1.) Directing away from "self-organized" groups to the "top down" control of pages and likes. During the early days of Facebook, one of the elements that drove the success of the service, in my opinion, was the ability of user to create group and control the membership of those groups. The strength was the Facebook essential gave users the ability to self-organize and therefore have a better control of their overall experience. This was the one element of user manipulation that was present in a strictly control system that was maintained by the owners of the site. For most sites to grow in the days after the "static web," the creators of the websites needed to give the audience an experience that wouldn't experience with other service. Social networking sites became a proxy for real world interactions and engagement. People feel connected to others based on knowing the activities, likes and experiences of others they choose to listen to. Despite the heavy control initially by Facebook and other social networks in the creation of individual accounts to join their services, the users could form organic communities of commonality based on their interactions and discover how others organized themselves. The issue now is that Facebook has essentially condensed the initial experience of organic organization through the commercialization of personal information and filter information through a series of likes and recommendations. The points of flexibility have been "streamlined" to the core elements of communication. Organic organization has been replaced by commercially-viable feeds of information.

2.) The reaction of social media sites to proactive social movements. Because of this direction away from the organic, the one question that comes to mind is how does this impact the ability of non-profit groups and social movements to use Facebook and other like services as an organizational tool. Some in the media have called the event in Egypt and other Arabic states as the "Facebook Revolution." I wonder if Facebook morphs into a hybrid Twitter, Google Plus, mySpace, Friendster, [fill-in-the-blank hot new social service] will it have the ability to be an instrument of easy organization and interaction. One of the reason that points to Facebook aiding in the Pro-Democracy movement in the Middle East is the fact that Facebook reached a critical mass of individuals that were interested in changing the government and Facebook and other online services provided the infrastructure that allowed the protesters to organize and discuss key issues. If Facebook becomes nothing more than a feed of trivia, commercials, spam and Farmville notifications, will any other service have enough of a critical mass to fulfill the societal role of criticism and allow the community of the service to effectively act on that criticism or will all future service be avenues of commercials, trivia and slacktivism?

It is fair to point out at this point that this criticism could be nothing more than an attempt at a logically constructed rant to show my displeasure at the changes to Facebook. However, it would also be fair to note that the structure of social network changes. Do the changes represent a need from the community that the social media site serves or a want from the owners the site to turn the site into a "cool property?"

Part of the connectivity argument comes from a lack of knowledge on how to use the Internet or even how to turn on a computer, which is one of the key issues related to the "Digital Divide." This lack of awareness of how to use the tools of communication could lead to further separation between the urban and the rural within the United States. The question then becomes how do those within the rural part of the United States convince other that this represent a "quality of life issue" as described by Amanda Murphy from ConnectOhio?

The basic of all arguments related to quality of life is related to basic interactions. We use online social network to reconnect to those we lost touch with, to find new business connections and look up information about the society around us. If we accept the notion that broadband communication "is the glue that brings people, businesses and the information together, allowing them to compete with the rest of the world" as described by Dorothy Skowrunski, the director of the Coshocton Port Authority, then it would seem that the current economic system is based on this glue and broadband service needed for the continued improvement of rural society.

The foundation of this argument could also be framed as the broadband infrastructure acts as the "engine of economic growth." The rationale for this economic growth comes from the ability of the citizens within the community to display their goods, services and skills to the connected mass. People use the worldwide market system to help themselves find business opportunities that would not be present in their local communities. The next rationale that is used to support a better broadband infrastructure within the rural U.S. is that it can help with the "Brain Drain" that affect some, if not most, of the smaller towns and cities found in this area. With a connected society, the location of employment is less a by-product of the factory/production center within a given region and more a by-product of where a person can be productive.

The question based on this discussion should be in the current economic state, is there enough of an incentive for government agencies, businesses and non-profit groups to help build up the broadband infrastructure and address some, if not all, of the issues created by the digital divide? If so, how could such as project be coordinated? If not, what could the overall cost be to the rural regions of the United States for inaction in this area?



_____________

Andrea Baker is an Associate Professor at Ohio University

As Internet researchers we examine conversations, connections, contexts and cultures that are maintained between humans via new media.  In this process, we often make use of concepts that pre-fix media or the social-technical activities enabled by them. While “new” is one such conceptualization it is by many scholars seen as a vague neologism (Fornäs, 2008). Attempts to overcome the ambiguity of “new” media have been made by advocating alternative concepts that nuance and clarify the “new” in “new media” (Flew, 2008; Gitelman & Pingree, 2003; Hirst & Harrison, 2008; Lax, 2009; Wessels, 2010). Indeed, “the growing trend of distinguishing between terminologies of media – digital, new, networked – has arguably been a consequence of separating different modes of engagement, production and consumption in new media cultures” (Fuery, 2009, p. 71). Some examples from the history of Internet research are “digital sensations” (Hillis, 1999), “networked identities” (Ryberg & Larsen, 2008), “computer-mediated communication” (Rice & Love, 1987; Siegel, et al., 1986) and “online presence” (Chen & Yen, 2004). More recent examples include “participatory culture”, “networked publics”, “digital media” and “online worlds” (from the 2010 AoIR conference).

