Invisibility: A Violation of the Social (Networking) Contract?

The Story  

Mashable reports that Google introduced an “invisibility” feature into its Gmail version of Google Talk over the weekend.  I am very much against this type of feature, and am disappointed that Google has chosen to implement it.

If you’ve used AOL Instant Messenger (or its Microsoft and Yahoo! competitors), you’ll be familiar with the invisibility option: while you are able to see which of your contacts are online and even initiate conversations with them, it appears to them as if you’re offline. 

The Argument 

Instant messaging is a form of social networking.  By choosing to become invisible, you’ve chosen to selectively participate in your social network.  You have elected to receive all the benefits while experiencing none of the risks or costs.  I believe that this goes against the very social nature of the whole social networking phenomenon.

Is There A Social (Networking) Contract?

The first post I wrote for Tropophilia was about Spokeo, the social aggregator that allows you to follow what your friends are doing online without them knowing.  This was (and I suspect still is) a controversial approach to lifestreaming.

Defenders of this approach say that services like Spokeo only make it easier to find information that is already publicly available — and that’s true, though more debate could be had about the extent to which users are actually informed about what information they are making public by signing up for different services.  (Did you know, for example, that by simply entering you e-mail address into Spokeo I can see every time that you create a radio station on Pandora?).

Critics of Spokeo-like activity make a variety of arguments, but I find the more philosophical one the most convincing.  Social networks are just that: social.  The entry for “social” as an adjective in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary reads (with my underlining):

1: involving allies or confederates <the Social War between the Athenians and their allies>.  2 a: marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with one’s friends or associates <leads a very full social life> b: sociable c: of, relating to, or designed for sociability <a social club>.  3: of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society <social institutions>.  4 a: tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others of one’s kind : gregarious b: living and breeding in more or less organized communities <social insects> cof a plant : tending to grow in groups or masses so as to form a pure stand.  5 a: of, relating to, or based on rank or status in a particular society <a member of our social set> b: of, relating to, or characteristic of the upper classes c: formal.  6: being such in social situations <a social drinker>

Note the symbiotic language used.  Ally.  Companion.  Interaction.  Cooperation.  Interdependency.  In defining any of those words, is there any selectivity involved?  Are your friends allies when convenient, companions when it suits them, cooperative on their terms only? 

Now I don’t mean to say that by participating in instant messaging (or any other social service) one must without reservation actively expose oneself to every other participant.  Indeed, I believe that if anyone is going to “access” you online — whether via IM or a profile — you need to have either explicitly granted authority for your information to be public, or you need to be given the authority to actively confirm or deny access to each request. 

But it is also my argument that there is no “in between.”  Option 1: you share yourself with the public or select indivudals and in turn be given access to them.  Option 2:  you choose not to share yourself with others, and in turn be denied access to them.

There is an exchange that occurs when one engages in social networking, and that is the exchange of access.  You let me in, I let you in.  You see what I do, I see what you do.  Like any exchange, there can be mutually agreed upon terms.  I can say that sometimes I want be given access to you, but I want to deny your access to me; if you agree, then fine.  But giving a social participant the power to unilaterally enjoy the privileges without the costs is a dangerous precedent to set.  That’s how you get Spokeo, and privacy violations.

There Is Another Way, But It’ll Cost You

It is important to note that there is a way to selectively and unilaterally disengage from individuals in both Facebook and instant messengers.  When you “block” someone’s profile on Facebook, that person will no longer be able to access your profile — indeed, it will appear as if your profile does not exist on the service at all.  You’ve made yourself vanish, just like you wanted.

But in return, their profile vanishes for you.  When you go dark, they go dark.  It’s only fair.  This feature exists in most instant messengers, including AIM and Google Talk.

The Counter-Arguments

I have some friends that use or have used invisibility before.  Their arguments are that it ensures that they’re not distracted by random conversations, or that it keeps them from having certain conversations that they don’t want to have.  Sometime they just want to be online so they can wait to talk to a certain person, and don’t want to be bothered by others.

My response is this: tough.  That’s the price of social networking.  I believe it’s unfair to enjoy the benefits of a service while selectively choosing to experience the costs.  The relationship becomes economic: I see your ability to access me as a burden or obstacle that I am choosing to eliminate, but I will not have to sacrifice anything.  It’s unfair, and anti-social.

Thoughts?

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user Grevel.