Name: Richard V.
Title: The History of Social Networking Sites
Social networking sites have allowed individuals to connect, communicate, and continue relationships via the Internet. These web-based functionalities give rise to the definition of social network sites as places where users can do the following: “(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (Boyd). The social networking sites attract a variety of people with the ages getting younger and younger. In 2007, the Pew Internet and American Project researcher released their findings that “more than half of all of online American youths ages 12-17 use an online social networking site…with 48% of teens visiting…daily or more often; 26% visiting once a day, 22% visiting several times a day” to manage friendships with people they are in touch frequently with, according to 91% of respondents, and to maintain ties with those whom they rarely interact, as found in 82% of respondents (Lenhart). Adults utilize the social networking sites for similar reasons. Danah Boyd of the University of California contends that the goal of social networking sites is not to meet people they normally would not know, but to communicate with individuals who are currently in their existing or extended social network (Boyd). Larry Magrid and Anne Collier, directors of BlogSafety.com, believe that in its genesis, the social networking sites were “either blogging (having an online journal or being an amateur commentator) or socializing (finding their friends and connecting with them)…[but now encompasses both including] blogging with reader feedback and…photos” (Magrid 2). Overall, the nomenclature “networking” is misleading since the priority of the users is not to make new friends, but to keep current and updated on the ones they already have. To better understand the history of the social networking cyberworld, it is necessary to examine the technical aspects of how the social networking site function, the diversity and vastness of the social networking sites, new and current developments in the social networking specifications, the historical phases of the social networking evolution including the downfall of Friendster, and the rise of the two most popular social networking sites in America today.
First, visit a social networking site, open up an account, and this is what one will find. The vertebrae of the social networking sites are the actual profiles of the users and the profiles of his or her friends. It is through theses profiles that individuals are updated with friends and acquaintances. Once an individual joins a social networking site, the option to complete and stylize a profile for others to see is available. The production of the profile is done by answering personal information that will be available for others to access. For example, the questionnaire for the profile includes inquires such as the networks (by college or city and state) or current geographical location, sex, “interested in,” “looking for,” birthday, age, hometown, political views, religious views, and so forth. Other amenities include the ability to insert one’s profile picture of choice and multimedia modules such as video and music players. The option to accessorize or stylize one’s profile page gives users a platform to reveal their real or conceived personality. Generally, users can also set their profile as “public” where anyone and everyone can see their profile or “private” where only friends can access their profile. (However, Facebook allows individuals who are in the same network, i.e. college network or city and state network, to automatically have access to other profiles within their network unless the user changes this setting.) Each profile has an area where the “Friends” list is displayed. This list of friends generally has pictured icons and names of a user’s friends which one can access as well (unless their profile is set to “private” and one is not a designated “friend.”)
Moreover, social networking sites also offer two types of in-house messaging system. The public message system allows friends to post comments on a user’s “wall” or specifically designated area for comments. On the other hand, the private message system is similar to regular email. One elects the receiver of the message, inputs the actual private message, and sends it into the messaging mailbox that only the user has access to. Interestingly, some social networking sites originally functioned as one-dimensional online applications such as instant messaging. For example,
“QQ started as a Chinese instant messaging service, LunarStorm as a community site, Cyworld as a Korean discussion forum tool, and Skyrock (formerly Skyblog) was a French blogging service before adding SNS features” while sites such as “AsianAvenue, MiGente, and Blackplanet…were early popular ethnic community sites” that were re-launched with social networking features (Boyd).
On the world wide web, social networking sites have grown because they provide several unique, multi-social features never offered before: the opportunity to design and decorate one’s own virtual space, to oversee one’s own virtual journal which many consider to be a personal diary, and to belong to an endless number of elected communities of interest (Magrid 6). In other words, visual self-expression, literary self-expression, and activist self-expression gave members a freedom they had not encountered before in one place. To meet the growing appetite of users, social networking companies have even begun to add some mobile interactive features such as access via the cell phone or Blackberry in sites like Facebook, MySpace, and CyWorld while mobile-designed social networking sites like Dodgeball are already geared specifically for those on the go (Boyd).
