Let me just start off by saying that I like the author's definition of Generation Y ("persons born between 1977 and 1994"), because it just barely squeaks me into that demographic ... and here I've always thought I was one of those disillusioned Gen X slackers ;)
Other observations:
* Fernandez encourages libraries to "look into the future and anticipate the needs of a wide variety of patrons", and I believe this is a rational way to look at the adoption of social networking sites into the library's online presence ... It's important for librarians to investigate and see what their individual communities want (and not just rush into the latest "flavor of the month" just because it's what everyone else is doing). If the patrons communicate a desire for the library to have a Facebook page, then go for it; if they don't, then don't force the issue just to appear "hip"!
* With our recent discussions on socially targeted advertising, I found this paragraph interesting: "A study conducted in 2009 revealed that the majority of 18 to 24 year olds surveyed did not want tailored advertisements. When the participants were informed that their online activities would need to be tracked in order to include tailored advertising, the number who opposed tailored advertisements increased."
So, it appears that the younger generation isn't so eager to have their information used for targeted ads after all ...
* The author points out the Beacon and terms-of-service controversies surrounding Facebook, as a way to remind his readers that social networking sites are businesses that are out to make money ("The bottom line is that the profitability of SNSs - even their very existence - depends upon their users transmitting information about themselves freely"), so they may often play fast and loose with that information (while hoping that no one will notice!).
Again, librarians have to take these types of behavior into account when deciding whether or not it is appropriate to encourage their patrons to join these sites. Fernandez says as much when he points out that there is "ample historical evidence" for social networking sites to "continue to push at the boundaries of what their users find acceptable", and that for this reason "librarians have an obligation to consider their values and the practical implications of acting within these spaces."
In fact, the author states that librarians cannot use ignorance by patrons of how social-networking sites work as an excuse for ambivalence towards their stances on user privacy ("The fact that many users are legally complicit in the invasion of their own privacy as SNSs conflate public and private realms does not relieve librarians from considering how the value of privacy should influence their actions").
* Fernandez claims that if "librarians do not find ways to articulate their roles in relation to SNSs they risk being left behind" ... Again, if users do not want to accept "authority figures" (like librarians) into their respective social-networking realms, then they are going to be "left behind" and left out regardless!
* He does touch upon this issue when he quotes Danah Boyd's statement concerning authority figures and students ("You should enter the students' social networking space only as a mentor and only as invited"); he compares this to corporate marketers who have found that users of social networking sites "react poorly if they feel as though their space is being invaded" ... Again, if users are willing to accept "outsiders" into their social circles, then individual librarians may proceed; however, don't expect patrons to automatically respond just because you set up a Facebook page. They could just as easily reject your participation and ignore your presence as an undesirable nuisance ("It would be a mistake to override students' boundaries and break the trust libraries have developed").
* Finally, Fernandez is talking about privacy with this particular statement, but he could just as easily be referring to the "parents at the party syndrome": "Libraries must ensure that the patrons do not feel violated. Simply being legally covered does not ensure that the user will not feel offended at an unwanted intrusion into a space that operates between public and private realms."
If the patrons don't want librarians around, then we shouldn't try to make them accept us (i.e. perpetrate an "unwanted intrusion" into their social-networking space)!
Saturday, July 9, 2011
"Balancing outreach and privacy in Facebook: five guiding decisions points" by Peter Fernandez
Three things that I'd like to point out in this article:
* Right from the start, the author repeats the argument that "Facebook and other social networking sites are new spaces where library patrons are, and therefore provides opportunities for libraries to reach out to them" ... However, the question is whether or not patrons actually want to "meet" librarians in these types of spaces; social networking sites are for (believe it or not) socializing and having fun, not necessarily research and studying.
I wish I could remember which of our previous readings had this quote, but someone compared libraries on social networking sites to the "parents at the party syndrome," whereby authority figures (like librarians) are trying to "hang out" with all of the "cool kids" but they just wind up embarrassing themselves ... If patrons do not show any interest in interacting with librarians in these social spaces, then librarians are fighting a losing battle if they try to "force" themselves into the equation.
