Social Network Sites Boyd-ellision 2007

8/8/2019 Social Network Sites Boyd-ellision 2007

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-network-sites-boyd-ellision-2007 1/11



alreadyapartof theirextendedsocialnetwork.Toemphasizethisarticulatedsocialnetworkasa

criticalorganizingfeatureof thesesites,welabelthem"socialnetworksites."

WhileSNSshaveimplementedawidevarietyof technicalfeatures,theirbackboneconsistsof

visibleprofilesthatdisplayanarticulatedlistof Friends1whoarealsousersof thesystem.Profiles

areuniquepageswhereonecan"typeoneself intobeing"(Sundén,2003,p.3).After joiningan

SNS,anindividualisaskedtofilloutformscontainingaseriesof questions.Theprofileisgenerated

usingtheanswerstothesequestions,whichtypicallyincludedescriptorssuchasage,location,

interests,andan"aboutme"section.Mostsitesalsoencourageuserstouploadaprofilephoto.

Somesitesallowuserstoenhancetheirprofilesbyaddingmultimediacontentormodifyingtheir

profile'slookandfeel.Others,suchasFacebook,allowuserstoaddmodules("Applications")that

enhancetheirprofile.

Thevisibilityof aprofilevariesbysiteandaccordingtouserdiscretion.Bydefault,profileson

Friendsterand

Tribe.net

are

crawled

by

search

engines,

making

them

visible

to

anyone,

regardless

of whetherornottheviewerhasanaccount.Alternatively,LinkedIncontrolswhataviewermay

seebasedonwhethersheorhehasapaidaccount.SiteslikeMySpaceallowuserstochoose

whethertheywanttheirprofiletobepublicor"Friendsonly."Facebooktakesadifferent

approachbydefault,userswhoarepartof thesame"network"canvieweachother'sprofiles,

unlessaprofileownerhasdecidedtodenypermissiontothoseintheirnetwork.Structural

variationsaroundvisibilityandaccessareoneof theprimarywaysthatSNSsdifferentiate

themselvesfromeachother.

After joining

asocial

network

site,

users

are

prompted

to

identify

others

in

the

system

with

whom

theyhavearelationship.Thelabelfortheserelationshipsdiffersdependingonthesitepopular

termsinclude"Friends,""Contacts,"and"Fans."MostSNSsrequirebidirectionalconfirmationfor

Friendship,butsomedonot.Theseonedirectionaltiesaresometimeslabeledas"Fans"or

"Followers,"butmanysitescalltheseFriendsaswell.Theterm"Friends"canbemisleading,

becausetheconnectiondoesnotnecessarilymeanfriendshipintheeverydayvernacularsense,and

thereasonspeopleconnectarevaried(boyd,2006a).

Thepublicdisplayof connectionsisacrucialcomponentof SNSs.TheFriendslistcontainslinksto

eachFriend's

profile,

enabling

viewers

to

traverse

the

network

graph

by

clicking

through

the

Friendslists.Onmostsites,thelistof Friendsisvisibletoanyonewhoispermittedtoviewthe

profile,althoughthereareexceptions.Forinstance,someMySpaceusershavehackedtheirprofiles

tohidetheFriendsdisplay,andLinkedInallowsuserstooptoutof displayingtheirnetwork.

MostSNSsalsoprovideamechanismforuserstoleavemessagesontheirFriends'profiles.This

featuretypicallyinvolvesleaving"comments,"althoughsitesemployvariouslabelsforthisfeature.

Inaddition,SNSsoftenhaveaprivatemessagingfeaturesimilartowebmail.Whilebothprivate

messagesandcommentsarepopularonmostof themajorSNSs,theyarenotuniversallyavailable.