Secondly, a vast and diverse number of social networking sites have launched and membership has skyrocketed. Everyone it seems, is getting into the social networking cyberworld, and not just users, but potential employers, recruiting representatives, the police and other branches of the law, institutions of education, and even private investigators who search the social networking sites for incriminating evidence or inappropriate behaviors (Magrid 121). With the startling number of social networking sites around, those who want to investigate will have no problem doing so. For starters, Wikipedia.org lists links to 5 dozen or so (Magrid 9). The diversity in the types of social networking sites has broadened over the years as more people find them intriguing, collaborative, and an extension of themselves. Indeed, social networking sites often focus on a target audience via geographical groups, language groups, religious groups, political groups, sexual orientation groups, and hobby groups (Boyd). There are also music genre groups, celebrity groups, social elite and invitation-only groups, teen groups, college groups, counterculture groups, and even brand-related marketing groups (grocery and store items) (Magrid 10). Perhaps one of the most unusual is a social networking site devoted to dogs and cats named Dogster and Catster, respectively; owners sign up and maintain, or rather, groom, their pet’s profiles (Boyd).
Thirdly, an exciting development in the social networking sites is the opening up of technical specifications called APIs or application program interfaces (Kharif). These are needed by third-party developers to write new applications that are compatible with current programs on the social networking sites. Previously, the social networking sites protected their specs and did not share them with third-party developers such as Virgin Mobile USA, for example, who wants the technical specs to build multimedia programs that will allow its 4.6 million customers to do more than the typical cell phone surfing-- like the ability to post on their social networking profile page their list of best ringtones (Ibid). Companies want their customers to integrate their “brand” onto personal social networking profiles as another explosive means of media marketing.
Fourthly, social networking involves three historical phases of development. The first wave of social networking sites began with very simple offerings. In 1997, the first social networking site was launched called SixDegrees.com (Boyd). Initially, this site provided two major features, profile and friends listing, but in 1998 it adapted the function of perusing profiles inside the “Friends” listing (Ibid). By 2000, however, lacking in profitability, it shut down despite attracting several millions of users (Ibid). This early social networking site was perhaps introduced at a time when the Internet was still relatively nascent. Had it launched several years later, SixDegrees might have experienced longevity and more success as experienced among the more than 200 social networking sites the Federal Bureau of Investigation have later identified (although it has yet to share this information to the public) (Magrid 10).
During this first wave of onslaught from the social networking cyberworld, many attempted to provide similar services as SixDegrees did. In the years between 1997 and 2001, social networking companies such as BlackPlanet, MiGente, and AsianAvenue allowed users to add friends, a feature that was clearly becoming an integral component in the social networking world (Boyd). The idea that “people want to live online” was starting to catch on (Magrid 12). Other sites that were previously not social networking sites came on the bandwagon and reinvented themselves as social networking sites. Korean’s CyWorld took this course this in 1999 while Sweden’s LunarStorm refashioned itself as a social networking site in 2000 (Boyd). Interestingly, LiveJournal’s creator admitted that he came up with the idea of incorporating the “Friends” section from the buddy list of friends found in the current instant messaging programs at the time (Ibid). Slowly but surely, the social networking sites were evolving.
In 2001, the second wave of the social networking revolution made its appearance with the launching of Ryze.com whose focus was mainly towards the business world and whose original users were mostly San Francisco businesses and technology community (Ibid). Other social networking companies entered the scene but mostly targeted a specific audience: “Ryze never acquired mass popularity, Tribe.net grew to attract a passionate niche user base, LinkedIn became a powerful business service, and Friendster became the most significant, if only as ‘one of the biggest disappointments in Internet history’” (Boyd).
