‘…‹ƒŽ‡–™‘”‹–‡•ǣ‡ˆ‹‹–‹‘ǡ‹•–‘”›ǡ

ƒ†…Š‘Žƒ”•Š‹’
By:DanahM.Boyd/NicoleB.Ellison

MichiganStateUniversity,2007

Introduction
Sincetheirintroduction,socialnetworksites(SNSs)suchasMySpace,Facebook,Cyworld,andBebo
haveattractedmillionsofusers,manyofwhomhaveintegratedthesesitesintotheirdaily
practices.Asofthiswriting,therearehundredsofSNSs,withvarioustechnologicalaffordances,
supportingawiderangeofinterestsandpractices.Whiletheirkeytechnologicalfeaturesarefairly
consistent,theculturesthatemergearoundSNSsarevaried.Mostsitessupportthemaintenance
ofpreͲexistingsocialnetworks,butothershelpstrangersconnectbasedonsharedinterests,
politicalviews,oractivities.Somesitescatertodiverseaudiences,whileothersattractpeople
basedoncommonlanguageorsharedracial,sexual,religious,ornationalityͲbasedidentities.Sites
alsovaryintheextenttowhichtheyincorporatenewinformationandcommunicationtools,such
asmobileconnectivity,blogging,andphoto/videoͲsharing.

SocialNetworkSites:ADefinition
WedefinesocialnetworksitesaswebͲbasedservicesthatallowindividualsto(1)constructapublic
orsemiͲpublicprofilewithinaboundedsystem,(2)articulatealistofotheruserswithwhomthey
shareaconnection,and(3)viewandtraversetheirlistofconnectionsandthosemadebyothers
withinthesystem.Thenatureandnomenclatureoftheseconnectionsmayvaryfromsitetosite.

Whileweusetheterm"socialnetworksite"todescribethisphenomenon,theterm"social
networkingsites"alsoappearsinpublicdiscourse,andthetwotermsareoftenused
interchangeably.Wechosenottoemploytheterm"networking"fortworeasons:emphasisand
scope."Networking"emphasizesrelationshipinitiation,oftenbetweenstrangers.Whilenetworking
ispossibleonthesesites,itisnottheprimarypracticeonmanyofthem,norisitwhat
differentiatesthemfromotherformsofcomputerͲmediatedcommunication(CMC).

Whatmakessocialnetworksitesuniqueisnotthattheyallowindividualstomeetstrangers,but
ratherthattheyenableuserstoarticulateandmakevisibletheirsocialnetworks.Thiscanresultin
connectionsbetweenindividualsthatwouldnototherwisebemade,butthatisoftennotthegoal,
andthesemeetingsarefrequentlybetween"latentties"(Haythornthwaite,2005)whosharesome
offlineconnection.OnmanyofthelargeSNSs,participantsarenotnecessarily"networking"or
lookingtomeetnewpeople;instead,theyareprimarilycommunicatingwithpeoplewhoare

1

alreadyapartoftheirextendedsocialnetwork.Toemphasizethisarticulatedsocialnetworkasa
criticalorganizingfeatureofthesesites,welabelthem"socialnetworksites."

WhileSNSshaveimplementedawidevarietyoftechnicalfeatures,theirbackboneconsistsof
visibleprofilesthatdisplayanarticulatedlistofFriends1whoarealsousersofthesystem.Profiles
areuniquepageswhereonecan"typeoneselfintobeing"(Sundén,2003,p.3).Afterjoiningan
SNS,anindividualisaskedtofilloutformscontainingaseriesofquestions.Theprofileisgenerated
usingtheanswerstothesequestions,whichtypicallyincludedescriptorssuchasage,location,
interests,andan"aboutme"section.Mostsitesalsoencourageuserstouploadaprofilephoto.
Somesitesallowuserstoenhancetheirprofilesbyaddingmultimediacontentormodifyingtheir
profile'slookandfeel.Others,suchasFacebook,allowuserstoaddmodules("Applications")that
enhancetheirprofile.

Thevisibilityofaprofilevariesbysiteandaccordingtouserdiscretion.Bydefault,profileson
FriendsterandTribe.netarecrawledbysearchengines,makingthemvisibletoanyone,regardless
ofwhetherornottheviewerhasanaccount.Alternatively,LinkedIncontrolswhataviewermay
seebasedonwhethersheorhehasapaidaccount.SiteslikeMySpaceallowuserstochoose
whethertheywanttheirprofiletobepublicor"Friendsonly."Facebooktakesadifferent
approach——bydefault,userswhoarepartofthesame"network"canvieweachother'sprofiles,
unlessaprofileownerhasdecidedtodenypermissiontothoseintheirnetwork.Structural
variationsaroundvisibilityandaccessareoneoftheprimarywaysthatSNSsdifferentiate
themselvesfromeachother.