* The author does echo some of my concerns from the data-mining article discussed on Sakai, as he states that "the library has an ethical obligation to be aware of potential abuses" when patrons contribute to any part of the library's Facebook page, and "determine how [the library] wants to regulate the interactions that occur on its site." Again, librarian have to determine whether or not it is their responsibility to educate their patrons on the privacy concerns/issues that come with adopting social-networking tools into their online presence.
* One statement by the author that I find troubling is when he states that "libraries do not always have the technical expertise to ensure that any information conveyed through Facebook remains secure"; this is something that the profession as a whole should work on. Since the world of information retrieval is becoming much more technologically-driven than it has been in the past, librarians should familiarize themselves with these aspects and become more "technologically aware" (as I've said before, there need to be more geeks in the library profession!).
EDIT: I found the "parents at the party syndrome" quote ... It was from Dempsey's "Always On" article. Thanks Google!
* Right from the start, the author repeats the argument that "Facebook and other social networking sites are new spaces where library patrons are, and therefore provides opportunities for libraries to reach out to them" ... However, the question is whether or not patrons actually want to "meet" librarians in these types of spaces; social networking sites are for (believe it or not) socializing and having fun, not necessarily research and studying.
I wish I could remember which of our previous readings had this quote, but someone compared libraries on social networking sites to the "parents at the party syndrome," whereby authority figures (like librarians) are trying to "hang out" with all of the "cool kids" but they just wind up embarrassing themselves ... If patrons do not show any interest in interacting with librarians in these social spaces, then librarians are fighting a losing battle if they try to "force" themselves into the equation.
* The author does echo some of my concerns from the data-mining article discussed on Sakai, as he states that "the library has an ethical obligation to be aware of potential abuses" when patrons contribute to any part of the library's Facebook page, and "determine how [the library] wants to regulate the interactions that occur on its site." Again, librarian have to determine whether or not it is their responsibility to educate their patrons on the privacy concerns/issues that come with adopting social-networking tools into their online presence.
* One statement by the author that I find troubling is when he states that "libraries do not always have the technical expertise to ensure that any information conveyed through Facebook remains secure"; this is something that the profession as a whole should work on. Since the world of information retrieval is becoming much more technologically-driven than it has been in the past, librarians should familiarize themselves with these aspects and become more "technologically aware" (as I've said before, there need to be more geeks in the library profession!).
EDIT: I found the "parents at the party syndrome" quote ... It was from Dempsey's "Always On" article. Thanks Google!
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Media sites (YouTube, Flickr, DeviantArt)
YouTube (youtube.com)
I must admit that I'm a bit of a YouTube addict; I've had an account since March of 2007, and started uploading videos only a few months after that ... So far none of my creations have made me "internet famous" yet, although footage I took of Wes Welker dancing at a Boston Celtics game did go "viral" for a couple weeks (over 40,000 views as of this writing, and it was linked on the websites of the Boston Globe and Sports Illustrated).
While many people still consider YouTube to be nothing more than a place to waste time watching stupid cat videos and bizarre internet memes (or a combination of both!) when you really should be working, a lot of libraries have been using it as a potential resource to reach their patrons ... Many of the resulting videos created by these libraries/librarians have been informative, emotional, humorous, silly and visually striking.
Flickr (flickr.com)
As a photo-sharing site, Flickr definitely promotes itself as a social-networking tool as well ... The language used on the frontpage ("Keep up with your friends and share your stories with comments & notes"; "Upload your photos once to Flickr, then easily and safely share them"; "Join one of over 10 million active groups to take part in the conversation, learn from our other 60 million photographers and share your own story through photos"; "See the world through someone else’s eyes, right here on Flickr") certainly sends the message to potential users that this is a thriving community for people to become a part of.
Taking the tour only strengthens this message, as Flickr bills itself as "the best online management and sharing application in the world" (bold statement!); you can add notes to your photographs (like annotations on YouTube videos) and add people's names to the photos you've taken (like tagging other users in Facebook photos). There's even a "guest pass" to invite people without a Flickr account to view your private photos (no doubt in an attempt to entice them to sign up themselves).
In addition, there is a tool called the Organizr which allows Flickr users to "label, tag and organize [their] photos on the web" ... This helps make it easier for users to find the kinds of photographs that they're looking for, since they can be organized by things like category ("Galleries") or location ("Places").
