-
Website
http://tropophilia.com/ -
Original page
http://tropophilia.com/2008/02/25/invisibility-a-violation-of-the-social-networking-contract/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I get on Gchat, iChat, whatever, hoping to have a conversation with one specific person. Maybe I'm really busy or just want to privately chat with that person. Unless I want to block my entire friend/buddy list, and unblock them later (cumbersome), I'm open to intrusions from anyone who (not knowing better) wants to interrupt my conversation.
the red status on Gchat would solve this problem but, as Joel points out, that's not the culture...at least with our friends.
Now, "tough" works on a philosophical or principled level...but there's no reason Google needs to say "tough" to their customer. Your philosophical disagreements aside, if invisibility improves my user experience then of course Google will step in. They're not worried about the broader user experience changing because of my next point:
In terms of cost, I think your assessment is wrong. Because if invisibility becomes my default (instead of a red status), and everyone joins me in trying to see without being seen (in your words, selecting not to take on the costs of social interaction) we all lose and we're back to just plain email. (chat is dead. long live chat. you get the point)...
But first my personal response: I personally don't buy the "I don't want to be interrupted while I chat with one person" argument. How much are you really "interrupted" if someone IMs you when you're talking to someone else? Can't one just minimize the window? It's no faux pas if you have an away message up or are red-lighted on Gchat. And when was the last time you had an IM conversation where you weren't simultaneously checking email, glancing at the NYT webpage, changing your iTunes selection, etc.? Isn't that just as "distracting"? I would argue that one of the benefits of instant messaging is that it is synchronous enough to allow a dialogue that feels more intimate than email, but asynchronous to allow for distraction and multi-tasking.
So while I don't personally buy the argument, in general I would have no problem with those who temporarily render themselves invisible in order to pursue a private uninterrupted conversation. I think users have that right. I would be all for a "private chat" status that engages when you want to have such a conversation, making you (and your conversation partner?) invisible, and then disengages when the conversation is over.
What I'm really arguing against are those who choose to be invisible on a prolonged basis -- I'm talking hours or even days -- just so they can see but not be seen. They see this feature as a way to exempt themselves from the implicit nature of the social network - the requisite cost (showing your online presence) that must be given up in exchange for the benefit (seeing and engaging with others online).
[Unrelated sidenote: I am also aware that someone could just as easily create a new screenname and then add my screenname to their buddy list and monitor me "invisibly" from there. I have a problem with that, too. I think that any social tool, including IM, should have an proactive access request feature. I must approve your addition of me to your buddy list; I have to accept your friend request. That's how Skype works, and I think it is both the safest and most respectful of user rights and privacy.]
I don't think invisibility poses a mortal threat to IM, and I'm not exactly surprised Google implemented the feature. But I am disappointed, and I think the implementation of invisibility is wrong across the board. I think there is a better way to do it that protects and reinforces the social nature of these applications.
But seriously--the purpose of all this technology is to make life easier, and if people would rather lurk than having to have a conversation...I say let them. People who choose to be invisible do suffer from it. They don't benefit from knowing that people want to talk to them. Yeah, they've got all the control, but none of the intimacy offered by the chat medium. Does that sound crazy?
I'll definitely use it from time to time--for example, when I just want to check my damn email without getting sucked into a conversation. If you can argue for the problems inherent to having an invisibility feature on gmail, I'd argue that integrating email with chat to be a ridiculously distracting design decision. I like it, but it does prove to be a problem when I have to grant enough polite conversation before telling someone that I have to run...
I personally wish it weren't so, because I think it can be abused and generally goes against the spirit of the medium. Hopefully users can be counted on to use it responsibly, for the most part.
I should probably have disclosed in the post that my real aversion to invisibility comes from a personal experience where my feelings were hurt by someone using this feature. I still think the philosophical points I made are mostly valid, though obviously the practical fallout from the implementation of invisibility will be minimal.
I definitely agree with your gripe about chat in Gmail. I would like to see Google automatically have you signed off of chat every time you log on to Gmail, or at least to have that option. I know if you have logged off before you closed the last time, it will start you up logged off... but I think there should be an option to always load signed off.
Is it better to hide oneself to protect feelings, or to be honest about one's online status and simply give them the hard truth: "I'm not responding to you right now because I don't want to talk to you."
I opt for the latter, but I admit it's a tough call.
There's a problem here with the generalization because in "real" physical social interaction, you currently have lots more choice around how social you want to be as compared to the land of "virtual" social networking experiences. In the real world, you can choose when and where you want to "go out," which friends you want to go out with (which CAN be tricky), and what you where - in other words, you can choose how visible you want to be to other certain people at a certain time. Online though, in IM land, you're virtually always available to your primary, secondary and even tertiary friends. It's like every time you step outside your house, your in the middle of the college union wearing a big bright sign that says "HEY EVERYBODY!"