Afterjoiningasocialnetworksite,usersarepromptedtoidentifyothersinthesystemwithwhom
theyhavearelationship.Thelabelfortheserelationshipsdiffersdependingonthesite——popular
termsinclude"Friends,""Contacts,"and"Fans."MostSNSsrequirebiͲdirectionalconfirmationfor
Friendship,butsomedonot.TheseoneͲdirectionaltiesaresometimeslabeledas"Fans"or
"Followers,"butmanysitescalltheseFriendsaswell.Theterm"Friends"canbemisleading,
becausetheconnectiondoesnotnecessarilymeanfriendshipintheeverydayvernacularsense,and
thereasonspeopleconnectarevaried(boyd,2006a).

ThepublicdisplayofconnectionsisacrucialcomponentofSNSs.TheFriendslistcontainslinksto
eachFriend'sprofile,enablingviewerstotraversethenetworkgraphbyclickingthroughthe
Friendslists.Onmostsites,thelistofFriendsisvisibletoanyonewhoispermittedtoviewthe
profile,althoughthereareexceptions.Forinstance,someMySpaceusershavehackedtheirprofiles
tohidetheFriendsdisplay,andLinkedInallowsuserstooptoutofdisplayingtheirnetwork.

MostSNSsalsoprovideamechanismforuserstoleavemessagesontheirFriends'profiles.This
featuretypicallyinvolvesleaving"comments,"althoughsitesemployvariouslabelsforthisfeature.
Inaddition,SNSsoftenhaveaprivatemessagingfeaturesimilartowebmail.Whilebothprivate
messagesandcommentsarepopularonmostofthemajorSNSs,theyarenotuniversallyavailable.

2

Notallsocialnetworksitesbeganassuch.QQstartedasaChineseinstantmessagingservice,
LunarStormasacommunitysite,CyworldasaKoreandiscussionforumtool,andSkyrock(formerly
Skyblog)wasaFrenchbloggingservicebeforeaddingSNSfeatures.Classmates.com,adirectoryof
schoolaffiliateslaunchedin1995,begansupportingarticulatedlistsofFriendsafterSNSsbecame
popular.AsianAvenue,MiGente,andBlackPlanetwereearlypopularethniccommunitysiteswith
limitedFriendsfunctionalitybeforereͲlaunchingin2005Ͳ2006withSNSfeaturesandstructure.

Beyondprofiles,Friends,comments,andprivatemessaging,SNSsvarygreatlyintheirfeaturesand
userbase.SomehavephotoͲsharingorvideoͲsharingcapabilities;othershavebuiltͲinbloggingand
instantmessagingtechnology.TherearemobileͲspecificSNSs(e.g.,Dodgeball),butsomewebͲ
basedSNSsalsosupportlimitedmobileinteractions(e.g.,Facebook,MySpace,andCyworld).Many
SNSstargetpeoplefromspecificgeographicalregionsorlinguisticgroups,althoughthisdoesnot
alwaysdeterminethesite'sconstituency.Orkut,forexample,waslaunchedintheUnitedStates
withanEnglishͲonlyinterface,butPortugueseͲspeakingBraziliansquicklybecamethedominant
usergroup(Kopytoff,2004).Somesitesaredesignedwithspecificethnic,religious,sexual
orientation,political,orotheridentityͲdrivencategoriesinmind.ThereareevenSNSsfordogs
(Dogster)andcats(Catster),althoughtheirownersmustmanagetheirprofiles.

WhileSNSsareoftendesignedtobewidelyaccessible,manyattracthomogeneouspopulations
initially,soitisnotuncommontofindgroupsusingsitestosegregatethemselvesbynationality,
age,educationallevel,orotherfactorsthattypicallysegmentsociety(Hargittai,thisissue),evenif
thatwasnottheintentionofthedesigners.

AHistoryofSocialNetworkSites

TheEarlyYears
Accordingtothedefinitionabove,thefirstrecognizablesocialnetworksitelaunchedin1997.
SixDegrees.comalloweduserstocreateprofiles,listtheirFriendsand,beginningin1998,surfthe
Friendslists.EachofthesefeaturesexistedinsomeformbeforeSixDegrees,ofcourse.Profiles
existedonmostmajordatingsitesandmanycommunitysites.AIMandICQbuddylistssupported
listsofFriends,althoughthoseFriendswerenotvisibletoothers.Classmates.comallowedpeople
toaffiliatewiththeirhighschoolorcollegeandsurfthenetworkforotherswhowerealso
affiliated,butuserscouldnotcreateprofilesorlistFriendsuntilyearslater.SixDegreeswasthefirst
tocombinethesefeatures.

