As many scholars do, Beer wrote a response in an attempt to broaden the unsettling definitions in the Boyd & Ellison article. The intellectual debate surrounding internet phenomena (SNS, Friends, Web 2.0, etc) is complex one, as it is constantly shifting and difficult to stabilize understanding. Context is key; each article is situated in its own discussion and will always be evolving. Beer pointed out the limiting nature of definitions; our need to classify often poses a limitation on our understanding. Scholars attempt to define phenomena to lay the groundwork for their theories. Someone will always find this problematic, attempt to point out faults and re-define. This is the nature of academia. In an attempt to create, there is a flux between broad and narrow definitions. It is unclear which serves better, but they each serve their purpose to create a dialogue.
Boyd & Ellison made the condition apparent in the introductory overview of the article – explicitly stating they are presenting “one perspective.” Beer still has a problem with this, as they have differing conceptual outlooks about SNS. Beer brought up interesting points, but his main problem with the Boyd & Ellison article is its scope of vision. He calls for a narrower focus with more specific categorization, rather than general trends. I think this is problematic, as each scholar attempts to coin their own terms and unique perspectives. There is very little room for common classifications. However, both views serve their purpose and support each other to create a stronger body of work. I prefer the wider scope of the Boyd & Ellison article, as it attempts to provide a generalized approach to a very disjointed and tumultuous field.
The Boyd & Ellison article reviewed a variety of research about SNS sites. The article explained a brief history of the development of SNS sites, and provided evidence to show how each respective type of site mediated connections. This examination helps provide a broader view of SNS and aids in the understanding and definition of such sites.
Overall, the article focused on the tendency of SNS sites to maintain existing relationships and networks, rather than function as means to connect to strangers. Boyd & Ellison outlined three parts to their definition of a Social Network Sites: sites allow for a profile that exists within a “bounded system,” users have a list of shared connections, and users can view and navigate these connections to explore their networks. Boyd & Ellison chose the term “network” over “networking” to place an emphasis on the structure of these web-services. They were steadfast in their definition that sites enhance existing ties, rather than forming new relationships.
They outlined a few main types of sites which are important to understanding how SNS sites influence interactions. These were profile-centric sites that target specific demographics (like FB), socially organized sites that solicit broad audiences (for business people, like LinkedIn), passionate-centric – those that connect strangers based on interests and activities (like CouchSurfing), and content-sharing sites (like Flickr and Youtube). There are similarities between SNS and online communities on certain types of sites. As categorized by Boyd & Ellison, passionate-centric sites and content-sharing SNS sites are the hybrid of SNS and communities. The interactions on SNS are still more individualized connections, but they revolve around content, rather than existing relationships.
Overall, SNS is about developing and maintaining existing relationships (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). On the other hand, online communities often focus around interests, where connections can be made secondarily. The relationships formed online can be just as real as those offline. Friendship is not a fixed concept and SNS have the ability to change our sociological concept of friendships (Beer, 521). Online communities revolve around a shared sense of experience, and can foster deep connections. SNS connections are more individualized, and they consist of existing acquaintances and weak ties. SNS connections are often mixed mode networks (formed offline and transition online) because these technologies and systems are embedded in our social interaction. The structure of a site can impact our behavior. Not to the extreme of determinism, but each site has its own practices and norms that influence our interactions. Likewise, definitions influence our understanding.