02 Response: The pleasures and perils of asymmetric networking (re:"Social Media and Me")

In response to Ceci's post "Social Media and Me," I would like to highlight a contrast between Facebook ("is almost like a reflex to me, but more to keep up with certain friends who are quite active on it") and Twitter (which "is practically a lifeline. This has become a news source for me"), in light of Google+'s beta launch earlier this summer and more recent public opening. At the same time, I want to reframe boyd and Ellison's quite limiting definition last week of social networks as spaces where you can connect to those friends from Real Life with a more holistic approach from an older Donath and boyd paper.  Caution: pessimistic technological determinism ahead.

It was not until Google unleashed their surprisingly meager social network that I began to reflect on the structural differences between Twitter and Facebook, namely that of asymmetrical vs. symmetrical ties and how that network structure relates to use. Tech pundits spent all of July arguing about whether Google+ would decimate LinkedIn, outfox Facebook, perhaps wallop Twitter or maybe not. Google users' ability to asymmetrically and automatically 'subscribe' to any other user's updates mirrored Twitter's limitless imperative to 'follow' and its Venn diagram-like superstructure, which limits the spread of updates, appeared to be a reworking of Facebook's underutilized Grouping function. By requiring the user to categorize each new network node as well as similarly-categorize each datum shared, the site combats Facebook's affect of each new friend becoming a liability when many updates are shared with 'friends of friends.'

For me, as well as for Ceci, much of the joie de tweet comes from peeking at the unfiltered thoughts from "favorite celebrities, comedians, [and] writers" which might not be as concise candid or casual on Google+, instead it's more like communicating with our close friends.  Google+, in effect, tries to capture both the friend-to-friend social ties of boyd and Ellison’s “social network” and the one-to-many ‘subscriptions’ that are the same mechanism as the “social networking” spaces such as Twitter, blogs and most opt-in marketing. In an earlier piece, boyd and Donath (Public Displays of Connection, 2004) contrast the two models of sharing information and verifying identity and trustworthiness, that of a ‘Balkanified’ site like LinkedIn which avoids “the uncomfortable mixing of too heterogeneous a set of connections ... by emphasizing business connections” and having well-defined limits, versus “a more promising design solution” that essentially follows the system of circles and limited sharing that Google+ encourages.

I’d argue, though, that this mixing of the two networking styles, asymmetrical and all-encompasing with symmetrical and focused, on one site is one of the reasons for the lukewarm barely-exodus to Google+, even after Facebook’s latest round of disruptive UI changes which make it function more like Google+. While Ceci can (well, could) expect her Facebook's Top News feed to have reliable updates from “certain friends who are quite active on it” when I log onto Google+, all I see are a handful of stale updates from some trailblazing friends which have been diluted in a sea of pictures from semi-strangers (mostly photographers from Tumblr) whose names I don’t recognize (due to the real-names policy) and who would not recognize me or even see my own posts.  At its best, networks that have both asymetrical and symetrical components (now Google+ AND Facebook) could be a homepage for all updates we want to see on the web, but perhaps a little bit of Balkanization, context and discretion among our networks would not be so bad. At least then we'd have a better idea of what to say, and how.

[If, for some reason you want to join me in the silent abyss which is G+, I'm at: http://gplus.to/ariklick.  -Ari]

Blog Post #2- The best way to study the culture of SNS

It seems that there are a lot of useful tools for studying culture and social media technologies and to pick an ideal one would depend on the research question. As Hargittai points out, social network sites are incredibly complex because they exist online and offline, affecting relationships in both the digital and physical spaces. For this reason, it seems that ethnography is the most useful mode of research for studying social network sites and culture, especially if the researcher is unfamiliar with the culture and the technology of the network he or she is studying. It is also useful to point out that due to the relatively nascent nature of social networking sites, and the extremely high rate at which culture on social network sites can change, most researchers will be unfamiliar with the site of their study to a certain degree.

