Final thoughts.

In order to evaluate the state of Social networking as it stands in 2011 I first need to establish what issues have arisen and been most prominent in the news over the last 3 months. In doing this I can assess what the future is for social networking, what factors may lead to its continued growth or eventual fall and what factors have changed the way people respond and interact with a medium I believe is possibly the most important new development of the last 10 years. Facebook and Twitter have been the main focus of this blog, partly because they are two of the world’s leading social networking websites so they generate a lot of development and news which is of interest to an academic analysis of the medium but also because they are websites which I am a user of and therefore a vested interest in. (In fact I am nearly always signed into them whilst writing this blog.) Different social network websites popular in other countries have contributed to the wider debate but they hold less prominence in westernized culture. It is also important to look at new social networks such as Google + in order to understand the direction in which the medium may move in 2012 and beyond.

The issues and debates I have raised in my blog range from social networks being used as a place for online bullying and a way for employers to remove undesirable employees to a tool for civil unrest and rioting and advertisers monopolising users sharing details. The many debates and news stories covered may seem varied and unlinked however the issue that does resonate within all of them and has come up time and time again when looking at different arguments and angles is how much social networking sites such as Facebook are and should infiltrate main stream society and when they do how the world we live in is affected by the infiltration. If we take the example of the England Riots in August a critic of the effect social networks had would be hard pushed to say that the unrest would have not taken place at all in a pre-social networking world. This is because if nothing else for the fact that it was widely reported that the Blackberry messenger feature was as big as if not bigger way that perpetrators arranged the riots locally (although it could be argued that BBM is another form of social networking) but also because the reason for rioting was surely a lot bigger than people getting caught in a mob culture due to posts on sites such as Facebook.

 However as relevant as this argument may be anyone would find it difficult to say that social networking wasn’t a huge factor in the eventual scale and length of the riots. Without the medium it is likely that the unrest would have be sectioned to a small number of people who not only believed that their cause of action was appropriate but were also connected in prior knowing of each other. It is also likely that there would have been far fewer riots because people would not have discussed it in such a public way and to so many people and encouragement to get involved would have been spread to far fewer people. It is undeniably true that the outreach a single person has on Facebook having so many ‘friends’ causes a mob culture in some cases and influences people to get involved in something they wouldn’t know enough about or be interested in without it. Overall, it is undeniable that social media has become a powerful enabler for boosting personal organization whether it be for good in the case of the middle east democratic protests or for bad in the case of the England riots in the summer.

The issue of social networking sites being called into question by employers is also an interesting one to look at in terms of how the infiltration of such sites it affecting main stream society. As social networking becomes ever popular people are beginning to question whether freedom of speech is such a positive thing when doing so could cost you something as important as your job. Posting opinions on websites might seem harmless enough but when it is combined with stating where you work an ever increasing amount of people are learning the hard way that expressing an opinion which is less than favorable to a future or current employer can damage your and a company’s reputation and that company more often that not will prioritise that reputation over their employees. Websites like Facebook encourage users to connect with people by sharing information such as where they work so if the outcome to doing so is the possible loss of work is this issue their fault or is it up to the responsibility of the individual to be careful about what they post. I think ultimately the issue is that as Christine Rosen writes in Virtual friendship and the new narcissism ‘Social networkers, particularly younger users are often naïve or ill-informed about the amount of detail they are making publicly available’ and when users realise the risk they are running to their lives they may begin to be less inclined to share information. This may however be at the detriment of social networks because the overall purpose of them is to ‘connect people.’

 The other major issue raised in my blog which I think has and will have an impact on the popularity and reputation of social networking is the is the growing amount of importance many websites are putting on advertising in order to generate profit. Facebook in particular has recently added to their advertising space on the website by introducing the ‘timeline’ which features companies that users have liked or are using through Facebook such as the music company Spotify. They also feature these users in sponsored ads to promote products to their online friends. As well as this new social networking site Google + uses advertising heavily to generate profit. This increasing trend is prompting loyal users to question the integrity of such sites, sites that like to promote the idea that they are first and foremost websites designed to allow users to connect with friends and share things without having their privacy invaded. Sites such as Facebook have always been very proud of the fact that their services are free to anyone who wishes to join but can they really claim that anymore? Yes, we don’t physically have to hand over our credit card details every time we log on but the fact that advertising increasingly takes up so much space on these websites could be seen as another way to make us pay for the  privilege, even if it is in a more subliminal way.

