34 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL MEDIA at memping to define socal network es, ts wef to note boyd and son's comment that the terms ‘network’ and ‘networking? often used interchangeably in cttical literate. boyd and Blione nea use ofthe term ‘network? because, for them, networking implies the init of relationships by strangers. Consider, for exam ‘event, where the point of the event is for people to meet other people who also shate those int the construction of new relationships. SN‘ relationship construction, are more existing relationships, and so boyd and Ellison elect to use the term ‘soci ‘network site’ to emphasise their role in maintenance of relationships thet in ‘many cases exist in offline as well as online contexts, We will return to this point later in the chapter At the core of social network sites is the construction of social networks ‘hat are enabled and enhanced by the internet. To date, boyd and Ellison’s definition of SNS has been the most accurate, SNS are: web base service that slow individual (1) conseact a public or semi Public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of a ver users with hoe they ae connect tod tose nade by thers Most social newwork sites share a number of common features such as Profiles, lists of connections, comments and private messaging, Profiles how asereidentfy themselves to the socal medi ste ang ceca aia a range of information about the user, including a name (and sometimes a screen name}, email address (which is ofte iden), birth date and nformation, Many sites al their profiles. This inform: also has clear profiles publ ing them to profile’s owner, ations for users" privacy. Some sites make theit users? available, while others keep profiles hidden, only reveal- ‘of the SNS based on their relationship with the some SNSS, like Connections can be made unilaterally by one party, and a distinction is ‘made between those people a user has linked to, and people who have linked -~- sexual users, for example), although many do not: SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 35 to the usex. In Twitter these incoming/outgoing links are distinguished by the terms followers’ and ‘following’. Other SNSs, such as Linkedln, equire the link to be agreed to by both parties. M users to link with contacts who are dispatching an email to the other party which contains instructions on how to sign up for the SNS so they can accept the connection. This is one mecha- nism through which SNS can increase their subscriber base. Comments, status updates and private messages allow com SNSs also have ways of enabling (‘Does anyone know what's going on with the tr may simply be statement (‘Just had lunch, t to provoke a response but serves to keep ai alive by reminding others in the network th (Crawford 2010). There ate many dozens of SNSs, with some based around a theme, while others have no theme at all, other than offering a way for people to make connections. For example, Linkedin is themed around people’s working and business relationships, and Flixster is for developing social networks based around films. On the other hand, Facebook, Twitter and Google+ have no central organising theme (although Facebook did start as a site for US col lege students), Some sites aim to cater for specific social groups (BlackPlan« for African-American users; OUTeverywhere for lesbian/gay/bisexual/rans- en amongst sites that do not target any particular group some level of social differentiation does seem to have occurred. For example, in the US at least, Linkedin has an older demographic than MySpace (Hampton et al. 2011), and Ork popular in Brazil and India (even though the service is base: porates public displays of connections in an online env way people use social networ sment, reflecting underlying influences in the at are not immediately visible, COMMUNITIES AND NETWORKS _ Despite social media being a relatively recent phenomenon, research into people using network technologies to communicate with others pre-dates the development of social media by decades, From,the 1980s, pioneers ike Barry Wellman were already engaging with questions about the nature of sociality within what was generally referred to as ‘computer-mediated36 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL MEDIA, commanication’..This included internet-based networks, but also bulletin board systems and networked work places. While one theme ‘communication (often based on workplace-based studies), others recognised that some people were using the networks for more social activities. This section provides an overview of the discipline of internet studies, which looks at the subject of what people do online, what kinds of structures are re-mediated and what kind of structures are new. We will look at the ‘ethnographic tum’ that has become increasingly apparent in internet studies since the late 1990s and how debate has emerged in this discipline around the question of whether online interactions are best described as communities or networks. Virtual communities Back in 1993, Howard Rheingold popularised the idea of virtual communities in his book by the same name (and subtitled, importantly, “Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier’. Rheingold’s book examined his experiences with an early online community called the WELL, a pre-internet community based around Northern Californian new age ideologies. The WELL - an acronym for Whole Earth Lectronic Link ~ was a computer bulletin board maintained by a group of alternative lifestyle users who also pro- duced the Whole Earth Catalog. Stewart Brand, editor of the catalogue _ and founder of the WELL, coined the aphorism ‘information wants to.be___ free? (Clarke 2000) Rheingold’s work popularised the notion of online communities, and fed into emerging media interest in the fledgling