SixDegreespromoteditselfasatooltohelppeopleconnectwithandsendmessagestoothers.
WhileSixDegreesattractedmillionsofusers,itfailedtobecomeasustainablebusinessand,in
2000,theserviceclosed.Lookingback,itsfounderbelievesthatSixDegreeswassimplyaheadofits
time(A.Weinreich,personalcommunication,July11,2007).Whilepeoplewerealreadyflockingto
theInternet,mostdidnothaveextendednetworksoffriendswhowereonline.Earlyadopters
complainedthattherewaslittletodoafteracceptingFriendrequests,andmostuserswerenot
interestedinmeetingstrangers.

3

From1997to2001,anumberofcommunitytoolsbegansupportingvariouscombinationsof
profilesandpubliclyarticulatedFriends.AsianAvenue,BlackPlanet,andMiGenteallowedusersto
createpersonal,professional,anddatingprofiles——userscouldidentifyFriendsontheirpersonal
profileswithoutseekingapprovalforthoseconnections(O.Wasow,personalcommunication,
August16,2007).Likewise,shortlyafteritslaunchin1999,LiveJournallistedoneͲdirectional
connectionsonuserpages.LiveJournal'screatorsuspectsthathefashionedtheseFriendsafter
instantmessagingbuddylists(B.Fitzpatrick,personalcommunication,June15,2007)——on
LiveJournal,peoplemarkothersasFriendstofollowtheirjournalsandmanageprivacysettings.The
KoreanvirtualworldssiteCyworldwasstartedin1999andaddedSNSfeaturesin2001,
independentoftheseothersites(seeKim&Yun,thisissue).Likewise,whentheSwedishweb
communityLunarStormrefashioneditselfasanSNSin2000,itcontainedFriendslists,guestbooks,
anddiarypages(D.Skog,personalcommunication,September24,2007).

ThenextwaveofSNSsbeganwhenRyze.comwaslaunchedin2001tohelppeopleleveragetheir
businessnetworks.Ryze'sfounderreportsthathefirstintroducedthesitetohisfriends——primarily
membersoftheSanFranciscobusinessandtechnologycommunity,includingtheentrepreneurs
andinvestorsbehindmanyfutureSNSs(A.Scott,personalcommunication,June14,2007).In
particular,thepeoplebehindRyze,Tribe.net,LinkedIn,andFriendsterweretightlyentwined
personallyandprofessionally.Theybelievedthattheycouldsupporteachotherwithoutcompeting
(Festa,2003).Intheend,Ryzeneveracquiredmasspopularity,Tribe.netgrewtoattracta
passionatenicheuserbase,LinkedInbecameapowerfulbusinessservice,andFriendsterbecame
themostsignificant,ifonlyas"oneofthebiggestdisappointmentsinInternethistory"(Chafkin,
2007,p.1).

Likeanybriefhistoryofamajorphenomenon,oursisnecessarilyincomplete.Inthefollowing
sectionwediscussFriendster,MySpace,andFacebook,threekeySNSsthatshapedthebusiness,
cultural,andresearchlandscape.

TheRise(andFall)ofFriendster
Friendsterlaunchedin2002asasocialcomplementtoRyze.Itwasdesignedtocompetewith
Match.com,aprofitableonlinedatingsite(Cohen,2003).Whilemostdatingsitesfocusedon
introducingpeopletostrangerswithsimilarinterests,FriendsterwasdesignedtohelpfriendsͲofͲ
friendsmeet,basedontheassumptionthatfriendsͲofͲfriendswouldmakebetterromantic
partnersthanwouldstrangers(J.Abrams,personalcommunication,March27,2003).Friendster
gainedtractionamongthreegroupsofearlyadopterswhoshapedthesite——bloggers,attendeesof
theBurningManartsfestival,andgaymen(boyd,2004)——andgrewto300,000usersthroughword
ofmouthbeforetraditionalpresscoveragebeganinMay2003(O'Shea,2003).

AsFriendster'spopularitysurged,thesiteencounteredtechnicalandsocialdifficulties(boyd,
2006b).Friendster'sserversanddatabaseswereillͲequippedtohandleitsrapidgrowth,andthe
sitefalteredregularly,frustratinguserswhoreplacedemailwithFriendster.Becauseorganic
growthhadbeencriticaltocreatingacoherentcommunity,theonslaughtofnewuserswho
learnedaboutthesitefrommediacoverageupsettheculturalbalance.Furthermore,exponential

4

growthmeantacollapseinsocialcontexts:Usershadtofacetheirbossesandformerclassmates
alongsidetheirclosefriends.Tocomplicatematters,Friendsterbeganrestrictingtheactivitiesofits
mostpassionateusers.