Flickr even allows users to get really creative via the App Garden, a place where "anyone can write their own program to present public Flickr data ... in new and different ways; the App Garden is a place where developers can showcase the applications they've created and where you can find new ways to explore Flickr." This is a great way for social-networking sites to really let their users feel like they have a hand in the direction of the growth/evolution of these communities.
DeviantArt (deviantart.com)
Don't let the name of this site scare you off; while the term "deviant" has certain negative connotations which you might not necessarily want associated with your library (and believe me, there is some freaky stuff to be found here if you dig deep enough), this site actually houses some very talented artists.
Unlike Flickr, which focuses more on photography, DeviantArt places an emphasis on illustrations, calling itself "the largest online community of artists and art-lovers" ... Taking the tour reveals that there are "over 100 million original works of art" created by its over 12 million members, with artists "from over 190 countries"; that certainly is a very diverse and thriving community!
The site encourages users to group their favorite images into "art collections" (it's interesting to note that they never use terms like "images" or "graphics files" but instead emphasize the uniqueness and creativity of their users by referring to everything as "artwork" or the more eye-catching "deviations"), while also offering tutorials on how to better create one's own artwork.
In fact, DeviantArt members (the "deviants") are not limited to simply creating images, as the site accepts "images, literature, film or Flash [animations]" and displays them all for free ("build an instant audience by displaying your work in front of over 11 million members!").
Much like a typical social networking site, DeviantArt emphasizes the interactive elements of their community ("engage with other artists by commenting on their artwork and profile pages") and allows users to post journal entries that others may follow and comment on.
Searching for artwork is pretty easy (there is a "mature content filter" if you don't want to stumble upon anything controversial), and can be divided either by category or groups ... In fact, using the latter search led me to this group of creative librarians sharing their artwork ("Ranganathan Has a Posse!"). There's also a gallery for the Worcester Public Library Manga Club; maybe Stacy can tell us more about that one ;)
I must admit that I'm a bit of a YouTube addict; I've had an account since March of 2007, and started uploading videos only a few months after that ... So far none of my creations have made me "internet famous" yet, although footage I took of Wes Welker dancing at a Boston Celtics game did go "viral" for a couple weeks (over 40,000 views as of this writing, and it was linked on the websites of the Boston Globe and Sports Illustrated).
While many people still consider YouTube to be nothing more than a place to waste time watching stupid cat videos and bizarre internet memes (or a combination of both!) when you really should be working, a lot of libraries have been using it as a potential resource to reach their patrons ... Many of the resulting videos created by these libraries/librarians have been informative, emotional, humorous, silly and visually striking.
Flickr (flickr.com)
As a photo-sharing site, Flickr definitely promotes itself as a social-networking tool as well ... The language used on the frontpage ("Keep up with your friends and share your stories with comments & notes"; "Upload your photos once to Flickr, then easily and safely share them"; "Join one of over 10 million active groups to take part in the conversation, learn from our other 60 million photographers and share your own story through photos"; "See the world through someone else’s eyes, right here on Flickr") certainly sends the message to potential users that this is a thriving community for people to become a part of.
Taking the tour only strengthens this message, as Flickr bills itself as "the best online management and sharing application in the world" (bold statement!); you can add notes to your photographs (like annotations on YouTube videos) and add people's names to the photos you've taken (like tagging other users in Facebook photos). There's even a "guest pass" to invite people without a Flickr account to view your private photos (no doubt in an attempt to entice them to sign up themselves).
In addition, there is a tool called the Organizr which allows Flickr users to "label, tag and organize [their] photos on the web" ... This helps make it easier for users to find the kinds of photographs that they're looking for, since they can be organized by things like category ("Galleries") or location ("Places").
Flickr even allows users to get really creative via the App Garden, a place where "anyone can write their own program to present public Flickr data ... in new and different ways; the App Garden is a place where developers can showcase the applications they've created and where you can find new ways to explore Flickr." This is a great way for social-networking sites to really let their users feel like they have a hand in the direction of the growth/evolution of these communities.
DeviantArt (deviantart.com)
Don't let the name of this site scare you off; while the term "deviant" has certain negative connotations which you might not necessarily want associated with your library (and believe me, there is some freaky stuff to be found here if you dig deep enough), this site actually houses some very talented artists.
