To begin our discussion on networks, Marshall references a fundamentally different type of communication that was unimaginable prior to 1990 but is thriving in today’s society. Interestingly, he discusses how this digital culture has facilitated cross-institutional discussions and globally connected politics. The effect of a phenomenon on politics is not often considered in the business academic literature, so this discussion intrigued me. Marshall also mentions, however, that not everyone in the world has access to the information flows that we often take for granted, such as email. Not only has such a medium become second nature to many people, but also it is considered by many individuals to be an inexpensive form of communication. However, email access is unavailable in many countries due to the substantial upfront cost of the technology. Therefore, while the digital culture has allowed for increased global connectedness, it is interesting to think that we are still unable to connect with so many cultures whose perspectives could shift our everyday norms.

boyd’s view of social network sites as a genre of networked publics is also quite interesting because she views networked publics as both a space and a collection of people. She defines profile generation as “an explicit act of writing oneself into being in a digital environment”, which spurred the thought that one’s profile on a social networking site is, essentially, his or her digital existence or identity. One’s digital identity differs from one’s actual identity because in the digital world, a user seems to have more control over how he or she is represented, which may or may not be an accurate portrayal of one’s actual self. boyd argues that social networking site users converse and share through digital profiles, which does not give participants complete control over their self-representation. I agree with this to an extent, but it is also easier to monitor, modify, and delete contributions to one’s digital profile than to their real-life reputation. Furthermore, in the “real” world, one can act like or aspire to be someone he or she is not, but it may be more difficult to execute than in the digital world.

Finally, Stalder’s review of Castells’s theory of the network society raised several interesting points. It offers a new, more detailed perspective of what a network truly is. According to Castells, when it comes to networks, one must see a bigger picture; a network is more than just a way of organizing processes: it is the signature of a new era. Additionally, he mentions that networks recreate themselves; thus, while they continually undergo structural changes, they preserve their patterns of organization. In this way, an environment is subject to a network, which is determined by the redefinition of and differences among its participants. In my opinion, this makes sense in the context of the social networking site, Twitter. Twitter’s users are very diverse and tweet about many different topics, yet all users tweet using the same network. Therefore, it is not the similarity of Twitter’s users that defines the popular social networking site, but rather, the explicit purpose of making their voices heard on platform that strives “to instantly connect people everywhere to what’s most important to them” (Twitter 2012).