What “Friend” Means in the Era of Social Media

Stolen right from the pages of Star Trek lore, physicists in Texas are working on a way to make physical objects invisible by bending light waves.

Despite the similarity to the Romulan Bird of Prey cloaking technology from the 1960’s television show Star Trek, which hid these enemy ships from the Enterprise crew during battle, we’ve all had access to our own personal cloaking device.

Many instant messaging programs allow you to be cloaked, so you can see your friends online, but they can’t see you.

In Microsoft’s Skype, you can change your status to “Invisible” which allows you to see any of your contacts online, while maintaining your appearance as “Offline” – in effect, hidden from view, or cloaked.

This begs the question – why would you hide from your friends?

Perhaps the word “friend” has changed thanks to Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and all the other social media sites.

It isn’t uncommon to have a few hundred, or even a few thousand “friends” following your every post, tweet and hangout.

Used to be, you’d only really call someone a “friend” if you actually liked spending time with someone in the here and now, in the real world.

These days, people “friend” each other on Facebook, and the other social networking sites without really ever knowing who they are in the real world.

Many add complete strangers as friends, and then in turn, you feel compelled – almost guilt-ed – into adding them back – even though you haven’t a clue who they are.

For all you know, you may have added the next Charles Manson, or some other mass murderer as one of your online “friends.”

But don’t worry, the police probably won’t come knocking on your door.

The word “friend” really has changed thanks to Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

What was once used to reference people we actually knew, liked and in many cases loved, is now a loose and ambiguous term for the strangers we occasionally share random thoughts with.

We all have real friends – or at least I hope you do – that you can really depend on in a pinch.

They listen to us vent, share in our joy, and are there when we need a shoulder and a hug.

And some have been lucky to really connect with those online, and may even have some friends from their social networks they can vent, share and hug too.

However, for the most part, having a zillion “friends” online doesn’t mean you have a zillion people you can depend on.

But I suppose it’s nice to believe that.

Why Do You Tweet?

It took me a while to embrace social media. I was a late social networker.

I tried Myspace when it first started, got tired of Tom and moved on over to Facebook, discovered Twitter, YouTube, Google Plus, Instagram, Tumblr, Pinterest and now I’m addicted.

Social networking has become more than a hobby. It’s a daily ritual.

But why do I tweet?

Why do you friend, follow post and pin? Why do you take out your smartphone in a restaurant, and insist on taking pictures of your food in a restaurant, and uploading those images to Instagram before enjoying the taste?

Since social networking began, we’ve been told how it’s all about creating your own personal brand – essentially about making you look good, in a consistent and continuous way online.

You are your own product – just virtually represented.

But many old school social media junkies, or even just ‘newbies’ new to the online world of social networking, don’t have a personal brand, they just post what they are doing, what they are thinking, or what they are experiencing.

And isn’t that what social networking really was about?

Sharing your life experiences in an online virtual social realm, with others doing the same, so you could learn, develop and grow your friends?

Wasn’t the whole point of Facebook to reconnect with family, friends and colleagues that you originally lost touch with?

Twitter’s original homepage encouraged people to tweet “what you are doing right now.”

The essence behind YouTube was the ability to record video of what you were doing, and share it with the world.

Then the friending addiction kicked in, and many of us – myself included – became more interested in growing our friends, fans, and followers.

There may be strength in numbers, and it certainly is impressive to have a million friends following you on Google Plus.

But how many of those people do you actually have real conversations with, and really enjoy getting to know?

How many of those people do you actually care about?

The real test of friendship, is asking yourself if you care about someone.

Social networking has come a long way, but perhaps it has fallen off the rails, as we race to have more friends, fans, followers, circles, subscribers and others we really don’t care about.

Perhaps it’s time to rethink being social?

Why do you tweet?

Feds Go After Social Media Giant Concerned for Privacy – And It’s Not Facebook

Canada’s federal government is formally requesting Twitter testify before a House of Commons committee studying privacy and social media, after they refused to voluntarily appear when initially approached.

Second only to Facebook, Twitter is one of the most popular social media networking services, with an estimated 500 million users. Facebook has over 600 million users, while Google Plus draws in an estimated 400 million users.

