Friends

Social network(ing) sites (SNSs) are not only changing the way we communicate, but also the social norms surrounding our understanding and definition of friendship. The debate boyd & Ellison (2007) and Beer (2008) began has a long way to go as SNSs are more widely used across a broad range of age groups.

Most of the research I have cited in this blog is based on American research of young (15–30 year old) participants. There is a lack of research on Facebook members over this age. This is primary due to the perception that social network(ing) sites attract younger participants; however, more studies are needed to investigate whether this is, in fact, the case. Research on the attitudes and habits of more mature users is likely to reveal differences in areas such as the notion of friendship, views on privacy and resulting behaviour online. In support of this argument, Barnes (2006) notes that “adults tend to use the Web as a supplement to real-world activities while teenagers tend to ignore the difference between life online and offline”.

If this is the case, it may be a fundamental flaw in Beer’s argument (2008) that online and offline shouldn’t be separated and identifies a need for studies to investigate use and attitudes across a range of age groups.

Language

While SNSs make it possible for users to get in touch with people they would otherwise not have the opportunity to communicate with, Friendship connections are stifled when people speak different languages. Sites like Facebook certainly make it easier to communicate with many people at once, easily overcoming the tyranny of distance; however cross cultural communication remains a challenge. Free translations websites have been around for many years, but they are not always accurate and are unable to manage variations in regional dialects. As a result, creating a truly global experience using this technology remains an opportunity.

Persuasion

The very nature of Facebook is about persuasion – to join, add Friends, share stories and photos, and to return again and again. More often, its level of influence is used one on one. However, SNSs also enable users to influence en mass in what Fogg (2008) calls ‘mass interpersonal persuasion’ (MIP). The potential for this use among ordinary[i] individuals is enormous and, I would argue, is only in its infancy.

Privacy

It is not unusual for technology to be ahead of the law, creating a minefield of privacy issues around SNSs like Facebook. In the same way, users don’t seem to be concerned about privacy on Facebook even though they express concern about privacy in general (Acquisti & Gross, 2006). Whether users are simply naive or unaware of potential threats is not altogether clear; however, their outrage after the launch of Facebook’s ‘News Feeds’ feature provides some insight into their attitudes and behaviour when they feel their privacy is violated (boyd, 2008).

Boyd (2008) explores whether the loss of control over our privacy is simply the cost of social convergence. She argues that privacy is not a right, but a privilege that must be protected and asks: “The question remains as to whether or not privacy is something that society wishes to support.” Is our need to connect stronger than our desire for privacy?

Technology is developing at a rapid pace, bringing about new features for SNSs. The experience from the launch of Facebook’s ‘News Feeds’ feature shows us that users may embrace these developments, but not at the expense of losing control over their privacy. Ironically, the same technology that threatens their privacy also gives users the power to object en mass.

I wonder if my actions fall into Albrechtslund’s (2008) rather utopian definition of ‘participatory surveillance’. Albrechtslund argues that the concept of surveillance should be reviewed in relation to social network(ing). He proposes a distinction between the social aspects of participatory surveillance, which is mutual and empowering, and the conventional understanding of surveillance as a “hierarchical system of power”. Further, Andrejevic (2005) describes the notion of lateral surveillance, the peer-to-peer surveillance of spouses, friends and relatives and observes that “we are invited to become spies”:

Lateral surveillance, or peer-to-peer monitoring, understood as the use of surveillance tools by individuals, rather than by agents of institutions public or private, to keep track of one another, covers (but is not limited to) three main categories: romantic interests, family, and friends or acquaintances (Andrejevic, 2005, p. 488).

In exploring the current social uses of personal photography to examine the impact of camera phones, Gye explains the difference between the use of personal photography for self-expression and self-presentation. In discussing self-expression, she asks: “What do the photographs we take tell the world about who we are?” In relation to self-presentation, we could similarly ask: What do the photographs we choose to display or delete tell the world about who we are? Gye notes that photographs that are used for self-presentation “reflect the view of ourselves that we want to project into the world.” I clearly don’t want to be associated with my 15-year-old, ‘80s perm, striped-uniform wearing self.

Research conducted by Besmer & Lipford (2008) identified that privacy concerns about photo sharing were surprisingly not always about security but rather about “identity management within a user’s social circles. Interestingly, participants in this study mentioned the positive aspects of tagging in making them aware that photos of them have been posted online. As one participant commented: “What if [there are] pictures out there that you’re not tagged in? How do you know that the picture is out there…[?].”

So while being tagged is not always favourable, tagging at least presents users with some control over their image by making them aware of the photo in the first place.

My immediate solution was to access one of the many free translation websites to construct a brief paragraph to describe my family connections and ask a few questions. I pasted the translated paragraph on his wall and waited. The fact that this paragraph was not the same when I tried it in three different translation sites was a cause for concern, and his reply confirmed my suspicions that a cross-cultural conversation was not going to be easy.

While there are very few studies that look at cross language interaction using the internet, Herring et al (2007) investigated cross cultural conversations using blogs. Not surprisingly, they found that a shared language is the most basic “social glue” and indeed “the sine qua non for meaningful interconnection and conversation”.

