Tara Beeforth3079506

Social Networks and Online CommunitiesAn Analysis of Online Networking Phenomena

Overview A definition What sites are classed as Social Networking? Millions of users Why Social Networking? “Social Networking in plain English” The Statistics Age distribution The History The positives Privacy concerns? Stranger danger Something to think about.. Online communities The Future

Social Networking• A Definition: • Social networks can be defined as web-

based services that allow for individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system and articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection. It also allows for users to view and transverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. Slight variations exist from site to site.

• (Boyd, 2007).

What types of sites are classed as social networking?

Examples of ‘Social networking’ sites include; www.facebook.com www.twitter.com www.bebo.com www.youtube.com www.tumblr.com www.myspace.com And the list goes on!

Online communities are created within thesesocial networking sites and for a variety ofreasons/to fill a variety of complex social needs.

Since their introduction, social networking sites such asMyspace, Facebook and Bebo have attracted millions ofusers, many of whom haveintegrated these sites into theirdaily practices.

(Boyd, 2007)

Millions of users

Why Social Networking?

Social networking fulfils a variety of needs across manydifferent online communities.Most sites are formed tosupport pre-existing socialnetworks however others helpstrangers connect based uponshared interests, politicalviews or activities.

(Boyd, 2007)

“Social Networking in plain English”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a_KF7TYKVc

Click this link to watch an informative Youtube clip that simplifies Social Networking!

The statisticsAn American study of youth socialnetworking discovered that over halfof youth aged between 12-17 useonline social networking sites likeMyspace or Facebook. The study also discovered that girlsare more likely to use these sites. Thestudy also determined that generallygirls use the site to reinforce preexisting friendships and boys use thesites as opportunities for flirting andextending their social networks. (Lenhart 2008)

Age Distribution of Social Networking users

Research conducted by pipl.statistics (2006) found that while mostother social networking sites have a mixed range of demographics,Bebo and Xanga had the lowest demographic aged from their teens toearly 20’s.

Online CommunitiesLesser (2008) outlines four types ofelectronic communities.

Communities of Transaction(facilitates buying and trading of goods) Communities of Interest(individuals with common interests) Communities of Fantasy(create new personalities, environments) Communities of Relationship(centre on intense personal experiences)

(Lesser 2008, p85)

The HistoryThe first recognisable socialnetwork site was launched in1997 and was calledsixdegrees.com. This site allowedfor users to create profiles, listtheir friends and as of 1998, surftheir friends lists. One complaintwith sixdegrees was that afteraccepting a friend request therewas little to do on the site.

(Boyd, 2007)

The PositivesSocial networking offers an array of benefits to its users. Some of these include; maintaining relationshipswhen people move from onecommunity to another, to support already existing relationships, for use as a ‘venting’ device, as well as a tool to increase capital gain. Staying in touch with community members is in an easy and effective manner and is of great benefit in both social and economic manners (eg. Employment opportunities)

(Ellison, 2007)

Privacy concerns?Public vs. Private spacesRecently, there has been much concern in regards to the personalinformation that youth are posting on social networking sites. Teenagerswill freely give up personal information to social networks on the net,yet are suprised when their parents read their journals.

“The posting of personal information by teens and students has consequences”

(Barnes, 2006)

Stranger DangerGross (2005) emphasises the pointthat although participation insocial networking increases theability for individuals to networkwith their friends it also exposesusers to unknown amounts ofstrangers who can view theirpersonal information. Gross (2005)also outlines the fact that very fewusers of social networking know howto/ have changed the highlypermeable privacy preferences.

Something to think about...“Social networking sites create a repositoryof personal information” (Barnes, 2006)Social networking sites are cumulative andpersistent, the data that users enterexists forever if the users do not delete it themselves. Adults are less likely to disclosepersonal information, however teenagers freely give up personal information which is commonly used by marketers to target youth groups. This collection of social networking data for use in marketing, adds a newmeaning to the phenomena of socialnetworking .

Is all of thisconnectedness a BADthing or a GOODthing.......?

This is SUBJECTIVE! Different individuals/different uses/ different

sites all bring about separate issues...

Convenience!

Stay Connected (or too connected?)!!

Going too far?

‘Twitter Life Cycle’- The addictive nature of ‘life streaming’

The Future?Social networks offer a way for people around the world tocommunicate with each other. Users can share their information and in turnmeet new people with shared interests (Seppa 2008). However thereare many issues that have risen since the invention of socialnetworking that complicate online social networks such as; privacy concerns,inappropriate use of social networks, internet bullying, andexploitation by marketing teams. These are all issues that should be takeninto consideration for the use of social networking in the future. Socialnetworking proves to be extremely beneficial for a variety of reasons,especially for creating online communities for individuals to find support, sharecommon interests, and create relationships. The proper utilisation of socialnetworking should be encouraged (teaching users how to use privacy settings etc)for the successful and complication-free experience of social networking for thefuture.

References • Barnes, Susan B. A privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United

States. Peer Reviewed Journal of the Internet. Volume 11, Number 9. 2006.

• Boyd, Dannah M. Ellison, Nicole B. Social Network sites: Definition, History and Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Volume 13, Issue 1 pp: 210-230. 2007.

• Ellison, B. Nicole. Steinfield, Charles. Lampe, Cliff. The Benefits of Facebook Friends: Social Capital and College Students’ use of Online Networking Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Volume 12, Issue 4 pp: 1143-1168, 2007

• Gross, Ralph. Aquisiti, Alessandro. Information Revelation and privacy in online social networks. Privacy Issues in Practice; pp: 71-80. 2005.

• Lenhart, Amanda. Madden, Mary. Social Networking sites and Teens: An Overview. Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2008.

• Lesser, Eric L. Fontaine, Micheal A. Slusher, Jason A. Knowledge and Communities. Butterworth-Heinemann Publications, 2000.

• Seppa, Ville. The Future of Social Networking. Helsinki University of Technology. Seminar on Internet Working. April 2008.

• www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a_KF7TYKVc• http://pipl.com/statistics/social-networks/5-facts/