DePaul University Social Network Sites Communications Summary Essay

The critical analysis content summary paper asks you to summarize the argument made by the author. You will summarize the article attached. The article should be about 2.5 pages.

A critical analysis asks you to make an argument about the readings you chose.

  • The goal is two fold:
  • 1) identify and explain the argument that the author is making, and

    2) evaluate this argument and bring context to it – how do you understand it in your own life?

    What is a critical analysis paper?

    The critical analysis content summary paper that asks you to summarize the argument made by the authors.

    You will choose 1 article (academic articles, not videos or blog posts) from the assigned readings to summarize.

    Your written summary and analysis of the article should be about 2-2.5 FULL pages

    A critical analysis asks you to summarize the argument and critically engage the readings you chose.

    The goal is two fold:1) identify and explain the argument that the author is making, and

    2) evaluate this argument and bring context to it – how do you understand it in your own life? eg: critically engage with the argument.


  • One of the key directions of these assignments is often to avoid/minimize summary – you are not writing a book report, but evaluating the author’s argument.
  • Potential points of criticism

    Once you recognize that these authors are making arguments, you can analyze whether or not you find their argument compelling. Following are some possible questions you could ask to evaluate arguments:

    Potential Theoretical questions – How does the author understand the situation? What is his/her/their theoretical background? How would this influence their view of the situation?

    Potential Definitional questions – Are all the concepts in the text clear? Does the author define a concept vaguely to allow it to travel across different situations? If a concept can relate two seemingly different situations, is the concept meaningful?

    Potential Evidence questions:

    Does the author’s evidence support their argument? Do they have enough specific evidence to prove the more general point? (be sure to tell us what kind of evidence and how their evidence supports their argument)

    Does the author underemphasize or ignore evidence that is contrary to their argument?

    Is an argument compelling if it ignores an obvious exception?

    Is the evidence credible? Can you identify a bias in the evidence?

    Was the study done by a political action committee, and environmental NGO, or a nonpartisan research group? How might a group affiliation or funding influence the outcome of research?

    Implication/Policy relevance questions – What are the implications of this argument? Are those implications positive or negative? How has the author dealt with this issue?

    Other potential approaches:

  • Is the author’s argument consistent throughout the essay?book? Or, does the conclusion seem to offer a different argument than he/she presented in the introduction?
  • Does the author’s background have important implications for their argument?
  • Do the specific language choices of the author betray a certain ideology or bias, or frame the argument in a certain way?[1]

  • Most critical analysis papers begin with a short summary of the work and then dive in to the argument. Since these analyses are short, it is important to be concise in all parts of your analysis. Writing an outline (and following it) is crucial to remain focused on your argument and avoid summary or irrelevant description.
  • Following is a sample outline for a critical analysis paper:
  • I. Introduction
  • Identify the work being criticized
  • Present thesis – argument about the work
  • II. Short summary of the work
  • Does not need to be comprehensive – present only what is necessary to summarize the argument
  • III. Conclusion

