Social Networking Sites Redefine Social Obligations Associated With Being ‘Friends’.

By Emily Stone

The term friend holds certain expectations and intimacy in a traditional offline world. However with the proliferation of Social Networking Sites and their ability to create friend lists the definition and expectations surrounding a friend has changed. Focussing on Friendster as an example of online users desires when it comes to displaying friends this paper will discuss the differences between online and offline friendships and why they should act under different classifications.

---

Friend. A simple word that holds many expectations of those whom one categorises within its boundaries. Pre-social networking, a friend was clearly understood as someone holding a voluntary, boundary less, non-sexual or familial relationship with another individual (boyd, 2006; Fischer, 1982). While friendships within this general definition still persist today there is a new form of friend that has evolved through affordances on social networking sites (SNS).

Despite all SNS being different common similarities are that they, offer participants the capacity to create a profile, often containing an image and personal description, and the ability to create links between themselves and other users (Donath & boyd, 2004; boyd & Ellison, 2008). The linking tools afforded allow users of a site to see the others profile and display their ‘friends’ in list format on an online forum for others to see (boyd & Ellison, 2008). Although it was initially expected that people would only friend people whom they were friends with in real life (boyd, 2006) most SNS users have extensive and diverse friend networks that include acquaintances and close friends and users often only interact directly with a small number of these displayed friends (boyd, 2006; Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2008). SNSs have therefore altered the meaning of the term friend and redefined expectations of friendships, both on and offline. Despite clear differences between online and offline friends, the increased blurring of the two can cause confusion and have a negative impact on the relationship.

Differing Social Expectations of Online and Offline Friends.

There are different roles when it comes to the expectations of online and offline friendships. While these changes, which have been altered through SNS, are not necessarily negative, it is impractical to assume that online and offline friends are held to the same expectations and standards.

Online being a ‘friend’ assumes that you have simply been provided access to someone’s profile and may not interact with them again, yet still see their arguably ‘personal’ posts online. Offline being a friend involves answering calls, helping with any problems they may be having, generally just spending time with each other in mutual agreement of fondness. Online a users list of friends is not segregated by friends, acquaintances and strangers which means there is no way to define who is someone’s friend in real life. There is little to no context on SNS as to what each name listed under ‘friends’ really means to that user.

Friending affordances vary form site to site. Some sites allow people to connect without reciprocation, others require both parties to confirm the request to connect profiles (boyd & Ellison, 2008; boyd, 2006). Once the connection is confirmed, the users profiles are connected and they will generally be allowed access to the others profile, friends list, posts and photos (Huberman et al., 2008; boyd, 2006). Some SNS try to lock their users into specific affordances surrounding friending other users. The most notable of these is Friendster. While I acknowledge the Friendster is an outdated SNS I see value in its analysis as the development of many modern sites has been impacted by the early days of Friendster. Looking into where SNS began and how and why they changed can provide insight into how SNS have altered the term friend and how friending services have changed and why.

The Costs of Friendship.

Before delving into the beginnings and eventual demise of Friendster it is beneficial to understand the costs that both online and offline friendships incur with accepting and then continuing a relationship. Offline friendships carry with them the expectation of emotional and practical support while carrying with it a sense of exclusivity (boyd, 2006). Whereas the distance between users when using SNS makes it highly difficult to perceive and act on social cues generally used to support and maintain offline friendships makes creating and maintaining the same level of emotional closeness found in offline friendships difficult (Baym, Zhang, Kunkel, Ledbetter, Lin, 2007; Short, Williams & Christie, 1976).While there is no ‘list’ in the offline world there are many different ways that people can display their friendships; parties, photos throughout their house, appearing in public with a friend (Donath & boyd, 2004; Feld, 1981; Csikszentmihalyi & Halton, 1981). There is arguably more energy required in order to maintain an offline friendship due to physically arranging times and places to ‘hang out’ or chat on the phone so that the relationship remains relevant. Where neglecting an offline friendship will often result in that relationship terminating, interacting with online friends or not they has no effect to them remaining linked to your profile unless a conscious decision is made to remove them. While online ‘friendships’ are arguably lower maintenance once established there are great costs surrounding the rejection of a friend request online (boyd, 2006; boyd, 2004).

