Abstract<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the introduction of social media, communication between individuals\nhas changed dramatically, allowed them to connect or reconnect with each other.\nEach social media platform provides a different method of communication. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keywords: social media, communication methods, social media platforms,\nFacebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, conference paper<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Introduction <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the introduction of the Internet and mobile telephones,\ninterpersonal communication has become increasingly mediated by the use of\ntechnology (Baym, Zang, Kuntel, Ledbetter and Lin, 2007). Social networking\nplatforms connect people that may or may not share any association with each\nother (Papacharissi, 2009). Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social networking\nplatforms as ‘web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public\nor semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other\nusers with whom they share a connection and view and transverse their list of\nconnections and those made by others within the system\u2019. Facebook, LinkedIn,\nTwitter, blogs, Flickr and YouTube, are examples of social networking platforms\nthat have millions of users, who use such networks ‘to keep track of each\nother, find experts and engage in commercial transactions when needed (Huberman,\nRomero and Wu, 2008). Through this conference paper, it will look at how\ncommunication has changed with the introduction of social media platforms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. Discussion<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Research suggests that patterns of relational communication are changing\nas a result of Internet interaction incorporated into the everyday life of\nindividuals. Social networks provide emotional and financial support to their\nconsumers. Consumers can find information about jobs and connect with other\npeople and the world (Donath and Boyd, 2004). People are meeting online and are keeping in\ntouch through electronic media. Social\nmedia platforms are also changing how people and companies interact with each\nother (Dijkmans, Kerkhof, and\nBeukeboom, 2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the last twenty years, the impacts of how the Internet and telephone\nare used is investigated by researchers (Baym, Zang, Kuntel, Ledbetter and Lin,\n2007) on relational characteristics and compared this to face-to-face\ncommunication. Studies from these researchers have shown that while\ncommunication does not directly address relational quality, it can demonstrate\nthat emails are allowing for more communication in both new and existing\nrelationships. There is evidence to suggest that Internet users can be\nassociated with increased communication with some friendships and families.\nHowever, the evidence does suggest that less intimate relationships are not\nnecessarily suited to using online interactions as a means to sustain a\nrelationship (Baym, Zang, Kuntel, Ledbetter and Lin, 2007). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consumers can act and react to what companies are doing, easily through\nthe use of social media platforms. This allows for the potential for comments\nby consumers to be seen by a worldwide audience (Dijkmans, Kerkhof, and Beukeboom, 2015). Consumers have also\nshifted where they find their information to electronic word-of-mouth sources,\nwhere social media platforms are heavily used. In particular, Facebook and\nTwitter provide a substantive part in electronic word-of-mouth. This has allowed\nfor companies to change their communication approach towards consumers through\nengaging in an online discussion on social media platforms (Dijkmans, Kerkhof, and Beukeboom, 2015).\nHowever, companies have a fine line between good and bad online communication\nwith consumers of their products. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Social networking platforms allow people to create profiles that are\nself-descriptive. People are then able to link to other people they know\nthrough the social media platform. This allows them to ‘create a network of personal\nconnections’ (Donath and Boyd, 2004). Making new connections is the main point\nof social networking platforms. The underlying model for social networking\nplatforms is the assumption that people having mutual acquaintance and provides\na context for connecting (Donath and Boyd, 2004). This concept was born out of\neveryday, face-to-face experiences, where people meet through a mutual\nacquaintance. Social media platforms are unique in allowing people to\narticulate and show their social networks to the public. This allows for\nconnections to potentially be made between individuals that would not have ordinarily\nbeen made (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With each different social media platform, it provides a different\ncommunity for people to involve themselves in. Each platform holds the\npotential for people online to share their experiences, both professionally and\npersonally, on the same platform (Deepti, 2019). With the rise of social media\nplatforms, family and friend relationships and communication methods have\nchanged (Deepti, 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The social media practices, and by extension Web 2.0, ‘lie somewhere\nbetween utilitarian and altruist behaviours (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007). The\nidea of a utilitarian practice is mainly concerned with a person maximizing\ntheir interest. The altruist practice looks at an individual being ‘motivated\nby collective action, volunteering, community belonging, public interest and\nknowledge sharing (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007). With the success of social media\nplatforms and Web 2.0, users create a hybrid of utilitarian and altruist\nbehaviours. The individualization of a person\u2019s goal encounters their\nopportunity to share their expressions to the public. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The architecture of social media spaces enables distinct modes of\ninteraction between people. There is an individualistic motivation behind\nconsumers of social media (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007). With the introduction of\nFacebook, we saw an ‘online social network application allow its users to\ncreate their profiles, display a picture, accumulate and connect to friends who\nhave been met on the online and offline realms and view each other’s profiles’\n(Papacharissi, 2009). Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, commented that\nthe social media platform ‘producing a social utility that connects’\n(Papacharissi, 2009) people with each other. Facebook provides its users with\nthe opportunities to share photos and the ability for users to contribute to\nthe refreshing the content. Initially, Facebook was designed for students at\nHarvard University (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). Zuckerberg expanded the social\nmedia platform to support other university students on the proviso they had\nuniversity email addresses. By September 2005, Facebook became available to\nhigh school students in the United States of America (Boyd and Ellison, 2007).\nEventually, Facebook became available to everyone, and now it also allows for\nusers to advertise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Facebook\u2019s introduction, it required users to actively surf the\nsocial media platform to find out what their friends had posted. Zuckerberg\nupdated Facebook with a built-in service known as the news feed that allowed\nusers to access the updates users better broadcasted. Users would no longer\nneed to examine each page individually in order to find out information and\ncommunicate with people in their friend’s lists. With the introduction of the\nnews feed on Facebook, allowed people to communicate with each other\nface-to-face about the information posted on the social media platform\n(Thompson, 2008). It has been suggested by Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (2007)\nthat Facebook is used to maintain offline relationships instead of meeting new\npeople. While the relationships may be weak, there is common among individuals\nwho friend one another (Boyd and Ellison, 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Twitter is used by millions of people globally to ‘stay connected with\ntheir friends, family and co-workers’ (Huberman, Romero and Wu, 2009) via\ncomputers and mobile. The interface Twitter uses allows people to post short\n140-character messages that can be read by anyone who uses the social media\nplatform. Users declare which profiles they are interested in following,\nhowever, are not necessarily followed back by such users. Users are also able\nto post direct and indirect updates. Direct posts are when a user attempts to\nupdate a specific person through the use of the ‘@’ symbol followed by the\nperson’s username (Huberman, Romero and Wu, 2009). Indirect updates are for\nanyone interested in reading the post. Everyone can see both direct and\nindirect updates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With LinkedIn, we saw the introduction of a pro-life that was based on a\nperson’s professional affiliation and allowed the ability for those to connect\nto professional contact both within and outside their professional networks\n(Papacharissi, 2009). Users of LinkedIn affiliate with their work networks and\nmaintain a list of work connections and colleagues. This network is aimed to\n‘maintain communication, trade information and refer to each other’\n(Papacharissi, 2009). The connection between individuals needs to be\npre-existing or have a mutual contact. LinkedIn is a platform, which can be\nused by everyone. However, professionals and students tend to want to use the\nprogram. As the profile is limited to a business setting, the interface of\nLinkedIn encourages people to have a relatively impersonal interaction with\neach other. This approach has shown to be less successful than other social\nmedia platforms (Donath and Boyd, 2004).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On LinkedIn, testimonials are provided and situated in ‘specific\nsections of the profile’ (Donath and Boyd, 2004) instead of a general comments\nsection. As LinkedIn is a professional site, the sections of the profile\ncorrelate to different jobs. As a result, the testimonials provided, speak\nabout the work a person did at each place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bloggers use the Internet to publish their productions (Aguiton and\nCardon, 2007). Studies of blog users see blogs as a tool for publication and\ncommunication. Specific content is produced by bloggers ‘in order to reach\nothers and start a conversation with them’ (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007). The life\nof blogs strongly correlates to the number and density of comments that are\nattracted by bloggers. Interaction with the audience of a blog is vital in\ncreating interactions with the readers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
How people write blog effects the networks of their commentators. With\nintimate blogs, people have the ‘abnormity of exchanges\u2019 (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007)\ndue to people not knowing each other in real life, is central to the quality of\nsuch conversations on blog sites. In contrast to intimate blogs, proximity\nblogs have daily and multiple exchanges. This is due to bloggers developing\nlinks with his or her commentators in real life. In ‘thematic blogs of some\ncommunities of practices\u2019 (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007), people use their blogs to\nenlarge their social networks with people with the same skills and tastes.