Oddly enough, Friendster was initially launched with match.com in mind as its main competitor (Boyd). Friendster debuted on the Internet in 2003 (Magrid 2). The challenges that Friendster encountered and the ways in which it attempted to resolve them led to its problems. In the beginning, Friendster, was created with the idea of bringing strangers together, “designed to help friends-of-friends meet, based on the assumption that friends-of-friends would make better romantic partners than would strangers” (Boyd) Indeed, Friendster was the first pure social networking site on the market that experienced success (Magrid 2). However, several quagmires would eventually hurt Friendster: technology limitations, company removal of targeted users, and limitations of profile viewing. Over time, Friendster increased its numbers of users only to find itself beleaguered by technological problems such as ill-equipped databases and servers which were unable to deal with the rapid increase in new members (Boyd). As more users signed on, Friendster’s hardware and technology was unable to keep pace and site failures often occurred. Besides technology issues, the Friendster staff also took an active role in deleting members who were termed “Fakesters.” Friendster’s early design limited viewing profiles of
“more than four degrees away (friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends)). In order to view addional profiles, users began adding acquaintances and interesting-looking strangers to expand their reach. Some began massively collecting Friends…the ultimate collectors were fake profiles representing iconic fictional characters: celebrities, concepts, and other such entities. These ‘Fakesters’ outraged the company, who banished fake profiles” (Ibid).
In addition, Friendster was unable to provide at that time “media-rich expression that blogging was beginning to offer with multiple socializing tools (IM, email, comments, buddy lists, discussion boards, and chat)” which contemporary upstart MySpace did (Magrid 3). Friendster also had ongoing conflicts with some of its users. In fact, it expelled various indie rock bands because their profiles did not adhere to Friendster’s published regulations (Boyd). Ultimately, Friendster was unable to recognize its weaknesses, remedy its hardware issues, and reconcile with its fan base. It failed to understand the social needs of its members and focused instead on micromanaging them. Recently, however, Friendster altered its business model and experienced positive findings. In December 2006, Friendster opened up its proprietary specs to an exclusive dozen third-party developers resulting in “the number of unique visitors [rising] by 17.6% to 18.8 million” and the “biggest month-to-month growth since launch” (Kharif).
Finally, the third wave of social networking sites began from 2003 until the present. One noticeable trend was the specialization of the social networking sites. For example, LinkedIn, Visible Path, and Xing functioned as business-organized social networks while Care2 (a gathering locale for activists), Couchsurfing (a site for travelers to sleep over in other people’s couch), and MyChurch (a place for churches and Christians)--are considered passion-centric social network sites (Boyd). The turning point of the social networking rise however, was the unveiling of MySpace in 2003 (Magrid 3). That year, MySpace was quietly launched in Santa Monica, California with the intention of luring unhappy Friendster members as well as competing against the social networking sites already in place (Ibid). MySpace would encounter success in a phenomenal manner: “By mid 2005s, within two years of its debut…Business Week reported that MySpace was getting more page views than Google, and by early 2006, MySpace was welcoming around 200,000 new members a day” (Magrid 3).
Fifthly, despite an enormous number of social networking sites on the Internet, two would captivate the center stage. MySpace and another upstart, Facebook, would rise to dominate the social networking cyberworld in the United States. According to MySpace’s founder, several reasons contributed to its dramatic growth spurt: rumors that Friendster would introduce fees which motivated its members to switch to MySpace, Myspace’s embrace of the previously rejected music bands from Friendster (especially in the Los Angeles area), and Myspace’s flexibility in allowing users to personalize their webpages through a copy/paste code culture of adding their own HTML onto their profiles (Boyd). For example, MySpace inquired of the local Los Angeles bands on how MySpace could work with them. These bands, happy to be accosted, taken noticed, and appreciated, in turn embraced and spread the word about Myspace forming a symbiotic relationship that was unintentional, but good for both parties. Indeed, rock bands are but one of a diverse and complicated number of reasons for MySpace’s early success, but this unusual interaction paints an interesting story of how MySpace’s openness, flexibility, entrepreneurship, and clever marketing earned it a loyal following. MySpace was growing so fast that it was exceeding the population of many of the world’s most populated cities (Magrid 3).
