Norris 2004) and Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2011) are talking about connecting and benefiting from people who are similar to you on SNS and offline. Both articles discuss how interacting in SNSs and online communities have positive and negative develop social capital.

SNSs and communities gives people the opportunity to communicate and meet new people with the same interest. They allow people to free themselves and take on another identity as well as give or obtain emotional support. Norris article points out that bonding is occurring on SNS and communities however, we are not bridging. According to Norris (2004), “Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding in social capital brings together people of a similar sort.” The drawbacks to me is not showing the real you. On SNS and communication people post pictures and say things that they think other people want to hear, see or would enjoy. Another drawback is that there is no connection with people you do not know. People have friendships with previous friends instead of developing a friendship with strangers. I agree this is reasonable because so much is occurring in the world that you have to be careful about the people you communicate with. However, how do you make new connections if you connect with the same people?

I do not have any experience with SNS or communities however, from the people I spoke with agreed that bonding was not an issue. They states they connect and have many “friends” on Facebook with people the either already knew or that they feel they have something in common with such as mutual friends, hobbies, interest etc.  Some people states they are bridging because they have connected with a lot of new people on Facebook and other SNS sites.

According to Norris (2004) asserts that “internet participation bridging social divisions of generation, race, and class or bonding with people with similar interests and beliefs.”Norris also argued that both bonding would and bridging social networks strengthen the relationships between the online participants, build social capital, which is like the financial or human capital as Norris described, build trustful connections and get people close together.

However, Norris noted that some drawbacks such as social division into groups according to different ethnics beliefs, race, religion, or racial with which conflicts may arise. Norris also argued that “the more passive internet population ‘normalization’” can kill the enthusiasts among the internet. In addition, there are certain features of the internet that might transfer those traditional divisions.  Norris also expected the textual communication via the internet might replace the “standard visual and aural cues of social identity” such as: race, age, and socioeconomic status. Norris noted that anonymity may affect certain groups such as: single mothers working at home, gay men, and rural poor population and become isolated.

Whereas, Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2011) found out that: “only social information-seeking behaviors contribute to perceptions of social capital.” They also found that there are many benefits of social interactions such as: emotional support, share ideas, and find new information, and that people who have more friends profile list are more likely to have social capital.

Just like Norris, Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe also noted that bonding and bridging strengthen weak ties and that social network sites such as Facebook are connecting and getting people together because it is cheap and fast way to communicate. Facebook also contain features that connected strangers to friend each other such as:  Groups, networks, fan pages, social games (Farmville), applications, photographs, interest-based profile fields, status updates. Therefore, the more people have skills and ability to use to the more they engage into social networks, and the more they would have social capital benefits.

On the other hand, the study concluded that “using the internet to meet new people was associated with higher depression scores seven months later.” In addition, those weak ties can construct and replace the time spent with strong ties.

After all, I agree with both of the studies that SNS helped bring people together and build social capital. Not only can people connect with close friends and old friends and family members, but also they can find new friends through their friends with the help with the Facebook variety of its features such as:  poke, message, brows, and try friend them, and much more, I was able to expand my friend list. Also some of my friends invited me to become member of certain groups that I have common interest with them such as national origin or religion beliefs which added to my friend list hundreds of new friends who they are strangers that I never met before in real life. Finally, I agree with the idea that those social networks may be danger in which they can divide people into different ethnic groups and lead to racial conflicts in our society.

As with most media, there are positives and negatives to the internet. That has been a central theme of this course thus far, as we have explored the supposed – and, often simply assumed – pros and cons. I believe that one of the greatest benefits of taking this course is that it helps students developed an informed, balanced view of the internet. These studies, specifically, discuss these ideas as the relate to SNSs.

It was interesting that the Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe study examined the difference many of us feel between those Facebook friends who are simply our friends on Facebook and “actual friends.” More interesting, though, were their findings which showed that those who didn’t qualify as actual friends didn’t have a lot of social value. “…the number of Facebook Friends alone did not predict bridging social capital, but the number of actual friends did.” This seems as if it should be obvious. Let’s be real, what do we really stand to gain from being connected with people we don’t really know? Maybe we simply want to satisfy our curiosities, or maybe we just like being able to say we have over 1,000 friends. It’s probably both. But, whatever the reasons may be, it’s helpful to have quantifiable evidence to reflect on that reminds us it is true friendships and real relationships that truly matter, not just that little box that reads, “1,576 friends.” That’s real social capital. It’s “the more the merrier,” because everyone could use another good friend. But, it’s also the sort of capital that isn’t just about numbers.

