Which Social Network to Friend?

In summary, the embedded video shows a person talking to the anthromorphs of four social networking platforms: MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, and Second Life. MySpace is personified as a person desperate for attention. Facebook as a sophisticate. Friendster as a runt. And Second Life as an escapist charmer. This video creates the premise that a person can only commit to only one social network, since most of one's friends are members on that due to the "network effect" and most of one's time will be spent checking up on the network with the most friends. So interaction in other networks is extremely minimal. Build from this premise, a person can only be "friends" with one social network. Somewhere to emote, share ideas, and expand the social web.

Since the social networks are personified, the creators could attach several symbols to the icons to situate them with the growing publicity that molds their perceived characteristics. First, the attention-seeking and pursuit stems from the recognition that these social networks need an audience. If they can successfully build an audience, then they can finally turn a profit from selling lucrative advertising space. Second, Friendster is portrayed as an unpopular runt because its US membership had sharply fallen since its inital popularity resulting from its novelty. MySpace with its open registration had diverted interest away from Friendster since it was still in beta testing and more people were becoming more impatient to get an invitation.

The tennis sweater wrapped around Facebook's shoulders brings up issue of social class. A controversial research paper written by sociologist danah boyd, suggested that the preference between MySpace and Facebook tended to indicate which class the person belonged. The findings asserted that college-bound high school students tended to use Facebook, whereas those who tended to work right out of school would find their friends on MySpace.

The end sequence shows the person in the "actual" world and declaring that it is "lame". This could imply that the "actual" would could be a social network with its own set of rules for interaction. And moreover, the internet generation would perfer to interact in the "virtual" world at the speed of broadband.

--Brian