Dictionary.com explains a social network as:
"Any website designed to allow multiple users to publish content themselves.
The information may be on any subject and may be forconsumption by (potential)
friends, mates, employers, employees,etc. The sites typically allow users to create
a "profile" describing themselves and to exchange public or private messages and
list other users or groups they are connected to in some way."
After I explain what Twitter is (or, if you already know), do you think that the ease of ability to interact among users should be considered in the definition of social networking? Does the limited access of "connectibility" among Twitter users influence how interactive the site is?
From what I understand, interconnectivity is an important aspect of Twitter. The website is about the personal content that people post, but another important aspect of Twitter is the people who view your profile, or "follow" you. Like most social networks, you have to be a follower or friend of someone in order to view their profile or their personal content on Twitter. Therefore, the ease to interact with other users is definitely an important aspect of a social network. I definitely think it could be considered in the definition of a social network. However, I do not think that it is a necessary component. Social networks are about social interaction among users, not necessarily how easy it is for them to communicate and interact.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that ease of ability to interact is important to social networks, I agree with Ashley in that is is not essential to a social network. As she mentioned, "Social networks are about social interaction among users, not necessarily how easy it is for them to communicate and interact." and this couldn't be more true.
ReplyDeleteIf it is not easy or convenient to interact with your friends on a network you will probably move on to a new social network that is simpler and easier to use. I would argue that this is kind of what happened to MySpace as everyone moved over to Facebook.
I'd continue to agree, that ease of use is not a requirement of social networking, though it often is a cornerstone for success. However, in the same rights, certain social groups can be exclusionary and the lack of an ease of use may actually be a novelty or right of passage to the group. Something like code based/specialty social networks may only include linux users familiar with command line and that barrier to entry is what brings the group together, but also keeps others out. Right now there's an open source social networking site being established, but at the moment, you need to be a programmer and be able to set up your own server for it, as it hasn't reached beta level yet, but that doesn't stop it from being a social network. https://joindiaspora.com/
ReplyDeleteWow, Andrew. That's pretty interesting, I didn't know anything like that existed yet. I'm excited to see where it goes.
ReplyDeleteBack to Twitter, though. There's no doubt that interconnectivity is crucial to Twitter. Yet, it's not entirely as limited as people seem to think. Depending on how you use Twitter, you can still access quite a few Twitter pages. If you use Twitter purely to communicate/connect with others, then yes, you have to follow them/have them follow you — if there pages are private. But as Twitter becomes bigger and bigger (especially in the public eye), public profiles seem to be more common.
I don't really have any numbers to support this, but in my experience with Twitter, if you want to connect with someone, it's not to difficult. Additionally, if you want to use Twitter more for information (sports, politics, entertainment etc.), many Twitter pages from famous people are public. As most people are probably aware, celebrities have become a huge part of Twitter.
First, I agree with ashley when she says that social networking does not depend on the ease of which people communicate. Just because people tend to gravitate towards social networking sites that allow for easy and rapid communication, doesn't mean that other, more thorough forms of social networking arent for some people. Take facebook for example, the ability to post something on the other person's "wall" is much more commonly used then sending out an actual message, much like an email.
ReplyDeleteAs for Julie's second question, I personally feel that Twitter and its type of connectivity does limit how interactive it can be. Putting my personal qualms with Twitter aside, I feel that because you are limited to 140 characters, you dont really get a chance to interact with a person, besides hearing what they are doing or what they are thinking. You cant search through pictures of them to get a change to understand them, nor can you read about their personal preferences (I think, I dont know Twitter that well). So I do feel that Twitter is too limited to offer quality connectivity.
I think a network or computer site is considered "social" depending on the nature of the information that is posted by users. I would definitely consider Facebook a social networking site because almost all users post information about their private lives on it. Interestingly, I think seldom true interaction occurs on these sites. Any is usually done between very close friends.
ReplyDeleteTwitter is a more complicated example of social networking. As was said before, can something truly be interactive when it is limited to only 140 characters? I would almost argue that Twitter tends to be more interactive than Facebook because millions of users will follow and read certain people's twitter feeds. However, I feel that Twitter is much more news based and informative than Facebook is. Very few people read random people's Tweets about their trip to the mall or last Saturday night.