Social Networking and its Dynamics - Research Paper Example

?Dr. Seta Whitby Al-Hakeen Ferass CMPS ECBU 410: Management Information Systems Computer-mediated communication (CMC) have brought in the use of Social Networking sites, which started off in the late 1990s, and evolved at the beginning of 2000s. The paper deals with a variety of issues within SNSs, which have created magnificent changes in the lives of people, all around the world. Some have been good changes, while others, such as privacy have been frowned upon. Contents Contents 3 I.Introduction 4 a)Definition of Social Network Sites 4 b)Features of SNSs 5 II.Evolving nature of SNSs 7 III.Effects of Social Networking 9 a)Fake representations 10 b) Networking 10 c) Privacy Issues 11 d) Social Capital 12 IV.Conclusion 12 Social Networking and its Dynamics I. Introduction In the recent decades, there has been an increase in the amount of social networking sites (SNSs) on the Internet, which include Friendster, CyWorld and MySpace. These social networking websites have had different intentions, for example LinkedIn.com is widely used for work-related tasks, while others may help in initiating romantic relationships, for instance, Friendster.com. These networking sites may connect people of the same shared interest or to engage a particular social population. While it is claimed that these websites have sought to connect those people, who already are in touch with each other in the real world, there may be instances, when this is not the case (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.p). Therefore, the intent of these websites has been focused, and not all have lived with their initial aim. Additionally, since such websites have been initiated, they have gained millions of users, whose lives constitute of this interaction. This has led to the emergence of different cultural networks (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). The dynamics of this technological advancement are huge, and they have encompassed people from different parts of the world. Hence, before moving onto understanding these changing dynamics, the research paper identifies the definition of these social network sites and the technological features behind it. It moves onto elucidate upon effects of social networking sites (the advantages and disadvantages), focusing broadly on privacy of these networking websites, and discusses the changes that have occurred. a) Definition of Social Network Sites Before moving onto define these websites, it is imperative to discuss the idea behind the use of term “social network sites”, instead of “social networking sites”, as Boyd and Ellison discuss in their article. The authors of the particular article use this terminology, because the word ‘network’ emphasizes upon the relationships between users, who know each other, while ‘networking’ may result in initiation of friendships among strangers. Moreover, these authors also claim that the aim of computer-mediated communication (CMC) is to help people, who know each other already communicate better (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). Therefore, to put it simply, social network sites, according to Boyd and Ellison, are services on the web, which help the users in creating public-or semi public profiles, within certain restrictions, and connect people of the same shared networks, and also allow its users to view the list of connections, which they, themselves and their connections have made. Although, as mentioned above, the aims of these websites are different, and may target a specific population (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.p). The aim of these online networking sites remains to maintain social ties that already exist, and also in the formation of new connections. (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.p). b) Features of SNSs SNSs connect individuals into “latent ties”; people who may have some offline connection (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). While different network sites have different features, generally all websites have profiles, which consist of friend lists, which also are on the same website. Profiles are pages that define an individual, according to Sunden (2003, pp.3). The profile requires completion, through a list of certain attributes, such as age, nationality, sex and “about me” section. There is usually an option for the uploading of a profile picture (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). Facebook, the most popular social networking sites, which grew to large popularity within three years of its initiation, has all of these features. (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.p). While there is a profile on every website, the central idea that distinguishes these different sites is the access to these profiles. Profiles on Friendster and Tribe.net are open online, because their results come up in search engine results. Additionally, LinkedIn allows the basic profile to be seen, if the user does not have a paid account. MySpace gives the option to users, whether they want the profile public or “Friends only”. Facebook has the option of denying permission to certain aspects of profile to the people, even in the friends list (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). All these networking sites, in some way prompt the users to identify the relationships they have with their friends circle. The users are also given the option of displaying their friends list on certain networking sites to other people. For example, LinkedIn and Facebook have this option, while MySpace does not, but people have hacked their profiles, in order to hide the friends list. The allowance to leave messages on friend’s profile is also another important, homogenous factor in almost all of SNSs, although it varies along different websites. Some allow users to leave comments, post on the wall, or simply private message, a feature similar to e-mail. Apart from the profiles, comments and friends list, the features of these websites may vary. Some allow photo and video-sharing. Some have blogs and instant messaging technology. Chat features are also available. Some are designed specifically for