I am a long-time LinkedIn user, and over time I've accumulated over
1,000 connections. Most of them are people I actually know or at least
have interacted with online beyond "connecting".
You might think that's a large number of people to have as
connections, and that I could afford to have a more selective velvet
rope. And, as you may have noted, I know only most of my connections;
some of them are link spammers whose connection requests I nonetheless
accepted.
But, you see, there's no incentive for an individual to reject a
spammy connection request. Link spammers do reduce the relative value
of legitimate links, and as a result devalue the LinkedIn network as a
whole. But it's a classic tragedy of the commons. Why should I
personally sacrifice the reach of my network if I gain nothing? As far
as I can tell, this problem applies just as much to Facebook and other
social networking platforms.
Twitter is a different beast. Granted, Twitter and LinkedIn may not
even see each other as competitors, but that is beside the point. They
are competing for people's social networking cycles, and all of today's
social networking platforms / applications are surely keeping their
options open as to what positions they will ultimately stake out.
In any case, what most differentiates Twitter from LinkedIn is their
attention economics. On LinkedIn, you incur a benefit--at no apparent
cost--from the size of your network, up to degree 3. In contrast, all
that matters in the Twitter "social graph" are your immediate links.
You don't get any direct benefit from connections at distance greater
than 1. Moreover, the connections are asymmetric, as are their costs
and benefits. Following people is an investment of your attention,
where the return is access to information (in a broad sense). Being
followed is an investment of their attention, and hence an opportunity
to exert influence. The asymmetry of Twitter connections is most
evident for celebrity influencers, who have far more followers than
followees.
While Twitter, at least in my view, is a work in progress, I think
they have done well to align their model with attention scarcity. I'm
most keenly aware of this scarcity as I decide whom to follow.
Accepting a connection from a LinkedIn spammer costs me nothing, while
following someone on Twitter who updates on every inhale and exhale
would render the service completely worthless.
As a result, connections in Twitter reflect real value. They
correspond to investments of attention. Someone with many followers is
much like an author with many readers. While I'm sure this metric can
be gamed (e.g., by creating bogus Twitter accounts and having them
follow you), at least Twitter has the model right in principle.
Speaking of which, if you're interested in following my tweets, you can find them here.
Note: this was originally posted at The Noisy Channel.
Recent Comments