Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Social networking service
View on Wikipedia

A social networking service or social networking site, abbreviated as SNS, is a type of online social media platform which people use to build social networks or social relationships with other people who share similar personal or career content, interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections.[1][2]
Social networking services vary in format and the number of features. They can incorporate a range of new information and communication tools, operating on desktops and on laptops, on mobile devices such as tablet computers and smartphones. This may feature digital photo/video/sharing and diary entries online (blogging).[2] Online community services are sometimes considered social-network services by developers and users, though in a broader sense, a social-network service usually provides an individual-centered service whereas online community services are groups centered. Generally defined as "websites that facilitate the building of a network of contacts in order to exchange various types of content online," social networking sites provide a space for interaction to continue beyond in-person interactions. These computer mediated interactions link members of various networks and may help to create, sustain and develop new social and professional relationships.[3]
Social networking sites allow users to share ideas, digital photos and videos, posts, and to inform others about online or real-world activities and events with people within their social network. While in-person social networking – such as gathering in a village market to talk about events – has existed since the earliest development of towns,[4] the web enables people to connect with others who live in different locations across the globe (dependent on access to an Internet connection to do so).
Depending on the platform, members may be able to contact any other member. In other cases, members can contact anyone they have a connection to, and subsequently anyone that contact has a connection to, and so on.
Facebook has a massive 2.13 billion active monthly users and an average of 1.4 billion daily active users as of 2017.[5]
LinkedIn, a career-oriented social-networking service, generally requires that a member personally know another member in real life before they contact them online. Some services require members to have a preexisting connection to contact other members.
With COVID-19, Zoom, a videoconferencing platform, has taken an integral place to connect people located around the world and facilitate many online environments such as school, university, work and government meetings.
The main types of social networking services contain category places (such as age or occupation or religion), means to connect with friends (usually with self-description pages), and a recommendation system linked to trust. One can categorize social-network services into four types:[6]
- socialization social network services used primarily for socializing with existing friends or users (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X)
- online social networks are decentralized and distributed computer networks where users communicate with each other through Internet services.
- networking social network services used primarily for non-social interpersonal communication (e.g., LinkedIn, a career- and employment-oriented site)
- social navigation social network services used primarily for helping users to find specific information or resources (e.g., Goodreads for books, Reddit)
There have been attempts to standardize these services to avoid the need to duplicate entries of friends and interests (see the FOAF standard). A study reveals that India recorded world's largest growth in terms of social media users in 2013.[7] A 2013 survey found that 73% of U.S. adults use social-networking sites.[8]
Offline and online social networking services
[edit]| Characteristic | Offline social network | Online social network |
|---|---|---|
| Degree centrality | While the number of cognitively manageable ties is limited to about 150,[10] most people report having 14–56 ties at average[11][12] | Huge number of ties technologically possible, but average number is limited, e.g., Facebook: 395[13][14][15][16][17] |
| Symmetry | Usually symmetric (reciprocal behavior[18]) | Symmetric (e.g., Instagram, LinkedIn, XING)[19] and asymmetric (e.g., Twitter)[20] |
| Affect | Positive (92–97%) and negative (3–8%) tie relationships[21] can be managed using high sophisticated coordination mechanisms such as argumentation and negotiation[9][22][23][24] | Except through blocking (e.g., Twitter) or hiding (e.g., Facebook) limited support to deal with negative tie relationships |
| Strength | 2–8 strong ties and 12–48 weak/latent ties on average[11][25] | 9–37 strong ties and 68–131 weak/latent ties on average[26][27][14] |
| Dynamic of change | Low due to manual interaction[28][29] | High because of technological support[29][21] |
History
[edit]The potential for computer networking to facilitate newly improved forms of computer-mediated social interaction was suggested early on.[30] Efforts to support social networks via computer-mediated communication were made in many early online services, including Usenet,[31] ARPANET, LISTSERV, and bulletin board services (BBS). Many prototypical features of social networking sites were also present in online services such as The Source, Delphi, America Online, Prodigy, CompuServe, and The WELL.[32]
Early social networking on the World Wide Web began in the form of generalized online communities such as Theglobe.com (1995),[33] Geocities (1994) and Tripod.com (1995). Many of these early communities focused on bringing people together to interact with each other through chat rooms and encouraged users to share personal information and ideas via personal web pages by providing easy-to-use publishing tools and free or inexpensive web space. Some communities – such as Classmates.com – took a different approach by simply having people link to each other via email addresses. PlanetAll started in 1996.
In the late 1990s, user profiles became a central feature of social networking sites, allowing users to compile lists of "friends" and search for other users with similar interests. New social networking methods were developed by the end of the 1990s, and many sites began to develop more advanced features for users to find and manage friends.[34] Open Diary, a community for online diarists, invented both friends-only content and the reader comment, two features of social networks important to user interaction.[35]
This newer generation of social networking sites began to flourish with the emergence of SixDegrees in 1997,[2] Open Diary in 1998,[36] Mixi in 1999,[37] Makeoutclub in 2000,[38][39] Cyworld in 2001,[40][2] Hub Culture in 2002, and Friendster and Nexopia in 2003.[41] Cyworld also became one of the first companies to profit from the sale of virtual goods.[42][43] MySpace and LinkedIn were launched in 2003, and Bebo was launched in 2005. Orkut became the first popular social networking service in Brazil (although most of its very first users were from the United States) and quickly grew in popularity in India (Madhavan, 2007).[2] There was a rapid increase in social networking sites' popularity; in 2005, MySpace had more pageviews than Google.[44] Many of these services were displaced by Facebook, which launched in 2004 and became the largest social networking site in the world in 2009.[45][46]
Social media
[edit]The term social media was first used in 2004 and is often used to describe social networking services.[47][48]
Social impact
[edit]Web-based social networking services make it possible to connect people who share interests and activities across political, economic, and geographic borders.[49] Through e-mail and instant messaging, online communities are created where a gift economy and reciprocal altruism are encouraged through cooperation. Information is suited to a gift economy, as information is a nonrival good and can be gifted at practically no cost.[50][51] Scholars have noted that the term "social" cannot account for technological features of the social network platforms alone.[52] Hence, the level of network sociability should determine by the actual performances of its users. According to the communication theory of uses and gratifications, an increasing number of individuals are looking to the Internet and social media to fulfill cognitive, affective, personal integrative, social integrative, and tension free needs. With Internet technology as a supplement to fulfill needs, it is in turn affecting everyday life, including relationships, school, church, entertainment, and family.[53] Companies are using social media as a way to learn about potential employees' personalities and behavior. In numerous situations, a candidate who might otherwise have been hired has been rejected due to offensive or otherwise unseemly photos or comments posted to social networks or appearing on a newsfeed.
Facebook and other social networking tools are increasingly the aims of scholarly research. Scholars in many fields have begun to investigate the impact of social networking sites, investigating how such sites may play into issues of identity, politics, privacy,[54] social capital, youth culture, and education.[55] Research has also suggested that individuals add offline friends on Facebook to maintain contact and often this blurs the lines between work and home lives.[56] Users from around the world also utilise social networking sites as an alternative news source.[57] While social networking sites have arguably changed how we access the news,[58] users tend to have mixed opinions about the reliability of content accessed through these sites.[59]
According to a study in 2015, 63% of the users of Facebook or Twitter in the USA consider these networks to be their main source of news, with entertainment news being the most seen. In the times of breaking news, Twitter users are more likely to stay invested in the story. In some cases when the news story is more political, users may be more likely to voice their opinion on a linked Facebook story with a comment or like, while Twitter users will just follow the site's feed and retweet the article.[60] In online social networks, the veracity and reliability of news may be diminished due to the absence of traditional media gatekeepers.[61]
A 2015 study shows that 85% of people aged 18 to 34 use social networking sites for their purchase decision making. While over 65% of people aged 55 and over-rely on word of mouth.[62] Several websites are beginning to tap into the power of the social networking model for philanthropy. Such models provide a means for connecting otherwise fragmented industries and small organizations without the resources to reach a broader audience with interested users.[63] Social networks are providing a different way for individuals to communicate digitally. These communities of hypertexts allow for the sharing of information and ideas, an old concept placed in a digital environment. In 2011, HCL Technologies conducted research that showed that 50% of British employers had banned the use of social networking sites/services during office hours.[64][65]
Research has provided us with mixed results as to whether or not a person's involvement in social networking can affect their feelings of loneliness. Studies have indicated that how a person chooses to use social networking can change their feelings of loneliness in either a negative or positive way. Some companies with mobile workers have encouraged their workers to use social networking to feel connected. Educators are using social networking to stay connected with their students whereas individuals use it to stay connected with their close relationships.[66]
Social networking sites can be used by consumers to create a social media firestorm which is "A digital artifact created by large numbers of user comments of multiple purposes (condemnation and support) and tones (aggressive and cordial) that appear rapidly and recede shortly after".[1]
Each social networking user is able to create a community that centers around a personal identity they choose to create online.[67] In his book Digital Identities: Creating and Communicating the Online Self,[68] Rob Cover argues that social networking's foundation in Web 2.0, high-speed networking shifts online representation to one which is both visual and relational to other people, complexifying the identity process for younger people and creating new forms of anxiety.[68] In 2016, news reports stated that excessive usage of SNS sites may be associated with an increase in the rates of depression, to almost triple the rate for non-SNS users. Experts worldwide[which?] have said that 2030 people who use SNS more have higher levels of depression than those who use SNS less.[69] At least one study went as far as to conclude that the negative effects of Facebook usage are equal to or greater than the positive effects of face-to-face interactions.[70]
According to a recent article from Computers in Human Behavior, Facebook has also been shown to lead to issues of social comparison. Users are able to select which photos and status updates to post, allowing them to portray their lives in acclamatory manners.[71] These updates can lead to other users feeling like their lives are inferior by comparison.[72] Users may feel especially inclined to compare themselves to other users with whom they share similar characteristics or lifestyles, leading to a fairer comparison.[71] Motives for these comparisons can be associated with the goals of improving oneself by looking at profiles of people who one feels are superior, especially when their lifestyle is similar and possible.[71] One can also self-compare to make oneself feel superior to others by looking at the profiles of users who one believes to be worse off.[71] However, a study by the Harvard Business Review shows that these goals often lead to negative consequences, as use of Facebook has been linked with lower levels of well-being; mental health has been shown to decrease due to the use of Facebook.[72] Computers in Human Behavior emphasizes that these feelings of poor mental health have been suggested to cause people to take time off from their Facebook accounts; this action is called "Facebook Fatigue" and has been common in recent years.[71]
Usage of social networking has contributed to a new form of abusive communication, and academic research has highlighted a number of social-technological explanations for this behaviour. These including the anonymity afforded by interpersonal communications,[73] factors that include boredom or attention seeking,[74] or the result of more polarised online debate.[75] The impact in this abuse has found impacts through the prevalence of online cyberbullying, and online trolling. There has also been a marked increase in political violence and abuse through social media platforms. For instance, one study by Ward and McLoughlin found that 2.57% of all messages sent to UK MPs on Twitter were found to contain abusive messages.[75]
Features
[edit]Typical features
[edit]According to boyd and Ellison's 2007 article, "Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life", social networking sites share a variety of technical features that allow individuals to: construct a public/semi-public profile, articulate a list of other users that they share a connection with, and view their list of connections within the system. The most basic of these are visible profiles with a list of "friends" who are also users of the site.[55] In an article entitled "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship," boyd and Ellison adopt Sunden's (2003) description of profiles as unique pages where one can "type oneself into being".[2] A profile is generated from answers to questions, such as age, location, interests, etc. Some sites allow users to upload pictures, add multimedia content or modify the look and feel of the profile. Others, e.g., Facebook, allow users to enhance their profile by adding modules or "Applications".[2] Many sites allow users to post blog entries, search for others with similar interests and compile and share lists of contacts. User profiles often have a section dedicated to comments from friends and other users. To protect user privacy, social networks typically have controls that allow users to choose who can view their profile, contact them, add them to their list of contacts, and so on.[citation needed]
Additional features
[edit]There is a trend towards more interoperability between social networks led by technologies such as OpenID and OpenSocial. In most mobile communities, mobile phone users can now create their own profiles, make friends, participate in chat rooms, create chat rooms, hold private conversations, share photos and videos, and share blogs by using their mobile phone. Some companies provide wireless services that allow their customers to build their own mobile community and brand it; one of the most popular wireless services for social networking in North America and Nepal is Facebook Mobile. Recently, Twitter has also introduced fact check labels to combat misinformation which was primarily spread due to the coronavirus but also has had an impact on debunking false claims by Donald Trump in the 2020 election.[citation needed]
Social media platforms may allow users to change their user name (or "handle", distinct from the "display name"), which could change the URL to their profile. Users are advised to do so with caution, since it could break back links from others' posts and comments depending on implementation, and external back links.[76]
Emerging trends
[edit]The things you share are things that make you look good, things which you are happy to tie into your identity.