2



Notallsocialnetworksitesbeganassuch.QQ startedasaChineseinstantmessagingservice,

LunarStormasacommunitysite,CyworldasaKoreandiscussionforumtool,andSkyrock(formerly

Skyblog)wasaFrenchbloggingservicebeforeaddingSNSfeatures.Classmates.com,adirectoryof

schoolaffiliateslaunchedin1995,begansupportingarticulatedlistsof FriendsafterSNSsbecame

popular.AsianAvenue,

MiGente,

and

BlackPlanet

were

early

popular

ethnic

community

sites

with

limitedFriendsfunctionalitybeforerelaunchingin20052006withSNSfeaturesandstructure.

Beyondprofiles,Friends,comments,andprivatemessaging,SNSsvarygreatlyintheirfeaturesand

userbase.Somehavephotosharingorvideosharingcapabilities;othershavebuiltinbloggingand

instantmessagingtechnology.TherearemobilespecificSNSs(e.g.,Dodgeball),butsomeweb

basedSNSsalsosupportlimitedmobileinteractions(e.g.,Facebook,MySpace,andCyworld).Many

SNSstargetpeoplefromspecificgeographicalregionsorlinguisticgroups,althoughthisdoesnot

alwaysdeterminethesite'sconstituency.Orkut,forexample,waslaunchedintheUnitedStates

with

an

English

only

interface,

but

Portuguese

speaking

Brazilians

quickly

became

the

dominant

usergroup(Kopytoff,2004).Somesitesaredesignedwithspecificethnic,religious,sexual

orientation,political,orotheridentitydrivencategoriesinmind.ThereareevenSNSsfordogs

(Dogster)andcats(Catster),althoughtheirownersmustmanagetheirprofiles.

WhileSNSsareoftendesignedtobewidelyaccessible,manyattracthomogeneouspopulations

initially,soitisnotuncommontofindgroupsusingsitestosegregatethemselvesbynationality,

age,educationallevel,orotherfactorsthattypicallysegmentsociety(Hargittai,thisissue),evenif

thatwasnottheintentionof thedesigners.

AHistoryof SocialNetwork SitesTheEarlyYearsAccordingtothedefinitionabove,thefirstrecognizablesocialnetworksitelaunchedin1997.

SixDegrees.comalloweduserstocreateprofiles,listtheirFriendsand,beginningin1998,surf the

Friendslists.Eachof thesefeaturesexistedinsomeformbeforeSixDegrees,of course.Profiles

existedonmostmajordatingsitesandmanycommunitysites.AIMandICQ buddylistssupported

listsof Friends,althoughthoseFriendswerenotvisibletoothers.Classmates.comallowedpeople

toaffiliate

with

their

high

school

or

college

and

surf

the

network

for

others

who

were

also

affiliated,butuserscouldnotcreateprofilesorlistFriendsuntilyearslater.SixDegreeswasthefirst

tocombinethesefeatures.

SixDegreespromoteditself asatooltohelppeopleconnectwithandsendmessagestoothers.

WhileSixDegreesattractedmillionsof users,itfailedtobecomeasustainablebusinessand,in

2000,theserviceclosed.Lookingback,itsfounderbelievesthatSixDegreeswassimplyaheadof its

time(A.Weinreich,personalcommunication,July11,2007).Whilepeoplewerealreadyflockingto

theInternet,mostdidnothaveextendednetworksof friendswhowereonline.Earlyadopters

complainedthattherewaslittletodoafteracceptingFriendrequests,andmostuserswerenot

interestedinmeetingstrangers.

3



From1997to2001,anumberof communitytoolsbegansupportingvariouscombinationsof

profilesandpubliclyarticulatedFriends.AsianAvenue,BlackPlanet,andMiGenteallowedusersto

createpersonal,professional,anddatingprofilesuserscouldidentifyFriendsontheirpersonal

profileswithoutseekingapprovalforthoseconnections(O.Wasow,personalcommunication,

August16,

2007).