mobiles (smart phones), but some web SNSs have limited features for smart phones, such as Facebook (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). While the technological features of these websites are quite similar, the cultures that have emerged from these websites are quite different. These sites cater to a wide variety of audiences, while there are some networking sites that are restricted to a particular nationality, a common language or other identities. Some sites may also have dissimilar features in terms of the ways of sharing information, and the innovative communication and information tools that have been integrated, including articles on websites, blogging and even mobile connectivity (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.p). II. Evolving nature of SNSs Boyd and Ellison have traced the entire history of these social networking sites. The origin of social network sites, considering the definition above can be traced back to 1997, with SixDegrees.com. Although some websites may have existed before, but the definition has limited the origin of such websites, and dating websites had always existed before. However, this website had combined features of chat rooms, high school groups and dating sites. This website had features of making profiles, creating friend lists and surf friends list, as well. Additionally, it eventually attracted millions of users, and made itself available as a tool to help people in sending messages to one another, but it was eventually closed. This was because while people were using Internet, their offline connections and extended networks of friends were not online. Additionally, there was nothing to do after accepting friend requests. However, the late 1990s and early 2000s showed an increase in these websites, with different aims, such as dating sites, as well as personal and professional profiles. Websites from different parts of the world started integrating the features of SNSs, including LunarStorm, a Swedish web community refashioned itself in 2000, by including Friends list, guest books and even diary pages (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). Ryze.com launched in 2001 started off in San Francisco to help the business and technology community to increase. LinkedIn also connected people, professionally and personally. While Ryze.com never became popular, there were others who grew, and also received their downfall (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). However, after 2003, there has been a splurge of these new SNSs, which led the social software analyst Clark Shirky (2003) to use the term YASNS: “Yet Another Social Networking Service”. One interesting dynamic also occurred, which included the features of SNSs becoming SNSs themselves. For example, music and video sharing were one of the features of these websites. However, after Flickr (photo sharing), YouTube (video sharing) and Last.FM (music listening habits), this feature drastically changed. Even the SNSs that were started by large corporations failed, such as Google’s Orkut, although it fared better in Brazil. MySpace capitalized on the decline of Friendster (discussed below), and was popular among music bands. MySpace also got popular because it responded well to the user demand, and allowed users the option to give their profiles a personal touch. However, MySpace eventually had a downfall, as well. The popularity of the SNSs eventually spread all around the world, although some websites gained more popularity in certain parts of the world, for example Grono captured Poland, Hi5 enthralled Latin America, South America and even Europe, the result itself was a global phenomenon. Blogging tools also were the latest dynamics that were added to the SNS features, which included Xanga, Vox and Skyrock. Some SNSs have reached broader audiences, while others explicitly focus on small audiences. Some restrict access to only elite audiences, for example aSmallWorld and BeautifulPeople (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). Now, the paper enters into a discussion about a success story and a failure story of two SNSs. As mentioned in the article by Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (n.p), Facebook was reported to have around 21 million registered members, within three years of its initiation (Ellison, Steinfield, Lamp, n.p). Initially, Facebook was restricted to the niche market and was a Harvard-only SNS, according to Cassidy (2006). However, Facebook spread to other schools, as well. After colleges, it went to high schools, into the corporate world, and eventually everyone. Facebook has this edge, as well, because it allows users to personalize their profiles, and compare movie preferences and other cool applications (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). This website is also highly integrated into the daily media practices of individuas, and it has 1.6 billion page views each day (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.d). Facebook is a truly success story. Friendster, on the other hand, launched in 2002 had a rapid rising at the beginning. It broadly aimed to help friends-of-friends meet, basing this idea on the fact that strangers do not necessarily make good romantic interests, and there was a high chance that friends-of-friends will have similar interests. Bloggers and gay men were those individuals, who used this website most frequently. It grew to around 300,000 users, just through word of mouth, even before the actual press coverage began. However, Friendster did not have a good technical base, which is why there were many difficulties and users eventually got frustrated at this. Friendster eventually started restricting activities, which eventually led to its downfall. A number of other problems also contributed to its downfall, one of which included the fact that people started adding up strangers, as well. The origin of fake profiles can also be traced to its downfall. According to Goldberg (2007), its popularity decreased in United States, but increased in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). III. Effects of Social Networking Social Networking has gained widespread attention, because of the