Connectivity Technologies and Friendship

(1)

Connectivity Technologies and Friendship

Dega Westerhoff-Mason

dega.westerhoff-mason@student.uva.nl

Philosophy Masters Thesis Advisor: prof. dr. Beate Roessler Second Reader: dr. Stefan Niklas

(2)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my family and friends for all of the encouragement and support that they showed over the course of this thesis. I am also thankful for the community of fellow students and my advisor for pushing me to better understand and specify ideas that would have otherwise remained vague. This thesis exists because of the wide community that helped me at every step of the way, and for that, I am thankful.

(3)

Connectivity Technologies and Friendship

Introduction

Through the rise of Facebook and other connectivity technologies, we are encouraged to interact with our friends and make new ones over these different mediums, and for the most part, we have embraced this move. “Friending”, “liking”, “sharing”, etc. have become commonplace interactions over these technologies, and they carry societal weight when it comes to building and maintaining friendships, but it is unclear what exactly these terms denote. As one author writes, “In the context of social media, the term ‘friends’ and its adjunct verb ‘friending’ have come to designate strong _{and weak} ties, intimate contacts _{as well as total strangers” (van Dijck 13). Given both the}

prevalence and ambiguity in how these technologies represent friendship, this thesis asks: _{How do connectivity technologies interact with friendship?}

In order to answer this question, this thesis breaks its investigation into two parts that concern the _{compatibility of connectivity technologies with current conceptions of} friendship and the _{influence that these technologies have on friendship. Doing so allows} this thesis to walk between two separate views of connectivity technology. One which claims that these technologies do not influence people to use them in a certain way but merely allow people to instantiate their own ideas of how to use them. While the other view claims the opposite, that these technologies influence how people use them. Examining instead the compatibility and influence between connectivity technologies and friendship allows this thesis to take part in both discussions. This thesis claims that people use connectivity technologies in ways that make them compatible with current conceptions of friendship, but at the same time, that these technologies encourage instrumental friendships.

This claim is instantiated in three chapters. The first two argue that connectivity technologies are compatible with thin and thick friendships respectively and the third

(5)

argues that these technologies encourage instrumental friendships. When taken together, this thesis argues that while individuals can use connectivity technologies in ways that are compatible with all types of friendship, the technologies push users to instrumentalize their friendships. In the end, this means that connectivity technologies interact with friendship in a way that allows the two to be both compatible and, in certain respects, fundamentally at odds with one another.

The first chapter argues that connectivity technologies are compatible with thin friendships, or friendships with a low level of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy. While these are friendships that are mostly self-interested and built around accomplishing a particular goal, they are also practical and ubiquitous. This chapter explores how connectivity technologies can be used by individuals to pursue thin friendships based on profit or pleasure, which in the end, shows that the two are compatible.

The second chapter argues that connectivity technologies are compatible with thick friendships, which are friendships with a high level of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy. This chapter examines how certain connectivity technologies are structured in a way that makes them compatible with thick friendships based on profit, pleasure, and virtue. In the end, connectivity technologies are compatible with these thick friendships, but not without making sacrifices to the structure of the friendships, as to maximize a preconceived aim within the relationship.

Looking closer at what these technologies compromise, the third chapter argues that connectivity technologies encourage instrumental friendships, which are friendships that are pursued or established for ends outside of themselves. This argument follows from looking at both how the technologies in themselves preference instrumental friendships and how they encourage users to similarly preference instrumental friendships. Connectivity technologies therefore encourage instrumental friendships through their own preferencing and through changing users’ conceptions of friendship to be more instrumental.

(6)

In conclusion, this thesis avoids both technophobic and technophilic approaches in analyzing how connectivity technologies interact with friendship. In doing so, the three chapters argue for both the compatibility and the inherent tension between connectivity technologies and certain notions of friendship. While these two positions may seem irreconcilable, this thesis shows that because of the various types of friendship, that both positions are congruent with the claim that connectivity technologies encourage

instrumental _friendships.

Connectivity Technologies, Friendship, and Instrumentality

This section defines connectivity technologies, friendship, and instrumentality. Clarifying these concepts is important for addressing the central question of how connectivity technologies interact with friendship. First, this section defines connectivity

technologies. Then for friendship, this thesis distinguishes two different categories of friendship, those being thin and thick, before each of those categories is then further analyzed into friendships based on profit, pleasure, or virtue. Last but not least, this section concludes with defining instrumentality, which is a necessary concept for the thesis’ overall claim that connectivity technologies encourage instrumental friendships.

To start, connectivity technologies are defined as any technology that allows for two or more people to be in a state of connection. Connectivity, however, requires more definition than this. Angelopulo describes connectivity as “operationally _{non-specific”,} but that “at its most fundamental, ‘connectivity’ is used in one of two ways: as the ability to connect or maintain a connection between two or more points; and as the condition of being connected” (Angelopulo 210). To be more specific, connectivity technologies are periodically broken down into quantified relationships and the quantified self, or QR and QS, technologies, social networking services, or SNSs, and massively multiplayer online games, or MMOGs. These technologies include applications that are designed for tracking biometric or qualitative data taken from either a subject, as in the case of QS technologies, or a relationship, as in the case of QR technologies. SNSs are perhaps the most recognizable, coming in the likes of Facebook, Linkedin, and many

(7)

others. MMOGs are less ubiquitous; they are games which people play together over the internet on a shared server with groups of individuals that are often physically distributed. Quantification, on the other hand, is something that happens within

connectivity technologies. It involves either measuring or creating a separate metric for the purpose of measuring something that would ordinarily remain abstract or

unmeasured. Taken together, these definitions and concepts compose the core elements of connectivity technologies which themselves occupy a diverse array of technologies and programs. This thesis looks at the interaction between connectivity technologies and friendship, and therefore, the next element that needs defining is friendship.

Within friendship, this thesis distinguishes thin friendships from thick ones. This differentiation comes from ascribing either lower (thinner) or higher (thicker) levels of the three qualities that Helm asserts are pervasive across notions of friendships. Helm writes, “In philosophical accounts of friendship, several themes recur consistently, although various accounts differ in precisely how they spell these out. These themes are: mutual caring (or love), intimacy, and shared activity...” (Helm). This thesis then uses the lenses that Helm provides in evaluating friendships as containing shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy to a greater or lesser extent in order to ascribe a thin or thick notion of friendship onto a relationship. Thin friendships therefore have lower levels of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy, while thick friendships have higher levels of these qualities. In thin friendships, an individual maintains relatively low levels of interaction with another person, while in thick friendships these levels are higher. These two categories of friendship serve as a means to evaluate how connectivity technologies interact with the thin or thick ties between individuals.

