« Good times | Main | Compare Three Social Networks »

Clarification

Okay, so I don't think I communicated my point in class today, which is why I'm going to to attempt to elaborate on it here.

People sort themselves, and other people into categories. We like to associate with people who we share things in common with. That's one of the beauties of social networking--it's a tool that makes that easier. Instead of having to find people, break through the awkward barrier of small talk, and invest the time to get to know them, they're conveniently categorized and searchable for you.

However, when a group of people with similar characteristics gets together, people notice that they all of similar characteristics, and they start to associate those traits with that group. This is logical, isn't it? Well it's also stereotyping, but of course it sounds bad when you say it like that.

So, given all of that, of course different social groups will pervail over others. If one social networking site appealed to everyone, there'd be no competition in the market, and no incentive to create anything new in the field. True, a network is only as strong as the number of people it reaches, but why should it reach to people we don't really want or need to reach? People should be allowed to pick where they want their internet presence to be. Some people's online identities are important to them, and given the amount of stereotyping that goes on with social networking sites, which site you choose to have a presence on is significant.

But it's still a personal choice. Nothing is stopping people from getting a MySpace or a Facebook no matter what social group/class/strata they belong to. There is no physical barrier there.

There's a mental one. I'm a prime example of that. I resisted Facebook and MySpace because neither of them particularly appeals to me, but being on Facebook isn't the end of the world. I didn't burst into flames when I created an account. It was completely painless, and if I can do it, MySpace users can too.

Not that they would want to, or that anyone should make them.

I guess that was my other problem really. Like, even if MySpace and Facebook are segregated by class... what would we even do about it? Tell MySpace users they have to get Facebooks? Force the CIA to recruit out of MySpace? As far as I can tell, things are how people want them to be, and even though it's interesting to point out, I really don't see the issue here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://blogs.psu.edu/mt-unprotected/mt-tb.cgi/4838

Comments (2)

Right, but if their peers aren't there, or if they feel they don't belong there because it's not their "class" that frequents the site, there's really no reason for them to go. It defeats the purpose of social networking altogether.

This is a weird way to reply, but I guess it's the only way on this blog. When I said the "truth hurts," I was referring to all the... "descriptions" that Boyd used to talk about all of the kinds of people on MySpace. These names included "art fags, freaks, geeks, queer kids." I thought those kinds of descriptions were sort of mean (hurtful) but that those people are truly the ones that choose MySpace over Facebook.

Post a comment

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 9, 2007 4:08 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Good times.

The next post in this blog is Compare Three Social Networks.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.33