# notes --- - Find a copy of *Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon* by Duranti, A & Goodwin, C. [[00.20 ANTI-LIBRARY]] - [[The Fakester Manifesto danah boyd apophenia]] - [[{1.2a2} context collapse]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^ad30f3]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^233d5d]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^d9c663]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^df42f9]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^e9ddf0]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^30fc88]] - [[{1.2} social context shapes the way we perform identity]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^41e5ba]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^be258d]] - [[{1.2a1a3} digital embodiment requires writing yourself into being]] - [[boyd, danah - 2007 - None of this is Real#^700cac]] - “structures of participation” # highlights --- >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [2](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=2&annotation=55FLII8X) > >Within the service, participants model local social contexts and communities. Through the network structure, these are woven together on a broader scale. > > > > > > >the expansion of our individual graphs... we have more opportunities now than ever to add "nodes" -- it makes sense that we're facing identity crises. (not sure why this made me think of that, but it's true -- our cultures are weaving together, but often in superficial ways.) >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [2](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=2&annotation=GA3F9QCK) > >Visibility has its cost; in order to make broader social networks visible, Friendster flattens those networks, collapsing relationship types and contexts into the ubiquitous “Friend.” More problematically, Friendster does not provide ways of mapping or interpreting the contextual cues and social structural boundaries that help people manage their social worlds. Physical distance, to abstract from the obvious, is not just an obstacle to building social relations but also the dimension in which different social contexts and norms are deployed. The distance between the office and the pub is not just a practical convenience but also a tool for interpreting and maintaining boundaries between connected social worlds. Because Friendster draws from everyday social networks, it incorporates these differences and boundaries while greatly diminishing people’s abilities to manage them. > > > > > > >this is really interesting too -- how there are contexts to certain relationships that can't really be duplicated online. hmm, i need to ponder this one >[!header-quote]+ pg. [3](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=3&annotation=BLDYUKTU) > >This articulation of identity and relationships was a new challenge for most participants, and accompanied by uncertainty about how to formalize or broadcast their social judgments without rupturing trust or destroying relationships Social media flattens our social networks by applying the same type of access, importance, and labels to varying relationships. ^ad30f3 >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [3](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=3&annotation=V5BT9TED) > >Partially flattened social structures are a fact of everyday life (e.g., when friends and family and colleagues come together), but experiences with them are often uncomfortable, particularly when the collision of separate networks is unexpected. Digital worlds increase the likelihood and frequency of collapses and require participants to determine how to manage their own performance and the interactions between disparate groups. > > > > > > >authenticity >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [4](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=4&annotation=8ZFGCYPG) > >Although adults have become accustomed to ritualized ways of interacting, **the foreign nature of social structure is a fundamental part of childhood. Children play in order to make meaning out of social cues and to understand the boundaries of social norms**. Because Friendster requires participants to reassess social boundaries and limitations, it is not surprising that play became an essential aspect of participation, as users worked out social norms and re-inserted valuable missing social cues. The early adoption of Friendster was riddled with playful interactions, most notably the proliferation of “Fakesters”—invented profiles used, among other things, to help signal group and cultural identification and allow people to play within the system. > > > > Play is essential to early adoption of social platforms because that’s how we explore, test, and form boundaries within social structures. >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [4](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=4&annotation=5W28VG2S) > >How did Friendster become a topic of conversation amongst disparate communities? What form did participation take and how did it evolve as people joined? How do people negotiate awkward social situations and collapsed social contexts? What is the role of play in the development of norms? How do people recalibrate social structure to accommodate the conditions and possibilities of online networks? > > > > ## Methods >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [6](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=6&annotation=ZV23LFZG) > >During 2003, Friendster went from an unknown startup to a subcultural phenomenon to one of Fox News’s phrases of the year (D’Angelo, 2003). By the end of 2003, the technology was failing and disagreements between participants and the owners resulted in the expulsion of many users. By mid2004, early adopters had mostly abandoned the service and a new generation of users had emerged among teenagers in Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines. > > > > ## Early Adopter Subcultures >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=7&annotation=PKS5E564) > >In terms of size, Friendster has been surpassed by several similar services, including MySpace and Facebook. At the time of publication (2007), MySpace has more than 175 million accounts and, in November 2006, ComScore reported that MySpace passed Yahoo! as the leader in US web traffic with 38.7 billion US page views that month (Jesdanun, 2006). Facebook launched in 2004 as a niche site dedicated to college students; it has since expanded to welcome a much wider audience, but by 2005 it was used by 85% of students on the college campuses that it supported (Toomey, 2005). > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [8](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=8&annotation=H4I6A3CD) > > > >![[00 - 09 SYSTEM/02. ASSETS/02.43 Images/zotero/boydNoneThisReal2007-8-x41-y307.png]] > >[](OLD/ASSETS/attachments/zotero/boydNoneThisReal2007-8-x41-y307.png)FSQLNGN3?page=9&annotation=RBRJLQIV) > >The most consequential and—arguably—inventive direction of user innovation, however, was the exploration of new ways to signal group affiliations and boundaries through the profile system itself. This culminated in the proliferation of **Fakesters—fake profiles that signaled not the individuals behind the profile but communities, cultural icons, or collective interests**. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [9](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=9&annotation=ZK4BGRBT) > >two subcultures—gay men and “Burners” (people identified with the annual Burning Man arts festival in the Nevada Desert) were the most active in defining the early culture of Friendster. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=10&annotation=M98H6R2Z) > >Gay men often perceived Friendster as a new gay dating site, while Burners assumed it was a tool designed for them. Both groups were broadly ignorant of each others’ presence, as well as of the Silicon Valley geeks on the service (although the geeks were typically aware of both Burners and gay men). > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=10&annotation=GY9SZTKR) > >Because access passed only through those “in the know,” Friendster initially acquired cachet as an underground cultural tool. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=10&annotation=AMSCIYXE) > >Individuals invited friends who they felt would “fit in,” simultaneously interpreting, defining, and reinforcing subcultural dominance of Friendster. > > > > <mark style="background: #ADCCFFA6;">People define the culture of a space… I suppose that’s kind of a given, but I like the idea of exploring this particularly on digital platforms. How do members of cozy-web spaces define the culture by who they invite, the guardrails they put on? </mark> >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=10&annotation=GCYY4FSG) > >technical reasons limited the visibility of social networks on Friendster to four degrees of separation,3 meaning the horizon of any person’s network was limited to friends of friends of friends of friends. While this limitation made it possible for participants to see most of the people that they knew, it also **made the service appear more homogenous than it was. This limitation magnified perceptions that Friendster was a space for narrow communities of interest**. > > Limited visibility can make platforms appear more homogenous than they are. ^30fc88 >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [11](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=11&annotation=EYAYSQRA) > >After the Burners and gay men, the Friendster meme quickly spread to other identitydriven communities in urban regions, including ravers, goths, hipsters, and other members of taste subcultures. > > > > > > >"identity driven communities" -- are these different from subcultures? <mark style="background: #ADCCFFA6;">Gay men are for sure an identity-driven community, in the sense that they are *in* community because of an aspect of their identity. But I feel like Burners is more of a sub-culture. How are these two concepts different?</mark> #action/research ## Participatory Performance >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [11](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=11&annotation=RLY2WAIS) > >The flow of knowledge about Friendster affected not only who chose to participate, but also how they participated. The first act of a new participant is to create a profile and to connect it to others on the service. **Most people join after being invited by a friend. Upon entering the service, newcomers visit their friends’ profiles to see how they chose to present themselves. The profiles signal social norms within groups and newcomers generally follow suit in crafting their own profiles.