While many have long-argued that social networking intuitively satiates the intrinsic human needs for community and identity assertion, research demonstrates that social objects are the dominant impetus for human engagement with online social networking devices. Moreover, I also argue that meaning in social networking engagements (such as the satiation of community or self-actualization) materialize only after extensive engagement with the social networking mechanism.

Tornikoski and Newbert’s Networks, Networking Activity, and Organizational Emergence focuses primarily on leveraging social networks to cultivate and/or catalyze organizational emergence.  Despite the piece’s narrow focus, one may extract many corollaries to general social networking.  The two authors suggest that network size and quality are particularly important to the acquisition of resources.  Moreover, one may gain legitimacy and elevate his social status through association with quality contacts.  Multiple hypotheses also illuminate the nature of social networking’s origins, particularly those that reference the valuation of social networks as determined by the initial size of the network and initial accessibility of resources.  Most compelling, content is the primary predictor of an entrepreneur (and his) emergence – not the structure of the network.  That is to say, a social network’s associations are less important than “what he/she is able to access from them.” 

Tornikoski and Newbert’s article struck me, largely because of the perceived relationship between an entrepreneurial organization and individual social networking user.  The former is an organic institution, erected for a particular purpose to a specific niche.  The latter is similar: created from relative “scratch” for multiple end goals (sense of community, assertion of identity, etc.) in specific spaces (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).  Moreover, the article uproots the commonly held belief that one’s social group peers dictate online social networking behavior (e.g. peers determine social norms online, which render which types of content are appropriate and which are condemnable).  Rather, the dynamic is more intricate: the subjective – and differentiable – value of each network association, as perceived by the individual social networker, determines their influence on the social networking that takes place.  Thus, the relationship is more active from the perspective of the individual user, as opposed to a submissive role, where the social group mandates the individual’s behavior.  Such uprooting also unsettles the oft-referred “sense of community” that inspires many to engage in social networking activities.  If one is extrapolating various pieces of information for their own utility, then values of community submit to the more selfish wants of personal gain.

Social Object Theory for Social Network Design is a shorter article, but has substantial importance to my thesis: as John Pederson noted, “social networks form around social objects; not the other way around.”  Social objects refer to topics of interest (e.g. politics) or a general interest (e.g. music).  Essentially, users do not simply talk – “they tend to talk around objects.”

While intrinsic needs such as community and identity assertion may exist as complementary motivating factors, the primary motivating factor for social networking appears to be the social objects, themselves.  This base has multiple implications for how one may measure social networking as well as manipulate online interactions.

Social Networks are Like the Eye approaches social networks through the lens of social trends as they are transmitted through social networks, thereby fueling the network and the trend, itself; then, it applies its findings to online social networking.  In this sense, social networks are contagions because they contain contagions: flows of social trends, social groups, and other amorphous entities pervade the networks from one end to the other.  Moreover, Christakis believes networks to be active beings and must be treated as active agents.  Christakis invokes weight gain to describe trends.  Weight gain among one’s friends leads to one’s own weight gain; interestingly, weight gain among people in one’s “social horizon” also have a degree of influence on weight gain on the individual.  In some cases, the relationship’s intensity did not matter: strangers and friends, alike, had profound impacts on weight gain.  These behaviors are dictated by preferences.  For instance, online privacy norms (e.g. hiding pictures on Facebook can conjure the impression that one is mysterious and desirable) emanate from the fact that “privacy is a taste.”  As an aside, partial inspiration for interaction is derived from age-old societies, who perceived well-ordered societies to be the optimal breeding ground for progress and engagement.

Social trends provide another motivating factor for engaging with online social networks.  Rather than seeking senses of community, humans are once again inspired by topics to “talk about” or “objects” rather than social networking, itself.  Moreover, accusations of social networking sites’ transience are further supplanted by the volatile modality of social trends from one media medium to another.