Being immersed in the culture of the social network site, as one would be through the ethnography process, the subtle and important rules, customs and norms of the site would be more apparent. An example that comes immediately to mind deals with the recent Facebook layout changes. A researcher doing a study like boyd, Golder and Lotan, where the results yield quantifiable analyses of the social network site, might not realize that a massive change in Facebook technology happened during the study. That is unless one or all of the researchers were observing Facebook as a participant. Having experienced the layout change, the researcher would be able to take into account the amount of “flaming” going on around the change.

boyd, Golder and Lotan on the other hand might be wary of the bias a participant observer might have in an ethnography like Nardi’s or Boellstorff’s. Nardi admits that “In a game world, the overwhelming need to play dominates interaction much of the time” (35). Going back to the example of Facebook’s recent layout change, there might be a similarly overwhelming frustration with the change that the ethnographer would be hard-pressed to think objectively about. When studying Facebook as a social network site through the veil of numbers and statistics, a researcher might be able to see the picture more clearly.

 

Roxy Dyer

@roxyredstar

 

Blog Post # 2 - Response to Social Media Reflection by Charli Lee

http://csmt11.posterous.com/blog-post-1-social-media-reflection

Charli’s blog post made me laugh quite a few times, first with the perfect description of the usual “myspace” pic, and secondly with the texting or social media-ing (I think this should become a real word) while having a face-to-face conversation. I found the myspace reference comical because of how myspace gave such a perfect outlet for people’s vanity and self-obsession. Everyone at least once has shaken their head at people with their thousands of mirror shots or never-ending twitter feed. At the same time though most people if not all who use social media do with either a feeling that they are important or a hope that if they post enough they will become important. Charli stated in her blog post that she “mainly stay(s) on Facebook because (she) like(s) that people who know (her)/want to get to know (her) can see who (she is) and what (she) do(es), and vice versa”. This I completely agree with and find fascinating.

            This idea of importance is highlighted in dana boyd’s article, “Friends, Friendsters, and Myspace Top 8: Writing Community Into Being on Social Network Sites”. dana boyd discusses how these social networking sites have manipulated the meaning of “friend”.  She discusses how Friendship has been thought of to stand for “contend, offline facilitator, online community, trust, courtesy, declaration, or nothing”. (8) The meaning of friendship used to be much more personal and precious than it is now. However, as the idea of friendship has become less personal different hierarchies of friendship have also arisen; such as “Top friends” on myspace or limited profile friends on facebook. Before social networks you were only really able to do this when you called someone your “best friend” but social networks let you advertize your hierarchy of friends and also allow you to maintain weak ties with people you probably would’ve lost touch with if you weren’t “friends” on facebook or some other type of social networking site.

            When it comes to day to day life and meeting new people or conversing with old friends you don’t usually go through an entire dialogue about your interests, favorite quotes, hobbies, and favorite music unless it comes up in conversation or maybe if you’re on a first date. This usually only happens over a long period of time if ever. Partially I feel the reason for this is because if you straight up talk about yourself for a long period of time people find that un-attractive and begin to view as self-centered even though given the chance they would probably do the same because face it humans in general tend to be a little bit vain. However, social media allows you the chance to take those hundreds of pictures of yourself and look completely normal. It also allows you to talk about yourself endlessly without being told to shut up. I think it might be because social media allows filtering and therefore allows the information that you are sharing to be not so “in your face”. Therefore people no longer particularly focus on the fact that it could be seen as vain because if they don’t want to look at it they don’t have to. Also on the other side it allows people to get to know people that they’ve only met a few times or maybe never more intimately without being seen as creepy or as a stalker. I think it’s just fascinating how social media has changed or manipulated much rhetoric (I hope I’m using that word correctly) in our society.

            However, at the same time it also leads to new behaviors to look down upon such as the excessive texting or social media-ing during a face-to-face conversation. When Charli mentioned this I couldn’t help but laugh because my mother goes on and on about how much she hates this. I think this behavior exists because of our need to be in the loop. I do agree though, that it can become disrespectful and downright annoying. Sometimes it changes the dynamic of a conversation or even a relationship because the attention is so easily shifted. It can lead to people feeling inadequate. 