TheinitialdesignofFriendsterrestrictedusersfromviewingprofilesofpeoplewhoweremorethan
fourdegreesaway(friendsͲofͲfriendsͲofͲfriendsͲofͲfriends).Inordertoviewadditionalprofiles,
usersbeganaddingacquaintancesandinterestingͲlookingstrangerstoexpandtheirreach.Some
beganmassivelycollectingFriends,anactivitythatwasimplicitlyencouragedthrougha"most
popular"feature.Theultimatecollectorswerefakeprofilesrepresentingiconicfictionalcharacters:
celebrities,concepts,andothersuchentities.These"Fakesters"outragedthecompany,who
banishedfakeprofilesandeliminatedthe"mostpopular"feature(boyd,inpressͲb).Whilefew
peopleactuallycreatedFakesters,manymoreenjoyedsurfingFakestersforentertainmentorusing
functionalFakesters(e.g.,"BrownUniversity")tofindpeopletheyknew.

TheactivedeletionofFakesters(andgenuineuserswhochosenonͲrealisticphotos)signaledto
somethatthecompanydidnotshareusers'interests.Manyearlyadoptersleftbecauseofthe
combinationoftechnicaldifficulties,socialcollisions,andaruptureoftrustbetweenusersandthe
site(boyd,2006b).However,atthesametimethatitwasfadingintheU.S.,itspopularity
skyrocketedinthePhilippines,Singapore,Malaysia,andIndonesia(Goldberg,2007).

SNSsHittheMainstream
From2003onward,manynewSNSswerelaunched,promptingsocialsoftwareanalystClayShirky
(2003)tocointhetermYASNS:"YetAnotherSocialNetworkingService."Mosttooktheformof
profileͲcentricsites,tryingtoreplicatetheearlysuccessofFriendsterortargetspecific
demographics.WhilesociallyͲorganizedSNSssolicitbroadaudiences,professionalsitessuchas
LinkedIn,VisiblePath,andXing(formerlyopenBC)focusonbusinesspeople."PassionͲcentric"SNSs
likeDogster(T.Rheingold,personalcommunication,August2,2007)helpstrangersconnectbased
onsharedinterests.Care2helpsactivistsmeet,Couchsurfingconnectstravelerstopeoplewith
couches,andMyChurchjoinsChristianchurchesandtheirmembers.Furthermore,asthesocial
mediaanduserͲgeneratedcontentphenomenagrew,websitesfocusedonmediasharingbegan
implementingSNSfeaturesandbecomingSNSsthemselves.ExamplesincludeFlickr(photo
sharing),Last.FM(musiclisteninghabits),andYouTube(videosharing).

WiththeplethoraofventureͲbackedstartupslaunchinginSiliconValley,fewpeoplepaidattention
toSNSsthatgainedpopularityelsewhere,eventhosebuiltbymajorcorporations.Forexample,
Google'sOrkutfailedtobuildasustainableU.S.userbase,buta"Brazilianinvasion"(Fragoso,2006)
madeOrkutthenationalSNSofBrazil.Microsoft'sWindowsLiveSpaces(a.k.a.MSNSpaces)also
launchedtolukewarmU.S.receptionbutbecameextremelypopularelsewhere.

FewanalystsorjournalistsnoticedwhenMySpacelaunchedinSantaMonica,California,hundreds
ofmilesfromSiliconValley.MySpacewasbegunin2003tocompetewithsiteslikeFriendster,
Xanga,andAsianAvenue,accordingtocoͲfounderTomAnderson(personalcommunication,August
2,2007);thefounderswantedtoattractestrangedFriendsterusers(T.Anderson,personal

5

communication,February2,2006).AfterrumorsemergedthatFriendsterwouldadoptafeeͲbased
system,userspostedFriendstermessagesencouragingpeopletojoinalternateSNSs,including
Tribe.netandMySpace(T.Anderson,personalcommunication,August2,2007).Becauseofthis,
MySpacewasabletogrowrapidlybycapitalizingonFriendster'salienationofitsearlyadopters.
OneparticularlynotablegroupthatencouragedotherstoswitchwereindieͲrockbandswhowere
expelledfromFriendsterforfailingtocomplywithprofileregulations.

WhileMySpacewasnotlaunchedwithbandsinmind,theywerewelcomed.IndieͲrockbandsfrom
theLosAngelesregionbegancreatingprofiles,andlocalpromotersusedMySpacetoadvertiseVIP
passesforpopularclubs.Intrigued,MySpacecontactedlocalmusicianstoseehowtheycould
supportthem(T.Anderson,personalcommunication,September28,2006).Bandswerenotthe
solesourceofMySpacegrowth,butthesymbioticrelationshipbetweenbandsandfanshelped
MySpaceexpandbeyondformerFriendsterusers.ThebandsͲandͲfansdynamicwasmutually
beneficial:Bandswantedtobeabletocontactfans,whilefansdesiredattentionfromtheirfavorite
bandsandusedFriendconnectionstosignalidentityandaffiliation.