Evolution of a Large Online Social Network focuses on Weaklink, one of the largest online social networks in China, to illuminate its exposition of social networking’s evolution. The author created his own profile while adding anonymous friends.  To monitor the evolution of the social network, the user logged in for a specific amount of time in order to evaluate when (and how) the networking developed.  The article catalogues the initial peak interest, garnered among a few hardcore aficionados who transmitted their enthusiasm to their joining friends.  Later, users habituated towards social networking’s novelty; the euphoria since declined.  Interestingly, the article notes that most relationships were created between two old users or one old user and one new user.  Ultimately, the virtual world encourages engagement by shattering invisible boundaries between social groups.

This piece provides a general overview of how social networks develop.  The discussion regarding the rise, fall, and plateau of interest in social networking provides valuable insight to how social networks are formed and – more importantly – who forms them and for what purpose(s).

Social Networking: An Age-Neutral Commodity – Social Networking Becomes a Mature Web Application emphasizes that social networking is driven by its users, not necessarily the system. Social networking’s rise emanates from frenetic growth, rapid acquisitions by large web companies, fast migration from specialist to generic audiences, and the dominance of a few players like Myspace and Facebook.  Moreover, social networking sites have attracted a wider range of age groups because of three reasons: older users are adopting technology at a faster rate than their ancestors; social networking sites with business skews (like LinkedIn) have generated legitimate appeal among major corporations who leverage the sites as corporate tools; and users congregate with like-minded types.

I would challenge the article’s assertion that social networking is driven – at least, initially – by its users rather than the system itself.  Myspace, for instance, began as a music-sharing service; therefore, it revolved around an object rather than organic community growth.  Additionally, social networks are only successful when the “volume of members and content results in the users obtaining tangible benefits.”  The proliferation of social networking sites dilutes their novelty (and the intrigue of their features), which will eventually exceed a critical mass of users who remain interested.

According to Anatomy of a Successful Social Network, users are “feeding off the irrationality of the wisdom of the crowds.”  Unfortunately, opponents to the “online proletariat’s” views – whether they be accurate reflections of society or not – can do little to combat social networking.  Additionally, social networking sites are incorrect in their belief that increasing features will directly enhance user interest.  Users, the author speculates, are already “overloaded” with information; applying additional features on overburdened social networking sites only exacerbates confusion.  However, hope exists in niche forums, which means that users are looking for very specific, accurate information.  Smaller communities are able to more aptly and genuinely demonstrate value to end users: “a sense of unity and purpose.”

Users’ attention spans are incredibly limited.  Therefore, users must have a strong motivation or some desirable – and perceivably attainable – goal in addition to small tools to maintain intrigue.  Also, users invest hours developing their identities online, then must stay online to justify their initial investment.  Apart from their time and effort, the site – regardless if its portrayal is accurate – is a conflated persona of its creator; thus, users feel emotionally invested in the site, much like a mother would to her child.  Hope continues to exist in niche forums, which means that users are looking for very specific, accurate information.

Social Networks – Future Portal or Fad? questions the long-term viability of social networking sites.  Exposing multiple anecdotes of teenagers who have become bored with Myspace (and thus, who have migrated on to other social networking sites), the article implies that social networking sites may simply be a temporary platform for exercising sociality.

Time expended on social networking sites is time that was previously exhausted by television watching.  Thus, social networking may elicit interest because of its novelty, but could quickly succumb to the “next big thing.”  This is a serious concern among users and corporations, alike, given technology’s high turnover for innovation.

Social Networking, Not for Real Friends chastises social networking sites for relying on small features to elicit interest rather than cultivating “higher” notions of community or identity assertion to maintain intrigue.  Such features include sharing status updates, self-generated media, journal entries and other interpersonal communication.  The article also argues that sites based on common interests are more fragile and transient in maintaining user engagement and support, contrary to what many believe is the fundamental motivator for social networking (finding like-minded individuals).

It’s difficult to articulate support for the article’s compelling argument that sites based on common interests are fragile, given the dearth of empirical evidence.  This article also challenges the added-feature strategy that many other articles support; more evidence, again, is needed.