 

Jessica Weinberg

Evolving Relationship of Facebook Users:

Justin Tuma's response to:
http://csmt11.posterous.com/taking-a-sobering-sip-from-the-firehouse

Ari’s post made me consider the evolving relationship users have with facebook, as well as differences between generations.  

 

As we mentioned in class, a great deal of our experience with social media has been in our adolescence.  A great deal of this may be the fact that it historically overlapped with our coming of age.  But our struggling with identity and understanding ones social sphere really stood out when he wrote of his experiences “impersonating various classmates over AIM.”  The idea that we can both understand and mimic memes of human interaction has transfered over from the physical to digital.  The way one might respond to an uncomfortable situation with a facial expression has its counter-parting digital meme.  Maybe a :/  or :S exemplifies this.  Contrastingly, it seems to me that older generations of users, my mom and her co-workers for instance, don’t seem to use these behaviors or signals nearly as frequently.  Despite our mockery of this (http://myparentsjoinedfacebook.com/), it makes me wonder if younger generations will be impeded in face-to-face interactions.  Older generations may be lacking in social media skills, but maybe their face-to-face skills will be contrastingly stronger.

 

Considering both the ‘domestication’ factor of social-media, as well as the aging and maturing of our generation who has grown up along side it, it is interesting to note the personal developments many seem to be making en masse: “I’ve taken more of a backseat ‘lurker’ approach to many of the sites that I now frequent, posting or otherwise adding content at a rate that seems to have dropped off significantly from my early use.”  One aspect of what makes social media unique is the transformation of media from ‘one-to-many,’ to ‘many-to-many,’ both producing and consuming content.  One can’t help but wonder if the the ‘natural’ state of social media users leans heavily toward the one side of consuming, rather than producing - or at least will in time.  

 

It is indeed “more relaxing” of an experience to be passive when consuming media - there is no obligation to create content or appease subscribers to blogs and so forth.  It seems to be that the pleasure of voyeurism is nearly universal, as is the inkling to maintain privacy from others.  We hold back on what we put in, and it is so much easier to take out.  As social media is domesticated, Ari’s post suggests that the novelty of the medium will wear off, such as the “can’t miss it” attitude for Twitter before giving up in frustration when I realized I had also unwittingly followed over 400 accounts.”  Like sending mass chain-emails when emailing was first popularized, there is a desire to see how far one can stretch there arms in the new medium - as was the case with radio broadcasting.  It is more than likely that the democratizing aspect of social media will still be its virtue in future years, but the fad of social media ‘addiction’ is already becoming a thing of the past.

Response to Post on Mobile SNSs Usage

Fastest Internet Service? South Korea

 

This post is in response to Sachi’s “My Use of Social Media”.

 

Sachi’s blog post regarding her use of social media gave me insights into how someone growing up in Japan first encounters social media. What’s also special is the medium it uses – mobile phone. I have learned from previous classes that some countries in Asia have the fastest internet connection service in comparison to the rest of the world. South Korea is found to have the world’s fastest internet service. I found a pretty interesting infographic from Mashable regarding internet connections, and it is said that South Korea has a faster download speed than Great Britain, Turkey, Spain & Australia combined. South Korea also has a high penetration rate of mobile phone users - 105% penetration rate mark in 2011.

 [https://wiki.smu.edu.sg/w/digitalmediaasia/images/thumb/b/bf/SouthKorea-Infographics.png/800px-SouthKorea-Infographics.png]

Not to mention the booming mobile phone innovations happening in South Korea. It made social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook quickly open their Korean language sites in order to seize the great momentum in Korea.  Although Facebook and Twitter usage are growing in popularity in Korea, Cyworld (equivalent to Facebook) is still the most popular social networking site in South Korea. Like Sachi mentioned how she used mixi instead of Facebook when she goes back to Japan, South Koreans mainly use Cyworld as their main platform to connect with friends.

Sachi uses mixi to connect with old friends in Japan, like Nicole Ellison said we started using Facebook to stay connected with our high school friends once we got to college. We venture onto social networking sites with goals to stay in touch with people that we know or just met. I have mentioned in my first blog post that I was glad that Facebook is gaining popularity in Taiwan because I was able to reconnect with my old friends in Taiwan. I know if I have a smartphone, Korean’s activeness on social networking sites and the broad internet has director correlation to how accessible internet is for them. I would be able to participate more in depth on social networking sites that I am on.