Futhermore,MySpacedifferentiateditselfbyregularlyaddingfeaturesbasedonuserdemand
(boyd,2006b)andbyallowinguserstopersonalizetheirpages.This"feature"emergedbecause
MySpacedidnotrestrictusersfromaddingHTMLintotheformsthatframedtheirprofiles;a
copy/pastecodecultureemergedonthewebtosupportusersingeneratinguniqueMySpace
backgroundsandlayouts(Perkel,inpress).

TeenagersbeganjoiningMySpaceenmassein2004.Unlikeolderusers,mostteenswereneveron
Friendster——somejoinedbecausetheywantedtoconnectwiththeirfavoritebands;otherswere
introducedtothesitethrougholderfamilymembers.Asteensbegansigningup,theyencouraged
theirfriendstojoin.Ratherthanrejectingunderageusers,MySpacechangeditsuserpolicytoallow
minors.Asthesitegrew,threedistinctpopulationsbegantoform:musicians/artists,teenagers,
andthepostͲcollegeurbansocialcrowd.Byandlarge,thelattertwogroupsdidnotinteractwith
oneanotherexceptthroughbands.Becauseofthelackofmainstreampresscoverageduring2004,
fewothersnoticedthesite'sgrowingpopularity.

Then,inJuly2005,NewsCorporationpurchasedMySpacefor$580million(BBC,2005),attracting
massivemediaattention.Afterwards,safetyissuesplaguedMySpace.Thesitewasimplicatedina
seriesofsexualinteractionsbetweenadultsandminors,promptinglegalaction(ConsumerAffairs,
2006).Amoralpanicconcerningsexualpredatorsquicklyspread(Bahney,2006),althoughresearch
suggeststhattheconcernswereexaggerated.2

AGlobalPhenomenon
WhileMySpaceattractedthemajorityofmediaattentionintheU.S.andabroad,SNSswere
proliferatingandgrowinginpopularityworldwide.FriendstergainedtractioninthePacificIslands,
OrkutbecamethepremierSNSinBrazilbeforegrowingrapidlyinIndia(Madhavan,2007),Mixi
attainedwidespreadadoptioninJapan,LunarStormtookoffinSweden,Dutchusersembraced

6

Hyves,GronocapturedPoland,Hi5wasadoptedinsmallercountriesinLatinAmerica,South
America,andEurope,andBebobecameverypopularintheUnitedKingdom,NewZealand,and
Australia.Additionally,previouslypopularcommunicationandcommunityservicesbegan
implementingSNSfeatures.TheChineseQQinstantmessagingserviceinstantlybecamethelargest
SNSworldwidewhenitaddedprofilesandmadefriendsvisible(McLeod,2006),whiletheforum
toolCyworldcorneredtheKoreanmarketbyintroducinghomepagesandbuddies(Ewers,2006).

BloggingserviceswithcompleteSNSfeaturesalsobecamepopular.IntheU.S.,bloggingtoolswith
SNSfeatures,suchasXanga,LiveJournal,andVox,attractedbroadaudiences.Skyrockreignsin
France,andWindowsLiveSpacesdominatesnumerousmarketsworldwide,includinginMexico,
Italy,andSpain.AlthoughSNSslikeQQ,Orkut,andLiveSpacesarejustaslargeas,ifnotlarger
than,MySpace,theyreceivelittlecoverageinU.S.andEnglishͲspeakingmedia,makingitdifficultto
tracktheirtrajectories.

ExpandingNicheCommunities
Alongsidetheseopenservices,otherSNSslaunchedtosupportnichedemographicsbefore
expandingtoabroaderaudience.UnlikepreviousSNSs,Facebookwasdesignedtosupportdistinct
collegenetworksonly.Facebookbeganinearly2004asaHarvardͲonlySNS(Cassidy,2006).Tojoin,
auserhadtohaveaharvard.eduemailaddress.AsFacebookbegansupportingotherschools,those
userswerealsorequiredtohaveuniversityemailaddressesassociatedwiththoseinstitutions,a
requirementthatkeptthesiterelativelyclosedandcontributedtousers'perceptionsofthesiteas
anintimate,privatecommunity.

BeginninginSeptember2005,Facebookexpandedtoincludehighschoolstudents,professionals
insidecorporatenetworks,and,eventually,everyone.Thechangetoopensignupdidnotmeanthat
newuserscouldeasilyaccessusersinclosednetworks——gainingaccesstocorporatenetworksstill
requiredtheappropriate.comaddress,whilegainingaccesstohighschoolnetworksrequired
administratorapproval.(Asofthiswriting,onlymembershipinregionalnetworksrequiresno
permission.)UnlikeotherSNSs,Facebookusersareunabletomaketheirfullprofilespublictoall
users.AnotherfeaturethatdifferentiatesFacebookistheabilityforoutsidedeveloperstobuild
"Applications"whichallowuserstopersonalizetheirprofilesandperformothertasks,suchas
comparemoviepreferencesandcharttravelhistories.