In 2004, MySpace had found new avenues to increase its membership by changing its policy to allow teenagers to establish an account (Boyd). This caused some concerns among parents, and rightfully so. According to Larry D. Rosen’s research at the California State University, 34% of parents had never seen their child’s MySpace page and 40% had never seen the photographs that their children posted on MySpace” (Rosen 82). Despite these jarring statistics, overall, three groups of MySpace users would come to dominate the early MySpace scene: “teenagers, musicians/artists, and the post-college urban social crowd” (Boyd). MySpace now had a more diversified fan base and was especially found to be popular among the young crowds. This gave MySpace a kind of safety net since this young group might stick around for a longer time, with MySpace given the opportunity to influence their online behaviors and social networking activities at an earlier stage in their maturity and development. For example, statistical studies from the Forrester Research National Study found that 80% of twelve-to-seventeen year olds use MySpace weekly (Rosen 14). In a national sample of youths from this same age group, the Pew Internet and American Life Project discovered that in general, “55% of online teens have created a personal profile online, and 55% have used social networking sites like MySpace or Facebook” (Lenhart). With such an increasing amount of popularity, MySpace looked to be a good potential investment. In 2005, only two years after its launch, MySpace was acquired by billionaire Ruport Murdoch and his company, News Corporation (Boyd).
Indeed, MySpace and its contemporary counterpart, Facebook, have risen astronomically in membership and popularity, with precocious Facebook shouldering more than 17 million college students in its network (Kharif). Facebook was launched in 2004 by a Harvard undergraduate (Boyd). Initially, this was solely a Harvard social networking site and users needed a Harvard.edu to become a member, but soon after, Facebook expanded to include all college students with a university email address (Ibid). To effectively compete, Facebook then widened its membership to allow company employees and high school students to sign up via the approval of high school administrators (verified students in their particular high school) (Ibid). Today, peruse the Facebook website and one will find that this social networking site has opened up its site to anyone who wants an account. With an alarming and increasing number of younger people being targeted and becoming members of a social networking site, concerns are arising for their welfare. A media study by Common Sense Media found that “85% of parents of tweens and teens proclaimed that the Internet posed the greatest threat to their children” (Rosen 16).
Consequently, the future of the social networking cyberworld appears to be two-fold: to spread as far as it can nationally and internationally and to reach the young who will become the next generation of social networking users. Outside the United States, social networks have a strong audience throughout the world: Friendster (Pacific Islands), Mixi (Japan), Hyves (Holland), Orkut (Brazil and India), Grono (Poland), Bebo (England, Australia, and New Zealand) (Boyd). These social networks are very dominant in these countries despite little media exposure in America. These social networking sites worldwide endeavor to offer the same unique features which made MySpace so popular: “profiles with a personalized description, unique photos…crazy fonts, glitzy wallpaper, music and video graphics” (Magrid 53). In addition, previously traditional blogging sites have been revamping themselves with social networking offerings as well: Windows Life Spaces (Mexico, Italy, and Spain), Skyrock (France), and Xanga, Live Journal, and Vox (United States) (Boyd). Meanwhile, it is to the younger populations that the social networking sites are keeping an eye on. They will impact the direction, content, and future of the social networking cyberworld. The answer is simple: we are living in a media-rich world and it is getting richer every day.
Works Cited
Boyd, Danah and Nicole B. Ellison. “Social Networking Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13, no.1 (Fall 2007) 27 July 2008 <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>.
Lenhart, Amanda and Mary Madden. “Reports: Family, Friends, & Community.” 1 July 2007. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 27 July 2008 <http://www.pewinternet.org/ppf/r/198/report_display.asp>.
Kharif, Olga. “Social-Networking Sites Open Up. 13 Feb. 2007. BusinessWeek. 27 July 2008 <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2007/tc20070213_172619.htm>.
Magrid, Larry and Anne Collier. MySpace Unraveled. Berkeley: Peachpit Press, 2007.
Rosen, Larry D. Me, Myspace, and I—Parenting the Net Generation. New York City: Palgrave Mcmillian (St. Martin’s Press), 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment