i was thinking about social software recently..

i realized something interesting about it; something like myspace, for example, has its own subculture. people talk about myspace, using myspace lingo, referring to myspace things, and portraying myspace behavior.

the whole idea about social software is that it is the digital version of communities, right?

i think i disagree on the 100% transferability from offline to online.

social software is not for ‘online communities’, but ‘online subcultures’. the reason this is different, is because people act in the specificsubculture-way only while on the subculture’s website.

this is an important difference when compared with real-world subcultures.

for example, take ‘hippies’ or ‘punks’. each has a certain characteristic way of living, way of dressing, way of talking. these behaviors are more prominent when surrounded by others of the same subculture, even if only due to shared knowledge and experience in that subculture’s ways.

but when one member of a group (hippie or punk), walks into a deli in the center of town, even if that person tones down the amount of his/her subculture’s traits s/he displays, there are still aspects of it which s/he cannot hide, such as dress or hair.

it’s that one point in which online subcultures differ. you can be part of an online subculture, without ever having to experience ’standing out’ in front of people who are NOT part of that subculture.

there’s something very big in this point, when it comes to thinking about social software, and where it’s going in the future. this one difference, i believe, is a key to further developments and innovations in the social software genre.