Web 2.0: Does Social Media Really Just Recreate High School?

No sooner does a social media app take off than new ways of using said app to recreate cliques follow. Whether it's blogs or Twitter or FriendFeed, it seems there has to be a group of cool kids, and one of the not-so-cool kids.

Going in reverse order, there is already a pruning being done of FriendFeed accounts. To me, it's understandable; all FriendFeed has really done is add one more social network for people to have to track. Rather than easing the social networking burden by aggregating services, it's created one more layer of conversation that we are supposed to monitor and track. Is it necessary, however, to announce to any and all listening that the list is being culled? I've seen several FriendFeed users state publicly their criteria for avoiding culling, which often includes being “interesting” and “contributing to the conversation.” I guess I'm just a salmon trying to swim upstream here, but I appreciate people leaving me a comment on a blog entry more than on one more service, or replying to a Tweet, or even sending an email rather than adding more work. But if you want to stay on those cool kid lists, you must obey.

The same can be said of Twitter. Not only do you find Tweets similar to the FriendFeed culling, but there is also apparently an optimal following to followers ratio. If you were so inclined, you can determine how popular you are by finding out your Twitter Follower-Friend Ratio. In case you couldn't figure out on your own what a spammer looks like or a snob, there are tools to look this up for you. Forget just adding people you find interesting; you need to maintain the proper ratio at all times in order to achieve true Twitter social status.

And lastly, let's not forget about the blogs. Much as “The List” back in high schools where popular people made lists of popularity rankings, we finally have the list of the most valuable blogs, as determined by 24/7 Wall St., who stuck themselves on at the end, to make sure we knew that they were part of the cool crowd, too. With a cobbled-together psuedo-formula based on Alexa ranking, assumed CPM, and estimated expenses, it makes no more sense than anything else, but hey, they listed the Gawker bunch at number one. I have yet to check Valleywag to see their take on it, but let's face it; ranking anyone above Perez Hilton is hilarious. It's trashy, but I know way more non-tech folks who read Perez Hilton than all the tech blogs combined, and most of them have never heard of a single Gawker blog. Perez Hilton has gone beyond the blog to a brand that includes party hosting, television specials on VH1, and the ear of the music industry. Whatever gets promoted on that blog ends up being downloaded, viewed, worn, or talked about more than any other blog anywhere, bar none. Most people won't admit to reading it in tech circles, but I'm willing to bet almost everyone knows who he is. And while Gawker claims a huge number of uniques, how many of them are just the same viewer reading more than one blog (In my case, I read Valleywag, Wonkette, Lifehacker, and Gizmodo at least. There. I'm four uniques? With my Ad Block?)

The reality is that popularity on any of these social platforms is meaningless unless it actually makes you money. Perez Hilton is raking in the money hand over fist, unless you count his legal overhead in defending lawsuits. Having a proper Twitter ratio or appropriately popular FriendFeed subscription list probably isn't going to net you a dime. Unless you have a conversion method for egoboo into Euros, in which case, you can sign me up and I'll start the culling.