The rise of advertising means that social networking sites themselves, as well as companies are constantly learning more and more about users likes and dislikes and this has started questions about privacy and the amount of control people are handing over without even knowing it. This is one the key issues related to this topic and could potentially be a driving force in the down turn of certain times of social networking. What makes pricacy issues more difficult is whether your online persona can be in anyway copyrighted. Zizi Papacharissi writes in A Networked Self ‘If indeed Identity presented online becomes a performance to what extent can that performance be protected or exploited?’(Papacharissi, 2011:315) Perhaps the social networking generation need to accept that what they put online cannot be truly theirs to own and is therefore vulnerable to exploitation.

By discussing my findings over the course of writing this blog what has become most apparent is that social networks have become a huge part of people’s everyday lives and have changed the way we look at and react to politics, human interaction and consumerism among many other things. As Barabasi writes in Introduction and keynote to a networked self ‘Social systems are one of the most powerful example of networks because we understand and relate to them in an everyday fashion’ (Barabasi, 2011:2) They can be immensely powerful tool in giving people across the world a voice and connecting them to each other in a way that was never possible before and have in some circumstances done so to hugely positive effect. In other cases the growing addiction with sharing information on social networks has been a great detriment to work, personal lives and sometimes even societies to name just a few things. It may be that too much is expressed through the internet world and that it has brought upon the neglecting of true human interaction. We may start to see a downturn in the enormous popularity of social networking in years to come as people struggle to gain an understanding of what is appropriate to share with the world through the internet. The rise of ‘in your face’ advertising could also leave users desperate to escape the constant barrage of capitalism. However I believe that for now at least, as technology continues to get quicker, cleverer and more user friendly there’s still a whole lot more tweets, likes and tags to come.  

The battle of the Social networks.

http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/News/News-Feature/Google--vs.-Facebook-Social-Networking-in-2012-79111.htm

This article highlights another avenue that the recent BBC Facebook documentary looked at, the battle to be top of the social networks moving in to 2012. Danielle Monroe believes that Facebook's latest feature, the constantly changing time line could drive users away. She writes 'That is, if users enjoy them. A survey of 2,000 teens aged 14-17 conducted by Mr. Youth, a digital advertising firm in New York, found that 45% of teens think the new features make Facebook's homepage overwhelming and distracting. Thirty-one percent of teens say they try to ignore the time line, which makes them feel like stalkers, and 25% say they plan to move to Google+ to escape f8's cluttered platform.' The over complicated user tools that Facebook is introducing along with the constant barrage of advertising from companies could drive users away like the same reason did on Myspace. "This is an audience that is kind of like the canary in the coalmine," says Nick Fuller, senior director of marketing at Mr. Youth. "If there are any warning signs, this generation is going to notice right away and they're going to leave the fastest."


Google + Monroe believes 'Has the potential to change the way we think about social media' They aim to modernise social networking making it an experience where brands with the most amount of followers come up first. This technique would give brands unparallelled information as to what users want from them. However is Google + losing sight of what made Facebook so popular in the first place, putting the users enjoyment and accessibility first and profit second. "The requirement to make money might supersede the user's experience." argues David Catalano, president and co-founder of Modea Corp, a digital advertisement agency in Virginia.


The mission to overtake giant of the social networking world Facebook is certainly going to be a challenging one, but as what users want from the Internet sharing world evolves perhaps it is an inevitable one too.

#Ayearinthelifeoftwitter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16047918

This article illustrates the top hashtags on Twitter in2011 in various categories such as countries, news topics and actors. The top tweets range from the ridiculous, hashtages like #tigerblood, referring to the actor Charlie sheen to the more ground breaking and political like #Egypt, referring to uprising in the Middle East. This recent information from Twitter not only highlights what 'breaking news' so to speak has been the most talked about important of the year but also the power that Twitter has to connect people with common interests and allow them to experience new things in popular culture and politics alike together. Furthermore in year to come this information will be of high value in discovering what was at the forefront of human importance and interest in any given year. It is like a ready made survey on what the masses want to talk about and engage with.

