Boyd & Ellison define social networking as, “We 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 and those made by others within the system.”
I agree parts of Boyd & Ellison’s definition of social networking. In today’s social settings you cannot go anywhere without seeing someone using a technology source (cellphone, laptop, ipod, etc. ), these tools support Boyd & Ellison’s views of users creating a list of other users to be connected with. For instance on Facebook you have a list of “friends” and you can view the “friends” of your “friends” which can lead to different connections within a virtual system of connections.
Beers arguments were valid in that he views Boyd & Ellison’s definition as too broad. I like that Beer called out youtube. This site is not solely offering a “friend” or “network” but more that it is entertainment. Therefore lumping all social sites as “networking” is false. Users are not always seeking a true connection with their online interactions.
Social networking sites differ from an online community in that they are smaller and more targeted. The user is seeking a specific connection. Social networking is more branching out and exploring while staying connected to family and friends. On the flip side social networking and online communities are similar in that they are a way to connect through technology. A user may start out in the big field of social networking and find that they need more intimacy or support and join certain online communities for closer online relationships.
I can agree with you that social networking is more exploring while you stay connected with friends, because I do not go on there to solely build relationships. Sometimes I am just bored and want to be entertained with a joke or two, or to see what my friends and family are up too.
social networking is definitely targeted for a smaller, more targeted group and cannot agree more on that fact. Staying connected is the main goal but sometimes, as Martha said, we get sidetracked, and bored and may use Facebook to entertain our busy minds :)
I also think its incorrect to lump sites like YouTube and Wikipedia in with SNS. Even if they developed with the intention of connecting people, sites like Facebook and Myspace generate more organic relationships between people where as user generated content sharing sites, while they may connect people, that is not their main purpose. I like Beer’s argument that we apply a more broad term when grouping them together, like Web 2.0 and leave the term SNS for sites like Facebook.
I also agree with Beer that SNS should be under the web 2.0 category. It seem like is has to belong in a broader category because SNS is still evolving and its hard to define something that has evolving Characteristics.
I actually never think of Youtube as a social network site, so I was surprised that it was even included in these studies. Youtube was a great example, though, because it does technically meet all of the three requirements for an SNS, while also being a completely different entity than Facebook or Twitter. I think its very true that SNSes are just too broad to group together.