Due to the centrality of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy in determining thin from thick friendships, let us more thoroughly define these three qualities. For

friendship to have shared activity, the individuals must “engage in _{joint pursuits, in part} motivated by the friendship itself” (Helm). This means that shared activity involves having a common pursuit or goal while also partially doing the activity for the sake of the

(8)

friendship. In this thesis, shared activity is primarily understood as doing things together, because looking at why something is being done is used instead to determine the type of friendship it. The second quality, mutual caring, is to “care about the other, and do so for her sake; in effect, this is to say that the friends must each love the other” (Helm). This both defines the motive behind mutual caring and interjects ambiguity by bringing in love. Helm, however, claims that this ambiguity can generally be specified as

containing “sympathy and action on the friend’s behalf” (Helm). The last quality that needs to be specified is intimacy. Helm claims that on intimacy “there is a great deal of variation in the literature” (Helm), and so this thesis picks two notions of intimacy in order to account for the variability. The first is the idea of intimacy as “mutual

self-disclosure” (Helm), in which friends share things about themselves that they would not share with other people. While the second notion of intimacy is defined as “sharing a sense of value” (Helm). Furthermore, for the purpose of this thesis, a shared sense of value can both already exist between friends and contain a normative effect that helps to shape the other’s values (Helm). These three qualities together, shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy are all key components of thick friendships.

On the other hand, when friendships have lower levels of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy they become thin friendships. These friendships are important to this thesis, and therefore it is necessary to specify _{why thin friendships are considered a} type of friendship at all and how creating them helps the overall project. To answer the first question, thin friendships may not seem like typical friendships, but they still contain concern between the two individuals for the other’s sake. Although this category of friendship does come close to acquaintanceship, thin friendships are distinguished primarily because of the tacit concern for the other, which keeps it within the realms of friendship. Furthermore, thin friendships contain lower levels of the three common qualities within friendship, but they are not necessarily devoid of these qualities either. Instead, thin friendships over connectivity technologies simply exist with lower levels of these qualities than thick friendships do.

(9)

To answer the second question, why the concept of thin friendship is helpful in the first place, it is precisely because of the undemanding level of friendship that they represent. Thin friendships provide the perfect rock-bottom notion of friendship from which to start because they maintain a minimal amount of reciprocal interaction with another’s personality. Therefore, the most immediate reason for including thin

friendships is as a way to analyze relationships that fit the category of friendship, but that only do so in weak ways. This provides a starting point for the investigation that begins at the first distinction of friendship. Furthermore, thin friendships often constitute necessary social and functional relationships. Using thin friendships does, therefore, ascribe friendship to a rather large group of relationships. This move is in part

necessary because of the diversity of relationships mediated by connectivity

technologies where the range of qualitative aspects in friendships vary significantly. In response to this, creating the difference between thin and thick friendships allows this thesis to investigate how connectivity technologies interact with different degrees, or types, of friendship that are instantiated by users. Taken together, thin friendships are a necessary category for this thesis. Additionally, including thin friendships also

demonstrates what concessions connectivity technologies make in order to achieve compatibility with them.

In order to make the claim that connectivity technologies are compatible with friendships, both thin and thick friendships are further broken down into three separate categories. This distinction comes from the three different types of friendship first proposed by Aristotle. Nehamas outlines Aristotle’s notion of friendship as based on either profit, pleasure, or virtue (Nehamas 273). This leads to a structure where connectivity technologies are evaluated for their compatibility with thin and thick friendships based on profit, pleasure, and virtue. The point of this categorical thoroughness is to evaluate _{if and at what cost compatibility between connectivity} technologies and different types of friendship can be achieved. In order to better understand these different categories, let us now define these three different types of friendship in more detail.

(10)

Friendships based on profit and pleasure are what Kraut calls “imperfect friendships” (Kraut) because they are “relationships held together because each individual regards the other as the source of some advantage to himself or some pleasure he receives” (Kraut). These friendships are centered around external benefit either in the form of profit or pleasure. However, it is worth noting that the profits and pleasure that these friendships are centered around can still be somewhat abstract. For example, the profit that the friendship is based off of could be as concrete as money or something as abstract as equality, and the same level of flexibility also holds for

pleasure-based friendships. Both of these types of friendships are defined primarily by being concentrated on something outside of the friendship. This is to say that they are pursued for a goal that is not the relationship itself but rather what results from it.

Friendships based on virtue, on the other hand, are based solely on individuals recognizing the good qualities of another person and forming a friendship around those qualities. Cooper explains that virtue-based friendships are defined by why the two people come together in friendship (Cooper 627). In looking at what drives the friendship, “if it is good qualities of the person’s character, and not pleasure or advantage to oneself, that causes one to like him, it will be a virtue-friendship, even though these qualities may be, and be known to be, limited in their goodness and/or conjoined with other not so good, or even positively bad, personal characteristics” (Cooper 627). This means that virtue-based friendships are dependent on the two people coming together because of the good qualities that they see in the other and not for the profit or pleasure that may come from the friendship. These friendships then require high levels of interaction between individuals, which makes them virtually impossible within thin friendships. Moreover, friendships based on virtue are generally understood as the only “non-deficient” form friendship (Helm) because they are not reliant on anything external.

Including both thin friendships and friendships based on profit and pleasure opens the investigation up to a broad notion of friendship that far exceeds the bounds of those based on virtue, but doing so is also necessary. Were it to only look at friendships

(11)

based on virtue, then the scope would be too narrow to concern itself with a meaningful amount of what people consider friendship to be in everyday life. Nehamas describes the frequency of perfect friendships, those being friendships based on virtue, with the fact “that for Aristotle most of us are actually friendless” (274). For the purpose of this thesis, however, only using Aristotle’s friendship based on virtue is far too restrictive for evaluating the compatibility of connectivity technologies with friendship in any realistic way. Instead, this investigation uses Aristotle’s broader and more inclusive

understanding of friendship. Cooper describes Aristotle’s more generous definition of friendship as relationships “in which one finds reciprocal well-wishing of the parties for one another’s sake. The implication is that not only in ‘perfect’ friendship, but also in pleasure- and advantage-friendship, a friend wishes his friend well for the friend’s own sake” (Cooper 625). This means that friendship is not reserved for only friendships based on virtue, but extends to include friendships based on profit and pleasure, so long as each person also wishes the other well for their own sake. Using this broader

definition, the first two chapters analyze the compatibility between connectivity technologies and thin and thick friendships based on profit, pleasure, and virtue.