The central argument of this paper is that there is much to be gained from considering these concepts as analytical dimensions. That is, by (1) considering the opposites of these widely used concepts and (2) avoiding treating them as dichotomies, we hope to open up a space of inquiry (i.e. an analytical dimension) inbetween these conceptual poles. As such, the paper agrees with Morris and Ogan (1996), in that, in the context of ICT:s, it is important to provide taxonomies and categorizations that does not impose an overly-rigid structure.  However, we also believe that there is reason to clarify our use of these concepts as Internet researchers. To illustrate this idea within the restricted space of this short paper, we will review a select number of common concepts, namely: participatory; digital; networked; interactive; online and ubiquitous.

From central concepts to analytical dimensions

In the Internet research literature, the concepts have sometimes been clearly connected to the level of analysis that is explored. However, it is also clear that the concepts have also been used interchangeably and many times without a clear definition or intended connotation, other than to refer to a general mixed communication environment consisting of humans and computers.

Participatory

This is a question of who has access to media. As such, there are both aspects of democracy as well as personal and social identity. The opposite of participatory media would arguably be monopolitical media, where a strong minority sets the agenda and “outsiders” are given no opportunities to take part.

Digital

The concept “digital” focuses on the nature of goods and transmissions (i.e. being digital or binary). With the digital nature come a number of technical characteristics such as being perfectly replicable, easily storable and searchable. In a context of social interaction via ICT:s emerges, the digital also brings questions of persistence and ephemerality as goods and conversations can be copied, stored or erased for social reasons. The opposite of the digital is the analogue and researching how values (e.g. exchange, utility and social-bonding) moves between the analogue and the digital is a pertinent question.

Networked

The concept “networked” emphasizes a system of interconnected nodes, where for example the type, strength or multiplexity of relationships (or ties) are in focus. As such, the link is a highlighted aspect leaving interesting issue to be explored inbetween isolated (unlinked) and networked activities (e.g. people going off-the-grid or utilizing “slow media”).

Interactive

The term interactive emphasizes the relation between the tool or service and the increasingly active user (rather than passive consumer) of media. The interactive relates not only to the obvious manipulations that the digital nature permits (e.g. publish, edit, remix, share, consume), but also to how certain features of the interaction repertoire connects to larger social consequences and emergent values. Thus, between the interactive and the passive (or unilateral) media there are issues of engagement, interface and prosumption to be explored.

Online

Online relates to being (continuously) connected to a network or remote service (as offline relates to not being connected). However, the nature of activities is often such that it is distributed over both online and offline social interaction. To highlight this fact, many users are now referring to a state of being “away from keyboard” (AFK) rather than “offline”.

Ubiquitous

Ubiquitous (often used in connection to computing) refers to a state of omnipresent computing technology. This highlights the surrounding context in terms of situations and circumstances. The opposite of ubiquitous is arguably the rare, scarce or nowhere media. For example, in the light of current recession and energy crisis theories it is possible to foresee a future where the ubiquitous faces a much less glamorous and hi-tech future than has been projected.

Relating the concepts

In conclusion, this paper suggest that a more clearly defined use of our framing concepts also helps us to consider the various angles and levels of analysis used to examine social interaction via ICT:s.

Table 1. Summary of analytical dimensions

We believe that considering these widely used analytical pairs and the spaces inbetween them can cause us to reflect more consciously about what terms we use to describe certain phenomena. The terms covered in this paper are commonplace in Internet research. That said, we do not argue that the terms covered in this short paper are necessarily the best ones to be used for future analyses. Rather, the concepts are by necessity subjects to criticisms in themselves. Thus, a way forward may be to elaborate or even discard the very poles of a dimension.

References

Chen, K., & Yen, D. C. (2004). Improving the quality of online presence through interactivity Information & Management, 42(1), 217-226.

Flew, T. (2008). New Media: An introduction (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Fornäs, J. (2008). Bridging gaps: ten crosscurrents in media studies. Media, Culture & Society, 30(6), 895-905.

