What makes a social network?
Yesterday I saw an item in which the writer, Clarence Westberg, referred to Pownce, the “similar to but not the same as Twitter” microblogging tool, as a “social network.” (Actually, he called Pownce a “worthless social network,” but that’s a separate issue.)
This simple statement got me thinking: What makes a “social network,” in the online sense? And, of course, the related question: Why does this word parsing matter, if at all?
To kick off my thinking on this issue, I informed my Twitter crew:
I’m intrigued by people who refer to things like Twitter as a social network. Is a blog a social network because it has your picture on it?
Sort of a snarky statement, but the responses, which came quick and often, turned me from silly to thoughtful. I had always reserved the label “social network” for those sites that centered on the profile, a quality Facebook, MySpace and many others certainly share. I considered Twitter and Pownce to publishing tools, not networking tools.
In response to my statement, Connie Crosby took the old-school approach, reminding me that social networks are indeed composed of people, not Web sites, but that Web sites — even blogs — can be effective social networking tools if people put an effort toward truly connecting and interacting.
Thu-An Bui also emphasized the idea of interaction. So did Julio Ojeda-Zapata, a technology writer at the St. Paul Pioneer Press and all-around geek (in the best way possible). And so did Clarence. Cece Salomon-Lee did, too, and added an angle about being able to “interconnect [with other people] seamlessly – add, delete, block, follow, etc.“
I think you see the trend developing here.
Social networking is about the people. Sites like Facebook are definitely focused on profile pages and connecting with other people, which led me to my initial, narrower definition of “social network” — something like a fancy, interactive Rolodex. Sites like Twitter, which the people mentioned above solidly regard as a social network, are more focused on communicating, I’d argue, than connecting people, but those two ideas are so closely connected I wonder if the distinction is relevant.
Why does any of this matter? I still wrestle with that. Maybe you can help (see that comment form below?). But one thing I do know: You can do yourself a favor by not getting caught up in your own preconceptions (or in this case, misconceptions). The way people use a Twitter, or a Facebook, or an anything, matters more than the label or even the purpose anyone tries to force upon it.
Related items
I think the definiton is part feature set and part intent. Twitter is almost only social networking, insofar as it’s a communication conduit, allows for “friending,” and permits two way transactions.
Sites like Flickr could be considered a social network. Messaging, commenting, friending, etc.
But Connie’s idea that you consider more the idea of these things as tools probably is the most helpful point to your thoughts.
Nice post. Btw, @RickMahn twittered a link to this and that’s why I read your post.
Mike,
Excellent post on the topic. I’ve thought (and continue to think) about this often. Since I’ve gotten more value from my blog and Twitter than from Facebook, for example, my perception and understanding of a social network has changed.
I wrote a post awhile ago talking about why a blog is a social network and, for me, that is true to a certain extent. I’ve met people because of my blog, I can find the useful communication tools and tie them into my blog, and much more.
However, I truly believe that social networking is people, and in the case of our modern, distributed, community we perceive it to be different than it really is. We connect with people, we learn from each other, trade ideas and opportunities. This is not much different than “old school” networking except that we use very different tools – hyper-connected tools that allow us to communicate in real time.
Wow for a long comment – didn’t mean to do that.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for the comments, guys. (And thanks, Rick, for spreading the word about Unjournalism!)
I guess I don’t have much to add at this point, other than this:
Resolved: Social networks are about the people, and Twitter is a social network – perhaps even more so than Facebook. Fair to say?
Where I get lost in all this is that too many people are sold on the idea that a “flip of a technological switch” will substitute for a relationship. Kind of the opposite of what Rick was saying above – “I truly believe that social networking is people.”
Here’s an example: On LinkedIn I’ve been contacted by a couple score of former colleagues from my B Dalton, Barnes & Noble and Waldenbooks days. Perhaps two of them responded back to my short, but friendly, update of what I’d been doing these, oh, perhaps 10-20 years since I’d seen them – and my request to “let me know what you are up to.” The rest were satisfied to have the link – not the relationship.
A blog is perhaps the most powerful networking tool ever invented (think guest blogging, ability to “interview,” feature articles, etc.) – but not because of the technology. It’s not the links. It’s the relationships. Those don’t grow because of the link, the tag, the poke, or the list. They build because you reach out and touch someone – and continue the relationship by emailing, giving a call (those old things called phones), and dropping in and visiting when you land in their town.
Michael,
That’s all so true. I work in PR, and I certainly understand the value of having a relationship (even a simple, e-mail-based relationship) as opposed to just being a name on a list.
Far too many people think that, as you said, they can flip a switch, fire up a Facebook profile and request friendships that will lead to checks just flying into the mailbox. That’s sad.
Great post, Mike. The difference with things like Twitter, blogs and Facebook over “old school” networking is the ease with which we can make connections, especially with people we are unlikely to meet in person. Through these online social networking tools I have “met” colleagues across Canada and the U.S., in the U.K., Australia and South Africa. Some of them I have even collaborated with, and eventually met in person. Wow.
It is a lot easier for us to find communities with like interests, or create those communities. A lot of what we in the social networking space are doing now is exploring how to actually start up a community, and then how to mobilize those groups to action. Powerful stuff.
Miket
to interact online realtime with honesty and integrity in either personal or business groups (twitter is a near perfect tool) to address an issue, form an opinion or speed up resolution of an issue is social networking.
We are very fortunate that the free nature of Internet site membership was driven by advertising dollars being shifted to the Internet.
It is my sincere hope that social networking will allow us to address this current world crisis as we migrate from the Information Age to the Communication age.
The speed and global reach of Social Network interactions is mind boggling. Love the direction.
Enjoyed the Blog.