With Aristotle’s broader notion of friendship, this thesis takes on an operational definition of friendship that is comparatively unrestrictive. As a result, examining friendships that fall under all three of Aristotle’s categories of friendship along with the thin and thick distinction becomes a necessary roadmap for analyzing this expansive scope of friendship. Doing so is not only necessary, but it also comes with two distinct advantages. First, thin friendships and those based on profit or pleasure may still count as “imperfect” (Kraut) under an Aristotelian view, but people still pursue them for their own reasons. These friendships are then meaningful to the thesis in part because of their prevalence in people’s everyday lives. The other reason why looking at the compatibility between connectivity technologies and these friendships is worthwhile is because of the effect that compatibility with these particular friendships has on

friendship as a whole. This is to say that the way connectivity technologies are

(12)

on profit or pleasure, has a broader impact on how these technologies interact with friendship.

The last concept that needs to be clarified is _{instrumentality, which is when}

something is done for the purpose of accomplishing something else. Instrumentality is in contrast to something being done for its own sake; where the mere act is an end in itself. Instrumental friendships are therefore friendships which are pursued for the purpose of achieving something external to the relationship. The concept of

instrumentality is important primarily for the third chapter, which argues that connectivity technologies encourage instrumental friendships. However, this concept also appears throughout the first two chapters that examine if and _{how connectivity technologies are} compatible with thin and thick friendships.

Connectivity technologies, friendship, and instrumentality are crucial concepts for this thesis’ central investigation of asking how connectivity technologies interact with friendship. Furthermore, in taking such a broad understanding of friendship in order to avoid the narrow confines of only examining friendships based on virtue, the first two chapters also differentiates thin from thick friendships when looking at the compatibility of connectivity technologies and friendship. The third chapter, on the other hand, uses these distinctions and concepts to argue that connectivity technologies actively

encourage instrumental friendships. Finally, in answer to the question of how

connectivity technologies interact with friendship, this thesis uses these concepts to conclude that connectivity technologies are indeed compatible with various friendships, but that they also influence them in the process.

Chapter 1: Compatibility between Connectivity Technologies and Thin

Friendships

1.1 Chapter Introduction

With the rise in connectivity technologies, this thesis asks the broader question of _how

(13)

technologies preference instrumental friendships. In order to make this claim, the first two chapters examine the compatibility between connectivity technologies and _{thin and}

thick_{friendships, while the third chapter argues that these technologies preference}

instrumental friendships.

This chapter argues that connectivity technologies are compatible with thin friendships. In order to make the case for compatibility, thin friendships are analyzed in two sections, those based on profit and those based on pleasure. Aristotle’s

conceptions of friendship are not reducible to those of pleasure or profit, but this chapter argues that friendships based on virtue cannot exist within thin friendships. Each section further examines how compatibility is achieved and what concessions are necessary in order to achieve compatibility between connectivity technologies and that particular type of friendship.

As mentioned in the introduction, although thin friendships may seem limiting, it is helpful to keep in mind that a great deal of friendships involve a degree of profit or pleasure. While Aristotle and Nehamas do not ascribe true philia to these friendships based solely off of profit or pleasure (Nehamas 274), these relationships still have a salient role in everyday friendships. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine how

connectivity technologies are compatible with thin friendships. While the next chapter addresses compatibility with thicker friendships, this chapter limits its argument to thin friendships.

1.2a Connectivity Technologies with Thin Friendships based on Profit

Within the chapter wide argument for the compatibility between connectivity

technologies and thin friendships, this section argues that connectivity technologies are compatible with thin friendships based on profit. In other words, current connectivity technologies are fully compatible with thin friendships as far as they facilitate the exchange of concrete profits, but they do not directly address more abstract profits. To argue this point, this section looks at the profit derived from thin friendships as

(14)

Reeves. These examples show how general compatibility between connectivity technologies and thin friendships based on profit is possible and also what limitations may be present.

The first argument for the compatibility of connectivity technologies with thin friendships based on profit comes from Facebook. Among other things, this SNS allows users to organize themselves in ways that maximize the self-directed utility from their interactions with others. One example of connectivity technologies that are compatible with thin friendships comes from Facebook groups that are created specifically for buying and selling within a particular community or domain. These groups are a means for the connectivity technology to maximize profit through thin friendships. The level of friendship that these groups constitute is thin because the individuals are connecting only for some mutually beneficial transaction that does not require a high level of shared activity, mutual caring, or intimacy. Facebook is compatible with thin friendships based on profit because users’ profiles containing an established presence and various friend groups on the SNS can also be used in groups based on individual profit. In other words, Facebook’s structure allows users to engage in thin, profit-based friendships by passively permitting users to use their profile for multiple different types of relationships. A profile which contains thick friendships can simultaneously be used for thin ones. Although referring to slightly different spheres, Hinton and Hjorth describe this same shift with their term “presence bleed”, or a loosening of barriers separating an

individual’s personal and professional identities (1). In the case of Facebook groups, this means that the user’s personal identity as someone who uses the SNS is also used for their profit-oriented identity. In this case, thin friendships based on profit coexist within the connectivity technology because users can create these thin friendships for profit alongside other relationships on the SNS. Thin friendships for profit prove to not only be compatible with this connectivity technology, but in this situation, also mediated and subtly encouraged by it. This SNS allows users to use their same profile for multiple different types of friendships. Temporarily skipping the question of what future

(15)

thin friendships based on profit are therefore compatible with existing connectivity technologies.