  • Reflect on the argument and engage with it – bring context from your own life and understanding
  • Point out the importance of your argument
  • Note potential avenues for additional research or analysis
  • Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
    danah m. boyd
    School of Information
    University of California-Berkeley
    Nicole B. Ellison
    Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media
    Michigan State University
    Social network sites (SNSs) are increasingly attracting the attention of academic and
    industry researchers intrigued by their affordances and reach. This special theme section
    of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication brings together scholarship on
    these emergent phenomena. In this introductory article, we describe features of SNSs
    and propose a comprehensive definition. We then present one perspective on the history
    of such sites, discussing key changes and developments. After briefly summarizing existing scholarship concerning SNSs, we discuss the articles in this special section and conclude with considerations for future research.
    Since their introduction, social network sites (SNSs) such as MySpace, Facebook,
    Cyworld, and Bebo have attracted millions of users, many of whom have integrated
    these sites into their daily practices. As of this writing, there are hundreds of SNSs,
    with various technological affordances, supporting a wide range of interests and
    practices. While their key technological features are fairly consistent, the cultures
    that emerge around SNSs are varied. Most sites support the maintenance of preexisting social networks, but others help strangers connect based on shared interests,
    political views, or activities. Some sites cater to diverse audiences, while others attract
    people based on common language or shared racial, sexual, religious, or nationalitybased identities. Sites also vary in the extent to which they incorporate new information and communication tools, such as mobile connectivity, blogging, and photo/
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Social Network Sites: Definition, History,
    and Scholarship
    Social Network Sites: A Definition
    We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1)
    construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate
    a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse
    their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and
    nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.
    While we use the term ‘‘social network site’’ to describe this phenomenon, the
    term ‘‘social networking sites’’ also appears in public discourse, and the two terms are
    often used interchangeably. We chose not to employ the term ‘‘networking’’ for two
    reasons: emphasis and scope. ‘‘Networking’’ emphasizes relationship initiation, often
    between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary
    practice on many of them, nor is it what differentiates them from other forms of
    computer-mediated communication (CMC).
    What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet
    strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social
    networks. This can result in connections between individuals that would not otherwise be made, but that is often not the goal, and these meetings are frequently
    between ‘‘latent ties’’ (Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection.
    On many of the large SNSs, participants are not necessarily ‘‘networking’’ or looking
    to meet new people; instead, they are primarily communicating with people who are
    already a part of their extended social network. To emphasize this articulated social
    network as a critical organizing feature of these sites, we label them ‘‘social network
    While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features, their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends1 who are
    also users of the system. Profiles are unique pages where one can ‘‘type oneself into
    being’’ (Sundén, 2003, p. 3). After joining an SNS, an individual is asked to fill out
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Scholars from disparate fields have examined SNSs in order to understand the
    practices, implications, culture, and meaning of the sites, as well as users’ engagement with them. This special theme section of the Journal of Computer-Mediated
    Communication brings together a unique collection of articles that analyze a wide
    spectrum of social network sites using various methodological techniques, theoretical traditions, and analytic approaches. By collecting these articles in this issue, our
    goal is to showcase some of the interdisciplinary scholarship around these sites.
    The purpose of this introduction is to provide a conceptual, historical, and
    scholarly context for the articles in this collection. We begin by defining what constitutes a social network site and then present one perspective on the historical
    development of SNSs, drawing from personal interviews and public accounts of sites
    and their changes over time. Following this, we review recent scholarship on SNSs
    and attempt to contextualize and highlight key works. We conclude with a description of the articles included in this special section and suggestions for future research.
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Figure 1 Timeline of the launch dates of many major SNSs and dates when community sites
    re-launched with SNS features
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    forms containing a series of questions. The profile is generated using the answers to
    these questions, which typically include descriptors such as age, location, interests,
    and an ‘‘about me’’ section. Most sites also encourage users to upload a profile photo.
    Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multimedia content or
    modifying their profile’s look and feel. Others, such as Facebook, allow users to add
    modules (‘‘Applications’’) that enhance their profile.
    The visibility of a profile varies by site and according to user discretion. By
    default, profiles on Friendster and are crawled by search engines, making
    them visible to anyone, regardless of whether or not the viewer has an account.
    Alternatively, LinkedIn controls what a viewer may see based on whether she or
    he has a paid account. Sites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want
    their profile to be public or ‘‘Friends only.’’ Facebook takes a different approach—by
    default, users who are part of the same ‘‘network’’ can view each other’s profiles,
    unless a profile owner has decided to deny permission to those in their network.
    Structural variations around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that
    SNSs differentiate themselves from each other.
    After joining a social network site, users are prompted to identify others in the
    system with whom they have a relationship. The label for these relationships differs
    depending on the site—popular terms include ‘‘Friends,’’ ‘‘Contacts,’’ and ‘‘Fans.’’
    Most SNSs require bi-directional confirmation for Friendship, but some do not.
    These one-directional ties are sometimes labeled as ‘‘Fans’’ or ‘‘Followers,’’ but many
    sites call these Friends as well. The term ‘‘Friends’’ can be misleading, because the
    connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense,
    and the reasons people connect are varied (boyd, 2006a).
    The public display of connections is a crucial component of SNSs. The Friends
    list contains links to each Friend’s profile, enabling viewers to traverse the network
    graph by clicking through the Friends lists. On most sites, the list of Friends is visible
    to anyone who is permitted to view the profile, although there are exceptions. For
    instance, some MySpace users have hacked their profiles to hide the Friends display,
    and LinkedIn allows users to opt out of displaying their network.
    Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave messages on their
    Friends’ profiles. This feature typically involves leaving ‘‘comments,’’ although sites
    employ various labels for this feature. In addition, SNSs often have a private messaging feature similar to webmail. While both private messages and comments are
    popular on most of the major SNSs, they are not universally available.
    Not all social network sites began as such. QQ started as a Chinese instant
    messaging service, LunarStorm as a community site, Cyworld as a Korean discussion
    forum tool, and Skyrock (formerly Skyblog) was a French blogging service before
    adding SNS features., a directory of school affiliates launched in
    1995, began supporting articulated lists of Friends after SNSs became popular.
    AsianAvenue, MiGente, and BlackPlanet were early popular ethnic community sites