** In the case of Burners, these norms included the use of “Playa” names4 uploaded photos from Burning Man or related parties (which have their own style involving little clothing and lots of colorful adornment), and the presentation of interests that resonate with the values of the Burner culture. Through this process of integration, Burner culture on Friendster is reinforced and reproduced. > > > > > > >culture reinforcing identity performance online... We take our cues about presentation from others around us. When we join a new platform or digital space, we look to see how others are engaging — follows my experience with SideChannel [[SOC on Discord, the Internet, and Visibility|Discord]], for example. ^41e5ba >[!header-quote]+ pg. [12](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=12&annotation=QCVTNF3A) > >**The performance of identity relies on the active interpretation of social contexts**. Familiarity with a context increases a person’s ability to navigate it—to understand what is appropriate or advantageous within it—and thereby shapes choices about the persona one tries to present within it (boyd, 2002). **Contexts are not static backgrounds, but constantly evolve through this process** (Duranti & Goodwin, 1992). **Digitally mediated performance is no different, but the novelty and narrower channel of interaction affect our capacity to interpret context. Without a long-standing history and set of material cues, people must collectively develop the norms and build the root contextual framework through their performance and interactions.** Although every Friendster profile has the same layout, the freedom to select photos, self-descriptions, and other elements creates a performance space in which norms are established and interpreted. Early adopters had a relatively clean slate with which to make meaning and build context. > > > > Social context shapes the way we perform identity; the better we understand a social context, the easier we can navigate it. Brings up a couple things for me: ^0b3e78 1. Learned something in college re social capital… And how, like, someone like me would not be able to go to a place like the Hamptons and effectively navigate it because I don’t understand all the nuances and social cues of higher class shit. This can limit the contexts we have access to and explore. 2. It makes sense, then, that we need to better understand the contexts of *ourselves* to better navigate our mental and emotional health / to better or more *accurately* perform our identities, at least outside of these particular social contexts. Context is (a) less developed, and (b) more limited in digital spaces than IRL. We’re actively developing norms and “root contextual frameworks” in how we choose to be and interact online (although social pressures / expectations from older users make a difference)… In some ways, do we have *less* data to work with? Lots of access, but limited in how we can explore / express… >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=13&annotation=4CDSY85J) > >Friendster’s social networking tools support a powerful process of community formation around shared values and tastes. Social groups tend to converge collectively on a coherent presentation style and encourage, if not pressure, other participants to follow the collective norms (e.g., regarding photos). > > > > > > >this is reinforced / flattened / sped up by the algorithm AND lack of identity / subcultures Community formation and performance pressure are reinforced and sped up by the algorithm and lack of secure identity… As in — we can build these communities that offer less depth and context, but we can do them faster and make them more homogenous… Aesthetics?? >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [14](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=14&annotation=Y47EWQ2W) > >Looking for patterns, porn aficionados interpreted my performance as akin to that of Suicide Girls because my network contained fellow Burners, older businessmen, and a half-naked photo. When a friend and fellow social software analyst selected a random photo from Google and depicted himself as an “old, white balding guy from the Midwest,” my profile became visibly similar to those of the Suicide Girls (see Figure 8.2). Because his photo was prominently displayed on my page as a Friend, his choice in photo dramatically affected my performance. On Friendster, impression management is an inescapably collective process > > > > > [[the end point of the algorithm is always porn]] — we will always devolve to this. >[!header-quote|#a28ae5]+ pg. [14](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=14&annotation=FXZHIMW7) > >**Conventional understandings of how identity is performed often assume a high degree of individual agency: People convey impressions, and these are usually deliberate.