Both Facebook and Google voluntarily appeared before the Canadian government’s committee – yet Twitter refused.

Last May, the Commons committee began investigating how social media companies protect the personal information of their users, because of high profile interventions from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner with Facebook and Google just weeks earlier.

Usually it’s social media mega-site Facebook which is in the news for its self-serving privacy policies, but this time, the social network seemingly with something to hide is Twitter.

Twitter’s refusal to appear before the committee hearing falls amidst the company’s aggressive positioning to take-over the top spot in social media.

Many companies have gone out of business, as Twitter adds features and functionality to its social networking service, which previously could only be found through third-party companies. 

As Twitter adds these new perks to its service, it disables the ability of these third-party companies from providing the same service, by changing its Application Programming Interface (API).

Twitter has been consistent in denying third-party companies from providing apps which “replicate its core user experience,” as the company puts it. However, as Twitter adds to that “core user experience” it is putting companies out of business and people out of work.

However, this past August, Twitter announced major changes to its API, and since then, has been rolling out many features previously provided by third-party companies to its service.

As these new features are rolled into the giant social networking site – commonly called the world’s largest microblogging site – one has to question how the company is managing its member’s personal information?

Perhaps Twitter has been so busy gobbling up third-party features, the top brass has let that part of their business slide?

Or perhaps Twitter has discovered new ways to use that personal private information, which they fear could land them in the penalty box at a federal government investigation into privacy and social media?

We’ll have to wait and see, because the Canadian government’s House of Commons Committee hasn't sent out the formal letter to appear to Twitter as of this writing.

The motion to formally call Twitter to testify came after a representative from Facebook took committee members through that company's privacy policies.

Although Facebook’s relationship with Canada’s Privacy Commissioner has improved much since their initial meeting, by exploring the types of personal information collected, managed and stored with the world’s largest social networking service, the Canadian government is convinced they need Twitter’s participation to protect the interests of Canadians, and ultimately all of its users.

Canadians are among the top users of social media, along with the United States and the United Kingdom.

There are just over 10 million Twitter accounts based in Canada, according to a recent study by a Paris research group.

Another recent study says that Facebook has about 18 million Canadian users, more than half the country's total population.

You Have the Attention Span of Your Social Media

We used to take the time to stop to smell the roses, but not anymore – thanks in part to those 140 character limits in Twitter.

Twitter isn't the only social media network cutting into our already quick-paced attention spans. 

The constant flow of status updates on all the social media sites we plug into is as well.

And the 15-year-old wonder kid programmers coding these social networks are well aware of this – in fact they are encouraging it by making our social media experiences more visual than textual.

Facebook, Google Plus, and Twitter all recently updated their web and mobile layouts and user interfaces to make them more graphical.

When you scroll through your Facebook timeline, you’ll be dazzled by the bright images your friends posted. Google Plus places a huge emphasis on images – they appear larger and bolder than the text descriptions on both the web and mobile versions of all posts. And Twitter recently added the ability to attach photos to tweets.

Recently Tumblr released a new app – Photoset – which takes various images you provide, and creates a cool image by combining them into a frameset. This “photoset” frame can be uploaded to Tumblr – naturally – or shared via other social networks using the Photoset website. The primary Tumblr app also got a bit of a makeover, improving it’s graphical user interface too.

And who could forget all the hype when social network giant Facebook bought social photo sharing network giant Instagram?

Although the popularity of the very visual Pinterest may be part of the reason behind these social network changes, there is more psychology here than you realize.

Scientists studying our attention spans first realized they were declining in the 1980’s, as the first video game consoles were breaking into the ever increasingly distracted world.

Television further eroded the amount of time it takes before we get bored, when the first specialty channels started appearing on the dial around the 1980's also.

In the 1950’s, the standard TV commercial ran 60 seconds, by the 1980’s that standard length was cut in half to 30 seconds. By the 1990’s your fifteen minutes of fame really was 15 seconds, as that was the average standard commercial length on TV. 

Today, the average broadcast TV commercial runs between five to 10 seconds! And you’ll notice ads shown at the start of a commercial break are repeated at the end of the same commercial break, because our attention spans are so short, we may have forgotten it within the average two-minute “pack” of commercials!

