Can’t you JUST be my neighbor?

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Fred Rogers said it best:

So, let’s make the most of this beautiful day.
Since we’re together we might as well say:
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won’t you be my neighbor?

Neighbors are fantastic. There’s much appeal in moving up to a better neighborhood, where you have more room and better schools and people like the people you want to be. Good neighbors can be great sounding boards, and are awesome about picking up your mail when you’re on vacation. They do great work on their lawns, and inspire everyone to keep the property values up.

But they don’t have to be your bestest friend.

At the end of the day (no trite expression; literally, at the end of the day) neighbors do what neighbors do best. They enter their home, locked away from yours, and they get on with their own lives.

• Neighbors are the people you share with because of proximity.
• Friends are the people you share with by mutual choice.
• Family are the people you share with because you have to.

Thinking About Linking

I’ve been thinking about connections for a while now, and it struck me that way too many people are advocating the creation and embrace of connection without having given thought to the purpose or the consequence. So it became necessary for me to start doing some articulating.

The stimulus turning this vague notion into an immediate impulse to write was cast my way last week. I happened across several declarations that rang of this:

• “I have embraced openness.”
• “I’ve changed my view, and I connect with everyone now.”

One question came specifically to me, from Ari Herzog:

Then I realized we needed a better way to describe online connections.

Dilution of Trust

Let’s say I am holding up both fists, and say “Which one holds the penny?” You point to my left hand, which I reveal to be empty. I put both hands behind my back, shuffle, and repeat the question. You fail again. Repeat, Fail.

After a while, you might start to question whether I even have a penny. (Try it with a five-year-old… you can keep them busy for hours.)

How likely are you to want to “play” with me when you find out I have nothing but empty palms for you? My little prank, however fun, has served to dilute the trust we had with one another, that I was dealing fair. Extrapolate that to the business world and personal relationships, and you can see there’s a bit of a problem.

Now, instead of playing “guess-the-penny,” let’s talk about who we “know.” The results you get are different among various social networks, because of the rules of the networks themselves, and the expectations the users bring. Networks shape users. Users shape networks.

Different Playbooks

The context of this question started with Gini Dietrich (or @ginidietrich of the very awesome Spin Sucks) asking about LinkedIn, so let’s begin there.

Now back to the questions Ari posed:

There are a couple of problems here.

First, we’re assuming that User B (the invited) will have the same goals and aspirations as User A (who extended the invite.) I know of several companies that would like to create a relationship with me for the express purpose of selling me something. Am I being anti-social if I use an ad-blocker on my browser?

Beyond that, however, we have other issues. Some of those networks, like Facebook and LinkedIn, have been for the most part a double-opt-in network. We agree mutually to link to each other. In the case of Twitter, we have asynchronous agreement. I follow you, and you don’t have to follow me back. Also, we’re seeing a lot of flux in how those networks treat information. What seemed like a good idea one day might not be the next. But the relationships you have, however loose they might be, can be dragged into a different context.

Shifting Rules

For instance, LinkedIn has already announced an initiative called Signal that will radically alter its classification as a double-opt-in (Synchronous) network. Signal will take all of the LinkedIn status updates and make them searchable across the system. And when I say searchable, we’re talking cross-tabbed and cross-indexed operators that let you look for keywords mentioned in certain geographic areas by people in specific industries or companies. That’s huge, because now I can find very specific immediate expertise, sliced and diced the way I want it. I don’t have to be a 3rd-level connection with some guy at some company somewhere else.

{{{Side note: if LinkedIn is smart, it will develop an incentive for its users to import their Twitter feeds into LinkedIn. LinkedIn would become the first stop for business-related Twitter searches.}}}

Also, look at what this does to the flip side of that equation. I know that of the 1,600 people I have on my Facebook that I am much closer to some than others. And I freely admit that many I have never met in person. But I can tell you a little something about every one of them, and there was some personal element in the introduction. (“Man, I really liked what you wrote about moving Congress out of D.C. Let’s talk!”) Now, there’s less pressure on me to add a bunch of people. No more using my profile for glorified Cyberspace name-dropping.

What would be disastrous to me is if you met someone linked to me on a social network, dropped my name, and they had no idea who I was. “You know, Chuck! He’s a common Facebook friend!” (crickets.)

If you make a habit of linking completely random people to your profile, you run the risk of diluting your own reputation for the solid connections you really do have. You’ll be known as the guy who cheats with empty fists. And the truth is, you don’t get any advantage for pretending to know more people than you do.

Here’s another example of a recent shift, this time in Facebook.

Backdoor Stalking

Facebook used to be truly two-way, but a piece of that was chipped away when the majority of status updates went public. Now another piece is gone, as part of a new feature called “Not Now.”

Let’s say you I send you a friend request on Facebook. In the past, you’d have an option to Accept, Decline, or just waiting a while. Waiting gets to be annoying when you have dozens of pending requests — it leaves a nagging feeling like you have to get something finished. So Facebook created the Not Now option. With “Not Now,” you’re still deferring the choice to a later time, but the reminder goes away. Also, your public status updates show up in my stream.

Wha-haa-WHAT?

I tested this with Arik Hanson, who was not yet my friend on Facebook.

I sent him a request, and asked him to give me the “Not Now” treatment.

Then I asked him offline to make some comment about the weather.

As you can see, the status update did show up in my regular timeline, right above Tex Turner’s. If you went to Arik’s page, however, you’d see that my friend confirmation was still in limbo.

So now I don’t have to be your friend for you to get my status updates pushed to you. You just have to ignore me.

Both Facebook and LinkedIn have added a new layer of connection that opens additional possibilities beyond the “we must be mutual buddies” restriction that was always at the base. In this respect, they are both now more “Twitter-like.” Follow if you want, but I don’t have to follow back.

Why Can’t We Be Friendz?

There’s no reason we can’t. But there’s also no reason to assume that we have to run straight to that step. Why not hang around each other first, comment on a couple of things here or there? Or maybe, just maybe write an authentic personalized introduction explaining what we have in common?

Until then, there’s still a lot we can do to share ideas and help each other out. Just by being close.

Won’t you please,
Won’t you please?
Please won’t you be my neighbor?