We start by introducing some of the key elements that will provide our SNS with firm foundations, leading later to our basic universal framework. We are mindful that whilst the initial basic model for Sigala is simple, any extension will add some measure of complexity. In that case it would be necessary to consider what issues that would raise, carry out an assessment of them and then indicate how they will be treated. Such prior planning is particularly important in the online context, when effects can multiply very rapidly. What these considerations should do is naturally prompt discussions around a more nuanced view of human relationships.

Key Elements in Relationships

  1. Intentionality and the Principle of Voluntary Sharing
    Any person using the SNS should be fully aware of what’s available to them and they should be able to share personal details as, when and how they wish. There are some critical scenarios. For example, when one person makes a connection request to another, then that person should not have access to any further information related to that other person without that person consciously giving consent. It should not be the case that choosing to ‘ignore’ the request entitles the request or to know anything more.
  2. Identity and Persona
    Knowing where one stands, having control over one’s data and how one is presented to others, are all key to SNS transparency and authenticity. In the online context, this means that the identity portrayed is a faithful representation of the individual, however limited it may be[47].

    When we speak of ‘identity’ we often think in terms of a single immutable ‘self,’ but society is characterised by plurality: even in day-to-day dealings, we typically adopt multiple personas depending upon the context. There is plenty of formal research, particularly in the social sciences, that provide clear illustrations of multiple identities – for instance, mixed race children have shown how they freely use multiple identities[48]. Online virtual worlds have offered means to develop this in very pronounced ways, but it is also strongly manifest in online communities through the use of avatars. In Japan, the most popular SNS have used avatars and hidden the identities that are presented in the physical world.

    Some think that the process of identification is something that works against helpful dialogue, but that’s not so. Rather it’s rigid attachment to identity that causes problems.
  3. Identification …
    Relationships may be conducted 1-1 between individuals, but also between individuals and groups. We may speak at work on behalf of a team, department, and organisation; at home, we may speak on behalf of ourselves, our family or even our nation. This applies likewise to the people with whom we are in communication.
    When we are in communication with others, there is a process of identification, i.e. we come into contact with an identity and quickly perceive, involving processes of recollection, assessment, going far beyond the actual identity. Dating sites in the West (e.g. eHarmony.com) are focused on two individuals coming together as a couple, but this model is not suitable for the whole world since in many cultures marriage happens in practice between two families at the same time as between two individuals. Individualism, which is the cornerstone of many Western SNS, is only one perspective. Therefore we need to model in a dynamic way abstraction, allowing flow between the levels, through groups into subgroups to individuals and conversely.
  4. … and Connections
    The counterpart to these nodes, as it were, are the connections themselves. Sociologists tend to use the word ‘ties’, but this has a connotation of binding, whereas a relationship may have little or no obligation, but is rather a free association. So we prefer to use the word connection (derived from the Latin: cum + nexus, implying joining together).
    Features for connections should include depth – six (or four) degrees to the President of the United States does not imply a right to walk straight into the Oval Office!

A Proposed Taxonomy

Relationships need some structure in order to cultivate them appropriately – “a place for everything and everything in its place”. Treating all connections as being of one type devalues them, a sentiment expressed here from the perspective of someone seeking to use SNS for distinctly business purposes:

I’ve been fairly vocal, even more lately, about my disenchantment with FaceBook so I got started with my evaluation of this application. I would like to have a separate personal and business profile (not a page) but, despite the fact that a lot of folks are apparently doing that, this would technically be in violation of FaceBook’s terms of service and I don’t really care to go there.

Craig M. Jamieson, Networks! Boise Valley, May 27, 2010. What Full Twitter Integration Could Mean ForLinkedIn.
http://networksboise.com/what-full-twitter-integration-could-mean-for-linkedin/ (via archive.org)

The disenchantment with SNS indiscriminate treatment of friendship was expressed in ‘National Unfriend Day’, organised by a comedian in the US in November 2010 – but in this case it was not a joke.1 As remarked, there has been a widespread tendency to merely accumulate contacts in a way that reduces the value of friendship.