internet. On one side of what Wellman and Gulia (1999) have described as a Manichaean and unschol- arly debate were those who derided the idea of online communities as mere escapism, and yet further evidence of the decay of society and social relations. Here, the image that was constructed. was of a socially awkward computer nerd, sitting in his basement engaged in a fantasy world that further removed him from reality and social connections. Castells points out that these negative images of online communication fed into existing pessimistic narratives about the loss of community in the modera suburb or megacity (2001: 125). : ‘Others, like Rheingold, saw potential in these online environments to create new kinds of communities that could reinvigorate public discussion and debate. Instead of seeing these networks as socially isolating, many argued that the internet created a new space for social interaction and democratic participation, establishing some of the basis for claims about the SOCIAL NEIWORKSITES 37 internct as an empowering medium, as disc still, this online oF virtual construction of soci what Ray Oldenburg, ed in Chapter 2. For others spaces was reminiscent of conversation is the main activity positions are levelled (for example, the boss/ left at che door when entering the third place) and the layful. Most importantly, they are places that are readily mne. A number of scholars (Kendall 2002; Soukup 2006) line spaces meet Oldenburg'’s criteria for third places, and Some, like Sherry Turkle Io argued that these spaces opened up opportunities for experimentation with new forms of identity, and pointed to the ways that online communication had the potential to frce the individual from his or her body, allowing them to play in the realm of thcir imagination. This, in turn, allowed the playful exploration of con- cepts like gender. The online environment appeared to be a space which acted like a playground for identity, although some of the best work in this area still acknowledged the importance of offline factors (Turkle 1995; Baym 1998). However, in Turkle’s later work, Alone Together, she did an about-face in terms of her celebration of the online. These studies were conducted in the early days of the internet and often referred 10 people's own journeys through online communi these early environments began to change. Networked communities [As the number of people using the internet began to burgeon in the mid-1990s, internet researchers had more opportunity to study online com- munities. Rescarchers began to discuss and emphasise the continuity of offline relationships and behaviours of users over discontinuity, amplifying the importance of social context. While a great deal of research has been done into online communities over the years, itis difficult to ignore the contribution of certain key scholars. Wellman conducted some of the first studies into the ways people used information technologies, and was or of the first people to argue for the importance of offline factors in online ‘communication, In one study Wel long with his colleagues, studied the ways that used computer networks as part38 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL MEDIA of both their work and social interaction, One of the key findings was that people communicated more depending on how strong their offline tes were. People who were already friends, oz who had developed relationships wich brought these perspectives together with other research in their edited lection The Internet in Everyday Life (2002). that online experiences were grounded in real-world ‘ould be termed an ‘A good example of the ethnographic Daniel Miller and Don Slater’s (2001) study, | intemet by Trinidadians. Their focus went beyond the online behaviours of | ‘Trinidadians to engage ‘way in which internet use is contextualised with other (offline) c tivities. Rather than attempting to generalise their study to describe all internet behavious Miller and Slater concerned themselves only with explaining the specific instance of internet use that their study focused on. and is shaped by, the Slater found that being Tr why people in Trinidad we cases that the online environment provided a space where peopl Trinidadian. cey facet of these new internet community studies was the recognition that the internet is not one monolithic or homogeneous communication online. Furthermore, they discovered in some ld be 1¢ internet is defined by an ongoing process of ‘meaning making, a process through which the internet is socially constructed through its use. Moreover, in this understanding there is not one definition, of the internet but many, depending on the context of the people who use SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 39 the internet and the context of that use. Miller and Slates, for example, argued that the internet must be ‘disaggregated’, emphasising that it is importa not to look at 2 monolithic medium called ‘the Internet’ but rather at a renge of practices, software and hardware technologies, modes of representation and meaning of internet’ can be qui and who is being spoken to. For example, she refers to the variety of different attitudes and ideas about the internet reflected by the students in her under- ataduate classes (Hine Following her owm interests in studying the internet from an ethnographic perspective, Hine has argued that the internet can be treated as both culture and a cultural artefact (1998), She points out that the notion of ‘the interne?” ‘example, the parents of grown children may have internet access, but not know what to do state or overseas, contact. And when 2 family member s: ‘website with digital photographs of the new baby, and so the internet acquires meaning again, this time as represented through the web. Manuel Castells picks up this theme and connects