This article examines the future of social networking sites by looking at current trends in the market, specifically Cisco’s seemingly odd decision to buy the tiny social networking company Tribe.net. Cisco’s decision reflects the belief that social networking sites will soon be everywhere, and they want to get into the game right now in order to offer these services to their clients. The article discusses the future of social networking Websites, hypothesizing that they will continue to grow in number and type. It also discusses the possibility that although large-scale sites like facebook.com and MySpace.com have been immensely popular, other niche sites (like Shelfari) are becoming more popular. These sites allow users to gain more control over their network and express their interests in a more focused community than, say, facebook.com. However, there are certain barriers to entry for social networking sites, and Cisco (and other large corporations who try to dive into this market) very well may face some of these difficulties. First of all, it is tough to get consumers to initially buy into a social network until many other people have also signed up. Also, getting consumers to sign up for multiple sites is difficult because of the redundancy and tedium of entering the same information.  This article is interesting in that it shows how ubiquitous and economically important social networks have become. Cisco clearly thinks it a worthwhile investment and that there are diverse possibilities for social networks. However, this article also points out the challenges of starting a social networking site. Something this article did not mention are the joint deals that are being made between corporations and social networking sites, like Facebook.com's deal with Comcast. This is another dimension of diversity and growth for this industry.

    This article did offer a succinct look at how far social networking sites have come and where they might go. I was especially intrigued by the idea of a long tail of social networking on the Internet which could be much more personalized; and yet there is also the convenience of the larger-scale systems. Currently, there is a mix of the large and small, and I’m interested to see how these acquisitions (like Cisco’s) affect the future of social networks. The problem for small networks is that they must overcome the aggravation of joining and of the smallness of their communities; I think the way to do that is to appeal to the smaller, niche markets which want to stay small.

 

Silver, David. "Communication, Community, Consumption: An Ethnographic Exploration of an Online City." From the book listed above, pp.327-352.

This article studies the Blacksburg Electronic Village (BEV), an online community situated in a small Virginia town, in order to ascertain how users “use the network and make meanings of their use, interactions and contributions” (329). It examines this online community as a case study. The article describes online communities as characterized by shared location as opposed to virtual communities which are characterized by shared interest (some newer networks, like facebook.com, are sort of combinations of both). He also discusses how “networlds” erase social status; this isn’t true with the new social networks that millions of students and young people are a part of.  If anything, networks like Facebook.com and MySpace.com actually create a new kind of social status that members maneuver. The article also defines “flame wars” (conflicts within the community between members) as the process by which online communities negotiate and self-define their communities. In the case of BEV, a certain member named Harry sparked controversy, but it was actually good for the network: it drove people to be more participative.
This article provides a good background in a case study of early online communities and highlights many scholars in the field (check out the references for other places to go for research); it also establishes a useful vocabulary for discussing issues in internet social networks. The potential power of these online communities is seen in the blurring of the border between online and offline communities, “the virtualization of real space” and vice versa. The online community BEV didn’t succeed as a real community on the Internet, but ended up being more of “an online sphere for consumption” used in very practical, as opposed to social ways. The flame wars actually drove more people to be interested in the network; social drama gave BEV a temporary boost, but it still didn’t excel in the way its founders had hoped. This very early example of an online community is dated in its practice, but the case study is still useful to read in the way that it predicts the greater social networks of the future which have worked out some of the kinks that failed in this system (like being so geographically limited). Many of the issues it brings up, like the blurring of borders between virtual and real, are still pertinent in social networks today.

 

This is a humorous article which examines the phenomenon of college students giving up Facebook for lent. Articles like this really show how social networking sites have become part of the zeitgeist. Instead of giving up fried food or soda, many students are opting to give up logging on to instant messenger and Facebook.com. A surprising twist is that the clerics interviewed for the article actually support this; they say that giving up something like Facebook not only constitutes a true sacrifice but also frees up one’s time for other things. However, certain students were worried that they would feel utterly cut off from their social networks and friends during this period, missing out on birthday reminders, events, wall posts, etc. The way that this article presents Facebook as, “the connective tissue of undergraduate life” shows how ubiquitous this social network is and how important it has become to many of its members, who often spend hours on the site each day or week. However, in giving Facebook up for lent, there is also the connotation that it is something unhealthy that one is addicted to. One student admitted that she felt better not being on Facebook and wasn’t stalking people as much (only in the online sense of course). This article illustrates how important Facebook has become to many college students and when they give it up, even for just 40 days, there is the sort of discomfort that goes along with abandoning what has become a part of your identity, social life, and daily routine.