— Hilary Mason, chief data scientist, bitly, VentureBeat, 2012[77]
While the popularity of social networking consistently rises,[78] new uses for the technology are frequently being observed. Today's technologically savvy population requires convenient solutions to their daily needs.[79] At the forefront of emerging trends in social networking sites is the concept of "real-time web" and "location-based". Real-time allows users to contribute contents, which is then broadcast as it is being uploaded—the concept is analogous to live radio and television broadcasts. Twitter set the trend for "real-time" services, wherein users can broadcast to the world what they are doing, or what is on their minds within a 140-character limit. Facebook followed suit with their "Live Feed" where users' activities are streamed as soon as it happens. While Twitter focuses on words, Clixtr, another real-time service, focuses on group photo sharing wherein users can update their photo streams with photos while at an event. Facebook, however, remains the largest photo sharing site with over 250 bi as of September aliabbas 2013.[80] In April 2012, the image-based social media network Pinterest had become the third largest social network in the United States.[81]
Companies have begun to merge business technologies and solutions, such as cloud computing, with social networking concepts. Instead of connecting individuals based on social interest, companies are developing interactive communities that connect individuals based on shared business needs or experiences. Many provide specialized networking tools and applications that can be accessed via their websites, such as LinkedIn. Others companies, such as Monster.com, have been steadily developing a more "socialized" feel to their career center sites to harness some of the power of social networking sites. These more business related sites have their own nomenclature for the most part but the most common naming conventions are "Vocational Networking Sites" or "Vocational Media Networks", with the former more closely tied to individual networking relationships based on social networking principles.[citation needed]
Foursquare gained popularity as it allowed for users to check into places that they are frequenting at that moment. Gowalla is another such service that functions in much the same way that Foursquare does, leveraging the GPS in phones to create a location-based user experience. Clixtr, though in the real-time space, is also a location-based social networking site, since events created by users are automatically geotagged, and users can view events occurring nearby through the Clixtr iPhone app. Recently, Yelp announced its entrance into the location-based social networking space through check-ins with their mobile app; whether or not this becomes detrimental to Foursquare or Gowalla is yet to be seen, as it is still considered a new space in the Internet technology industry.[82]
One popular use for this new technology is social networking between businesses. Companies have found that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are great ways to build their brand image. According to Jody Nimetz, author of Marketing Jive,[83] there are five major uses for businesses and social media: to create brand awareness, as an online reputation management tool, for recruiting, to learn about new technologies and competitors, and as a lead generation tool to intercept potential prospects.[83] These companies are able to drive traffic to their own online sites while encouraging their consumers and clients to have discussions on how to improve or change products or services. As of September 2013, 71% of online adults use Facebook, 17% use Instagram, 21% use Pinterest, and 22% use LinkedIn.[84]
Science
[edit]One other use that is being discussed is the use of social networks in the science communities. Julia Porter Liebeskind et al. have published a study on how new biotechnology firms are using social networking sites to share exchanges in scientific knowledge.[85] They state in their study that by sharing information and knowledge with one another, they are able to "increase both their learning and their flexibility in ways that would not have been possible within a self-contained hierarchical organization". Social networking is allowing scientific groups to expand their knowledge base and share ideas, and without these new means of communicating their theories might become "isolated and irrelevant". Researchers use social networks frequently to maintain and develop professional relationships.[86] They are interested in consolidating social ties and professional contact, keeping in touch with friends and colleagues and seeing what their own contacts are doing. This can be related to their need to keep updated on the activities and events of their friends and colleagues in order to establish collaborations on common fields of interest and knowledge sharing.[87]
Social networks are also used to communicate scientists research results[88] and as a public communication tool and to connect people who share the same professional interests, their benefits can vary according to the discipline.[89] The most interesting aspects of social networks for professional purposes are their potentialities in terms of dissemination of information and the ability to reach and multiple professional contacts exponentially. Social networks like Academia.edu, LinkedIn, Facebook, and ResearchGate give the possibility to join professional groups and pages, to share papers and results, publicize events, to discuss issues and create debates.[87] Academia.edu is extensively used by researchers, where they follow a combination of social networking and scholarly norms.[90] ResearchGate is also widely used by researchers, especially to disseminate and discuss their publications,[91] where it seems to attract an audience that it wider than just other scientists.[92] The usage of ResearchGate and Academia in different academic communities has increasingly been studied in recent years.[93]
Education
[edit]The advent of social networking platforms may also be impacting the ways in which learners engage with technology in general. For a number of years, Prensky's (2001) dichotomy between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants has been considered a relatively accurate representation of the ease with which people of a certain age range—in particular those born before and after 1980—use technology. Prensky's theory has been largely disproved, however, and not least on account of the burgeoning popularity of social networking sites and other metaphors such as White and Le Cornu's "Visitors" and "Residents" (2011) are greater currency. The use of online social networks by school libraries is also increasingly prevalent and they are being used to communicate with potential library users, as well as extending the services provided by individual school libraries. Social networks and their educational uses are of interest to many researchers. According to Livingstone and Brake (2010), "Social networking sites, like much else on the Internet, represent a moving target for researchers and policymakers."[94] Pew Research Center project, called Pew Internet, did a USA-wide survey in 2009 and in 2010 February published that 47% of American adults use a social networking website.[95] Same survey found that 73% of online teenagers use SNS, which is an increase from 65% in 2008, 55% in 2006.[95] Recent studies have shown that social network services provide opportunities within professional education, curriculum education, and learning. However, there are constraints in this area. Researches, especially in Africa, have disclosed that the use of social networks among students has been known to affect their academic life negatively. This is buttressed by the fact that their use constitutes distractions, as well as that the students tend to invest a good deal of time in the use of such technologies.[citation needed]
Albayrak and Yildirim (2015) examined the educational use of social networking sites. They investigated students' involvement in Facebook as a Course Management System (CMS) and the findings of their study support that Facebook as a CMS has the potential to increase student involvement in discussions and out-of-class communication among instructors and students.[96]
Professional use
[edit]Professional use of social networking services refers to the employment of a network site to connect with other professionals within a given field of interest. These types of social networking services are referred to as "Career-oriented social networking markets (CSNM)".[9] LinkedIn is one example and is a social networking website geared towards companies and industry professionals looking to make new business contacts or keep in touch with previous co-workers, affiliates, and clients. LinkedIn provides not only a professional social use but also encourages people to inject their personality into their profile – making it more personal than a resume.[97] Similar websites to LinkedIn (also geared towards companies and industry professionals looking for work opportunities) to connect include AngelList, XING, Goodwall, The Dots,[98] Jobcase, Bark.com, ...[99] Various freelance marketplace websites (which focus on freelance work) also exist. There are also a number of other employment websites focused on international volunteering, notably VolunteerMatch, Idealist.org and All for Good.[100] National WWOOF networks finally allow for searching for homestays on organic farms.[101]
Now other social network sites are also being used in this manner. Twitter has become [a] mainstay for professional development as well as promotion[102] and online SNSs support both the maintenance of existing social ties and the formation of new connections. Much of the early research on online communities assume that individuals using these systems would be connecting with others outside their preexisting social group or location, liberating them to form communities around shared interests, as opposed to shared geography.[103] Other researchers have suggested that the professional use of network sites produce "social capital". For individuals, social capital allows a person to draw on resources from other members of the networks to which he or she belongs.[104] These resources can take the form of useful information, personal relationships, or the capacity to organize groups. As well, networks within these services also can be established or built by joining special interest groups that others have made, or creating one and asking others to join.[105]
Curriculum use
[edit]According to Doering, Beach, and O'Brien, a future English curriculum needs to recognize a significant shift in how adolescents are communicating with each other.[106] Curriculum uses of social networking services can also include sharing curriculum-related resources. Educators tap into user-generated content to find and discuss curriculum-related content for students. Responding to the popularity of social networking services among many students, teachers are increasingly using social networks to supplement teaching and learning in traditional classroom environments. This way they can provide new opportunities for enriching existing curriculum through creative, authentic and flexible, non-linear learning experiences.[107] Some social networks, such as English, baby! and LiveMocha, are explicitly education-focused and couple instructional content with an educational peer environment.[108] The new Web 2.0 technologies built into most social networking services promote conferencing, interaction, creation, research on a global scale, enabling educators to share, remix, and repurpose curriculum resources. In short, social networking services can become research networks as well as learning networks.[109]
Learning use
[edit]Educators and advocates of new digital literacies are confident that social networking encourages the development of transferable, technical, and social skills of value in formal and informal learning.[94] In a formal learning environment, goals or objectives are determined by an outside department or agency. Tweeting, instant messaging, or blogging enhances student involvement. Students who would not normally participate in class are more apt to partake through social network services. Networking allows participants the opportunity for just-in-time learning and higher levels of engagement.[110] The use of SNSs allow educators to enhance the prescribed curriculum. When learning experiences are infused into a website student utilize every day for fun, students realize that learning can and should be a part of everyday life.[111] It does not have to be separate and unattached.[112][unreliable source?]
Informal learning consists of the learner setting the goals and objectives. It has been claimed that media no longer just influence human culture; they are human culture.[113] With such a high number of users between the ages of 13 and 18, a number of skills are developed. Participants hone technical skills in choosing to navigate through social networking services. This includes elementary items such as sending an instant message or updating a status. The development of new media skills are paramount in helping youth navigate the digital world with confidence.
Social networking services foster learning through what Jenkins (2006) describes as a "participatory culture".[114] A participatory culture consists of a space that allows engagement, sharing, mentoring, and an opportunity for social interaction. Participants of social network services avail of this opportunity. Informal learning, in the forms of participatory and social learning online, is an excellent tool for teachers to sneak in material and ideas that students will identify with and therefore, in a secondary manner, students will learn skills that would normally be taught in a formal setting in the more interesting and engaging environment of social learning.[115][unreliable source?] Sites like Twitter provide students with the opportunity to converse and collaborate with others in real time.[citation needed]
Social networking services provide a virtual "space" for learners. James Gee (2004) suggests that affinity spaces instantiate participation, collaboration, distribution, dispersion of expertise, and relatedness.[116] Registered users share and search for knowledge which contributes to informal learning.[citation needed]
Constraints
[edit]In the past, social networking services were viewed as a distraction and offered no educational benefit. Blocking these social networks was a form of protection for students against wasting time, bullying, and invasions of privacy. In an educational setting, Facebook, for example, is seen by many instructors and educators as a frivolous, time-wasting distraction from schoolwork, and it is not uncommon to be banned in junior high or high school computer labs.[112] Cyberbullying has become an issue of concern with social networking services. According to the UK Children Go Online survey of 9- to 19-year-olds, it was found that a third have received bullying comments online.[117] To avoid this problem, many school districts/boards have blocked access to social networking services such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter within the school environment. Social networking services often include a lot of personal information posted publicly, and many believe that sharing personal information is a window into privacy theft. Schools have taken action to protect students from this. It is believed that this outpouring of identifiable information and the easy communication vehicle that social networking services open the door to sexual predators, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking.[118] In contrast, however, 70% of social media using teens and 85% of adults believe that people are mostly kind to one another on social network sites.[95]
Recent research suggests that there has been a shift in blocking the use of social networking services. In many cases, the opposite is occurring as the potential of online networking services is being realized. It has been suggested that if schools block them [social networking services], they are preventing students from learning the skills they need.[119] Banning social networking [...] is not only inappropriate but also borderline irresponsible when it comes to providing the best educational experiences for students.[120] Schools and school districts have the option of educating safe media usage as well as incorporating digital media into the classroom experience, thus preparing students for the literacy they will encounter in the future.[citation needed]
Positive correlates
[edit]A cyberpsychology research study conducted by Australian researchers demonstrated that a number of positive psychological outcomes are related to Facebook use. These researchers established that people can derive a sense of social connectedness and belongingness in the online environment. Importantly, this online social connectedness was associated with lower levels of depression and anxiety, and greater levels of subjective well-being. These findings suggest that the nature of online social networking determines the outcomes of online social network use.[121][122]
Grassroots organizing
[edit]Social networks are being used by activists as a means of low-cost grassroots organizing. Extensive use of an array of social networking sites enabled organizers of 2009 National Equality March to mobilize an estimated 200,000 participants to march on Washington with a cost savings of up to 85% per participant over previous methods.[123] The August 2011 England riots were similarly considered to have escalated and been fuelled by this type of grassroots organization.[citation needed]
Employment
[edit]A rise in social network use is being driven by college students using the services to network with professionals for internship and job opportunities. Many studies have been done on the effectiveness of networking online in a college setting, and one notable one is by Phipps Arabie and Yoram Wind published in Advances in Social Network Analysis.[124] Many schools have implemented online alumni directories which serve as makeshift social networks that current and former students can turn to for career advice. However, these alumni directories tend to suffer from an oversupply of advice-seekers and an undersupply of advice providers. One new social networking service, Ask-a-peer, aims to solve this problem by enabling advice seekers to offer modest compensation to advisers for their time. LinkedIn is also another great resource. It helps alumni, students and unemployed individuals look for work. They are also able to connect with others professionally and network with companies.
