Web 2.0: Does Social Media Really Just Recreate High School?
by
on March 27, 2008,
No sooner does a social media app take off than new ways of using said app to recreate cliques follow. Whether it's blogs or Twitter or FriendFeed, it seems there has to be a group of cool kids, and one of the not-so-cool kids.
Going in reverse order, there is already a pruning being done of FriendFeed accounts. To me, it's understandable; all FriendFeed has really done is add one more social network for people to have to track. Rather than easing the social networking burden by aggregating services, it's created one more layer of conversation that we are supposed to monitor and track. Is it necessary, however, to announce to any and all listening that the list is being culled? I've seen several FriendFeed users state publicly their criteria for avoiding culling, which often includes being “interesting” and “contributing to the conversation.” I guess I'm just a salmon trying to swim upstream here, but I appreciate people leaving me a comment on a blog entry more than on one more service, or replying to a Tweet, or even sending an email rather than adding more work. But if you want to stay on those cool kid lists, you must obey.
The same can be said of Twitter. Not only do you find Tweets similar to the FriendFeed culling, but there is also apparently an optimal following to followers ratio. If you were so inclined, you can determine how popular you are by finding out your Twitter Follower-Friend Ratio. In case you couldn't figure out on your own what a spammer looks like or a snob, there are tools to look this up for you. Forget just adding people you find interesting; you need to maintain the proper ratio at all times in order to achieve true Twitter social status.
And lastly, let's not forget about the blogs. Much as “The List” back in high schools where popular people made lists of popularity rankings, we finally have the list of the most valuable blogs, as determined by 24/7 Wall St., who stuck themselves on at the end, to make sure we knew that they were part of the cool crowd, too. With a cobbled-together psuedo-formula based on Alexa ranking, assumed CPM, and estimated expenses, it makes no more sense than anything else, but hey, they listed the Gawker bunch at number one. I have yet to check Valleywag to see their take on it, but let's face it; ranking anyone above Perez Hilton is hilarious. It's trashy, but I know way more non-tech folks who read Perez Hilton than all the tech blogs combined, and most of them have never heard of a single Gawker blog. Perez Hilton has gone beyond the blog to a brand that includes party hosting, television specials on VH1, and the ear of the music industry. Whatever gets promoted on that blog ends up being downloaded, viewed, worn, or talked about more than any other blog anywhere, bar none. Most people won't admit to reading it in tech circles, but I'm willing to bet almost everyone knows who he is. And while Gawker claims a huge number of uniques, how many of them are just the same viewer reading more than one blog (In my case, I read Valleywag, Wonkette, Lifehacker, and Gizmodo at least. There. I'm four uniques? With my Ad Block?)
The reality is that popularity on any of these social platforms is meaningless unless it actually makes you money. Perez Hilton is raking in the money hand over fist, unless you count his legal overhead in defending lawsuits. Having a proper Twitter ratio or appropriately popular FriendFeed subscription list probably isn't going to net you a dime. Unless you have a conversion method for egoboo into Euros, in which case, you can sign me up and I'll start the culling.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
Marybeth Maynard
Murray Rich
Oliver
Lynn Burnett
Opensource 
Michael Fidler 
I am with you on the schoolyard mentality aspect of some social media application launches. It is funny how the aspiration for a “level playing field” has given way to hierarchy.
Social media does feel like high school. However, high school turned on its head. Now the members of band are somehow cooler than the football team.
The idea of a ratio between followers and those followed in Twitter and FriendFeed can give us an insight into our social habits. Are you more interested in listening to others or are you more concerned about how many people listen to you? As I do in real life I follow more than have followers, and those I follow are much the same. I value the occasional postings of listeners more than the continuous flood of posts from those who don’t listen but love getting attention. I’m not a slave to that ratio, but it is a indicator of a person’s willingness to learn.
I agree 100% with your post. So much so, that although I have never commented here , I feel compelled to do so today.
I believe the most frustrating part , is that in addition to the social media space regressing into a bad flavor of love episode, when this position is posited, the majority quickly counter with ” well thats the way the real world is” or any of the other variations of that line of thought.
This only serves to keep things status quo and stagnate. Also, it dilutes the information pool by only representing the opinions of an unproportionally, powerful minority.
How is this good? In my opinion this will only evolve into an Inside Edition type of media. The same mindless stories over and over.
Thx
@Gavin It’s Lord of the Flies; at some point we all fall into the same type of hierarchy again and again.
@Zach How do you figure? My guess is that most folks in tech were the band geeks / academic team / chess club in high school, and yet not everyone in tech is a cool kid. It’s more like the people who were the outcasts in high school have set up their own little world where some of them are popular, but since the former “football team” crowd doesn’t participate in this little world, there are still nerds playing the part of nerds. I don’t think living it twice is something most people enjoy.
@Jack As a passing thought? Fine. As an application? And discussion topic? People have way too much free time on their hands. I try not to follow more people than I can realistically keep track of. I don’t want to miss a direct when sent or something interesting. Yes, there are people with a very low signal to noise ratio that I follow, because it’s that occasional signal I need to keep my finger on the pulse of what’s happening in tech. Check out Tweetscan, though, and look up the topic of TFF ratio. I mean, people actually point out when a ratio is “off.” Is this REALLY necessary?
@Steaprok Thanks for delurking! I love compelling people to join the conversation!
You do get a lot of the “it’s the way of the world” comments or ones like Zach’s that excuse it because “these are the people who were nerds back when so it’s okay that they ware the cool kids now.” But the popular people get addicted to the adulation and want to keep it, which perpetuates the cycle.