Are Social Networking Sites Good For Our Society - Research Paper Example

? Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society? First Last of Introduction Social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace and Twitter, have gained popularity and have dominated the online activities of many Internet users. The usage of these sites is so pronounced that supporters and critics alike are debating whether this technological trend is beneficial, or this is yet another way of altering the way people live. This paper seeks to explore the positive and negative impacts of SNSs to society. There are always two sides of the coin, and the rampant use of such sites put forth both advantages and disadvantages to society. Whether the benefits outweigh the consequences is a matter of personal control. Defining Social Network Sites This paper makes use of the definition of boyd and Ellison (2007) citing that social network sites are: web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. In some literature, one may encounter the term “social networking sites.” While this is used interchangeably with “social network sites,” the former makes use of a term (i.e. networking) that emphasizes on relationship initiation, most especially among strangers (boyd & Ellison, 2007). In effect, this paper sticks to the term “social network sites” to demonstrate the sites’ unique capability of making a user’s social networks visible to others. Theoretical Framework The social network theory is used to explain the growing popularity of SNSs. This concept was initially used in 1954 by J.A. Barnes to describe “a complex set of relationships between members of social systems at all scales” (“Social Network,” n.d., n. pag.). This concept views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties, where nodes refer to the actors in the network while ties are the relationships between and among actors. Yet unlike traditional concepts on sociology, the social network theory posits that what’s more important are the relationships and ties with other actors and not the attributes of the actors themselves. SNSs also provide an avenue for people to take tabs on others. As Rogers (2007) puts it, these SNSs perform an incredibly good job at being a gossip engine. The British anthropologist Robin Dunbar (as cited in Rogers, 2007) notes that back when our ancestors were still more monkey than human, it was highly important to understand and establish one’s place in a certain group. Stature is essential for survival, thus the need to have knowledge on relationships - so one may know who to ally and fight with. While this concept is centuries old, its applicability in the modern context is obvious. Social network sites provide users a non-invasive yet convenient way of keeping tabs on their friends’ lives. Additionally, the social comparison theory states that many attitudes and behaviors are formed as a result of comparing oneself with others who are believed to be reasonably similar to him/her (Halabi, 2007). Facebook, among others, capitalizes on this by being the first to offer applications embedded on the site. Users can play online and compete in real time against their friends. Discussion Background of the Study It is no question that SNSs affect - and altogether - alter the way people relate with each other. Thanks to these sites, communicating with lost friends is shorter and expanding one’s circle of friends is faster. The ability of SNSs to connect people with one another make it an essential and deeply-embedded part of users’ lives (Donath & boyd, 2004). Before, introductions were made face-to-face and in accordance to a “complex weave of social obligations” (Donath & boyd, 2004, p. 81), yet today, and with the presence of SNSs, this process seems automatic. Benefits of SNSs Social network sites, with its ability to bring people together and allow them to communicate, have crushed the walls of geography and space. As Abbasi (2008) points out, the chief benefit of these SNSs comes from their capability of forming communities that are not geographically bound. As a result, a person can communicate with another regardless of where the latter resides. Additionally, given that SNS profiles rarely vary across different life stages, it is easier for people to find old contacts and maintain their communication over a prolonged period (Farrow & Yuan, 2011). Social network sites are also viable tools that can assist in mobilizing social actions (Ellison, Lampe, & Steinfield, 2009). With the presence of SNSs, organizing meetings and spreading information become easier and less expensive. People need not contact their friends or colleagues one-by-one and through phone because SNSs are there to provide a new communication platform. These sites are so popular today that one can almost always be sure that friends and colleagues consistently check their accounts for new updates (e.g. new event invites). Given that SNSs have become increasingly popular, many companies are making these as a sourcing strategy. Organizations post their job vacancies on SNSs which make the job opening visible to a very wide network. Especially for small business owners, using SNSs in recruiting new employees is beneficial, because doing so provides them a wide reach at very low cost - or none at all. In fact, many HR professionals are seeing the positive effects of using SNSs in hiring talent that they believe that these sites will soon replace job sites as the number one online source for talent (Claus, 2009). Negative Effects of Social Networking Perhaps the loudest criticism against SNSs is the issue on privacy. According to boyd (2008), “privacy is a sense of control over information, the context where sharing takes place, and the audience who can gain access” (p. 18). In this sense, the user is given an active role in ensuring that the right information goes to the right people. boyd (2008) further suggests that “information is not private because no one knows it; it is private because the knowing is limited and controlled” (p. 18). Privacy issues in SNSs encompass many things. For instance, putting personal information - such as full name, email address and even photos - on public profiles is a risk. Hackers and