Social Network sites have transformed the way we communicate and socialize in a positive way.

26/04/2010 WendyL 21 comments

On-line Social Network sites incorporate a multitude of mediated platforms in which individuals can communicate with other individuals and/or groups. These mediated platforms include (but are not limited to) Facebook and Twitter which have provided a new and interesting way of communication within the virtual community. While this paper will deal with social network sites and friendship generally, Facebook and Twitter will dominate the paper as the mostly referred to social networking sites. Within this conference paper I will firstly discuss how people are adjusting the way they socialize and behave when using social network sites as another form of communication with friends and acquaintances. Secondly when researching the way users behave and communicate in these sites a new term ‘Ambient Awareness’ has been created to identify the excessive on-line contact. The constant flow of information provides users with the ability to piece together information to give an insight to that user’s life which has not been available through traditional forms of communication before. Thirdly when contributing to the social networks users are influenced by user generated content by which the user can not only to read information but create the information. And in conclusion I will discuss how social networks sites are a positive way of communicating and socializing because they allow a new way that users can intertwine friendships both on-line and off-line.

Adjusting to social networks
Social Network sites are environments where users can congregate freely through mediated technology. (Boyd 2007a pg.2) Basically social network sites are made up of areas that allow profiles, comments and friends (Boyd 2007b pg. 5) One of the reasons that users have turned to on-line social networks is that the internet has provided businesses and people with a more flexible way of working and allows people to be portable which can impact on being away from family and friends. Social separation has been partly responsible for the growing popularity of on-line awareness in social networking sites. (Thompson 2008 pg. 3)
The telephone has been a tool that has given individuals the ability to communicate with remote ties however individuals have adapted to using social networks to not only communicate with one but many at the same time (Boase 2008 pg.493) With the use of social networks, users now have the ability to keep connected to existing relationships, the opportunity to rekindle old friendships, and potentially start new friendships. Maintaining relationships on-line and/or off- line is in the constant process of change. When face to face contact is experienced over many years there is a tendency to interpret certain situations. Within the on-line arena there has been an adaption to understand communication that is not of a physical nature. Thus users have to alter their behavior and learn to read between the lines these reactions on-line. (Boyd 2007b) Social networking sites provide ways to expand user’s personal relationship, thus altering the way in which we congregate, discuss and reproduce friendships. These friendships are frequently maintained offline, which suggests that on-line sites are becoming ever more entrenched in our daily life. (Carter 2005 pg. 150) Baym also suggests that:
“..survey research has demonstrated how common interpersonal internet use has become and suggests that patterns of relational communication, such as who communicates with whom and how often, are changing as internet interactions are incorporated into daily relational life” (baym et al. 2007 pg. 739)
When users are in social network sites such as Facebook users are required to deduce situations and interpret information differently when compared to face to face occasions. (Boyd 2007b pg.11-12). Properties that users must be aware of when using social network sites is that there are invisible viewers, search ability, perseverance and duplicate. (Boyd 2006) When discussing and interpreting relationships both on-line and off-line it is vital to acknowledge that the more effort is spent investing in the relationship then the more one gets out of participating. Users in on-line social network sites are spending as much time and energy in continuing relationships on-line as in other social places. (Carter 2005 pg. 164) The social network site Facebook has estimated that every month 4 billion pieces of information is shared amongst users. Examples of this information are items such as new stories, special occasion wishes like birthdays and comments on daily activity. (Vogelstein, F. 2009).