It should be recognised in the design of SNS that there are different kinds of human relationships and they require distinct treatments. This is the case now as it has been for millennia. Accordingly, we propose to structure the design of SNS in its support for relationships by the following simple taxonomy, a basic hierarchy of categories that specify different kinds of relationships:

  • [Global] Top level categories should be distinct, universal, memorable and complete
  • [Local] Sub-categories should refine top level categories in a way that respects and most effectively enhances specific contexts

Such a categorisation should support or exhibit the following characteristics:

  • [Inclusive] Attributes should be assigned to ties that encompass physical and virtual scenarios, e.g. whether relationship is physical (in person) and/or virtual (only online).

    We comment that relationships are distinct from ‘groups’, which are basically sets or collections (groups are termed aspects in Diaspora and circles in Google+). Whilst collections serve a useful purpose, in Sigala, relationships emphasize mutuality and process far more than membership of such collections; without this emphasis the system may appear to promote exclusion.

Relationships and their Dynamics

In Sigala relationships will be defined dynamically in terms of multiple facets: in terms of mutuality, activities, group memberships, common interests, shared history and so on.

The service should pay particular attention to

  • Communication has short and long term effects, especially so when it is 1-1.
    As intimated in the discussions on personal conduct above, just a few words can make a huge impact, which is why guidelines are important.
  • The evolution of relationships over time – may change in nature (e.g. from colleague to friend); and in depth (e.g. from brief acquaintance to close and long-term). Some startups are trying to create more intimate and trusted social spaces, working in particularly on the assumption that only a certain number of meaningful relationships can be actively maintained2. In Sigala we should provide for these scenarios, whilst allowing smooth transition between relationship type, without the need to export/import profiles.
  • An ethical view: the cultivation of human responsibility and the role of moral virtue for human flourishing.
    Whilst it may be argued that the Internet’s technical infrastructure observe ‘net neutrality’, an SNS is ostensibly a community, as is the United Nations. As such it should respect each other’s citizenship, observing principles such as the global rule: “Do unto others as you would have done unto you,” but also going further to be open to different views and insights on life and the challenges on our assumptions.
  • The service should be intelligent with regards to economic models: it should distinguish personal services from pseudo-personal (machine-personalised) services. Economic activity (treated in its own section below) involves various kinds of relationships and should be designed and accounted for.

There are already many technology implementations that provide insights into how an environment can evolve: one major area concerns games – from simple handheld electronic devices (like Tamagochi) to online multi-usergames. The extent (and limitations) of one particularly sophisticated offering, Bioware, is well described in a blog post by Jared Gillis3:

Bioware has always pushed the established boundaries of allowing the player to choose how their character evolves, not only mechanically (via classes and the like), but also as a character by making the player’s choices affect the character’s personality (via alignment, Light/Dark force, etc).

The title alludes to the plurality of options that don’t really contribute to the way one can develop a personality in a deeper, more sophisticated way. It is an important observation that the choices made online affect the character’s personality. We argue that this is similarly true of SNS use. It is therefore important to design the model in a way that generally leads to positive development – it’s a responsibility we have to face because implicitly or explicitly systems contribute to social engineering by design4.

It is time to present a fundamental new design, a new model for relationships.

Notes 

1 See e.g. National Unfriend Day, Jimmy Kimmel live, ABC Television. 17 November 2010. http://abc.go.com/shows/jimmy-kimmel-live/national-unfriend-day
This prompted widespread discussion, as reported by Maggie Shiels, Maggie Shiels BBC column:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/11/national_unfriend_day_on_its_w.html

2 See e.g. BBC interview with Dave Morin, CEO of path.com at: A private Path to your close friends, BBC News 20 March 2012 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9706440.stm

3 Jared Gillis, Choices, choices everywhere and not a spot to think,
http://blindeternities.net/blog/choices-choices-everywhere-and-nary-a-spot-to-think/ [no longer accessible, as at 11/11/20]

4 This is obviously the case with Mark Zuckerberg and the design of Facebook, who has expressed the wish for greater openness and sharing, with increasing levels of detail.