    with limited Friends functionality before re-launching in 2005–2006 with SNS
    features and structure.
    A History of Social Network Sites
    The Early Years
    According to the definition above, the first recognizable social network site launched
    in 1997. allowed users to create profiles, list their Friends and,
    beginning in 1998, surf the Friends lists. Each of these features existed in some form
    before SixDegrees, of course. Profiles existed on most major dating sites and many
    community sites. AIM and ICQ buddy lists supported lists of Friends, although those
    Friends were not visible to others. allowed people to affiliate with
    their high school or college and surf the network for others who were also affiliated,
    but users could not create profiles or list Friends until years later. SixDegrees was the
    first to combine these features.
    SixDegrees promoted itself as a tool to help people connect with and send
    messages to others. While SixDegrees attracted millions of users, it failed to become
    a sustainable business and, in 2000, the service closed. Looking back, its founder
    believes that SixDegrees was simply ahead of its time (A. Weinreich, personal communication, July 11, 2007). While people were already flocking to the Internet, most
    did not have extended networks of friends who were online. Early adopters complained that there was little to do after accepting Friend requests, and most users
    were not interested in meeting strangers.
    From 1997 to 2001, a number of community tools began supporting various
    combinations of profiles and publicly articulated Friends. AsianAvenue, BlackPlanet,
    and MiGente allowed users to create personal, professional, and dating profiles—
    users could identify Friends on their personal profiles without seeking approval for
    those connections (O. Wasow, personal communication, August 16, 2007). Likewise,
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Beyond profiles, Friends, comments, and private messaging, SNSs vary greatly in
    their features and user base. Some have photo-sharing or video-sharing capabilities;
    others have built-in blogging and instant messaging technology. There are mobilespecific SNSs (e.g., Dodgeball), but some web-based SNSs also support limited
    mobile interactions (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, and Cyworld). Many SNSs target
    people from specific geographical regions or linguistic groups, although this does
    not always determine the site’s constituency. Orkut, for example, was launched in the
    United States with an English-only interface, but Portuguese-speaking Brazilians
    quickly became the dominant user group (Kopytoff, 2004). Some sites are designed
    with specific ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, political, or other identity-driven
    categories in mind. There are even SNSs for dogs (Dogster) and cats (Catster),
    although their owners must manage their profiles.
    While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to
    segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that
    typically segment society (Hargittai, this issue), even if that was not the intention
    of the designers.
    The Rise (and Fall) of Friendster
    Friendster launched in 2002 as a social complement to Ryze. It was designed to
    compete with, a profitable online dating site (Cohen, 2003). While most
    dating sites focused on introducing people to strangers with similar interests, Friendster was designed to help friends-of-friends meet, based on the assumption that
    friends-of-friends would make better romantic partners than would strangers (J.
    Abrams, personal communication, March 27, 2003). Friendster gained traction among
    three groups of early adopters who shaped the site—bloggers, attendees of the Burning
    Man arts festival, and gay men (boyd, 2004)—and grew to 300,000 users through word
    of mouth before traditional press coverage began in May 2003 (O’Shea, 2003).
    As Friendster’s popularity surged, the site encountered technical and social difficulties (boyd, 2006b). Friendster’s servers and databases were ill-equipped to handle its rapid growth, and the site faltered regularly, frustrating users who replaced
    email with Friendster. Because organic growth had been critical to creating a coherent
    community, the onslaught of new users who learned about the site from media
    coverage upset the cultural balance. Furthermore, exponential growth meant a collapse in social contexts: Users had to face their bosses and former classmates alongside their close friends. To complicate matters, Friendster began restricting the
    activities of its most passionate users.
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    shortly after its launch in 1999, LiveJournal listed one-directional connections on
    user pages. LiveJournal’s creator suspects that he fashioned these Friends after
    instant messaging buddy lists (B. Fitzpatrick, personal communication, June 15,
    2007)—on LiveJournal, people mark others as Friends to follow their journals and
    manage privacy settings. The Korean virtual worlds site Cyworld was started in 1999
    and added SNS features in 2001, independent of these other sites (see Kim & Yun,
    this issue). Likewise, when the Swedish web community LunarStorm refashioned
    itself as an SNS in 2000, it contained Friends lists, guestbooks, and diary pages
    (D. Skog, personal communication, September 24, 2007).
    The next wave of SNSs began when was launched in 2001 to help
    people leverage their business networks. Ryze’s founder reports that he first introduced the site to his friends—primarily members of the San Francisco business and
    technology community, including the entrepreneurs and investors behind many
    future SNSs (A. Scott, personal communication, June 14, 2007). In particular, the
    people behind Ryze,, LinkedIn, and Friendster were tightly entwined personally and professionally. They believed that they could support each other without
    competing (Festa, 2003). In the end, Ryze never acquired mass popularity,
    grew to attract a passionate niche user base, LinkedIn became a powerful business
    service, and Friendster became the most significant, if only as ‘‘one of the biggest
    disappointments in Internet history’’ (Chafkin, 2007, p. 1).
    Like any brief history of a major phenomenon, ours is necessarily incomplete. In
    the following section we discuss Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook, three key SNSs
    that shaped the business, cultural, and research landscape.
    SNSs Hit the Mainstream
    From 2003 onward, many new SNSs were launched, prompting social software
    analyst Clay Shirky (2003) to coin the term YASNS: ‘‘Yet Another Social Networking
    Service.’’ Most took the form of profile-centric sites, trying to replicate the early
    success of Friendster or target specific demographics. While socially-organized SNSs
    solicit broad audiences, professional sites such as LinkedIn, Visible Path, and Xing
    (formerly openBC) focus on business people. ‘‘Passion-centric’’ SNSs like Dogster
    (T. Rheingold, personal communication, August 2, 2007) help strangers connect
    based on shared interests. Care2 helps activists meet, Couchsurfing connects travelers
    to people with couches, and MyChurch joins Christian churches and their members.
    Furthermore, as the social media and user-generated content phenomena grew,
    websites focused on media sharing began implementing SNS features and becoming
    SNSs themselves. Examples include Flickr (photo sharing), Last.FM (music listening
    habits), and YouTube (video sharing).
    With the plethora of venture-backed startups launching in Silicon Valley, few
    people paid attention to SNSs that gained popularity elsewhere, even those built by
    major corporations. For example, Google’s Orkut failed to build a sustainable U.S.
    user base, but a ‘‘Brazilian invasion’’ (Fragoso, 2006) made Orkut the national SNS of
    Brazil. Microsoft’s Windows Live Spaces (a.k.a. MSN Spaces) also launched to lukewarm U.S. reception but became extremely popular elsewhere.
    Few analysts or journalists noticed when MySpace launched in Santa Monica,
    California, hundreds of miles from Silicon Valley. MySpace was begun in 2003 to
    compete with sites like Friendster, Xanga, and AsianAvenue, according to cofounder Tom Anderson (personal communication, August 2, 2007); the founders
    wanted to attract estranged Friendster users (T. Anderson, personal communication,
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    The initial design of Friendster restricted users from viewing profiles of people
    who were more than four degrees away (friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends). In