The biggest killer to our already faltering attention – the Internet, arrived in homes in the mid 1990’s, as our attention spans were already pushed to practically non-existent. 

Although this was long before the social networks of Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and the rest even were conceived, the ability to search for whatever you could think of dazzled us to the point of just wanting to search for the heck of it.

When social networking sites did capture our already frazzled attention, surprisingly our attention spans increased slightly – at least online. We were fascinated with the ability to check out former high school sweethearts, and see who aged worse.

But as social networking became the norm, and mobile devices made it possible to check in on these social networks wherever and whenever we wanted, our attention spans declined again.

By the time you have read this sentence, your mind already is thinking of something else.

That’s our attention span of today – as you concentrate on the task at hand, you’re already thinking of the next thing. The average North American’s attention span is only about three-seconds today.

It takes less than a second for our brains to process images, but twice that long for us to parse a sentence.

That’s why all the social networks are becoming more visually appealing – they are feeding off of our degraded attention spans.

And it is a degradation – because there is something to be said for taking the time to smell the roses. 

Expanding Social – Why Do Mobile Apps Not Have It All?

For the second time in as many weeks, I expanded my social networks over the weekend. I decided to revisit StumbledUpon, Reddit and Technorati.

Being a big fan of the highly graphical and addictive Pinterest, instantly I was a fan of StumbledUpon. I started “stumbling” great content online, checked out the iTunes store and downloaded the iTunes app, and continued my stumbling without wires.

Had trouble uploading my profile picture on Technorati – a lesser known social network exclusively for blogs. I kept receiving some archaic computer mumble jumble, which I sent to their tech support.

Surprisingly – and much appreciatively – I received a response right away the next day, confirming my username. They are still working on resolving the issue, but they responded quickly – even on a weekend, which is always aces in my book.

I couldn't find a Technorati app in the iTunes store – which was a little disappointing.

Reddit was such a sharp contrast to the highly graphical user interfaces so popular now on Google Plus, Pinterest, Tumblr and as I've already mentioned, StumbledUpon.

Reddit was all text, very few images, and the textual menu bars are in the smallest point type, they obviously don’t expect people in my advanced age group to be reading it. I found this really surprising, as Reddit claims to be the front page of the Internet. If that were really true, we’d all still be sitting in front of our televisions, instead of surfing the net in our spare time.

Reddit also was the least user-friendly. I still am not sure how it works, or if it’ll be of any use for me in my social media networking. I should go back and explore it more, but I don’t really want too. It really didn't appeal to me at first blush, and I’ll have to push myself to check it out again.

StumbledUpon really impressed me – I tried it when they first started and was interested, but just didn't really see any value in it.

But now that the social networks are getting more graphical, it really is quite useful, and relevant in today’s social media world.

I began creating lists, adding my ‘Stumbles’ to these lists – I even added links to my StumbledUpon profile in all my online communications – email signature, my blog and others.

But where StumbledUpon falls flat, is where many websites go dark – their mobile apps. Now, I’m still new at this, so it may be I just haven’t played around with StumbledUpon’s iPhone app enough to get a feel for all of it’s hidden treasures.

However, I tried, and tried and TRIED to add the web pages I discovered on the mobile app, to my lists. As much as I tried, I just couldn't do it!

I ended up logging back into the StumbledUpon website, and adding my recent ‘Stumbles’ to my lists from the website version.

How come so many social networking apps just don’t let you do everything you can do on their corresponding websites?

Facebook won’t let me adjust my privacy or account settings (other than the ones directly for the app). HootSuite won’t let me add or use the apps I have installed in the web version into the mobile app version, so I can’t take full advantage of this social networking management tool on the road.

Even Google Plus has slight differences between their web version and their mobile app version, which drive me nuts. When I add a link to my status updates on the web, it automatically includes a thumbnail image from the linked website. Not so when I do the same thing from within the Google Plus iPhone app!

You can tell when I update my G+ status from my iPhone, chances are it doesn't have a graphic linked to it – which sucks because so much of our online world is becoming graphical.