Ambient Awareness
Social Network sites such as Facebook and Twitter provide a platform where the user can access these sites at any time. Social scientists have referred to this continual on-line access as “Ambient Awareness”. The scientists suggest that ambient awareness is like being actually alongside someone and observing the small things they do through sighs, stray comments and body language. (Thompson 2008 pg. 2). With each observation being acknowledged, albeit not important on its own, but taken collectively over time the small observations unexpectedly provide a representation of that person’s life. Prior to social network sites this ambient awareness was by no means before probable because in real life no friend would contact another friend by a phone call to provide information about the lunch they were making. (Thompson 2008 pg. 2). Being able to update and be updated with information continually over a period of time with someone has allowed some insight into some one’s life. This constant flow of information gives users more information about individuals with the potential of common interests which could lead to attending events face to face that would potentially never happened without networking sites such as Twitter. (Negley 2009) When the face to face contact does occur after sharing on-line with someone the questions that may be asked are more relevant due to the nature of information already supplied. For example people can ask questions like, did you get that bike you were after? Instead of what have you been up to? This changes the way that people are interacting both on-line and off-line with positive results. On-line users are extending conventional human relationships and broadening their range of friendships, not weakening them. Friendships that are formed on-line can be maintained in similar ways to those in off-line situations. Thus these on-line friendships are often encouraged into other social situations, as occurs in off-line society. (Carter 2005 pg. 160-162) Originally the internet was read only one way medium however in the present day social networks give users the ability to post text, graphics and videos instantly, quickly and easily. Social networks are therefore not only about linking posted content but it’s about connecting users (Wiliam Web Design 2007)

User Generated content
User generated content is an effective way to describe the activity on these social networks sites. When users are maintaining, renewing and creating relationships through social networks it has become apparent that user-generated content has given users the freedom to express themselves and enhanced the feeling of ownership over the shared space of the internet. (Wiliam Web Design 2007) When certain information that appears on social network sites is pertinent to individuals they tend to ‘consume it and then share it.’ (Boyd 2006) The number of exchanges and links between users in social network sites is far larger than what has been predicted in earlier forecasts by scientists. (Aguiton and Cardon 2007) After its conception in 2004, Facebook has seen a rapid rise in users becoming registered members and contributing to the user generated content. For users to successfully socialize or exist on-line they must ‘write ourselves into being’ (Boyd 2006). Boyd (2006) also acknowledges that:
“From the flow of text in chatrooms to the creation of Profiles, people are regularly projecting themselves into the Internet so that others may view their presence and interact directly with them. Social network sites take this to the next level because participants there write their community into being through the process of Friending. In doing so, they help define themselves and the context in which they are operating.” (Boyd 2006)
Clever, Kirchner, Schray and Schulte (2008 p.1) suggest that some of the reasons why users are motivated to provide user generated content are:
• Users can be creative and entertaining to others.
• Users have a desire to share experiences and express themselves.
• Users want to be part of a community and mutual projects in so doing making new friends and staying in touch with old ones .

Friendships facilitate people to ‘write community’ into existence in social network sites. Within these communities users have the ability to convey and articulate who they are and find themselves ethnically. This then provides users with an appropriate structure through which they can intermingle with other users. (Boyd 2006) Users (for the most part adults) don’t tend to socialize on-line with unfamiliar people. They tend to talk to people who are already known to themselves. When these users interact on-line in social network site they socialize and behave in the same way as other social environments. (Sydell 2009) Kreps and Pearson have agreed with the way people are socializing in Facebook is similar to real-life by suggesting:
“In many respects the networking taking place on Facebook is a replication of the networks in real-life – plus additional new contacts made on Facebook itself” (Kreps and Pearson 2008)
Boyd (2006) goes on to suggest that social network sites are not detached from other social places but it is one aspect of the user’s social world and these sites are reviewed in other social situations. As social networking sites become more popular, an interesting point around these site creations is that they are primarily organized around people not the interest of the people as previous websites explored.(Boyd and Ellison 2007) Boyd and Donath (2004) explain that social networking sites are prevalent with the way we communicate and connect with others in these sites:
“In today’s society, access to information is a key element of status and power and communication is instant, ubiquitous and mobile. The social networking sites ……are a product of this emerging culture. They function both as environments in which these new ties are formed and as depictions of these networks in the display of individual connections”
On a positive note, sharing of information between users is making people more aware of themselves and how they portray themselves on-line. As Thompson (2008) proposes that with all this sharing of information that it does have an effect on individuals who are finding out more about themselves.
“Laura Fitton, the social-media consultant, argues that her constant status updating has made her “a happier person, a calmer person” because the process of, say, describing a horrid morning at work forces her to look at it objectively. “It drags you out of your own head,” she added. In an age of awareness, perhaps the person you see most clearly is yourself.” (Thompson, C. 2008).

