In typical cranky geek fashion, PC Mag columnist and industry pundit, John C. Dvorak, recently wrote an article about the fragility of social networking in which he claims the value of these networks is transitory, they aren't real communities, an no one should take them seriously. In other words, all social networks are just passing fads - a fun place to hang out until the next big thing arrives.
In the article, Dvorak, who announced he just joined Twitter (@therealdvorak), recalls one of the original social networks, PARTI, circa 1980, which was more like a newsgroup than a chat room, he says. The network fell apart when one of its members was outed as an everyday criminal and wound up in jail. Because her online persona was much different than who she really was, the network was divided by those supporting her, believing that they knew her, and those who believed the truth that was being broadcast on the news about her illegal activities. The network soon fell apart due to the rift this caused in the community.
Although perhaps an extreme example, there is something to be said about the dichotomy between a person's public persona used online and who they "really" are. Many people's online self is only a fraction of who they are when they log off. For example, online you could be a social media addict, blog reader/writer, and an activity community participant whose never shy to be vocal about your opinions, but offline, you could be a relatively private person who is more comfortable with a small group of close friends than you are with a big crowd, and who would rather curl up with a good book than attend a large party.
That's not to say that everyone "fakes it" online, but the very nature of the internet can highlight specific aspects of your personality. By getting heavily involved in one community, you can get "stuck" there, consuming and contributing to this one niche at the expense of your other interests. There are only so many hours in the day, so if your favorite subject is, oh...say, technology, you may dwell in the tech communities 75% of your time and only focus on your other interests 25% of your time when online. But in the offline world, your friends may know of all your interests, not just tech, and so, in a sense, they know you better.
How you're perceived online may not even be entirely in your control. As Jim Smoot notes in his article "You Are Who People Perceive You Are,": if someone perceives you as something, right or wrong, that’s what you are in their eyes. If the community wants to peg you as a thought leader in their niche, then you become a thought leader in their niche.
So perhaps Dvorak has a point. However, to call out online communities, such as Twitter, as "pretend" communities is a mistake. Whether it's Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, bebo, FriendFeed, or anywhere else you spend your time, these communities are places you can find others who share your interests and where real connections can, in fact, be made. And when the next big thing arrives, you can re-join your friends over there.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dvorak Joins Twitter, Calls It a "Pretend" Community.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3879
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
"to call out online communities, such as Twitter, as "pretend" communities is a mistake."
I believe the exact opposite to be true ~in context~ only.
Ok... let's all say it together one more time folks, Twitter is ~not~ a community! It never was, it never will be.
People can make their own "communities" within Twitter though by choosing to follow and converse with other people... Ie, ergo, therefore; Twitter is a tool for communication, not a community.... So in this case, Dvorak is right.
Posted by: lolagrrl | May 2, 2008 9:55 AM"to call out online communities, such as Twitter, as "pretend" communities is a mistake."
I believe the exact opposite to be true ~in context~ only.
Ok... let's all say it together one more time folks, Twitter is ~not~ a community! It never was, it never will be.
People can make their own "communities" within Twitter though by choosing to follow and converse with other people... Ie, ergo, therefore; Twitter is a tool for communication, not a community.... So in this case, Dvorak is right.
Posted by: lolagrrl | May 2, 2008 9:55 AMWhen potential clients read my blog, they suspect I might be button down east coast. They are refreshed when I come on site and hold forth like a beat poet trying to reform tech product design think.
Posted by: Alan Wilensky | May 2, 2008 10:05 AMI predict Dvorak will be just like Hillary Clinton ( http://twitter.com/hillaryclinton ), who just spams Twitter, follows no one, doesn't participate in a meaningful way. I look forward to putting him on block as his staff systematically spams us all with book signing updates. Be proactive and add Devorak to the Twitter Black list:
http://twitterblacklist.com/
I would also like to nominate Mr. Dvorak for "Duplicitous, Flip Flopper of the Year" in recognition of his "Twitter is useless, I'd never use it." comment in 2006.
Posted by: Todd | May 2, 2008 10:23 AM@lolagrrl I think the "Twitter community" in question here is the one that you make and become a part of within the network itself. You're focusing on what is perhaps, poor word use on my part, but also sort of missing the big picture of what he was trying to say: online communities (be them the community you build for yourself in twitter or anywhere else online) are transitory and false. I would be more interested in hearing your thoughts on that...
Posted by: Sarah PerezDvorak comparing today's communities to communities in the 1980s misses one important point: communities now are populated by people who grew up with the Web and who intuitively accept many of the assumptions to which he derisively refers, such as identity fluidity and community transience.
Secondly, his post misses the point about one of the main values of communities: communication. Different people prefer different modes of communication, so the tools are not the point, the communication value to each participant is.
Lastly, since his post doesn't allow for comments, I'm not surprised that he doesn't get the participatory nature of communities.