** Sociological accounts have generally emphasized the interpersonal context of such meaning. **For Erving Goffman (1956), impression management was fundamentally a process involving the performer and the reader**, although teams could also consciously work together to convey particular impressions. Friendster participants quickly encountered the limits of the latter process. > > > > Identity performance is not always intentional because it relies on an outside reader. >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [14](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=14&annotation=S53C657C) > > > >![[00 - 09 SYSTEM/02. ASSETS/02.43 Images/zotero/boydNoneThisReal2007-14-x318-y558.png]] > >[](OLD/ASSETS/attachments/zotero/boydNoneThisReal2007-14-x318-y558.png)ry/items/FSQLNGN3?page=15&annotation=5YIKS9YF) > >A growing portion of participants found themselves **simultaneously negotiating multiple social groups**—social and professional circles, side interests, and so on. Because profiles presented a singular identity to the entire network, however, this diversification brought with it the potential for disruption of individuals’ carefully managed everyday personas. Photos were the most common problem; those that signaled participation in one group were not always appropriate in another. > > > > Flattened social networks require that we negotiate our position in multiple groups at once. We don’t do this in real life; my work persona is different from my family persona is different from my downtown persona. This flattening takes that agency away and we are expected to present one persona in all areas. ^233d5d This is interesting, because a lot of my work lately has been on — obv — being true to your identity online, but this is a good point: there *are* different identities that we use in different contexts. It’s important to distinguish between identity *development* and identity *performance*. From below — it flattens “multiple local social contexts into a single performance space”. At the same time, how has this changed as social media becomes more popular? You Twitter persona might be different from your Facebook persona, and so on. But! On each of these platforms is still the possibility of [[{7a2a} context collapse]]. >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [15](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=15&annotation=99EV3NIK) > >the difficulty of accommodating one’s profile to different audiences became complicated and often irresolvable problem of controlling the performances of others—a negative network effect. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [15](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=15&annotation=VGYMIE9D) > >Friendster **flattened multiple local social contexts into a single performance space** > > > > ## Articulated Participation >[!fave|#5fb236]+ pg. [17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=17&annotation=VF4QQCKR) > >Transparency—of social networks, of personal histories, of judgments of others—is a powerful idea that drove much of the early exploration of digital networking. Digital systems raised the potential not simply to expand access to information but also to unfailingly record the history of that process > > > > Want to come back to this after reading Bowker’s chapter. #action/review >[!research|#2ea8e5]+ pg. [17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=17&annotation=GG4A3P2Q) > >a point that underlies Geoffrey Bowker’s argument about databases (Chapter 2, this volume) > #action/research > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=17&annotation=S7PMJ62L) > >intermediaries play key roles in filtering or translating information between groups with different perspectives or conceptual frameworks (e.g., technical and clerical staff within an office). > > > > We often need translators between different groups or communities. >[!resaerch|#2ea8e5]+ pg. [17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=17&annotation=P5DPUWKI) > >As Jenny Sundén (2003) noted, digital embodiment requires writing yourself into being. > > > > Couldn’t find a PDF of this book, but downloaded danah’s review of it and an article that might have cited it. (Queering digital media…) >[!fave|#5fb236]+ pg. [17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=17&annotation=JUHASZQU) > >digital embodiment requires writing yourself into being… Unlike everyday embodiment, there is no digital corporeality without articulation. One cannot simply “be” online; one must make one’s presence visible through explicit and structured actions. #type/highlight #favorite > > > > > > >oh holy shit DIGITAL EMBODIMENT REQUIRES WRITING YOURSELF INTO BEING. Cannot word it better than that, although I might take “digital embodiment” as my new word for this whole thing… [[the limits of pkm language]] >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [18](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=18&annotation=C7A558UZ) > >It is hardly surprising that many participants find social interactions on Friendster formulaic. **The social structure is defined by a narrow set of rules that do little to map the complexities and nuances of relationships in other contexts.** Formula-driven social worlds require everyone to engage with each other through a severely diminished mediator — what I have elsewhere called autistic social software as a metaphor to signal the structured formula that autistic individuals learn to negotiate social contexts (boyd, 2005). > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [18](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=18&annotation=NKXN5Q5Q) > >Relationships rarely have clean boundaries, yet social etiquette often requires us to not make our true feelings known publicly. Plausible deniability allows individuals to “save face,” rather than admit to differences in social judgment. For example, when someone inquires about why they were not included on a guest list, an appropriate response would be “Oh my, I’m so sorry—I totally forgot!”, rather than “I didn’t want you there.” **Expressing social judgments publicly is akin to airing dirty laundry and it is often socially inappropriate to do so.