 

In this project, I will be examining how online social networks affect identity formation in their members. I am interested in both how people present themselves online and how that virtual persona/world affects their identity formation (for example, the phenomenom of taking a photograph simply because you want it to be your facebook picture). Online relationships/interactions and virtual popularity are also key issues for my project. I will predominantly be focusing on the Website Facebook.com, but for research, I will be looking at pieces that examine social networks, online privacy, virtual/computer mediated relationships, online popularity, and representations of self on the Internet/"virtual personae." Some helpful Websites for information on Facebook.com and its background: This first article discusses Facebook's critical success factors and why many of its features appeal to its users. (http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2006/05/facebooks-critical-success-factors.html). This next blog is entitled "Facebook: The Complete Biography," and it is just that. It provides a good overview of the history of Facebook and its corporate culture (http://mashable.com/2006/08/25/facebook-profile/). And finally, the source of it all: http://www.facebook.com. Check out the blog and the privacy information without signing in.

This article questions the very high valuation of social networking Websites (MySpace and Facebook being valued around $15 billion and $900 million, respectively) and compares these potentially inflated figures to the dot-com bubble before it burst. It describes the difficulty in making an accurate estimate of these companies’ worth because of a lack of data on their advertising revenues and cost structure. This article was an interesting look at the business end of social networking sites, as opposed to the cultural end (which is more frequently found in scholarly research). The potentially inflated valuations of these large-scale social networking Websites is also partially due to their high-speed growth. Both MySpace and Facebook have grown dramatically in the past few years (and will likely continue to do so), but this article argues that such growth does not necessarily bring profits to match.

 

My only critique of this article is that it vacillates between the view that the social networking companies could be a repeat of the dot-com bubble and the position that they are not in fact as risky as one might think. I didn’t feel that he fully reconciled those two opposing viewpoints by the end. They explain this discrepancy in terms of the companies being risky for investors but not for the marketplace as a whole, like the dot-coms of six years ago were. One might need a stronger background in investing and business to fully understand the implications of that statement. What I did find useful in this article though was its discussion of the social networking companies, specifically MySpace and Facebook, as major players in the business world. These new media Internet corporations, driven by user inputs, are currently being bought for many millions, and in some cases, billions of dollars. The article questions whether such Internet social networking Websites are a passing fad, but it appears that investors and corporations that buy into them (like Comcast, Viacom, Yahoo!, News Corp) think them stable enough for the time being.

 

 

In order to find this case on Findlaw, just search for it using "J.S. vs...." You can then create a free account. The link to the specific case is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/pennsylvaniastatecases/supreme/j-111-2001mo.pdf. 

   This case deals with a middle school student who created a Website with defamatory statements about one of his teachers and his school principle. The site, “Teacher Sux,” was created on his home computer but was accessed at school. When it was discovered, it created a stir at school and the teacher he had mentioned, Ms. Fulmer, suffered from stress-related illnesses. The following summer, the school board expelled the student from school for the Website. The student’s parents sued the school board for their decision. The case made it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that the Website did in fact cause “a material and substantial disruption of the school environment,” making it not protected under the 1^st amendment (even though the speech did not constitute a “true threat”). Because the Website affected the school environment, it did not matter that the student had created it at home.

   I am interested in how this precedent-setting case affects students’ postings on social networking sites of today, like Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Although these are log-in only websites, any one may gain access to them and may do so in a school environment. I wonder then if a student has been expelled for comments made on one of these social networking sites. This case brings to the forefront the issues of privacy and rights when it comes to personal postings on the internet, something that is all the more prevalent with the ubiquity of social networking sites in young people. The case illustrates the unique circumstances of a school environment and shows that the 1st amendment is limited in that space (going all the way back to the "Tinker" case which can also be found on FindLaw). What students put on their Facebook profiles or their friend’s wall can affect their standing at their university if it causes a “material and substantial disruption of the school environment” or portrays the student doing illegal activities. These Websites offer students a unique opportunity for self-expression and identity formation, but there is also the danger in the lack of privacy of internet postings.

     After doing some research online, I found a case where students were suspended from school for writing offensive and vulgar comments about their teacher on each other's facebook.com walls. The school used the "material and substantial disruption" clause to justify why the students were suspended. Apparently, the comments, though posted on Facebook.com from home, caused a disruption in school. The article can be found at: http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=6195724&nav=2KPp.