Despite general compatibility, the case for it becomes convoluted when the _profit that the friend is after becomes more abstract and can no longer be directly

communicated and quantified through technologies such as Facebook groups. This is to say that although thin friendships based on profit are compatible within connectivity technologies, there are also limits as to what these technologies can directly address. Most connectivity technologies do not address exchanges of intangible or subjectively dependent types of profit, such as those gained through emotional work. Instead, they focus on creating data from pre-established categories of interactions or biometrics . 1 This is to say that although current connectivity technologies are fully compatible with thin, profit-based friendships in theory, they currently come with certain limitations that allow some profits and pleasures to be more quantifiable than others. While a range of connectivity technologies exists to help users track everything from household

expenses to romantic gestures, as seen in applications like “Kouply” (Danaher et al. 5), 2 there are still a wide range of things that are only addressed via proxy. Certain aspects of thin friendships based on profit are difficult to quantify within the existing technology, and in these cases, money is sometimes brought in to indirectly quantify more abstract exchanges. When connectivity technologies use an outside metric, such as money, it begs the question of how compatible something can be if it relies on this intermediary and perhaps also a generous interpretation of what is being represented. This is important because within arguing for the compatibility between connectivity

technologies and thin friendships based on profit, it is also necessary to spell out what the limits of this compatibility may be and what it entails.

The best example of connectivity technologies being compatible with thin friendship based on profit comes from Soule and Reeves, a couple that monetarily quantify most aspects of their relationship. Their relationship supports the argument that

1_{This is a brief summary of what QR and QS technologies track as demonstrated by the charts of} tracking applications in Danaher et al., ‘The Quantified Relationship’, 5.

(16)

connectivity technologies are compatible with more abstract profits in thin friendships so long as the people involved are willing to represent them more concretely. To do so, Soule and Reeves mediate their exchanges in a way that is as individually beneficial as possible in their effort to ensure an equal outcome. They have created a system in which they each bid money on tasks and then the lowest bidder is paid by the other to perform the task, and they do this for everything from washing the dishes to driving (Nash). The _{profit that they are after is a type of equality, which at first glance entails} higher levels of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy than those which exist in a thin friendship. Their system uses a thin friendship, however, because in it they strive to achieve equality by means of being completely self-interested and minimizing the role of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy in their relationship. Danaher et al. describe their relationship in writing, “Soule and Reeves adopt an explicitly formal and

commodified approach to the sharing of time and resources within their relationship” (14). They use money, which is then tracked through their QR system, to quantify and then equitably mediate their exchanges. By doing so, they exemplify how connectivity technologies are compatible in situations where the relationship protects the thin aims of each party. The couple claims that their system works for them, and it appears that they exemplify a framework for how connectivity technologies can be compatible with profit derived from of thin friendships, even those that are based on an abstract profit.

1.2b Complicating Connectivity Technologies with Thin Friendships based on Profit

Soule and Reeves, however, also embody the broader difficulty of maintaining the compatibility between connectivity technologies and their thin relationship based on profit. This difficulty comes from connectivity technologies needing to quantify things indirectly. For example, at the time of their interview, there are certain things that Soule and Reeves exempt from their quantified calculation, such as carrying a child to term and sex (Nash). Although it is a romantic relationship and not a friendship, it also points to connectivity technology having gaps in what it can help users to quantify and

(17)

maximize. The couple not quantifying giving birth or what happens in the bedroom (Nash) are extreme examples, and perhaps not applicable to friendship, but they point to the limitations of connectivity technologies that need to quantify certain things by using money as a proxy that mediates between people. This comes with two of its own limitations. The first concerns _{what people are willing to quantify, and the second is how} quantifying something abstract can be done in a way that allows for intersubjective comparison.

For Soule and Reeves, having children and having sex are two things that have yet to enter their scope of what can be quantified via monetization. Laws around surrogacy and sex work remain contentious in many cultures, and Soule and Reeves exemplify this tension through what they themselves choose not to quantify within their relationship. This is the problem of _{what can be quantified. I argue that the same}

limitations, albeit less pronounced, exist in key aspects of what someone might want to get out of friendship, even a rather thin one. Honesty, for example, is a part of friendship that people have yet to quantify or even give consistent representation to within existing connectivity technologies. This section argues that these are areas which connectivity technologies have yet to quantify; these technologies do not currently seek to quantify or assign a value to the level of honesty within a friendship. Surely categories such as the level of honesty truly do matter to people. However, using connectivity technologies to impose measurements on such categories remains, at least for now, outside of what is considered to be the role of connectivity technologies within friendships. This means that part of the compatibility between connectivity technologies and thin friendships based on profit lies in the cultural norms surrounding the two. Such norms pose real incompatibilities between specific categories of profit and connectivity technologies, at least for now, but these incompatibilities are not absolute. In other words, nothing is _a

priori_{outside of the scope of what can be quantified and made compatible with}

connectivity technologies. This is because the incompatibilities of _{what can be}

represented by connectivity technologies within thin friendships based on profit come from cultural practices surrounding them.

(18)

Despite the elements in their system that the couple excludes from quantification due to their own practices of what is appropriate to include, even Soule and Reeves occasionally set aside their system. They do this in order to “allow for some spontaneity and informality, to the degree and in the manner that suits their preferences” (Danaher et al. 14). In feeling the need to temporarily not use their system, Soule and Reeves point to a limitation in connectivity technologies to meaningfully capture certain aspects. This is the previously mentioned second limitation: the problem of _{how to quantify} something abstract in a way that can be communicated between people. For Soule and Reeves, informality is the very thing that their system tries to write out, so it makes sense that they would need to pause their system in order to accommodate it.

Otherwise, they would be using their formal structures to enjoy informality, which would require them to monetize the feeling of not monetizing. On the one hand, this could be an example of their relationship looking for non-coerced reciprocity in acting towards one another, and that points towards a thicker notion of friendship. On the other hand, if we assume that this informality is a type of profit that is purely an internal experience that does not necessarily require high levels of shared activity, mutual caring, or

intimacy, then the connectivity technologies that Soule and Reeves use have yet to find a convincing way to quantify the feeling of informality. If the need for informality is not unique to Soule and Reeves because of the formal system that they have adopted, the couple demonstrates that certain profits are outside of what connectivity technologies can quantify. These profits are not being culturally excluded from quantification, but instead, people simply do not see them as being adequately represented by the metrics within connectivity technologies. Therefore, people view certain profits in thin

friendships as incompatible with connectivity technologies.

