DIGC101 Lecture Week 5
Uploaded by
Katie FreundDIGC101 Lecture Week 5
Uploaded by
Katie Freunddigc101
lecture week 5 Spring 2010
• This week we explore the difference
between social network sites (SNS) that
facilitate the communication between
members of existing networks, and
those that promote the formation of new
connections.
• In experimenting with the features of
different SNS we examine their history,
and significant changes and
developments over time.
• This week‟s reading was by Dana Boyd,
who also actively self represents on the
web
• http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archiv
es/2009/06/11/twitter_is_for.html
• This week‟s reading is by Dana Boyd.
Boyd (2008:210) argues that some
social network sites “help strangers
connect based on shared interests,
political views, or activities”
• Boyd argues that “Some sites cater to
diverse audiences, while others attract
people based on common language or
shared racial, sexual, religious, or
nationality-based identities.”
• Boyd argues that sns‟s “backbone
consists of visible profiles that display
an articulated list of Friends who are
also users of the system. Profiles are
unique pages where one can “type
oneself into being”
history of sns
boyd 2008
• (p214) “the first recognizable social
network site launched in 1997.
SixDegrees.com allowed users to
create profiles, list their Friends and,
beginning in 1998, surf their Friends
lists.” [..] Classmates.com [existed
before this but users could not create
profiles or list friends] [SixDegreeas
could not sustain a business model and
closed in 2000].
• (p.214) “From 1997-2001, a number of
community tools began supporting
various combinations of profiles and
publicly articulated Friends.
AsianAvenue, blackPlanet, and
MiGente allowed users to create
personal, professional, and dating
profiles—users could identify Friends
on their personal profiles without
seeking approval for these connections”
• (p.215) The next wave of SNSs began
when Ryze.com was launched in 2001
to help people leverage their business
networks. [..] In the end, Ryze never
acquired mass popularity, Tribe.net
grew to attract a passionate user base,
LinkedIn became a powerful business
service, and Friendster became the
most significant [disappointment].
• (p.215) Friendster launched in 2002 as
a social componet of Ryze. It was
designed to compete with Match.com, a
profitable online dating site. While most
dating sites focused on introducing
people to strangers with similar
interests, Friendster was designed to
help friends-of-friends meet, based on
the assumption that friends-of-friends
would make better romantic partners
than would strangers
• (p.215) “Friendster gained traction
among three groups of early adopters
who shaped the site—bloggers,
attenders of the Burning Man arts
festival, and gay men [..] and grew to
300,000 users through word of mouth
before traditional press coverage began
in May 2003”
• Friendster got too big and people could
not separate bosses and old
classmates from close friends, and the
site malfunctioned a bit because not
prepared for growth.
• Friendster owners tried to restrict
activities of its most passionate users
such as deleting fake celebrity profiles--
but some of these were “genuine users
who chose non-realistic photos)
signalled to some that the company did
not share users‟ interests” (p.215)
• Friendster declined in usa but
skyrocked in the phillipines, Singapore,
Malaysia and Indonesia
• After rumours emerged that Friendster
would adopt a fee-based system, users
posted Friendster messages
encouraging people to join alternate
SNSs, including Tribe.net and mySpace
(p217)
• MySpace was able to grow rapidly [..]
One particular notable group that
encouraged others to switch were indie-
rock bands who were expelled from
Friendster for failing to comply with
profile regulations.
• MySpace added features based on user
demands such as adding html codes]
• Teenagers began joining MySpace en
masse in 2004. [not many teens had
been on Friendster but mysaoce
changed its rules to allow underaged to
join]
• Then, in 2005, news Corporation
purchased MySpace for $580 million,
[..] “attracting massive media attention.
[…] safety issues plagued myspace e.g.
adults and kids sex interactions led to
law suits”, Boyd says moral panic about
predators on my space was
exaggerated--do you agree??
• Facebook launched in 2004 for niche
college market then expanded.
• (p219) Boyd says that “impression
management,” “self-presentation,” and
“friendship performance” are important
aspects of Facebook
• Boyd (2008) argues that profiles can
never be real, they are always about
impression management--do you
agree?
• Boyd (2008) also argues that ““friends”
on SNSs are not the same as „friends”
in the everyday sense; instead, Friends
provide context by offering users an
imagined audience to guide behavioural
norms.” Do you agree?
• (p.221) “Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfeld
(2006) found that Facebook users
engage in “searching” for people with
whom they have an offline connection
more than they “browse” for compete
strangers to meet. Likewise, Pew
research found that 91% of U.S. teens
who use SNSs do so to connect with
friends.” This connects with last week‟s
argument--many of you used sns for
friends, the articles we looked at said
many used sns for potential
partnerships with strangers.
• One of Boy‟s blog is titled “Twitter is for
Friends, Facebook is for everybody.”
• Boyd argues in her blog that some
teenagers in the usa use a private
twitter account more than their
facebook, because of the pressure to
let everyone--friends, parents, peers
etc--join facebook so it gets too public
• One of the responses to this suggestion
was from an academic who also found
facebook to be full of people he didn‟t
consider to be friends, so he privately
twitters instead.
• Another response to this suggestion
was that these private networks could
be considered to be “counterpublics” in
Michael Warner‟s terms.
• I am not sure I agree--Warner
suggested that a counterpublic was a
public that formed around a hunting and
fishing magazine, or readers of queer
literature and magazines. They defined
themselves in opposition to the
mainstream in some way.
• Do you think that the “teenagers” in
Dana Boyd‟s blog are defining
themselves in opposition to the
“mainstream?”
• In Dana Boyd‟s (2008:221) article, she
argues that sns provide a vehicle for
teenagers and others to engage in
“networked publics.” This conception of
a public doesn‟t require that it be
oppositional--it is similar to Todd Gitlin‟s
ideas of “public sphericles”--where
people are involved in small publics
which interact and sometime deliberate.
• I have been thinking about the use of
sns such as Facebook for the
distribution of overtly political
campaigning for particular parties or
politicians (such as everytime you vote
for abbot a kitten dies group). There
may be an argument to be made about
bleed between public and private here.
• Another response to Boyd‟s blog was
from an academic working on digital
cultures in the middle east about how
twitter/ fb etc can cause a disruption of
the social/private when the work sphere
enters the private through co-workers
on facebook. Impression management
in this contexts is then especially
important.
• Someone in this lecture last week was
saying that they chose flattering photos
for their dp‟s on facebook--other factors
affecting impression--what groups you
join, what other people post on your
wall or visa versa.
• Well done everybody with your draft
webification projects, they were all
really interesting. I am looking forward
to seeing the final product. Remember,
the first blog assessment is due in tutes
this week, for my class, just tag your
best blog as submitted.