Unlike Flickr, which focuses more on photography, DeviantArt places an emphasis on illustrations, calling itself "the largest online community of artists and art-lovers" ... Taking the tour reveals that there are "over 100 million original works of art" created by its over 12 million members, with artists "from over 190 countries"; that certainly is a very diverse and thriving community!
The site encourages users to group their favorite images into "art collections" (it's interesting to note that they never use terms like "images" or "graphics files" but instead emphasize the uniqueness and creativity of their users by referring to everything as "artwork" or the more eye-catching "deviations"), while also offering tutorials on how to better create one's own artwork.
In fact, DeviantArt members (the "deviants") are not limited to simply creating images, as the site accepts "images, literature, film or Flash [animations]" and displays them all for free ("build an instant audience by displaying your work in front of over 11 million members!").
Much like a typical social networking site, DeviantArt emphasizes the interactive elements of their community ("engage with other artists by commenting on their artwork and profile pages") and allows users to post journal entries that others may follow and comment on.
Searching for artwork is pretty easy (there is a "mature content filter" if you don't want to stumble upon anything controversial), and can be divided either by category or groups ... In fact, using the latter search led me to this group of creative librarians sharing their artwork ("Ranganathan Has a Posse!"). There's also a gallery for the Worcester Public Library Manga Club; maybe Stacy can tell us more about that one ;)
"This Week in Law" podcast talks about Twitter and Facebook privacy
Since this week's discussions are about Facebook and internet privacy, I thought I'd share this podcast featuring the thoughts of Denise Howell (a California lawyer who specializes in technology-related legal matters) and her guests on those subjects ... Here are links to the relevant parts of their discussion:
0:29:30 - Two creators of the Twitter account "omgfacts" are suing each other over which one actually "owns" the account and its two million-plus followers. This case brings up the issue of online ownership and what it actually means to "own" an account and the stuff that's created for that account; whose intellectual property is it (and is there such a thing as "copyright of tweets")? Collaborative efforts like this within the social-media realm may give rise to other ownership/legal issues in the future (which is something that librarians might need to be aware of).
0:47:38 - This talk was more about for-profit businesses, but it may still be applicable here ... If a librarian creates a Twitter account for their library, does their employer actually "own" the intellectual property created therein? Even if the librarian maintains it on their own time, they're using "company" equipment/resources.
0:57:04 - Privacy and the workplace (when people apply for jobs, some potential employers are now asking for their Facebook passwords in order to nose around and see what they're up to!)
1:00:48 - Story about a school teacher who posted private photos of herself drinking alcohol on Facebook, but the pictures still managed to find their way to members of her school district and led to her termination ...
1:15:20 - Do we need new laws on the books to govern social media in regards to privacy issues? It is voluntary, after all (no one's forcing people to have a Facebook account), but it's getting so ubiquitous that it may cause problems down the road ...
1:29:17 - Could you be liable for embedding an infringing YouTube clip on your blog (not uploading copyrighted material yourself, but just linking to it)?
0:29:30 - Two creators of the Twitter account "omgfacts" are suing each other over which one actually "owns" the account and its two million-plus followers. This case brings up the issue of online ownership and what it actually means to "own" an account and the stuff that's created for that account; whose intellectual property is it (and is there such a thing as "copyright of tweets")? Collaborative efforts like this within the social-media realm may give rise to other ownership/legal issues in the future (which is something that librarians might need to be aware of).
0:47:38 - This talk was more about for-profit businesses, but it may still be applicable here ... If a librarian creates a Twitter account for their library, does their employer actually "own" the intellectual property created therein? Even if the librarian maintains it on their own time, they're using "company" equipment/resources.
0:57:04 - Privacy and the workplace (when people apply for jobs, some potential employers are now asking for their Facebook passwords in order to nose around and see what they're up to!)
1:00:48 - Story about a school teacher who posted private photos of herself drinking alcohol on Facebook, but the pictures still managed to find their way to members of her school district and led to her termination ...
1:15:20 - Do we need new laws on the books to govern social media in regards to privacy issues? It is voluntary, after all (no one's forcing people to have a Facebook account), but it's getting so ubiquitous that it may cause problems down the road ...