1.2c Concluding the Compatibility between Connectivity Technologies and Thin Friendships for Profit

Soule and Reeves offer an ideal case to evaluate the contours of connectivity technologies in a relationship, even if at times the profit they are after exceeds the

(19)

cultural and conceptual scope of what such technologies can quantify. They show that connectivity technologies are compatible with thin friendships based on profit despite the limitations of _{what and how certain profits can be quantified. To illustrate the point,} let us imagine an example of how the insights from their relationship map onto

friendship. In this example, Harry is only interested in getting honest feedback from his friends, that is the _{profit Harry is after, and he views everything else as a means to that} end. Current connectivity technologies cannot help Harry to directly quantify honesty, but they can help once the profit has been converted into something that the

technologies can quantify. This does not mean that connectivity technologies are incompatible with this type of friendship for profit, but rather that the more abstract the profit in question is, the more indirect the quantification becomes. With Harry looking for honesty, nothing is stopping him from adapting existing connectivity technologies to his needs, but as it stands, current technologies do not concern themselves with the level of honesty between individuals despite the lack of cultural taboos prohibiting such a

quantification. To overcome this hurdle, Harry could assign a proprietary meaning to an existing user reported metric in order to adapt a specific connectivity technology and create something like ‘honesty points’, but this would require a great deal of effort and initiative on Harry’s part. However, once Harry created his metric, he could then use this connectivity technology to measure and maximize what he is after in his thin

friendships. This is the friendship equivalent of what Soule and Reeves have done in quantifying and maximizing equality within their relationship by using money as a proxy, only in this case, the proxy would have to be created for the specific profit.

To conclude, connectivity technologies are compatible with thin friendships for profit despite the various exceptions about _{what and how things can be quantified. The} couple, Soule and Reeves, exemplify this general compatibility because of how they demonstrate flexibility in quantifying and achieving the profit that they are after. Both cultural norms and limited sources of data used in connectivity technologies create gaps in what can be directly quantified, and these limitations require users to create

(20)

gaps, flexibility and creativity are then key in allowing users to represent even remotely abstract types of profit within thin friendships. That being the case, connectivity

technologies are compatible with thin friendships based on profit. As demonstrated in the case of Soule and Reeves using money to address equality or Harry creating honesty points to quantify something new, connectivity technologies are both readily compatible in some ways and adaptable in others. This means that connectivity

technologies are compatible with thin friendships based on profit, despite the occasional limitations of what users can appropriately quantify.

1.3 Connectivity Technologies with Thin Friendships Based on Pleasure

Moving on, this section addresses the compatibility between connectivity technologies and thin friendships based on _{pleasure. In doing so, this section concludes general} compatibility between connectivity technologies and thin friendships based on pleasure. The conclusion follows from similar arguments as in the previous section on thin

friendships based on _{profit, but thin friendships based on pleasure lead to a higher level} of compatibility. This additional compatibility comes down to two main reasons. First, connectivity technologies allow users to extract unprompted pleasures that come from representing friendships, as exemplified in SNSs. Second, certain technologies use the collected information that comes from representing friendship in order to create

derivative pleasures, P2, which are then externally pushed on the user.

First, thin friendships based on pleasure are compatible with connectivity technologies because individuals can use these technologies to represent and derive whatever pleasures they wish to. Much like how children learn how to read and express emotions, so too do communities built around connectivity technologies develop their own rules for representing and interpreting many of the things that people find

pleasurable in friendship. Some variables that people use to express and interpret these cues and pleasures include the means of communication, the quality of response, and an almost inexhaustible number of other variables. Barnes describes how communities mediated through an online platform create their own ways to communicate abstract

(21)

ideas. Barnes writes that computer-mediated communication “is a new form of communication that adds several characteristics to the process of communication. These influence the ways in which messages are shared. Dialog is changed and

requires a new way of thinking about human exchanges” (11). As Barnes demonstrates, users adapt and change technology through their use. How individuals derive pleasure from thin friendships through mediated communication within connectivity technologies therefore changes based on the situation. Barnes’ augment concerning communication variables makes it unreasonable to assume that any pleasure from a thin friendship could be a priori incompatible within connectivity technologies. This is because within a thin friendship, the only pleasure concerned is that which the individual feels and not necessarily that which they are able to convey or inspire in others. Although this argument does border on saying that all pleasures are possible because individuals could interpret whatever they wish through connectivity technologies, this is only applicable to the pleasures within thin friendships. Within thin friendships, the levels of mutual caring, intimacy, and shared activity are at their lowest, so the pleasures that are derived by one individual do not necessarily need to be reciprocated or even intentional on the part of the other. Connectivity technologies are therefore compatible with thin friendships based on pleasure in part by allowing for this latitude in how users can adapt various technologies.

To test this flexibility, imagine a thought experiment where someone in a thin friendship comes up with a novel way to use a connectivity technology in order to derive pleasures that neither the technology nor other users were able to foresee. In this

example, Phebe, a rather thin friend, is only interested in the pleasure she gets from seeing funny photos posted by her friends. Despite this being such a niche type of pleasure, she could use current connectivity technologies in order to indulge it. She could make use of an SNS in order to take pleasure in her friends’ photography skills by scouring their photo albums in order to find pictures that she finds appealing. Surely such an unusual use of an SNS could indeed be possible. Just as Harry could create honesty points in order to better maximize the profit he is after, Phebe points again to

(22)

the flexible compatibility between thin friendships based on pleasure and connectivity technologies. Due to it being a thin friendship, the user-flexibility that allows for this open, yet one-sided, pleasure is sufficient for it to be compatible within connectivity technologies.

The pleasure that Phebe gets from looking at her friends’ pictures represents one type of thin friendship for pleasure within connectivity technologies, but there is also another type of pleasure that adds to the overall compatibility. The most direct form of pleasure from interaction is when person A uses technology M as a medium for interacting with person Z, and this creates pleasure P1. For example, Phebe sees a picture that Harry uploaded via an SNS which makes her laugh. The pleasure is P1 because it comes from an interaction between two people, even if it happens

asynchronously. Now, imagine person A using technology M as before, but instead of interacting _{with person Z, A interacts about Z, or, A interacts with A’s relationship with Z;} this creates P2. Examples of P2 could be anything from A receiving notifications about Z’s behavior within a QR program to A looking at their quantified history with Z. P2 is pleasure for A that connectivity technology makes from A’s friendship with Z. In other words, P2 is the meta experience of P1 or the interaction that created P1.

