in Uncategorized

More thoughts on Urban Tribes

A post to the Many to Many weblog about how Friendster relies on Urban Tribes got me thinking. I tried posting this as a comment there, but there was an error. So I’m posting it here:

As the author of the scathing review, I feel it’s worth mentioning that I agree with danah that Friendster’s bread-and-butter are those who belong to “urban tribes.” Actually, the Friendster/Urban Tribes cross is a potentially rich field for exploration of this emerging social group. I’m thinking of a sociological/anthropological discussion of how social software mediates and extends the interactions of these folks. Is it coincidence that Urban Tribes emerged as a force at around the same time as the internet took off? How has email, IM, and now systems like Friendster promoted the development of Urban Tribes?

  1. I’ve not read the book, but whatever it’s like you deserve 10/10 for scathe!

    Re. Friendster + Urban Tribes – I’m a little puzzled at the link. Urban Tribes depend on physical proximity, Friendster enables social interaction without it. Do these tribes appear/grow in a locality thanks to initial contact being made on Friendster? Or do the tribals use Friendster as a means to extra (non-physical) contact?

Comments are closed.