other ill-mannered individuals might use them illegally. In addition, these data may be used by spammers to send out unsolicited emails and product proposals. The term phishing is closely linked to SNSs especially when talking about privacy issues. Jagatic, Johnson, Jakobsson, and Menczer (2005) defined phishing as “a form of social engineering in which an attacker attempts to fraudulently acquire sensitive information from a victim by impersonating a trustworthy third party” (p. 1). Simply put, personal information posted on SNSs can easily be captured by computer algorithms and can be used for purposes other than originally intended. This is a significant drawback because SNSs thrive on the number of registrations and the information that users provide. Another alarming issue tied with the use of SNSs is child safety. Although many websites have age requirements, these cannot detect if users lie about their age (Raizada et al., 2009). Considering that the active users of SNSs is in the 15-24 age group (comScore, 2011b), the risk on child safety is more pronounced. For instance, Myspace.com became controversial after reports of a 16-year-old girl flying to Tel Aviv to meet and engage in sexual relations with a man that she knew through the site got out (as cited in Raizada et al., 2009). SNSs are also lambasted for copyright infringement issues. With SNSs, it now becomes easier to share and post files, and it becomes harder to tell who the original owners of the files are (Raizada et al., 2009). YouTube, for example, allows the easy upload and download of videos. As such, many people can commit copyright infringement without them knowing it. Lastly, with the advent of SNSs, it is observable that more and more people are physically and socially disengaged from their physical environment, because they prefer to be on their laptop or mobile phones browsing social networking sites (Mackey, 2009). This suggests that the virtual social spheres created by these SNSs can also have a negative effect on face-to-face interaction. Socio-economic Demographic Profile of SNSs Users In the US, the number of Facebook users in the 18-34 age group is at 40.3% and those in the 35-54 age group is at 35.4% (comScore, 2011b). In the same way, most of the Twitter users (46.6%) are in the 18-34 age range followed by those in the 35-54 age group. Additionally, comScore (2011b) reports that that women, compared to men, spend more time on SNSs spending 16.8% of their time online updating and checking their accounts. Men, on the other hand, only spend 12% of their time online browsing SNSs. According to the report of comScore (2011a), in Europe, 25.3% of SNSs users are generally young, within the age range of 15-24. This is especially true for sites like Facebook and Twitter. The users of LinkedIn, however, are generally older, with half the site’s visitors are aged 35 to 54 (comScore, 2011a). According to the same report, this change in age profile can be explained by the fact that LinkedIn is geared towards professional networks. Both statistics from the US and Europe indicate that most users of SNSs are of young age, although this may vary according to the orientation of a particular social network site. Current Practices of Social Networking Social networking activities do not only refer to creating and updating one’s profile as SNSs are capable of many things too. The popularity of SNSs has attracted both consumers and investors. For instance, Facebook and Cyworld.co.kr, a popular Korean SNS, have included shopping services (Cha, 2009). Media conglomerates and capitalists have also invested in SNSs. News Corp. acquired MySpace in 2005 and venture capital firms have put up a considerable investment for Facebook (Cha, 2009). Because of the upward trend on social networking, advertising is also gaining more traction. In the US, 34% of display ads served in December 2010 were from social networking publishers (comScore, 2011b). These data are consistent with the fact that brand advertisers continue to invest in online advertising. comScore (2011b) reported that in the last quarter of 2010, there was over 1 billion investment on display ads online. Considering that most SNS users are within the 18-34 age range, indeed it’s a rational idea to advertise through these portals because this user-base have the most buying power (Raizada et al., 2009). The above-mentioned data indicate that activities that once required physical presence are now carried out in the virtual world. Indeed, with the use of technology, running personal errands as well as running a business are easier. Technology, particularly the use of SNSs, has improved lives by bringing convenience into the picture. On the other hand, relying on the online world for activities that once required face-to-face interaction also has negative effects. As Mackey (2009) notes, people are now more confined in their virtual world, with eyes set on their phones and laptops, rather than actively socializing with others. As SNSs allow online shopping, more and more people continue to stay on their desks and let their fingers do the walking. These indicate a decrease in social interaction and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, both of which seem to go against the social nature of man. Linking the Literature and the Thesis SNSs are undoubtedly rising in popularity. In the US, Facebook registered as the most visited site, gaining the number 1 spot (12.3%) in August 2010 overthrowing Google and Yahoo sites (conmScore, 2011b). In Europe, SNSs have eclipsed other online activities such as instant messaging and email (comScore, 2011a). These statistics indicate high willingness in joining SNSs. Putting the social network theory at play, it can be inferred that such willingness can be attributed to people’s objective of forming as many ties and relationships as possible. Since SNSs provide an easy platform where friends can be increased exponentially, then more and more people are joining in the social network bandwagon. The theory on social comparison could also explain why Facebook is the top social network site. Including applications/games and allowing users to compete with their friends gained much traction for the site. The ability of