Conclusion
During the course of this paper it has been discussed that people are using social network sites such as Facebook to find comfort in isolating situations such as working away from home. In using these sites users are adapting to the new ways that are required to interact in these sites. With no visible audience users must negotiate the social aspects of interpreting comments to understand the meaning of the information. Contributing and sharing of information has lead to ambient awareness where people are sharing and learning more about others but do not have to be in physically sitting beside them to learn the same information. Social networking sites allow people to contribute with the use of user generated content with people they have existing relationships with, rekindle past relationships but also form new relationships. Some of the reasons why users want to contribute to these sites is to share and express themselves. A positive side effect of contributing and sharing in social networks is the self discovery of the user. The realization that when they have to think about how things affect their life and contribute that to the social network sites they tend to look at things more objectively. The natural evolution that has lead to self discovery on these sites can only be a positive reflection that users have adapted to new social situations. Social Networking sites allow people to share and communicate with people that they have strong and weak connections with but also cross over the lines between on-line and off-line worlds.

References (APA format)

Aguiton, C. & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 51-57.

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M. (2007). Relational Quality and Media Use in Interpersonal Relationships. New Media & Society, 9(5), 735-752.

Boase, J. (2008) Personal Networks and the Personal Communication System, Information, Communication & Society, 11: 4 490-508. Retrieved from the Curtin University Library on 25 March 2010.

Boyd, D. (2006). Friends, Friendsters and Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites. First Monday, 12(4).

Boyd, D. (2007a) Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? Knowledge Tree 13, May http://www.danah.org/papers/KnowledgeTree.pdf retrieved 25 March 2010

Boyd, D. (2007b) Why Youth Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. Youth, Identity and digital media. pp 119-142 http://www.danah.org/papers retrieved 26 March 2010.

Boyd, D. & Donath, J., (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82. http://www.danah.org/papers/PublicDisplays.pdf retrieved 1 April 2010.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Carter, Denise M (2005) ‘Living in Virtual Communities: An Ethnography of Human Relationships in Cyberspace’, Journal of Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 8, No 2, May 2005, pp148-167. ISSN 1369-118X.

Clever, N. Kirchner, A. Schray, D. and Schulte, M. (2008). User-generated content. IEessay. Retrieved 1 April 2010 from http://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/wi/studieren/io/ws08-09/essay%5CIEessay%20user-generated%20content.pdf

Kreps, D. & Pearson E. (2008) Community as Commodity. University of Salford UK http://www.kreps.org/papers/communityascommodity_ifip95final.pdf
Retrieved 2 April 2010.

Negley, H. (2009) Twitter Is a Tool for Ambient Awareness. Twitip. http://www.twitip.com/twitter-is-a-tool-for-ambient-awareness retrieved 5 April 2010.

Sydell, L. (2009). Facebook, MySpace Divide Along Social Lines. NPR. Retrieved 22 March 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113974893

Thompson, C. (2008). Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. Retrieved 20 March 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=1.

Vogelstein, F. (2009) Great Wall of Facebook: The Social Network’s Plan to Dominate the Internet — and Keep Google Out. Wired Magazine. Retrieved 25 March 2010 from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-07/ff_facebookwall?currentPage=3

Wiliam Web Design. (2007) What is User Generated Content? Retrieved 20 March 2010 from http://www.wiliam.com.au/wiliam-blog/user-generated-content.

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

blog counter

Social Networks ambient awareness, Facebook, social networking sites, user generated content

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by MilanaK about 2 years ago.

Hi again

I agree with re-connecting and especially long distance communication opportunity Facebook has provided. I’m able to see photos of my relatives live overseas, which is great.

However, I do feel like people are moving more towards online socialising and I’m not even sure if in fact they are socialising. I also found that people are engaging in other activities as well, such as playing games.