    order to view additional profiles, users began adding acquaintances and interestinglooking strangers to expand their reach. Some began massively collecting Friends, an
    activity that was implicitly encouraged through a ‘‘most popular’’ feature. The ultimate collectors were fake profiles representing iconic fictional characters: celebrities,
    concepts, and other such entities. These ‘‘Fakesters’’ outraged the company, who
    banished fake profiles and eliminated the ‘‘most popular’’ feature (boyd, in press-b).
    While few people actually created Fakesters, many more enjoyed surfing Fakesters for
    entertainment or using functional Fakesters (e.g., ‘‘Brown University’’) to find people they knew.
    The active deletion of Fakesters (and genuine users who chose non-realistic
    photos) signaled to some that the company did not share users’ interests. Many
    early adopters left because of the combination of technical difficulties, social collisions, and a rupture of trust between users and the site (boyd, 2006b). However, at
    the same time that it was fading in the U.S., its popularity skyrocketed in the
    Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia (Goldberg, 2007).
    A Global Phenomenon
    While MySpace attracted the majority of media attention in the U.S. and abroad,
    SNSs were proliferating and growing in popularity worldwide. Friendster gained
    traction in the Pacific Islands, Orkut became the premier SNS in Brazil before
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    February 2, 2006). After rumors emerged that Friendster would adopt a fee-based
    system, users posted Friendster messages encouraging people to join alternate SNSs,
    including and MySpace (T. Anderson, personal communication, August 2,
    2007). Because of this, MySpace was able to grow rapidly by capitalizing on Friendster’s alienation of its early adopters. One particularly notable group that encouraged
    others to switch were indie-rock bands who were expelled from Friendster for failing
    to comply with profile regulations.
    While MySpace was not launched with bands in mind, they were welcomed.
    Indie-rock bands from the Los Angeles region began creating profiles, and local
    promoters used MySpace to advertise VIP passes for popular clubs. Intrigued,
    MySpace contacted local musicians to see how they could support them (T. Anderson,
    personal communication, September 28, 2006). Bands were not the sole source of
    MySpace growth, but the symbiotic relationship between bands and fans helped
    MySpace expand beyond former Friendster users. The bands-and-fans dynamic
    was mutually beneficial: Bands wanted to be able to contact fans, while fans desired
    attention from their favorite bands and used Friend connections to signal identity
    and affiliation.
    Futhermore, MySpace differentiated itself by regularly adding features based on
    user demand (boyd, 2006b) and by allowing users to personalize their pages. This
    ‘‘feature’’ emerged because MySpace did not restrict users from adding HTML into
    the forms that framed their profiles; a copy/paste code culture emerged on the web to
    support users in generating unique MySpace backgrounds and layouts (Perkel, in
    Teenagers began joining MySpace en masse in 2004. Unlike older users, most
    teens were never on Friendster—some joined because they wanted to connect with
    their favorite bands; others were introduced to the site through older family members. As teens began signing up, they encouraged their friends to join. Rather than
    rejecting underage users, MySpace changed its user policy to allow minors. As the site
    grew, three distinct populations began to form: musicians/artists, teenagers, and the
    post-college urban social crowd. By and large, the latter two groups did not interact
    with one another except through bands. Because of the lack of mainstream press
    coverage during 2004, few others noticed the site’s growing popularity.
    Then, in July 2005, News Corporation purchased MySpace for $580 million
    (BBC, 2005), attracting massive media attention. Afterwards, safety issues plagued
    MySpace. The site was implicated in a series of sexual interactions between adults
    and minors, prompting legal action (Consumer Affairs, 2006). A moral panic concerning sexual predators quickly spread (Bahney, 2006), although research suggests
    that the concerns were exaggerated.2
    Expanding Niche Communities
    Alongside these open services, other SNSs launched to support niche demographics
    before expanding to a broader audience. Unlike previous SNSs, Facebook was
    designed to support distinct college networks only. Facebook began in early 2004
    as a Harvard-only SNS (Cassidy, 2006). To join, a user had to have a
    email address. As Facebook began supporting other schools, those users were also
    required to have university email addresses associated with those institutions,
    a requirement that kept the site relatively closed and contributed to users’ perceptions of the site as an intimate, private community.
    Beginning in September 2005, Facebook expanded to include high school students,
    professionals inside corporate networks, and, eventually, everyone. The change to open
    signup did not mean that new users could easily access users in closed networks—
    gaining access to corporate networks still required the appropriate .com address, while
    gaining access to high school networks required administrator approval. (As of this
    writing, only membership in regional networks requires no permission.) Unlike other
    SNSs, Facebook users are unable to make their full profiles public to all users. Another
    feature that differentiates Facebook is the ability for outside developers to build
    ‘‘Applications’’ which allow users to personalize their profiles and perform other tasks,
    such as compare movie preferences and chart travel histories.
    While most SNSs focus on growing broadly and exponentially, others explicitly
    seek narrower audiences. Some, like aSmallWorld and BeautifulPeople, intentionally
    restrict access to appear selective and elite. Others—activity-centered sites like
    Couchsurfing, identity-driven sites like BlackPlanet, and affiliation-focused sites like
    MyChurch—are limited by their target demographic and thus tend to be smaller.
    Finally, anyone who wishes to create a niche social network site can do so on Ning,
    a platform and hosting service that encourages users to create their own SNSs.
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    growing rapidly in India (Madhavan, 2007), Mixi attained widespread adoption in
    Japan, LunarStorm took off in Sweden, Dutch users embraced Hyves, Grono captured Poland, Hi5 was adopted in smaller countries in Latin America, South America, and Europe, and Bebo became very popular in the United Kingdom, New
    Zealand, and Australia. Additionally, previously popular communication and community services began implementing SNS features. The Chinese QQ instant messaging service instantly became the largest SNS worldwide when it added profiles and
    made friends visible (McLeod, 2006), while the forum tool Cyworld cornered the
    Korean market by introducing homepages and buddies (Ewers, 2006).
    Blogging services with complete SNS features also became popular. In the U.S.,
    blogging tools with SNS features, such as Xanga, LiveJournal, and Vox, attracted
    broad audiences. Skyrock reigns in France, and Windows Live Spaces dominates
    numerous markets worldwide, including in Mexico, Italy, and Spain. Although SNSs
    like QQ, Orkut, and Live Spaces are just as large as, if not larger than, MySpace, they
    receive little coverage in U.S. and English-speaking media, making it difficult to track
    their trajectories.
    Previous Scholarship
    Scholarship concerning SNSs is emerging from diverse disciplinary and methodological traditions, addresses a range of topics, and builds on a large body of CMC
    research. The goal of this section is to survey research that is directly concerned with
    social network sites, and in so doing, to set the stage for the articles in this special
    issue. To date, the bulk of SNS research has focused on impression management and
    friendship performance, networks and network structure, online/offline connections, and privacy issues.
    Impression Management and Friendship Performance
    Like other online contexts in which individuals are consciously able to construct an
    online representation of self—such as online dating profiles and MUDS—SNSs
    constitute an important research context for scholars investigating processes of impression management, self-presentation, and friendship performance. In one of the earliest
    academic articles on SNSs, boyd (2004) examined Friendster as a locus of publicly
    articulated social networks that allowed users to negotiate presentations of self and
