These two readings both provided different, but valid interpretations of the definition of “social network sites.” The first reading, by Boyd and Ellison, set up a very specific definition of an SNS. It must do three things : (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 and those made by others within the system. For Boyd and Ellison, there is also a significant difference between the terms “network” and “networking”. According to them, certain sites cannot be called “networking sites” because the term ‘networking’ emphasizes a relationship initiation, although that is not actually what is happening on most of these sites. I definitely agree with that statement. A site like Facebook, for example, is generally used by people who are communicating with friends or acquaintances they already have. Although new relationships can happen, they are generally built on “latent connections”, in which the two people already had a friend in common. However, other sites such as Linkedin or even Twitter fit the three criteria of their definition, but are also used for ‘networking’. Therefore, Boyd and Ellison’s definition is not completely accurate. In David Beer’s response to their essay he points this issue out, and explains that SNSes are simply evolving too quickly to actually label.He explains dividing them into subcategories actually make them more confusing, not less confusing. I agree with Beer’s response, because I have noticed a change in SNSes over the last year. They are becoming places where new relationships are formed, versus simply being sites where people communicated with those they already know. For example, I am involved in two SNSes, Twitter and Instagram. I have a semi-public profile, a list of those I follow/those that follow me, and I can look at the list of “followers” my network has. So those two sites fit all three of Boyd and Ellison’s criteria. However, a large majority of the people I am connected with on these sites are people I did not know offline nor were they discovered by “latent” connections. They are entirely new relationships that I have formed. As a result, I must agree with Beer, that SNSes are more than Boyd and Ellison’s definition.
8 thoughts on “‘Network’ vs ‘Networking’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I also agree with Beer, especially when he says that SNS’s are becoming more, not less confusing as time is passing. Initially, connecting with existing friends is how a social network site worked, but as you engage in different social networking sites, you become connected to people you probably would have never met. Completely changing the dynamic of an SNS.
I agree that the way we use social network(ing) sites has changed over the years. How many of us know every single person in our online network of friends? Even if we are connected to people we otherwise might not have met, how deep are these relationships? I barely know a large percentage of my Facebook friends. Most of those connections are weak ties. Someone may have 1,000 Facebook friends, and someone else may only have Facebook 100 friends. But what do those 1,000 friends even mean? Is there any incremental value there? Or is it about creating the impression of having 1,000 friends?
I think you make a great point, Tim. If someone has over a certain number of “friends,” it’s highly likely they don’t know all of them. I think this is especially the case with Twitter. Because Twitter is much more of a “micro-blog” – a useful term Dr. Markman reminded me of during the chat on Wednesday – people “follow” or “unfollow” others based more on an individual’s content. However, Facebook users are represented by more than just content. They likely have a multi-layered profile with a myriad of photographs, statuses, notes, videos, likes, and the list goes on. So, “unfriending” someone on Facebook seems much more severe than “unfollowing” someone, because a Facebook profile is almost a representation of someone rather than merely content they choose to share, as with Twitter. I’ve seen this play out multiple times in my personal life. People have no problem unfollowing one of their friends on Twitter if that friend doesn’t post good content, but they would be much less likely to unfriend that person on Facebook.
That is an interesting point. I guess it is harder (or harsher!) to ‘unfriend’ someone as opposed to simply ‘unfollow’ them. I actually know of people who utilize an app (I have no idea what it is) that alert them when someone ‘unfriends’ or ‘unfollows’ them, with just seems petty to me! People seem to take the ‘friending’ situation on Facebook MUCH more seriously than on any other site, and it probably does have something to do with the fact the word Facebook selected was “friend.” Its much more personal than ‘follower.” Ahh, the power of words!
I like your title, I think it encompasses what Boyd and Ellison sought to define with their work and what Beer wanted to expand on, and maybe even contradict a little. I’m don’t think that people forming new relationships via SNS is new transition as you mentioned in your post, but now that people are getting a little bored with Facebook, many are moving on to new platforms like Twitter. In those cases, they will have moved on from a platform where they had an established network and were seeking to maintain it and moving to a new network where they have to build a network and are networking to do so.
I have also been using my social media profiles to meet new people. I used to be very careful about who I was “friends” with, so I could post what I wanted. But, as these sites become more public automatically, I made the decision to stop any venting or posting really personal info, and use the sites for networking and maintaining contact with a large group of people.
Spelling aside, I never would have guessed that there was that much of a difference between “network” and “networking”. Obviously, Mr. Beer does not seem to agree much with Boyd and Ellison’s views of SNSes. He appears to think that they are being too opportunistic or broad about their statement of friendships that these types of sites appear to create. SNS members, at least according to Mr. Beer, seem to leave all personal feelings aside when posting these types of blogs. If that’s truly the case, then I’m glad I’m not a member of a social networking site.
I agree that there is this shift of meeting new people as SNSs evolve. I agree that SNSs can fit into both definitions. They can be used to stay connected to people you know and as they evolve, people connect with people they never knew or heard of. I think placing a correct definition to SNS will be difficult because they evolve so often and so quickly and because different people use them for different reasons.