The Norris study comes a hopeful conclusion when it begins discussing the possibility that the “linkages” between diverse groups of people who participate in online communities. However, this begs questions like, “How many people still participate in online communities versus how many people utilize social media?” and, in turn, “How many people view and use social media as communities, and interact with diverse groups of people?”

According to Norris, social capital can be bonded best in heterogeneous  local associations. The other benefits that can come from heterogeneous associations are building social capital, generating interpersonal trust and reinforcing community ties. It is more difficult to build social capital in a homogeneous organizations “in pluralistic societies splintered by deep-rooted ethnonational, enthnoreligious or racial conflict” (Norris 2004).

The benefits of SNSs such as Facebook allow you to reconnect with people you went to high school or college with that you may not have talked to or seen in a while. If you want to know what someone’s been up to, a good way to find out is to go to their Facebook page. Facebook also allows you to form new connections with people. I have met new people through friends I already have and it is a good way to meet people. Another benefit is that it can be used to promote events for certain organizations. If you ‘like’ a certain organizations’ page, their statuses will pop up on your page. So if they share a picture of whatever events they have coming up, everyone that’s liked the page will be made aware of it. If you’re friends with someone in the organization, it is a good chance they will share the picture too. The only negative things on Facebook I can think of is just harassment/bullying.

“Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding in social capital brings together people of a similar sort.” (Norris, 2004) On the other hand the concept of social capital describes the benefits individuals derive from their social relationships and interactions: resources such as emotional support, exposure to diverse ideas, and access to non-redundant information.” (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe 2011) Both Norris and Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe has a central thing and it is connecting to people who similar to you and benefitting from it both on SNSs and offline.

The possible benefits of participating on SNSs are increasing your confidence, being able to relate to someone similar to yourself, and being comfortable engaging in conversations with random users. The main drawback to me is simply not being to merge the “online you” with the “reality you.” Online you can be whoever you want to be, but in reality it is easy to notice when someone is putting up a front/pretending to be someone they are not mainly because the confidence is not all the way there.

Norris (2004) findings were interesting when relating to my own experiences with SNSs because in Figure 2.1 on page 35 I could see how I have “become more involved with groups and organizations you already belong to,” because it has become a bonding experience; where on the other hand “connecting with people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds,” can be seen as a bridging experience. I belong to an online group and I have built great bonds with people who are half way across the U.S. From my own SNSs experiences social capital is definitely on the rise and is not falling anytime soon.

Norris (2004) and Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2011) are similar in their study of how on-line activity affects social capital. However, Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe limited their study of this phenomenon to one SNS (Facebook). Both articles conclude that participation in SNSs and online communities have a positive correlation to both bridging and bonding social capital. Both studies noted, however, that the level of capital is influenced by the type of communication members engage in while using social networks. Participation in SNSs and online communities do have benefits and drawbacks.

Participation on SNSs and online communities benefit a person by enabling them to connect with new people and also stay connected with friends and family, positively influencing bonding and bridging social capital. Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2011) state the following benefits of SNSs in their study: “emotional support, exposure to diverse ideas, and access to non-redundant information”.  Norris (2004) agrees that “online participation has the capacity to deepen linkages among those having similar beliefs”. 

Norris (2004) indicated that there is a limit to the social capital derived from internet communications. In an analysis of her research data she concluded: “…participation in most online groups did little to bridge racial divides in the United States…” Furthermore, Norris wrote: “Group contact was also fairly ineffective at bridging the socioeconomic or class divide.” 

My own online experience as a Facebook, and other social network, user supports the conclusions in the research works by Norris (2004) and Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe. My use of social network allows me to stay connected and get closer to friends and family (bonding) and also increases my potential of learning new things from strangers (bridging). There is definitely a positive correlation between my use of SNSs and the increase in social capital derived from these activities. Furthermore, my bonding and bridging social capital is positively correlated to the level of my involvement and contribution during my social networking experience.

            The benefits and drawbacks of attending social networking sites and online communities almost go hand-in-hand with one another. The sites and communities both allow people to communicate with other individuals who share similar interests and/or hobbies. The participants can also become associated with heterogeneous local associations that, according to Norris’s findings, have reputations of helping to build social capitals, generate interpersonal trust, and reinforce ties between differing communities. These benefits are equally rivaled by the potential consequences that can arise with these social sites. For instance, either online communities or SNSs can just as easily become affiliated with homogenous bonding organizations. Norris states that while these organizations can do what the heterogeneous local associations can, they can also worsen social conflicts that may exist in societies containing histories of conflict. These conflicts may deal with race, religion, or the nation itself. This could prove to be an unfortunate set of events for individuals who simply want to make friends over the internet.