1:29:17 - Could you be liable for embedding an infringing YouTube clip on your blog (not uploading copyrighted material yourself, but just linking to it)?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
"Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: a survey of student opinion" by Ruth Sara Connell
Connell's article is another example (in my opinion) of librarians trying to skew the numbers to create a desire for social networking tools where none actually exists ... Unlike the previous article, this one at least attempts to gather patron input on the subject, but - as you'll see - that still provides data that can be easily manipulated to "prove" the authors' point.
Connell starts off with a literature review of other attempts to drum up support for social-networking tools within the library profession, and she comes up with some interesting observations: one librarian at the Georgia Institute of Technology sent out more than 1,500 Facebook messages to students (in an apparent attempt to spread the word about the library's collection), but received a paltry 48 responses. The librarian actually had the temerity to claim that his venture was a "success," but the more logical conclusion would be that students were not interesting in hearing from a "stranger" (especially one in a position of authority like a librarian).
Another librarian mentioned in Connell's literature review had her staff sift through MySpace profiles in order to find "4,000 Brooklyn College students, faculty, and graduates.". Aside from the fact that these actions could be construed by some as "stalking" (and thus having the potential to negatively affect these students' view of the library and drive them away), the librarian sent "friend requests" to her designated targets and "seven months later had approximately 2,350 friends." On the surface, this story appears to be a success, but what about the other 2,000-odd students who ignored the request? Were they "turned off" by the obtrusive nature of this "friending" campaign? Additionally, there is no indication that any of these friends had actually come from the original 4,000 targeted; for all we know, those "friends" were nothing but MySpace spam accounts!
Connell also highlights the Mississippi State University libraries as using a different (far less "creepy") approach to attracting students via Facebook, as they advertised their site through posters and ads - but not through unsolicited "friending" - and were able to accumulate 180 members; she applauded this approach as allowing "those interested to participate but … not [forcing] the library on those not interested." It certainly seems like a more successful method, although once those students became friends, how "engaged" did they remain? The literature failed to establish whether they checked out the library's Facebook page once, and then ignored it; we do not learn what effect (if any) the method had on "repeat business" for the library.
Connell starts off with a literature review of other attempts to drum up support for social-networking tools within the library profession, and she comes up with some interesting observations: one librarian at the Georgia Institute of Technology sent out more than 1,500 Facebook messages to students (in an apparent attempt to spread the word about the library's collection), but received a paltry 48 responses. The librarian actually had the temerity to claim that his venture was a "success," but the more logical conclusion would be that students were not interesting in hearing from a "stranger" (especially one in a position of authority like a librarian).
Another librarian mentioned in Connell's literature review had her staff sift through MySpace profiles in order to find "4,000 Brooklyn College students, faculty, and graduates.". Aside from the fact that these actions could be construed by some as "stalking" (and thus having the potential to negatively affect these students' view of the library and drive them away), the librarian sent "friend requests" to her designated targets and "seven months later had approximately 2,350 friends." On the surface, this story appears to be a success, but what about the other 2,000-odd students who ignored the request? Were they "turned off" by the obtrusive nature of this "friending" campaign? Additionally, there is no indication that any of these friends had actually come from the original 4,000 targeted; for all we know, those "friends" were nothing but MySpace spam accounts!
Connell also highlights the Mississippi State University libraries as using a different (far less "creepy") approach to attracting students via Facebook, as they advertised their site through posters and ads - but not through unsolicited "friending" - and were able to accumulate 180 members; she applauded this approach as allowing "those interested to participate but … not [forcing] the library on those not interested." It certainly seems like a more successful method, although once those students became friends, how "engaged" did they remain? The literature failed to establish whether they checked out the library's Facebook page once, and then ignored it; we do not learn what effect (if any) the method had on "repeat business" for the library.
"Use of Facebook in academic health sciences libraries" by Dean Hendrix ... [et al.]
In many of the article I've read for my literature review, I see librarians give glowing recommendations for social-networking sites like Facebook as tools to "create and market library services" ... That may very well be true, but the problem with those articles (and I see it in this article as well) is that the authors offer very little in the way of hard data to actually back up their claims; the "evidence" provided is either skewed to better reflect their already-established opinions, or they fail to take the actual patrons' input into account.
This article, for example, examines the results of a 2008 survey on the use of Facebook by academic health sciences libraries as a marketing/promotional tool ... While the authors eventually decided that the "small number of actual libraries using Facebook" at the time made the resulting data inconclusive, there were still some details that (in my opinion) were "glossed over" when they were establishing their argument.
