It seems to me the problem is that his 'friends' aren't really friends at all. He lists 'Robert Scoble' as a friend? He's a news source... he's going to have thousands of 'friends' that aren't really his friends.
That is the author's point as I read it. Once again Facebook's limited notion of social relationships creates a poor (and sometimes creepy) user experience. The Facebook model works great at college, kinda just after, and then not so much.
> Facebook's limited notion of social relationships creates a poor (and sometimes creepy) user experience
That's the thing I kind of wonder about every time there's a discussion related to Facebook here - I personally can't see neither the "limited notion of social relationships" nor a "poor/creepy user experience". I'm curious where that difference of perception comes from.
> Facebook model works great at college, kinda just after, and then not so much.
I had an exactly opposite experience. While in college, I didn't need to use Facebook much, because I'd see my friends pretty much everyday on/between/after lectures. But now, as I my day bouncing between work, familiy and a local Hackerspace, I find myself having 90% of my social life channeled through Facebook - there's simply no easier way to talk and share information with people you want to stay in touch with, living in different cities, with different work schedules and family responsibilites.
The way I was using it is that I have many different social interactions, from people whom I've grown up with and known all my life, to people who happen to ride the same train I do when they commute and prefer the same car. There are a lot of differences between how I might interact with the former and the latter, and what I might share with them.
At one level they are both 'friends' (as defined to be 'not unknown', 'not threat') but my buddy from Junior High is a 'lifetime friend' and the person on the train is 'a friendly person who rides the same train I do'.
In today's connected world, both of them might want to be 'friends' on facebook. In my actual life they are 'different' kinds of friends. And of course that friendship changes over time, I may develop a deeper relationship with the person who rides the train, I may drift apart from my childhood friend, but none of the subtleties are expressible in the vocabulary of 'friendness' on Facebook.
I've chosen to link with social friends on Facebook and people with whom I've worked professionally on LinkedIn, but I don't generally 'LinkIn' with friends who I'm not going to interact with in a professional context, nor 'friend' on Facebook people for whom I would not feel comfortable inviting over to share a beer by the fire pit and discuss comparative theology.
> At one level they are both 'friends' (as defined to be 'not unknown', 'not threat') but my buddy from Junior High is a 'lifetime friend' and the person on the train is 'a friendly person who rides the same train I do'.
The latter are "acquaintances." I don't think they're "friends" at any level. A social network that understood what acquaintances were would be pretty great.
> At one level they are both 'friends' (as defined to be 'not unknown', 'not threat')
I only treat "Facebook friendship" as this type of connection. The difference between a "lifetime friend" and "a friendly person from the same train" is defined by the set of experiences you had together, not by the value of a 32-bit integer. Note, that neither the "real life", nor Facebook platform provides this kind of explicit "friendship value". I choose to use both platforms in the same way - let the "friendship level" be defined by what we talk about, what we do together and what we feel to each other.
I personally can't see neither the "limited notion of social relationships"
So you only have one binary relationship with everyone(friend\not friend)?
In the context of friends of friends I can see several different categories: current friends(I might be interested in who their current friends are. I might run into their current friends while hanging out with them. I am probably not interested in their old friends who live 500 miles away.), old friends(I will probably never interact with their current friends because they live 500+ miles away. I maybe interested in their old friends because it might help me reconnect with a mutual old friend.), family(I don't want to see their current or old friends since I don't have anything in common with most of my family.)
> So you only have one binary relationship with everyone(friend\not friend)?
Basically yes, but let's place the binarization threshold on whether or not I recognize someone and care enough to have a conversation with that person in the future.
Neither Facebook, nor real life support an explicit "scale" of friendship. You don't define someone as 90% - BFF or 63% - just friend, etc. Relationships are defined by shared experiences and mutual feelings, and those are supported by the Facebook platform in the same way as they are supported by the direct face-to-face communication platform.
In other words, Facebook stores connections explicitly (calling them "friends" might be what confuses people), but is otherwise as much of a sandbox as the real life. You can do whatever you want, talk with whomever about whatever you care - that is what creates friendship.
I agree with his basic point that friends-of-friends aren't necessarily friends--although you may or may not be interested in something they have to say in the same vein as attending a party. To your broader point, a lot probably depends on how you use Facebook. For me, it is almost exclusively people I've at least met multiple times and real life at a minimum. And, in most cases, people I get together with when I'm in their town and vice versa. Others use Facebook more broadly which makes filtering more difficult given symmetrical following.
