Success of Facebook as a Social Networking Site - Essay Example

ID No. Success of Facebook as a Social Networking Site Introduction Facebook, located at Palo Alto, California (About Facebook), started as a campus website initiated by then student-founder Mark Zuckerberg called thefacebook (Yadav par. 3). It became Facebook on August 25, 2004 (Yadav par. 3) when the domain name facebook.com was reportedly purchased at $200,000 (Yadav par. 4). Its users reached 8 million in just two years from launching date (Yadav par. 1). It is a social networking website founded by Zuckerberg (current chief executive office), Chris Hughes, Dustin Moskovitz, and Eduardo Saverin (Founder Bios pars. 1-4) on February 4, 2004 (About Facebook par. 1). The company creates technologies that would enhance its goal of sharing information and interaction by individuals with people they know “in a trusted environment” (About Facebook par. 1) in line with its mission of providing “people the power to share and make the world more open and connected” (Facebook Announces par. 7). In just two years after its launch in February 2004, Facebook reached more than 8 million users in the U.S. alone (Yadav par. 1). And the increase in membership has been accelerating on a daily basis. But can this unprecedented increase in membership be a sufficient parameter to determine Facebook’s success as a social networking site. Brad Stone published an article in New York Times that attempts to provide answers to this question. Stone said Facebook reached a near 200 million users mark in just five years which has doubled in just eight months (as of August 2008), making it a major “social ecosystem” (Stone par. 2). Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg does not view such quantity a success “but the percentage of the wired world that uses the site and the amount of information - photographs, news articles and status updates – zipping across its servers” (Stone par. 9). Currently, one million users are added to its membership daily, 70 percent of whom come from other countries that joined when the services are offered in the local languages. Through Facebook, individuals are able to reconnect with lost relatives and friends, and create new bonds as well. It also became a launching pad for activism in 2008 and cut across social boundaries (friendship created between a school teacher and a prime minister). Dissatisfaction occurred among members when a new design and terms of service were introduced. Within the community, 2.5 million joined “Millions Against Facebook’s New Layout and Terms of Service” to oppose the dissemination of status updates (e.g. going to lunch) (Stone par. 12). Members feel empowered and challenge any imposition upon them since they have contributed time and labor creating the contents of Facebook. Facebook has contradicted the sociologist’s concept on “homophily” (connecting only with people of the same mind or generation). Facebook has reached the point wherein the created between the users and the website would be easily broken even if attempted to. It would be appropriate that the thesis of this response paper would be: “The growth of Facebook membership is not a metric of success of the website but its users’ satisfaction with the services.” Rhetorical Response The author of the article “Is Facebook Growing Up Too Fast?” seems to indicate that the gist of the discussion would cover the unprecedented increase in membership of Facebook to a million in a single day. But reading through the entire paper revealed that the quantity of registered users does not reflect the true situation behind the scenes. Dissatisfaction among the more than a million users erupted when Facebook imposed the new design and terms of service without prior consultation. The new design involves the bombardment of dynamic stream updates on the homepage of the user. The change in the terms of service included the intrusive Beacon advertising and the grant to Facebook commercial control to license, copy and disseminate contents uploaded by the members. Facebook assured its users to have a vote on the matter and have more control over the stream of updates but insisted on retaining the dynamic stream. Chris Cox (director of products) provided the rationale that the company offered a technology for information sharing but should be the caretaker of such vision, which means that the company will decide on what should be the contents of the website, and aptly said that “(i)t’s not a democracy” (Stone par. 21). However, Facebook entered into an agreement with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that it would introduce policy changes that would allow users to control over information accessed by third-party application (Facebook Announces par. 4). It would appear then that Facebook would only accede to policy changes when demanded by a government body, and not by its members. Prior to reading the article by Brad Stone, it is my personal view that website traffic is an indicator of success of the site. In fact, many websites would advertise profusely to get the highest traffic and ranking. I agree with the position of the Facebook founder that such membership is not a metric of success for a social networking website. However, it is my view that the success of a website is also more than just the amount of information being shared by the users. For me, a social networking site is successful when it has achieved its objective for its establishment and the users are satisfied with the services offered. On the aspect of social networking, Facebook is successful in forging a bond among people from different social structures and ethnicity. It made a connection with relatives and friends who had lost communication for years. Another unlikely happening is the friendship that was formed between a school teacher in Denmark and the prime minister of Denmark. This specific scenario illustrates the power of Facebook as a