** > > > oooh, to be authentic is to be socially inappropriate... we've never written ourselves into existence before and we're still not clear on the social cues. like... there's something here about how it's incongruous to "be ourselves" and also be "socially appropriate". which should be the priority on socials? > > We’re still developing the etiquette of social media… Being “authentic” online requires that we go against what we currently understand about social etiquette. >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [19](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=19&annotation=4XAUFVGR) > >The lack of strategically ambiguous excuses for denying a request means that refusal has a potentially high social cost. Many participants feel pressure to accept connections with people they do not regard as friends simply so that they do not have to face the challenges of rejection. > > > > > > >deciding who gets to "see you" -- oh, maybe that's a big piece of it. if we get to write ourselves into existance, we can be anything, right? and we want to curate an audience... idk, i was going somewhere w that >[!research|#2ea8e5]+ pg. [20](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=20&annotation=AEHE4632) > >Consider the case of Cobot, a robot that collected social data in LambdaMOO (Isbell, Kearns, Korman, Singh, & Stone, 2000). When the system began sharing what Cobot learned about who spent the most time talking to whom, the social structure of the system collapsed. Even though the quantitative information said nothing about the quality of relationships, having that information available made people doubt their relationships with others on the system. Trust collapsed, and the culture of the community was undermined by transparency. What systems know and how they are interpreted are often unrelated. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [21](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=21&annotation=9SIDQVRH) > >Connections on Friendster do not signal strong relationship ties; people often connect to others whom they simply recognize, a connection that would never appear in a sociological network. Moreover, numerous common ties in Friendster tend to means one thing: exes. If A and B share a lot of friends but do not connect to one another, this is most likely due to a severed personal connection, not a social opportunity. This rather basic social fact cannot be rendered. The Friendster network is not modeling everyday social networks, but constituting its own, with distinctive rules and patterns of interaction. > > > > > > >interesting! Social *media* does not model social *networks*… This feels important… It has its own rules and patterns — this is what we’re still figuring out with social networks. Kind of threw us all into the same room, flattened our existing relationships, and told us to figure it out. This could have been a great opportunity, but it was kind of squandered, I feel… I think it’s important that we see social media as distinct from socialization / social networks. ^d9c663 >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [21](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=21&annotation=A4L9DVIV) > >Impression management is encoded into articulated networks. The variable ways in which people interpret the term friend plays a critical role, as does the cost of signaling the value of a relationship. > > > > ## Fakin’ It: The Rise of Fakesters >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [23](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=23&annotation=8PILG9BG) > >Fakesters were a way of “hacking” the system to introduce missing social texture. These purposes were not limited to group networking: The vast majority of Fakesters were exercises in creative and usually playful expression. They structured social activities, not just social groups, such as treasure hunts for the most interesting or creative Fakester. They introduced a public art form within Friendster, creating a culture on Friendster to complement the site’s mapping of subcultures. > > > > > > >**building culture on predetermined architecture.** limiting architecture. >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [24](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=24&annotation=K3UH49VE) > >Fakesters also served a structural role in Friendster. Because participants could only see four “degrees” of separation from their profiles, connecting to popular Fakesters tended to expand the visible network. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [24](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=24&annotation=M4D48CCQ) > >“It's like high school, only fun. It's like a cult, except you can leave. It’s like human trading -cards.” —Stacie, August 16, 2003 > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [26](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=26&annotation=8ESF82ZP) > >In late June, a group of Fakesters gathered on the Friendster bulletin board (and later in a Yahoo Group) to begin “the Fakester Revolution” that would end “the Fakester Genocide” (see Figure 8.5). They crafted “The Fakester Manifesto” (Batty, 2003) “in defense of our right to exist in the form we choose or assume” which included three key sections: > >1. Identity is Provisional > >2. All Character is Archetypal, Thus Public > >3. Copyright is Irrelevant in the Digital Age > > [[Batty, Roy - The Fakester Manifesto - 2003-07-30]] >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [28](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=28&annotation=3KA4VUZ3) > >While Fakesters had taken on a collective impression of resistance, their primary political stance concerned authenticity. In discussing Fakesters, Batty was quick to point out that there’s no such thing as an authentic performance on Friendster—**“None of this is real.” Through the act of articulation and writing oneself into being, all participants are engaged in performance intended to be interpreted and convey particular impressions.** While some people believed that “truth” could be perceived through photorealistic imagery and a list of tastes that reflected one’s collections, the Fakesters were invested in using more impressionistic strokes to paint their portraits. If we acknowledge that all profiles are performative, permitting users to give off a particular view of themselves, why should we judge Fakesters as more or less authentic than awkwardly performed profiles? > > > > <mark style="background: #D2B3FFA6;">All of digital embodiment is performance because there is no “being” in the space without writing oneself into being — writing, today, being literally writing or filming or engaging. You must ACT to be digitally embodied, where you only must BE to be physically embodied. </mark> ^700cac >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [29](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=29&annotation=HZ43PBTC) > >created sponsored Fakesters for advertising companie > > > > > > >oh noooo lol >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [29](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=29&annotation=NPSDMBVP) > >**The performance of social relations is not equivalent to the relations themselves, or even to an individual’s mental model of them.** > > > > The way we perform relationships online is not the same as they way we perform them IRL — or even the way we think about them. Flattened! ^df42f9 >[!research|#2ea8e5]+ pg. [29](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=29&annotation=KAJZFJGG) > >As Lessig (2000) and others have made clear, software code is a form of social architecture. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [29](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=29&annotation=6ZPLX2K7) > >In order to make social relations more visible, Friendster flattened complex social structures. The abolition of distance—the classic Internet virtue—rendered many social distinctions invisible; the impact of Friends’ performances on individual profiles undermined the individual control over social performances; and the binary social network structure—Friend/not-Friend—erased a broad field of relationship nuances. > > > > flattening can eliminate distance, but it also eliminates context! ^e9ddf0 >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [30](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=30&annotation=QB3U7GPJ) > >The persistent, searchable and semipublic nature of relationship articulations on Friendster had a further consequence: Unlike the ephemeral social contexts in which relationships can be signaled and negotiated (e.g., at parties), Friendster required participants to really consider the implications of their associations. Because of this, visible connections were not simply an expression of an individual’s mental model of exterior relations, but an explicit performance of a social network intended for consumption by others, whether visible or invisible during the performance creation. > > > > >[!bug|#ff6666]+ pg. [30](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=30&annotation=DR6D2J5F) > >digital flâneurs > > > flâneurs is a French term describing an urban man stroller, lounger, or loafer — detached from society and wandering with no purpose other than to be an observer. per [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl%C3%A2neur) #type/vocab > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=31&annotation=8SQEA5MA) > >Millions of people worldwide are now connected through networked digital infrastructures in forms that grow increasingly sophisticated and contextually rich. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=31&annotation=YIWXFHR5) > >The notion of the global village remains powerful, but individual sociability will never operate on a global scale. Large social networks will always be mediated by and constructed through smaller communities and individual relationships. > > > > >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=31&annotation=CI5CGHCC) > >**digital networks will never merely map the social, but inevitably develop their own dynamics through which they become the social** > > > > ^be258d >[!highlight|#ffd400]+ pg. [31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FSQLNGN3?page=31&annotation=7M5JZSR6) > >**Digital social structures disrupt the boundaries that define social communities, but the reassessment of context and performance that accompanies it is endlessly generative.** > > > >