends. What do you think?

32 comments | Leave a comment

There’s been a lot of discussion recently on one of the mailing lists I subscribe (the one run by the Institute for Distributed Creativity for anyone keeping track) to about the corruption in Wikipedia’s governance structure, sparked by a recent art project called Wikipedia Art. The “art” (if that’s what it really is… but that question is a whole other post) consisted of the group creating an article about Wikipedia art, then publishing articles about that article, then using those articles as sources to prove the article was indeed notable, according to Wikipedia’s standards. And of course lots of drama ensured, and they got mega-deletz0red by Wikipedia’s admins. Hilarious, but pretty wanky (to use some good academic terminology). So the point of this “art” (I think, it’s kinda unclear what exactly the goal was… but again, that’s a whole other post) was some sort of commentary on Wikipedia’s governance and rules about what should be included in the encyclopedia. As a fan of Wikipedia and all things wiki (I used to have a job where all I did all day was edit a wiki), I took the side of Wikipedia and was glad they took a hard line with the art vandals. This mentality caused me to dismiss all the negative things people were posting to the list about how Wikipedia governance was corrupt and the gatekeepers were all non-academics under 30 (of course, anyone younger than 30 is an ignorant troublemaker!) who only cared about making sure Wikipedia was filled with articles about Dungeons & Dragons but not the “important” stuff. But then the following happened, and I realised that actually, Wikipedia’s governance probably is bankrupt, although probably not because of the age of the admins or their love of D&D.

An American teen posted videos of himself brutally abusing his cat Dusty on YouTube over the weekend (I found the video so, so sad… it will haunt you). This enraged everyone’s favourite band of internet trolls, Anonymous, who decided to track him down and get him arrested. An unnamed person set up kenny-glenn.com with the personal contact details of the abuser and his family. After a flurry of activity all over the internets, which can be chronicled on Encyclopedia Dramatica (yes, as we will soon see, we have to use them as a reference because Wikipedia doesn’t have any information about what happened. How sad is that?), it was reported that Kenny Glenn has been arrested.

This case is interesting for a number of reasons, one of which is that it could also be the first time a loosely organized group of people on the internet initiated a campaign to identify a suspect and then notify the police… in the least no case before has been so high profile or had so many people involved.

Anyway, Wikipedia admins deleted the Kenny Glenn article and then blocked the creation of a new one, despite it being all over the news and the internet. I asked that the protection be removed, and I was told if I was to create a passable draft it might be used as an article since all the other edits had been vandalism. At the same time, a group of people from the Facebook group about the story created a page called “Timmy_(animal_abuse_suspect)” which was factual and backed up all its claims with journalistic sources, as required by Wikipedia. I followed up with the admin and asked if he/she could use the Timmy page as a draft. In response he deleted the Timmy article, saying it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the protection placed on the Kenny Glenn article. I asked the admin again if the page could be used as a draft in the way he/she first proposed, to which the admin replied that he/she wanted to take “a step back” and another admin should deal with it. The admin then posted on some special Wikipedia notice board basically saying that his reason for blocking the article was about the questionable ethics of posting information about a minor. You can see our exchange here.

What stuck out for me was that this seemed to be more of an issue of following rules rather than making Wikipedia a better information source. We didn’t follow them perfectly, so the admins are upset that we challenged their authority (how dare we!) and then that becomes the reason to continue the protection on the page. From the time I spend wading through all the different rules and pages and guidelines made it very clear to me the system is a mess. After going through this, it is even more unclear to me as to what the process and rules actually are. I mean, the reason the admin gave me for the block switched from a lack of a neutral well sourced article to being an issue of ethics (if you look at the deleted Kenny Glenn page, even, the original reason for its deletion was listed as “Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject” – no mention of the issue being one of ethics.) I do agree there are issues with the suspect being a minor, but I think there is a lot more going on here. It also begs the question as to why information about this kid and the case itself can be all over the internet (in “credible” sources and otherwise) but that it is being blocked from being reproduced on Wikipedia. Isn’t one of the goals of Wikipedia to provide an open and valuable source of information that acts as an alternative to conventional sources of knowledge which are protected by gatekeepers? I mean how messed up is it that the mainstream news is covering it, but Wikipedia is censoring it?

