I found Danah Boyd’s article to accurately cover many important issues surrounding a relatively new social phenomena- social networking (MySpace, in particular) Boyd begins by discussing the logistics of the MySpace profile page- a user’s personal homepage which includes pictures, lists of interests, friends and comments. She notes how friend lists allow users to surf from “Friend to Friend to Friend” (p6) in an endless network, which she says can become both a source of entertainment and motivation for social voyeurism.
The issue of online visibility really alarmed me and got me thinking. Boyd says, of MySpace: “friends are publicly articulated, profiles are publicly viewed, and comments are publicly visible” (p7) The article describes how what would have previously been private messages written between two friends (such as “I’ll meet you at the movies at 7”) are instead written in a public space- as a publicly viewable “comment” on MySpace (or alternatively-a “testimonial” on Friendster or a “wall post” on Facebook)
It makes me wonder what our motivation is behind such actions? There are private messaging facilities available on all social networking sites, yet users still choose to post messages of a personal nature in a public space.
What are your thoughts on this?
An important part of the article is that in which Boyd discusses the difficulty involved in defining “public”. She talks about how “the public” can be read as synonymous with the “audience.” but she is careful to point out that there is not “the public” (one public). There are multiple publics, separated by social contexts, so we must talk about “A public”. (p7) The public on MySpace is what Boyd defines as a networked public because its members are bound together by technological networks (p8) Boyd also notes that a networked public is actually a type of mediated public.
Networked publics are special because of four properties…persistence, searchability, replicability and invisible audiences (where the infinitival nature of the audience means that we can cannot know WHO might come across our expressions in a networked public space) (p9) There are no geographical /temporal constraints on networked publics (p9)
I found it important that Boyd pointed out the fact that MySpace is primarily used to strengthen, enhance and maintain social action between already existing friendships. Boyd describes in detail the steps a teenager typically takes when joining MySpace. She talks about how the creation of an online identity is a highly important and premeditated step to take. Boyd notes that more often than not, a newcomer to MySpace will first examine friends, and friends of friends’ profiles, to work out the social conventions of online identity (i.e. what is acceptable/unacceptable, what is cool/uncool) Profiles can then be created and manipulated in order to create an online self.
A central idea which Boyd revisits throughout the article is that of impression management- the way in which people use “contextual cues from the environment around them” to gain an understanding of which behaviour is and isn’t appropriate. She notes this process as vital to socialization into society, and is in no way limited to the offline sector, it is also highly applicable to the building of a “digital body” or identity. (p12)
Boyd discusses how on MySpace, friends are connections, and a friend network displays these connections to everyone for scrutiny. “ For better or worse, people judge others based on their associations” (p13). The article describes dramas that are common amongst teens which emerge out of the “Top Friends” feature. I think it is important to note that online and offline are inherently and inseparably linked. Online actions can translate into real life fights/dramas.
Finally, the article had a strong focus on privacy, which is necessary in a discussion of teenagers online. However, I found Boyd’s take on privacy problematic. In my opinion, it seemed to be based too much on the child/parent privacy issues, and gloss over the child/predator privacy issues.
In her conclusion, Boyd makes the point that parents, as adults, must allow teenagers to “ make mistakes and learn from them” in public life (and in a networked public)(p22) Of course I understand that Boyd is suggesting a supportive parenting approach rather than a restrictive one, but I must confess that in my opinion, online mistakes and offline mistakes are very different things. And as social networking is a fairly new social phenomena, a lot of these “mistakes” are ones which teenagers and adults alike are not fully prepared to handle. I don’t disagree with Boyd’s conclusion, but I find her manner of brushing over the seriousness of the issue of online bullying, child predators etc slightly difficult to swallow.
Any other opinions on this?
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article in depth :)
A further question to consider from the reading: What is consumerism’s relationship to angency in online participation on social networking sites? (adapted from p5)
All quotations etc taken from:
Boyd, Danah. (2007) " Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life." MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning- Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
