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

By: Meg

Meg — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:50:06 +0000

Joining this conversation a little late. I wonder what this would look like in the real world. Running around with an invisibility cloke like Mr.Potter. Or the reverse, being always available – opening your mail box (the one in the real world) outside your house just to read your mail, and finding ALL your friends/acquantances standing around for small talk. Wouldn't that be a shocker! I think it would be better to cut out the frivolous online small-talk. Dump chat and meet people instead. Or atleast call or send a long-ish mail. While e-mails could be an extension of real mails/letters, instant messaging is a social killer in the real world.

By: Jarred Taylor

Jarred Taylor — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:38:17 +0000

Certainly. But in your case, you can simply sign out of GTalk completely.
Then you are neither be seen nor can you see. What I think is unfair is the
lopsidedness of invisibility.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:12:15 +0000

Well, although I can see your point, I don't completely agree with it. I am talking solely about gmail chat feature and not any of the other social networks - which with one exception , I don't use.
I have had gmail for as long as I remember gmail existing. It's an email service. That's what I use it for. To read my emails. I really am not interested in chatting or even worse have all this people that ever sent me an email suddenly talking to me in chat. By the same token, I certainly will not be initiating any chats with them either, regardless of them being online or not. I am reading my emails, and often work related ones and that's all I want to do. When I first noticed the chat on gmail I wasn't extremely happy about it, and realizing there was no way to go invisible upset me even more. I really don't want distractions and, maybe I can be called antisocial, but I have my friends, I'm not looking for friendship on the web and much less spending time chatting with people I don't even know.
I can see the benefits for the ones who enjoy it, of any chat program, but I really believe that it should be the choice of the person if they are available or not.
That said, and when I wrote that as a rule I don't subscribe to social networks, I do have facebook. And again, my reasons for that are much more private than the majority of people. It was done in order to be in touch with friends and family. Only. Not their friends, or the friends of their friends. I didn't include my contacts and I don't accept new friends unless they belong to the above category. I am not hiding behind an invisible presence to strike whoever I see online with a chat request, I just don't want to be talking to new people.
True, throughout the years I have made some friends over the internet, but I don't suddenly treat everyone I receive and email from or sent one to as my long last friend and someone that I have the right to engage in conversation just because I realized he/she is online. And I expect the same done to me.
I can see your point in social networks like myspace and facebook and all the other ones. As a rule people become a part of it, to make new friends. However gmail is just an email service.I didn't deliberately choose to become part of a social network by choosing gmail as my email service.And |I expect the right to be able not to be available for chat if I don't want to - which as a rule I don't.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:38:17 +0000

Certainly. But in your case, you can simply sign out of GTalk completely.
Then you are neither be seen nor can you see. What I think is unfair is the
lopsidedness of invisibility.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:12:15 +0000

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:49:27 +0000

I was also disappointed with Google for implementing this so-called feature. It ultimately lowers the utility of it, the costs far outweighing the benefits. Fortunately, Facebook’s chat does not have an invisible mode (yet).

By: Jarred

Jarred — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:15:34 +0000

Thanks, JonnyBalbo, for your thoughtful comment…

By: JonnyBalbo

JonnyBalbo — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:07:13 +0000

Well Jarred i think you are just being stupid. Go invisible!

By: Facebook Chat: Social Networking Comes Home at Tropophilia

Facebook Chat: Social Networking Comes Home at Tropophilia — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:16:39 +0000

[...] course, log off of Chat if you don’t want to be disturbed… but as far as I can tell, there is no invisibility feature. If you don’t want to speak with specific people, it looks like you’ll either have to [...]

By: Jarred

Jarred — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:10:13 +0000

@Lima: Following your logic, couldn’t the argument be just as well made that those who fight for the invisibility option with such vigor are tantamount to stalkers? After all, they’re the ones who want to see without being seen. Maybe peeping tom is the better term? :)

I don’t think that’s the case, for sure. But the claim I just made is just as much a gross, unsubstantiated generalization as yours.

How do you know that “most people want” an invisibility option? I’d be interested to know your basis for claiming that. Is it because not many have complained about it? If the option were to disappear and only a few made a racket about it, would you still claim that “most people want” it? I’m not saying your wrong, but I’ve never seen evidence showing how many people want/use invisibility.

Your real life comparison is a good example, but I think what you’re describing more aptly parallels the “block” feature, which I think is perfectly legitimate. In the online world where you can selectively block who you want whenever you want, why would you ever need to block your presence from everyone while observing their presence? I just don’t get it, and think it just goes against the whole “social” nature of “social networking.”

I understand the arguments: “I want to wait online to talk to one person” or “I want to carefully choose who I talk to because I don’t want to be distracted by peripheral contacts.” Legitimate reasons, all. But, seriously, how hard is it to put up an away message and only talk or respond to those with whom you wish? You can still be “unavailable” while showing your presence, and still talk to whomever you wish. But I think there has to be a cost associated with the benefits.

And in the end, I really don’t care that much. I just like arguing.