Obviously there are some social clues you can send in IM-land, like the "Red" I'm busy sign, which others can acknowledge or ignore, just as they may acknowledge or ignore the look on your face that says "I'm busy" as you are try to read at a table at the Union before class.
The bottom line is that I think that the more degrees of sociability that Google and others allow on the web, the better. And just like in real life, the more experienced we get with being social online, the better we will be able to pick up on the virtual "social cues and clues" like - the color signals, the long spaces of time between responses, the curt responses, etc., without having to be "rude" and tell people.
Choosing not to go out at all = choosing not be online at all (you can't see your friends, they can't see you).
Sitting at the Union Café trying to read and not wanting to be bothered = Being online but putting up an away message or red light (your friends can see you and you can see them, but there is an indication not to disturb, though disturbing is possible)
So, following that logic... wouldn't being "invisible" be the equivalent of spying or stalking your friends? Knowing where they are and what they're doing, but not vice-versa? Maybe that's not the right comparison?
I think you are absolutely right that "more degrees of sociability" are needed in social applications, including IM. I'm a big proponent of detailed, granular privacy controls à la Facebook, as well as opt-in over opt-out features. I would definitely be in favor of some kind of private chat feature that temporarily renders someone invisible.
And actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm OK with an invisibility feature, because I think most people will probably use it in the right way. But I still think it lends itself to abuse, and I think it can be better implemented somehow, though I don't have that many bright ideas.
I always have the chance *not* to pick the phone up when it rings.
Still not convinced about the "obligations" of a social network, other than mere politeness.
The only people that support a ban on "invisibility" options, are tantamount to stalkers. Those who want to be able to see and harass others at will, the only alternative for the stalkees, being for them to make themselves disappear forever from the stalkers' lives and visible range.
*poof*
To much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I'm sure.
Sure, if you're invisible, then don't expect to have the benefits that go with visibility, such as initiating conversation, etc.
But bear in mind that most people want an invisibility option, however limited. We have our reasons. We're not doing you any harm. Deal with it.
Stalker-people. :P
I don't think that's the case, for sure. But the claim I just made is just as much a gross, unsubstantiated generalization as yours.
How do you know that "most people want" an invisibility option? I'd be interested to know your basis for claiming that. Is it because not many have complained about it? If the option were to disappear and only a few made a racket about it, would you still claim that "most people want" it? I'm not saying your wrong, but I've never seen evidence showing how many people want/use invisibility.
Your real life comparison is a good example, but I think what you're describing more aptly parallels the "block" feature, which I think is perfectly legitimate. In the online world where you can selectively block who you want whenever you want, why would you ever need to block your presence from everyone while observing their presence? I just don't get it, and think it just goes against the whole "social" nature of "social networking."
I understand the arguments: "I want to wait online to talk to one person" or "I want to carefully choose who I talk to because I don't want to be distracted by peripheral contacts." Legitimate reasons, all. But, seriously, how hard is it to put up an away message and only talk or respond to those with whom you wish? You can still be "unavailable" while showing your presence, and still talk to whomever you wish. But I think there has to be a cost associated with the benefits.
And in the end, I really don't care that much. I just like arguing.
I have had gmail for as long as I remember gmail existing. It's an email service. That's what I use it for. To read my emails. I really am not interested in chatting or even worse have all this people that ever sent me an email suddenly talking to me in chat. By the same token, I certainly will not be initiating any chats with them either, regardless of them being online or not. I am reading my emails, and often work related ones and that's all I want to do. When I first noticed the chat on gmail I wasn't extremely happy about it, and realizing there was no way to go invisible upset me even more. I really don't want distractions and, maybe I can be called antisocial, but I have my friends, I'm not looking for friendship on the web and much less spending time chatting with people I don't even know.
I can see the benefits for the ones who enjoy it, of any chat program, but I really believe that it should be the choice of the person if they are available or not.
That said, and when I wrote that as a rule I don't subscribe to social networks, I do have facebook. And again, my reasons for that are much more private than the majority of people. It was done in order to be in touch with friends and family. Only. Not their friends, or the friends of their friends. I didn't include my contacts and I don't accept new friends unless they belong to the above category. I am not hiding behind an invisible presence to strike whoever I see online with a chat request, I just don't want to be talking to new people.
True, throughout the years I have made some friends over the internet, but I don't suddenly treat everyone I receive and email from or sent one to as my long last friend and someone that I have the right to engage in conversation just because I realized he/she is online. And I expect the same done to me.
I can see your point in social networks like myspace and facebook and all the other ones. As a rule people become a part of it, to make new friends. However gmail is just an email service.I didn't deliberately choose to become part of a social network by choosing gmail as my email service.And |I expect the right to be able not to be available for chat if I don't want to - which as a rule I don't.
Then you are neither be seen nor can you see. What I think is unfair is the
lopsidedness of invisibility.