The best example of P2 is Facebook creating friend anniversary videos for users that show the relationship between two friends through summarizing the responses, pictures, and other direct interaction that created P1. In this example, P2 is a pleasure that connectivity technology adds to the friendship that would not necessarily exist without it. This P2 is additional pleasure that is pushed from a technology onto the friendship, which makes the relationship more pleasurable by virtue of it being mediated by connectivity technologies. Van Dijck describes how P2 is created through Facebook conglomerating all of a user’s interactions into a feature that is then consumed by the user separately. “The entire left side of the page is filled with events, ‘stories of your life’ in the form of pictures, posts to friends, music that you like(d), recipes you exchanged, all your likes and pokes, updates, maps of the places you have been, and a lot more. The narrative presentation gives each member page the look and feel of a magazine- a

(23)

slick publication, with you as the protagonist” (van Dijck 55). This example shows how one particular connectivity technology creates P2 in order to add pleasure to the experience of friendship. The existence of externally pushed P2 then leads to an additional level of compatibility between thin friendships based on pleasure and connectivity technologies.

In conclusion, connectivity technologies are fully compatible with thin friendships based on pleasure. This compatibility is achieved through both connectivity

technologies offering latitude to users in terms of how they derive pleasure from using various technologies and through the creation of P2. This externally pushed pleasure only exists because of the quantified relationship between two or more people, and through creating P2, connectivity technologies are not only compatible with thin friendships based on pleasure, but they are also structured in a way that promotes certain aspects of them.

1.4 Impossibility of Thin Friendships based on Virtue

This brief section argues that thin friendships based on virtue cannot exist, and therefore there is no need to look at whether or not connectivity technologies are compatible with them. This point was mentioned in the introduction, and this section more thoroughly argues why friendships based on virtue and thin friendships are mutually exclusive in light of how the two are defined.

A friendship based on virtue is non-instrumental and “involves loving one’s

friends for their own sake” (Nehamas 274). This means that for a friendship to be based on virtue, the individuals involved must care for one another not for some exterior goal, but out of concern for that person. In light of this, friendships based on virtue require individuals to base their friendship off of deep levels of connection and understanding of who the other person is. Otherwise, it would involve caring about someone for their good qualities without even really knowing who that person is.

In contrast to friendships based on virtue, thin friendships are categorized by containing low levels of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy, and they do not

(24)

concern themselves with structuring in higher levels of these qualities than what is necessary. These friendships lack qualities that people pursue for their own sake. Although they still contain some level of concern for the other person, thin friendships characteristically lack the qualities necessary for deep connection.

Bringing friendships based on virtue and thin friendships together, the two are incompatible. It would be contradictory for an individual to both deeply care about someone for their own sake because of their personality _{and maintain low levels of} shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy. Friendships based on virtue are defined as relationships that aim to maximize the connection and philia between two people’s personalities while thin friendships minimize the exact qualities that make this connection possible. Friendships based on virtue depend, among other things, on shared activity and mutual recognition of another’s qualities (Cocking 87). Therefore, it appears that in all reality, virtue-based friendships could only exist as thick friendships. For these reasons, friendships based on virtue and thin friendships are incongruent with one another and cannot coexist because the conditions for one preclude the existence of the other. Connectivity technologies are therefore not concerned with the

compatibility of thin friendships based on virtue.

1.5 Chapter Conclusion

The aim of this chapter is to argue for the compatibility of connectivity technologies with thin friendships. In order to better make the case for compatibility, thin friendships are divided into two categories, thin friendships based on profit and those based on

pleasure. In both categories, a high level of flexibility and creativity in how to represent specific profits or pleasures allows for compatibility between connectivity technologies and thin friendships. This compatibility is exemplified by users like Soule and Reeves who stretch what can be represented and felt within existing connectivity technologies in order to incorporate their more abstract profits and pleasures. Although the examples of Harry and Phebe are artificial, they too point to the conclusion that the two are

(25)

specific profits and pleasures within thin friendships. In other words, connectivity

technologies are compatible with thin friendships, and this is largely due to users being able to adapt technologies in order to fulfill the profits and pleasures that these thin friendships strive to maximize.

This chapter examines the compatibility between connectivity technologies and thin friendships, and the next chapter addresses thick friendships. These two chapters are necessary for answering the question of how connectivity technologies interact with friendship because they examine how these technologies are compatible with current conceptions of friendship and what concessions are made in order to achieve

compatibility.

Chapter 2: Compatibility between Connectivity Technologies and

Thick Friendships

2.1a Chapter Introduction

The goal of this thesis is to ask how connectivity technologies interact with friendship and argue that connectivity technologies encourage instrumental friendships. In order to make this claim, the first two chapters ask if connectivity technologies are compatible with current conceptions of friendship, while the third chapter argues that connectivity technologies are changing friendships to make them more instrumental.

This chapter argues that connectivity technologies are also compatible with thick friendships. The argument follows from looking at the compatibility between connectivity technologies and thick friendships based on profit, pleasure, and virtue. Thick

friendships, as opposed to thin ones, are friendships that maintain higher levels of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy. Assuming that these thick friendships do exist, this chapter begins with a section addressing the assumptions that are necessary for thick friendships to exist over connectivity technologies. The chapter then concludes with one more special section that discusses the peculiar position of connectivity

(26)

Overall, this chapter argues for the compatibility between connectivity technologies and thick friendships by examining connectivity technologies that structure in shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy in order to create friendships based on profit, pleasure, and virtue. Each of the three types of friendship has its own section in which one particular example of connectivity technology demonstrates how it facilitates shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy in order to advance the goal within one type of friendship. In pursuing this goal within each of the three types of thick friendship, however,

connectivity technologies also place certain restrictions on the friendships that they facilitate.

2.1b Necessary Assumptions for Thick Friendships over Connectivity Technologies

Before looking at the compatibility of connectivity technologies with thick friendships based on profit, pleasure, and virtue, this section first looks at the necessary

assumptions we need to make about experiencing thick friendships. While thin

friendships suffice with lower levels of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy, one question that arises through the existence of thick friendships is how these categories are possible over connectivity technologies. After all, this means that computer

mediated interactions need to be able to convey concepts of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy, all of which have traditionally relied on being communicated in close physical proximity with another person. In order to achieve this, connectivity technologies must then convey the same necessary content by proxy for the

technologies to quantify and communicate it to the other person. This requires users to accept two of its own conditions: the fact that a proxy is being used and that users are interacting in meaningful ways with other humans.

