As Marshall pointed out, there are linkages between constant presence of digital technology and how we behave in the world. Although the example was the influence of movie on society, the analogy can be applied to current world where new technology, namely web 2.0, is radically changing the norms of communication, behavior in the digital and daily lives, and even socially accepted value system, especially in terms of social media networks.
Just like the casual chitchat between you and your neighbor become a piece of information about your neighborhood, the social media technology now enables the world to see the stream of your thoughts and others use them as their basis for knowledge and secondary experience for daily lives. As Boyd pointed out, even a stream of mundane conversations and opinions can function as social grooming that allows network participants to grow their social knowledge of others.
People with similar interests can be connected easier than ever without the limitation of geographical location. Such new level of connectivity facilitates the formation of collectivity. For example, as of September of 2011, one of online social networking sites, Facebook alone had over 800 million active worldwide users (Olivarex-Giles 2011), exceeding 2011 US populations of 312 million (US Census Bureau). Such massive user base creates a new domain, namely networked public according to Boyd. Just like human interaction, networked public are created by people with similar interest, purpose, backgrounds, and cause. Based on the infrastructure of a public or semi-public virtual profile given their selection of social media channel, users interact, view, and traverse with others. As their mass and streams of conversation expand, social media channels will create more densely populated networked public, although it is undergoing unintended issues, such as a violation of virtual privacy (or, should I say the blurring boundaries between private and public virtual contents), ethical issues from advertising and minor’ use of social media networks, and the diluted concept of authenticity (since no one know about the original creator of virtual contents due to cycles of recreations and modifications). Nevertheless, the technology merely opened a new door for us because the new ideas sprung from the new technology can be only limited by our creativity.
References
Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.
Olivarex-Giles, N. (2011), “Facebook F8: Redesigning and hitting 800 million users, Los Angeles Times,” [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/facebook-f8-media-features.html]
Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.
Stalder, F. (2006). The logic of networks. In Manuel Castells and the theory of the network society (pp. 167-198). Cambridge: Polity Press. [ch. 6]
US Census Bureau (2011). Population Clock. [www.census.gov/]
Choi, you state that “the social media technology now enables the world to see the stream of your thoughts and others use them as their basis for knowledge and secondary experience for daily lives.” I know that you have read some about electronic word of mouth, but have you come across any readings that compare both ewom and wom? That is, do individuals place more relevance on one over the other?
That’s an interesting thought, John. I wonder if one variable is how well you know the person – so maybe word of mouth from my friends is treated the same whether it’s in person or electronic? Strangers might be different, though. But then again, given that the network allows us to connect based on interests, as Choi points out, maybe it’s enough to know that if we share say 3 similar items of interest, then I would trust your judgement on a 4th item? Hmm….
I agree with Dr. Markman. WOM and eWOM is about same with the one exception – eWOM is steroid injected version of WOM, so that it can spread further without geographic limitations. The literature that I read, pretty much defined eWOM as the electronic version of WOM. Also, as Dr. Markman mentioned, the viable element is whether you know the source of WOM. If you happen to know the person of info source (family, friends, or at least someones who you met), you will likely perceive the message with better credibility. On the other hand, if you do not know the source of info, the credibility of info is about same except the level of credibility can vary given perceive expertise, status, and level of social consensus. Of course, no one can believe what I said, who happens to be a 2nd year PhD student without academic references from reputable journals, these are so far what I got from literature. And, I got a hunch that we may not need to worry about the distinction very soon since eWOM become extremely common nowadays…