Online Social Networks - Essay Example

Running Head: ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS Online Social Networks [Name Of Student] [Name Of Institution] Introduction With information technology came novel ways of interaction. The internet has generated new types of platforms for information sharing, amongst which the Web dominates the scene. In the past few years, online social networks have become extremely popular and have become the most frequently visited sites on the internet (Coates, 1993). The web is organized on the basis of content, but on the other hand, these online social networks, focus and are built around users. People participate by becoming members of a network, publishing their profile and further establish links to other people with whom they associate and connect. This spawns a social network which serves as a platform for establishing and maintaining social links and relationships, discovering other people with common set of interests and also for searching material that has been shared by other members of the network (Klienberg, 2000). The statistics reveal that currently as many as hundred and ninety million people use MySpace, more than sixty million interact via Orkut, over eleven million use LinkedIn and LiveJournal and more than 15million people use FaceBook (Barabasi, 2002). The high numbers are itself an indicator of the popularity of these online social networks. These online social networks then spawn other types of social networks. People operate in combinations of dense and open social networks in their real life and online worlds. In this paper, I shall discuss this with reference to the social network theory, suggesting some possible combinations of social network made possible by online communication and also discuss some benefits and disadvantages that result from these networks. Discussion The concept of social networks has existed since the early fifties but has gained immense popularity and a new meaning altogether with websites like Facebook and MySpace which have revolutionized and transformed the concept of social networking altogether. In order to understand what combinations of social networks are possible because of online communication, it is first important to understand the term ‘social network’ itself. A social network is basically a social structure that maps out the associations among different people (Coates, 1993). Broadly speaking all human beings are a part of one giant network but within it exist smaller and tighter social networks; like the ones outlined by families, close friends, neighbors, peers at work, school and colleges mates and similarly other people that we know because of common hobbies and/or interests (Cummings, Butler, Kraut, 2002). This type of online social networking spawns other sorts of social network as people publish their information classified according to interests, jobs, locations, entertainment preferences, people who know each other in real world distantly get to know their associates better and hence it is quite likely for a relationship to emerge on the basis of the information revealed (Cummings, Butler, Kraut, 2002). For example, people working at the same office may not know about each others’ family lives or their entertainment preferences, but once they connect on the online social networking sites, where people usually reveal considerable information in their profiles, it is possible that better interaction and friendship develops among these people at their workplace as well. Different properties of the social network have been studied by a variety of sociologists. For instance, Milgram proved in his research that with the bloom of the online social networks, the average distance between Americans has been reduced to 6 hops. Similarly, Pool and Kochen studied the small world effect after the online social networks (Pool and Kochen, 2005). In another study Granovetter studied and discovered that broadly any social network is comprised of either weak or strong ties, in which the strong ties exist in tightly clustered patterns (Granovetter, 2005). Liben-Nowell established a strong link between friendships and associations and the geographic locations of the people in online social networks by studying data from Live Journal. Likewise, Kumar studied two different online social networks and found that both had a very strong element of connection (Barabasi, 2002). Also in a study by Girvan and Newman, it was proven that people in online social networks form very close knitted sets (Girvan, Newman, 2002). All the studies indicate that people form better links and associations in real world by interacting on online social forums and develop stronger bonds. The social networks are made up by a variety of relationships and it is but natural that some people bond with some more closely than they do with others (Klienberg, 2000). People that form strong ties clusters include family, close friends and people with whom interaction also occurs on a daily basis like people from work etc (Leonard, 2004). In the same way some examples of weak ties or associations are people that we discover and meet after a long time on these online social networks like school fellows, an old neighbor etc. It is interesting to note that contrary to the general perception, studies show that it is more difficult to maintain strong ties as it is usually with closer people who demand more time and attention and thus frequent contact. Since so much energy is required to maintain them, it imposes a limit on the number of people that one would want to include in strong tie relationship (Cummings, Sproull, Kiesler, 2002). On the other hand, weak links are easier to maintain as an occasional chit chat and hi hello suffices the need of remaining in contact and therefore the number can be limitless. Another reason is also that these are the people that one knows in real life in only a certain limited context and hence there is not a lot common to discuss; like an old boss or a former employee (Cummings, Sproull, Kiesler, 2002). Another important aspect of these weak ties is that they act as connecting bridges which have the potential to open up new avenues of social networks. It is natural for someone at college to restrict his friends to those who reside in his/her dorm (Granovetter, 2005). Then consider a scenario, when one of the subject mates in a class invite this person to a gathering at his/here dorm. In such a scenario a weak link opens up new avenues for the former person to interact and bond with. Hence, how a person interacts on the social networking forums also enables him to connect with new people in the real world and thus expose him to a world of new associates. These