social force. Satisfaction with the services offered is another parameter to gauge success. Satisfaction in this sense includes the confidence of the users that the website would only share their personal information to persons they would want them shared to. Facebook presents itself to be a trusted platform where people can share information with others. But the new design of Facebook wherein status updates of a user is shared to all the contacts seems to violate the privacy of the user. This design was unilaterally implemented by Facebook. The effect of this move upon the members cannot be ignored since more than a million members protested over this addition. In effect, if the privacy of some information of the users is violated, these members would lose their trust and confidence on the website and the people behind it. However, the author believes that with a membership of 200 million, Facebook is a “force that reinvents and tears at such boundaries,” meaning, the division that separates privacy (Stone par. 22). My view on this aspect differs from the author. I believe that with the enhanced capacity of technology which can encroach upon the private lives of individuals, the more that a social networking website should give more protection to its users so that abuses on their personal information can be avoided. It is a known fact that Facebook has been used in phishing and stealing of personal information by criminal elements. A criminal element can pretend to be someone else in order to steal critical information from another member. Not every registered user of Facebook is a legitimate real person but may be someone assuming an identity in an attempt to defraud other members of the site. Thus, it is not justifiable that because Facebook has been able to provide a mode for people to share information, the boundary on privacy should be pierced and allow anyone in the contact list (which may include persons under assumed identities) to view another’s status updates. It would be more appropriate that Facebook would provide the platform but still seek the user’s permission if some of their information can be seen by others. Only with such consent that status updates can be shared with other members. The article was intended not only for Facebook users but also non-members. Its objective is to present the rapid rise of Facebook in a very short duration but also the dissatisfaction among the community of members. In the end, it mentioned how Facebook functioned as a vehicle that countered an established principle in sociology – that of homophily. I agree with the last thesis presented by the author that Facebook has become more than just a website with users. It has created a strong tie between the users and the site that cannot simply be broken. Conclusion The expansion and success of an organization can be measured in terms of the increase in traffic and users, its market value and the users’ response. Basing upon the membership and traffic Facebook has, it is undeniable that it has grown faster than should be. Facebook executives do not view these increase as significant because they have more objectives to attain for the community than just figures and numbers. This perspective of Facebook is understandable since the company has many concerns to address with, such as policy issues with governments where its citizens are members, introduction of new technologies and applications to enhance its services, etc. Thus, is Facebook rapidly growing? Growth should be seen in the light of the quantity of members, the attainment of the primary purpose of its creation, and satisfaction of the members. Basing upon the currently membership in Facebook and the number of registered users added everyday, the website can be seen as successful and rapidly growing. In terms of its primary purpose of sharing information among users, Facebook can be rated as successful with the increase in volume of information transmitted by members. But in terms of user satisfaction, it cannot be said to have achieved growth. The author of the article himself mentioned of a 40-year old mother who spent hours on the site but later on lost interest due to the new design being implemented (Stone pars. 11-12). Having a million dissenters among the community that even formed a group within the group is not a force to be ignored. These dissenters may have remained as registered users in the database but have used less the website or may not have logged in for days or weeks. This scenario cannot be considered a growth on the part of Facebook but a decline. On the side of Facebook, it offers a technology that allowed people to share, connect and locate friends and relatives. It has offered changes that it may deem proper at the moment. But when the community opposed some of the changes made and expressed their specific concerns, Facebook should react positively. The contents of the webpages can be modified by the developers to suit the needs of the users. Facebook has reached a stage wherein it cannot simply impose its own agenda upon the users. Facebook is not where it is today without the users. And Facebook is the community of users that uses its technology. Therefore, Facebook should not act as if it is separate from the community of users but rather one with the community that it serves if it would be like to achieve real growth. Works Cited About Facebook. Press Room. Facebook. 2009. 16 October 2009. . Facebook Announces Privacy Improvements in Response to Recommendations by Canadian Privacy Commissioner: Facebook to provide users with even greater control over information shared with third-party applications, and revisions to privacy policy. Press Room. Facebook. 2009. 27 August 2009. 15 October 2009. . Founder Bios. Press Room. Facebook. 2009. 16 October 2009. . Stone, Brad, Is Facebook Growing Up Too Fast? The New York Times. 28 March 2009. Yadav, Sid. Facebook - The Complete Biography. August 25, 2006. . Read More