Why are we not migratory birds? Even when its grown hostile, home's home.
At face value, danah boyd’s early commentary on class distinctions between Facebook and Myspace from 2007 and her eventual metaphor of white flight in 2009 create a very compelling narrative about what is and isn’t happening on some of our most beloved social networks. After I had came across her first blog-essay “Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace,” I spread it like gospel, repeating it in a sort of ‘hey look – the internet is as cliquish as real life!’ kind of way. It focused, unlike her latter talk/paper which refines the argument into a jeremiad about the internet failing us as a social equalizer, on dividing users into two more broadly defined groups, “hegemonic teens” and “subaltern teens.” These are terms more likely to be used in the relationship between political economy and culture and I believe create a more compelling argument than he pessimistic claims of white flight.
As though we were talking about migration in real life, it is easier for me to believe that pull-factors of Facebook were a greater motivator for class-conscious teens than the push-factors that made them stop using Myspace. (I think many of us who were savy were also aware that media frenzy over creepy crime on Myspace was overblown.) Look at Facebook’s provenance: nothing is more emblematic of American middle class dream of ascendency than Harvard and the other Ivies. Much of boyd’s argument in 2007 was centered around the culture and aesthetics of Myspace versus Facebook: the first site was either ‘gaudy’ and ‘ugly’ or ‘bling’/’fly’/‘phat’ depending on who one asked, and the other was clean-cut, white and did not allow for user customization. As I mentioned boyd’s terminology of political economy earlier, I’d like to add another comment on the economics of the situation, also drawing on her apparent technological determinsim. To me, the brash commercialism of Myspace’s user and band pages, adorned with abrasive banner ads (and recently acquired by Newscorp), seemed an antiquated method compared with Facebook which at the time appeared to function purely for socializing functions. Brands had not yet been attracted to the site and been personified like Dr. Zuckerstein’s monster. Although I had never felt a need to join Myspace, like a good determinist, I was more consciously conerned with the site’s design and purpose elements rather than its demographics. (When I would lament the jarring visual and aural nature of the pages, it would usually be those of my peers at my public school, who were mostly of the same race and class.)
To confront boyd’s more recent work head on, did she not in 2008 write that social networks “are primarily communicating with people who are already a part of their extended social network” (boyd, 2008, Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship)? [Props to whoever brought this point up in class last week, by the way.] So why is she so concerned that stratum of society we don’t come in contact with IRL are not part of our social circles online? I would be curious to see a similar demographic and connections study of social media sites like Twitter, Flickr and Tumblr that do not rely on reciprocal ties but instead on the unexpected, often serendipitous results of #tag searches. Carefully following searches for a variety of terms, like my neighborhood, my interests or favorite artists have yielded both connections (sometimes only one-way) with a variety of users or at least a number of new perspectives and voices, even if they doesn’t evolve into relationships that rival personal friendships.
Lastly, on the notion of ‘white flight’ or at least aspirational middle-class and upper-class teens leaving Myspace for less grungy/blinged out pastures: Why haven’t the number of push-factors, like the descent of our parents and younger siblings, and brands, and bosses and advertisers on Facebook, combined with near constant changes to the visceral interface and underlying privacy mechanics caused another exodus of plucky users to services like Google+ or Diaspora? I think when Facebook arrived and took dominance, Myspace was still appealing only to a fractured user base. Facebook has a wider appeal and has established a working monopoly of social networking – look at Facebook connect as the go-to system for rapid-networking over new services like Spotify, within which there is room for deviance. Even members of boyd’s subaltern find ways of subverting the system and personalizing the aesthetics and message of their page.
-AK