Likewise,

shortly

after

its

launch

in

1999,

LiveJournal

listed

one

directional

connectionsonuserpages.LiveJournal'screatorsuspectsthathefashionedtheseFriendsafter

instantmessagingbuddylists(B.Fitzpatrick,personalcommunication,June15,2007)on

LiveJournal,peoplemarkothersasFriendstofollowtheir journalsandmanageprivacysettings.The

KoreanvirtualworldssiteCyworldwasstartedin1999andaddedSNSfeaturesin2001,

independentof theseothersites(seeKim&Yun,thisissue).Likewise,whentheSwedishweb

communityLunarStormrefashioneditself asanSNSin2000,itcontainedFriendslists,guestbooks,

anddiarypages(D.Skog,personalcommunication,September24,2007).

The

next

wave

of

SNSs

began

when

Ryze.com

was

launched

in

2001

to

help

people

leverage

their

businessnetworks.Ryze'sfounderreportsthathefirstintroducedthesitetohisfriendsprimarily

membersof theSanFranciscobusinessandtechnologycommunity,includingtheentrepreneurs

andinvestorsbehindmanyfutureSNSs(A.Scott,personalcommunication,June14,2007).In

particular,thepeoplebehindRyze,Tribe.net,LinkedIn,andFriendsterweretightlyentwined

personallyandprofessionally.Theybelievedthattheycouldsupporteachotherwithoutcompeting

(Festa,2003).Intheend,Ryzeneveracquiredmasspopularity,Tribe.netgrewtoattracta

passionatenicheuserbase,LinkedInbecameapowerfulbusinessservice,andFriendsterbecame

themostsignificant,if onlyas"oneof thebiggestdisappointmentsinInternethistory"(Chafkin,

2007,p.

1).

Likeanybrief historyof amajorphenomenon,oursisnecessarilyincomplete.Inthefollowing

sectionwediscussFriendster,MySpace,andFacebook,threekeySNSsthatshapedthebusiness,

cultural,andresearchlandscape.

TheRise(andFall)of FriendsterFriendsterlaunchedin2002asasocialcomplementtoRyze.Itwasdesignedtocompetewith

Match.com,aprofitableonlinedatingsite(Cohen,2003).Whilemostdatingsitesfocusedon

introducingpeopletostrangerswithsimilarinterests,Friendsterwasdesignedtohelpfriendsof

friendsmeet,

based

on

the

assumption

that

friends

of

friends

would

make

better

romantic

partnersthanwouldstrangers(J.Abrams,personalcommunication,March27,2003).Friendster

gainedtractionamongthreegroupsof earlyadopterswhoshapedthesitebloggers,attendeesof

theBurningManartsfestival,andgaymen(boyd,2004)andgrewto300,000usersthroughword

of mouthbeforetraditionalpresscoveragebeganinMay2003(O'Shea,2003).

AsFriendster'spopularitysurged,thesiteencounteredtechnicalandsocialdifficulties(boyd,

2006b).Friendster'sserversanddatabaseswereillequippedtohandleitsrapidgrowth,andthe

sitefalteredregularly,frustratinguserswhoreplacedemailwithFriendster.Becauseorganic

growthhad

been

critical

to

creating

acoherent

community,

the

onslaught

of

new

users

who

learnedaboutthesitefrommediacoverageupsettheculturalbalance.Furthermore,exponential

4



growthmeantacollapseinsocialcontexts:Usershadtofacetheirbossesandformerclassmates

alongsidetheirclosefriends.Tocomplicatematters,Friendsterbeganrestrictingtheactivitiesof its

mostpassionateusers.

Theinitialdesignof Friendsterrestrictedusersfromviewingprofilesof peoplewhoweremorethan

fourdegreesaway(friendsof friendsof friendsof friends).Inordertoviewadditionalprofiles,

usersbeganaddingacquaintancesandinterestinglookingstrangerstoexpandtheirreach.Some

beganmassivelycollectingFriends,anactivitythatwasimplicitlyencouragedthrougha"most

popular"feature.Theultimatecollectorswerefakeprofilesrepresentingiconicfictionalcharacters:

celebrities,concepts,andothersuchentities.These"Fakesters"outragedthecompany,who

banishedfakeprofilesandeliminatedthe"mostpopular"feature(boyd,inpressb).Whilefew

peopleactuallycreatedFakesters,manymoreenjoyedsurfingFakestersforentertainmentorusing

functionalFakesters(e.g.,"BrownUniversity")tofindpeopletheyknew.

