SNS: A Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox
Yesterday, I commented on the analogy of SNS and Gaming. The thread was spawned by an article over at Many 2 Many. In the comments I came across an interesting trackback to a well-written analysis of how SNS can be viewed as a game and why it generally fails to represent anything (written back in January) by lago.
lago raises many good points, but the one that sticks most to me is that all networks fall down because they attempt to represent an organic thing. The basic idea being that whatever representation we are looking at is, in short, wrong, since everyone involved has already moved on, evolved, dissolved, or otherwise transformed. As he states:
If you can visualize it in a static diagram, it’s not a live social network. Static visualization is at best a representation of a particular relationship at a particular time. Social networks, the real deal, are highly fluid, based on shifting foundations, and impossible to reproduce at any level lower than themselves.
Which is to say that the idea of creating a social network using software, or mapping existing networks with software, appeals to specific desires of specific people, and that brings up the second point. Social network software at its finest can only serve two purposes: facilitating the creation of artificial networks for people who don’t have real ones; and facilitating the artificial visualization of networks for people who have real ones. In other words, if you don’t have a meaningful social network, these tools help you pretend to have one, or to build one within highly bounded dimensions. On the other hand, if you have a meaningful social network, these tools serve as a sort of game where you can build fake identities, compete over the number of friends, or assemble raw data for research purposes. You don’t build networks; you play the network game.
The two defining characteristics, from lago's point of view, of an actual social network are that it cannot be compressible and that it would not be user-maintained. The notion of a self-organizing software mirror of the social network is very intriguing to say the least. The notion of compression carries back to the static visualization, wax museums, and other criticisms we've seen about these networks. Systems are already in place that are starting to become more autonomous, providing that automatic-user requirement. The question this raises though, however, is this: If software could mimic, and potentially predict the growth and interaction, in its entirety of a real social network, why do we need the nodes at all? It seems that the snapshots provide a context for evaluation that, despite the obvious limitations, can be leveraged.
Are we seeing the trees or the forest?