WhilemostSNSsfocusongrowingbroadlyandexponentially,othersexplicitlyseeknarrower
audiences.Some,likeaSmallWorldandBeautifulPeople,intentionallyrestrictaccesstoappear
selectiveandelite.Others——activityͲcenteredsiteslikeCouchsurfing,identityͲdrivensiteslike
BlackPlanet,andaffiliationͲfocusedsiteslikeMyChurch——arelimitedbytheirtargetdemographic
andthustendtobesmaller.Finally,anyonewhowishestocreateanichesocialnetworksitecando
soonNing,aplatformandhostingservicethatencouragesuserstocreatetheirownSNSs.

Currently,therearenoreliabledataregardinghowmanypeopleuseSNSs,althoughmarketing
researchindicatesthatSNSsaregrowinginpopularityworldwide(comScore,2007).Thisgrowth

7

haspromptedmanycorporationstoinvesttimeandmoneyincreating,purchasing,promoting,and
advertisingSNSs.Atthesametime,othercompaniesareblockingtheiremployeesfromaccessing
thesites.Additionally,theU.S.militarybannedsoldiersfromaccessingMySpace(Frosch,2007)and
theCanadiangovernmentprohibitedemployeesfromFacebook(Benzie,2007),whiletheU.S.
CongresshasproposedlegislationtobanyouthfromaccessingSNSsinschoolsandlibraries(H.R.
5319,2006;S.49,2007).

TheriseofSNSsindicatesashiftintheorganizationofonlinecommunities.Whilewebsites
dedicatedtocommunitiesofintereststillexistandprosper,SNSsareprimarilyorganizedaround
people,notinterests.EarlypubliconlinecommunitiessuchasUsenetandpublicdiscussionforums
werestructuredbytopicsoraccordingtotopicalhierarchies,butsocialnetworksitesarestructured
aspersonal(or"egocentric")networks,withtheindividualatthecenteroftheirowncommunity.
Thismoreaccuratelymirrorsunmediatedsocialstructures,where"theworldiscomposedof
networks,notgroups"(Wellman,1988,p.37).TheintroductionofSNSfeatureshasintroduceda
neworganizationalframeworkforonlinecommunities,andwithit,avibrantnewresearchcontext.

PreviousScholarship
ScholarshipconcerningSNSsisemergingfromdiversedisciplinaryandmethodologicaltraditions,
addressesarangeoftopics,andbuildsonalargebodyofCMCresearch.Thegoalofthissectionis
tosurveyresearchthatisdirectlyconcernedwithsocialnetworksites,andinsodoing,tosetthe
stageforthearticlesinthisspecialissue.Todate,thebulkofSNSresearchhasfocusedon
impressionmanagementandfriendshipperformance,networksandnetworkstructure,
online/offlineconnections,andprivacyissues.

ImpressionManagementandFriendshipPerformance
Likeotheronlinecontextsinwhichindividualsareconsciouslyabletoconstructanonline
representationofself——suchasonlinedatingprofilesandMUDS——SNSsconstituteanimportant
researchcontextforscholarsinvestigatingprocessesofimpressionmanagement,selfͲpresentation,
andfriendshipperformance.InoneoftheearliestacademicarticlesonSNSs,boyd(2004)examined
Friendsterasalocusofpubliclyarticulatedsocialnetworksthatalloweduserstonegotiate
presentationsofselfandconnectwithothers.Donathandboyd(2004)extendedthistosuggest
that"publicdisplaysofconnection"serveasimportantidentitysignalsthathelppeoplenavigate
thenetworkedsocialworld,inthatanextendednetworkmayservetovalidateidentityinformation
presentedinprofiles.

Whilemostsitesencourageuserstoconstructaccuraterepresentationsofthemselves,participants
dothistovaryingdegrees.Marwick(2005)foundthatusersonthreedifferentSNSshadcomplex
strategiesfornegotiatingtherigidityofaprescribed"authentic"profile,whileboyd(inpressͲb)
examinedthephenomenonof"Fakesters"andarguedthatprofilescouldneverbe"real."The
extenttowhichportraitsareauthenticorplayfulvariesacrosssites;bothsocialandtechnological
forcesshapeuserpractices.Skog(2005)foundthatthestatusfeatureonLunarStormstrongly

8

influencedhowpeoplebehavedandwhattheychoosetoreveal——profilesthereindicateone's
statusasmeasuredbyactivity(e.g.,sendingmessages)andindicatorsofauthenticity(e.g.,usinga
"real"photoinsteadofadrawing).