I can sort of understand why some features and functions within the web version of our social networks are not found in their corresponding mobile apps. Maybe Facebook prevents you from being able to change your user and account settings via their mobile app, because they know if you lose your phone or mobile device, someone else can take over your Facebook account?

But why are some of the basic features missing from mobile apps?

The whole point of StumbledUpon is to surf, stumble and sort content. So how come I can’t sort it, by placing my mobile ‘stumbles’ into lists via the app?

It’s not as if mobile devices are new tech – they've been around for several years.

Until the social networking services enable us to do almost everything from their corresponding mobile apps, we’ll be stuck having to go between the mobile app and the full website, just to be social. And that’s not very social.

How Social Networking Got Me All Sexed Up – Sort Of

Second only to Facebook, Twitter is massive. Ironically shorter is better, because the social networking site which limits your character count in tweets, averages between 400 to 600 million of those 140 character or less thoughts.

Thankfully, Twitter gave us the ability to filter our tweets using lists, hashtags, favourites and a few other useful tools built into the interface.

Thankfully I use those tools, and a few external ones, or else I wouldn't have got sex. Or at least got into the Everything to Do With Sex Show in Toronto tonight.

I average about 100 tweets or more per day, and I receive about twice that many in terms of mentions, responses, shout-outs, and other short-character thoughts via the Twitter service.

Just happened to catch a tweet about entering a contest for free tickets to the Toronto Sex Show, all you had to do was re-tweet the message. So I did.

And I was very lucky to win! Which I also found out via Twitter.

I was speechless – which is quite hard to demonstrate on Twitter. I've never won anything off of Twitter before, and never knew it would be possible to win anything off the social networking service.

I've entered other contests from other media – television, radio, even newspapers – do they still exist? But I've never entered anything directly via a social networking site – there are so many tweets posted every second . . .

How do you find gems in a sea of thousands of thoughts?

Twitter allows you to create lists, and group people, which is very useful. I do that, but I also create streams to follow in HootSuite, so I can follow these lists easily. HootSuite is a social media manager application, like TweetDeck, which allows you to easily schedule and manager your various social networking accounts.

Hashtags are important too – and they were once thought of as a silly Twitter-only feature. But now hashtags are common on Facebook, Google Plus and many other social networking sites.

Using Hashtags allows you to label specific tweets into subjects, categories and other classifications, so that if you – or someone else – does a search for that hashtag, you can find that tweet.

Though with the increased number of bots lurking out in the social network world, I hesitate to use the hashtag 'sex' because I hate getting flooded with those bots. The sex bots try to get you to sign up for everything from dating services, to prostitution rings.

But the main way I won a contest completely entered online, was doing what you’re supposed to do on social media – engage and interact with others.

All too many of us – and I fall into this camp too sometimes – simply tweet to be seen. We tweet, update our status on Facebook, or post to Tumblr or any of the other social networking sites content which is meaningless, just to get our online profiles into the streams of those following us.

We all too often ignore people reaching out too us via the social networks – which isn't very social.

I make a point to personally thank everyone that follows me on Twitter. And if someone sends me an @ response to my Twitter handle, I usually respond back.

Taking time to share our thoughts to the masses is awesome. Taking the time to get to know those individuals in the masses is even better.

Reach out to your fans, friends and followers. You never know, you may end up going to a sex show – or at the very least, make a new friend. 

Lessons Learned from Growing a Social Network

Over the weekend, I added Tumblr and Instagram to the social networks which I use. 

I've tried and left Myspace, been through the many privacy concerns of Facebook, learned to condense my thoughts to 140 characters for Twitter, surfed the many channels of YouTube, and participate in the so-called ghost-town of Google+.

Throughout all of this, I've learned a lot about how each social network functions, the target audiences for each, and most importantly to those young executives running these companies, how to make a social network – well – work.

At least from a user’s point of view. I’m not a programmer, and I have no idea how to make a social network. But making a social network extremely intuitive, and user-friendly makes it more likely to be used, and in turn grow.

Just look at Myspace as it struggles to re-build and re-brand itself after losing over 75% of it’s original user-base.

So listen up Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of you that run social networks – here are my top five user peeves.