Williams’ Why People Join Social Networking Sites presents a comparatively avant-garde perspective to social networking.  He acknowledges that social networking provides easy accessibility to connect with anyone, anywhere, to be sure.  Moreover, humans have culturally always desired – and even necessitated – association with and membership in groups.  Interestingly, he posits that humans orient their interests around greed and selfishness, which coupled with technology’s insulating features, has rendered many humans isolated and averse to community.  Losing our sense of community denies human nature of one of its most fundamental needs.  Such vulnerability, then, may present another impetus for engaging with social networks: we feel the need for community, but do not convert such vulnerability into productive engagement once we are active in social networking sites.

One of the article’s most interesting components involves its discussion of society’s multiple opportunities for community engagement.  It catalogues various mediums, from structured home life to scheduled school agendas, that propagate engagement with others.  I found it paradoxical, however, that individuals would want to continue such engagement in the home, however.  Is there a need for “down time” to relax amidst the onslaught of constant social barrage?  Do users engage with online social networking in order to compensate for social faux pas in real life?  Such questions may be adequately answered with more information regarding the nature of user vulnerability and frequency.

Rayport’s Social Networks are the New Web Portals compares traditional online gatekeepers such as Google, Yahoo and MSN with the onslaught of social networking juggernauts like Myspace and Facebook.  Social networking sites, in comparison to search engines (the case in the example above) exist as one-stop shops, enriched with a social component.  From video and music sharing to mobile accessibility, social networking sites seek to be everything in every location: in other words, “users live their lives online.”  Another key differentiator between social networking and traditional gateways is the former’s attempt to create “constellations” rather than “destinations”: social networks seek to provide an already enriched – and often opinionative – community, while traditional search engines attempt to provide accurate and efficient data. 

I believe that when presented with accurate information or group information, users will usually opt for the former.  Of course, there are certain situations (especially those in which group influence is more prominent) that will select the latter, but generally I do believe that the intrinsic human pursuit of what we perceive to be true trumps ancillary endeavors.  Moreover, while I agree that social networks provide immediate information (albeit subjective) on a range of issues, organizing and managing such data is cumbersome and complex.  According to some professors, organizing such information and human behaviors online is impossible, rendering social networking a Sisyphean endeavor.  In conclusion, although social networks may be mediums to obtain accurate information or influence buying decisions, I believe that ultimate authority will remain in traditional search engines.

Schawbel’s catalogue review of social networking overextension provides solutions for effectively maintaining a stable and meaningful network.  He deems comprehensive activity on every network impossible; therefore, one must determine which social networks to partake in to ensure that one’s “brand is visible and easily manageable.”  First, he believes that strength comes in numbers: networks are as strong as the number of people in them.  Second, Schawbel believes that “credibility” on social networking sites matters, determined almost entirely by who is on the network (e.g. there is mention of Bill Gates) and not necessarily by the content or number of people.  Third, Schawbel believes that users should engage with relevant and self-sustainable sites.  Finally, users must constantly monitor and update their profiles as to remain relevant.

While Schawbel’s advice may be construed as general and cliché, I drew many (perhaps unintentional) paradoxical conclusions.  For one, although users certainly engage with relevant social networks (e.g. the pregnant mother will explore sites related to pregnancy, infants, etc.), how do general sites like Facebook and Myspace gain popularity?  While subgroups may certainly be created through social circles, privacy settings, music groups and other mechanisms, it seems that such energies are squandered when other, more specific social networks already exist.  I postulate that engagement with general networks occurs because of users’ desires to engineer accurate virtual environments.  Such dedication is rooted in habit: online social networkers are simply more predisposed to certain behaviors and therefore translate those to the web.  Maintaining accurate virtual environments, I would argue, is not then attributed to cognitive dissonance or subconscious desires to replicate reality – it is merely natural.  Secondly, while I understand the need to constantly monitor and update (as needed) one’s online identity, I find it difficult to maintain consistency amidst such volatility.  Online social networks necessitate constant activity and maintenance, as virtual behavioral variations enumerate identity.  However, one could argue that the pace of such evolution is exponentially faster than paces in real-life, which presents the pervasive dilemma: what, then, is an online user’s identity?