weak ties have another significance too as they expose an individual to information that is non-redundant (Granovetter, 2005). One remains usually confined by ideas and opinions of ones in the strong and closer network, which may at times become repetitive and may well be non-critical as to respect the feelings of the person. People from the weaker ties, however, do not have close associations and hence they can serve as agents bringing in serious criticism and new information which may fuel an individual for better purposes (Granovetter, 2005). This type of information assists one to discover a broader range of possibilities unknown previously. With more than three hundred online websites for social networking, each having slight differences in their profile creation methods; the major function of the profile being the same that is to present an image of the person to others present online, it has become more important to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these online social networks (Leonard, 2004). Enabling people from all corners of the world to interact and link with each other is a big feat indeed. The biggest benefit is that unlike real world, the online social networking gives an opportunity to reveal only those aspects of one’s personality that one is comfortable sharing or ones that might appeal others (Mislove et al, 2006). A flip side of this is that it results in stereotyping as people label others on the basis of what is visible on their profiles. A person with a taste for reading will be labeled as a bookworm or nerd, one with interests in sports can be labeled as a sports fanatic and so on. Some of the basic advantages that have become the reason for the popularity of these online social networks is that they are cheaper to use. Interaction in real world, though apparently requires no money, but it has associated costs to it. Dining with a friend requires money; going to a party puts one under the pressure to dress accordingly so as to mingle well, transport costs etc (Mislove et al, 2006). Using an online social network, on the other hand, both for business or personal purposes is almost free. People are able to interact actively and even participate in activities like surveys or games without having to incur any cost for it. Businesses also avail these online social groups to promote their product by placing advertisements and learning about the tastes of their clients. Another benefit is that since more frequent and regular interaction is possible through these online social networks, it helps foster trust and confidence at both personal and business level (Strahilevitz, 2004). With fast-paced lives and hectic schedules it has not remained possible for people to meet in person on a weekly basis let alone daily. These forums help maintain contact with family and friends. Yet, another benefit of the online social networks is that is exposes an individual to a whole new world. One becomes friends with associates of other friends as well, developing and expanding their social circle all along. These connections prove to be fruitful in the long run. As with every other thing, there are certain disadvantages as well of these online social networks. The first amongst them is the issue of lack of anonymity or privacy. The profiles contain personal details of any individual (Barabasi, 2002). If one fakes this, then the whole point of social networking is compromised. People usually make profiles that contain their true information; address, age, employer details etc. (Strahilevitz, 2004) Despite privacy settings, once the information is on the web, one can never be certain that he/she will not be framed by a fraud. Issues of cyber stalking, scams, harassment and identity thefts are also very common in the online world. The networking sites adopt security measures but there are people who bypass these measures and cause problems for others. If not used to reap the benefits that it offers, online interaction can be fairly addictive and a waste of time (Watts, 2003). The main idea behind social networking is that one feels connected with family and friends, enjoys the interaction or derives any business gains out of it (Watts, 2003). If not for these purposes then this can be an activity in vain resulting in sheer waste of time. Conclusion Online social networks have facilitated the re-invention of the change process, how people learn and transform their personal and professional lives. Since it’s a disruptive process, it requires to be dealt with a lot of care. These online forums affect the way people interact, share and exchange information with each other (Girvan et al, 2002). The internet has increased the power of every individual by transcending all boundaries, community barriers the communication walls which were previously considered impervious. Learning from such a diverse and rich source, interacting with people from all walks of life enables an individual to see possibilities that were previously considered unimaginable. (Girvan et al, 2002) Consider the potential of a person who has a voice, connected via an online social network to millions of other people, the ideas and thoughts then transcend all internal boundaries and structures and run wild for recognition. Online social network are not only more vast and broad than the conventional social networks, they are also more exciting and evolving with each passing day. References Barabasi, A.L. (2002)  Linked: The New Science of Networks.  Cambridge, Perseus.  Coates, Jennifer (1993) Women, men and language. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman. chapter 5, pp 87-105 Cummings, J., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108. Cummings, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (2002). Beyond Hearing: Where real world and online support meet. Group Dynamics, 6, 78-88. Girvan, M. and Newman (2002): Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(PNAS), 99:7821–7826. Granovetter (2005): The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological theory, 1:201–233. Kleinberg. J. (2000): Navigation in a Small World. Nature,406:845–845, 2000. Leonard (2004): You are who you know. Salon.com, June 15, 2004. Mislove, Gummadi, and Druschel (2006): Exploiting social networks for Internet search. InProceedings of the 5th Workshop on Hot Topics inNetworks (HotNets-V), Irvine, CA. Pool and M. Kochen (2005): Contacts and influence. Social Networks, 1:1–48. Strahilevitz (2004): A social networks theory of privacy.The Law School, University of Chicago, John M. OlinLaw & Economics Working Paper No. 230 (2D Series), December 2004. Watts (2003): Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. W.W.Norton & Company. Read More