 

 

This New York Times articles discusses the Website FakeYourSpace.com which essentially sells its clients “friends” on social networking sites like Friendster.com, Facebook.com, and MySpace.com. The fact that this service exists illustrates not only how ubiquitous and popular social networking sites are but also how important they are to users. People will actually pay to appear more popular to those who might be checking their profiles online. Clearly, these networking sites have become an integral part in the identity formation and subjectivity of their users. The reason that this particular site was in the news was because they used pictures (of the “fake” friends) without a license to do so. The photos came from iStockPhoto.com and that company asked the founder of FakeYourSpace.com, Brant Walker, to stop using their photos. He complied and the Website was only down for 4 days. This is not the only site of its kind, nor are these types of services restricted to online social networks. One can also pay a fee to have messages left on his cell phone from “friends.”

This article highlights not only the interesting phenomenon of attractive “friends” on an online network increasing one’s value in the virtual and real world, but also the moral ramifications of such fakes. As long as the photographs are legally licensed, there are no legal problems, but the clients still have to see the falsity and superficiality of what they are doing. The service only costs 99 cents per month, so if it became popular enough (it already has 50,000 hits per month) , it ironically could actually negate the distinction between what the article calls, “cyberlosers” versus “social-networking magnets.” I wish the article had included quotes from actual users saying how they felt about the service (how frequently they use it/how many "fake" friends they have, how satisfied they are with it, do they feel it actually makes a difference in how their actual online friends perceive them).

 

This article highlights the psychological implications of the change from traditional or face-to-face relationships to computer mediated relationships (CMR), especially focusing on the romantic contexts. At first I wasn’t sure how relevant this piece would be to social networks, but the way in which relationships, romantic or not, function on the Internet versus face-to-face illustrates interesting changes in the way people interact and form a conception of self. The article begins by pointing out the one salient characteristic in both kinds of relationships: people like relationships that give them rewards. Other than that similarity, the two types of relationships really are inherently different, for reasons that one would expect (the importance of spatiality, physicality, self-disclosure). The rest of the article is more instructional for psychologists who are treating patients that are orienting themselves in this new world of complex relationships, so it is not useful for this discussion. I found the discussion of face-to-face versus computer mediated relationships to be the most useful section of the article.

 

The article points out that the sequence of meeting someone is inverted on the Internet: it is not the physical that comes first, then attitudinal connection, then intimate disclosure, but the other way around. This model is challenged in interesting ways when applied to social networks of today, which create a fusion of CMRs and face-to-face relationships. A person might meet someone briefly, Facebook “friend” them, and then learn more about them online through their profile and chatting, only meeting again weeks afterwards. Ideally, face-to-face interaction will be complemented and enhanced by the addition of virtual relationships, which is the ultimate goal of social networking sites like facebook.com which rely on existing connections to establish a person’s network. However, it becomes more complicated when a person's creates expectations from a face-to-face meeting and is then disappointmented when he "meets" the person in the virtual world (or the other way around).

 

This book is a sweeping look at the Internet and how it has changed the way that we view the world (a common cliché in Internet scholarship). Where I did find this book interesting though was in its discussion of privacy and the Internet.  Also the witty tone of the book (one chapter is entitled “Saddam, O.J., and the Unabomber” and is about the Internet and pop culture) makes it an easy book to get into. The later chapters (starting with Ch. 12) discuss the trade-off between technology/access and privacy. Many people, especially in the older generations who have not grown up with the Internet, still think of the Internet in terms of the “Big Brother” metaphor. There is definitely a trade-off and some of the “Big Brother”-ness of the Internet (and social networks where often very personal information is revealed) is often inevitable. Something this book does not directly discuss is how generational this discomfort is. Younger generations who have grown up with the Internet, instant messenger, and online social networks are far more comfortable with a lack of privacy than older generations.
            There is also another type of privacy that deals with the Internet: the privacy of being anonymous and creating an identity online. Chapter 13, “Nobody Knows You’re a Dog (or do they? Privacy issues and the Internet)" uses the image of the dog in front of the computer from the New Yorker cartoon to question how anonymity and privacy have changed. The author argues that maybe it used to be the case that “nobody knows you’re a dog” but now, they not only know you’re a dog, but they also know your favorite food and where you went walking yesterday. Applying the author’s point to social networks, it’s interesting that there is discomfort with a loss of privacy when in many cases, information is provided voluntarily. Of course, when it is appropriated for other uses, discomfort can ensue, but I think that (in many cases at least) with so much of one’s identity based on the Internet, it creates a double edged sword: you have to divulge information in order to create an online persona, but that also makes you vulnerable. I know that I am uncomfortable when Google puts up advertisements that correspond to my Gmail messages; and yet I still love my Gmail. In addition, Facebook.com has many privacy controls and options, but people were still livid when it added the “Live Feed” function. Of course, you could go to options and turn it off, but there erupted multiple groups on the site that were angry at this invasion of privacy. This book, especially the sections on privacy, were interesting in that they opened up more questions about how social networks interact with our lives both on and offline and how privacy or lack thereof can be a motivator for how identity is presented.