 

Jessica Y.
@jayckah

Social Media Analysis

Two types of research methods reign supreme when it comes to analyzing
social media: the ethnographic method and the quantitative method. An
ethnographic approach can be used for any type of social research, as
it takes into account the trends within a cultural or social group. As
a qualitative research method, ethnographic research gathers data
through observation, interviews, surveys and other direct contact with
the studied group. Quantitative research, while also looking for
trends, instead relies on statistical (often charted or graphed) data.
Often a theory is proposed and then tested through quantitative
research instead of a conclusion being found, as is more often the
case in the ethnographic method. Each leaves something to be desired,
as ethnography focuses on a small group and often does not allow for
observation of different facets (users vs. producers vs. labor market
etc.). Quantitative research, on the other hand, often takes into
account an entire culture, and given its nature is limited in
response, evolution of behavior.


Different researchers use different methods depending on the topic or
group they’re interested in. Since each method has its pros and cons,
it’s difficult to pick one over the other. This past week’s reading
had researchers split over methods. For example, Beer’s “Social
networking sites… revisiting the story so far: A response to danah
boyd and Nicole Ellison” takes issue with boyd and Ellison’s essay,
“Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship”. Largely
Beer criticizes the focus on the user of social networking sites, as
it allows other facets to be overlooked. She notes that this leaves
the question of how social media is contextualized in capitalist
society.


Nardi, and Boellstorff are interested in the way people interact via
social media. Instead of taking a more traditional approach to the
research however, Nardi (World of Warcraft) and Boellstorff (Second
Life) also immersed themselves in the culture each was investigating.
Through their personal experiences in conjunction with conducting
interviews and reading relevant online resources, these researchers
were able to create broader conclusions about the studied groups
Researchers such as boyd, Golder, and Lotan or Hargittai preferred a
quantitative approach to their research. boyd, Golder, and Lotan
mapped out the conventions of retweeting, while Hargittai was
interested in social media adoption. While the population and
interest of each study is different, the way the research was
conducted is much the same. While looking for a trend, surveys were
conducted across a rather large group. The results were then analyzed
and graphed and conclusions were drawn based largely on this data.


I believe researchers like Nardi and Boellstorff would say about boyd,
Golder, and Lotan’s “Tweet, Tweet, Retweet” is that is does not
account for follow-up interviews or real insight into Twitter users. I
also believe Nardi and Boellstorff might say that the survey group for
Hargittati’s research was too specific in that it targeted a small age
group on a college campus. This in itself says something about the
conclusions that can be drawn.


As previously mentioned, I don’t believe that one method has a leg up
on another in the field of social network analysis. I think each has
room for improvement. I do, however, find reading the ethnographic
studies to be more interesting, as they often have one-on-one accounts
with social media users as well as their own personal experience.

S.Nelson

Response to Post on Chinese Social Media

In response to http://csmt11.posterous.com/csmt-blog1

This post (I wish I knew who wrote it!) intrigued me because, in America, it is rare to hear about social media platforms in other countries. Even in articles we have read for this class, they are often given a brief mention, however language and translation issues plague further discussion. Hearing about these platforms first-hand is interesting and revealing, especially given the unique Internet censorship issues within China.

The author of this post mentions that Renren started out as a near clone to Facebook, but over time has developed unique features such as the "footprint" left on visited pages. These developments are along the lines of what danah boyd refers to in her article "Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8." She writes of social networking service Friendster and how, despite starting as a dating site, its actual use was to connect with friends: "Much to the chagrin of the developers, the early adopters of Friendster framed the social norms, not the system’s designers" (14). This suggests that, perhaps for the Chinese audience, a feature dictating which pages a user has visited is an in-demand feature while American audiences on Facebook are likely more used to the privacy of "stalking" pages with no social repercussions. Thus, the platforms that started out similar grow apart and, in ten years, will probably be vastly different creatures than one another.