Not Everyone Wants to Login Using Facebook

One of my biggest peeves while searching for social networks, are ones that only let you join using your Facebook credentials. With all the privacy issues which Facebook has had, the shear mention of credentials and facebook sends shivers up many spines. Facebook has been known on more than several occasions to change their privacy policies seemingly without letting its users know until after the fact, forcing people to log in and turn off a “feature.” 

Aside from privacy concerns, not everyone wants to share their facebook profile with another social network. I use Facebook for keeping in touch with people I know and see in real-time, while my preferred social network for everyone else is Google+. So I don’t want to share my facebook credentials with all my social networks, because I don’t add everyone to facebook.

We all know that facebook makes arrangements with other social networks and mobile apps to share data so they can make money off us. But social networks that only let you sign up and in using your facebook profile aren’t to lose a lot of potential members, that don’t want to share that info. 

Interoperability with Similar Networks

I did my homework and joined Tumblr and Instagram because they are in the top 10 of most popular social networks in North America.

They are partially in the top ten because they are seamlessly integrated with other similar social networks. When I post to Tumblr, I can instantly share the post with my Facebook and Twitter followers. And when I upload a picture to Instagram, it shares it with Tumblr, Facebook and Twitter.

Cross-posting is big in terms of social networking. It allows you to share your content with all your followers, fans and friends, everywhere, regardless of which social network they are on. And the more you share, the more likely your content will be shared by others.

Social networks that make it hard to share content across multiple platforms – like the original Myspace, or don’t even provide the option, make it harder for their users to grow their social networks, so guess what? It makes it hard for the social network to grow itself to as a business.

Now, when social networks start adding Google+ more to their sharing options I’ll be happier than a pig in you know what. 

Mobile Apps that Make You Use the Website to do Key Tasks

It’s great to be able to access your social networks from anywhere, using a mobile app. What really sucks is when the mobile app lacks key functions, forcing you to log into the app on your mobile web browser, instead of using the app.

Klout’s app has improved greatly over time, it used to only show you your Klout score, rendering it almost useless. It’s a lot better now, but it still missing key functions which force me to check in on the web version at least once a week. I can only see my top influencers on the app, to see everyone else, I have to log onto the web version.

YouTube’s new app for IOS allows doesn't let you delete a video you uploaded. This was available in the previous version, when the app was native to IOS 5 and earlier. But since Apple didn't make it a native app (pre-installed app), the new YouTube app doesn't have this key feature.

Facebook’s app has come a long way too – used to take forever to load, and occasionally crash on my iPhone. The new and improved app is awesome, but how come I can’t change all my profile and account settings in the app? I have to go to the website to do that.

The mobile version of any social network should let you do everything you can do on the web version, only streamlined for mobile devices and bandwidths. 

Enforcement of Mobile and Web Standards

Here’s an odd one which isn't all that common, but stumped me for the longest time, and prevented me from having my Windows Live Hotmail on my iPhone for almost two-years.

For the past two-years, I've been without Hotmail on my iPhone, because every time I tried to set it up, it wouldn't authenticate.

I finally figured it out – Windows Live Hotmail only allows fewer than 20 character passwords. When you enter a password on their website, it automatically truncates it, so any characters you enter past the 20 character limit are ignored, and you gain access to your account.

However, on the iPhone app – and possibly other mobile devices – any characters you enter past 20 are included, you get an authentication error, and eventually locked out of your account, upon successive attempts.

Grrr ... for those of us trying to make our passwords strong enough to prevent problems, Microsoft certainly created a big problem for me!

It would have been nice if the iPhone app truncated characters like the web version, or at the very least, just not let you type in more characters than were accepted.

(I know 20 characters is a lot, but I’m nutty about security.) 

Announcements that Scare You

Another rare one, but still it happens – when you get a pop-up on your phone or on the website which looks like an error message, but is just an announcement, message or alert about a new post or friend.

Fear may move people, but if you scare your users too much, just like crying wolf, your users will soon stop reading these things. And if people don’t read the posts, what good is the social network?

How Finicky We Social Networkers Are

Remember Myspace and Tom? Tom was the guy everyone added on the once popular social networking site, which has become a virtual dust bowl, with a shadow of its former user base.