I found Rosanna Marie Candler’s paper quite interesting as she refers to online socialising as socialising with your self. You might find this paper interesting, if you haven’t read it already. My paper discussed similar principles but from a different angle.

Good luck, Milana
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thanks Sal for your comments.
I think your right that Social Networks are unchartered territory and users have had to adapt to interpreting information. As a general rule netiquette has been a set of rules that has been in place for conduct when on the internet. I would assume that these set of rules would continue onto social networks.
I like your comment at the end, it is very relevant.
Written by SalD about 2 years ago.

All these SNS seems to promote a ‘work it out as you go along’ idea. I totally agree with your comment –
“With no visible audience users must negotiate the social aspects of interpreting comments to understand the meaning of the information”.
There also seems to be an silent etiquette that everyone seems to abide by. This has to be interpreted without an open discussion and it is possible to get it wrong. The more and more these sites develop the more and more advanced and difficult the etiquette seems to be to negotiate.
Social networking has made new demands on traditional etiquette and it should simply complement and enhance your existing social life not over complicate it. I like the sensible advice from an etiquette expert at Debretts. (found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3357556/Debretts-guide-to-online-etiquette.html)
“Play it safe, and always employ your usual good manners when online, treating others with kindness or respect”.

Nice paper

Sal.
Written by JasonK about 2 years ago.

I have heard of Ambient Awareness before while reading some article about Twitter. It stated the same thing you have written in your paper that over time, small pieces of personal information, although incoherent on their own, over time, help to form a picture about the person’s personality and life.

This is really useful when stalking someone on Twitter, because with enough perseverance, you can get into a persons head and know more about their life. Very handy for stalking. The same of course would be true if you are following your friends on Twitter, eventually you would get to see a different side to their personality that you may not get a chance to see in daily life. But would familiarity breed contempt? Are some things better left unsaid? A little mystery keeps things interesting in my opinion and knowing what you had for breakfast or that you soiled your undies out of excitement from watching the latest Robin Hood movie with Russell Crowe is a little too revealing, yet this is the sort of things people tweet about.

Something else of interest in your paper was that you mentioned, ” Thus users have to alter their behavior and learn to read between the lines these reactions on-line” and “When users are in social network sites such as Facebook users are required to deduce situations and interpret information differently when compared to face to face occasions.” These two points essentially sum up the challenges that we face when dealing with people online and not face to face. Body language, tone, inflection and intonation convey meaning that words on a screen are unable to replicate. This is confirmed by Sheddon (2005) who states,

“Intonation carries the message in a sentence. It is particularly important in questioning, agreeing, disagreeing or confirming statements. It is also fundamental in the expression of emotions or feelings, e.g. sadness, happiness, disbelieve, uncertainty etc.”

This is why ultimately I have to disagree with you. Yes, SNS’s are an avenue for communication, but it will never equal or surpass the effectiveness of face to face communication.

One other point I disagree with is where you mentioned, “Users (for the most part adults) don’t tend to socialize on-line with unfamiliar people. They tend to talk to people who are already known to themselves.”. This is contradicted by my own paper and research into friending on Facebook found that, “up to 50% of people surveyed in the study by Govani & Pashley (2005, p6), have accepted “friend” requests from people they have met just once and a staggering 30% accepted requests from people they have never personally met.”

Conflicting research suggests that either way, the issue is not resolved, but I would ask you directly, how often have you accepted a friend request from a person you don’t really know?

Interesting paper with some good information about the potential benefits of SNS’s but some of these can also be interpreted as negatives especially the stalker possibilities of ambient awareness.

Govani, T. & Pashley, H. (2005). Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications When
Using Facebook. Retrieved from http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf

Sheddon, M (2005). Teaching Pronunciation and Phonology. International TEFL Teacher Training.
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thanks Jennifer for your positive comments. At this stage I have not read your paper but I it is the next one I will be reading as I am keen to read about the figures you mention to support your argument.
From a personal note I have found social networking sites like facebook to be very positive because I have family abroad and have rekindled friendships that were lost. Without the use of facebook I would not be able to keep the lines of communication open as often as I can now.
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thanks Liz for your comments.