number of advantages and disadvantages that it has brought. Moreover, it has brought large changes in lives of individuals, and even countries. According to Boyd and Ellison, much of the research on SNS attempts to find out about friendship performance, the structure of network, online/offline connections and most importantly, privacy issues. a) Fake representations There is always a problem of fake representations on such websites. According to Boyd, this has contributed to the development of “Fakesters” and argued that profiles are rarely ever real. Scholars have also identified that, for example on MySpace, people have connected with such people, who are interesting targets for spam. The concept of friendship on these networking sites is quite different from the concept in real life. These sites offer users an imagined audience, to guide certain norms of the society. Impression formation on others also represents a prominent aspect. Facebook wall has largely been considered. Additionally, testimonials on Orkut also acted as self-representation, because people forced their friends to write nice stuff about them (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). The relationship between profile structure and friendship articulation, according to a 2007 research by Lampe, Ellison and Steinfield also demonstrated that Facebook has created this misrepresentation of reality (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.p). b) Networking One interesting aspect of these websites also remains the idea that the profile and linkage data helps in predicting certain behavioral data from the individuals. While this is an extremely ideal option for companies, who engage in advertising, it has created a fear of lack of privacy. Moreover, people tend to affiliate with those people, with whom they are connected in some way. Topology of users has been identified, where members form part of certain communities, and then these sites to recommend additional communities of interest to users. In fact, even the fabric of taste, which is the interest in movies, books etc are also used by companies (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). c) Privacy Issues Perhaps the most important aspect that has been identified remains the vital privacy issues, associated with these social networking websites. Press coverage has revealed privacy concerns, especially for youngsters. According to Gross and Acquisti (2005), when students used this information on Facebook, for example, there was a threat for the reconstruction for users’ social security numbers, using information found on the profiles, such as hometown and date of birth. Teens are often not affair of the fact that Internet is such a public place (Boyd, Ellison, n.p). Although Facebook users place more trust in the site, than MySpace users did, and thus shared more information, there is always an issue about the open nature of information, even on Facebook, and the lack of privacy settings on users’ profiles. People actually have placed themselves at risk, not only offline, for example stalking, but also identity, commonly known as identity theft (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, n.p). Moreover, concerning the constitution of United States, Hodge (2006) argues that the amendment regarding privacy does not address social network sites completely. For example, can police officers gain access to content, posted on Facebook by the user without a warrant? As identified by Younge (n.p), the age has brought the post-privacy age, which means that there is very less privacy. There is blurring between public and private life. Everything is always tweeted, or at least written on Facebook, within a matter of seconds. There is always a microphone or camera somewhere. The article also claims that personal diaries are completely open now. Certain incidents are also pointed at. Camera set up in a room revealed a gay encounter, which was tweeted. This homophobia may have simply led to gossip, but now it was all over online, which is what led the person to commit suicide. Even your sex life is not private or personal anymore. Not only that, but there are many political consequences, for example, when the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed that Gillian Duffy was “that bigoted woman” and it was recorded. As witnessed, Obama’s post-election strategy for Russia was also made public to the entire world. There is definitely a problem, associated with the idea that one has to be careful, when going in public, and one cannot simply make a social error (Younge, n.p). d) Social Capital According to Ellison et al (n.p), while Facebook and other networking sites may have led to issues mentioned above, they also drew an interesting link between the using of Facebook and social capital. While people have this notion that intensive use of Facebook may cut an individual off from the outside world, and the people living in it, this view does not hold correct, according to their research. Social capital in this context means that people actually remain connected, which Facebook has actually done, across different age groups. Internet use alone did not generate this advantage, but Facebook did, because people remained connected to those people, whom they would have otherwise lost touch with. It helps people keep in contact, supports relationships, and eliminates certain geographical boundaries. Maintained ties also benefit people from a group of mutual friends, for example professional researchers, employees of companies, neighborhood and community members. IV. Conclusion SNSs are organized around people, they target people, and while these sites may be egocentric, they certainly are a vital link between people. Nevertheless, a new organizational framework for online communities have been introduced with these changing dynamics of SNSs, and this topic has gained wide acclaim, and research. Works Cited Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 4, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html Younge, G. 2012, Apr. 2. Social media and the post-privacy society. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/02/social-media-and-post-privacy-society Read More