Blind Five Year Old

If you’re familiar with the science fiction classic you know the phrase is actually Soylent Green is People. With some substitution logic the equation boils down to the following:

People = Filters

Everyone is looking for technology that will help them filter the amazing amount of data that pours in through social sites like Twitter and FriendFeed. Yet many overlook the first and best filter – people.

The people you follow on Twitter and those you subscribe to on FriendFeed remain the most powerful filter you have at your disposal.

Follow Abuse

On Twitter you’ll have a dreadful time finding anything useful if you’re following a lot of people. Even if they’re all tweeting high value material (which is unlikely) you’ll miss a lot of it. In addition, a fair portion of it will likely be repetitive.

Twitter search isn’t much help and hashtags are a useful but flawed solution. I don’t rely on Twitter to get my information so I break my own rules here.

Subscribe Abuse

On FriendFeed the people you subscribe to are even more important because of the Friend of a Friend (FoaF) feature. I see people I am not subscribed to through the Likes and Comments of my subscriptions. I believe FoaF is the most valuable feature on FriendFeed.

I let Robert Scoble, Louis Gray, Rob Diana, Mike Fruchter, Thomas Hawk, Chris Baskind, Ken Sheppardson, Mike “Glemak” Dunn, FFing Enigma (aka Tina), Cee Bee and others bring great people into my feed.

There are many people who I regularly enjoy to whom I’m not subscribed. This isn’t because I don’t appreciate them, but because I see their contributions regularly as it is. My subscriptions are not always based on my appreciation of their content (though that helps) but often their ability to find and filter content.

I don’t use subscriptions as a form of popularity.

The Hard Truth

Some people have great content, but they’re not always the best filter of content. Some people have a lot of content but not all of it might be interesting – to me at least. So I experiment. I subscribe judiciously and see what it does to my worldview.

I currently keep my subscription count close to Dunbar’s number so my interaction on FriendFeed is truly social and not asocial.

Beyond People

FriendFeed has done a very good job of providing additional ways to filter the enormous amount of data available. Their list functionality can be used to apply additional subscriptions to a particular area. So, I could have a list of SEO gurus, another of economics folks and another of bicycling enthusiasts.

The most recent upgrade also included powerful saved search functionality, giving us yet another way to digest the data and turn it into information. This is particularly important because you get the information you want, instead of all the data from someone you’ve put into a list.

I’m a prime example of this problem. I feed a good deal of SEO, marketing and advertising material. Yet, I also feed books, bicycling, economics, art, humor and the dreaded lolcats. People rarely fit into neat tidy boxes.

People First

Even with all these great new tools the first, best line of filtering is people. It’s the way we’ll survive the social media chaos.

Soylent Green is People.

Asocial Media is on the rise

Asocial is defined by The Free Dictionary as follows:

1. Not social: “Bears are asocial, secretive animals” David Graber.
2. Avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable: “It’s not that you’re so asocial, but a man who likes people doesn’t wind up in the Antarctic” Saul Bellow.
3. Unable or unwilling to conform to normal standards of social behavior; antisocial: “crime, riots, drug use and other asocial behavior” Derek Shearer.
4. Inconsiderate of others; self-centered.

Twitter races and other follower incentives fall outside of ‘normal standards of social behavior’ and, more importantly, are obviously ‘self-centered’ in nature.

Twitter Races are Asocial

The Internati is buzzing about the race to 1,000,000 Twitter followers. CNN versus Ashton Kutcher. And now Oprah is entering the race. OMG!

I don’t care and neither should you.

Popularity is fleeting and is not social. You do not have a relationship with these people. Ashton Kutcher does not know who you are. Oprah isn’t going to reply to your tweet. You’re simply feeding their ego and business.

Dunbar’s Number

British anthropologist Robin Dunbar theorizes that humans have a limit of approximately 150 social relationships. Wikipedia defines Dunbar’s number as follows:

Dunbar’s number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.

I’d argue that social networking expands this limit to some degree. However, the foundation of the research is still valid. Even 1,000 ‘friends’ surpasses the limit where you’re engaging in social relationships.

Followers are not Social

Think about the term ‘followers’ for a minute. Has it sunk in? The definition of follower is:

1. One who subscribes to the teachings or methods of another; an adherent: a follower of Gandhi.
2. A servant; a subordinate.
3. A fan; an enthusiast.
4. One that imitates or copies another: A successful marketing campaign will have many followers.
5. A machine element moved by another machine element.

It’s a one way street. It’s a simple form of worship. There’s no relationship. There’s no social.

Twitter Bribes

So if it’s not social, what is it? It’s marketing. This can be seen even in the way in which people are trying to obtain followers.

Providing incentives to obtain followers is on the rise. Giving out a new iPhone or a free copy of some report or other bribes seem to be par for the course lately.

Again, this isn’t social. It’s marketing. It’s business. Oddly, it’s pretty bad business too. Any savvy marketer knows that ‘customers’ you acquire through sweepstakes and contests are of low quality.

Self-Centered Media

If we return to the definition of asocial and use the last entry we get to the heart of the matter. (Hat tip to Graham Greene.) It’s about ego, about self-promotion and about self-affirmation. There’s nothing wrong with this but it’s not particularly social and it’s not spawning the conversations so often heralded as the next big thing.

In the end, is quantity mutually exclusive from social?