Real friends: how the Internet can foster friendship Adam Briggle Department of Philosophy, School of Behavioral Sciences, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands E-mail: a.r.briggle@gw.utwente.nl Abstract. Dean Cocking and Steve Matthews’ article ‘‘Unreal Friends’’ (Ethics and Information Technology, 2000) argues that the formation of purely mediated friendships via the Internet is impossible. I critique their argument and contend that mediated contexts, including the Internet, can actually promote exceptionally strong friendships according to the very conceptual criteria utilized by Cocking and Matthews. I first argue that offline relationships can be constrictive and insincere, distorting important indicators and dynamics in the formation of close friends. The distance of mediated friendships mitigates this problem by promoting the courage to be candid. Next, I argue that the offline world of largely oral exchanges is often too shallow and hasty to promote deep bonds. The deliberateness of written correspondence acts as a weight to submerge friendships to greater depths and as a brake to enhance attentiveness to and precision about one’s own and one’s friend’s character. Nonetheless, close friendships may fail to develop on the Internet. Insofar as this failure occurs, however, it would be for reasons other than those identified by Cocking and Matthews. Key words: computer-mediated communication, cyberspace, friendship, Internet, online relationships Introduction Aristotle argued that ‘‘Friendship is a thing most necessary to life, since without friends no one would choose to live, though possessed of all other advan- tages’’ (Nic. VIII, 1155a). An increasingly mobile and networked world brings citizens of developed nations many advantages. But what is the fate of friendship – this most indispensable human good – in such a world? Friendships and other personal relationships are central aspects of the age of digital media, including Web 2.0 social networking sites and Web 3.D virtual worlds. Such technologies are bound to influence friendships in ways that may both enrich and diminish our lives. More broadly, the new media age has greatly influenced personal relationships, sparking many theoretical frameworks such as Barry Wellman et al.’s notion of ‘‘networked individual- ism’’ (2001). But despite such empirical and social theoretical research, there has been very little philo- sophic discussion about the nature of friendship and the relative quality of offline and online friendships. Dean Cocking and Steve Matthews’ article ‘‘Unreal Friends’’ (2000) is one notable exception. They develop a strong argument that the formation of purely mediated friendships via the Internet is simply not possible. Because such ‘‘friendships’’ are likely to increase and perhaps displace some offline aspects of friendships with the further adoption of digital media, their argument suggests that we may be trading in the real thing for something of less value. This is a grave concern, and their claim deserves critical scrutiny. In this essay, I critique Cocking and Matthews’ argument. I contend that mediated contexts, includ- ing the Internet, can promote close friendships according to the same criteria utilized by Cocking and Matthews. After summarizing their thesis, I make my counter-argument in two sections. I first argue that offline relationships are often constrictive and insincere, distorting important indicators and dynamics in the formation of close friends. The distance of mediated friendships mitigates this prob- lem by encouraging honest exchanges. Next, I argue that the offline world of largely oral exchanges is often too shallow and hasty to promote deep bonds. The deliberateness of written correspondence can enhance the quality of friendships. Of course, close friendships may fail to develop on the Internet, because distance and deliberateness are affordances that require the appropriate user motivation. Insofar as the Internet fails to promote friendship, it is not Ethics and Information Technology (2008) 10:71–79 Ó Springer 2008 DOI 10.1007/s10676-008-9160-z