The first condition, the need for a proxy, is not fundamentally unique to connectivity technologies and therefore it would be unreasonable to assume that it poses a unique obstacle to shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy. The problem of

(27)

expressing and quantifying subjective experiences and desires. The same fundamental problem presents itself in older technologies such as contracts, letters, or poetry, and accordingly, they all demonstrate their own use of proxies in how to quantify and

express more abstract notions. Connectivity technologies prove to be no different in that they grapple with these same problems. For example, with letters, people are

constrained in how to convey more abstract ideas within the constraints of the medium, such as the physical dimensions of paper, the individual’s skill with written language, and the speed of the postal service. Yet despite these limitations, people find ways to convey abstract ideas through their language, handwriting, and other means. One insight that letter writing or other technologies that also need to use such proxies may lend to connectivity technologies is the need to tactfully make explicit what could previously be communicated implicitly. Connectivity technologies are therefore not alone in facing this type of challenge, and so it would be unreasonable to treat their need of a proxy as fundamentally different from other technologies that also do so.

The second condition that users need to accept for connectivity technologies to be compatible with thick friendships is that through the technologies, users are

interacting with other humans and that these interactions are meaningful. This is done through two separate assumptions. The first is that interactions over connectivity

technologies represent the qualities necessary for thick friendships, those being shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy. The second is that these interactions and qualities are meaningful and representative of the individuals involved; that qualities represented over connectivity technologies are comparable to those same qualities experienced and expressed in person.

The premise that over connectivity technologies users can represent the qualities necessary for thick friendships is explained through Barnes’ theory of “social presence” (89). This theory explains how individuals maintain the assumption of humanity on the other end of their interaction (Barnes 89). Barnes explains social presence in writing that for people to communicate on the internet, “We must believe another person is on the other side of the computer screen” (88). This means that if connectivity technologies

(28)

are to have any meaning for people, users need to maintain that the various media are indeed coming from actual people. Barnes argues that a technology’s social effect comes from the extent to which individuals feel “that they are connecting with another person and not a machine” (89). The extent to which individuals experience this social presence explains how individuals can experience shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy over connectivity technologies. These qualities are necessary for thick friendships, and social presence theory explains how users’ interactions represent qualities that go beyond mere data that they send and receive. In other words, the extent to which individuals feel that they are interacting with other humans is constitutive of how individuals can experience qualities within thick friendships via connectivity technologies.

These two assumptions surrounding how meaningful interactions can be communicated via proxy and what it takes to make socially thick interpretations from these interactions establish the foundations for the possibility of thick friendships over connectivity technologies. The rest of this chapter looks at examples of individuals using connectivity technologies for thick friendships. The following three sections address examples of connectivity technologies demanding varying levels of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy from users which make them compatible with thick friendships based on profit, pleasure, and virtue. However, this chapter also explores what exactly connectivity technologies sacrifice while achieving these various

compatibilities.

2.2 Connectivity Technologies with Thick Friendships based on Profit

In order to show the broader compatibility between connectivity technologies and thick friendships, this section focuses on the compatibility between such technologies and thick friendships based on profit. The online crowdfunding platforms GoFundMe, or GFM, is an example of connectivity technology which facilitates a high level of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy in services of creating thick friendships based on profit. Connectivity technologies such as GFM allow for shared activity, mutual caring,

(29)

and intimacy in order to maximize the profit that they are after, which is often money to pay for medical expenses (Berliner and Kenworthy 234). GFM works by allowing individuals to create crowdfunding pages, or campaigns, that detail why they need and deserve financial help in ways that appeal to others to donate to their cause. This section argues that GFM is a connectivity technology that is compatible with thick friendships based on profit considering how it encourages shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy for an external profit.

The level of shared activity required by connectivity technologies like GFM is substantial, but not particularly high for a thick friendship. The shared activity in this technology can be viewed in two ways, either as something that is assumed to happen outside of the platform or as something that happens through people donating to

specific campaigns. On the one hand, because GFM is geared towards people giving to one another, and most people only donate to the campaigns of their friends or

acquaintances (Berliner and Kenworthy 235), it is possible that the technology assumes that shared activity between the individuals already exists before the campaign. While on the other hand, successful use of technologies like GFM attempt to make people feel like they are sharing in something and part of a team by staying up to date and donating to the campaign (Berliner and Kenworthy 239). This means that regardless of what is actually happening between the individuals in the real world, people are creating a sense of shared activity through engaging in this technology. Connectivity technologies like GFM are then compatible and help to create a sense of shared activity within friendships based on profit.

Mutual caring is also an integral part of the thick friendships for profit facilitated by connectivity technologies like GFM. Campaigns in GFM rely on creating a shared sense of caring between the donor and the recipient with the goal always to maximize the campaign’s profit. This is primarily done through campaigns stating emotions such as gratitude and thankfulness for the donor’s real or presumed support, which shows that the recipient cares about the donor. On the other side, donors also need to care about the individuals whose campaigns they are donating to; otherwise people’s

(30)

donations would not be so biased towards campaigns for individuals they already know (Berliner and Kenworthy 235). This creates two types of mutual caring surrounding the campaign. First, both individuals care about one another in a personal capacity, either as a grateful recipient or as a donor showing support. This care is centered around actions, either through financial contributions or through thank-you notes and updates. Second, they both care about fundraising for whatever the campaign is for, because in order for the recipient, or the person who started the campaign, and the donor to be motivated to act, they must both care about the cause. This caring could also be described as caring about a shared goal. In both cases, connectivity technologies like GFM necessitate a certain level of mutual caring that is then used to further the thick friendship based on profit. It is worth noting, however, that this mutual caring is driven by the profit that comes from the relationship, and therefore the types of mutual caring that GFM elicits exist in service of the campaigns. While the caring between the donor and the recipient is mutual, it is also primarily done to further the campaign, which puts a limit on the extent of mutual caring that GFM has any reason to promote.

