Articles on Friendster have focused on the tool, the business, Fakesters and the less-than-kind portrayal of Jonathan Abrams. But today, the press took a new twist: they finally critiqued the underlying theoretical model on which Friendster depends.
Oh, and they used the best bi-line yet: “Friendster’s inspiration — online matchmaking via friends of friends — has been a runaway success. Human nature may be the only bug.”
The critique is dead-on. 1) Are friends of friends better partners? 2) Can your friends really do you justice in connecting you to their friends? 3) What happens when that relationship fails?
[Oh, and since i didn’t post it before, click here to read a workshop paper i wrote: “Reflections on Friendster, Trust and Intimacy”]
koawkeoawko on My book. Let me show you it.
Kasi Hodge on My book. Let me Amazon show you it.
miracle socks on My book. Let me show you it.
Noni on My book. Let me show you it.
juicers reviews on My book. Let me show you it.
Ginseng Benefits on My book. Let me show you it.
The POKE with No Name: The art of the overshare
How-To Primers: MySpace, Moral Panic, Education, Personal Safety, and Institutional Responsibility and Regulation
SortiPreneur: MySpace's Prospects (Guided by the Friendster Story)
Mashable.com/journal: Danah Boyd on MySpace and Friendster
The New Market Machines: Decisions, Decisions: Fair Isaac’s Reading List
The New Market Machines: SunGard Plugs In Services–And Blogs To Tell It