As my friend Luke said so aptly: “Wikipedia started out as this great if somewhat unreliable source of information, but now there’s all these admins who think they’re holier-than-thou and if they haven’t heard about or don’t like something, it can’t possibly go. And what they don’t realize is that they’re just turning Wikipedia into a normal, old-school encyclopedia.” There’s also a great post on all these issues on the P2P foundation blog: Is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia governance processes?

This all makes me very, very sad. I was so excited about the potential of the internet, especially Wikipedia which I have heartily defended until this point. I believed Wikipedia was doing something truly collaborative, open, free and democratic. It was a sign that maybe, we could one day accomplish all of the things we haven’t been able to before – giving everyone a voice and getting rid of the gatekeepers that control knowledge and information. But this just shows that eventually, our hunger for power – and all those other terrible features of human nature – win out. I hope I can be proven wrong.

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

… right.

3 comments | Leave a comment


Ah, Facebook gets a mention in my new favourite, Peep Show, when Mark makes a deal with an Australian to have her pretend she’s his girlfriend in exchange for letting her stay with him:

Mark: So, I could tell people you were my girlfriend?

Saz: Well, we might… take things slow, to start with, yeah?

Mark: Sure, but we could still have fun, and y’know, watch Morse, and people could see us out together, like at my birthday party on Friday. And I could put a photo of us on Facebook?

Saz: …Sure… All that stuff.

[Episode 3, Season 5]

So there you go, if you weren’t already convinced that Facebook is now just a normal part of everyday life in places like London and Toronto (and that the performativity and rituals of of dating now include Facebook photos).

1 comments | Leave a comment

The Changing Face of Facebook

by kate raynes-goldie on September 29, 2008

in academic,facebook,facebook history,thesis

One fascinating thing about Facebook is how much it has changed since it was first launched in 2004. Like the other early social networking sites such as Friendster, Facebook started out with very simple features (check out their early FAQ to see what I mean). But, unlike Friendster and a lot of other sites,* Facebook kept adding features that not only drastically changed how the site works, but increasingly made it insanely addictive. In writing my first chapter for my thesis which summarizes the history of Facebook’s development, I’m realising how important these changes are in understanding not only the culture of Facebook today (especially in Toronto, where many people adopted it earlier there then elsewhere, and thus were witness to a lot of the changes), but also in understanding the state and meaning of social networking sites more broadly.

As I mentioned, early Facebook was like any other social networking site, except that it was aimed at the niche market of university students. It was the functionality of these sites that gave rise to the term online social networking – you add your friends and in essence make tangible your offline social network. (Something I’m investigating is the development of that term – did the sites actually ever use it themselves, or did the academics/bloggers come up with it?) Anyway, on Friendster back in the day (2003) I remember my friends and I all got excited and spent hours adding everyone we knew. Then we had added everyone, and got bored, and thought “now what?” There was really nothing to do with that meticulously created list of friends. So we all forgot about it. But Facebook went beyond that, and gave us something to do with that list. They’ve made that list your audience, your contact list, your source of information and your entertainment. I think its fair to say that Facebook has gone beyond what we first called a social networking site.

danah boyd and Nicole Ellison recently proposed that the term should be social network, rather than social networking sites because the latter implies that active searching for and engagement with new people. Facebook and other sites aren’t really about meeting new people, they’re about growing and maintaining existing relationships with people we already know. As we all know, adding someone you don’t know on Facebook has become a total faux pas. For them, the primary characteristic of social network sites, or whatever you want to call them, is that they allow you to create and show your social network. But I think that’s only the beginning of what Facebook is today. That social network is definitely the foundation for all of the other activities on the site, but I don’t think that it’s still the defining characteristic.

I think the best way to understand how Facebook has gone beyond being just a social networking site is to see how it has evolved from what we meant by social networking site in 2004. Facebook’s three big axes of change can be summarized in terms of access, audience and information the first two of which are closely intertwined. The first Facebook, which was actually officially called thefacebook at the time (pictured courtesy archive.org) was essentially just your profile and a list of your friends, like all good social networks of the time (and still some today).

