James Reilly pointed out a great essay by danah boyd on MySpace, comparing it to and making prediction based on the tragic trajectory of Friendster.
There are many aspects to this great analysis:
– social currency
– community critical mass
– community leadership
– social discovery and delight
– cultural capital vs hegemonic capital
– moral panic
– collapsed context due to growth and size
– super publics
A great read. This essay is relevant to anyone building, fostering, or belonging to digital communities in the 21st century. It is the narrative upon which we build our product and services, the manifestation of the undercurrent of people’s lives, and how a hyper-linked society extends its communication structures to higher levels of complexity.
Link: Friendster lost steam. Is MySpace just a fad?.
A lot of folks have asked me "What went wrong with Friendster? Why is MySpace any different?" I guess i never directly answered that question, even though i’ve addressed the causes in other talks. Still, i guess it would be helpful to piece some of it together and directly attend to this question.
….
I began this as a blog post and it grew and grew and i want to put it
out there even though i know that i’m missing factors. Still, i think
that this should answer many of the questions that people have. MySpace
is not the same as Friendster – it will not fade in the same way.
Friendster was a fad; MySpace has become far more than that. If it
doesn’t evolve, it will fade, but MySpace is far better positioned to
evolve than Friendster was. That said, i think we’re seeing a huge
shift in social life – negotiating super publics. I kinda suspect that
MySpace teens are going to lead the way in figuring this out, just as
teens in the 60s and 70s paved the way to figuring out globalized life
with TV. I just hope law doesn’t try to stop culture.