You have asked the question ‘Do you believe users of social networking sites have reason to be cautious?’

Personally I think it is human nature to be cautious however in Social Networking sites such as facebook they are set up on the basis of adding ‘friends’ that you have meet through your life. As I have already stated “Users (for the most part adults) don’t tend to socialize on-line with unfamiliar people. They tend to talk to people who are already known to themselves. When these users interact on-line in social network site they socialize and behave in the same way as other social environments. (Sydell 2009)” If you are socializing with familiar people then you are less likely to be cautious because if you do or don’t identifying family members the majority of your friends already know who your family members are.
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thanks Vicky for your comments. I have read your article (and commented on) and find that between the two papers we are a good representatives for the pros and cons of social networking sites in particular facebook.

You have stated that you disagree with my statement “On-line users are extending conventional human relationships and broadening their range of friendships, not weakening them”. From a personal view I have found this statement to be very true. Old school friends that I had lost contact with but have since found through facebook have become people that I socialize with face to face. One renewed friendship in particular has lead to a number of overnight visits eventhough this person lives interstate.
I do agree that ‘some’ people do take advantage of self expression and can dominate the networks however I believe that these people can also be found to dominate face to face situations as well.
At least we agree on one point and that through social networks perhaps ‘the person you see most clearly is yourself’
Thanks again for your comments
Written by lpower about 2 years ago.

Hi Wendy,

You paper is an interesting read especially as opposed to my paper which is on the negative impacts of social networking. It was interesting to read there are 4 billion pieces of information shared amongst users every month on Facebook. There is a lot of scope for malicious activity.

In Green’s (2010) article he listed tips for safely navigating social networking sites: “employing strong passwords that are unique for each site, denying use of all applications offered on the sites, learning what sensitive data is and don’t post it, don’t identify family members, don’t friend people you don’t already know, don’t chat and don’t answer surveys”.

Do you believe users of social networking sites have reason to be cautious?

Liz

Greene, T. (2010). Tips for using Twitter, Facebook and other “anti-social networks”. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://www.techworld.com.au/article/345018/tips_using_twitter_facebook_other_anti-social_networks
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thanks Michael for your comments. As you stated this conference has been great to read about the pros and cons of social networks. Eventhough you find it annoying that people have to share what they have for lunch, these little snippets of information are small ways for people to express themselves and share in the flow of information.
You raise an interesting question, does or has discussing such detail on-line moved into off-line? not sure, might need more research!
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thanks Hans for your comments and your support when referring to Zoharas comments.
My family is also spread across the world and I don’t know how I would survive without tools such as Skype and Facebook. I like your quote from danah boyd, “Researchers have learned that these networks are a critical part of people’s daily lives.” (2004) When users have access to this technology it makes social separation alot easier.

I have read your paper and found it very enjoyable. thanks
Written by Jennifer_cumming about 2 years ago.

Hi Wendy, I really enjoyed reading your paper and found the points you outlined really interesting. I especially found interesting the part on adjusting to social networks. I think your paper is similar to my paper (http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/social-networking-sites-like-facebook-and-myspace-have-been-changing-the-way-teenagers-and-young-adults-communicate-to-their-real-world-communities-since-they-were-created/) with the same ideas on social network sites having transformed our communication, but whilst mine has more figures to support my argument and show the rates of social network usage, especially with the rise of mobile internet. You had a fantastic point when you said “On a positive note, sharing of information between users is making people more aware of themselves and how they portray themselves on-line. As Thompson (2008) proposed that with all this sharing of information that is does have an effect on individuals who are finding out more about themselves”. I think people will focus as to how they are coming across online and will post only relevant information to support this. Your paper was a really interesting read and there’s lots of stuff I think I’ve learnt from it that relates to my paper. Congratulations!
Written by VickyK about 2 years ago.