Theactive

deletion

of

Fakesters

(and

genuine

users

who

chose

non

realistic

photos)

signaled

to

somethatthecompanydidnotshareusers'interests.Manyearlyadoptersleftbecauseof the

combinationof technicaldifficulties,socialcollisions,andaruptureof trustbetweenusersandthe

site(boyd,2006b).However,atthesametimethatitwasfadingintheU.S.,itspopularity

skyrocketedinthePhilippines,Singapore,Malaysia,andIndonesia(Goldberg,2007).

SNSsHit theMainstreamFrom2003onward,manynewSNSswerelaunched,promptingsocialsoftwareanalystClayShirky

(2003)tocointhetermYASNS:"YetAnotherSocialNetworkingService."Mosttooktheformof

profilecentric

sites,

trying

to

replicate

the

early

success

of

Friendster

or

target

specific

demographics.WhilesociallyorganizedSNSssolicitbroadaudiences,professionalsitessuchas

LinkedIn,VisiblePath,andXing(formerlyopenBC)focusonbusinesspeople."Passioncentric"SNSs

likeDogster(T.Rheingold,personalcommunication,August2,2007)helpstrangersconnectbased

onsharedinterests.Care2helpsactivistsmeet,Couchsurfingconnectstravelerstopeoplewith

couches,andMyChurch joinsChristianchurchesandtheirmembers.Furthermore,asthesocial

mediaandusergeneratedcontentphenomenagrew,websitesfocusedonmediasharingbegan

implementingSNSfeaturesandbecomingSNSsthemselves.ExamplesincludeFlickr(photo

sharing),Last.FM(musiclisteninghabits),andYouTube(videosharing).

Withtheplethoraof venturebackedstartupslaunchinginSiliconValley,fewpeoplepaidattention

toSNSsthatgainedpopularityelsewhere,eventhosebuiltbymajorcorporations.Forexample,

Google'sOrkutfailedtobuildasustainableU.S.userbase,buta"Brazilianinvasion"(Fragoso,2006)

madeOrkutthenationalSNSof Brazil.Microsoft'sWindowsLiveSpaces(a.k.a.MSNSpaces)also

launchedtolukewarmU.S.receptionbutbecameextremelypopularelsewhere.

Fewanalystsor journalistsnoticedwhenMySpacelaunchedinSantaMonica,California,hundreds

of milesfromSiliconValley.MySpacewasbegunin2003tocompetewithsiteslikeFriendster,

Xanga,andAsianAvenue,accordingtocofounderTomAnderson(personalcommunication,August

2,2007);thefounderswantedtoattractestrangedFriendsterusers(T.Anderson,personal

5





Hyves,GronocapturedPoland,Hi5wasadoptedinsmallercountriesinLatinAmerica,South

America,andEurope,andBebobecameverypopularintheUnitedKingdom,NewZealand,and

Australia.Additionally,previouslypopularcommunicationandcommunityservicesbegan

implementingSNSfeatures.TheChineseQQ instantmessagingserviceinstantlybecamethelargest

SNSworldwide

when

it

added

profiles

and

made

friends

visible

(McLeod,

2006),

while

the

forum

toolCyworldcorneredtheKoreanmarketbyintroducinghomepagesandbuddies(Ewers,2006).

BloggingserviceswithcompleteSNSfeaturesalsobecamepopular.IntheU.S.,bloggingtoolswith

SNSfeatures,suchasXanga,LiveJournal,andVox,attractedbroadaudiences.Skyrockreignsin

France,andWindowsLiveSpacesdominatesnumerousmarketsworldwide,includinginMexico,

Italy,andSpain.AlthoughSNSslikeQQ,Orkut,andLiveSpacesare justaslargeas,if notlarger

than,MySpace,theyreceivelittlecoverageinU.S.andEnglishspeakingmedia,makingitdifficultto

tracktheirtrajectories.

