The old adage that ‘birds of a feather flock together’ has today become more of a business mantra than conventional wisdom. From a social networking perspective at least, there is relative safety and prosperity to be had in numbers. While Friend Finder (1997) and Your Membership (1998) might justifiably claim credit for pioneering the online social networking phenomenon, their vision undoubtedly inspired the multitude of social networks that are available today. However, although the membership of sites such as FaceBook and MySpace remains at stratospheric levels, their much vaunted numbers conceal a growing disillusionment with the ‘social value’ of these open networks, as many users find themselves inundated by approaches from commercial profiles, phishing links, stolen identities, cam girls & ‘unhealthy’ friends.
At face value, online social networking tools appear to offer rich rewards. They allow their users to store communications and to access them anytime, anywhere. The capacity to quickly expand both individual and commercial networks online is an invaluable asset within our digital age. In theory, such diverse and broad social networks provide ample opportunity to pitch oneself to an expanded circle of contacts and to uncover yet more social opportunities, events and commercial openings. On the Internet the individual becomes the virtual epicentre of his or her own private universe, and all roads of communication now lead to a personalised Rome. Networking has never been so streamlined or efficient, and greatly expanded social circles are now far more manageable than they would once have been.
The current business model of offering mass audiences free access to sophisticated networking software and databases in return for advertising has begun to backfire. Other than the colourful billboards and dynamic ads which may well enrich the visual experience of such sites, the capacity to create secure and private social networks using such generic providers is questionable. Open access to the personal profiles and details of strangers also affords them unlimited access to your privacy and, given the naturally limited policing and moderation of such sites, for every welcome friend request there may be a dozen that are less desirable. Inevitably, many social celebrities have ceased to actively use their profiles, or else employ them as ‘standalone’ advertisements. Many leading models and society figures configure their settings to ‘away’ on MySpace in order to block the vast streams of spam that come their way, while others set their profiles to ‘private’ to deter unwanted guests. As many friend requests are little more than commercial spam or phishing links in disguise, how is it possible to know whether to embrace an approach for ‘friendship’ when a profile is accessible only upon acceptance as is the case on FaceBook? If an individual only accepts friend requests from known associates, then there is little point or gain in joining a social network that was originally designed to broaden your social network and horizons...
At first glance the leading social networking sites appear to offer advanced and effective tools through which to selectively expand your personal or professional sphere of influence. In reality however, such sites have become havens for rogue elements to create fake, copycat or purely commercial profiles. Identity fraud is now at epidemic proportions on many sites, as they present few barriers to entry and are not actively moderated except in response to user complaints. As with all aspects of criminality, an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. At the peak of the current social networking craze, many leading media celebrities (or their assistants) took time to create profiles on FaceBook and MySpace. Although some of these were purely commercial in nature, designed to promote merchandise, music, events or good causes, others were a genuine attempt to openly engage the public and to stay in step with modern social trends. Today, many top models, actresses and business personalities rarely visit their profiles, and those who appear to do so act through their PA or agent. This is perhaps not a reflection of arrogance or social elitism on their part; rather it is a reluctant acceptance that being famous on an open social network invites an unmanageable deluge of requests for dates, begging letters, hate mail and other undesirable communications. FaceBook took the step of limiting the number of contacts which could be collected by an individual profile to prevent the stockpiling of vast numbers of virtual ‘friends’, a hallmark of its arch rival MySpace. This appeared Stalinist to some although prudent to others, and FaceBook appears to make genuine attempts to maintain individual privacy, even to the extent of not being able to view another person’s profile until an offer of ‘friendship’ has been accepted. This might at first seem reasonable, but it is impossible to assess the desirability of a 'friend request' until you have at least been able to view their profile. However, once you have accepted a friend request on FaceBook, the individual will have instant access to every aspect of your online activities (see example inset), from which groups you have joined, to who your friends are and, infamously, even which gifts you have bought your partner. In an ever smaller and more crowded world, online social networks signify the sun setting upon the age of individual privacy.
The global networking phenomenon has undeniably challenged our perceptions as to what constitutes a social network (which might once have been defined as an association of temporally or geographically connected individuals). As social filters, such sites may be effectively used to channel interested individuals towards a niche network or commercial ‘product’. However, irrespective of the initial surge in their popularity (whether driven by curiosity or novelty), and despite their technological wizardry, the commercial reasoning behind such sites appears fundamentally flawed. After all, the primary purpose of a social network is to concentrate a group of individuals of like mind or interest within space and time, resources that are becoming ever more precious in our busy modern world. It really doesn't matter whether your preferred social network is an organization of bird watchers, an association of bodybuilders, or a temple of Jewish businessmen, there can be little doubt that time and resources are better spent within circles of communal interest.
Some online communities might be better described as feeder networks, as they effectively channel people of common interest or association towards other ends, be they social reunions, sexual liaisons, or business collaborations. Successful feeder networks include LinkedIn, a well known business networking tool, Adult Friend Finder (AFF), the perennial community for those looking for more than just companionship, and FriendsReunited.co.uk, a site for rekindling old friendships. The dilemma for such sites is that once their users have made contact through a feeder site and have exchanged details, the feeder site is often not the best place to discuss personal histories or business. AFF attempted to resolve this problem by [unofficially] blocking all messages which contained personal Email addresses or other contact details. Other feeder networks just seem to have accepted that their turnover will always be high as they serve as a route and not a destination.
The real gold mines however are to be found within niche social networks, and there are a number which rose quickly to prominence beneath the corporate radar. There are too many to detail here, but amongst the notables are ModelMayhem, the leading social network for models (ranked 1,585 amongst all web sites), Bodybuilding.com, the ultimate social portal for bodybuilders (995), and fashionising.com, an emerging fashion network (34,122). Some of these web sites, notably bodybuilding.com & fashionising.com, provide a fertile ground for specialized merchandising, whilst others such as ModelMayhem function solely as communication and employment portals, and are funded exclusively by advertising.