A friend request can seem like a rather detached action. One user clicks a button which sends a request to the other user who has to decide whether they accept or decline, all the while never seeing the other face to face. The rejection of a friend request online can create a very socially awkward environment if the person is someone who you will potentially interact with offline in the future. This cost of rejection often sees users accept requests from people who they do not necessarily classify as their friend as accepting their request is easier than facing questions of the rejection (boyd, 2006). Accepting these friend requests often leads to connections made between individual’s with common friends who may have only met once or twice (boyd & Ellison, 2008; Haythornthwaite, 2005). All of these small influences surrounding why someone accepts an online friend request lead to users online listings to include individuals whom are either friends, acquaintances or strangers all under the one lump term ‘friend’ (boyd, 2006). The blanket term of friend in the online world removes the intimacy and importance associated with being referred to as someone’s friend in the offline world. While you may be someone’s ‘best friend’ in the offline world, in the online world you are lumped in to the same group as someone they met at a party once. The online world often removes all hierarchy involved with friendships in the offline world. While Friendster attempted to control this excessive friending their intervening was not well received by users.

Friendster vs MySpace.

Friendster is a SNS that was founded in 2002 and was specifically created and designed to create a place for people to connect with those they already knew (boyd & Ellison, 2008; boyd, 2006). The developers of Friendster put a limit on their friending tool so that users were only able to friend and see profiles of people to 4 degrees of connection (friends of friends of friends of friends) (boyd & Ellison, 2008; boyd, 2006). The reason for this is being the site was designed as an alternative to the current dating sites which aimed to connect people with strangers (boyd & Ellison, 2008). What developers did not predict is that users would want to connect to as many people as they could within the site. These users became known as ‘Collectors’ as they began adding people they had no offline connection to in order to ‘collect’ as many profiles or friends as possible (boyd, 2006). As users began collecting in order to broaden their network they also began creating fake accounts, ‘Fakesters’, in order to expedite this process (boyd, 2006). The developers of Friendster were not supportive of the users attempts to defy the limits that were put in place in order to keep the site tracking in the direction they desired. In retaliation the developers began deleting any profile they deemed to be a Collector or a Fakester (boyd, 2006; boyd & Ellison, 2008; boyd, 2008). The deletion of profiles signalled to users the difference in ideals from developer to user perspective causing many users to defect to new SNS (boyd & Ellison, 2008). The main defect site for users who left Friendster was MySpace. Unlike Friendster developers who rejected users attempts to changes their affordances within the site, MySpace embraced what users desired from a SNS — the free will to friend whomever they wish (boyd, 2006). What does this situation between developers and users of Friendster tell us about the way people want to use friending services on SNS? It tells us that the developers are attempting to emulate offline friendships in an online forum and that users are rejecting this transference.

MySpace and the Top 8 Experiment.

There are unspoken hierarchies in offline friendships where people are often aware of the level of relationship they have with someone. Though online platforms allow these to be visually represent through photos and in some instances specific SNS featuers.

MySpace implemented a feature called the ‘Top 8’ which allowed users to list 8 friends whom they considered to be their ‘elite’ friends. This feature allowed for a small number of those on your list to be displayed as your top friends a similar effect to that of displaying their photo on your refrigerator. While this may seem a good way to differentiate the friends from the acquaintances online users then struggled with who to select and with users being left out of their top 8 feeling left out (boyd, 2006).