In addition, employers have been found to use social network sites to screen job candidates.[125]
Hosting service
[edit]A social network hosting service is a web hosting service that specifically hosts the user creation of web-based social networking services, alongside related applications.[citation needed]
Trade network
[edit]A social trade network is a service that allows participants interested in specific trade sectors to share related contents and personal opinions.[citation needed]
Business model
[edit]Few social networks charge money for membership. In part, this may be because social networking is a relatively new service, and the value of using them has not been firmly established in customers' minds. Companies such as Myspace and Facebook sell online advertising on their site. Their business model is based upon large membership count, and charging for membership would be counterproductive.[126] Some believe that the deeper information that the sites have on each user will allow much better targeted advertising than any other site can currently provide.[127] In recent times, Apple has been critical of the Google and Facebook model, in which users are defined as product and a commodity, and their data being sold for marketing revenue.[128] Social networks operate under an autonomous business model, in which a social network's members serve dual roles as both the suppliers and the consumers of content. This is in contrast to a traditional business model, where the suppliers and consumers are distinct agents. Revenue is typically gained in the autonomous business model via advertisements, but subscription-based revenue is possible when membership and content levels are sufficiently high.[129]
Social interaction
[edit]People use social networking sites for meeting new friends, finding old friends, or locating people who have the same problems or interests they have, called niche networking. More and more relationships and friendships are being formed online and then carried to an offline setting. Psychologist and University of Hamburg professor Erich H. Witte says that relationships which start online are much more likely to succeed. In this regard, there are studies which predict tie strength among the friends[130] on social networking websites. One online dating site claims that 2% of all marriages begin at its site, the equivalent of 236 marriages a day. Other sites claim one in five relationships begin online.[citation needed]
Users do not necessarily share with others the content which is of most interest to them, but rather that which projects a good impression of themselves.[77] While everyone agrees that social networking has had a significant impact on social interaction, there remains a substantial disagreement as to whether the nature of this impact is completely positive. A number of scholars have done research on the negative effects of Internet communication as well. These researchers have contended that this form of communication is an impoverished version of conventional face-to-face social interactions, and therefore produce negative outcomes such as loneliness and depression for users who rely on social networking entirely. By engaging solely in online communication, interactions between communities, families, and other social groups are weakened.[131]
Issues
[edit]Social networking services have led to many issues regarding privacy, bullying, social anxiety, and potential for misuse.
Investigations
[edit]Social networking services are increasingly being used in legal and criminal investigations. The information posted on sites such as MySpace and Facebook has been used by police (forensic profiling), probation, and university officials to prosecute users of said sites. In some situations, content posted on MySpace has been used in court.[132]
Facebook is increasingly being used by school administrations and law enforcement agencies as a source of evidence against student users. This site being the number one online destination for college students, allows users to create profile pages with personal details. These pages can be viewed by other registered users from the same school, which often include resident assistants and campus police who have signed up for the service.[133] One UK police force has sifted pictures from Facebook and arrested some people who had been photographed in a public place holding a weapon such as a knife (having a weapon in a public place is illegal).[134]
Application domains
[edit]Government applications
[edit]
Social networking is more recently being used by various government agencies. Social networking tools serve as a quick and easy way for the government to get the suggestion of the public and to keep the public updated on their activity, however, this comes with a significant risk of abuse, for example, to cultivate a culture of fear such as that outlined in Nineteen Eighty-Four or THX-1138.
The Centers for Disease Control demonstrated the importance of vaccinations on the popular children's site Whyville and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a virtual island on Second Life where people can explore caves or explore the effects of global warming.[135] Likewise, NASA has taken advantage of a few social networking tools, including Twitter and Flickr. The NSA is taking advantage of them all.[136] NASA is using such tools to aid the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, whose goal it is to ensure that the nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving its boldest aspirations in space.[137]
Business applications
[edit]The use of social networking services in an enterprise context presents the potential of having a major impact on the world of business and work.[138] Social networks connect people at low cost; this can be beneficial for entrepreneurs and small businesses looking to expand their contact bases. These networks often act as a customer relationship management tool for companies selling products and services. Companies can also use social networks for advertising in the form of banners and text ads. Since businesses operate globally, social networks can make it easier to keep in touch with contacts around the world. Applications for social networking sites have extended toward businesses and brands are creating their own, high functioning sites, a sector known as brand networking. It is the idea that a brand can build its consumer relationship by connecting their consumers to the brand image on a platform that provides them relative content, elements of participation, and a ranking or score system. Brand networking is a new way to capitalize on social trends as a marketing tool. The power of social networks is beginning to permeate into internal culture of businesses where they are finding uses for collaboration, file sharing and knowledge transfer. The term "enterprise social software" is becoming increasingly popular for these types of applications.[citation needed]
Dating applications
[edit]Many social networks provide an online environment for people to communicate and exchange personal information for dating purposes. Intentions can vary from looking for a one time date, short-term relationships, and long-term relationships.[139] Most of these social networks, just like online dating services, require users to give out certain pieces of information. This usually includes a user's age, gender, location, interests, and perhaps a picture. Releasing very personal information is usually discouraged for safety reasons.[140] This allows other users to search or be searched by some sort of criteria, but at the same time, people can maintain a degree of anonymity similar to most online dating services. Online dating sites are similar to social networks in the sense that users create profiles to meet and communicate with others, but their activities on such sites are for the sole purpose of finding a person of interest to date. Social networks do not necessarily have to be for dating; many users simply use it for keeping in touch with friends, and colleagues.[141]
However, an important difference between social networks and online dating services is the fact that online dating sites usually require a fee, where social networks are free.[142] This difference is one of the reasons the online dating industry is seeing a massive decrease in revenue due to many users opting to use social networking services instead. Many popular online dating services such as Match.com, Yahoo Personals, and eHarmony.com are seeing a decrease in users, where social networks like MySpace and Facebook are experiencing an increase in users. The number of Internet users in the United States that visit online dating sites has fallen from a peak of 21% in 2003 to 10% in 2006.[143] Whether it is the cost of the services, the variety of users with different intentions, or any other reason, it is undeniable that social networking sites are quickly becoming the new way to find dates online.[citation needed]
Educational applications
[edit]The National School Boards Association reports that almost 60% of students who use social networking talk about education topics online, and more than 50% talk specifically about schoolwork. Yet the vast majority of school districts have stringent rules against nearly all forms of social networking during the school day—even though students and parents report few problem behaviors online. Social networks focused on supporting relationships between teachers and their students are now used for learning, educators professional development, and content sharing. HASTAC is a collaborative social network space for new modes of learning and research in higher education, K-12, and lifelong learning; Ning supports teachers; TermWiki, TeachStreet and other sites are being built to foster relationships that include educational blogs, portfolios, formal and ad hoc communities, as well as communication such as chats, discussion threads, and synchronous forums. These sites also have content sharing and rating features. Social networks are also emerging as online yearbooks, both public and private. One such service is MyYearbook, which allows anyone from the general public to register and connect. A new trend emerging is private label yearbooks accessible only by students, parents, and teachers of a particular school, similar to Facebook's beginning within Harvard.[citation needed]
Finance applications
[edit]The use of virtual currency systems inside social networks create new opportunities for global finance. Hub Culture operates a virtual currency Ven used for global transactions among members, product sales[144] and financial trades in commodities and carbon credits.[145][146] In May 2010, carbon pricing contracts were introduced to the weighted basket of currencies and commodities that determine the floating exchange value of Ven. The introduction of carbon to the calculation price of the currency made Ven the first and only currency that is linked to the environment.[147]
Medical and health applications
[edit]Social networks are beginning to be adopted by healthcare professionals as a means to manage institutional knowledge, disseminate peer to peer knowledge and to highlight individual physicians and institutions. The advantage of using a dedicated medical social networking site is that all the members are screened against the state licensing board list of practitioners.[148] A new trend is emerging with social networks created to help its members with various physical and mental ailments.[149] For people suffering from life-altering diseases or chronic health conditions, companies such as HealthUnlocked and PatientsLikeMe offers their members the chance to connect with others dealing with similar issues and share experiences. For alcoholics and addicts, SoberCircle gives people in recovery the ability to communicate with one another and strengthen their recovery through the encouragement of others who can relate to their situation. DailyStrength is also a website that offers support groups for a wide array of topics and conditions, including the support topics offered by PatientsLikeMe and SoberCircle. Some social networks aim to encourage healthy lifestyles in their users. SparkPeople and HealthUnlocked offer community and social networking tools for peer support during weight loss. Fitocracy and QUENTIQ are focused on exercise, enabling users to share their own workouts and comment on those of other users. Other aspects of social network usage include the analysis of data coming from existing social networks (such as Twitter) to discover large crowd concentration events (based on tweets location statistical analysis) and disseminate the information to e.g. mobility-challenged individuals for e.g. avoiding the specific areas and optimizing their journey in an urban environment.[150]
Social and political applications
[edit]Social networking sites have recently showed a value in social and political movements.[151] In the Egyptian revolution, Facebook and Twitter both played an allegedly pivotal role in keeping people connected to the revolt. Egyptian activists have credited social networking sites with providing a platform for planning protest and sharing news from Tahrir Square in real time. By presenting a platform for thousands of people to instantaneously share videos of mainly events featuring brutality, social networking can be a vital tool in revolutions.[152] On the flip side, social networks enable government authorities to easily identify, and repress, protestors and dissidents.[153] Another political application of social media is promoting the involvement of younger generations in politics and ongoing political issues.[154]
Perhaps the most significant political application of social media is Barack Obama's election campaign in 2008. It was the first of its kind, as it successfully incorporated social media into its campaign winning strategy, evolving the way of political campaigns forevermore in the ever-changing technological world we find ourselves in today. His campaign won by engaging everyday people and empowering volunteers, donors, and advocates, through social networks, text messaging, email messaging and online videos.[155] Obama's social media campaign was vast, with his campaign boasting 5 million 'friends' on over 15 social networking sites, with over 3 million friends just on Facebook.[156] Another significant success of the campaign was online videos, with nearly 2,000 YouTube videos being put online, receiving over 80 million views.[156]
In 2007, when Obama first announced his candidacy, there was no such thing as an iPhone or Twitter. However, a year later, Obama was sending out voting reminders to thousands of people through Twitter, showing just how fast social media moves. Obama's campaign was current and needed to be successful in incorporating social media, as social media acts best and is most effective in real time.[157]
Building up to the 2012 presidential election, it was interesting to see how strong the influence of social media would be following the 2008 campaigns, where Obama's winning campaign had been social media-heavy, whereas McCain's campaign did not really grasp social media. John F. Kennedy was the first president who really understood television, and similarly, Obama is the first president to fully understand the power of social media.[158] Obama has recognized social media is about creating relationships and connections and therefore used social media to the advantage of presidential election campaigns, in which Obama has dominated his opponents in terms of social media space.