Let me give an example: Of the 72 librarians who responded to the survey, only nine reported that their libraries maintained a Facebook page, and (of that number) thirty-four percent of their total "fans" were "employees of the same library" ... In other words, over one-third of the library's "fans" were other librarians; now, that doesn't really speak very highly for Facebook as a "marketing" tool, when you're pretty much only talking to other members of the same staff!
That's not all, however ... Reading the results a little more closely, we see that the authors use the phrase "of the same library" when describing these employees; now, there's no indication that the other 66 percent of the "fans" couldn't have been librarians from other institutions who were looking to network! As such, the percentage of "fans" of these libraries who were actual patrons (the people that marketing tools are supposed to be targeting) might be even lower than this report would have us believe; there's just no way of knowing with the way that the data is presented here.
The results of this survey, as reported by the authors, go on to say that many of the librarians that maintain Facebook pages "felt more positive about the future success of their library's Facebook page", while 28 percent of the librarians who do not maintain Facebook pages believe that "Facebook demonstrated little to no utility in an academic setting" ... This all sounds well and good, but statements like these are replacing hard evidence with opinions and conjecture. Not only that, but it's leaving out the most crucial element: patron input.
If the librarians surveyed bothered to actually find out what their users thought of Facebook as a part of the online presence provided by academic health sciences libraries, it's not evident in the article; we're merely left to speculate on guesswork. After all, when the authors use a phrase like "positive feelings", are the librarians they're questioning basing that on user feedback, or do they just have a "hunch"? On the flip side, when the other librarians dismiss Facebook as having "little to no utility" in an academic setting, do their patrons feel the same way, or are they simply making a kneejerk reaction without taking their opinions into account?
This article, for example, examines the results of a 2008 survey on the use of Facebook by academic health sciences libraries as a marketing/promotional tool ... While the authors eventually decided that the "small number of actual libraries using Facebook" at the time made the resulting data inconclusive, there were still some details that (in my opinion) were "glossed over" when they were establishing their argument.
Let me give an example: Of the 72 librarians who responded to the survey, only nine reported that their libraries maintained a Facebook page, and (of that number) thirty-four percent of their total "fans" were "employees of the same library" ... In other words, over one-third of the library's "fans" were other librarians; now, that doesn't really speak very highly for Facebook as a "marketing" tool, when you're pretty much only talking to other members of the same staff!
That's not all, however ... Reading the results a little more closely, we see that the authors use the phrase "of the same library" when describing these employees; now, there's no indication that the other 66 percent of the "fans" couldn't have been librarians from other institutions who were looking to network! As such, the percentage of "fans" of these libraries who were actual patrons (the people that marketing tools are supposed to be targeting) might be even lower than this report would have us believe; there's just no way of knowing with the way that the data is presented here.
The results of this survey, as reported by the authors, go on to say that many of the librarians that maintain Facebook pages "felt more positive about the future success of their library's Facebook page", while 28 percent of the librarians who do not maintain Facebook pages believe that "Facebook demonstrated little to no utility in an academic setting" ... This all sounds well and good, but statements like these are replacing hard evidence with opinions and conjecture. Not only that, but it's leaving out the most crucial element: patron input.
If the librarians surveyed bothered to actually find out what their users thought of Facebook as a part of the online presence provided by academic health sciences libraries, it's not evident in the article; we're merely left to speculate on guesswork. After all, when the authors use a phrase like "positive feelings", are the librarians they're questioning basing that on user feedback, or do they just have a "hunch"? On the flip side, when the other librarians dismiss Facebook as having "little to no utility" in an academic setting, do their patrons feel the same way, or are they simply making a kneejerk reaction without taking their opinions into account?
"Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace" by Danah Boyd
It was interesting to read Boyd's theories on how adoption of social networking sites by American teens was initially divided along social/class lines: the "hegemonic" (or "good") teens gravitated towards the more professional look and feel of Facebook, while the "subaltern" (or "bad") teens were still drawn towards the "outsider" status of MySpace.