Hi Wendy,

I enjoyed reading your paper, as it has an opposing view to my own and as such is interesting to read your points. A few comments I had, firstly the statement that:

“On-line users are extending conventional human relationships and broadening their range of friendships, not weakening them”.

Although I can see how SNS can broaden the range of friendships, I still disagree that friendships are strengthened. Especially in cases where face to face friendships are taken online, and real life catch ups become few and far between and as such less of a priority. I mention in my paper about how the volume of peoples ‘weak tie’ friendships on Facebook is a distraction from their real lives.

Your comment:

“Being able to update and be updated with information continually over a period of time with someone has allowed some insight into some one’s life.”

Whilst such minor details can be annoying, it is interesting to think of these in terms of eventually providing insight into who someone is and their lives, when all pieced together.

SNS can be a form of self expression for some and indeed many have a desire to share their experiences with their online contacts. I believe that for many others though, ‘stalking’ occurs or acting as the ‘invisible audience’, whereby people are online but not initiating any form of contact or ‘putting themselves out there’. As you stated, the notion that “perhaps the person you see most clearly is yourself” rings true in both instances. Definitely food for thought!

Link to my paper if you wish to read is http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/facebook-taking-the-social-out-of-networking/

Thanks,
Vicky
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thank you Zohara for your comments. I understand the point that you are making about the importance of body language. As you have stated that “is better to comunicate face to face bcoz will understand u will and will get better results.” However not all situations allow you to communicate face to face such as living interstate or overseas.
As Hans has suggested (thanks Hans) that the reason I made the point about questions you can ask people when you see them face to face is that a little bit of knowledge about a person is helpful instead of asking a generic question that does not encourage indepth conversation.
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

I think you have argued well the positives of Facebook and SNS in contrast to other papers. Reading yours along side the others gets a balanced view of the pros and cons of using it. As my boss says she uses Facebook to find out those little things that are going on in her grand daughter’s life. In a way that makes lots of sense so your paper confirmed that indirectly. What was interesting is the shift towards when we phoned it was for important things mostly, now it is about what is for lunch etc. That annoys me, but that is the way it is now, so it is interesting we have moved to such a state in society where we discuss details with others. I wonder if that has actually moved into the offline world. Thanks for paper.
Written by Hans about 2 years ago.

Zohara,
Howard Rheingold in his book The Virtual Community wrote about an In Real Life picnic that was organised by the Parenting conference on the WELL. He had been involved in this online community for quite some time. The community arranged a picnic in a public park. He points out that they already knew about each other, so there was no need to go through the first awkward steps of introduction. He felt it was like any other community picnic.(Rheingold, 1993)
I think this is what Wendy was driving at with her comment. In my opinion it is better to ask a specific question about what is happening in a person’s life than a generic “What’s been happening?” to which a standard reply seems to be “Not much.”

The other point you make about face-to-face communication being easier can be correct. In a real life conversation you can see the body language and the facial expression. However, in days gone by we would write letters to family overseas and to pen-pals, these conversations are similar to the on-line chats we van have now, in that there is no body language or facial expression. I find that one of the challenges with any form of written communication is to ensure that what I write is clear, precise, and hopefully not open to misinterpretation.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Heart of the WELL The Virtual Community. Retrieved from http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/1.html
Written by Hans about 2 years ago.

Hi Wendy,
Like Jocelyn, I like your comment “they allow a new way that users can intertwine friendships both on-line and off-line.” I have always thought of social networking sites such as Facebook and twitter as different ways to stay in touch with my children, friends and family. As you correctly point out people no longer remain in a concentrated area. Our family and friends are spread around Australia and the world. The telephone and letters are no longer adequate to remain in touch. Email, twitter, facebook and Skype are the tools of the day.