Other political campaigns have followed on from Obama's successful social media campaigns, recognizing the power of social media and incorporating it as a key factor embedded within their political campaigns, for example, Donald Trump's presidential electoral campaign, 2016. Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's former digital and social media guru, commented that Donald Trump is "way better at the internet than anyone else in the GOP which is partly why he is winning".[159]
Research has shown that 66% of social media users actively engage in political activity online, and like many other behaviors, online activities translate into offline ones.[158] With research from the 'MacArthur Research Network on Youth and Participatory Politics' stating that young people who are politically active online are double as likely to vote than those who are not politically active online.[158] Therefore, political applications of social networking sites are crucial, particularly to engage with the youth, who perhaps are the least educated in politics and the most in social networking sites. Social media is, therefore, a very effective way in which politicians can connect with a younger audience through their political campaigns.[160]
On June 28, 2020, The New York Times released an article sharing the finding of two researchers who studied the impact of TikTok, a video-sharing and social networking application, on political expression. The application, besides being a creative space to express oneself, has been used maliciously to spread disinformation ahead of US President Donald Trump's Tulsa rally in Oklahoma and amplified footage of police brutality at Black Lives Matter protests.[161]
Crowdsourcing applications
[edit]Crowdsourcing social media platform, such as Design Contest, Arcbazar, Tongal, combined group of professional freelancers, such as designers, and help them communicate with business owners interested in their suggestion. This process is often used to subdivide tedious work or to fund-raise startup companies and charities, and can also occur offline.[162]
Open source software
[edit]There are a number of projects that aim to develop free and open source software to use for social networking services. These technologies are often referred to as social engine or social networking engine software.
Largest social networking services
[edit]The following is a list of the largest social networking services, in order by number of active users, as of January 2024, as published by Statista:[163]
| Service | Active users (in millions) |
|---|---|
| 3,049 | |
| YouTube | 2,491 |
| WhatsApp* | 2,000 |
| 2,000 | |
| TikTok | 1,562 |
| 1,336 | |
| Facebook Messenger | 979 |
| Telegram | 800 |
| Douyin** | 752 |
| Snapchat | 750 |
| Kuaishou | 685 |
| X (Twitter) | 619 |
| Sina Weibo | 605 |
| 558 | |
| 482 |
*Platforms have not published updated user figures in the past 12 months, figures may be out of date and less reliable
**Figure uses daily active users, so monthly active user number is likely higher
See also
[edit]- Anonymous social media
- Collective intelligence
- Comparison of research networking tools and research profiling systems
- Distributed social network
- Enterprise bookmarking
- Gender differences in social network service use
- Geosocial networking
- Internet
- Internet forum
- Lateral diffusion
- List of social gaming networks
- List of social networking services
- Mass collaboration
- Mobile social network
- Personal network
- Professional network service
- Virtual volunteering
- Social aspects of television
- Social bookmarking
- Social identity
- Social media
- Social network
- Social seating
- Social software
- Social television
- Social web
- Virtual community
- List of social platforms with at least 100 million active users
References
[edit]- ^ Obar, Jonathan A.; Wildman, Steve (October 2015). "Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue". Telecommunications Policy. 39 (9): 745–750. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2015.07.014. ISSN 0308-5961. SSRN 2647377.
- ^ a b c d e f g boyd, danah M.; Ellison, Nicole B. (October 2007). "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 13 (1): 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x. S2CID 52810295.
- ^ Mlaïki, Alya; Walsh, Isabelle; Kalika, Michel (February 17, 2017). "Why Do We Continue Using Social Networking Sites? The Giving Loop that feeds Computer-Mediated Social Ties". Systèmes d'Information et Management. 22 (2): 5–47. doi:10.3917/sim.172.0005.
- ^ Joseph, R. (1993), "Touch Me—Feel Me—Feed Me— Kiss Me!", The Naked Neuron, Springer US, pp. 71–98, doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-6008-5_4, ISBN 978-0-306-44510-1
- ^ "Company Info". Facebook Newsroom. Archived from the original on November 15, 2015. Retrieved April 12, 2018.
- ^ Thelwall, Mike (2009). "Chapter 2 Social Network Sites". Social Networking and the Web. Advances in Computers. Vol. 76. pp. 19–73. doi:10.1016/S0065-2458(09)01002-X. ISBN 978-0-12-374811-9.
- ^ "India records highest social networking growth Rate: Study". news.biharprabha.com. IANS. July 26, 2014. Archived from the original on August 3, 2014. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
- ^ Lunden, Ingrid (December 30, 2013). "73% Of U.S. Adults Use Social Networks, Pinterest Passes Twitter In Popularity, Facebook Stays On Top". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on October 27, 2015. Retrieved October 17, 2015.
- ^ a b c Buettner, Ricardo (2017). "Getting a job via career-oriented social networking markets: The weakness of too many ties". Electronic Markets. 27 (4): 371–385. doi:10.1007/s12525-017-0248-3. S2CID 21257828.
- ^ Dunbar, R. (November 14, 2003). "PSYCHOLOGY: Evolution of the Social Brain". Science. 302 (5648): 1160–1161. doi:10.1126/science.1092116. PMID 14615522. S2CID 144329128.
- ^ a b Granovetter, Mark (1983). "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited". Sociological Theory. 1: 201–233. doi:10.2307/202051. JSTOR 202051. S2CID 11450758.
- ^ Christakis, Nicholas A; Fowler, James H (2009). Connected: the surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Little, Brown and Co. ISBN 978-0-316-03614-6. OCLC 318879253. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved December 17, 2019.[page needed]
- ^ Tong, Stephanie Tom; Van Der Heide, Brandon; Langwell, Lindsey; Walther, Joseph B. (April 2008). "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 13 (3): 531–549. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00409.x.
- ^ a b Utz, Sonja (July 10, 2016). "Is LinkedIn making you more successful? The informational benefits derived from public social media". New Media & Society. 18 (11): 2685–2702. doi:10.1177/1461444815604143. S2CID 34629543.
- ^ Buettner, Ricardo (June 27, 2016). "Innovative Personality-based Digital Services". PACIS 2016 Proceedings. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Gonçalves, Bruno; Perra, Nicola; Vespignani, Alessandro; Perc, Matjaz (August 3, 2011). "Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar's Number". PLOS ONE. 6 (8) e22656. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...622656G. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022656. PMC 3149601. PMID 21826200.
- ^ Hofer, Matthias; Aubert, Viviane (November 2013). "Perceived bridging and bonding social capital on Twitter: Differentiating between followers and followees". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (6): 2134–2142. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.038.
- ^ Buettner, Ricardo (2010). "Cooperation in Hunting and Food-Sharing: A Two-Player Bio-inspired Trust Model". Bioinspired Models of Network, Information, and Computing Systems. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Vol. 39. pp. 1–10. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12808-0_1. ISBN 978-3-642-12807-3. S2CID 18859753.
- ^ Buettner, Ricardo (June 27, 2016). "Personality as a predictor of Business Social Media Usage: an Empirical Investigation of Xing Usage Patterns". PACIS 2016 Proceedings. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Buettner, Ricardo; Buettner, Katharina (2016). "A Systematic Literature Review of Twitter Research from a Socio-Political Revolution Perspective". 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). pp. 2206–2215. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2016.277. ISBN 978-0-7695-5670-3. S2CID 206708385.
- ^ a b Kane, Gerald C.; Alavi, Maryam; Labianca, Giuseppe; Borgatti, Stephen P. (2014). "What's Different about Social Media Networks? A Framework and Research Agenda". MIS Quarterly. 38 (1): 274–304. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.1.13. S2CID 42658179.
- ^ Büttner, Ricardo (2006). "The State of the Art in Automated Negotiation Models of the Behavior and. Information Perspective" (PDF). ITSSA. 1 (4): 351–356. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 16, 2013. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Landes, Jürgen; Buettner, Ricardo (2012). "Argumentation–Based Negotiation? Negotiation–Based Argumentation!". E-Commerce and Web Technologies. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Vol. 123. pp. 149–162. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32273-0_13. ISBN 978-3-642-32272-3.
- ^ Buettner, Ricardo (June 27, 2016). "A User's Cognitive Workload Perspective in Negotiation Support Systems: An Eye-tracking Experiment". PACIS 2016 Proceedings. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-03614-6.[page needed]
- ^ Levin, Daniel Z.; Cross, Rob (November 2004). "The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer". Management Science. 50 (11): 1477–1490. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1030.0136.
- ^ De Meo, Pasquale; Ferrara, Emilio; Fiumara, Giacomo; Provetti, Alessandro (2014). "On Facebook, most ties are weak". Communications of the ACM. 57 (11): 78–84. arXiv:1203.0535. doi:10.1145/2629438. S2CID 16805499.
- ^ Freeman, Linton C. (1977). "A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness". Sociometry. 40 (1): 35–41. doi:10.2307/3033543. JSTOR 3033543.
- ^ a b Miritello, Giovanna; Lara, Rubén; Cebrian, Manuel; Moro, Esteban (June 6, 2013). "Limited communication capacity unveils strategies for human interaction". Scientific Reports. 3 (1): 1950. arXiv:1304.1979. Bibcode:2013NatSR...3E1950M. doi:10.1038/srep01950. PMC 3674429. PMID 23739519.
- ^ The Network Nation 2 by S. Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff (Addison-Wesley, 1978, 1993)
- ^ Michael Hauben, Ronda Hauben, and Thomas Truscott (April 27, 1997). Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet (Perspectives). Wiley-IEEE Computer Society P. ISBN 0-8186-7706-6[page needed]
- ^ Katie Hafner, The WELL: A Story of Love, Death and Real Life in the Seminal Online Community (2001) Carroll & Graf Publishers ISBN 0-7867-0846-8[page needed]
- ^ Cotriss, David (May 29, 2008). "Where are they now: TheGlobe.com". The Industry Standard. Archived from the original on February 4, 2009.
- ^ Romm-Livermore, C. & Setzekorn, K. (2008). Social Networking Communities and E-Dating Services: Concepts and Implications. IGI Global. p.271
- ^ Kaplan, Andreas M.; Haenlein, Michael (January 2010). "Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media". Business Horizons. 53 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003. S2CID 16741539.
- ^ Seminerio, Maria (December 1, 1998). "The Open Diary Takes Off". ZDNet. Archived from the original on March 23, 2019. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
- ^ "Japan's Social Game Giant Mixi Sees More M&As Coming in the Future". Tokyo Business Today. Toyo Keizai. May 3, 2016. Archived from the original on July 15, 2018. Retrieved June 3, 2018.
- ^ Island, Long (September 30, 2010). "From Friendster To MySpace To Facebook: The Evolution and Deaths Of Social Networks". longislandpress.com. Archived from the original on September 28, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2013.
- ^ Gibby Miller (October 6, 2008). "Inventing the Social Network". bnet.com. Archived from the original on October 1, 2011. Retrieved August 7, 2013.
- ^ Thelwall, M. & Stuart, D. (2010). Social Network Sites. In Panayiotis Zaphiris & Chee Siang Ang, Social Computing and Virtual Communities, p.271 "In some ways the Korean Cyworld can claim to have been in 2001 the first successful general-purpose social network site, since it did not focus on a particular community or activity but aimed at a mass user-base." "Cyworld, of Korean origin, is a socialising SNS that is dominant in South Korea." (Cyworld was launched in 1999 but added social features in 2001.)
- ^ Knapp, E. (2005). A Parent's Guide to MySpace. DayDream Publishers. ISBN 1-4196-4146-8
- ^ E-Society: My World Is Cyworld Archived March 8, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, businessweek.com, September 26, 2005
- ^ Tapping into growing market for virtual goods Archived December 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, seattlepi.com, November 2, 2009 9:56 p.m. PT
- ^ Steve Rosenbush (2005). News Corp.'s Place in MySpace Archived March 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, July 19, 2005. (MySpace Page Views figures)
- ^ "Social graph-iti" Archived February 5, 2010, at the Wayback Machine: Facebook's social network graphing: article from The Economist's website. Retrieved January 19, 2008.
- ^ Kazeniac, Andy (February 9, 2009). "Social Networks: Facebook Takes Over Top Spot, Twitter Climbs". Blog.compete.com. Archived from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved August 7, 2013.
- ^ "social media". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on July 8, 2022. Retrieved June 9, 2022.
- ^ "Social Media". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved November 27, 2015.
- ^ "Social networking goes global". Reston, VAR: comscore.com. 2007. Archived from the original on August 19, 2007. Retrieved September 9, 2007.
- ^ Mackaay, Ejan (1990). "Economic Incentives in Markets for Information and Innovation". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 13 (909): 867–910.
- ^ Heylighen, Francis (2007). "Why is Open Access Development so Successful?". In B. Lutterbeck, M. Barwolff; R. A. Gehring (eds.). Open Source Jahrbuch. Lehmanns Media.
- ^ Ariel, Yaron; Avidar, Ruth (2014). "Information, Interactivity, and Social Media". Atlantic Journal of Communication. 23 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1080/15456870.2015.972404. S2CID 36235531.