Tornikoski and Newbert’s Networks, Networking Activity, and Organizational Emergence focuses primarily on leveraging social networks to cultivate and/or catalyze organizational emergence.  Despite the piece’s narrow focus, one may extract many corollaries to general social networking.  The two authors suggest that network size and quality are particularly important to the acquisition of resources.  Moreover, one may gain legitimacy and elevate his social status through association with quality contacts.  Multiple hypotheses also illuminate the nature of social networking’s origins, particularly those that reference the valuation of social networks as determined by the initial size of the network and initial accessibility of resources.  Most compelling, content is the primary predictor of an entrepreneur (and his) emergence – not the structure of the network.  That is to say, a social network’s associations are less important than “what he/she is able to access from them.” 

Tornikoski and Newbert’s article struck me, largely because of the perceived relationship between an entrepreneurial organization and individual social networking user.  The former is an organic institution, erected for a particular purpose to a specific niche.  The latter is similar: created from relative “scratch” for multiple end goals (sense of community, assertion of identity, etc.) in specific spaces (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).  Moreover, the article uproots the commonly held belief that one’s social group peers dictate online social networking behavior (e.g. peers determine social norms online, which render which types of content are appropriate and which are condemnable).  Rather, the dynamic is more intricate: the subjective – and differentiable – value of each network association, as perceived by the individual social networker, determines their influence on the social networking that takes place.  Thus, the relationship is more active from the perspective of the individual user, as opposed to a submissive role, where the social group mandates the individual’s behavior.  Such uprooting also unsettles the oft-referred “sense of community” that inspires many to engage in social networking activities.  If one is extrapolating various pieces of information for their own utility, then values of community submit to the more selfish wants of personal gain.

Social Networking and Individual Outcomes: Individual Decisions and Market Context illuminates a mathematical perspective to determining how one develops his social network. Focusing predominantly on a social group’s impacts on an individual ignores other features of social interaction such as the deliberate attempt to formulate networks.  Ioannides’ mathematical calculations simplify social interactions into cost/benefit analyses.  The costs include time invested, potential social devaluation, and others.  Benefits include attainment of resources, an increase in one’s network, and others.  In short, Ioannides hardens abstract social interactions into the confines of transactional interactions.

The article, while somewhat cryptic, quantifies attempts to increase one’s social network.  Such formulas are useful in identifying which components (e.g. other individuals, the environment, itself, benefits from the specified situation, etc.) are most impactful on the individual user (and, subsequently, how impactful such factors are relative to their counterparts).  Although Ioannides recognizes that individuals may be agents of their behavior (and that such behavior varies between environments), much of his literature assumes that humans behave maximally; that is, humans will only engage in behaviors that absolutely maximize their benefits while diminishing any potential costs.  Such presumption presents potential difficulty in accurately evaluating subjective human behavior on social networking platforms.

Why Youth Heart Social Networking discusses social networking’s origins, allure among youth, and the manner in which it is exercised.  For the purposes of my piece, I will focus chiefly on elements related to social networking creation.  Boyd evaluates the impetuses and propagators that contribute to youth writing “themselves and their communities into being.”  Chief among the contributors are opportunities to engage with pre-existing friends, participation in a community atmosphere, entertainment, potential partner identification, identity assertion, and individual liberation from the confines of private life.  Online site tools such as website customization maintain and cultivate youth interest in social networking behavior.  Moreover, users are able to define social situations through their manipulative behaviors (e.g. customizing pages with a particular color or ladening it with a song).  The article also discusses the intricacies of creating one’s profile page with particular regard to peer dictation and influence.  Moreover, the challenge of maintaining a public life in a private, manipulative space, presents further opportunities and barriers to social networking. 

Boyd’s piece provides compelling insight in one of its minute details: youth often initially engage with social networking sites simply because “that’s where [their] friends are.”  Meaning, such as the intrinsic want for community or identity assertion, develops progressively with participation on the social networking sites.  Moreover, it appears that social networking, the entity, is not the primary object of youth attraction.  Rather, it is social networking locations such as Myspace.com or Facebook.com; such locations provide spaces for youth to determine their identity and status via evaluation of online cultural cues.   Once determined, I perceive that the chief maintainers of youth interest in social networking revolve around the agents’ ability to one, explore and two, manipulate one’s identity, determined by content forms (e.g. favorite books and friends) and online social norms (e.g. number of friends).