Due to consumer complaints MySpace soon increased the limit of 8 friends though the fear of leaving out a friend and hurting someone’s feeling was still a great social cost on the users decisions (boyd, 2006). Deleting or leaving someone out of your Top 8 became a way to publicly display changes within your social circle, a simple action which is not as well practiced in the offline world (boyd, 2006). The context in which someone’s friendship is based can influence the relationship and provide the viewer with a clearer indication of the extent of that friendship (Donath & boyd, 2004), this context also influences the form in which that friendship will take (boyd, 2006; Adams & Allan, 1998). For example a friendship that is in an offline scenario and involves an array of physical bonding activities the context and form is of a stronger bond and friendship than that of an online friendship that consists of minimal interaction between users and a simple connection of their profiles through a friend list. Though in an online world that friend with the stronger bond and the acquaintance that you friended due to social costs are bundled into the same list.

Where to Next.

While this is not by any means an exhaustive look into SNS and their implications on the term ‘friend’ it provides important research and points connecting the beginnings of SNS to practices still seen today. Some researchers argue that the Internet is a way to create virtual communities in a way that will restore informal spaces of interaction (Kendall, 2011). Others suggest that the Internet facilitates the increase in isolation experienced in the modern world of technology (Barney, 2004). The community that most people are accustomed is slowly being changed through Internet affordances, including SNS, that see the world being reduced to a place of social isolation where online friends are becoming the new commodity to signal power or popularity in the online world (Kendall, 2011).

The initial attempts from Friendster developers to control how far users could search to create connections was met with such distain from its users that they eventually defected to a site, MySpace, that had no such restrictions. Signalling that people were not simply searching for their friends online but were also not adverse to the inclusion of strangers and acquaintances being added to their list of ‘friends’. While at times this may be due to social costs associated with a declined friend request there has also been evidence of people aiming to have as many friends as they possibly can. Friendsters early failure to adjust to what its users wanted saw its fall in 2015 and the subsequent rise, in years prior, of sites such as Facebook and Instagram who followed MySpace in not limiting users abilities on creating connections for their friend lists. Many sites still use ‘friend’ as the term associated with links and required mutual acception sites such as Twitter and Instagram have adopted the term ‘follower’ which often do not require mutual connection though in some cases require at least one users approval. The term follower is likely to be a more accurate way to define and categorise most peoples social networking connections.

Further research in regards to online and offline friends could continue to close the gap on conversations surrounding what it means to be a friend. While it may be a simple question to answer for offline friends, online friends are a new form of ‘friendship’ that do not follow the same social conventions of offline friends.

Online and offline friends travel along separate lines and while some may cross over, for example a users best offline friend may very well appear in their online friend list, the lack of segregation and the increased freedom of friending abilities has seen that the two follow different social expectations and thus should be seen under separate definitions of the term friend.

---

Reference List:

Adams, R., & Allan, G. (1998). Placing friendship in context. Cambridge University Press.

Barney, D. (2004). The vanishing table, or community in a world that is no world. In A. Feenberg & D. Barney (Eds.), Community in the Digital Age (pp. 31-51). Rowman & Littlefield

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. https://doi.org10.1177/1461444807080339

boyd, d. (2004, April 24). Friendster and publicly articulated social networking. Paper presented at Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vienna Austria. https://doi.org10.1145/985921.986043

boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12), n/a. https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1418/1336

boyd, d. (2008). None of This is Real: Identity and Participation in Friendster. In J. Karaganis (Ed.), Structures of Participation in Digital Culture (pp. 132-157). Social Science Research Council. http://www.danah.org/papers/NoneOfThisIsReal.pdf

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2008), 210-230. https://doi.org10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

boyd, d., & Donath, J. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82. https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/215202769?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University Press.

Feld, S. L. (1981). The Focused Organization of Social Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015-1035. https://doi.org10.1086/227352

Fischer, C. (1982). To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. University of Chicago Press.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125-147. https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/13691180500146185

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. arXiv.org, (2008, December), 1-9. https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2090552420?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 309-325). Blackwell Publishing.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.