Here is the source of the article, Twitter's official blog http://blog.twitter.com/2011/12/yearinreview-hot-topics-and-top.html

Be careful what you like.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017ywty/Mark_Zuckerberg_Inside_Facebook/

Perfect timing for the BBC  to show this access all areas documentary about the growth of Facebook since its creation by Mark Zuckerberg in 2003. The most interesting part of this one hour special is the focus on the change Zuckerberg decided to make to Facebook in order to make it a company for profit by including advertising as one of its major functions. This links back to my earlier blog post about the internet becoming a 'frcition less' place. The documentary explains the new function facebook now has that when a user clicks the 'like' button on a compan's page, for example coca-cola they can be used in a 'sponsored story', basically a way of using there name to promote the product to their Facebook friends. When questioned about this Elliott Schrage, Vice president of Public policy at Facebook is shown to struggle to answer the question, even he finds it difficult to defend a function which seems to be using Facebook users as a pawn for the advertising industry without them even knowing it. Zuckerberg himself gives a much more convincing argument when he states that privacy is an important thing and that 'its advertising model does not depend on users agreeing to be less private'but he believes that 'over time people are going to want to share more things' when they realise it opens up more possibilities for them.

 One critic of Facebook featured in the documentary Professor B.J Fogg has a warning for Facebook: "You've got to retain the trust of your users, that's the number one asset, if you lose that you're vulnerable to Google and others winning this game" At the moment Facebook seems to be clinging onto just about the right balance between trying to get their users to be more and more open on the site and retaining their trust by allowing them to be private if they wish to be. How long will it be until they go one advertising scheme to far?

Why YOU should leave Facebook.

This video makes a very compelling argument in a very simple way. It also talks about some of the issues I have covered in my blog. Now I'm off to delete my Facebook... well, after I've uploaded my 300 photos of the other night maybe.

Self help for the internet generation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/02/social-networking-depression-black-dog-tribe

My blog so far has been quite focused on broad range social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter which are based on users contact with old and new friends but around any particular theme of conversation topic. That is why I found this Guardian article so relevant because it looks at websites which home in on a certain issue that its users have in common and creates a support network through their shared problems, in particular the article looks at a new website Black dog tribe which as Emily Band writes is "a safe haven for people suffering with depression" Through the website users are able to provide support, offer advice and share stories with people they know understand what they are going through. This can be incredibly positive for sufferers. Perhaps using the Internet, for those worse affected is somewhere they can express themselves without fear of judgement or repercussions in the real world. 


Band also goes on to write that other more broad social networks have had a negative impact on those suffering from depression "an overlooked status could morph from something innocuous into a damning indictment against the sufferer's personality and social worth. This effect is amplified when seeing pictures or statuses from other people apparently having the time of their lives at various social events." I don't think there's one person who uses social networking sites who hasn't been effected by something they've seen or read that in the real world perhaps they would not have had to come up against. I have previously written about the detriment of on line bullying and they way people feel their on line presence is untouchable so they can say what they like. This is why I believe sites like Black dog tribe are vitally important to helping people who are suffering. Clearly depression isn't the only illness people need support from so the fact that social networking sites and their user generated content are being used for good, to bring these people together is I think an immensely positive thing. 

A frictionless world?

http://bigthink.com/ideas/41310

The link above is to a really insightful blog post around the issues of the idea of a friction-less economy based around the personal information you supply on sites such as Facebook and then companies using this information to target specific advertising at you so that the 'friction' caused by capitalism is erased because the company know longer has to waste time finding out what consumers want. It is also a way of sharing even more information with your Facebook 'friends' such as the music you are listening to at the time. Facebook is slowly eliminating the apparent hassle of manually clicking buttons to navigate yourself through the site by updating more and more information automatically. Zuckerberg believes that people want to share as much information with their friends as they can on Facebook but is this truly the case? Or is this a sly way for them to find out more information about you to target to the advertisements, the money maker. By doing it automatically a large amount of people are sharing things without even knowing it and this is bound to raise ethical questions of whether Facebook is truly free or whether it does come at the price of privacy. Basulto raises this point at the end of his post when he writes  "The ultimate goal is slowly starting to emerge in the distance: a perfectly competitive economy where you can get what you want, when you want it, at a price that's fair -- just as long as you're willing to give up your personal info."