- ^ "uses and gratification theory". February 3, 2010. Archived from the original on September 30, 2015. Retrieved September 30, 2015.
- ^ Gross, R and Acquisti, A (2005). Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks (The Facebook case) Archived July 22, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Pre-proceedings version. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES)
- ^ a b boyd, danah (December 3, 2007). "Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life". SSRN 1518924.
- ^ Woodman, Dan; Wyn, Johanna (2015). Youth and Generation. SAGE. p. 132. ISBN 978-1-4462-5904-7.
- ^ "Usage of social media as a news source worldwide 2020". Statista. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
- ^ Martin, Nicole. "How Social Media Has Changed How We Consume News". Forbes. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
- ^ "People say they regularly see false and misleading content on social media – but also new ideas". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. May 13, 2019. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
- ^ Shearer, Elisa; Barthel, Michael; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Mitchell, Amy (July 14, 2015). "The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook". Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. Archived from the original on October 27, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Peck, Andrew (2020). "A Problem of Amplification: Folklore and Fake News in the Age of Social Media". The Journal of American Folklore. 133 (529): 329–351. doi:10.5406/jamerfolk.133.529.0329. ISSN 0021-8715. JSTOR 10.5406/jamerfolk.133.529.0329. S2CID 243130538.
- ^ Mody, Milind (October 14, 2015). "Facebook Preferred by Youngsters. Older lot still prefer "Word of Mouth" as the Most Trusted Source of Medium". Archived from the original on April 26, 2016. Retrieved April 13, 2016.
- ^ Silverman, Rachel Emma (August 21, 2007). "A New Generation Reinvents Philanthropy". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on August 9, 2017. Retrieved August 9, 2017.
- ^ "Half of employees banned from Facebook at work". The Daily Telegraph. May 11, 2011. Archived from the original on December 26, 2017. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
- ^ "50% of British employers have banned Facebook from the office. What do you think?". OfficeFreedom. May 11, 2011. Archived from the original on May 15, 2011. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
- ^ Matook, Sabine; Cummings, Jeff; Bala, Hillol (April 15, 2015). "Are You Feeling Lonely? The Impact of Relationship Characteristics and Online Social Network Features on Loneliness" (PDF). Journal of Management Information Systems. 31 (4): 278–310. doi:10.1080/07421222.2014.1001282. S2CID 24442525.
- ^ Lister, p. 215[full citation needed]
- ^ a b Cover, Rob (2016). Digital Identities: Creating and Communicating the Online Self. Elsevier. ISBN 9780124200838[page needed]
- ^ 송, 영오 (March 23, 2016). "SNS 자주 방문하면 우울증 걸릴 확률 2.7배". Archived from the original on March 23, 2019.
- ^ Shakya, Holly B.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (January 16, 2017). "Association of Facebook Use With Compromised Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study". American Journal of Epidemiology. 185 (3): 203–211. doi:10.1093/aje/kww189. PMID 28093386. S2CID 9926583.
- ^ a b c d e Cramer, Emily M.; Song, Hayeon; Drent, Adam M. (November 2016). "Social comparison on Facebook: Motivation, affective consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue". Computers in Human Behavior. 64: 739–746. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.049.
- ^ a b Shakya, Holly B.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (January 16, 2017). "Association of Facebook Use With Compromised Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study". American Journal of Epidemiology. 185 (3): 203–211. doi:10.1093/aje/kww189. PMID 28093386. S2CID 9926583.
- Holly B. Shakya; Nicholas A. Christakis (April 10, 2017). "A New, More Rigorous Study Confirms: The More You Use Facebook, the Worse You Feel". Harvard Business Review.
- ^ Buckels, Erin E.; Trapnell, Paul D.; Paulhus, Delroy L. (September 2014). "Trolls just want to have fun". Personality and Individual Differences. 67: 97–102. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016. S2CID 8103910.
- ^ Shachaf, Pnina; Hara, Noriko (June 2010). "Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls" (PDF). Journal of Information Science. 36 (3): 357–370. doi:10.1177/0165551510365390. ISSN 0165-5515. S2CID 21846015.
- ^ a b Ward, Stephen; McLoughlin, Liam (January 2, 2020). "Turds, traitors and tossers: the abuse of UK MPs via Twitter". The Journal of Legislative Studies. 26 (1): 47–73. doi:10.1080/13572334.2020.1730502. ISSN 1357-2334. S2CID 150087555.
- ^ Pathak, Khamosh (June 1, 2020). "How to Change Your Instagram Username and Display Name". How-To Geek. Retrieved January 26, 2022.
- ^ a b Byrne, Ciara (August 23, 2012). "What you read is not what you share". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on September 9, 2012. Retrieved September 10, 2012.
- ^ Search for "e-commerce, social networking" Archived November 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Google Trends. Retrieved October 26, 2009.
- ^ Mackey, Jesica; McClure, Theresa; Heilman, Laura; Darbouze, Michael (January 4, 2017). "Perspectives from the Field: 21st Century Public Involvement". Environmental Practice. 18 (2): 123–124. doi:10.1017/S1466046616000120. S2CID 131901826.
- ^ Smith, Cooper (September 18, 2013). "Facebook Users Are Uploading 350 Million New Photos Each Day". Business Insider. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
- ^ Wasserman, Todd (April 6, 2012). "Pinterest is Now the No. 3 Social Network in the U.S. [STUDY]". Mashable. Archived from the original on August 9, 2012. Retrieved September 7, 2012.
- ^ MG Siegler (January 15, 2010). "Yelp Enables Check-Ins On Its iPhone App; Foursquare, Gowalla Ousted As Mayors". Techcrunch.com. Archived from the original on March 7, 2011. Retrieved March 13, 2011.
- ^ a b Nimetz, Jody. "Jody Nimetz on Emerging Trends in B2B Social Networking" Archived March 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Marketing-Jive, November 18, 2007. Retrieved October 26, 2009.
- ^ "Social Networking Fact Sheet". Pew Research. October 23, 2014. Archived from the original on October 24, 2014. Retrieved October 24, 2014.
- ^ Liebeskind, Julia Porter; Oliver, Amalya Lumerman; Zucker, Lynne; Brewer, Marilynn (1996). "Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms". Organization Science. 7 (4): 428–443. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.4.428. JSTOR 2635102. S2CID 166857575. Archived from the original on January 6, 2020. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Bianchini, Laurence (May 14, 2012). "Social Networks for Scientists". MyScienceWork. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved April 22, 2014.
- ^ a b Ferri, Fernando; Grifoni, Patrizia; Guzzo, Tiziana (September 20, 2011). "New forms of social and professional digital relationships: the case of Facebook". Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2 (2): 121–137. doi:10.1007/s13278-011-0038-4. S2CID 15925282.
- ^ Van Eperen, Laura; Marincola, Francesco M (November 15, 2011). "How scientists use social media to communicate their research". Journal of Translational Medicine. 9 (1): 199. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-9-199. PMC 3231985. PMID 22085450.
- ^ Bianchini, Laurence (July 4, 2012). "Scientific Social Networks: Different Approaches for Different Disciplines". MyScienceWork. Archived from the original on July 3, 2015. Retrieved October 17, 2015.
- ^ Thelwall, Mike; Kousha, Kayvan (April 2014). "Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network?" (PDF). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (4): 721–731. doi:10.1002/asi.23038. hdl:2436/621523. S2CID 37382952. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 10, 2019. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
- ^ Thelwall, Mike; Kousha, Kayvan (May 2015). "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66 (5): 876–889. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.589.5396. doi:10.1002/asi.23236. S2CID 8974197.
- ^ Thelwall, Mike; Kousha, Kayvan (February 2017). "ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68 (2): 468–479. doi:10.1002/asi.23675. hdl:2436/609261. S2CID 34087837.
- ^ Manca, Stefania (February 20, 2018). "ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: a literature review". Research in Learning Technology. 26. doi:10.25304/rlt.v26.2008.
- ^ a b Livingstone, Sonia; Brake, David R (December 2010). "On the Rapid Rise of Social Networking Sites: New Findings and Policy Implications" (PDF). Children & Society. 24 (1): 75–83. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00243.x. S2CID 54586758. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 31, 2012. Retrieved July 16, 2012.
- ^ a b c Lenhart, Amanda; Purcell, Kristen; Smith, Aaron; Zickuhr, Kathryn (February 3, 2010). Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Archived from the original on November 7, 2014. Retrieved November 7, 2014.
- ^ Albayrak, D.; Yildirim, Z (2015). "Using Social Networking Sites for Teaching and Learning: Students' Involvement in and Acceptance of Facebook as a Course Management System". Journal of Educational Computing Research. 52 (2): 155–179. doi:10.1177/0735633115571299. hdl:11693/23247. S2CID 59430125.
- ^ Arruda, William (March 4, 2014). "22 LinkedIn Secrets LinkedIn Won't Tell You". Forbes. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved October 17, 2015.
- ^ "7 professional network alternatives to LinkedIn for job seekers". Archived from the original on September 21, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2020.
- ^ 13 Awesome Professional Networking Alternatives to LinkedIn
- ^ 3 Websites to Help you Find Volunteer Opportunities
- ^ Getting started with WWOOF
- ^ Davis, Michelle R. (June 16, 2010). "Social Networking Goes to School". Digital Directions. Archived from the original on November 4, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- ^ Ellison, Nicole B.; Steinfield, Charles; Lampe, Cliff (2007). "The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Student's Use of Online Social Network Sites" (PDF). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 12 (4): 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x. S2CID 11940919. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 22, 2012. Retrieved July 16, 2012.
- ^ Kelly, N.; Antonio, A. (2016). "Teacher peer support in social network sites" (PDF). Teaching and Teacher Education. 56 (1): 138–149. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.02.007. S2CID 147621766.
- ^ Knobel, Michelle; Lankshear, Colin (2008). Digital Literacy and Participation in Online Social Networking Spaces. New York: Peter Lang. pp. 249–278.
- ^ Doering, Aaron; Beach, Richard; O'Brien, David (October 2007). "Infusing Multimodal Tools and Digital Literacies into an English Education Program". English Education. 40 (1): 41–60. doi:10.58680/ee20076425. JSTOR 40173267.
- ^ Buzzetto-More, Nicole A. (2010). "Social Networking in Undergraduate Education". Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management. 7: 63–90. doi:10.28945/1578.
- ^ "2012 Learn English Comparisons". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on September 1, 2012. Retrieved September 3, 2012.
- ^ Mason, Robin, and Rennie, Frank (2008). E-Learning and Social Networking Handbook Resources for Higher Education. Hoboken: Rutledge. pp. 1–24. ISBN 978-0-203-92776-2.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Luo, Tian; Gao, Fei (January 1, 2012). "Enhancing Classroom Learning Experience by Providing Structures to Microblogging-Based Activities". Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice. 11: 199–211. doi:10.28945/1689. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ "How to Integrate Technology in the Classroom". School of Education. August 3, 2020. Retrieved March 7, 2023.
- ^ a b Gardner, J. Clark (2010). Facebook's Potential in the Classroom (Report). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.695.6098.
- ^ Graber, Diana; Mendoza, Kelly (September 10, 2013). "New Media Literacy Education (NMLE): A Developmental Approach". Journal of Media Literacy Education. 4 (1). Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Jenkins, Henry (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. ISBN 978-0-262-51362-3.[page needed]
- ^ Taylor, Gina; Rozi, Kristina (2010). Current Issues and Trends: Social Networking (Report). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.395.234.
- ^ Gee, James Paul (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. London: Routledge.[page needed]
- ^ Livingstone, Sonia; Bober, Magdalena (July 2004). UK children go online: surveying the experiences of young people and their parents. London School of Economics (Report).
- ^ Muñoz, Caroline Lego; Towner, Terri (December 1, 2011). "Back to the 'wall': How to use Facebook in the college classroom". First Monday. 16 (12). doi:10.5210/fm.v16i12.3513.
- ^ Davis, Michelle R. (June 16, 2010). "Social Networking Goes to School". Education Week. 3 (3): 16–23.
- ^ Waddington, Jayme (January 19, 2011). "Social Networking: The Unharnessed Educational Tool". Undergraduate Research Journal at UCCS. 4 (1): 12–18. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
- ^ Grieve; et al. (2013). "Face-to-Face or Facebook? Can social connectedness be derived online?". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (3): 604–6099. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.017. S2CID 7232896.
- ^ Grieve, Rachel (February 5, 2013). "Thumbs up: Facebook might actually be good for you". The Conversation. Archived from the original on September 30, 2015. Retrieved October 17, 2015.
