One drawback noted by Norris (2004), is the “normalization” that can occur by creating connections with people who have only the same views as you. Creating a sense of digital divide that is not solely based on race, gender, or other identity factors. The positives found in the study of the PEW life project determined that contact with online groups served both bridging and bonding but the experience in participating is slightly stronger in bonding verses bridging.

Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe (2011) focus on the SNS Facebook and raise questions of what “Friending” online really means, they found the that the relationships or “Friending” served as weaker ties and most of the users friends represent “in person” relationships. Also, the connections to in person friends show stronger connection in  more of a maintaining relationships versus reaching out to new people which usually die quickly through SNS.

I tend to invite friends into my network that I have some sort of in person connection with: family, friends, school mates, co workers. I never friend people that I do not know on Facebook. However, for other sites such as instagram I like photos and follow people that I do not know, it is a less formal SNS to me so I am more open to having new faces in my instagram feeds. After all you don’t want to see 100 pictures of your family online, you should have that in your home!

According to the readings social capital is bringing different ethnicity’s together but targeting similar interests. Norris (20024) states,”Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts and bonding social capital bring together people of a similar sort.” Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe (2011) focus more on Facebook and conclude in their findings that emerging adults such as college students that are “experimenting” with various identities may benefit the larger more heterogeneous network that Facebook enables.

Overall, social capital is gauged by age and desire to explore new avenues. A draw back to SNS’s is normalcy having too much of the same type of people and views to narrow ones thinking. Positives can be gaining new information, keeping up to the minute information about one another, and support.

Norris (2004) brings up some worrying trends in his studying of bridging and bonding social capital on the Internet. While its promising that there is concrete evidence, not just from the Norris reading but also from the IRL documentary we watched two weeks ago and from my own observations of the online community I am following for my short paper 3, that bonding is happening on the Internet, it is also troubling that bridging is not happening with the same success. There has been some discourse recently on the dark side of our disinterest with bridging, even when we inadvertently avoid it. For example, when your Yahoo home page allows you to personalize your news feed to bring you only the content from your specified areas of interest, you are unlikely to be exposed to articles that have a different perspective than the one you already hold and connect you to people that have similar areas of interest. This “digital bubble” we can create for ourselves is representative of the internet’s bonding capital strength, but if we aren’t exposed to differing opinions, or individuals from different backgrounds, are we are ally growing in our understanding? This was the subject of an interesting TED talk if you want to know more, http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html.

Ellison et all (2011) confirmed information that I had already been observing through Facebook myself. The lowered cost of maintaining a large network meant that one could utilize latent ties to access more diverse sets of resources. For example, today on my news feed, I read an interaction between two mutual “friends” who don’t know each other well but when one requested medical advice through a status update, the other who is a nurse was able to respond within minutes. Without a platform like Facebook, the original “friend” may have had to go to the doctor to receive the same information. This bridging capital exchange at least calms some of my concerns about the “digital bubble” previously discussed. Additionally, the reading on CouchSurfing confirms that a sense of belonging is necessary within a community if individuals are expected to maintain membership and engagement over a sustained period of time. This was evidenced by the reinforcement of engagement and belonging felt by members who either participated in a face to face interaction as a result of membership and those who received targeted communication rather than mass emailings.

Social capital builds over time and I’m convinced that it thrives only when users are willing to open up to “friending” people outside of their established face to face community. While I’ve expressed my concerns about deminishing bridging behavior, the opportunity of bonding and the ease of maintaining large networks that SNS provides is invaluable in my personal life. I’m able to have more meaningful and rich relationships with people who live outside of my physical location and tap into latent ties for everything from restaurant recommendations to selling furniture.

The readings for this week gave a insight on what social networking really is and how a person can make themselves more available to them. Boyd and Ellison described three different ways to constuct a social networking site. (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. He also goes on to state that we should not use the work “network” if we know who we are socializing with. It should be called initiating. We network with individuals every single day that we are a part of a social networking site. This gives us ability to network with people we may have lost contact with during the transitions in our lives. Networking is provided for us to get to know people we may have already known and it gives us more ways to make friends and associates. It also helps people get into certain career fields and it keeps in the loop about what may be going on in the world that we may have no clue about. I feel that social networking gives us the freedom to speak to those we may have been to shy to speak to in person. The two articles made me realize that social networking sites are a great way to be heard and seen without actually being physically heard or seen.

There are three main ways tdefinite a social networking site 1. a public profile 2. Communication between others with similar interests 3. View end transverse the connections.the readspas differ because the two authors are on two different ends of the spectrum. Beer feels the definitions lack any real…..well definition. It is too open for discussion. Easily arguable. I am more inclined to agree with Beer. I do ink that definition is far too broad to be taken as the primary definition for SNS. I have a public profile but most of my relationships, new relationships, are built through mutual friends. Even on twitter where there are millions of users I often follow people at the suggestion of someone else that I know. I am often reluctant to follow someone on any social site that I have not seen interact with someone that it rust. It is my life or portions of my life that I am putting out there for others to see, so it is important who you allow to see it. As far as interest, sites like Pinterest, would apply to Boyd and Ellisons definition but it is an interest based site. You’re able to openly view projects and such and decide if you’d like to follow.