This essay focuses on people’s tendency to create alternate selves in cyberspace; the author calls them “virtual personae.” As she sees it, this act is reflective of the fact that the self is not unified (as Freud imagined it in the ego) but is actually fragmented and split (more of the Lacanian school). The author brings in psychoanalytic theory in order to present the lack of a unified self in a positive way. She posits that the internet (and social networks, online communities, chat rooms, Multi-User-Domains) is actually helpful in reconciling the many parts of the self and helping them develop. She argues that the internet age is not fragmenting the self, it has just concretized and illustrated this trend which was already happening. What she calls “the multiplicity and flexibility” of self is actually a liberating thing with the potential to help the self function healthily in a variety of circumstances. Sometimes these online personas can even help a person work through repressed parts of themselves. The author is careful not to be advocating a sort of multiple personality syndrome; she emphasizes that in order for the multiplicity to be productive, the individual must be very self-reflective and aware.
            I found this article to be a refreshing change from some of the more cynical pieces I had read about identity and the internet. It’s encouraging to think that the fragmentation that people talk about in terms of online identity formation and multiple forms/representations of self could actually be a way to come to a greater realization of self. Rather than fragmented, it is optimistically “adaptive” and “flexible” (647). Of course this is not the case for all internet users who create virtual personae; some people could hide behind these identities rather than learn from them. In that way, the argument is a little bit idealist. Thinking about the author’s argument in terms of contemporary social networks online, there is definitely the possibility for defining oneself in a certain way on one’s profile and exploring other parts of the self in that process, but I think that especially with adolescents (much of the Facebook and MySpace demographic), they are often not ready to reconcile the multiplicity of selves and simply use the networks to project a certain image. It might take more time for them to self-consciously ask themselves why they are trying to create a certain virtual personae, and maybe then they will reach the potential that this article discusses.

 

This book examines online personas and how people are perceived online versus in person. It also focuses on the discrepancies between those two identities and how relationships change when people who have “known” each other online meet face-to-face. The book does a sweeping study of the internet and relationships, both online and offline, discussing how the internet has changed our interpersonal dynamics. The chapters I found the most useful were : Ch. 3, “Internet Discussion Lists and Forms of Address” which examines group dynamics in social networks and the trends of lurking and flaming, and the different implications of oral speech in person versus written speech on the internet; Ch. 8, “Changing Social Concepts of Community” which provides a case study of a social network which decided to meet face-to-face and how that changed the group dynamics; and Ch.11, “The Presentation of Self in Internet Environments” which defines a person’s net persona and how it may differ from his actual self, highlighting the performative aspect of social networks when presenting the self.

 

The book at times is a little too general, presenting ideas that are a little obvious, but Ch.8 was especially useful for me, as I am looking into identify formation online and how that affects one’s perception and performance of self. This chapter looks at the VC-L social network, a small group of people who belonged to the online network to discuss politics. After deciding to meet, the dynamics of the group changed dramatically. Popularity politics and insecurities came out which were never present before. After meeting, people were disappointed by their expectations of what certain people would be like. The social network was not the same afterwards and suffered from smaller membership. I am interested in how this might apply to current social networking sites on a larger scale, like Facebook.com. Facebook is an interesting hybrid because people often meet before becoming Facebook friends, but one may learn more about the new “friend” by his Facebook page than by the actual face-to-face encounter. The same dynamics of popularity, self-consciousness, and expectation come into play here. Ironically, they could also be reversed in the case of Facebook. A person might meet someone, Facebook “friend” them, and then be disappointed by their lack of other Facebook friends or lackluster profile. This book brings to the forefront the ideas of identity formation online and the conflicts that can occur when online and offline relationships collide.