midnightinchicago
Social Network Sites such as MySpace, Friendster, Twitter, Windows Live Spaces, YouTube, Xanga, Bebo and Facebook were designed to be widely accessible to those with computers and Internet connectivity. They were launched in the hopes that droves of people would arrive at their virtual doorsteps and become part of their digital world.
But the idea of social networks isn’t new. It isn’t something that surfaced with increased computer accessibility and Internet connectivity.
People have used the idea of social networks for over a century. The term is meant to describe complex sets of relationships between members of social systems on any number of levels, from interpersonal to international.
J. A. Barnes started using the term systematically in 1954 to denote patterns that encompassed concepts traditionally used by the public as well as social scientists. There were bounded groups such as tribes and families and social categories such as gender, ethnicity and causes. It’s all right there in Barnes’ book entitled “Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish.”
In the decades that the term social networking has been used, it’s not uncommon to find groups segregating themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society including causes such as Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Recently, I have been at the center of attacks by a handful of people on a social network who object to the fact that I am culling my friend list based on specific criteria. I have been accused of being a Nazi by one individual and accused by two others of culling the list so I can speak disparagingly about them without fear of repercussions.
So let me explain the how and why of this culling to help you understand the real reasons behind my actions.
Let’s say that a handful of social network friends claim repeatedly that ice cream causes drowning. The reasoning they use is that the number of people who drown during hot months increases dramatically just as the consumption of ice cream begins to increase. In fact, they have ‘proof’ that there is a rise in drownings at the same time that there is an increase in ice cream consumption.
Then let’s say that I point out that while it’s true that ice cream consumption increases over the same months that there is a rise in the number of drownings, it has been repeatedly disproven that the two incidents are related to each other past a passing parallel in time.
If the handful of people who choose to believe otherwise persist with their insistence that they are correct and that all the correct and corroborated scientific evidence in the world is wrong, then I must come to the conclusion that this ’social network’ relationship is not a positive interaction for all involved.
It makes sense to weed those people out since they will not add anything to the social network experience other than the repetition of personal opinion that is known to be seriously flawed and wrong. Weeding them out of my social network has nothing to do with hiding out so I can bash them without being reported to the Administrators of a social network.
It has everything to do with choosing to interact in positive ways with people who add to my social network experience and who feel that I add to their social network experience.
There’s an old saying that states, “You’re known by the company you keep.” In the long run, it will be to one’s disadvantage to try to pacify those who insist that they must be kept on as social network friends when there is no reason to continue the connection.
And as far as I know, there’s no rule anywhere in this world that says you must keep someone in your circle of friends if there’s no common ground between the two of you.
What are your views on social networks and culling lists?
Elyse Bruce
Founder and Creator
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO
November 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Definitely agree Elyse. Social networks are for people you have things in common with. If your opposing views make you “not friends” what would be the point in keeping them as such?
November 3, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I think it is honourable and wise to not only cull people from our networks whose views are so in opposition to ours.
I had a zionist deride me by calling me both a Liberal and a Dhimmi yesterday, for the simple reason that I do not believe some of the ridiculous anti-muslim sentiment she was spewing. I culled her from my network. Ya gotta do what you gotta do.
That said, I just want to note that the idea of judging someone by the “company” they keep, on social networks today is more than a little flawed. After all, you might not appreciate or understand the reason why their company IS their company, but THEY do.
I think it’s a bit much to judge someone based on who they know, but I understand and appreciate that some people out there believe that this is an acceptable way of culling their connections. Judgemental, absolutely, but acceptable as well.
November 3, 2009 at 9:50 pm
When I quote “you’re known by the company you keep” what I mean is that people who are similar usually hang out with each other. Familiarity is a strong bond, Tina.
That being said, not all things between all friends can be similar or familiar. A musician can find common ground for friendship with a music lover even if the musician’s genre is country and the music lover’s preferred genre is heavy metal.
Accepting or rejecting someone based on who they know happens as we all know. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy, preferring to treat individuals as individuals. And as far as I know, those people who are my friends and good acquaintances share the concept of individuality and individualism.
November 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Elyse said:
‘………..It makes sense to weed those people out since they will not add anything to the social network experience other than the repetition of personal opinion that is known to be seriously flawed and wrong. …………
1. There comes a time when we need to say ‘enough is enough’
regarding the time and energy we ‘invest’ in trying to educate others.
2. If they refuse to ‘hear us’ in th sense of rationally considering what we present to them, and being open to new information, then it becomes futile to continue dialogue, like ‘beating our head against a brick wall.’
3. Each of us only has a certain amount of time and energy, both intellectual and emotional, to invest in other people.
4. If some one is not adding anything positive to a situation, nor are they willing to consider a different view point, it seems wise to eliminate them from our ‘circle of friends’.
5. My point of view is that of an introvert who is not a ‘people person.’ If someone is not enhancing my experience of life and is persisting in a detrimental view point, particularly if they try to ‘push’ it onto me, I eventually will ‘walk away’.
rl