- ^ Carlson, Ben (April 28, 2010). "March 2.0: success of the National Equality March relied on social media tools". Media Bullseye. Archived from the original on October 18, 2017. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
- ^ Arabie, Phipps, and Yoram Wind. "Marketing and Social Networks" Archived October 9, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. In Stanley Wasserman and Joseph Galaskiewicz, Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 254–273. ISBN 0-8039-4302-4
- ^ Baert, Stijn (2018). "Facebook profile picture appearance affects recruiters' first hiring decisions". New Media & Society. 20 (3): 1220–1239. doi:10.1177/1461444816687294. hdl:1854/LU-8507595. S2CID 4956047. Archived from the original on December 19, 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
- ^ Chambers, Clem. "Murdoch Will Earn a Payday from MySpace" Archived September 9, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Forbes, March 30, 2006. Retrieved October 26, 2009.
- ^ Tynan, Dan. "As Applications Blossom, Facebook Is Open for Business" Archived August 26, 2014, at the Wayback Machine Wired, July 30, 2007. Retrieved October 26, 2009.
- ^ Kovach, Steve (September 18, 2014). "Tim Cook ripped apart Google's Business Model in Two Paragraphs". Business Insider. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved October 5, 2014.
- ^ Flor, Nick V. (2000). Web Business Engineering: Using Offline Activities to Drive Internet Strategies. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-60468-X; Flor, Nick V. "Week 1: The Business Model Approach to Web Site Design" Archived January 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. InformIT, March 2, 2001. Retrieved October 26, 2009. Description of the autonomous business model used in social networking services.
- ^ Kaushal, R. (2016). "Tie strength prediction in OSN". 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom): 841–844. ISBN 978-9-3805-4421-2. Archived from the original on February 18, 2020. Retrieved February 18, 2020.
- ^ Bargh, John A.; McKenna, Katelyn Y. A. (February 2004). "The Internet and Social Life". Annual Review of Psychology. 55 (1): 573–590. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.586.3942. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922. PMID 14744227. S2CID 14078906.
- ^ "MySpace exposes sex predators", use of its content in the courtroom: Herald and Weekly Times (Australia) website. Retrieved January 19, 2008.
- ^ "Getting booked by Facebook" Archived May 31, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, courtesy of campus police: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website. Retrieved January 19, 2008.
- ^ "Police use Facebook to identify weapon carriers" Archived October 16, 2009, at the Wayback Machine The Journal (Edinburgh) website. Retrieved May 11, 2009
- ^ "Government Agencies Establishing Presence on Social-Networking Sites". Itbusinessedge.com. Retrieved March 13, 2011.[permanent dead link]
- ^ "NSA Collecting Social Media Information from Citizens". Liberty Voice. September 29, 2013. Archived from the original on December 29, 2014. Retrieved September 3, 2014.
- ^ "OSTP Press Release Announcing Review (pdf, 50k)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 24, 2010. Retrieved March 13, 2011.
- ^ Fraser, Matthew; Dutta, Soumitra (2008). Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-74014-9.
- ^ MySpace, Facebook Add Opportunity for Love, Trouble to Online Dating, FoxNews.com website.
- ^ MySpace Adds a Security Monitor Archived March 24, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, NPR.com website.
- ^ Online Dating: Can Social Networks Cut In? Archived January 2, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, internetnews.com website.
- ^ "Online Dating vs. Social Networking – Which Will Emerge as Premier Matchmaker?". localtechwire.com. August 18, 2008. Archived from the original on January 6, 2010. Retrieved February 24, 2009.
- ^ Seeking Love Around The Web Archived September 9, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Forbes website.
- ^ Jordan, Andy (September 9, 2009). "Wall street journal blog article about Ven". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 2, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2013.
- ^ "Virtual currency used for commodity trade". finextra.com. April 15, 2011. Archived from the original on May 26, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2013.
- ^ "Virtual Currencies as Commodities?". December 3, 2018. Archived from the original on February 12, 2019. Retrieved February 12, 2019.
- ^ "Ven Now Includes Carbon Futures". hubculture.com. July 5, 2010. Archived from the original on October 2, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2013.
- ^ "Social Networking: Now Professionally Ready". primarypsychiatry.com. Archived from the original on July 15, 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2007.
- ^ Comprehensive listing of medical applications using social networking via Dose of Digital
- ^ Kousiouris, George; Akbar, Adnan; Sancho, Juan; Ta-shma, Paula; Psychas, Alexandros; Kyriazis, Dimosthenis; Varvarigou, Theodora (January 2018). "An integrated information lifecycle management framework for exploiting social network data to identify dynamic large crowd concentration events in smart cities applications" (PDF). Future Generation Computer Systems. 78: 516–530. doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.07.026. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
- ^ Auer, Matthew R. (November 2011). "The Policy Sciences of Social Media". Policy Studies Journal. 39 (4): 709–736. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00428.x. S2CID 153590593. SSRN 1974080.
- ^ Sutter, John D. (February 21, 2011). "The faces of Egypt's 'Revolution 2.0'". CNN. Archived from the original on May 13, 2011. Retrieved May 13, 2011.
- ^ Earl, Jennifer; Maher, Thomas V.; Pan, Jennifer (March 11, 2022). "The digital repression of social movements, protest, and activism: A synthetic review". Science Advances. 8 (10) eabl8198. Bibcode:2022SciA....8L8198E. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl8198. PMC 10953837. PMID 35263143. S2CID 247360932.
- ^ Bakker, Tom P.; de Vreese, Claes H. (January 20, 2011). "Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation". Communication Research. 38 (4): 451–470. doi:10.1177/0093650210381738. S2CID 206437627.
- ^ Aaker, Jennifer; Chang, Victoria (2009). Obama and the Power of Social Media and Technology. Stanford Graduate School of Business (Report). Archived from the original on November 18, 2019. Retrieved November 18, 2019.
- ^ a b Mark McNally (2010). "10 Social Media lessons - Barack Obama election campaign". Archived from the original on May 13, 2016. Retrieved April 26, 2016.
- ^ "Obama and the Power of Social Media and Technology". Stanford Graduate School of Business. Retrieved March 14, 2023.
- ^ a b c "How Obama Won the Social Media Battle in the 2012 Presidential Campaign". Media Psychology Research Center. Archived from the original on April 27, 2016. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
- ^ Parkinson, Hannah Jane (2015). "Can Donald Trump's social media genius take him all the way to the White House?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on April 24, 2016. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
- ^ "How Social Media Is Shaping Political Campaigns". Knowledge at Wharton. Retrieved March 14, 2023.
- ^ Herrman, John (June 28, 2020). "TikTok Is Shaping Politics. But How?". The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2020.
- ^ Howe, Jeff (2006). "The Rise of Crowdsourcing". Wired. Archived from the original on April 14, 2007. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
- ^ "Most famous social network sites worldwide as of July 2023, ranked by number of active users (in millions)". Statista. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
Further reading
[edit]- Buchheit, Paul (founder of FriendFeed). An essay on the features that seem to define the social network aspect of a product.
- Alemán, Ana M. Martínez; Wartman, Katherine Lynk, "Online social networking on campus: understanding what matters in student culture", New York and London: Routledge, 1st edition, 2009. ISBN 0-415-99019-X
- Barham, Nick, Disconnected: Why our kids are turning their backs on everything we thought we knew, 1st ed., Ebury Press, 2004. ISBN 0-09-189586-3
- Baron, Naomi S., Always on: language in an online and mobile world, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-531305-5
- Cao, Jinwei; Basoglu, Kamile; Sheng, Hong; Lowry, Paul Benjamin (June 1, 2015). "A Systematic Review of Social Networking Research in Information Systems". SSRN 2525108.
- Cockrell, Cathy, "Plumbing the mysterious practices of 'digital youth': In the first public report from a 'seminal' study, UC Berkeley scholars shed light on kids' use of Web 2.0 tools", UC Berkeley News, University of California, Berkeley, NewsCenter, April 28, 2008
- Davis, Donald Carrington (2007). "Myspace Isn't Your Space: Expanding the Fair Credit Reporting Act to Ensure Accountability and Fairness in Employer Searches of Online Social Networking Services". Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1601471. S2CID 166271279. SSRN 1601471.
- Else, Liz; Turkle, Sherry (September 13, 2006). "Living online: I'll have to ask my friends". New Scientist.
- Glaser, Mark, Your Guide to Social Networking Online", PBS MediaShift, August 2007
- Powers, William, Hamlet's Blackberry: a practical philosophy for building a good life in the digital age, 1st ed., New York: Harper, 2010. ISBN 978-0-06-168716-7
- Robert W. Gehl, Reverse Engineering Social Media: Software, Culture, and Political Economy in New Media Capitalism, Philadelphia: Temple University Press 2014, ISBN 978-1-43991-035-1.
- Sharples, Mike; Graber, Rebecca; Harrison, Colin; Logan, Kit (January 16, 2009). "E-safety and Web 2.0 for children aged 11–16" (PDF). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 25 (1): 70–84. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00304.x. S2CID 5733615.
