Two nights ago, I wrote a brief post hypothesizing that personal exchanges are what make social networks meaningful. In the few hours since I published the article, though, I’ve already heard two carefully reasoned yet differently-angled opinions that this might not be the case. As a follow-up, I decided to examine this topic, and these two angles, in a little more depth.
Dosh Dosh: “Less personal is no less legitimate”
Internet marketing strategist Maki shared an excellent article on relationships and online networks with me last night on Plurk. Contrary to my opinion that personal exchange creates meaningfulness, he writes (emphasis added):
“… lifestreaming/microblogging sites like Plurk (my profile) or Twitter which allow you to meet and communicate with large groups of people from all over the world. This method of communication is less personal but its no less legitimate. In my opinion, its a form of ultra-casual, ‘light-touch’, non-invasive communication.”
In this article, he postulates that rather than being based on personal and emotional exchange, the foundation of online social networking is reciprocity, something that networks like Plurk and Twitter are excellent at facilitating. Although they may indeed be less personal, if all that matters is ease of two-way communication, lack of serious underlying content may be no great loss for a future relationship. This may even suggest that the actual content that is shared in an online relationship is irrelevant, at least relative to the mutual reciprocity in play.
Erin Cartaya: “Twitter is not the foundational place to make relationships”
From another angle comes eVisibility Social Media Specialist Erin Cartaya’s opinion, as left on this blog, that a service like Twitter (and probably Plurk, as well) is not capable of producing a meaningful relationship on its own. Rather, she suggests that status-update networks like Twitter are merely a component of the gestalt of social media:
“There are many different social sites on the internet and each one is intertwined with one another. In order for you to make lasting relationships on twitter, you have to have that same interaction on Digg, Stumble, etc…. However, you have to keep in mind that each of these sites will result in different types of relationships.”
This seems to suggest that a social network devoid of personal exchange can still supplement an existing relationship as long as that personal exchange occurs in another arena. For Erin, online relationships are first based on real-life exchanges, but as we’ve discussed on another popular post on this blog, not all relationships necessarily are.
A compromise?
This post has covered three opinions on what makes a strong online relationship: personal exchange, reciprocity, and an existing foundation outside of the network of interest. It’s quite possible that all three of these elements may contribute to the creation and maintenance of true relationships, as none of the three are particularly mutually exclusive. A user’s experience with others on a social network can only be as strong as the weakest of these three building blocks; a lack of personal communication, reciprocity imbalance, or shaky foundation alone is enough to detract from the social networking experience.
Share your wisdom
Of course, these opinions are far from conclusive. What are your own personal thoughts about what makes a strong online relationship? Agree or disagree with any of these thoughts? Have something else to share? I’d love to hear from you.
If you enjoyed this post, you may want to read Erin’s post on a similar topic here, take a look at the related links below this article, or subscribe to free RSS updates or e-mail updates.
On FriendFeed: 0 comments, 0 likes. 
{ 0 comments… add one now }
Leave a Comment