ExpandingNicheCommunitiesAlongsidetheseopenservices,otherSNSslaunchedtosupportnichedemographicsbefore

expandingtoabroaderaudience.UnlikepreviousSNSs,Facebookwasdesignedtosupportdistinct

collegenetworksonly.Facebookbeganinearly2004asaHarvardonlySNS(Cassidy,2006).To join,

auserhadtohaveaharvard.eduemailaddress.AsFacebookbegansupportingotherschools,those

userswerealsorequiredtohaveuniversityemailaddressesassociatedwiththoseinstitutions,a

requirementthatkeptthesiterelativelyclosedandcontributedtousers'perceptionsof thesiteas

anintimate,privatecommunity.

BeginninginSeptember2005,Facebookexpandedtoincludehighschoolstudents,professionals

insidecorporatenetworks,and,eventually,everyone.Thechangetoopensignupdidnotmeanthat

newuserscouldeasilyaccessusersinclosednetworksgainingaccesstocorporatenetworksstill

requiredtheappropriate.comaddress,whilegainingaccesstohighschoolnetworksrequired

administratorapproval.(Asof thiswriting,onlymembershipinregionalnetworksrequiresno

permission.)UnlikeotherSNSs,Facebookusersareunabletomaketheirfullprofilespublictoall

users.AnotherfeaturethatdifferentiatesFacebookistheabilityforoutsidedeveloperstobuild

"Applications"whichallowuserstopersonalizetheirprofilesandperformothertasks,suchas

comparemovie

preferences

and

chart

travel

histories.

WhilemostSNSsfocusongrowingbroadlyandexponentially,othersexplicitlyseeknarrower

audiences.Some,likeaSmallWorldandBeautifulPeople,intentionallyrestrictaccesstoappear

selectiveandelite.OthersactivitycenteredsiteslikeCouchsurfing,identitydrivensiteslike

BlackPlanet,andaffiliationfocusedsiteslikeMyChurcharelimitedbytheirtargetdemographic

andthustendtobesmaller.Finally,anyonewhowishestocreateanichesocialnetworksitecando

soonNing,aplatformandhostingservicethatencouragesuserstocreatetheirownSNSs.

Currently,therearenoreliabledataregardinghowmanypeopleuseSNSs,althoughmarketing

researchindicatesthatSNSsaregrowinginpopularityworldwide(comScore,2007).Thisgrowth

7



haspromptedmanycorporationstoinvesttimeandmoneyincreating,purchasing,promoting,and

advertisingSNSs.Atthesametime,othercompaniesareblockingtheiremployeesfromaccessing

thesites.Additionally,theU.S.militarybannedsoldiersfromaccessingMySpace(Frosch,2007)and

theCanadiangovernmentprohibitedemployeesfromFacebook(Benzie,2007),whiletheU.S.

Congresshas

proposed

legislation

to

ban

youth

from

accessing

SNSs

in

schools

and

libraries

(H.R.

5319,2006;S.49,2007).

Theriseof SNSsindicatesashiftintheorganizationof onlinecommunities.Whilewebsites

dedicatedtocommunitiesof intereststillexistandprosper,SNSsareprimarilyorganizedaround

people,notinterests.EarlypubliconlinecommunitiessuchasUsenetandpublicdiscussionforums

werestructuredbytopicsoraccordingtotopicalhierarchies,butsocialnetworksitesarestructured

aspersonal(or"egocentric")networks,withtheindividualatthecenterof theirowncommunity.

Thismoreaccuratelymirrorsunmediatedsocialstructures,where"theworldiscomposedof

networks,

not

groups"

(Wellman,

1988,

p.

37).