It's a nice little theory, but I'm not convinced that the divide (if there even was/is one) can be defined so easily ... For example, she argues that the "showy, sparkly, brash visual displays" found on many MySpace pages were acceptable to those teens who valued the flash and "bling" of hip-hop culture; this contrasted with the more "clean" and "mature" look of Facebook, with its homogeneous style and color scheme. However, I really don't think this can be explained as a mere cultural aesthetic - I remember many a MySpace page which featured clashing graphics for background images and tons of animated GIFs dancing all over the place; that's not "bling", that's just people with no sense of style!
In fact, I would argue that this was one of the reasons why MySpace began losing ground to Facebook (cultural differences notwithstanding): the makers of MySpace allowed users to alter the look of their pages pretty much anyway they liked, to the point of people creating MySpace pages which were nothing more than a jumbled mess of incoherent nonsense (if one's site is so visually disruptive that you can no longer even read the text on the screen, then people will simply move onto other sites that don't give them such a headache). People could even run arbitrary code on their sites, leading to a lot of the security holes/issues which eventually drove even more users away from MySpace.
I believe the reason for MySpace's disintegration is a lot simpler than laying blame on class divisions or such things ... The bottom line is that social-networking sites live and die by how social they are; it seems obvious enough, but people go where their friends are, and if their friends are using Facebook instead of MySpace, then they're going to use Facebook too!
Boyd says at one point that many of the "good" kids ("goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes") are still using MySpace because of "their connections to participants who joined in the early days"; once again, these kids' friends are still on MySpace, so that's where they're going to be too. However, even if these good kids are separated from the "bad" kids in high school, there are eventually going to be some "goths" or "gangstas" that run in the same circles (at college, at work, in the same neighborhoods, at a bar, on another website, anywhere!) and they're going to suddenly want to "keep up" with their new friends where they're socially congregating ... and right now, the most active place online for that type of interaction is Facebook.
The "exodus" from MySpace (whether users were switching to Facebook or just giving up on the site entirely) may have started off in some small way as a "cultural" clash, but soon more and more people began leaving the site, meaning there were less and less people for teens - good or bad - to socialize with ... No matter what group or clique one was associated with, if there's no one else to talk to or share information with, then the site becomes useless, so why bother sticking around?
It's a nice little theory, but I'm not convinced that the divide (if there even was/is one) can be defined so easily ... For example, she argues that the "showy, sparkly, brash visual displays" found on many MySpace pages were acceptable to those teens who valued the flash and "bling" of hip-hop culture; this contrasted with the more "clean" and "mature" look of Facebook, with its homogeneous style and color scheme. However, I really don't think this can be explained as a mere cultural aesthetic - I remember many a MySpace page which featured clashing graphics for background images and tons of animated GIFs dancing all over the place; that's not "bling", that's just people with no sense of style!
In fact, I would argue that this was one of the reasons why MySpace began losing ground to Facebook (cultural differences notwithstanding): the makers of MySpace allowed users to alter the look of their pages pretty much anyway they liked, to the point of people creating MySpace pages which were nothing more than a jumbled mess of incoherent nonsense (if one's site is so visually disruptive that you can no longer even read the text on the screen, then people will simply move onto other sites that don't give them such a headache). People could even run arbitrary code on their sites, leading to a lot of the security holes/issues which eventually drove even more users away from MySpace.
I believe the reason for MySpace's disintegration is a lot simpler than laying blame on class divisions or such things ... The bottom line is that social-networking sites live and die by how social they are; it seems obvious enough, but people go where their friends are, and if their friends are using Facebook instead of MySpace, then they're going to use Facebook too!
Boyd says at one point that many of the "good" kids ("goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes") are still using MySpace because of "their connections to participants who joined in the early days"; once again, these kids' friends are still on MySpace, so that's where they're going to be too. However, even if these good kids are separated from the "bad" kids in high school, there are eventually going to be some "goths" or "gangstas" that run in the same circles (at college, at work, in the same neighborhoods, at a bar, on another website, anywhere!) and they're going to suddenly want to "keep up" with their new friends where they're socially congregating ... and right now, the most active place online for that type of interaction is Facebook.
The "exodus" from MySpace (whether users were switching to Facebook or just giving up on the site entirely) may have started off in some small way as a "cultural" clash, but soon more and more people began leaving the site, meaning there were less and less people for teens - good or bad - to socialize with ... No matter what group or clique one was associated with, if there's no one else to talk to or share information with, then the site becomes useless, so why bother sticking around?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)