External links
[edit]- The rise of social media, by Esteban Ortiz-Ospina (Our World in Data, Sep. 18, 2019) – Includes graph showing exponential growth
Social networking service
View on GrokipediaDefinitions and Distinctions
Core Characteristics
Social networking services (SNSs), also known as social network sites, are defined as web-based platforms that enable 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.[14] This framework, articulated by researchers danah boyd and Nicole Ellison in their 2007 analysis published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, distinguishes SNSs by their emphasis on facilitating persistent social ties rather than transient interactions or content dissemination alone.[15] Profiles typically include user-provided data such as biographical details, photographs, and interests, which serve as the foundational representation of the individual on the platform.[14] Central to SNS functionality is the mechanism for establishing and visualizing connections, often termed "friends," "followers," or "contacts," which represent mutual or directed social relationships.[16] These connections enable users to maintain awareness of others' activities through feeds or timelines that aggregate updates, reinforcing the platform's role in sustaining real-world and virtual social networks.[14] Unlike email or instant messaging, which prioritize private dyadic communication, SNSs inherently promote visibility across a user's network, allowing traversal of connections to discover indirect relationships, such as friends-of-friends.[15] This networked structure underpins features like algorithmic recommendations for new connections based on shared ties or interests, though the core bounded system limits interactions to registered users within the platform's ecosystem.[14] SNSs require user authentication and content moderation within their defined boundaries to manage access and privacy settings, which can range from fully public profiles to restricted visibility for designated connections only.[16] The persistence of profiles and connections—data that endures beyond individual sessions—differentiates SNSs from ephemeral services, enabling longitudinal relationship management and content archiving.[14] While platforms may incorporate additional affordances like multimedia sharing or group formations, these build upon the foundational triad of profiles, articulated connections, and traversable networks, which remain invariant across evolutions in technology or user base size.[15] Empirical studies confirm that user engagement correlates strongly with the strength and density of these personal networks, as measured by metrics like connection reciprocity and interaction frequency.[14]Differentiation from Other Digital Services
Social networking services (SNS) are distinguished from other digital services primarily by their emphasis on persistent user profiles that serve as central hubs for identity representation and social connections, enabling scalable, networked interactions among users who explicitly link to one another as friends, followers, or contacts. This contrasts with email services, which facilitate primarily asynchronous, point-to-point communication without requiring or leveraging ongoing profile-based networks; for instance, email lacks the bidirectional linking of users into visible graphs that SNS employ to propagate content through personal ties. Similarly, unlike static websites or blogs, where content is authored by individuals or small teams for broad audiences without inherent relational structures, SNS integrate user-generated content directly into relational feeds, fostering interactions like comments, shares, and endorsements that are algorithmically prioritized based on connection strength. A key differentiator lies in the platform's architecture for social capital accumulation and mobilization, where users build and maintain audiences through reciprocal connections rather than mere broadcasting, as seen in podcasting or video streaming services like YouTube, which prioritize discoverability via search or recommendations over personal network traversal. For example, platforms such as Facebook, launched in 2004, explicitly modeled interactions around "social graphs" to simulate real-world relational dynamics, allowing content virality through chains of mutual acquaintances—a feature absent in one-way content delivery systems like news aggregators or RSS feeds. This relational focus also sets SNS apart from multiplayer gaming or collaborative tools like wikis, which emphasize task-oriented or ephemeral group formation without the persistent, identity-centric profiling that underpins SNS user retention and data economies. Empirical analyses confirm that SNS outperform other services in metrics of relational engagement; a 2007 study of over 1,300 U.S. college students found that time spent on SNS correlated strongly with bridging social capital (e.g., diverse connections) compared to non-networked online activities like web surfing, which yielded minimal interpersonal gains. In contrast, instant messaging services, while interactive, operate on closed dyads or small groups without the public, scalable visibility of SNS profiles, limiting their role in broader social discovery or influence propagation. These distinctions have causal implications for user behavior: SNS design incentivizes frequent, low-friction status updates and feedback loops that reinforce network effects, driving adoption rates far exceeding those of isolated digital tools, as evidenced by Facebook's user base growing from 1 million in 2004 to over 500 million by 2010 through connection-driven invitations.Historical Development
Pre-Digital and Early Online Foundations
The conceptual foundations of social networking trace to pre-digital human interactions, where individuals formed connections through shared interests via letters, clubs, and gatherings, but digital precursors emerged with early electronic communication technologies that enabled scalable, mediated exchanges. The telegraph in the 1840s and telephone in 1876 facilitated rapid person-to-person messaging over distances, laying groundwork for networked communication by decoupling geography from interaction, though these remained point-to-point rather than multi-user platforms.[17][18] Early online foundations began with ARPANET, launched in 1969 by the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, which connected four university computers for resource sharing and demonstrated packet-switching networks as a basis for distributed computing.[19] This evolved into the internet's backbone, enabling protocols for data exchange that later supported user interactions. In 1971, Ray Tomlinson sent the first network email using the "@" symbol to route messages between computers on ARPANET, introducing asynchronous digital correspondence that mimicked personal letters but scaled to networks.[20] Bulletin Board Systems (BBSes) marked a pivotal shift in the late 1970s, with the first operational BBS created in February 1978 by Ward Christensen and Randy Suess in Chicago using an Apple II computer and modem; users dialed in sequentially to post messages, share files, and engage in forums, forming proto-communities limited by single-line access and local scope.[21] By the early 1980s, thousands of BBSes proliferated globally via FidoNet for inter-BBS messaging, fostering hobbyist groups around computing, gaming, and activism, though constrained by phone line costs and no real-time features.[22] Usenet, developed in 1979 by Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis at Duke University and operational by 1980, extended these ideas through a distributed network of newsgroups for threaded discussions, where users posted articles readable worldwide via NNTP protocol, amassing over 1,000 groups by the mid-1980s on topics from science to politics.[20] This decentralized model emphasized anonymity and open participation, influencing later forum-based interactions but suffering from spam and moderation challenges as adoption grew to millions of users by the 1990s.[23] Internet Relay Chat (IRC), introduced in August 1988 by Jarkko Oikarinen in Finland, provided the first widespread real-time text-based chatting across servers, with channels for group discussions that attracted tens of thousands of users by 1990 for casual talk, technical support, and subcultures.[24] IRC's client-server architecture and commands for private messaging and file transfers prefigured instant messaging in modern SNS, though it lacked persistent profiles or structured networks.[25] These systems collectively demonstrated core elements of digital sociality—user-generated content, community formation, and mediated connections—before graphical web interfaces, setting the stage for purpose-built social platforms.Launch of Pioneering Platforms (1995-2005)
TheGlobe.com, founded by Cornell University students Stephan Paternot and Todd Krizelman, launched on April 1, 1995, as one of the earliest online communities enabling users to create personalized profiles, publish content, and interact through chatrooms and message boards.[26][27] The platform attracted over 44,000 visits in its first month by emphasizing user-driven customization, predating more structured social graphs but foreshadowing participatory web features.[27] However, it struggled with monetization amid the dot-com bubble, leading to its decline by 2001 despite an initial public offering that valued it at hundreds of millions.[26] In 1997, SixDegrees.com debuted as the first service explicitly designed around social networking, founded by Andrew Weinreich and inspired by the "six degrees of separation" concept.[28] Users could build profiles, list friends, send messages, and surf connections, amassing around 1 million users before shutting down in 2000 due to high operational costs and premature market readiness for sustained engagement.[28] Its core innovation—combining personal profiles with explicit friend lists—laid the groundwork for later platforms, though limited internet infrastructure and user adoption hindered longevity. Friendster launched in March 2002, created by Jonathan Abrams to facilitate connections among friends and extend to dating, quickly gaining 5 million registered users within a year through viral friend-invitation mechanics.[29][30] The site emphasized profile creation, photo sharing, and "testimonials" from connections, but faltered from server overloads, slow performance, and internal mismanagement, allowing competitors to overtake it by 2004.[29][31] LinkedIn, co-founded by Reid Hoffman and launched on May 5, 2003, targeted professional networking with features for resumes, endorsements, and job connections, reaching 1,600 members in its first month.[32][33] Unlike consumer-focused predecessors, it prioritized verified identities and business utility, avoiding early pitfalls like spam through invitation-only growth.[34] MySpace followed in August 2003, developed by Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe under eUniverse, emphasizing customizable profiles, music sharing, and blogging, which appealed to teens and bands for self-promotion.[35][36] It exploded to 20 million users by mid-2005 via grassroots virality and low barriers to personalization.[35] Facebook emerged on February 4, 2004, initially as "TheFacebook" for Harvard students, founded by Mark Zuckerberg to digitize campus facebooks with profiles, friend lists, and wall postings restricted to verified .edu emails.[37][38] Within weeks, it expanded to other Ivy League schools, hitting 1 million users by late 2004 through exclusivity and real-name policies that fostered trust amid rising privacy concerns on open platforms.[37] These launches collectively shifted from niche experiments to scalable models, driven by improving broadband and email ubiquity, though many pioneers failed due to technical scalability limits rather than flawed concepts.[29][31]Explosive Growth and Web 2.0 Era (2006-2012)
The Web 2.0 paradigm, emphasizing user-generated content, interoperability, and collaborative platforms, catalyzed the mainstream adoption of social networking services from 2006 onward, transforming them from niche tools into central components of online interaction.[39] This period witnessed exponential user growth driven by network effects, where each new user increased the value for existing ones through expanded connections and content sharing. In the United States, social networking site usage among adults rose from approximately 16% in 2008 to 63% by 2012, reflecting broader global diffusion as broadband access proliferated and mobile integration began.[40] Platforms prioritized features like real-time updates and viral sharing, fostering viral loops that accelerated adoption beyond early adopters in education and entertainment sectors. Facebook exemplified this surge, expanding beyond college networks in September 2006 to anyone aged 13 or older, which propelled its monthly active users from 12 million at the end of 2006 to 58 million by December 2007 and over 600 million by 2010.[41][42] By September 2012, it reached 1 billion monthly active users, cementing its dominance through refined news feeds and photo-sharing tools that outpaced competitors in user retention.[43] Meanwhile, MySpace, which had hit 100 million users by 2006 and briefly overtook Google as the top English-language site, peaked at around 115 million monthly visitors in 2008 before declining sharply to 60 million by mid-2011 amid user migration to cleaner interfaces and better privacy controls elsewhere.[44][45] Twitter, launched publicly in March 2006, introduced microblogging with 140-character limits, experiencing explosive traction after a 2007 South by Southwest conference boost that increased daily tweets from thousands to tens of thousands.[46] Tweet volume grew over 1,400% annually through 2009, reaching an estimated 200 million users by late 2012, appealing to real-time news dissemination and celebrity engagement despite lacking deep profile customization.[47] Other platforms like YouTube, acquired by Google for $1.65 billion in October 2006, amplified video sharing integral to social feeds, while LinkedIn focused on professional networking, growing to 100 million users by 2010. This era's growth was underpinned by venture capital inflows and advertising innovations, though early privacy lapses and spam issues highlighted scalability challenges.[5] By 2012, social networks collectively commanded over two-thirds of U.S. social media traffic share, dominated by Facebook at 66%.[48]Mobile Ubiquity and Global Saturation (2013-2019)
During the 2013-2019 period, social networking services transitioned to predominant mobile access as smartphone adoption surged globally, with platforms optimizing interfaces, algorithms, and monetization for app-based usage. By 2013, Facebook reported more active users accessing the platform via mobile devices than desktop, reflecting the broader shift driven by affordable smartphones and expanding mobile data coverage.[49][50] This mobile-first orientation enabled real-time interactions, geolocation features, and push notifications, embedding services into daily routines and accelerating user engagement. Mobile advertising revenue for Facebook exceeded $1 billion in Q4 2013, marking the first such quarter and comprising 53% of total ad sales, surpassing desktop contributions by 2015.[51][52] Mobile-centric platforms proliferated, capitalizing on smartphone ubiquity to drive rapid user growth. Instagram, acquired by Facebook in 2012, reached 100 million monthly active users by February 2013, fueled by mobile photo-sharing and filters tailored for touch interfaces, expanding to 500 million by June 2016 and 1 billion by June 2018.[53] WhatsApp, emphasizing end-to-end encrypted mobile messaging, grew from approximately 465 million monthly active users at its 2014 Facebook acquisition to over 1 billion by 2016, serving as a gateway to social networking in data-constrained regions through lightweight apps and low-bandwidth features.[54] Snapchat, launched in 2011 but peaking in this era, introduced ephemeral mobile content like Stories, influencing competitors such as Instagram's 2016 Stories rollout, and amassed hundreds of millions of daily active users by emphasizing camera-integrated sharing. These developments underscored causal links between mobile hardware affordability—global smartphone connections rose from about 1 billion in 2014—and platform stickiness, as apps bypassed traditional web barriers. Global saturation intensified as mobile internet bridged digital divides, particularly in emerging markets where desktop infrastructure lagged. Worldwide social media users grew from roughly 1.5 billion in 2013 to 2.65 billion by 2018, with much of the expansion via mobile devices in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where smartphone penetration climbed from under 20% in many developing nations in 2013 to over 45% median by 2019.[55][56] In advanced economies, penetration neared 76% smartphone ownership by 2019, enabling near-universal access and saturation levels where platforms like Facebook commanded over 2 billion monthly active users by 2017.[56] This era saw causal realism in network effects: viral mobile sharing amplified reach in populous regions like India, where cheap data plans post-2016 spurred WhatsApp and Facebook adoption, while saturation in the West manifested in refined features like algorithmic feeds prioritizing mobile video. However, uneven growth highlighted infrastructural limits, with rural and low-income areas relying on 2G/3G networks for basic connectivity. By 2019, daily mobile internet time outpaced PC usage globally, solidifying social networks' embedded role in communication and information flows.[57]Post-Pandemic Transformations (2020-2025)