AnotheraspectofselfͲpresentationisthearticulationoffriendshiplinks,whichserveasidentity
markersfortheprofileowner.ImpressionmanagementisoneofthereasonsgivenbyFriendster
usersforchoosingparticularfriends(Donath&boyd,2004).Recognizingthis,ZinmanandDonath
(2007)notedthatMySpacespammersleveragepeople'swillingnesstoconnecttointeresting
peopletofindtargetsfortheirspam.

IntheirexaminationofLiveJournal"friendship,"FonoandRaynesͲGoldie(2006)describedusers'
understandingsregardingpublicdisplaysofconnectionsandhowtheFriendingfunctioncan
operateasacatalystforsocialdrama.InlistingusermotivationsforFriending,boyd(2006a)points
outthat"Friends"onSNSsarenotthesameas"friends"intheeverydaysense;instead,Friends
providecontextbyofferingusersanimaginedaudiencetoguidebehavioralnorms.Otherworkin
thisareahasexaminedtheuseofFriendsterTestimonialsasselfͲpresentationaldevices(boyd&
Heer,2006)andtheextenttowhichtheattractivenessofone'sFriends(asindicatedbyFacebook's
"Wall"feature)impactsimpressionformation(Walther,VanDerHeide,Kim,&Westerman,in
press).

NetworksandNetworkStructure
Socialnetworksitesalsoproviderichsourcesofnaturalisticbehavioraldata.Profileandlinkage
datafromSNSscanbegatheredeitherthroughtheuseofautomatedcollectiontechniquesor
throughdatasetsprovideddirectlyfromthecompany,enablingnetworkanalysisresearchersto
explorelargeͲscalepatternsoffriending,usage,andothervisibleindicators(Hogan,inpress),and
continuingananalysistrendthatstartedwithexaminationsofblogsandotherwebsites.For
instance,Golder,Wilkinson,andHuberman(2007)examinedananonymizeddatasetconsistingof
362millionmessagesexchangedbyoverfourmillionFacebookusersforinsightintoFriendingand
messagingactivities.Lampe,Ellison,andSteinfield(2007)exploredtherelationshipbetweenprofile
elementsandnumberofFacebookfriends,findingthatprofilefieldsthatreducetransactioncosts
andarehardertofalsifyaremostlikelytobeassociatedwithlargernumberoffriendshiplinks.
Thesekindsofdataalsolendthemselveswelltoanalysisthroughnetworkvisualization(Adamic,
Büyükkökten,&Adar,2003;Heer&boyd,2005;Paolillo&Wright,2005).

SNSresearchershavealsostudiedthenetworkstructureofFriendship.Analyzingtherolespeople
playedinthegrowthofFlickrandYahoo!360'snetworks,Kumar,Novak,andTomkins(2006)
arguedthattherearepassivemembers,inviters,andlinkers"whofullyparticipateinthesocial
evolutionofthenetwork"(p.1).ScholarshipconcerningLiveJournal'snetworkhasincludeda
Friendshipclassificationscheme(Hsu,Lancaster,Paradesi,&Weniger,2007),ananalysisoftherole
oflanguageinthetopologyofFriendship(Herringetal.,2007),researchintotheimportanceof
geographyinFriending(LibenͲNowell,Novak,Kumar,Raghavan,&Tomkins,2005),andstudieson
whatmotivatespeopletojoinparticularcommunities(Backstrom,Huttenlocher,Kleinberg,&Lan,

9

2006).BasedonOrkutdata,Spertus,Sahami,andBüyükkökten(2005)identifiedatopologyofusers
throughtheirmembershipincertaincommunities;theysuggestthatsitescanusethisto
recommendadditionalcommunitiesofinteresttousers.Finally,Liu,Maes,andDavenport(2006)
arguedthatFriendconnectionsarenottheonlynetworkstructureworthinvestigating.They
examinedthewaysinwhichtheperformanceoftastes(favoritemusic,books,film,etc.)constitutes
analternatenetworkstructure,whichtheycalla"tastefabric."

BridgingOnlineandOfflineSocialNetworks
Althoughexceptionsexist,theavailableresearchsuggeststhatmostSNSsprimarilysupportpreͲ
existingsocialrelations.Ellison,Steinfield,andLampe(2007)suggestthatFacebookisusedto
maintainexistingofflinerelationshipsorsolidifyofflineconnections,asopposedtomeetingnew
people.Theserelationshipsmaybeweakties,buttypicallythereissomecommonofflineelement
amongindividualswhofriendoneanother,suchasasharedclassatschool.Thisisoneofthechief
dimensionsthatdifferentiateSNSsfromearlierformsofpublicCMCsuchasnewsgroups(Ellisonet
al.,2007).Researchinthisveinhasinvestigatedhowonlineinteractionsinterfacewithofflineones.
Forinstance,Lampe,Ellison,andSteinfield(2006)foundthatFacebookusersengagein"searching"
forpeoplewithwhomtheyhaveanofflineconnectionmorethanthey"browse"forcomplete
strangerstomeet.Likewise,Pewresearchfoundthat91%ofU.S.teenswhouseSNSsdosoto
connectwithfriends(Lenhart&Madden,2007).