            Social capitals can develop online with little effort. According to the conclusive findings of Ellison, Steingfield, and Lampe, sites such as Facebook have numerous features that could be used to help bring those people together, whether they are similar to each other, like those found in bonding social capitals, or are of different sorts, such as the ones who make up bridging social capitals. These sound a lot like some of the sites that I have seen while looking at various pages on Facebook. The people in social sites like these definitely have differing likes and dislikes, which could potentially lead to more online friendships and form more social capitals.

The Scholars of this weeks reading take a deeper analysis into SNS than the previous scholars. The readings suggest that social  network sites exist with two main roles of either bridging or bonding  for users.  Bridging refers to the connections made between users of different race or class, or bonding which is the connections of users with the same interest and value.  Both bridging and bonding are equally present in SNS and can be seen as positive benefits and give a sense of community. It seems to all depend of on the type of SNS or online community the user is involved.  I would describe my personal SNS experience as a mixture of both. Although, I have FB freinds and follow twitter users of different social class and race, its is because we share a common interest or have been part or the same organization such as school or work. The more i use Facebook I noticed the type of bonding between users.

As we talked about in our last online chat, many students are heavily involved in social media sites. I am active on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and I have gotten many positive things through connecting with people and finding new information. It was interesting to read about social capitol, and I really think that most of the benefits and drawbacks of SNS and online communities have to do with it.

Social capitol is known as relationship capitol; in other words, it is a way to measure how useful our relationships (one-on-one or group) can be. Bonding capitol is about close relationships, and has to do with emotional support and people’s willingness to lend you money or do other large favors. Bridging capitol is about acquaintances and casual friendships, and this can lead to “connections” such as new information or a job. Both types of capitol are very important for succeeding in life, and SNS and online communities allow us to easily meet people and maintain relationships with close friends. In fact, one article said that people who have diverse social circles can more easily get help finding a new job or learning important information. These are obviously huge benefits of being involved on social media sites! I did not find many drawbacks listed in this week’s articles, but obviously people can become so involved in social media that they neglect the “real-life” aspects of their relationships. Since people often post about the positivity in their lives (pretty food, achievement statuses, etc), it can be hard to really learn about people’s struggles and character. I also know many people who are so attached to Facebook on their phone that they can’t even focus on what’s happening right in front of them. On the other hand, I have benefited quite a bit from bridging capitol. I have met several people by first adding them on Facebook, and it’s interesting to see how the first level of networking (liking their posts, photos, etc) can lead to furthering the relationship and eventually working together. In moderation, SNS and online communities can be very useful.

Taken as a whole, these readings continue to dispel the myth that computer-mediated communication is the doom of our society. Rosen, Lafontaine and Hendrickson said that “rather than changing society, the internet has simply provided us a new way of doing old things” (p. 984).

Going back to the over-arching theories we discussed earlier this semester, I think there is a middle ground to all of this, and there are good and bad byproducts that have resulted from the evolution of new media. I would argue that an increasing lack of attention span is a negative consequence of the inundation of the web, cell phones, etc in our lives. Conversely, lots of good things have emerged. Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe referenced Granovetter’s research, which found that users are more likely to get the information they need if they have wider networks of weak ties. Many times critics will argue against the need for having hundreds of pseudo friends on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites. But these connections can pay off if you need information. For instance, if you’re taking a trip, you can ask a question on Facebook and chances are that a weak tie from your network (or multiple weak ties) will have relevant feedback that you might not have received from your close group of friends.

The Rosen, Lafontaine and Hendrickson study highlighted the CouchSurfing network, which is essentially a channel for strangers to connect with each other while travelling. Not only does this site support the case I made above about weak ties, but it also illustrates how strangers or weak ties can potentially become strong connections because of connections afforded by SNS and other forms of CMC. In addition to soliciting information, users of social network sites can also look up information on their own about other people. I’m sure most of us are familiar with the term Facebook stalking. Stalking, in this sense, is a bit of a hyperbole. When we say Facebook stalk, it usually means leveraging social media to look up a person’s profile (a stranger or a weak tie). Sometimes this leads to offline connections, sometimes it doesn’t. But the potential is there.

The point to be taken away from these readings as well as the other papers we’ve looked at during the course of the semester is that computer-mediated communication isn’t in and of itself good or bad. It’s a part of the never-ending cycle of technological innovation and change. Rather than focusing on all things negative, we should instead understand how it is being used to communicate.