Posted by: Don Jones | May 2, 2008 10:35 AMSarah,
Got your Tweet and yes, I get your point and agree with you completely. ~of course~ we all will only put the absolute best versions of ourselves forward online... Or our rudest versions... or our sexiest versions... or (in some cases) our creepiest versions. It's all part and parcel to life online as we know it today. =)
I've been using Twitter for almost a year (June is my "Twitterversary" ) so forgive me if I sounded flippant. The Community vs. Tool debate has been going on for a while in my corner of the Twitterverse (case in point: @Foulbastardarmy)
Maybe it was the fact that you called attention to Dvorak that got my dander up... the man is obviously a dinosaur. He may have had a point in the 80's but now he sounds curmudgeonly in today's context. =)
Posted by: lolagrrl | May 2, 2008 10:48 AMHis name is spelled wrong in the last paragraph. It's bothering me.
Posted by: Robbie | May 2, 2008 11:29 AM....online communities (be them the community you build for yourself in twitter or anywhere else online) are transitory and false...
my thoughts....
Offline or meatspace communities are often transitory and false as well. People show different and sometimes misleading facets of themselves off-line just like on-line.
Anyone thinking Twitter, Facebook, MySpace is a community needs to understand communities are about people, not communication tools or technology built to support communities.
In on-line community building the technology affords a much lower cost of entry. From this you can refer to the pattern of easy come easy go or garbage in garbage out. Off line community building requires a lot more investment. "False" communities didn't make economic sense and thus often didn't get built or reach the size or scale to get real attention.
The other aspect of the technology is to make it a different ballgame in terms of how you want to represent (or mis-represent) yourself. On-line communities offer a lot more ability to manipulate the perception others have of you.
I still have a hard time with defining a "false" community or seeing how this is bad....
If we have 5 times as many "false" communities, but 10 times as many communities isn't that a good thing? This is societal evolution increasing it's pace of growth and innovation wouldn't you agree.
Likewise think of the communities that are "real" and leverage new technologies or platforms. If they are better able to provide more value to their constituents or reach their goals faster, isn't that what it's all about? Why point the focal lens at an enabling technology as the/a problem.
Fragility of communities is nothing new, it's just that technology has interesting implications on the same problems communities have faced in meatspace.
Posted by: Travis Retzlaff | May 2, 2008 11:52 AM@Robbie - that bothers me too, I fixed it! :)
Posted by: Sarah PerezOne thing to remember is that "online communities" from Dvorak's TRS-80 days from ~1980 and up through the early Windows 3.1 days of the 1990s were much, much smaller. While dwarfed by Facebook and MysSpace, Twitter is a much larger "community" than PARTI.
That said, there has always been a "flavor of the moment", especially among the digerati. That I think *is* largely transitory and I suspect it always will be and that it's more a reflection of things changing and the human nature aspects than any particular community itself.
Sarah, I'm still seeing a "C" in his name in the last paragraph, but it's not bothering me...
Posted by: Robert Seidman | May 2, 2008 1:41 PMSo what is it - are online social networks fragile, transitory, or not real? last time i checked these all mean different things.
I get the sense Dvorak is conveniently conflating these terms to get a nice confrontational headline. Call me a stickler for clarity, but it bugs me when people do this. Its just lazy.
All communities have ebb and flow. People move in and out of neighbourhoods and jobs just like they join and then leave online networks. Are they more fleeting online? Sure. But so what? They are way easier to join and leave, so they should be.
And so what if people are different online versus offline. We all have work or public personas that are different than our private ones.
Really, there is nothing going on in the article except someone trying hard to be clever. Thumbs down.
Posted by: Mark | May 2, 2008 2:24 PMI see Dvorak's point.
As others have said, Twitter is a communication method, not a community. So in that sense he's right.
Also consider that outside of cards for special occasions, how often do we correspond via snail-mail anymore, let alone hand written letters?
Or Friendster :-)
These things *do* come and go, and very well can be fads. I'm always amazed at the (often temporary) loyalty some of these services can engender within its users. It's like saying, "This is the greatest thing ever, until it isn't anymore!"
Posted by: Sean Mulholland | May 2, 2008 4:47 PMDvorak (attitude) reminds me a lot of a self-claimed multimedia expert in indonesia. He keep on telling that blogging is a temporary trend. We always get angry and good laugh at the same time. We'll see if he'll get himself a blog next 2 year, just as dvorak does with twitter.
Posted by: Akhmad fathonih | May 2, 2008 11:52 PMOh,did i just shot the messenger?:p
Thanks for this great article Sarah.
I'm not sure I follow Dvorak's reasoning... I would agree with him that a specific web service, whether Twitter or else, can go out of fashion as fast as they came into it.
Now what does this have to do with social networking as a whole being a hype? I don't get it...
I definitely don't buy the argument that the limited ability to validate someone's true identity creates looser ties among online user communities. I actually think that peer pressure is in itself a very good safeguard against most abuses.
The only explanation I can come up with is that Dvorak doesn't get it. Twitter maybe more than other web platforms highlights a divide between generations :)
Posted by: Pierre-Loic Assayag | May 3, 2008 1:39 PMSee the theory on digital natives and immigrants: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/
Dvorak also said (albeit in 1984), that "The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a mouse. There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
Posted by: Jamie | May 7, 2008 10:21 AM