Caterpillar Cowboy

Caterpillarcowboy Commentary

It’s hard to overstate how huge this tiny change is mindset actually is. Prior to Twitter most explicitly social software required symetrical relationships—in large part, I think, because that symmetry feels more human (humane) and much ESS is implicitly utopian.

A couple of years ago Fred Wilson wrote about feeling uncomfortable with the fan/follower designation used by most asymmetrical social software, and I have another friend who spent weeks trying (and failing) to find a term to use for these relationships that didn’t connote a sort of celebrity vs. fanboy relationship.

But think how often these days you hear someone complaining about either feeling obligated to reciprocate an unwanted friend request on Facebook, or about feeling vaguely guilty (or explicitly judged) for their decision to limit their Facebook friends based on personal criteria.

The two people in a given relationship may view that relationship differently, and they rarely have to codify the exact terms and boundaries for offline purposes; online, however, the limits of that relationship must be defined—and those limits are exposed to both parties.

(via whitneymcn)

Thanks for the reblog (and good meeting you the other day!).

The problem you mention is one of attention vs. relationships. Twitter’s dashboard and Facebook’s news feed are the primary means of consumption of those services and the #1 reason you decide to follow or friend someone is because you want to read that person’s updates in your dashboard / news feed.

Which means the decision to follow is: do I want to give my attention (a finite resource) to this person? It is not about codifying a relationship, and the design decision to name it as such creates the cognitive dissonance for Facebook users.