Social networking has been such a huge part of my adolescence and college life. I created a Facebook profile right after the sophomore dance, and ever since then I have been finding people from when I was younger, and also connecting with people in my current life whom I don’t get to see very often. Therefore, it was very interesting to see how boyd and Ellison’s article disagreed with Beer’s article about the definition and usage of social media.
Ellison and boyd define social networking sites as “web-based services” that allow people to make a profile, make a list of other people who share a connection with them, and view that connection list and other people’s connections. Ellison and boyd chose not to use the word “networking” to describe social media because they view networking as a time when people approach others specifically to make relationships, instead of working with others whom they already know. Instead, the authors suggest that social media is merely used to reconnect with people who are already in their lives. On the other hand, Beer says that boyd and Ellison’s exclusion of networking in their social media definition is a “shame.” Unlike boyd and Ellison, Beer says that social media is often done with people whom they see all the time in real life (versus having people you only see in real life, or only see online). Beer says that boyd and Ellison’s definition is too broad, and that there needs to be smaller categories such as “mashups” and “wikis.”
I have to agree more with Beer’s article, because I use Facebook and other social media mostly for networking. There are so many “strangers” on my Facebook page who are wedding vendors in Memphis, and Facebook has helped me create many relationships with people who can be difficult to get a hold of. The other article is a little too closed-minded about how people use their social media profiles. I think social networking sites are similar to online communities, but that social networking relationships are not usually as close. In communities, people have a common interest, but on Facebook, I may have nothing in common with someone- we may have just met somewhere. Social networking allows people to meet up online, but I think that communities offer many more opportunities for bonding and close relationships.
I didn’t have an issue with the way boyd & Ellison differentiated between social network and social networking sites because my usage patterns and experiences holds true to their definitions. However, I do believe that there are other users out there, like yourself, who use social network sites to develop new relationships and grow their networks. Beer talks about the idea of capitalism as it applies to social network sites and criticized boyd & Ellison for largely ignoring the phenomenon.
I disagree with you that the difinision of Ellison and Boyd is too “close-minded. I think that their difinision is valuable even though if it needed to be more precise. Beer, on the other side, did not gave us a new, clear, and more precise definision, instead, his article was just a respond to Boyd and Ellison’s article, which is suggestions from his point of view to the definision that he used as a base for his argument.
Its interesting that you mentioned joining an SNS after you attended an event. I would like to know if many users of SNS that join after high school did so because of a catalyst event like this. If that turns out to be a motivator for joining SNS, then we would understand usage patterns better.
Now that everyone seems to be on Facebook and we are connecting with people that we might have a very loose tie to, having only met them once, it gives credibility to the argument that those in an online community, while they may not have met, would have a closer connection that most relationships that exist through Facebook.