The

introduction

of

SNS

features

has

introduced

a

neworganizationalframeworkforonlinecommunities,andwithit,avibrantnewresearchcontext.

PreviousScholarshipScholarshipconcerningSNSsisemergingfromdiversedisciplinaryandmethodologicaltraditions,

addressesarangeof topics,andbuildsonalargebodyof CMCresearch.Thegoalof thissectionis

tosurveyresearchthatisdirectlyconcernedwithsocialnetworksites,andinsodoing,tosetthe

stageforthearticlesinthisspecialissue.Todate,thebulkof SNSresearchhasfocusedon

impressionmanagementandfriendshipperformance,networksandnetworkstructure,

online/offlineconnections,andprivacyissues.

ImpressionManagement andFriendshipPerformanceLikeotheronlinecontextsinwhichindividualsareconsciouslyabletoconstructanonline

representationof selfsuchasonlinedatingprofilesandMUDSSNSsconstituteanimportant

researchcontextforscholarsinvestigatingprocessesof impressionmanagement,self presentation,

andfriendshipperformance.Inoneof theearliestacademicarticlesonSNSs,boyd(2004)examined

Friendsterasalocusof publiclyarticulatedsocialnetworksthatalloweduserstonegotiate

presentationsof

self

and

connect

with

others.

Donath

and

boyd

(2004)

extended

this

to

suggest

that"publicdisplaysof connection"serveasimportantidentitysignalsthathelppeoplenavigate

thenetworkedsocialworld,inthatanextendednetworkmayservetovalidateidentityinformation

presentedinprofiles.

Whilemostsitesencourageuserstoconstructaccuraterepresentationsof themselves,participants

dothistovaryingdegrees.Marwick(2005)foundthatusersonthreedifferentSNSshadcomplex

strategiesfornegotiatingtherigidityof aprescribed"authentic"profile,whileboyd(inpressb)

examinedthephenomenonof "Fakesters"andarguedthatprofilescouldneverbe"real."The

extentto

which

portraits

are

authentic

or

playful

varies

across

sites;

both

social

and

technological

forcesshapeuserpractices.Skog(2005)foundthatthestatusfeatureonLunarStormstrongly

8



influencedhowpeoplebehavedandwhattheychoosetorevealprofilesthereindicateone's

statusasmeasuredbyactivity(e.g.,sendingmessages)andindicatorsof authenticity(e.g.,usinga

"real"photoinsteadof adrawing).

Anotheraspectof self presentationisthearticulationof friendshiplinks,whichserveasidentity

markersfortheprofileowner.Impressionmanagementisoneof thereasonsgivenbyFriendster

usersforchoosingparticularfriends(Donath&boyd,2004).Recognizingthis,ZinmanandDonath

(2007)notedthatMySpacespammersleveragepeople'swillingnesstoconnecttointeresting

peopletofindtargetsfortheirspam.

Intheirexaminationof LiveJournal"friendship,"FonoandRaynesGoldie(2006)describedusers'

understandingsregardingpublicdisplaysof connectionsandhowtheFriendingfunctioncan

operateasacatalystforsocialdrama.InlistingusermotivationsforFriending,boyd(2006a)points

outthat"Friends"onSNSsarenotthesameas"friends"intheeverydaysense;instead,Friends

providecontext

by

offering

users

an

imagined

audience

to

guide

behavioral

norms.

Other

work

in

thisareahasexaminedtheuseof FriendsterTestimonialsasself presentationaldevices(boyd&

Heer,2006)andtheextenttowhichtheattractivenessof one'sFriends(asindicatedbyFacebook's

"Wall"feature)impactsimpressionformation(Walther,VanDerHeide,Kim,&Westerman,in

press).