    connect with others. Donath and boyd (2004) extended this to suggest that ‘‘public
    displays of connection’’ serve as important identity signals that help people navigate
    the networked social world, in that an extended network may serve to validate identity
    information presented in profiles.
    While most sites encourage users to construct accurate representations of themselves, participants do this to varying degrees. Marwick (2005) found that users on
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Currently, there are no reliable data regarding how many people use SNSs,
    although marketing research indicates that SNSs are growing in popularity worldwide (comScore, 2007). This growth has prompted many corporations to invest time
    and money in creating, purchasing, promoting, and advertising SNSs. At the same
    time, other companies are blocking their employees from accessing the sites. Additionally, the U.S. military banned soldiers from accessing MySpace (Frosch, 2007)
    and the Canadian government prohibited employees from Facebook (Benzie, 2007),
    while the U.S. Congress has proposed legislation to ban youth from accessing SNSs in
    schools and libraries (H.R. 5319, 2006; S. 49, 2007).
    The rise of SNSs indicates a shift in the organization of online communities.
    While websites dedicated to communities of interest still exist and prosper, SNSs are
    primarily organized around people, not interests. Early public online communities
    such as Usenet and public discussion forums were structured by topics or according to
    topical hierarchies, but social network sites are structured as personal (or ‘‘egocentric’’)
    networks, with the individual at the center of their own community. This more
    accurately mirrors unmediated social structures, where ‘‘the world is composed of
    networks, not groups’’ (Wellman, 1988, p. 37). The introduction of SNS features has
    introduced a new organizational framework for online communities, and with it,
    a vibrant new research context.
    Networks and Network Structure
    Social network sites also provide rich sources of naturalistic behavioral data. Profile
    and linkage data from SNSs can be gathered either through the use of automated
    collection techniques or through datasets provided directly from the company,
    enabling network analysis researchers to explore large-scale patterns of friending,
    usage, and other visible indicators (Hogan, in press), and continuing an analysis
    trend that started with examinations of blogs and other websites. For instance,
    Golder, Wilkinson, and Huberman (2007) examined an anonymized dataset consisting of 362 million messages exchanged by over four million Facebook users for
    insight into Friending and messaging activities. Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2007)
    explored the relationship between profile elements and number of Facebook friends,
    finding that profile fields that reduce transaction costs and are harder to falsify are
    most likely to be associated with larger number of friendship links. These kinds of
    data also lend themselves well to analysis through network visualization (Adamic,
    Buyukkokten, & Adar, 2003; Heer & boyd, 2005; Paolillo & Wright, 2005).
    SNS researchers have also studied the network structure of Friendship. Analyzing
    the roles people played in the growth of Flickr and Yahoo! 360’s networks, Kumar,
    Novak, and Tomkins (2006) argued that there are passive members, inviters, and
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    three different SNSs had complex strategies for negotiating the rigidity of a prescribed
    ‘‘authentic’’ profile, while boyd (in press-b) examined the phenomenon of ‘‘Fakesters’’ and argued that profiles could never be ‘‘real.’’ The extent to which portraits are
    authentic or playful varies across sites; both social and technological forces shape
    user practices. Skog (2005) found that the status feature on LunarStorm strongly
    influenced how people behaved and what they choose to reveal—profiles there
    indicate one’s status as measured by activity (e.g., sending messages) and indicators
    of authenticity (e.g., using a ‘‘real’’ photo instead of a drawing).
    Another aspect of self-presentation is the articulation of friendship links, which
    serve as identity markers for the profile owner. Impression management is one of the
    reasons given by Friendster users for choosing particular friends (Donath & boyd,
    2004). Recognizing this, Zinman and Donath (2007) noted that MySpace spammers
    leverage people’s willingness to connect to interesting people to find targets for their
    In their examination of LiveJournal ‘‘friendship,’’ Fono and Raynes-Goldie
    (2006) described users’ understandings regarding public displays of connections
    and how the Friending function can operate as a catalyst for social drama. In listing
    user motivations for Friending, boyd (2006a) points out that ‘‘Friends’’ on SNSs are
    not the same as ‘‘friends’’ in the everyday sense; instead, Friends provide context by
    offering users an imagined audience to guide behavioral norms. Other work in this
    area has examined the use of Friendster Testimonials as self-presentational devices
    (boyd & Heer, 2006) and the extent to which the attractiveness of one’s Friends (as
    indicated by Facebook’s ‘‘Wall’’ feature) impacts impression formation (Walther,
    Van Der Heide, Kim, & Westerman, in press).
    Bridging Online and Offline Social Networks
    Although exceptions exist, the available research suggests that most SNSs primarily
    support pre-existing social relations. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) suggest
    that Facebook is used to maintain existing offline relationships or solidify offline
    connections, as opposed to meeting new people. These relationships may be weak
    ties, but typically there is some common offline element among individuals who
    friend one another, such as a shared class at school. This is one of the chief dimensions that differentiate SNSs from earlier forms of public CMC such as newsgroups
    (Ellison et al., 2007). Research in this vein has investigated how online interactions
    interface with offline ones. For instance, Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2006) found
    that Facebook users engage in ‘‘searching’’ for people with whom they have an offline
    connection more than they ‘‘browse’’ for complete strangers to meet. Likewise, Pew
    research found that 91% of U.S. teens who use SNSs do so to connect with friends
    (Lenhart & Madden, 2007).
    Given that SNSs enable individuals to connect with one another, it is not surprising that they have become deeply embedded in user’s lives. In Korea, Cyworld
    has become an integral part of everyday life—Choi (2006) found that 85% of that
    study’s respondents ‘‘listed the maintenance and reinforcement of pre-existing social
    networks as their main motive for Cyworld use’’ (p. 181). Likewise, boyd (2008)
    argues that MySpace and Facebook enable U.S. youth to socialize with their friends
    even when they are unable to gather in unmediated situations; she argues that
    SNSs are ‘‘networked publics’’ that support sociability, just as unmediated public
    spaces do.
    Popular press coverage of SNSs has emphasized potential privacy concerns, primarily
    concerning the safety of younger users (George, 2006; Kornblum & Marklein, 2006).
    Researchers have investigated the potential threats to privacy associated with SNSs.
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    linkers ‘‘who fully participate in the social evolution of the network’’ (p. 1). Scholarship concerning LiveJournal’s network has included a Friendship classification
    scheme (Hsu, Lancaster, Paradesi, & Weniger, 2007), an analysis of the role of
    language in the topology of Friendship (Herring et al., 2007), research into the
    importance of geography in Friending (Liben-Nowell, Novak, Kumar, Raghavan,
    and Tomkins, 2005), and studies on what motivates people to join particular communities (Backstrom, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Lan, 2006). Based on Orkut data,
    Spertus, Sahami, and Buyukkokten (2005) identified a topology of users through
    their membership in certain communities; they suggest that sites can use this to
    recommend additional communities of interest to users. Finally, Liu, Maes, and
    Davenport (2006) argued that Friend connections are not the only network structure
    worth investigating. They examined the ways in which the performance of tastes
    (favorite music, books, film, etc.) constitutes an alternate network structure, which
    they call a ‘‘taste fabric.’’
    Other Research
    In addition to the themes identified above, a growing body of scholarship addresses