Recently, Digg was dismantled – literally, as parts of it were sold off to various bidders, from the media and private corporations.

Eight-year-old Digg also once was a giant among social networking sites, but as the lawyers dig through the company’s bits and pieces, it too will slowly vanish into the night.

Is it that Myspace and Digg really lost focus, and could not keep up with Facebook, Yahoo and newcomers like Google+?

Or, are attention spans to short online, and we’re only really interested in the next big thing?

Technology is a wonderful thing, but all too often what we once thought of as amazing eventually becomes horrible gone wrong, as newer things – that do the same thing – shine brighter.

Myspace and Digg did the same things most of the other social networks do – they bring complete strangers together, sharing ideas and stories about the world we live in through the multimedia universe of the worldwide web.

Each social network has its own identity in a way – how you share content and connect with people on each is different – but generally they all serve the same purpose and function.

We are driven to the latest greatest thing.

Why?

Perhaps, it’s because the vast majority of social networking users are younger generations, raised on a fast-paced high tech diet that teaches “new is good,” and “old is bad?”

When the new iPhone 4s came out with Siri, everyone just had to have it. Then Samsung came out with the Galaxy S III, and everyone just had to have that.

They are both smartphones with cool features, and boundless apps. But alas, only one thing can ever be the newest thing.

Just ask Einstein about time and space.

Though what usually spells the beginning of the end for a social network isn’t the sudden rush of its users to the latest newest social network. Nope, usually the final dagger is jabbed by the outgoing social network itself.

As Myspace’s users started to leave en mass to join Facebook, Myspace began introducing new features and even re-designed their layout. Their new features were buggy, their customer support was non-existent, and so they actually drove the few stragglers away to the other social networks.

Digg went through a similar set of disturbing changes – as people lost interest in the site, they made many changes, which fell far short of winning back users.

And now, Digg is being broken up, sold off in pieces like an old car is sold off for spare parts.

But the real reason social networks fail is because we lack the attention span to stay with them. Which makes you wonder – will the almighty Facebook be around in ten years?

Handling the Unwanted Follower While Being Social

We’ve all been there – you get a message that someone you haven’t heard from in ages has just started following you on one or more of your social networks.

That’s great if you want to catch up and reconnect. That’s not so great if it’s someone like an ex you’d like to be just a distant memory.

Just to make matters worse, now this person has just sent you a message asking how are you, and if that rash ever went away.

What do you do?

Do you follow that person back, and respond to their message? Do you follow back, but ignore their message? Do you respond to their message, but NOT follow them back?

What’s the socially acceptable thing to do with real people from our past, now showing up on our virtual social networks?

Here are some suggestions and the various pro’s and con’s to each to help you handle unwanted followers on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and the other social networks.

1. Follow & Respond – Of course, the simplest solution is to just follow the person back, and respond to any emails or messages they send you.

Pro’s

• Time Heals All Wounds – Maybe they are reaching out to you on the social networks to re-kindle the fire, or simply just want to catch up. You’ll never know unless you talk to them.
• Discourages Hate Mail – If you don’t follow back and respond to any messages they send, they could send you nasty emails or messages back because they know they are being ignored.
• Could Be the Start of Something Good – You never know, maybe they could become a great friend, or more.

Con’s

• People Don’t Change – Sometimes people don’t change, and the person you never wanted to see again may now be all the more present online.
• Wrapped Up in Something You Don’t Want – If you follow and respond to someone just to be nice, it could back fire, and you could end up getting more involved in that person’s life – online and in the real world.
• Sends the Wrong Message – By following the person back, and responding to their email/message you could be sending the wrong message about reconnecting with them. They may interpret your politeness as a sign of interest.

2. Follow and Don’t Respond – You just follow the person back, but don’t respond to them in any other way.

Pro’s

• Getting the 411 -- You have the opportunity to check them out online, before responding to any messages. From what they post online, you might be able to figure out why they contacted you in the first place, and whether or not you want to reconnect.
• Miss Manners Would Be Proud -- You’re being polite by adding them back, and everyone should always be polite, please and thank you.
• Nip ‘em in the Bud – By following them but not responding to their message/email, you send a clear message about your intentions – that you’ll add them, but that’s about it.