Use of Twitter-clone Weibo as a voice for the people is more along the lines of social media use for social change. The author of the post writes that in the wake of the Chinese high speed rail crash, the service served as a voice to the media to give fair coverage to the crash and the questions it raised regarding safety of the burgeoning rail network. However, this is for an issue that probably doesn't face mass politicization. Stories might be about government cutting corners on infrastructure development, but it is unlikely going to be a trigger for mass revolution. And, indeed, highly politicized stories have faced censorship in Weibo, such as "words with the slightest linkage to [dissident artist Ai Weiwei]" in the wake of his release following three months of detainment by police. This suggests that Weibo is not an infallible voice for the Chinese.

Clarke B

Social media research methods

There are numerous ways a researcher can go about studying the relationship between culture and social media technologies. I don’t believe there is an ideal method, since much of the way you research is dependent on the questions you’re asking. However, based on last week’s readings, it seems that ethnographic research is a preferable method if one is interested in truly learning about the inner workings of a specific social media culture.

 

As we learned from these articles, ethnography involves immersing oneself in a culture in an attempt to study it. Nardi and Boellstorf became a part of the respective communities they were researching, and through participating, both had to navigate the cultures of World of Warcraft/Second Life and thus learned from their own experiences. Ethnography also allows a researcher to compare these self-reflexive experiences with those of other participants and draw a more well-rounded conclusion about how the culture operates. Survey-only methods of research are helpful in getting specific data sets from a large group of people, but as we discussed in class, you can only get answers to the questions you asked. Data collected from surveys may also not be 100% accurate, since survey participants may alter their answers knowing that a researcher is analyzing them. It’s like that old adage about not judging a book by its cover—sometimes it really is necessary to go beyond the surface and get involved with the story (or in this case, social media culture) firsthand to have a valid point of view on it.

 

The authors of these articles each conducted their research in different ways, and thus would probably have a lot to say to one another regarding their methods. Nardi, for example, who says that ethnography is a ‘go with the flow’ method of research in which one can “follow the interesting and the unexpected as they are encountered in the field” (Nardi 27) might argue that Hargittai’s survey of college freshmen’s SNS use is too limited because doesn’t allow for the chance to observe the phenomenon of social media in action, and thus doesn’t afford the opportunity to delve deeper into other facets of SNS use that Hargittai may not have originally considered. Boellstorff, on the other hand, would probably applaud boyd, Golder & Lotan’s research into Retweeting culture. He cites Boas’s “cosmological approach to knowledge,” which says that every phenomenon is worthy of being studied for its own sake, and says that ethnographic research “connects seemingly isolated incidents of cultural exchange” (Boellstorff 69). Although boyd et al.’s research was not fully ethnographic in nature (it was partially because the “survey” question regarding purposes of retweeting was sent out via Twitter), it certainly does study retweet culture for its own sake, and works to establish a connecting thread among each incident of retweeting.

 

There isn’t one “right” way of conducting social media research; however, I feel that each author from last week chose the correct method for the questions they wished to answer. Ethnographic or not, each brought a unique perspective to the social media culture they studied and allowed for greater insight into their respective topics.

Responding to Gaby’s 1st Blog: http://csmt11.posterous.com/gaby-collettas-blog-post-1-an-all-encompassin