    other aspects of SNSs, their users, and the practices they enable. For example, scholarship on the ways in which race and ethnicity (Byrne, in press; Gajjala, 2007),
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    In one of the first academic studies of privacy and SNSs, Gross and Acquisti (2005)
    analyzed 4,000 Carnegie Mellon University Facebook profiles and outlined the
    potential threats to privacy contained in the personal information included on the
    site by students, such as the potential ability to reconstruct users’ social security
    numbers using information often found in profiles, such as hometown and date of
    Acquisti and Gross (2006) argue that there is often a disconnect between students’ desire to protect privacy and their behaviors, a theme that is also explored in
    Stutzman’s (2006) survey of Facebook users and Barnes’s (2006) description of the
    ‘‘privacy paradox’’ that occurs when teens are not aware of the public nature of the
    Internet. In analyzing trust on social network sites, Dwyer, Hiltz, and Passerini
    (2007) argued that trust and usage goals may affect what people are willing to
    share—Facebook users expressed greater trust in Facebook than MySpace users
    did in MySpace and thus were more willing to share information on the site.
    In another study examining security issues and SNSs, Jagatic, Johnson, Jakobsson,
    and Menczer (2007) used freely accessible profile data from SNSs to craft a ‘‘phishing’’
    scheme that appeared to originate from a friend on the network; their targets were
    much more likely to give away information to this ‘‘friend’’ than to a perceived
    stranger. Survey data offer a more optimistic perspective on the issue, suggesting that
    teens are aware of potential privacy threats online and that many are proactive about
    taking steps to minimize certain potential risks. Pew found that 55% of online teens
    have profiles, 66% of whom report that their profile is not visible to all Internet users
    (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). Of the teens with completely open profiles, 46% reported
    including at least some false information.
    Privacy is also implicated in users’ ability to control impressions and manage
    social contexts. Boyd (in press-a) asserted that Facebook’s introduction of the ‘‘News
    Feed’’ feature disrupted students’ sense of control, even though data exposed
    through the feed were previously accessible. Preibusch, Hoser, Gürses, and Berendt
    (2007) argued that the privacy options offered by SNSs do not provide users with the
    flexibility they need to handle conflicts with Friends who have different conceptions
    of privacy; they suggest a framework for privacy in SNSs that they believe would help
    resolve these conflicts.
    SNSs are also challenging legal conceptions of privacy. Hodge (2006) argued that
    the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and legal decisions concerning
    privacy are not equipped to address social network sites. For example, do police
    officers have the right to access content posted to Facebook without a warrant? The
    legality of this hinges on users’ expectation of privacy and whether or not Facebook
    profiles are considered public or private.
    Overview of This Special Theme Section
    The articles in this section address a variety of social network sites—BlackPlanet,
    Cyworld, Dodgeball, Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube—from multiple theoretical
    and methodological angles, building on previous studies of SNSs and broader theoretical traditions within CMC research, including relationship maintenance and
    issues of identity, performance, privacy, self-presentation, and civic engagement.
    These pieces collectively provide insight into some of the ways in which online
    and offline experiences are deeply entwined. Using a relational dialectics approach,
    Kyung-Hee Kim and Haejin Yun analyze how Cyworld supports both interpersonal
    relations and self-relation for Korean users. They trace the subtle ways in which
    deeply engrained cultural beliefs and activities are integrated into online communication and behaviors on Cyworld—the online context reinforces certain aspects of
    users’ cultural expectations about relationship maintenance (e.g., the concept of
    reciprocity), while the unique affordances of Cyworld enable participants to overcome offline constraints. Dara Byrne uses content analysis to examine civic engagement in forums on BlackPlanet and finds that online discussions are still plagued
    with the problems offline activists have long encountered. Drawing on interview and
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    religion (Nyland & Near, 2007), gender (Geidner, Flook, & Bell, 2007; Hjorth & Kim,
    2005), and sexuality connect to, are affected by, and are enacted in social network
    sites raise interesting questions about how identity is shaped within these sites.
    Fragoso (2006) examined the role of national identity in SNS use through an investigation into the ‘‘Brazilian invasion’’ of Orkut and the resulting culture clash
    between Brazilians and Americans on the site. Other scholars are beginning to do
    cross-cultural comparisons of SNS use—Hjorth and Yuji (in press) compare Japanese usage of Mixi and Korean usage of Cyworld, while Herring et al. (2007) examine
    the practices of users who bridge different languages on LiveJournal—but more work
    in this area is needed.
    Scholars are documenting the implications of SNS use with respect to schools,
    universities, and libraries. For example, scholarship has examined how students feel
    about having professors on Facebook (Hewitt & Forte, 2006) and how faculty participation affects student-professor relations (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007).
    Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007) found that librarians are overwhelmingly aware of
    Facebook and are against proposed U.S. legislation that would ban minors from
    accessing SNSs at libraries, but that most see SNSs as outside the purview of librarianship. Finally, challenging the view that there is nothing educational about SNSs,
    Perkel (in press) analyzed copy/paste practices on MySpace as a form of literacy
    involving social and technical skills.
    This overview is not comprehensive due to space limitations and because much
    work on SNSs is still in the process of being published. Additionally, we have not
    included literature in languages other than English (e.g., Recuero, 2005 on social
    capital and Orkut), due to our own linguistic limitations.
    Future Research
    The work described above and included in this special theme section contributes to
    an on-going dialogue about the importance of social network sites, both for practitioners and researchers. Vast, uncharted waters still remain to be explored. Methodologically, SNS researchers’ ability to make causal claims is limited by a lack of
    experimental or longitudinal studies. Although the situation is rapidly changing,
    scholars still have a limited understanding of who is and who is not using these
    sites, why, and for what purposes, especially outside the U.S. Such questions will
    require large-scale quantitative and qualitative research. Richer, ethnographic research
    on populations more difficult to access (including non-users) would further aid
    scholars’ ability to understand the long-term implications of these tools. We hope
    that the work described here and included in this collection will help build a foundation for future investigations of these and other important issues surrounding
    social network sites.
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    observation data, Lee Humphreys investigates early adopters’ practices involving
    Dodgeball, a mobile social network service. She looks at the ways in which networked
    communication is reshaping offline social geography.
    Other articles in this collection illustrate how innovative research methods can
    elucidate patterns of behavior that would be indistinguishable otherwise. For
    instance, Hugo Liu examines participants’ performance of tastes and interests by
    analyzing and modeling the preferences listed on over 127,000 MySpace profiles,
    resulting in unique ‘‘taste maps.’’ Likewise, through survey data collected at a college
    with diverse students in the U.S., Eszter Hargittai illuminates usage patterns that
    would otherwise be masked. She finds that adoption of particular services correlates
    with individuals’ race and parental education level.
    Existing theory is deployed, challenged, and extended by the approaches adopted
    in the articles in this section. Judith Donath extends signaling theory to explain
    different tactics SNS users adopt to reduce social costs while managing trust and