Con’s

• All the News Isn’t Always Good – If you check them out, you may learn something about them that you don’t like, maybe they work at the same company, or are married to your boss, or high school crush?
• Nice Guys Finish Last – Being polite is great, but following them and not responding to their message/email could put you in an awkward situation. Sometimes, doing the right thing isn’t always the right thing to do.

3. Respond but Don’t Follow – You could just respond to their message/email and not follow them back.

Pro’s

• Knowledge Is Power -- You can control what they learn about you that they haven’t already learned about you from your online public profiles. And you can ask them how they are, and more importantly what they have been up too – which might give you an idea why they contacted you, or whether you should add them as a friend.
• Slow and Easy Wins the Race – Let’s you start off slowly reconnecting with this person, so you can have a series of messages/emails back and forth, so you can get a feel for whether or not this is someone you want back in your life, even if it’s just your online one.
• Ask Around – If you have mutual friends, you can send them a message/email asking about this person, to get more intel which you can use to decide how you want to handle them.

Con’s

• Flame War – Any contact with someone from the past could ignite old arguments, which can go on forever online.
• Stuff Online Stays Online – Once someone receives a message/email, you have no idea what that person does with it – they could forward it to someone else, or post it online for others to see. Things online never die.
• Will You Be My Friend – After any form of communications, they may just ask you in message/email if you will add them as a friend. Then you are stuck – do you respond with why you don’t, or do you cave in and just add them?

4. Ignorance is Bliss – Just ignore them. Period.

Pro’s

• Quick and Easy -- You’ll never have to deal with them again, as they’ll get the message right away that you aren’t interested in reconnecting.
• No Brain Pain -- Don’t have to rack your brain, trying to figure out what to say in a message/email.

Con’s

• Mutual Headaches – If you have mutual friends, they may ask those friends you have in common to contact you and ask you why you haven’t responded.
• By Other Means – They could become a stalker, trying to contact you by other means, say by on another social network, looking up your phone number, or worse – they could show up at your house!
• Could Have Been – And you really never know what could have been if you don’t even try. Maybe they won the lottery and want to take you out for a wild and crazy time? Then again, they may just want to know if the rash ever went away.

Is Social Media Really the Real You?

Back in high school, while most were dating, I’d be smack dab in front of the computer, chatting and downloading.

This predates the Internet, back to the days of Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and dial-up modem connections.

This goes way back to the days when CompuServe and America Online were king, and only a handful of people actually knew what email was, let alone had it.

I’d chat with some dude named “The Terminator” about his BBS named “The Forbidden Zone,” or with another system operator (called Sysop in BBS slang) named “Mike Donovan” about his “V-BBS.” I remember having long debates in the chat forums with “Tiny Dancer,” “Mayor Hardin,” and someone that called himself “Thing.”

On these dial-up computer networks, everyone went by a handle, some even taking on the persona or character of their chosen name in the chats, by typing as if they really were The Terminator, or whoever else they chose to be.

As BBS computer networks were a basis for the Internet as we know it today, it got me thinking – just how real are the people we chat with online now?

Just as it was back in the era of the BBS, it’s not very hard to log onto any social network site, make up an assumed name, and post content under that assumed identity.

Twitter has tried to prevent people from assuming celebrity identities, by verifying such accounts – but even these verifications can be faked.

I get posts all the time from Albert Einstein on Google+ -- and although I’m honored that one of the greatest minds of the Twentieth Century shares his thoughts with me, Einstein died long before the two young men who created Google were even born.

I also get posts from Planet Earth on Google+ -- which is even more interesting, because I didn’t know the Earth could talk.

Clearly, someone on Google+ is posting under Einstein and the Earth’s identities, which brings us back to the original question, how real are we on our social networks?

We grow friends, fans and followers on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube, Pinterest and the rest. But even if we are posting as ourselves, under our real names, are we really real?

Do we really share what is actually happening right now in our lives online? And if we do, do others really care?

Just how different are you online from the real life person you are, in the real world?

Do your posts reflect the real you?

How would I know that?

How would you know that my posts are really me?

This social networking thing is really confusing.