In her blog apophenia , danah boyd wrote that “Researchers have learned that these networks are a critical part of people’s daily lives. People use their networks to acquire support of all different kinds. They use the structure of their network to find jobs, loved ones, get and make meaning out of recommendations.
(boyd, 2004)

In my paper on the size of communities (http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/size-is-important-is-there-an-optimal-size-for-online-communities/) I raise the work of anthropologist Robin Dunbar. He points out that in order to maintain a network, one must “groom”, or in your words put an effort into maintaining relationships. This is true whether the relationship is face to face or computer mediated.

boyd, d. (2004). my e tech talk:revenge of the user [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/02/11/my_etech_talk_revenge_of_the_user.html
Written by Zohara Ibrahim about 2 years ago.

According to tour point I disagree, NOT all people you can ask the question like you give the example as you point here :”For example people can ask questions like, did you get that bike you were after? Instead of what have you been up to? In online people do always do like offline question too , such as how are you?..what you up to?, where have u been? and if the people we DO NOT they will ask where are you from, how are you and mostly the question they ask through the online ASL, (age, sex & location).
This changes the way that people are interacting both on-line and off-line with positive results. not really both online or offline get positive result, but it depend the way you ask them similar to offline too, some of online or offline can be negative results such as you have to be formal when u asking with the teacher, sometimes, we too friendly while we always talk online, but through offline, the people looking at your body languages. Anyway, in my opinion, is better to comunicate face to face bcoz will understand u will and will get better results. Online is always change the way they talk sometimes, they could not recognise with who he or she talk with even thoug she or he always talk with you, it always happen while you not alwyas online and talk with them or your real friends sometimes forgot you.it happend to me sometimes, but when in offline she will know u well rather than online too many people & sometimes without using our name.
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Hi Jocelyn, thanks for your comments.
I look forward to reading your paper. In my paper I did focus more on the individual not organisations and I look forward to learning more from an organisational point of view. Social networks have provided a platform for so many possibilites. individual to individual, individual to organisation, organisation to organisation etc… all possibilites that we have had to adapt to but can get so much out of..
Cheers
Wendy
Written by WendyL about 2 years ago.

Thanks Milana for your comments. At this point in time I haven’t read your paper but I am looking forward to reading about the other side of social networks.
From a personal point of view, I have found so many positives from social networks. The most significant for me is from re-connecting to old school friends through facebook. Even to the point were my old school friends have stayed at my house with their family for numerous nights. This being only possible through facebook as they moved interstate after school had finished. I do agree that this has not happened with every single one of my re-connected school friends but it has certainly has given me the opportunity to meet face to face with more confidence and understanding about the person they are now and not the person I knew at school.
Cheers
Wendy
Written by MilanaK about 2 years ago.

Hi Wendy

Event though it is a contradictory view to my own, this is a very well written paper. You spoke about possibilities to connect to existing relationships, rekindling old and starting new relationships. While this might be the case, I found a lot of disadvantages with on-line socialising. I would also question the quality of these relationships. I found an article by Bernstein (2009), where she talks about the changes in her friendships once they went online. They basically declined dramatically and was told by some of her friends that they were busy to phone or message yet they had time for other activities on online socialising websites. Also online socialising can also feel a bit impersonal as you can’t see the body language or emotions people are displaying on the other side of the screen. In relation to your comment about people being aware of updates on Facebook or Twitter, I find that this would decrease conversation topics when people do meet face to face as they already know everything about whats happening. With the decrease in conversation topics, current networks might not feel the connection or the need to socialise face to face as much.

It was interesting to read a paper with opposing views to my own. Thanks

Milana
Written by Jocelyn Peucker about 2 years ago.

Hi Wendy

I’ve written a paper on using such social network sites and others, to connect people within an organisation. Although I’m hoping to research a more ‘private’ platform other than Facebook, your paper lends some great points of why connecting people can be seen as an advantage, not just a disadvantage. I like how you said “they allow a new way that users can intertwine friendships both on-line and off-line.”

I would be very interested to see what you think of the difference between our papers in a positive way of course. Mine is at http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/the-future-net-oree-the-scouting-convergence-to-online-collaborations-and-networks/

Cheers
Jocelyn

Comment Pages:

Online Conference on Networks and Communities

Social Network sites have transformed the way we communicate and socialize in a positive way.

Comments

Categories

Tags

Latest comments

Meta