Fuery, K. (2009). New Media: Culture and Image. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gitelman, L., & Pingree, G. B. (2003). Introduction: What's New About New Media? In L. Gitelman & G. Pingree (Eds.), New Media 1740-1915. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hillis, K. (1999). Digital sensations: space, identity, and embodiment in virtual reality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hirst, M., & Harrison, J. (2008). Communication and New Media: From broadcast to narrowcast. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Lax, S. (2009). Media and Communication Technologies: A critical introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996). The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 1(4).

Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic Emotion: socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communcation Research, 14(1), 85-108.

Ryberg, T., & Larsen, M. C. (2008). Networked Identities: Understanding Relationships between Strong and Weak Ties in Networked Environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 103-115.

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157-187.

Wessels, B. (2010). Understanding the Internet: A socio-cultural perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

________________

Jörgen Skågeby is an Information Systems and Media Research Fellow at Stockholm University

Friending is a verb now, and rightly so.  A friend is not an object, and a friendship is not a possession.  When left on the shelf, so to speak, it fades away.  As a general analogy, the transformation of 'friend' into a verb starts us in a better direction in understanding the nature of friendship than did 'friend' as a noun. 

In the Facebook ontology, friending is a simple action whereby an ongoing exchange of mutually pushed updates is established.  After this literal friending has been done, other, manual forms of asynchronous information exchanges may take place, these constituting that process of befriending required for a friendship to be struck up, to expand, or to be maintained.  If 'friend' is a verb in this figurative sense, that verb, at a given moment, might be 'talking', 'chatting', 'gossiping', 'playing', 'teasing', 'sharing', 'poking', 'venting', 'laughing', 'asking', 'musing', or 'helping'. 
 

2.  Unfriend (v., trans) 

While Facebook gives us the option “Remove from Friends,” “unfriend” is the obvious word, and fills a gap--in English, at least.  Our most common related idiom is that two people “had a falling out,” as if the unfriending had simply befallen them.  Perhaps this is reflective of the respect we have for deeper friendships, where we realize that what happened and who was to blame, are both impossible to assess from outside of the particularities and history of that relationship.  But we can certainly have friendships less deep and complex than this, and I suspect that we will see the word 'unfriend' take on usage in non-Facebook contexts. 

'Unfriending', just like 'friending', can also be applied analogically to a variety of different relationship-affecting exchanges.  Someone who posts political vitriol--or who speaks it in person--is being 'unfriendly' towards certain constituencies.  Through these actions of building boundaries to tolerance and understanding, those falling on the far side are analogically unfriended by degrees; these actions perform a separation which undermines a purportedly established friendship status. 
 

3.  Friend (n.) 

In the Facebook ontology, 'friend' is a category of vast scope and kaleidoscopic diversity.  I am friends with my mother, my wife, work colleagues, high school friends, students, co-authors who I've never met, and fans of my writings and recordings.  This categorization is greatly divergent from regular usage.  On the one end:  I would never say “a friend of mine told me the other day . . .” when it was my wife who had related the story.  Our relationship does encompass friendship, but it is a greater and more fundamental thing.  On the other end:  I do always try to be friendly with my students, but it of great importance that our relationship not be that of friendship until, at a minimum, they are no longer in my classroom. 

By promiscuously lumping all these categories together, Facebook allows us to better realize that these various categories are indistinct in any number of ways.  People pass from one category to another, inhabit several at once, or fail to fit well within any; and within a category, some interactions will be appropriately precluded for some members or in some situations, but not others.  This thin concept of “friend” is productively ambiguous, and teaches us that we should not too quickly or strictly limit someone's meaning to us. 

We shouldn't think that having a certain kind of relationship with a 'friend' will preclude developing one of a different sort.  Former students turn into friends, or even colleagues.  Facebook exposes all our communications to all our communities, so we may discover that a co-worker we've barely talked to is a huge fan of our favorite science fiction author, sports team, or volunteer activity. 

We as researchers need to recognize that all this changes the nature of friendship, and needs to change our models too.  Strong and weak ties are points on an axis--there are many points between strong and weak; people move about on that axis; and that axis is surely just one axis of many.  I believe that Facebook is generally right about friendship, and that established philosophical views are generally quite mistaken.  Is this a systematic failure on the part of philosophers, or, more likely, has friendship simply changed significantly within the last 60 or 70 years, and then again in the last couple of decades?  Does Facebook describe friendship today well because Facebook is a symptom of this technologically-mediated change, or because it is part of this technologically-emergent change? 

___________________

D.E. Wittkower is a Lecturer of Philosophy at Coastal Carolina University.