Access-wise, early Facebook was closed – you needed a valid email address from an approved school to join, which was just Harvard at first. The audience was students exclusively, and had features specifically for that purpose, such as being able to see who was in your classes. Or helping you get laid, as Karel Baloun, one of the first Facebook engineers, suggests in his book on the subject: “Facebook gives users what they want, which for college students is information about their friends and schoolmates for the purpose of… well … sex. And fun social events, which lead to sex” (Inside Facebook, p 91). And lastly, the information on thefacebook was ephemeral. You could change stuff on your profile, and no one would know unless they went looking and could remember what you had there before. As danah boyd puts it, there was security in obscurity. Closed doors, ephemeral information and a student-only audience made people feel safe sharing their real and personal details about themselves. If only other students will see, and only those I want, it’s okay for me to post my dorm room and mobile number on Facebook. In fact, people felt encouraged to do so. There was a pay off – it made socializing easier. People will give up their privacy if they get something in exchange, like free air travel (Air Miles cards) or convenience (putting your thumb and iris on file to cross the border faster, as with the Nexxus card in North America). It was this closed, student only phase in Facebook’s history that created Facebook’s continuing culture of sharing lots of accurate personal information that gives Facebook its tremendous value. I suspect things would not be the same if Facebook had opened up to everyone right away, since it was still unusual to so closely tie one’s offline life and identity with their online one.

Anyway, as we all know, Facebook opened it’s doors to everyone. Slowly at first, with high school kids first being allowed on (September 2005). Then select companies, such as Apple and Microsoft (May 2006), then everyone (September 2006).** This fateful day in September was also the day that Facebook added the News and Mini-Feeds. It was a double whammy. No longer could you feel projected from the rest of the world by Facebook’s walls of valid-email-requirements and that feel relatively assured that those drunken party photos from last night’s kegger would probably not grace the eyes of your boss.*** In fact, now, your boss would probably get notified that the pictures were posted, via her shiny new News Feed. All at once, everything was different.

First, the information on Facebook that had once been ephemeral was now not only artifactual, but was also being actively pushed to your friends. The formerly invisible act of updating your profile was now visible. Activities change when we know people are watching. They become performative. Now, not only was your profile performative, but the act of maintaining it was also a performance. The addition of feeds made it possible to watch snippets of our friends lives, without having to interact with them or even having them know we watching. It’s the replacement of reciprocal interaction with information flows. The recent redesign has reinforced this informational shift. The default thing you see when you view someone’s profile is no longer their personal and contact information, but the activity from their wall and mini-feeds combined. In fact, you could probably say this is an emerging axis of change on Facebook that is strongly related to the informational shift – a shift in focus from personal information to a focus on one’s activity and interactions with others.

Secondly, Facebook had moved from being closed to open access, and in so doing had changed from catering to students to catering to everyone. This change in audience not only meant changes in Facebook’s affordances to make it more appealing to a mainstream audience (for example, getting rid of the courses feature), but a change in every users’ potential audience. Now all the early adopters had to rethink if that profile they had created when Facebook was students-only was appropriate for everyone in their lives to potentially see.

I had a bit of an interesting experience with this shift in audience. I had been on Facebook since 2004, but didn’t really use it in the university context since I had already graduated earlier that year. I did, however, use it primarily with people from my personal rather than professional life. But, when Facebook took off in Toronto in late 2006 (pictured in action on the right), I was working at a place that blended the personal and the professional, as I think a lot of young high tech firms do these days. Anyway, it took me a while after Facebook opened up to everyone to realise that my vague feeling of discomfort when using Facebook stemmed from the fact that Facebook had essentially mashed up all my contexts into one big context, yet out of habit, I was still using and thinking about the site as if I was just interacting with close friends in terms of sharing more and different things that I probably would’ve otherwise. From talking to other people about this, I think this experience is common for a lot of early adopters, but I think it may have been even more subtle for me given the culture of where I was working at the time.