GiventhatSNSsenableindividualstoconnectwithoneanother,itisnotsurprisingthattheyhave
becomedeeplyembeddedinuser'slives.InKorea,Cyworldhasbecomeanintegralpartof
everydaylife——Choi(2006)foundthat85%ofthatstudy'srespondents"listedthemaintenanceand
reinforcementofpreͲexistingsocialnetworksastheirmainmotiveforCyworlduse"(p.181).
Likewise,boyd(2008)arguesthatMySpaceandFacebookenableU.S.youthtosocializewiththeir
friendsevenwhentheyareunabletogatherinunmediatedsituations;shearguesthatSNSsare
"networkedpublics"thatsupportsociability,justasunmediatedpublicspacesdo.

Privacy
PopularpresscoverageofSNSshasemphasizedpotentialprivacyconcerns,primarilyconcerning
thesafetyofyoungerusers(George,2006;Kornblum&Marklein,2006).Researchershave
investigatedthepotentialthreatstoprivacyassociatedwithSNSs.Inoneofthefirstacademic
studiesofprivacyandSNSs,GrossandAcquisti(2005)analyzed4,000CarnegieMellonUniversity
Facebookprofilesandoutlinedthepotentialthreatstoprivacycontainedinthepersonal
informationincludedonthesitebystudents,suchasthepotentialabilitytoreconstructusers'
socialsecuritynumbersusinginformationoftenfoundinprofiles,suchashometownanddateof
birth.

AcquistiandGross(2006)arguethatthereisoftenadisconnectbetweenstudents'desireto
protectprivacyandtheirbehaviors,athemethatisalsoexploredinStutzman's(2006)surveyof
FacebookusersandBarnes's(2006)descriptionofthe"privacyparadox"thatoccurswhenteens

10

arenotawareofthepublicnatureoftheInternet.Inanalyzingtrustonsocialnetworksites,Dwyer,
Hiltz,andPasserini(2007)arguedthattrustandusagegoalsmayaffectwhatpeoplearewillingto
share——FacebookusersexpressedgreatertrustinFacebookthanMySpaceusersdidinMySpace
andthusweremorewillingtoshareinformationonthesite.

InanotherstudyexaminingsecurityissuesandSNSs,Jagatic,Johnson,Jakobsson,andMenczer
(2007)usedfreelyaccessibleprofiledatafromSNSstocrafta"phishing"schemethatappearedto
originatefromafriendonthenetwork;theirtargetsweremuchmorelikelytogiveaway
informationtothis"friend"thantoaperceivedstranger.Surveydataofferamoreoptimistic
perspectiveontheissue,suggestingthatteensareawareofpotentialprivacythreatsonlineand
thatmanyareproactiveabouttakingstepstominimizecertainpotentialrisks.Pewfoundthat55%
ofonlineteenshaveprofiles,66%ofwhomreportthattheirprofileisnotvisibletoallInternet
users(Lenhart&Madden,2007).Oftheteenswithcompletelyopenprofiles,46%reported
includingatleastsomefalseinformation.

Privacyisalsoimplicatedinusers'abilitytocontrolimpressionsandmanagesocialcontexts.Boyd
(inpressͲa)assertedthatFacebook'sintroductionofthe"NewsFeed"featuredisruptedstudents'
senseofcontrol,eventhoughdataexposedthroughthefeedwerepreviouslyaccessible.Preibusch,
Hoser,Gürses,andBerendt(2007)arguedthattheprivacyoptionsofferedbySNSsdonotprovide
userswiththeflexibilitytheyneedtohandleconflictswithFriendswhohavedifferentconceptions
ofprivacy;theysuggestaframeworkforprivacyinSNSsthattheybelievewouldhelpresolvethese
conflicts.

SNSsarealsochallenginglegalconceptionsofprivacy.Hodge(2006)arguedthatthefourth
amendmenttotheU.S.Constitutionandlegaldecisionsconcerningprivacyarenotequippedto
addresssocialnetworksites.Forexample,dopoliceofficershavetherighttoaccesscontentposted
toFacebookwithoutawarrant?Thelegalityofthishingesonusers'expectationofprivacyand
whetherornotFacebookprofilesareconsideredpublicorprivate.

11