The world (of Facebook) is closing in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15844230

This article, posted on the BBC news technology page, really highlights how many people in the world can now be defined as a 'facebook user' and how this fact means you are now able to think of anyone other person in the world and you are only ever 3.74 degrees away from being there 'friend' in the social networking haven. This article really highlights the influence Facebook is able to have because such a huge proportion of the world are amongst its now in its rank. This fact worth knowing alone to put things into the wider context when looking at the ethical issues social networks bring up.

At last some good press.

http://windmillnetworking.com/2011/11/07/social-media-catalyst-social-change/

This a really interesting blog post which highlights some of the major events of the past decade in which social media has acted as a catalyst for social change. Particularly interesting is the paragraph written on the use of Twitter and Youtube in promoting the relief appeal in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake of 2011. It is nice to read something about the positives social media can achieve in using one medium to reach billions of people and bring about social and political change. Things like this can easily forgotten when so many thousands of negative news articles are posted on line every day.  I also strongly agree with the closing line of this blog: 'Social media will go on reinventing itself into a faster, smarter and sleeker mode of communication that will continue to build  virtual bridges everywhere - and help societies deal with challenges in new and more communal ways" They say the world is the smallest its ever been, this has definitely been helped by social media. It seems its onwards and upwards. Where will it end? For the time being, who knows. 

Get out your candles Facebook, there's about to be a blackout.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/08/two-thirds-support-social-media-blackout

This article I feel is talking about the most crucial argument relating to social networking and the internet in general at this time, should it have some form of censorship or should it remain something that is completely free of government laws. This article uses the recent England riots as an example of why there is a need for authority to step in and make a 'blackout' at times of civil unrest, and it is not just the authority themselves who think this as the article states ' Three-quarters (of people polled) agreed that governments should have open access to data on social network users in order to prevent co-ordinated crime.' This is a crucial issue because despite the blame the government is putting on social media such as Facebook and the BBM network for orchestrating the riots they are also using it for their gains in the justice system to bring people to account  for their actions and that wouldn't have been possible without the use of the social networks in the first.

Of course freedom of expression campaigners greatly oppose the actions, stating in the article:  "These kinds of actions would weaken the UK's position against authoritarian regimes who censor Internet access. As we live more of our lives online, people should be conscious of the amount of power they're potentially handing over to government." Both our powerful arguments. Morozov in 'The net delusion' (Morozov,2011) argues that: 'The way forward is to acknowledge that the the public pressure to regulate the web is growing and that not all of the growing regulation should be resisted because the Internet is the sacred cow of the libertarian movement. He goes on to say we should: 'invest ones energy into seeking broad public agreement on what acceptable, transparent. just and democratic procedures by which such regulation is to occur should look like'

So if Morozov is right the debate people should be having is not whether there should be censorship and control over the Internet. (this is inevitable if we don't want to see such violence we saw in the summer where social networking undoubtedly played a part.) It is what and how much is appropriate. Our society isn't giving up on Freedom of speech just yet.

Bullying goes digital.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8872242/Meera-Syal-calls-for-action-on-cyber-bullying.html