it back to his well-known overarching metaphor of the networked society. Castells points out that in studies such as Wellman’s early work, and the Pew Internet and American Life Project internet usc is revealed as instrumental to the activities of everyday life. ered to de-emphasise the virtual and emphasise the connectedness of acti both online and offline, Both Wellman and Castells argue that while the family still forms the basis for many of the strongest social ties in people's lives, other strong ties are formed through activities like work or play, and these ties may not neces sarily be based on geographic proximity. We may work with people who live40° UNDERSTANDING SOCAL MEDIA hours away from us in the modern city, but we develop ties with them based oon shared knowledge and experience, and the internet allows us to maintain these relationships over distance. These relationships take on the character of networks in that each of us is connected to others by ties that, if mapped out, would resemble a map of a computer or telephone network, This does not mean that these ties between people are always strong, but as Castells points out, just because a tie is weak does not mean that it is ‘not important. People coming together in an online forum to discuss a topic of shared interest may come to know one another through their posts, but never meeting in real life or knowing the real person means these are weak ties. However, dismissing these ‘weak ties’ as unimportant is clearly a mistake, as Clay Shirky demonstrates in telling the story of a lost Motorola Razr phone (2008). In this example of the power of social nct- ‘works, Shirky relates the story of how a Jost phone that had been taken by a passerby was recovered through the activities of an online community. The links between the protagonist in this story and the community could be characterised as weak ~ he didn’t know any of the people who helped hhim recover the phone ~ but the weakness of the relationships did not make the relationships ineffectual. Wellman has pointed out that in many modern societies, a phenomenon he calls ‘networked individualism’ has arisen; works to solve problems, make decisions or get support. The internet has vastly extended these networks so that they are no longer constrained by ~space.-This.change. moxes. people astay.from. traditional geographically. bounded social groups ~ neighbourhoods, for example - and towards ‘spazsely-knit and loosely-bounded networks? (Wellman 2003). For Castel idualism is part of the networked society, internet per se, but can be supported and augmented by the internet to pro- say a new car ~ do you first or someone you work with, or do you Googl Ifthe answer is the lattes, then you're engaging in networked individ. Networked publics With the rise of the SNS, questions about the nature of online community have again become a topic of interest. danah boyd has reworked the idea of networked communities within the SNS to describe networked ‘publics’ as, an extension (but not necessarily an alternative) to the word ‘communities. ‘When we speak of the public’, we are in fact talking about a collection of SOCIAL NETWORKSITES 41 publics. A public, on the other hand is a bounded collective of indi who have come together under a common set of prin beliefs that bind and define the public—‘a relation among strangers’ (Warner 2002). The public forms a single new entity that can be a social actor. There is also the assumption that these publics are open and designed for participa- tion by everyone; they are not ‘privates’, although, because they are bounded, they necessarily have implicit rules which definc what is considered part of that public, and what is not. According to boyd, networked publics are: publics that are restructured by networked technologies. As such, they are simultaneously (1) the space constructed through networked technologies and (2) the imagined collective that emerges asa result ofthe intersection of people, technology, and practice. 2011: 39) ‘There are two fundamental components outlined here that are worth reiterating: networked publics are both spaces and groups of people who are connected through practice and cechnology. They are ‘simultaneously a space and a collection of people’ (boyd 2011: 41). Importantly, boyd argues that these publics are not just networked because they are linked together by the tech- nology, but they are transformed and restructured by networked media. SNSs are examples of online technologies that support the production and reproduction of networked publics. As boyd notes, there are three key dynamics in SNSs: invisible audiences, collapsed contexts, and the blurring, ‘of public and private (2011: 49).In examining the transformation of publics. ___. she observes that the affordances of networked publics rework publics more ‘generally and the dynamics that emerge leak from being factors in specific settings to being core to everyday realities’ (p. 53). In the pervasiveness of nesworked publics, boyd perceives erosions of physical bartiers while, at the same time, ‘many people feel unmotivated to interact with distant strangers’ {p. 53}-In sum, in networked publics, ‘attention becomes a commodity” (p. 53). ‘While the notion of networked publics has considerable overlap with Castells? concepts of a networked community, networked publics differs primarily in its use of the idea of ‘publics? rather than ‘communities’ as the organising metaphor for conceptualising online users. This is a useful alter native, because it allows us to drop the cultural associations caused by that term, 2 problem that Castells himself is keen to avoid (2001: 127). NETWORKS OR COMMUNITIES? “There is still healthy debate in the scholarly discourse about the nature of the social struesures that are enabled by network technologies. While Castell,