The last element that connectivity technologies such as GFM need in order to be compatible with thick friendships based on profit is intimacy, and intimacy is, in many ways, GFM’s most salient aspect. GFM campaigns are often organized in order to address financial burdens that resulted from medical care, and they are explicit in showing the resulting need. The outcome is intimacy in the form of self-disclosure stemming from the explicit vulnerability of the recipient who started the campaign. However, it is important to note that this intimacy does not necessarily go both ways, which raises questions about the reciprocity of intimacy. For example, donors who contribute are not necessarily encouraged to share their own vulnerabilities, but they are instead able to comment, or “heart” (Berliner and Kenworthy 237) the campaign to show solidarity. The result is an imbalance when it comes to the level of intimate

disclosure within the friendship. Despite this lack of reciprocity, campaigns on GFM are setup in a way where the most successful ones rely on a high level of disclosure and vulnerability on the part of the recipient engaging with donors (Berliner and Kenworthy

(31)

236-237). Perhaps donors are then exhibiting a different type of intimacy than the type displayed by recipients; one that stems not from self-disclosure but from recognizing and engaging with recipients’ vulnerability. Although recipients are demonstrating a higher level of intimacy in the form of self-disclosure, donors also exhibit intimacy in the form of sharing their values through engaging with campaigns. Intimacy on the part of the recipient is then both a central part of what allows people to connect to campaigns and what is passively created by donors through their engagement. Therefore,

connectivity technologies like GFM are indeed compatible with the intimacy that is part of thick friendships based on profit. However, the way they entice intimacy is always in service of campaigns. GFM campaigns are created to raise funds for one specific campaign, and therefore they are not concerned with creating mutual levels of intimacy between donors and recipients.

In conclusion, GFM is an example of a connectivity technology that is compatible with thick friendships based on profit because it uses shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy for that goal. GFM addresses shared activity and mutual caring in thick

friendships based on profit through creating a sense of interaction over a shared goal when donors view and donate to campaigns. In successful campaigns, shared activity and mutual caring are felt and expressed by both parties, but this reciprocity does not also hold for intimacy. Although campaigns rely on a high level of intimacy in the form personal disclosure and vulnerability on the part of the recipient, the same level and form of intimacy is not shared on the part of the donor. Although donors do exhibit a certain type of intimacy through sharing their values through engaging in highly intimate campaigns, GFM only encourages intimacy on the side of the recipient in order to

increase donations (Berliner and Kenworthy 236-237). Therefore, GFM is an example of how connectivity technologies are compatible with thick friendships based on profit by using shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy in order to further funding for

campaigns, but this comes with certain concessions.

GFM encourages thick friendships in order to maximize a particular profit, and as a result, shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy are elicited only in so far as they

(32)

further that profit. These concessions are most noticeable in mutual caring and intimacy in GFM. Mutual caring, for example, is encouraged from the recipients towards the donors only in so far as it helps with donations. Instead of increasing mutual caring between donors and recipients for the sake of the thick friendship, GFM instead offers a platform that does not require mutual caring beyond what is helpful for the campaign. The same also occurs when it comes to intimacy, the connectivity technology does not encourage it beyond what is immediately useful for the campaign. As a result of how GFM treats mutual caring and intimacy, a certain level of reciprocity is compromised for the sake of maximizing the profit derived from the thick friendship.

2.3 Connectivity Technologies with Thick Friendships based on Pleasure

In order to show the compatibility between connectivity technologies and thick friendships based on pleasure, this section uses SNS games as an example that satisfies all the required qualities. SNS games are designed to operate within an SNS between existing users (Hinton and Hjorth 111). These users then invite people they know within their network to play these games with them. Hinton and Hjorth argue that there are generally two different types of SNS games, those that require shorter bursts of intense attention and those that require less intense attention over multiple periods of time in order to “perform basic maintenance tasks” (112-113) in the game. Furthermore, although social interaction is an important part in both types of games, SNS games are primarily played for “relaxation and enjoyment” (Hinton and Hjorth 111). This means that social interaction in SNS games is only important in so far as players use it to help further their own pleasure in the game. This section argues that SNS games exemplify thick friendships based on pleasure because they use the qualities of shared activity, mutual caring, and intimacy in order to achieve this goal.

SNS games satisfy shared activity by requiring it between players either for competition or to take on shared projects. In the case of SNS games that require short bursts of intense concentration, shared activity is necessary for players to derive a sense of competition from the game (Hinton and Hjorth 112). If the level of shared

(33)

activity is not maintained by all parties, then the game loses both its social aspects and, more importantly for friendships based on pleasure, the sense of competition that makes it fun to play. On the other hand, in games that demand lower levels of attention over continued periods of time, shared activity is a means to advance in the game because it creates additional resources. Shared activity in these SNS games is therefore integral both as a way for two or more players to help one another in a common goal of entertainment, and as a means for one player to benefit from the activity of another. Both types of SNS games therefore exemplify the compatibility of connectivity technologies with shared activity necessary for thick friendships based on pleasure. That being the case, SNS games also maximize pleasure from shared activity in a way that severely limits how players can interact. In this way, even if there is a great deal of shared activity, it is also possible for this activity to be devoid of anything

personal that does not fit directly into what the game is trying to make pleasurable. To put it differently, SNS games structure in shared activity between players, but only to the extent that it is pleasurable as designed by the game.

To show the same compatibility exists with mutual caring, it suffices to use the same examples with a different lens. In the case of SNS games that require intense concentration, a shared level of mutual caring is necessary for the game to retain its sense of competition. If someone were to play the game with the same level of activity as someone else but to not care, then the game would cease to be enjoyable and competitive for the other individual. In order to make a competitive game fun, all players must mutually care about the outcome. If someone does not care, then the individual who still does care is no longer able to compete. Although it may take more time for the individual who still cares to figure out that their partner is disengaged than if they had simply stopped playing, the pleasure from the game- the reason the individuals are playing in the first place- requires a similar level of mutual caring about the game. In the other type of SNS game, the one that requires less attention but continued play, mutual caring is also imperative for the game to function. It requires newly invited individuals to play in order for the other players who did the inviting to benefit from the new players

Connectivity Technologies and Friendship

Connectivity Technologies and Friendship

Dega Westerhoff-Mason

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

Connectivity Technologies and Friendship

Introduction

Chapter 1: Compatibility between Connectivity Technologies and Thin

Friendships

Chapter 2: Compatibility between Connectivity Technologies and

Thick Friendships