The campaign for the return of the show was started on Facebook by Corinne Lawrence, a 23-year-old fan of the show (Vickery, 2009). In mid-July, news about the campaign was reported in the mainstream media and membership increased significantly. As a result, the Nine Network announced the show would return for two reunion specials in late 2009 and hinted if they rated strongly, the show could return full-time (NineMSN, 2009). The shows were a ratings success (Idato, 2009)[i].

If one person can bring back a favourite TV show, this poses the question of what else we could do using SNSs to bring about change. It could be used to garner interest and raise awareness about social issues and inequities, health concerns, consumer complaints, environmental issues, political opinions and so forth. The possibilities are endless.

Fogg (2008) explores a new form of persuasion he calls ‘mass interpersonal persuasion’ (MIP) and heralds it as the “most significant advance in persuasion since radio was invented in the 1980s”. He argues that while the mass media has been the primary persuasive medium in the past, this new phenomenon enabled by SNSs gives ordinary individuals the ability to change attitudes and behaviours on a mass scale. While acknowledging the potential to misuse the power of this technology, Fogg concludes:

I believe that, for the most part, we will create vehicles for MIP that will benefit society—that will enhance education, improve health, and help to bridge national and cultural divides. This democratisation of persuasion will lead to far better outcomes than those achieved when persuasion is controlled by a few powerful groups (Fogg, 2008).

The immediate response of fans during the first Hey Hey It’s Saturday reunion show also highlights the potential for SNS to be used as a feedback mechanism for mass media. During the show, Daryl mentioned on air that he wanted to push the fan membership to 300,000 by the end of the program (it was sitting somewhere around 280,000). By the end of the show, he reported that they had indeed managed to reach 304,000 Facebook fans[ii].

Postscript: 
On 30 October 2009 the Nine Network announced that the show will return with between 10-15 episodes being produced for the 2010 season (Davey, 2009).

[ii] As at 2 November 2009, Hey Hey It’s Saturday has 391,658 fans on Facebook.

After investigating Facebook’s privacy settings, I found I was able to change the ‘news feed and wall’ settings to disable this. Voilà! I can now write on a person’s wall without broadcasting it to all my Friends. The comment now only appears on Dom’s homepage and not on mine and, while his Friends can still see it, mine won’t even know I’ve been online. For me, Facebook doesn’t have any advantages over simply using email when communicating with friends.

The profile pages of many of my Friends indicate that they clearly are not as paranoid or as concerned about privacy as I am. For instance, I have chosen not to include my date of birth in my profile because this is one of the most frequently used security measures for a number of organisations, including banks, telcos, government bodies and other institutions. Is this a case of not being aware of the potential threats, or simply trusting Friends (not to mention potential hackers)? When investigating this issue with students, Acquisti and Gross (2006) argue that there is often a disconnect between their desire to protect their privacy and their behaviours. They found that while Facebook members express a significant concern about their privacy in general, they are not particularly concerned about their privacy on Facebook.

Further, Barnes (2006) discusses the “privacy paradox”; where adults are concerned about their privacy while teens freely give up personal information. As she observes:

In America, we live in a paradoxical world of privacy. On one hand, teenagers reveal their intimate thoughts and behaviours online and, on the other hand, government agencies and marketers are collecting personal data about us (Barnes, 2006).

Despite Facebook’s privacy policy stating that “You should have control over your personal information”, research conducted by Bonneau, Anderson & Danezis (2009) indicates that in practice data can be easily extracted in a way that violates this policy.

In a response to boyd & Ellison, Beer (2008) argues that, with social networking sites (SNSs) moving to the mainstream, the ‘everyday’ sense of friend can often be the SNS friend, and that SNSs may actually change our understanding of friendships. He suggests we may need more studies to understand how friendship changes as it interfaces with these technologies.

It seems that these technologies are not only changing the way we communicate, but also the definition of friendship. In the same way that the definition of ‘friend’ for a 15 year old may be different to that of a 40 year old, perhaps the notion of ‘friend’ changes as users become more accustomed to the use of SNSs in their everyday lives.

Boyd (2006[ii]) found the meaning of friendship to be quite complex. Indeed, she found that sociologists describe friendship as “an informal category without clear boundaries” and that the term ‘friend’ is ambiguous, with a variety of meanings across different cultural communities. As boyd notes, it’s doubtful there will ever be a consistent definition:

Although there are general sentiments about the exclusive nature of friendship, the boundaries between friends and acquaintances are quite blurry and it is unlikely that there will ever be consensus on a formula for what demarcates a friend (boyd, 2006).

I’m not a ‘collector’ of Friends. I have 28 Friends on Facebook, but only five are what I would describe as friends in real life. The rest are acquaintances or people I have known in a particular context, at a particular time. Perhaps for many people, especially those who are well past their teenage years, this is how the medium works best – to get in touch with (or keep in touch with) a wider circle of acquaintances that would not have been possible without social network(ing) sites (Rosen, 2007, p.29). However, when it comes to real friends, who needs Facebook? Rosen best sums this up when she writes “the idea of public friendship is an oxymoron”, explaining that friendships rely on mutual but private revelations (Rosen, 2007, p. 26).

[ii] Research was based on participants aged 14-30, only in America, using My Space & Friendster.