\nThese networks are mixed between people that are known to the blogger and\npeople they will encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consumers of Flickr and YouTube use the platforms to store pictures and\nvideos (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007). Members of YouTube can have publicly private\nand privately public profiles. A publicly private profile shows ‘private\nbehaviours, exhibited with the member’s true identity’ (Papacharissi, 2009). A\nprivately public profile allows the consumer to ‘share accessible public video\nwithout disclosing member’s true identity’ (Papacharissi, 2009). The behaviours\nemployed by both profiles are used to ‘signal different depths of\nrelationships\u2019 (Lange, 2007). It allows for communication based on empathy,\nrespect or inclusion between YouTube users. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Conclusion<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In conclusion, communication between people has changed with the\nintroduction of social media platforms. Through this conference paper, it has\nshown how communication has changed through the use of different social media\nplatforms. These platforms include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogging, Flickr\nand YouTube. Each platform allows people to communicate with each other\ndifferently, depending on the number of characters that can be used, the\nprofessionalism needed and whether video or photography content will be used.\nThrough such platforms, people can connect with each other on a public\nforum. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Aguiton, C &\nCardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: an Attempt to Understand\nthe Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications\nand Strategies 65 (1).<\/em> Retrieved from https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070<\/p>\n\n\n\n Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y.\nB., Kunkel, A., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M. (2007). Relational quality and\nmedia use in interpersonal relationships. New Media &\nSociety, 9<\/em>(5), 735-752.\ndoi:http:\/\/dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1177\/1461444807080339<\/p>\n\n\n\n Boase, J. (2008).\nPersonal networks and the personal communication system.Information,\nCommunication and Society, 11<\/em>(4), 490-508.\ndoi:http:\/\/dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1080\/13691180801999001<\/p>\n\n\n\n Boyd, D and Ellison, N.\n(2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication\n13(1).<\/em> Retrieved from http:\/\/jcmc.indiana.edu\/vol13\/issue1\/boyd.ellison.html<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Deepti. 2019. Social\nMedia, Communities and Networks Introduction. Curtin University. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/lms.curtin.edu.au\/bbcswebdav\/pid-6560817-dt-content-rid-33803050_1\/courses\/2019_1_NETS2002_V2_L1_A1_INT_678090\/2018_1_NETS2002_V2_L1_A1_INT_638650_ImportedContent_20180209034812\/Net204\/index.html<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dijkmans, C. Kerkhof, P. and Beukeboom,\nC. (2015). A stage to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation. Tourism Management 47<\/em>. 58 – 67. Retrieved\nfrom http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.tourman2014.09.005<\/p>\n\n\n\n Donath, J., & Boyd, d. (2004). Public\nDisplays of Connection. BT Technology\nJournal<\/em>, 22<\/em>(4),\n71-82. Retrieved from http:\/\/smg.media.mit.edu\/papers\/Donath\/socialnetdisplay.draft.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ellison, N, Steinfield,\nC and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook’ friends’: Exploring the relationship between\ncollege students’ use of online social networks and social capital. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,\n12(3).<\/em> Retrieved from http:\/\/jcmc.indiana.edu\/vol12\/issue4\/ellison.html<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Huberman, B, Romero, D\nand Wu, F. (2008). Crowdsourcing, attention and productivity. World Wide Conference 2009.<\/em> Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/0809.3030<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Huberman, B, Romero, D\nand Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14(1)<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/firstmonday.org\/article\/view\/2317\/2063 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lange, P. (2007).\nPublicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking On YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication\n13(1).<\/em> Retrieved from http:\/\/jcmc.indiana.edu\/vol13\/issue1\/lange.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n Papacharissi, Z.\n(2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of\nFacebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media and Society, 11<\/em>(1-2),\n199-220. doi:http:\/\/dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1177\/1461444808099577<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thompson, C. (2008). Brave New World of\nDigital Intimacy. The New York\nTimes. <\/em>5 September. http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/09\/07\/magazine\/07awareness-t.html?_r=1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Abstract With the introduction of social media, communication between individuals has changed dramatically, allowed them to connect or reconnect with each other. Each social media platform provides a different method of communication. Keywords: social media, communication methods, social media platforms, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, conference paper 1. Introduction With the introduction of the… Continue reading How communication has changed since the introduction of social media<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[207,83,210,28,7,21,209,208,77],"class_list":["post-614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-communication-methods","tag-facebook","tag-flickr","tag-instagram","tag-linkedin","tag-social-media","tag-social-media-platforms","tag-twitter","tag-youtube"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=614"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":615,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614\/revisions\/615"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}