The two reading provides different definitions for social network sites mainly because Beer is trying to prove Boyd and Ellison wrong. Boyd and Ellison defines a social network site as, “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.” Beer feels that this definition is too broad and does not have any limitations.
Since I do not interact with social networks it is hard to say which one is right. I do agree that they both have some valid points. Beer made a valid point regarding Youtube that it is not offering “friend” or “networking” but it is solely for entertainment. Boyd and Ellis provided evidence and history of SNS sites with help to explain and justify their board definition.
It is hard to say how networking and communities are different or similar from my own point of view. However, based on the module readings communities are people communicating with something in common. Communities are more family orient where everyone feels open to talk about their feelings and obtain positive feedback. Only from observation social networks are more open to people stalling, causing problems and keeping up mess. Social networks allow the profiler to determine who they will become friend with and who or what they would allow people to see.
You don’t have a Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or any other type of profile? I’d like to see some research that breaks down social network(ing) sites by demographic to see who’s opting in and who isn’t. The way in which social network(ing) sites are used depends a lot on the invididual user.
No I don’t have any profiles. I think that would be some interesting data. I actually had no reason to get a profile on any SNS sites. What was your main reason for obtaining a profile?
I think non-users are definitely interesting to study and talk to. In my case, for example, I resisted Facebook because I didn’t want one more place where my info lived online (where I didn’t feel I could control it). But a conference I was going to in 2007 started to use Facebook groups for most of the communication, so I eventually gave in and joined. Similarly, I initially joined Twitter because an online community I am a member of had technical issues and the site was down, and a lot of members turned to Twitter to interact, so I started by just reading and then eventually got my own account.
I’d be curious Stephanie, if you find that most of the people in your social circle are NOT on Facebook or other SNSs? If so, that would certainly be less reason to join. When I first joined Facebook, there were only a handful of people I knew on the site, and it was pretty boring.
The strange this is that everyone in my social circle and family are on Facebook and SNS sites. I’m the only one that do not participate on them. So if I joined I would have lots of friends. I just never had the desire to join.
So, since you find the whole SNS thing unappealing, I’m curious to hear your answer to hear your answer to this question: if you could construct an SNS that you WOULD have a desire to join?
I will say that I have seen many people get on Youtube for networking. Musicians often try to get as many followers as possible, so that more people can find out about their songs. Also, with Google’s purchase of YouTube, businesses have a great Search Engine Optimization advantage if they are active on the site and post marketing videos. It’s so interesting that all of these sites can be manipulated for networking purposes.
I had different motivations for joining each site I am involved in. I chose Facebook to stay connected with my friends, to share photos, and to have a reliable space to send quick messages when information is needed. I was reluctant to join twitter, as few of my friends were active and I didn’t want redundant posts between sites. Even after I joined, I have yet to fully explore the interactive features of the site, I mostly use it as a news feed.
Though it can be, I don’t use it Pinterest as a social network. I use it mainly as a virtual pegboard for saving all my favorite recipes and inspirational ideas. I don’t care about my followers, because the site is primarily for my own reference. Flickr is the same, I am sharing with strangers and seeking inspiration, but I don’t care about making connections.
As Clarissa mentioned, I would be interested in the publishing content on Youtube for its marketing resources. I am working on a project with a musician, and we will start a channel soon to host his videos in order to push content into the public sphere. The main reason for Youtube over Vimeo was the available audience, and the possibility to create valuable connections.
As you stated, I have also observed that social networks and online communities differ more than most people realize. From my observations, I would prefer an online community to a social networking site any day. Talking about similar topics would really get boring for me after a while on an SNS. In addition, online communities can help people get through difficult times in life. As proof of my point, I remember such a situation being discussed in an IRL documentary about Buffy the Vampire Slayer from a lesson a few weeks ago. If these facts are true, then online communities definitely seem to be more enjoyable and beneficial than SNSes by a long shot.
I think there are opportunities to network on youtube, but it is very common for the majority of people to use it for entertainment purposes. People also use it as a learning tool. I would have to say I use youtube for entertainment and as a learning tool. There are lots of interesting videos and there are many instruction videos for people who want to figure how to do something.