Friendster: About Face!

This is exactly the kind of action that makes people have no respect for what corporations say: Friendster, which has made much of its ‘no fake profiles’ policy, is now allowing fake profiles as long as they’re sponsored by a paying advertiser.

From its earliest days, many Friendster members introduced fake profiles — known variously as fakesters, or pretendsters — into their networks of friends. Often, members posted profiles of their pets and linked to friends’ pets. But the service quickly demonstrated it didn’t see the humor when it began purging the network of the fakesters.

Yet now, the company sees little irony in cooperating with Anchorman developer DreamWorks in introducing the movie’s characters into the Friendster network. In fact, it says the move is indicative of a larger cross-promotional plan the company has undertaken.

“What Friendster is doing with these movie-character profiles is actually a brand-new paradigm in media promotion,” Friendster spokeswoman Lisa Kopp said. “We are working directly with a number of production houses and movie studio partners to create film-character profiles, or ‘fan’ profiles, that allow our users to share their enthusiasm about the film with their friends.”

The message I get is that Friendster is tone-deaf to how this looks to their customers. Why is it not OK to put up a profile for a (real) pet bird but OK to have a profile of a fake anchorman for a not very funny summer movie? Oh right, money.

It’s been widely reported that all of the ‘social networking’ companies are having an issue trying to figure out how to make them profitable. This is one way of generating income that doesn’t require a full-out pay for content model, and in that sense it’s not a bad idea. But the hypocrisy inherent in the process does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I’m probably not their target customer anyway. I signed onto Friendster a year or so ago. I was familiar with the “fakesters” on Friendster, even linked as a friend to the Howard Dean profile. As the Wired article mentions, it was a way of establishing community and saying something about myself by my choice of association. But ultimately, I gave up on Friendster and stopped visiting. The site was too static, didn’t really allow for much interaction – in short, I found it boring.

I prefer Orkut, which has user-formed community groups and message boards – much more interactive, much more interesting. It’s not a major part of my online activities, but unlike Friendster, Orkut is interesting enough for me to keep visiting & contributing to the site. Orkut is also invite-only, which helps keep the trolls out.

A Tale of Two Cultures

Two op-eds this weekend decry the decline of reading in America today: Harold Bloom and Andrew Solomon. Kevin Drum takes Bloom to task for writing off the Internet completely. Solomon, to his credit, concedes that the Internet can have some good writing, but also assigns it to the same category as TV watching – non-interactive, alienating.

I actually agree with Bloom and Solomon that Americans should read more. What I take issue with is the sweeping generalization that the Internet is part of the problem. For example, this Solomon quote:

The Nazis were right in believing that one of the most powerful weapons in a war of ideas is books. And for better or worse, the United States is now in such a war. Without books, we cannot succeed in our current struggle against absolutism and terrorism. The retreat from civic to virtual life is a retreat from engaged democracy, from the principles that we say we want to share with the rest of the world. You are what you read. If you read nothing, then your mind withers, and your ideals lose their vitality and sway.

If Solomon thinks that the ‘virtual life’ is not capable of producing an engaged democracy, then he has not only never checked out any blogs but also slept through the entire Democratic primary season. Interaction and communication are the lifeblood of the Internet. It’s worth noting that long before the Web came along, most of the major functions of the Internet were interactive – email, mailing lists, and Usenet – not to mention IRC, MUDs and MOOs as well.

Of course, by posting this here instead of writing a letter to the editor, I’m well aware that I’m preaching to the choir.

Totally gratuitous side note: Andrew Solomon attended the same high school as I did, although he was a few years ahead of me. The Horace Mann School gave us a heck of an education. I grew to love Shakespeare by having to read several of the plays aloud in various English classes. The first time we did it, in 8th grade, I thought it was a little weird. But by 10th grade it was one of my favorite things to do in class.

Stylistic Reasons

The LA Times (registration required, but Yahoo! reprints it) has a good piece about the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, in specific, a section devoted to the differences between two versions of a key report on Iraq’s weapons capabilities used to help justify the US’s attack – the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002. Not surprisingly:

The panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of weapons and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

The changes made a qualified, nuanced document into one which laid out the case for war.

For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:

“Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile,” the classified NIE read, “Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons” of such poisons.

In the unclassified version of the report, the phrase “although we have little specific information” was deleted. Instead, the public report said, “Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.”

Skipping over several other similar instances of changes made to the document, we get to the kicker: who made the changes and why. And here it gets even more infuriating.

Who made the changes:

During a briefing before the report was released, one committee aide said the Senate panel had asked Tenet and Stu Cohen

City of Heroes Ate My Brain

Light blogging right now – I ‘discovered’ the online game City of Heroes (no thanks to Scott) and have been playing it like crazy these past few days.

If you play and are on the Liberty server, look for either Shopaholic or DanielJackson & tell me “hi!”.

If none of the above makes any sense to you, I should be back to normal by the end of the weekend.

The Ridge Who Cried Wolf

Digby has a nice long post today about what happens when innocent people, like the guy whose crossword puzzle scribblings got him onto the Homeland Security watch list, get swept into the DHS’s web.

His conclusion?

The stories begin to accumulate, each one a random intrusion by dumb, underqualified government authorities who seem to have watched too much television and have very little common sense.

Dumb? Not quite. What I think we’re seeing is a bunch of people who do not know how to handle the situation they have been thrust into. This is not to say they’re stupid. They’re scared, and scared people rarely make smart choices. Just look at today’s latest security alert:

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Thursday warned Americans that al Qaeda may try to carry out “a large-scale attack” to disrupt upcoming elections, but offered no details and had no plans to raise the terror threat level.

Bottom line, this is about fear – or terror, if you will – and how humans respond to it. You’d think that by now we’d have learned that the predictable response is usually the wrong one, and that we need some new solutions.

How are people supposed to react when they hear ongoing unspecified warnings of terrorist threats? Absent any concrete information, those of a more fearful cast of mind are going to see a potential threat at every hand. A doodle on the edge of a crossword puzzle can be seen as a threat of lethal action. (There’s a Greek tragedy in there somewhere but I’m not smart enough to write it.)

Those of a more conspiracy theorist cast of mind will say that the government’s true intent is to keep American citizens cowed and fearful while they move forward to bring about their own nefarious goals. I believe that about as much as I believe the wingnuts who insist that anyone who seriously opposes the Clintons ends up dead – which is to say, not at all.

I have previously commented on the similarities of our current invasion of Iraq with Vietnam. But it also occurs to me that parallels to the “Red Scares” of the 20s and 50s are also apt for the times we live in today. Apparently we have to re-learn the lessons of history all over again.

July Surprise?

It’s not quite Wag the Dog but it’s close…

A third source, an official who works under ISI’s director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis “have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must.” What’s more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: “The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq’s] meetings in Washington.” Says McCormack: “I’m aware of no such comment.” But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that “it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July”–the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Source: The New Republic. Thanks Josh Marshall for the pointer.