What is a social network system (SNS)? (Act One)

First Act

Definition and Introduction

boyd and Ellison (2007) define a social network as a a web-based service which allows individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile with a list of connections to other users. This list of connections is vital to social networks as it allows other users to view and traverse the connections between users. Social networks reflect real life social relationships, rather than purely online relationships. (boyd and Ellison, 2007) SNSs, then, vary critically from other forms of internet communication such as MUD’s, which are virtual environments that reflect a group of strangers gathering around a common interest rather than a social connection. (Dibbell, 1998) Additionally, boyd and Ellison’s rather dry and un-engaging article provides an excellent summary of several issues related to social networks. These include (in progressively philosophical order) the visibility of social networks, the evolution of computer mediated communication (CMC), criminal / sexual predation, trust, identity and the role of libraries and librarians within the various debates.

Viewing the Invisible

There is a tension within social networking: the need to be seen versus the need to be private. It is a complicated tension, because not only is there a tension between indexing a social network and retaining member privacy, there is a tension between the information that the individual user publishes for mass consumption, and what they retain as private. boyd and Ellison (2007), Nardi, Schiano and Gumbrecht (2004), and Herring et al (2004), all touch upon this issue in different ways. Perhaps the most in-depth analysis is composed by Nardi, Schiano and Gumbrecht, who found that the majority of bloggers (within their study) publish personal entries for mass consumption, fully aware that they have an audience, with only a casual concern for the security of their information. The bloggers studied revealed there is some degree of ambivalence present in social networks. The bloggers are posting information with the idea that “I’m posting this for others to see, but I’m not expecting strangers to read it - why would they be interested in me?” But at the same time, these bloggers are posting critical information about themselves “I’m going to Boston for the next three weeks” means that an opportunistic robber now knows that they have three weeks to locate this persons’ apartment and determine if anyone is checking in on the place. However, bloggers want to trust their audiences, so they persist in these behaviors. (More on trust below)

Communication lines

Describing this subsection was tricky. “Communication without voice” is no longer applicable because of networks such as Skype and Second Life. “Communication without body” is also inaccurate because of the implementation of avatars in several platforms. This is a far cry from the plain text which the internet was limited to until the mid-90’s. One thing which social networks reveal to us is the evolution of CMC. At the text level we see the implementation of chat rooms and MUDs. With the capability of photography we see the development of sites such as flickr, and the incorporation of photographs into text-dominated networks such as blogs. The ability to upload videos leads to new communication pathways and the development of sites such as youtube. Blogs have the additional flexibility of incorporating sound, video and photographs into text. Beyond the mere incorporation of real life communication pathways, we see the creation of new methods of communication. For example, I included a video for readers to review before beginning reading - something which would not be socially acceptable in everyday conversation, but which is completely permissible within the context of a social network.

Lions, tigers and sexual predators, oh my!

An interesting transition can be observed through reading these articles. As the articles become increasingly current the threat of sexual and criminal predation becomes more apparent, and the need to protect the individual and their privacy becomes an increasingly pressing issue. It’s almost like watching an extremely fast-forwarded version of the Web from 1990-1997. Aww, the good old days, when you could use your social security number as an identifier....

Trust and truth

What can you trust on the internet? Who can you trust? What can you trust in your inbox? Here’s an example:

Reusing plastic bottles is bad because this reuse causes them to break down over time and release carcinogens.

Several major brands of lipstick contain dangerous levels of lead.

Microwaving foods in plastic containers releases carcinogens into the food.

Mold that grows in pancake mix can induce a life-threatening allergic reaction.

Some Chinese hair bands were fashioned from recycled condoms.

All of these stories were transmitted via email, but only one of them is true. If you received any of them in your inbox, would you be able to tell fact from fiction? Who would you ask? A friend, maybe even a family member, sent this important safety message to you, but should you trust their analysis? The correct response is “No, I don’t trust my crazed sister who sends me fifteen emails a day about pets, lucky totems, and toxin threats. I’m going to hold off forwarding this to all of my friends and check Snopes.com first.”

Trust is an interesting concept within social networks. It is intimately tied to authority. Andrew Keen argues that anonymous authorship is equivalent with cultural illiteracy. In his opinion, the information cannot be trusted because the reader cannot contextualize the material. This is an interesting opinion, because anonymity has long been the vehicle of choice for authors of contentious works. It’s my understanding that these authors choose to publish anonymously because this gives freedom of expression and a true sense of clearing out the baggage and just listening to and evaluating the words and the information itself. I seem to recall a couple of Enlightenment philosophers making that argument, but I can’t call to mind specific examples. At any rate, whether or not you agree with Keen, and I think my position is clear, he does make an important point: how do we know what is true and what is false in an increasingly self-published world? The answer is the same as it’s always been when confronted with new arguments or information: the reader has to check up on the facts. They have to evaluate them, they have to be able to fall back on reliable sources to make their judgements.

Trust goes beyond source authority, though, and incorporates other practical and philosophical considerations. Users have to be able to trust their social network. We see this within Dibbell’s description of a MUD environment. The users place trust in their characters, and within the characters of others. They put trust into the database itself which generates descriptions of the locations they are in. In this extreme case, the community itself needed to be able to trust the system administrators to enforce a system or code of justice and order. Trust is an integral part of the social network, it is what allows the users to post and to interact. boyd and Ellis describe the downfall of Friendster, and this can be viewed as the failure of a community to trust in the integrity and security of a social network, and their failure to trust the administrators of that network.

Anthropomorphism and other generated identities

If we don’t know an individuals’ name, but only their nickname, can we trust that individual? The power of a name has been documented throughout history. Names imbue meaning, they lend power, they define us. Does it matter then, if we name ourselves something else? Here is where trust begins to overlap with identity. In a world without physical bodies and devoid of voice, we are able to redefine how we identify ourselves. A clear example of this is presented by Dibbell, who admits to occasionally being a dolphin. Additional examples of revised identities include dogster and catster, which allow pet owners to assume the identity of their pet within the context of an online social network, and “fakester” profiles, the corruption of a celebrity, fictional character or concept as an identity. (boyd and Ellison, 2007)

The advent of the internet allowed us to ask ourselves “Who am I?”, but the advent of the social network has allowed us to ask ourselves “Who am I connected to?” How does the individual within the social network define their identity through their social circle? Who do they choose to include, and who do they choose to exclude? While it may not be possible to divest yourself of a troublesome sibling or ex-partner in real life, it is possible to divest yourself of them in a virtual space.