In recent years there have been many news stories about the growing issue of cyber bullying ranging in severity and even drastically with cases such as Megan Meier in the USA committing suicide due to cyber bullying she was recieving on a daily basis becoming so extreme. The actress Meera Syal has decided to bring this issue to light because her daughter has been affected by it and it is about time that more people in the spotlight talk about it because as the article states: 'Nearly one in five UK youngsters have been the victim of cyber bullying' It is clearly the rise in social networking websites such as Facebook, mentioned in this article which have been the cause of this, a place where young people often feel they can say anything and are untouchable and I believe the most important part of this story is when Meera says: "While I am a passionate defender of free speech I think the time has come to examine carefully when a freely expressed opinion turns into something akin to victimisation and trial by media." The point is, yes, people are entitled to there own opinion and say but when expressing that leads to teenagers taking such drastic measures as in the Meier case surely it is time for a crack down on these types of things on the Internet. The problem is that sites such as Facebook allows people to remain anonymous and that makes young people feel they won't be held accountable like they would if they were to say such things face to face. The question is though should it be left to public figures to speak out about this culture of bullying or should Facebook and other such sites be doing more to tackle the issue head on. Surely its the latter? 

Be careful what you write.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15426919

The link above is to a story published on the BBC news website on the 24TH of October. The issue at hand here is that an employer took action against a an employee who stated that he worked for them on his Facebook and then went on to give views they did not deem an appropriate representation of them so they promptly demoted him. This poses a dilemma because although his views are less than favourable we have, in this country the right to freedom of speech and Mr Smith believes that this made him well within his rights to express this belief in particular. However the company are arguing that these beliefs were representing them and as he stated he worked for them and was well aware of an updated version of their code of conduct which included social networking he is in the wring. So there are two sides to this but the really interesting thing is the fact that social networking is now such a big part of the world we live in that people are now being held accountable for what they say, in a place where they thought they do have the right to freedom of speech to express ore controversial opinions, something they might have kept to themselves in the work place. Perhaps this is a positive thing because companies are now able to see whether people do not fit with the views they hold but whether or not the man deserved to lose his job for it is a difficult one. Social networking is beginning to infiltrate all aspects of society and it often seems that perhaps people should be more careful what they write. The freedom of speech argument isn't always going to be there for you.

Twitter in the commons.

MPs vote in favour of using Twitter in Commons

The link above is to a BBC news article posted on the 13th of October 2011. It relates to the issue I mentioned in my first post about the rise of social networking on smart phones and how that could have a detrimental effect on employment. The issue of tweeting in the house of commons is definitely an interesting one. Although I agree with Sir Allen Haslehurst that using a social networking site such a twitter could create an unwanted distraction and seem un-professional in such a high profile place I have to say that in order for MPs of this age to be able to relate to and connect with the public on something which people from all walk of life should be involved in, politics they have to be able to move with the times and if that means tweeting from the house of commons then 'tradition' and 'decorum' will just have to move aside. This story also really highlights how much social networking has infiltrated all of our society. It is now seen as one of the number one ways for world leaders to reach out to and gain support from the public on a world stage. Barack Obama, David Cameron and Ed Miliband all have official Twitters and it can only be a positive that the young generation now feel they can connect with their governments through a medium that they want to and do use. Yes it would be great if all 20 somethings sat down with a newspaper every day but realistically using Twitter is a much more effective way of reaching the younger generation. So tweet away MP's. Maybe one day you'll have as many followers as Lady Gaga.

First thoughts.

The beginnings of social networking on the Internet can be traced back to the mid 1990's in the form of  on-line communities which were focused bringing people together to interact with one other through chat rooms by sharing personal information on web pages. Features such as user profiles and 'friend' lists were developed during this time on websites such as sixdegrees.com and Classmates.com. However it was really with the emergence of Myspace and Bebo in the early 2000's that social networking websites really began to boom. The emergence of Facebook in 2004 started by Mark Zuckerburg in his Harvard dorm room led to it becoming the most popular social networking site in the world. So much so that a 2011 survey showed 47% of American adults now use the site. Entertainment Weekly summed up the concept and success of Facebook when it wrote "How on earth did we stalk our exes, remeber our co-workers birthdays, bug our friends, and play a rousing game of Scrabulous before Facebook?" in 2009. But it is the rise in popularity and affordability of smart phones which let users access sites like Facebook and Twitter any time and anywhere that created a huge boom in the usage of these sites and also meant people began starting to question the possible detrimental impact on education, privacy, employment and online bullying amongst many others things that the invasion of social networking on society could have. In this blog I will look into an analyse the constant changing world of social networking in the 21st century.