NetworksandNetwork StructureSocialnetworksitesalsoproviderichsourcesof naturalisticbehavioraldata.Profileandlinkage

datafrom

SNSs

can

be

gathered

either

through

the

use

of

automated

collection

techniques

or

throughdatasetsprovideddirectlyfromthecompany,enablingnetworkanalysisresearchersto

explorelargescalepatternsof friending,usage,andothervisibleindicators(Hogan,inpress),and

continuingananalysistrendthatstartedwithexaminationsof blogsandotherwebsites.For

instance,Golder,Wilkinson,andHuberman(2007)examinedananonymizeddatasetconsistingof

362millionmessagesexchangedbyoverfourmillionFacebookusersforinsightintoFriendingand

messagingactivities.Lampe,Ellison,andSteinfield(2007)exploredtherelationshipbetweenprofile

elementsandnumberof Facebookfriends,findingthatprofilefieldsthatreducetransactioncosts

andarehardertofalsifyaremostlikelytobeassociatedwithlargernumberof friendshiplinks.

Thesekinds

of

data

also

lend

themselves

well

to

analysis

through

network

visualization

(Adamic,

Büyükkökten,&Adar,2003;Heer&boyd,2005;Paolillo&Wright,2005).

SNSresearchershavealsostudiedthenetworkstructureof Friendship.Analyzingtherolespeople

playedinthegrowthof FlickrandYahoo!360'snetworks,Kumar,Novak,andTomkins(2006)

arguedthattherearepassivemembers,inviters,andlinkers"whofullyparticipateinthesocial

evolutionof thenetwork"(p.1).ScholarshipconcerningLiveJournal'snetworkhasincludeda

Friendshipclassificationscheme(Hsu,Lancaster,Paradesi,&Weniger,2007),ananalysisof therole

of languageinthetopologyof Friendship(Herringetal.,2007),researchintotheimportanceof

geographyin

Friending

(Liben

Nowell,

Novak,

Kumar,

Raghavan,

&

Tomkins,

2005),

and

studies

on

whatmotivatespeopleto joinparticularcommunities(Backstrom,Huttenlocher,Kleinberg,&Lan,

9



2006).BasedonOrkutdata,Spertus,Sahami,andBüyükkökten(2005)identifiedatopologyof users

throughtheirmembershipincertaincommunities;theysuggestthatsitescanusethisto

recommendadditionalcommunitiesof interesttousers.Finally,Liu,Maes,andDavenport(2006)

arguedthatFriendconnectionsarenottheonlynetworkstructureworthinvestigating.They

examinedthe

ways

in

which

the

performance

of

tastes

(favorite

music,

books,

film,

etc.)

constitutes

analternatenetworkstructure,whichtheycalla"tastefabric."

BridgingOnlineandOfflineSocialNetworksAlthoughexceptionsexist,theavailableresearchsuggeststhatmostSNSsprimarilysupportpre

existingsocialrelations.Ellison,Steinfield,andLampe(2007)suggestthatFacebookisusedto

maintainexistingofflinerelationshipsorsolidifyofflineconnections,asopposedtomeetingnew

people.Theserelationshipsmaybeweakties,buttypicallythereissomecommonofflineelement

amongindividualswhofriendoneanother,suchasasharedclassatschool.Thisisoneof thechief

dimensionsthatdifferentiateSNSsfromearlierformsof publicCMCsuchasnewsgroups(Ellisonet

al.,2007).Researchinthisveinhasinvestigatedhowonlineinteractionsinterfacewithofflineones.

Forinstance,Lampe,Ellison,andSteinfield(2006)foundthatFacebookusersengagein"searching"

forpeoplewithwhomtheyhaveanofflineconnectionmorethanthey"browse"forcomplete

strangerstomeet.Likewise,Pewresearchfoundthat91%of U.S.teenswhouseSNSsdosoto

connectwithfriends(Lenhart&Madden,2007).

GiventhatSNSsenableindividualstoconnectwithoneanother,itisnotsurprisingthattheyhave

becomedeeplyembeddedinuser'slives.InKorea,Cyworldhasbecomeanintegralpartof

everydaylifeChoi(2006)foundthat85%of thatstudy'srespondents"listedthemaintenanceand

reinforcementof preexistingsocialnetworksastheirmainmotiveforCyworlduse"(p.181).

Likewise,boyd(2008)arguesthatMySpaceandFacebookenableU.S.youthtosocializewiththeir

friendsevenwhentheyareunabletogatherinunmediatedsituations;shearguesthatSNSsare

"networkedpublics"thatsupportsociability, justasunmediatedpublicspacesdo.

PrivacyPopularpresscoverageof SNSshasemphasizedpotentialprivacyconcerns,primarilyconcerning

thesafety

of

younger

users

(George,

2006;

Kornblum

&

Marklein,

2006).

Researchers

have

investigatedthepotentialthreatstoprivacyassociatedwithSNSs.Inoneof thefirstacademic

studiesof privacyandSNSs,GrossandAcquisti(2005)analyzed4,000CarnegieMellonUniversity

Facebookprofilesandoutlinedthepotentialthreatstoprivacycontainedinthepersonal

informationincludedonthesitebystudents,suchasthepotentialabilitytoreconstructusers'

socialsecuritynumbersusinginformationoftenfoundinprofiles,suchashometownanddateof

birth.

AcquistiandGross(2006)arguethatthereisoftenadisconnectbetweenstudents'desireto

protectprivacy

and

their

behaviors,

atheme

that

is

also

explored

in

Stutzman's

(2006)

survey

of

FacebookusersandBarnes's(2006)descriptionof the"privacyparadox"thatoccurswhenteens

10



11

arenotawareof thepublicnatureof theInternet.Inanalyzingtrustonsocialnetworksites,Dwyer,

Hiltz,andPasserini(2007)arguedthattrustandusagegoalsmayaffectwhatpeoplearewillingto

shareFacebookusersexpressedgreatertrustinFacebookthanMySpaceusersdidinMySpace

andthusweremorewillingtoshareinformationonthesite.

InanotherstudyexaminingsecurityissuesandSNSs,Jagatic,Johnson,Jakobsson,andMenczer

(2007)usedfreelyaccessibleprofiledatafromSNSstocrafta"phishing"schemethatappearedto

originatefromafriendonthenetwork;theirtargetsweremuchmorelikelytogiveaway

informationtothis"friend"thantoaperceivedstranger.Surveydataofferamoreoptimistic

perspectiveontheissue,suggestingthatteensareawareof potentialprivacythreatsonlineand

thatmanyareproactiveabouttakingstepstominimizecertainpotentialrisks.Pewfoundthat55%

of onlineteenshaveprofiles,66%of whomreportthattheirprofileisnotvisibletoallInternet

users(Lenhart&Madden,2007).Of theteenswithcompletelyopenprofiles,46%reported

including

at

least

some

false

information.

Privacyisalsoimplicatedinusers'abilitytocontrolimpressionsandmanagesocialcontexts.Boyd

(inpressa)assertedthatFacebook'sintroductionof the"NewsFeed"featuredisruptedstudents'

senseof control,eventhoughdataexposedthroughthefeedwerepreviouslyaccessible.Preibusch,

Hoser,Gürses,andBerendt(2007)arguedthattheprivacyoptionsofferedbySNSsdonotprovide

userswiththeflexibilitytheyneedtohandleconflictswithFriendswhohavedifferentconceptions

of privacy;theysuggestaframeworkforprivacyinSNSsthattheybelievewouldhelpresolvethese

conflicts.

SNSsare

also

challenging

legal

conceptions

of

privacy.

Hodge

(2006)

argued

that

the

fourth

amendmenttotheU.S.Constitutionandlegaldecisionsconcerningprivacyarenotequippedto

addresssocialnetworksites.Forexample,dopoliceofficershavetherighttoaccesscontentposted

toFacebookwithoutawarrant?Thelegalityof thishingesonusers'expectationof privacyand

whetherornotFacebookprofilesareconsideredpublicorprivate.

Documents

Social Network Sites Boyd-ellision 2007