    identity. She argues that the construction and maintenance of relations on SNSs is
    akin to ‘‘social grooming.’’ Patricia Lange complicates traditional dichotomies
    between ‘‘public’’ and ‘‘private’’ by analyzing how YouTube participants blur these
    lines in their video-sharing practices.
    The articles in this collection highlight the significance of social network sites
    in the lives of users and as a topic of research. Collectively, they show how
    networked practices mirror, support, and alter known everyday practices, especially with respect to how people present (and hide) aspects of themselves and
    connect with others. The fact that participation on social network sites leaves
    online traces offers unprecedented opportunities for researchers. The scholarship
    in this special theme section takes advantage of this affordance, resulting in work
    that helps explain practices online and offline, as well as those that blend the two
    1 To differentiate the articulated list of Friends on SNSs from the colloquial term
    ‘‘friends,’’ we capitalize the former.
    2 Although one out of seven teenagers received unwanted sexual solicitations online, only
    9% came from people over the age of 25 (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2006). Research
    suggests that popular narratives around sexual predators on SNSs are misleading—
    cases of unsuspecting teens being lured by sexual predators are rare (Finkelhor, Ybarra,
    Lenhart, boyd, & Lordan, 2007). Furthermore, only .08% of students surveyed by the
    National School Boards Association (2007) met someone in person from an online
    encounter without permission from a parent.
    Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing,
    and privacy on the Facebook. In P. Golle & G. Danezis (Eds.), Proceedings of 6th Workshop
    on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (pp. 36–58). Cambridge, UK: Robinson College.
    Adamic, L. A., Büyükkökten, O., & Adar, E. (2003). A social network caught in the Web. First
    Monday, 8(6). Retrieved July 30, 2007 from
    Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Lan, X. (2006). Group formation in large
    social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution. Proceedings of 12th International
    Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. 44–54). New York: ACM Press.
    Bahney, A. (2006, March 9). Don’t talk to invisible strangers. New York Times. Retrieved July
    21, 2007 from
    Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday,
    11(9). Retrieved September 8, 2007 from
    BBC. (2005, July 19). News Corp in $580m Internet buy. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://
    Benzie, R. (2007, May 3). Facebook banned for Ontario staffers. The Star. Retrieved July 21,
    2007 from
    boyd, d. (2004). Friendster and publicly articulated social networks. Proceedings of ACM
    Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1279–1282). New York: ACM
    boyd, d. (2006a). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on
    social network sites. First Monday, 11(12). Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    We are grateful to the external reviewers who volunteered their time and expertise to
    review papers and contribute valuable feedback and to those practitioners and analysts who provided information to help shape the history section. Thank you also to
    Susan Herring, whose patience and support appeared infinite.
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    boyd, d. (2006b, March 21). Friendster lost steam. Is MySpace just a fad? Apophenia Blog.
    Retrieved July 21, 2007 from
    boyd, d. (in press-a). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social
    convergence. Convergence, 14(1).
    boyd, d. (in press-b). None of this is real. In J. Karaganis (Ed.), Structures of Participation.
    New York: Social Science Research Council.
    boyd, d. (2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics
    in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media
    (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    boyd, d., & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on
    Friendster. Proceedings of Thirty-Ninth Hawai’i International Conference on System
    Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
    Byrne, D. (in press). The future of (the) ‘race’: Identity, discourse and the rise of
    computer-mediated public spheres. In A. Everett (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Book
    Series on Digital Learning: Race and Ethnicity Volume (pp. 15–38). Cambridge, MA:
    MIT Press.
    Cassidy, J. (2006, May 15). Me media: How hanging out on the Internet became big business.
    The New Yorker, 82(13), 50.
    Chafkin, M. (2007, June). How to kill a great idea! Inc. Magazine. Retrieved August 27, 2007
    Charnigo, L., & Barnett-Ellis, P. (2007). Checking out The impact of a digital
    trend on academic libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(1), 23.
    Choi, J. H. (2006). Living in Cyworld: Contextualising Cy-Ties in South Korea. In A. Bruns &
    J. Jacobs (Eds.), Use of Blogs (Digital Formations) (pp. 173–186). New York: Peter Lang.
    Cohen, R. (2003, July 5). Livewire: Web sites try to make internet dating less creepy. Reuters.
    Retrieved July 5, 2003 from
    comScore. (2007). Social networking goes global. Reston, VA. Retrieved September 9, 2007
    Consumer Affairs. (2006, February 5). Connecticut opens probe. Consumer
    Affairs. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from
    Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4),
    Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social
    networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of AMCIS 2007,
    Keystone, CO. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from
    Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends’’: Exploring
    the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and social capital.
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 1. Retrieved July 30, 2007
    Ewers, J. (2006, November 9). Cyworld: Bigger than YouTube? U.S. News & World Report.
    Retrieved July 30, 2007 from LexisNexis.
    Festa, P. (2003, November 11). Investors snub Friendster in patent grab. CNet News.
    Retrieved August 26, 2007 from
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Finkelhor, D., Ybarra, M., Lenhart, A., boyd, d., & Lordan, T. (2007, May 3). Just the facts
    about online youth victimization: Researchers present the facts and debunk myths.
    Internet Caucus Advisory Committee Event. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://
    Fono, D., & Raynes-Goldie, K. (2006). Hyperfriendship and beyond: Friends and social norms
    on LiveJournal. In M. Consalvo & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Internet Research Annual
    Volume 4: Selected Papers from the AOIR Conference (pp. 91–103). New York: Peter Lang.
    Fragoso, S. (2006). WTF a crazy Brazilian invasion. In F. Sudweeks & H. Hrachovec (Eds.),
    Proceedings of CATaC 2006 (pp. 255–274). Murdoch, Australia: Murdoch University.
    Frosch, D. (2007, May 15). Pentagon blocks 13 web sites from military computers. New York
    Times. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from
    Gajjala, R. (2007). Shifting frames: Race, ethnicity, and intercultural communication in online
    social networking and virtual work. In M. B. Hinner (Ed.), The Role of Communication in
    Business Transactions and Relationships (pp. 257–276). New York: Peter Lang.
    Geidner, N. W., Flook, C. A., & Bell, M. W. (2007, April). Masculinity and online social
    networks: Male self-identification on Paper presented at Eastern
    Communication Association 98th Annual Meeting, Providence, RI.
    George, A. (2006, September 18). Living online: The end of privacy? New Scientist, 2569.
    Retrieved August 29, 2007 from
    Goldberg, S. (2007, May 13). Analysis: Friendster is doing just fine. Digital Media Wire.
    Retrieved July 30, 2007 from
    Golder, S. A., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. A. (2007, June). Rhythms of social interaction:
    Messaging within a massive online network. In C. Steinfield, B. Pentland, M. Ackerman, &
    N. Contractor (Eds.), Proceedings of Third International Conference on Communities and
    Technologies (pp. 41–66). London: Springer.
    Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks.
    Proceedings of WPES’05 (pp. 71–80). Alexandria, VA: ACM.
    Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,
    Communication, & Society, 8(2), 125–147.
    Heer, J., & boyd, d. (2005). Vizster: Visualizing online social networks. Proceedings of
    Symposium on Information Visualization (pp. 33–40). Minneapolis, MN: IEEE Press.
    Herring, S. C., Paolillo, J. C., Ramos Vielba, I., Kouper, I., Wright, E., Stoerger, S., Scheidt, L.