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.

Boyd and Ellison defined Social Networking Sites into three different categories web-based services that allowed 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 and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.” (boyd & Ellison, 2007:2) Boyd and Ellison goes on to say that the word ‘networking’ is not used because it could be perceived as someone initiating a connection between strangers, instead of the user being the initiator. (boyd & Ellison, 2007:2)

I disagree with boyd & Ellison’s definition of SNS mainly because (1) Social Networking Sites do allow for completely private pages and in turn people add only those they know. (2) For me SNS are to network, promote, and market. It does not matter rather you all have something in common you learn more from people who are unlike yourself. (3) On Facebook you can join a group with people who have a common goal or share the same interest as yourself.

When I think of an online community I often think of a place where forums and message boards are present. In my opinion, SNS is a place where you meet boutique owners, online store owners, and people who are in the works of doing something profitable. I see it that way because I have met my hairstylist from a SNS, I have met someone that customizes shoes, and I also market my online business (www.beesheadpieces.bigcartel.com) Social Networking Sites are what you make to be, they can either be profitable or informative.

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.

Have you ever thought about the progression of SNS over the past 15 years? In my opinion this is the breakdown between the transition of 4 different social networking sites. It started with Myspace. Really, truly a SNS that became the breakthrough of so many, many others. Next, we can thank Mark Zuckerberg for the creation of Facebook. This SNS succeeded greatly, and is probably one of the top SNS out there today. Next, Twitter came into our lives and new ways to express yourself were announced to the world. With so many others in between, I have found through kids that are in my everyday life, their SNS of choice is YouTube. Yes, it has been around for so long and we all use it a lot, but they use it to post videos in which they can share with their friends. They follow certain pages, but is this really considered a SNS? This is where Beer would say no. Beer feels like this lack of definition between these SNS is a problem especially because they are very different applications.

Boyd and Ellison define social network sites 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.” This is where Beer believes this is not defined enough, that it is too broad of a definition. I cannot help, but to agree. There seem to be no limitations to Boyd and Ellison’s definition. Could an anonymous bulletin board to discuss ideas be a SNS? Maybe according to Boyd and Ellison.

SNS are more individual based, whereas, online communities are more group based. When I think of a SNS (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) you should only be “friends” or “follow” people who you have a direct relationship with. Someone that you have met before in an offline community. Yes, some people “slip through the cracks” and many people realize this and try to fix the problem, which is why so many profiles on any SNS are set to private and do not allow these loopholes. An online community, people join to discuss common issues, or find a place with people that they do not know on a personal basis.

Boyd and Ellison define SNSs as ” (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. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.” I think that this is an accurate definition for SNSs. SNSs are different from online communities because a community is a group of people that share some kind of common interest. Members of online communities do not make a profile about themselves like members of SNSs do. With online communties, the focus is more on the members discussing certain issues rather then trying to ‘network’ with other people and share pictures and other things. However, SNSs are similar to online communities in the fact that both of them involve connected with other people, just in different ways.

In rural parts of the globe, the livelihoods many of depend on a simple tool which has existed for thousands of years: the fishing net. Similar to the word, “woodwork,” from the creation of this device, we derived the word “network.” As technology progressed, and innovators began conducting electricity through wire, the image of netting or network became a natural metaphor to describe such processes. Today, it is accepted almost universally as an apt term to describe websites such as MySpace and Facebook.

When I began considering the articles by Boyd, Ellison, and Beer, this image was the first thing that came to mind. As a former highschool debater, I tend to pay especially close attention to definitions. After reading their arguments concerning “network” and “networking,” I land somewhere in the middle. Boyd and Ellison offer an interesting argument for distinguishing “network” from “networking.” While it their assertion that networking implies building connections betweens strangers rings true, their conclusion that “networking” is largely absent from social networks does not. In today’s world, a great many number of individuals use large and growing social networks like Twitter and LinkedIn to reach out to people they have no previous contact with for the purpose  of creating professional connections. They use such sites to hear about the newest innovations in their fields, or even to find new employment. There are numerous cases of people finding jobs via Twitter.

One natural response to this comes in the form of a question. “So, how many people are really finding jobs and connecting with their professional peers via Twitter, LinkedIn, et cetera?” This is where I begin to resonate with Beer’s thoughts on the work of Ellison and Boyd. He writes, “My argument… is simply that we should be moving toward more differentiated classifications of the new online cultures not away from them.” My way of doing this would be to begin creating these classifications by acknowledging the differentiation between network and networking, but also to acknowledge that both are legitimate and salient phenomena. How such a theory might break down practically—which sites fall into which category —is another story. But, that’s the point of a class like this. It forces us begin considering about how we are going to begin thinking about these new tools we have created.