I really liked the video Gaby posted-- produced by Google Creative
Lab—so I set about looking into what made that ad effective and how
many more were created. Google seems to produce a lot of videos
inspiring people to use digital as a way to connect to one another,
almost a proactive reaction to the common criticism that digital
technology places a barrier between users. It seems inevitable that
Google (along with other companies) move us to progress the
relationship we have with new media. McLuhan said the electric
circuitry causes men to be profoundly involved with one another. The
result of this advancement was the formation of what he calls the
global village.
I feel like the Internet is amplifying his sentiment and that we live
in a global virtual village where screen images stand in for the real
person without unnerving us. The feelings of space and time are
compressed and we all start to live in a simultaneous happening. The
video Gaby posted shows us how to navigate the new boundaries formed
by new media. The montage of moments are all thematic: they all
demonstrate technology as a tool to connect with the ones we love.
In a video I found called “Dear Sophie” http://youtu.be/R4vkVHijdQk we
see the coming-of-age of a girl through social media, but we also see
a clear message: the web is what you make of it. That slogan could be
applied to either video. The idea behind these videos, in my opinion,
is to remind overwhelmed plugged-in parents who are experiencing
anxiety about new technology to find a comfort level and take
ownership of the web.
Taking ownership of the digital experience comes as an instinct to the
youth today. (Any doubts I had about that were wiped away when I
spotted a 3 year-old tapping away on an ipad until she played her
favorite Dora the Explorer episode.) But besides a comfort level from
a usage standpoint, younger generations are capable of gracefully
unlocking the purpose of these new interfaces, which as Baym points
out has been the same since their ancient inception: to allow people
to exchange messages without being physically co-present (Baym, 2).
Youth are also comfortable with being the curators of their online
personas and producing/sharing content to represent them. The purpose
of the “Dear Sophie” video in my view is to encourage the parents of
this generation to see the web as a place to invest in: to curate
pages with identity markers, to make personal interactions. It echoes
the message of Gaby’s “Father/Daughter” video, with scenes of a dad
reading aloud to his daughter while they are miles apart and saying
goodnight despite being in different time zones. I notice most adults
know how to manage their online persona but turn off the screen when
they clock out for the day. The subliminal message of these videos is
to educate adults that they can make the web “work” for them and be
empowered by perpetual contact it offers rather than feel suffocated
by it (Baym, 4).

In the “Dear Sophie” video we see our desire to keep media social. I
think this is because we identify with the same desires that
characterize social media: to store (memories), interact and
communicate. Watching Gaby's video or The Google Chrome “Dear Sophie”
one I notice how both successfully leverage a nuclear/familiar
relationship (between father/daughter). By portraying the relationship
between a small girl and her father as loving and having this love
made visible through the tools of the Internet it communicates a
powerful message to viewers. The impact is instant: I imagine older
generations who use media in their careers, but on a personal level
feel it skeptical see the attentive father and soften-- realizing
intimacy can be facilitated through this new media. The video
showcases tools of the Internet, which capture memories that would
otherwise be challenging to share in such a vivid and varied archive.
For those who are netizens, the focus is on benefits of the new
technology. It is an archive that is made possible entirely by using
Google products (all accessed through Chrome) so it creates a more
holistic view of Sophie's life. The reason both these ads are
effective is they give heart to a form our brains recognize; they
prove that intimacy can absolutely be achieved through these new
channels.

--Kayla8thecity

Kayla F.

Blog Post 2 Prompt

For your second blog post you have two options. You only need to choose one of them. Whichever option you choose, your post should be several (3-4) paragraphs long.

1) You may respond thoughtfully to a previous post written by one of your classmates. IMPORTANT: Write this as a totally new post, not as a comment. Your new post should include a permalink to the post to which you are responding. (Ask me if you need help figuring out how to do this. If it's not done this way, I will likely miss your post and you will not receive credit!) After linking to the original post, provide a few paragraphs of new insight that builds off of or offers a counterpoint to the original post. For instance, you may wish to put multiple posts in conversation with each other, or to consider how a post gained new meaning for you in light of a reading assigned since the post was written. It is important that your post be original and offer something new and valuable, as opposed to just containing your offhand opinion of the thoughts presented in the first post.

2) You may write a new blog post reflecting on methodologies and modes of analysis for studying social media. After completing the readings for September 20, do you think there is an ideal method for learning about the relationships between culture and social media technologies? Are some methods preferable to others, in your opinion? Why? Imagine that the authors of the assigned readings are meeting together in a conference room. What might they say to each other about the study of social media? For example, what would Beer say to boyd, Golder, & Lotan about their Twitter article? What would Slater say to Boellstorf about his ethnography chapter? What would Boellstorf think of boyd, Golder, & Lotan's research? (You are not limited to thinking about these pairings - feel free to speculate about any of the assigned authors in conversation with each other.) Try to use specific references from the readings to back up your speculations.

Your post is due by 9am on September 27.