    A., & Clark, B. (2007). Language networks on LiveJournal. Proceedings of the Fortieth
    Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
    Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006, November). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and
    student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at CSCW, Banff, Alberta.
    Hjorth, L., & Kim, H. (2005). Being there and being here: Gendered customising of mobile 3G
    practices through a case study in Seoul. Convergence, 11(2), 49–55.
    Hjorth, L., & Yuji, M. (in press). Logging on locality: A cross-cultural case study of virtual
    communities Mixi (Japan) and Mini-hompy (Korea). In B. Smaill (Ed.), Youth and Media
    in the Asia Pacific. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Hodge, M. J. (2006). The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the ‘‘new’’ Internet: and Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 31, 95–122.
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Hogan, B. (in press). Analyzing social networks via the Internet. In N. Fielding, R. Lee, & G.
    Blank (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    H. R. 5319. (2006, May 9). Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. H.R. 5319, 109th Congress.
    Retrieved July 21, 2007 from
    Hsu, W. H., Lancaster, J., Paradesi, M. S. R., & Weninger, T. (2007). Structural link analysis
    from user profiles and friends networks: A feature construction approach. Proceedings of
    ICWSM-2007 (pp. 75–80). Boulder, CO.
    Jagatic, T., Johnson, N., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007). Social phishing.
    Communications of the ACM, 5(10), 94–100.
    Kopytoff, V. (2004, November 29). Google’s orkut puzzles experts. San Francisco Chronicle.
    Retrieved July 30, 2007 from
    Kornblum, J., & Marklein, M. B. (2006, March 8). What you say online could haunt you.
    USA Today. Retrieved August 29, 2007 from
    Kumar, R., Novak, J., & Tomkins, A. (2006). Structure and evolution of online social
    networks. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data
    Mining (pp. 611–617). New York: ACM Press.
    Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs.
    social browsing. Proceedings of CSCW-2006 (pp. 167–170). New York: ACM Press.
    Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfeld, C. (2007). A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as
    signals in an online social network. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in
    Computing Systems (pp. 435–444). New York: ACM Press.
    Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007, April 18). Teens, privacy, & online social networks.
    Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://
    Liben-Nowell, D., Novak, J., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., & Tomkins, A. (2005) Geographic
    routing in social networks. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 102(33)
    Liu, H., Maes, P., & Davenport, G. (2006). Unraveling the taste fabric of social networks.
    International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 2(1), 42–71.
    Madhavan, N. (2007, July 6). India gets more Net Cool. Hindustan Times. Retrieved July 30,
    2007 from
    Marwick, A. (2005, October). ‘‘I’m a lot more interesting than a Friendster profile:’’ Identity
    presentation, authenticity, and power in social networking services. Paper presented at
    Internet Research 6.0, Chicago, IL.
    Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘‘Facebook:’’ The effects of
    computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and
    classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1–17.
    McLeod, D. (2006, October 6). QQ Attracting eyeballs. Financial Mail (South Africa), p. 36.
    Retrieved July 30, 2007 from LexisNexis.
    National School Boards Association. (2007, July). Creating and connecting: Research and
    guidelines on online social—and educational—networking. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved
    September 23, 2007 from
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    Nyland, R., & Near, C. (2007, February). Jesus is my friend: Religiosity as a mediating factor in
    Internet social networking use. Paper presented at AEJMC Midwinter Conference,
    Reno, NV.
    O’Shea, W. (2003, July 4-10). Six Degrees of sexual frustration: Connecting the dates with Village Voice. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from
    news/0323,oshea, 44576, 1.html
    Paolillo, J. C., & Wright, E. (2005). Social network analysis on the semantic web: Techniques
    and challenges for visualizing FOAF. In V. Geroimenko & C. Chen (Eds.), Visualizing the
    Semantic Web (pp. 229–242). Berlin: Springer.
    Perkel, D. (in press). Copy and paste literacy? Literacy practices in the production of
    a MySpace profile. In K. Drotner, H. S. Jensen, & K. Schroeder (Eds.), Informal Learning
    and Digital Media: Constructions, Contexts, Consequences. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge
    Scholars Press.
    Preibusch, S., Hoser, B., Gürses, S., & Berendt, B. (2007, June). Ubiquitous social
    networks—opportunities and challenges for privacy-aware user modelling. Proceedings of
    Workshop on Data Mining for User Modeling. Corfu, Greece. Retrieved October 20, 2007
    Recuero, R. (2005). O capital social em redes sociais na Internet. Revista FAMECOS, 28,
    88–106. Retrieved September 13, 2007 from
    S. 49. (2007, January 4). Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. S. 49, 110th Congress.
    Retrieved July 30, 2007 from
    Shirky, C. (2003, May 13). People on page: YASNS. Corante’s Many-to-Many. Retrieved July
    21, 2007 from
    Skog, D. (2005). Social interaction in virtual communities: The significance of technology.
    International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(4), 464–474.
    Spertus, E., Sahami, M., & Buyukkokten, O. (2005). Evaluating similarity measures: A
    large-scale study in the orkut social network. Proceedings of 11th International Conference
    on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. 678–684). New York: ACM Press.
    Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network
    communities. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3(1), 10–18.
    Sundén, J. (2003). Material Virtualities. New York: Peter Lang.
    Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., & Westerman, D. (in press). The role of friends’
    appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the
    company we keep? Human Communication Research.
    Wellman, B. (1988). Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance.
    In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach
    (pp. 19–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: Five years later.
    Report from Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire.
    Retrieved July 21, 2007 from
    Zinman, A., & Donath, J. (2007, August). Is Britney Spears spam? Paper presented at the
    Fourth Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, Mountain View, CA.
    About the Authors
    Nicole B. Ellison is an assistant professor in the Department of Telecommunication,
    Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. Her research explores
    issues of self-presentation, relationship development, and identity in online environments such as weblogs, online dating sites, and social network sites.
    Address: 403 Communication Arts and Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
    Downloaded from by user on 22 October 2018
    danah m. boyd is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Information at the University of
    California-Berkeley and a Fellow at the Harvard University Berkman Center for
    Internet and Society. Her research focuses on how people negotiate mediated contexts like social network sites for sociable purposes.
    Address: 102 South Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720–4600, USA

    Calculate your order
    Pages (275 words)
    Standard price: $0.00
    Client Reviews
    Our Guarantees
    100% Confidentiality
    Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
    Original Writing
    We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
    Timely Delivery
    No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
    Money Back
    If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

    Calculate the price of your order

    You will get a personal manager and a discount.
    We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
    Total price:
    Power up Your Academic Success with the
    Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
    Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
    WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
    Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
    👋 Hi, how can I help?