So what is Facebook now? I’m still working on it, but it’s more than a social networking site since creating and articulating our networks is definitely only the foundation of what we’re actually doing on Facebook these days. The front page of Facebook (the one you see when you’re logged out) says it’s a “social utility” that can be used to “keep up with friends and family; share photos and videos; control privacy online; and reconnect with old classmates.” But overall, it “connects you with the people around you.” Baloun (remember that Facebook engineer?) says that “everything social can be transacted inside [Facebook]” (Inside Facebook, p 71). While not yet a reality, it’s certainly Zuckerberg’s fantasy of how he wants Facebook to be, and says a lot about what I think is an inherent believe at Facebook: that everything can be reduced to 1s and 0s. Today, Facebook is social networking, but its also life streaming, photo sharing, video sharing, blogging, event organizing and a bunch of other stuff we haven’t got proper names for yet. But take that thought and add this: some would say that like MySpace, Facebook is “the next generation of marketing, advertising and promotion, exquisitely disguised as social networking.” A little scary, no?


* Even my favorite, LiveJournal, has remained basically the same since 1999, but it looks like that might be changing since SUP bought them. I haven’t decided if this is good or bad yet, but Facebook has shown that even relatively minor-ish changes like Feeds can change the whole culture, meaning and use of a site.

** Of course, it is important to point out that a lot of the safety in Facebook’s student-only access was psychological. Stuff still leaked out, and school admins and other unwelcome people still got in. But the power of that sort of belief, and the culture of accurate personal information sharing that came from it, cannot be ignored. However, when Facebook opens its doors, the reality of the situation hits you right in the face. Its not easy to go on believing that what you put on Facebook will stay there.

*** Note that both the opening to high school kids and everyone were in September, the start of the school year in North America.

3 comments | Leave a comment

My first ever Facebook friend

by kate raynes-goldie on September 11, 2008

in academic,facebook,thefacebook,thesis

I’ve started writing the first chapter of my thesis (if you can believe it, because I can’t!). It’s basically all you ever wanted to know about Facebook’s history (especially with respect to its use in Toronto), features and business end. And I’m calling it “Opening Facebook” (har har).

Anyway, I was digging through my old emails to try and figure out when the University of Toronto network was added to Facebook (as far as I can tell, it was late November 2004, according to good old Archive.org), as well as when I first joined and found this:

From: “thefacebook.com” <confirm@thefacebook.com>
Date: 20 December 2004 9:40:32 AM
To: raynes.goldie@*******
Subject: elvedin t******* has listed you as a friend…

Elvedin T******* has requested to add you as a friend, but before we can
do that, you must confirm that you are in fact friends with Elvedin.

To confirm this request, go to:
http://utoronto.thefacebook.com/confirminvite.php

Thanks,
thefacebook team.

The funny thing is, I’ve never actually met the guy. In fact, in the beginning almost all my Facebook friends were people I only knew from other sites, like LiveJournal. Did that happen to anyone else? It’s almost like we all hadn’t worked out how we were “supposed” to use it yet, and we were still in that phase where we could be somewhat anonymous online, with identities that were unconnected and undetermined by our “real” lives.

Also funny that it used to be called thefacebook, especially since now they seem to have a strong aversion to the word. At SXSW this year all the devs at the developer garage talked about “Platform,” and all descriptions of features on the Facebook blog talk about “Feed” or “Mini-Feed.” Weird. And kinda cult like.

Extra bonus: does anyone remember what used to be written at the bottom of Facebook? It said “a Mark Zuckerberg production” and “I’ll find something to put here” but I also remember something about guns… Anyone?

4 comments | Leave a comment


It has started. Last year it was all MySpace in Perth, but I’ve started overhearing conversations about Facebook on the street and seeing kids using it on the computers at school. Then this morning, while looking for info on their super gross breakfasts for a top secret project, I found out that Hungry Jack’s (the Australian name for Burger King) is advertising it’s Facebook page on its website.

It’s still not as crazy as Toronto, but my gut feeling is that it won’t ever be. The way people use the internet here and the way people socialize just isn’t as compatible with the Facebook way of doing things. I have to think about the specifics more, but I think it has a lot to do with using mobiles (Perth) over the internet on a desktop computer and having lots and of cheap internet access in every home (Toronto). And, as Alex Leitch brilliantly pointed out, Toronto is already divided up in a networky way – with a bunch of very distinct neighbourhood nodes linked together by an excellent transit system. Torontonians are already thinking in a Facebooky way.

5 comments | Leave a comment