users to see their standing against other friends on a certain game/application proves to be a strong drawing factor of Facebook. In addition, applications that allow users to see their most frequent “followers” also support the idea that human beings, by nature, like to see their social standing. But then again the essential question goes: are SNSs beneficial? The literature documents substantial data on the positive and negative impacts of these sites to society. The most striking benefit is of course making relationship-forming and maintenance easier and more convenient. Alternately, the biggest criticism is on privacy. Privacy, on the other hand, is something that can be greatly controlled by a user. The top SNSs provide controls on how privacy can be set. In a study conducted by boyd and Hargittai (2010), it was concluded that the majority of Facebook users actively manage their privacy settings to some extent. This indicates that SNS users are aware of the privacy issues that beset them and are doing something to ensure that information that they share online are protected. The benefits of SNSs, on the other hand, are plenty and are geared towards making the world smaller. With SNSs, geographic boundaries are erased and relationships are maintained using a few clicks of the mouse. These sites are relatively new forms of technology that make communication with friends and family, and even colleagues, more convenient. Communication, in this sense, does not only refer to the simple hi’s and how-are-you’s, but this also means mobilizing others towards more fruitful and noble causes. Conclusion SNSs have indeed changed the way people form and maintain relationships. It is precisely because of this that these sites have afforded society with demonstrable benefits. In the same way, major criticisms are also gained because of such an enormous change. While it is difficult to assess if the benefits outweigh the consequences, or if it is the other way around, the conclusion is that to a large extent, users - and society as a whole - have control on how SNSs will affect them. Pros and cons of SNSs are already given; it is up to the individual to control them. Again, the greatest criticism of SNSs is on privacy. And since it has been shown in the previous sections that privacy can be set, it is now up to the individual to exercise control over the information that he/she shares. Society, as a whole, must exercise prudence in choosing what is and what is not to be posted on SNSs. This is the only way that the negative consequences can be curtailed. Hence, the use of SNSs requires a constant balancing act of prudence and disclosure. It entails knowing when to be sociable and when to be private. True, SNSs have eliminated geographical boundaries, this in itself is a huge advantage and something that should be highly regarded. At the end of the day, what matters are the relationships that are formed and maintained through SNSs. Society, after all, is a set of many different relationships -regardless of whether these are maintained online or offline. References Abassi, K. (2008). MMR and the value of word of mouth in social networks. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(5). Retrieved from http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/ 101/5/215?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFO boyd, d. (2008). Facebook's privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence, 14(1). Retieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/ FacebookPrivacyTrainwreck.pdf boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html boyd, d., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8). Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/ fm/article/view/3086/2589 Cha, J. (2009). Shopping on social networking web sites: Attitudes toward real versus virtual items. Journal of Interactive Advertising,10(1). Retrieved from http://jiad.org/article126 Claus, D. (2009, April 30). Should you recruit on social-networking sites? Retrieved from http://www.focus.com/briefs/hr/should-you-recruit-social-networking-sites/ comScore. (2011a). Europe digital year in review 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ecircle.com/ fileadmin/files/pdfs/05_Events/UK/1011-Connect2011/3._Performance_-_Ade_Adeosun. pdf comScore. (2011b). US digital year in review 2010. Retrieved from http://www.iab.org.nz/images/ uploads/comScore_2010_US_Digital_Year_in_Review.pdf Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, (22) 4, 71-82. Retrieved from http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/Donath/PublicDisplays.pdf Ellison, N., Lampe, C., & Steinfield, C. (2009). Social network sites and society: Current trends and future possibilities. Interactions, 16, 6-9. doi: 10.1145/1456202.145 Farrow, H., & Yuan, C. (2011). Building stronger ties with alumni through Facebook to increase volunteerism and charitable giving. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16 (3), 445-464. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01550.x Halabi, L. (2007, December). Designing online social networks: The theories of social groups. Retrieved from http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-usability/ social-networks.shtml Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2005). Social phishing. Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 94-100. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~phishing/social-network-experiment/phishing-preprint.pdf Mackey, R. (2009, Feb. 24). Is social networking killing you? Retrieved from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/is-social-networking-killing-you/ Raizada, R., Vinayak, T., Srivastav, G., Garg, S., Mehrotra, S., & Chandak, S. (2009). The effect of social networking sites on personal lives of the people. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/13653301/The-Effect-of-Social-Networking-Sites Rogers, M. (2007, September 10). How social can we get? What evolutionary psychology says about social networking. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20642550/ns/ technology_and_science-innovation/ Social Network. (n.d.). In Absolute Astronomy. Retrieved from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Social_network Read More