The COVID-19 pandemic, beginning in early 2020, catalyzed a sharp increase in social networking service usage worldwide as lockdowns restricted physical interactions, driving users to platforms for social connection, entertainment, and information. In the United States, average daily time spent on social media rose to 65 minutes in 2020 from 54-56 minutes in prior years, reflecting broader trends in heightened engagement for virtual socializing and remote work coordination. Globally, messaging and video features on platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp saw surges, with 44% of Americans reporting that group messaging apps significantly aided family connections during restrictions. This period also amplified platform roles in disseminating public health updates, though it exposed vulnerabilities to misinformation proliferation, prompting internal moderation escalations by companies like Meta and Twitter.[58][59] Post-lockdown, short-form video content emerged as a dominant transformation, with TikTok's user base expanding rapidly amid the shift toward bite-sized, algorithm-driven entertainment that prioritized viral discovery over traditional feeds. By 2025, short-video platforms held a market value of approximately USD 53.48 billion, fueled by TikTok's 40% share and competitors' imitations like Instagram Reels (launched 2020) and YouTube Shorts (2020), which collectively captured preferences for content under 60 seconds. TikTok's global downloads exceeded 2 billion by mid-decade, attributing growth to its For You Page algorithm favoring novelty and engagement over follower counts, contrasting with text-heavy predecessors. This format's ascent correlated with younger demographics' attention spans, with 82% of online content projected as video by 2025, reshaping creator economies and advertising toward ephemeral, mobile-first consumption.[60][61] Platform ownership and governance underwent pivotal shifts, exemplified by Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter on October 27, 2022, for USD 44 billion, followed by its rebranding to X in 2023 with emphases on free speech, reduced moderation, and premium verification via subscriptions. These changes led to advertiser pullbacks amid content policy relaxations but aimed to evolve X into an "everything app" integrating payments and longer videos, diverging from pre-pandemic norms of centralized narrative control. Concurrently, TikTok faced national security scrutiny, including U.S. executive orders in 2020 attempting operational divestitures (later challenged judicially) and ongoing data privacy probes, highlighting geopolitical tensions over foreign-owned platforms. Such events underscored causal pressures from user demands for transparency and regulatory pushes against perceived biases in algorithmic curation.[62][63] Regulatory landscapes intensified post-2020, with governments addressing pandemic-era harms like misinformation and addiction through mandates for faster content removal and age verification. France enacted a 2020 law requiring social platforms to delete illicit content within 24 hours, prefiguring the European Union's Digital Services Act (effective 2024), which imposed transparency obligations on large platforms for systemic risks including disinformation. In the U.S., congressional hearings from 2020 onward targeted Section 230 reforms, while states pursued child safety laws restricting addictive features, reflecting empirical links between prolonged usage and youth mental health declines documented in platform-leaked research. By 2025, global user bases reached an estimated 5.42 billion, yet these interventions signaled a pivot from laissez-faire growth to accountability frameworks prioritizing causal evidence over self-regulation.[64][6] Into 2025, transformations consolidated around hyperscale video ecosystems and nascent AI integrations for content generation, though core shifts from the pandemic era—decentralized engagement models and resistance to over-moderation—persisted amid economic recoveries. Platforms like Meta experimented with metaverse pivots (e.g., Horizon Worlds expansions post-2021 rebrand), but user retention favored accessible, real-time interactions over virtual simulations, with daily usage stabilizing at 143 minutes globally. These evolutions, driven by empirical usage data rather than ideological priors, positioned social networking services as resilient infrastructures adapting to hybrid social realities.[65][66]Core Features and Technologies
User Profiles, Connections, and Interactions
Social networking services fundamentally enable users to construct public or semi-public profiles within a bounded digital system, serving as centralized hubs for personal identity representation that include elements such as profile images, biographical details, location data, and lists of interests or affiliations.[14] These profiles allow users to curate self-presentation, often incorporating multimedia like photos and videos, while platform-specific privacy controls determine visibility to others, ranging from fully public to restricted to approved connections.[14] Unlike static web pages, profiles in these services are dynamic, updated by users to reflect evolving personal or professional narratives, which empirical analyses link to sustained platform engagement through identity signaling and social validation.[67] Connections form the relational backbone of these platforms, where users explicitly articulate lists of linked individuals—termed "friends," "connections," or "followers"—to build personalized networks.[14] Symmetric connections, such as friendships requiring mutual consent, create reciprocal access to profiles and updates, promoting denser, trust-based ties akin to offline acquaintanceships, whereas asymmetric following allows one-way subscription to content without approval, facilitating scalable information broadcasting to broader audiences.[68] This duality influences network topology: bidirectional links enhance clustering and local interaction density, while unidirectional ones support viral dissemination but risk superficial engagement, as evidenced by platform designs prioritizing traversability over depth.[14] User interactions leverage these profiles and connections through affordances like direct messaging for private exchanges, profile visits for passive browsing, and explicit actions such as sending connection requests or endorsing others' profiles.[14] Beyond traversal—viewing linked users' profiles and their extended networks—interactions include real-time notifications of connection changes and integrated tools for group formation, which causal analyses attribute to reinforcing social capital via repeated reciprocity rather than mere exposure.[69] Platforms enforce bounded interactions to prevent spam, such as rate limits on requests, ensuring scalability while empirical data from usage patterns show that frequent connection-based engagements correlate with higher retention rates compared to isolated profile maintenance.[67]Content Generation, Sharing, and Discovery
Users generate content on social networking services (SNS) primarily through user interfaces that support diverse formats, including text posts, photographs, videos, and multimedia combinations such as infographics or live streams. Platforms provide built-in tools for creation, such as photo editors, video trimming features, filters, stickers, and augmented reality effects, facilitating rapid production of short-form content optimized for mobile devices. For instance, short videos and high-quality graphics have proven effective for capturing attention, with user-generated content (UGC) driving 28% higher engagement than branded equivalents across networks.[70] In 2025, with 5.42 billion global social media users averaging 6.83 platforms each, UGC constitutes the bulk of activity, encompassing everything from personal updates to professional media.[71] Content sharing mechanisms enable distribution to targeted or broad audiences, including posting to personal timelines visible to followers, direct messaging, group feeds, or public broadcasts. Features like share buttons, repost functions (e.g., retweets or shares), and cross-platform linking allow propagation without altering originals, often accompanied by user-added commentary. Sharing is influenced by social factors, such as building connections or amplifying causes, with platforms designing interfaces to lower barriers via one-click options and preview thumbnails. Empirical data indicates UGC's influence on purchasing decisions, with 84% of millennials citing it as a factor, underscoring sharing's role in viral dissemination.[72] Mechanisms also support privacy controls, permitting shares to specific connections or public domains, though public sharing amplifies reach exponentially in networked structures.[73] Discovery of content occurs through non-algorithmic channels like direct search queries, profile visits, hashtag navigation, and chronological timelines from followed users, allowing users to locate material via keywords, usernames, or explicit follows. Explore pages and trending sections aggregate popular or recent shares based on volume and velocity, independent of personalized ranking. For example, users access content via profile browsing or search, bypassing feed curation, which accounts for a portion of views on platforms like Facebook.[74] Hashtags and topic tags further aid thematic discovery, enabling users to follow conversations without prior connections. In practice, these methods complement feeds, with Instagram noted for high UGC discoverability through visual search and stories.[75] Overall, discovery relies on user-initiated actions and network ties, fostering serendipitous exposure amid vast daily volumes—though exact global post counts remain proprietary, UGC's scale is evidenced by platforms' reliance on it for 20% greater influence over traditional media.[72]Algorithmic Curation and Personalization
Algorithmic curation in social networking services involves machine learning systems that rank and select content for users' feeds, prioritizing items predicted to elicit high engagement such as likes, shares, comments, and dwell time.[76] These algorithms process vast datasets including user interaction histories, content metadata, and network connections to generate personalized feeds, shifting from chronological displays to relevance-based ordering as early as 2006 with platforms like Facebook's initial News Feed implementation.[77] Personalization relies on techniques like collaborative filtering, which infers preferences from aggregated user behaviors across similar profiles, and content-based filtering, which matches item attributes to individual tastes.[78][79] Major platforms employ distinct yet convergent approaches. Facebook's News Feed algorithm, formalized as EdgeRank in 2009, evolved into sophisticated neural network models by 2018, weighing factors like post recency, author affinity, and predicted interaction probability to demote low-engagement content.[80] Updates in 2023 further emphasized original posts over reposts, reducing aggregated content visibility by up to 50% in some cases to combat spam while sustaining user retention.[80] TikTok's For You Page, launched in 2017, exemplifies rapid personalization through real-time reinforcement learning, analyzing watch completion rates, replays, and shares to recommend videos from non-followed creators, achieving higher engagement than follower-based feeds in controlled studies.[81][82] On X (formerly Twitter), the recommendation system, open-sourced in 2023, boosts content with multimedia elements and high reply rates, with a 2025 shift to xAI's Grok model aiming to enhance relevance via advanced natural language processing.[83][84] These systems maximize platform metrics causally tied to revenue, as prolonged session times correlate with ad impressions; for instance, TikTok's algorithm reportedly drives 70-80% of views from non-following recommendations, fueling its user growth from 500 million to over 1.5 billion monthly active users between 2018 and 2023.[85] However, empirical analyses reveal mixed outcomes on information diversity. While collaborative filtering can reinforce homophily by surfacing similar viewpoints, platform-scale studies indicate limited echo chamber effects, with users encountering cross-ideological content at rates comparable to offline networks, challenging claims of algorithm-driven polarization.[86][87] A 2021 PNAS study across platforms found that structural network features, rather than curation alone, primarily sustain polarized clusters, though engagement-maximizing incentives amplify sensationalism in low-credibility domains.[88][89] Academic sources, often institutionally biased toward overstating harms, underemphasize user agency in feed interactions, yet data confirm algorithms' causal role in prioritizing virality over veracity when engagement signals dominate training data.[86]Data Handling, Privacy Controls, and Security Measures
Social networking services routinely collect vast quantities of user data, encompassing personal identifiers such as names, emails, and phone numbers; behavioral metrics like interactions, scrolling patterns, and device usage; and inferred attributes derived from algorithmic processing of shared content, location signals, and third-party integrations.[10][90] This data aggregation enables personalization of feeds and targeted advertising but has drawn scrutiny for enabling pervasive surveillance, with platforms retaining records indefinitely unless users intervene.[90] Storage occurs in centralized cloud infrastructures, often processed via machine learning models to generate user profiles, though practices vary by platform and jurisdiction. Privacy controls on major platforms allow users to adjust visibility settings, such as limiting post audiences to friends or custom lists, disabling location tagging, and opting out of certain data sharing with advertisers.[91][92] Users can typically download personal data archives—e.g., Facebook's tool exports posts, messages, and ad interactions—and request deletion under right-to-be-forgotten provisions where applicable, though complete erasure is often incomplete due to aggregated analytics.[93] Default settings frequently prioritize openness for engagement, requiring proactive configuration to enhance privacy, such as revoking app permissions or enabling private browsing modes.[92][94] Security measures include multi-factor authentication (2FA), end-to-end encryption for select features like direct messages on platforms such as WhatsApp, and regular vulnerability patching, alongside employee training to mitigate insider threats.[95] Platforms monitor for anomalies like unusual login attempts and employ access controls to limit data exposure, yet breaches remain recurrent: for instance, a 2018 Facebook incident exposed 50 million user tokens, enabling unauthorized account access, while a 2022 Twitter breach compromised 200 million email addresses via API vulnerabilities.[10][96] Post-breach responses involve notifications, password resets, and enhanced logging, but critics note insufficient proactive auditing contributes to repeated exposures.[97] Regulations like the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective May 25, 2018, mandate explicit consent for data processing, data minimization, and breach reporting within 72 hours, compelling platforms to refine handling practices and facing fines up to 4% of global revenue for non-compliance—e.g., Meta's €1.2 billion penalty in 2023 for transatlantic data transfers.[98] California's Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), enforced from January 1, 2020, grants opt-out rights for data sales and deletion requests, influencing U.S. platforms to implement "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" toggles.[99] These laws prompted initial reductions in tracking cookies and data retention—studies show a temporary 10-20% drop in third-party trackers post-GDPR—but rebounds occurred as platforms adapted via consent banners and server-side methods, highlighting enforcement challenges over outright curbs on collection.[100][101]Economic Models and Market Dynamics
Social networking services are fundamentally profit-oriented businesses operated by multinational corporations, with economic models structured to maximize revenue generation and shareholder value through scalable digital operations.Revenue Streams and Monetization Tactics
The predominant revenue stream for social networking services is targeted advertising, which accounts for the vast majority of income across major platforms by leveraging user data for personalized ad delivery. In 2024, global social media ad revenue contributed significantly to the sector's estimated $226.4 billion total, with platforms optimizing algorithms to maximize engagement and ad impressions.[102] For instance, Meta Platforms derived approximately 98% of its $164.5 billion annual revenue from advertising across its family of apps, including Facebook and Instagram, through formats like display ads, video ads, and sponsored posts.[103][104] Similarly, TikTok generated $23 billion in 2024, with 77% from advertising such as in-feed promotions and branded challenges, supplemented by in-app purchases for virtual gifts and e-commerce integrations.[105] Subscription-based models provide a secondary, diversifying tactic, offering premium features to users in exchange for recurring fees, often to reduce ad dependency and fund platform enhancements. Snapchat introduced Snapchat+ in 2022, which by 2024 contributed to its overall $5.3 billion revenue through ad-free experiences, custom icons, and enhanced privacy controls, though advertising remained the core driver.[106] X (formerly Twitter) expanded X Premium subscriptions, priced at tiers starting from $8 monthly, enabling monetization via verified badges, longer posts, and priority visibility; this shifted creator payouts in late 2024 from pure ad revenue sharing to impression-based models to sustain earnings amid advertiser pullbacks.[107] These subscriptions appeal to power users and creators, with X reporting diversification beyond its 75% ad reliance seen in 2023's $2.5 billion from promotions.[108] Creator monetization programs further enable revenue extraction by sharing ad proceeds or enabling direct fan support, incentivizing high-engagement content. Platforms like YouTube allocate 55% of ad revenue to creators via its Partner Program, while TikTok and Instagram offer similar shares from branded content and live gifts; Snapchat's Spotlight and Public Stories distribute revenue based on viral snaps.[109] Data licensing emerges as a niche stream, particularly for X, which earned about $900 million in 2023 from selling anonymized datasets to researchers and enterprises, though ethical concerns limit its scale compared to ads.[108] E-commerce integrations, such as Instagram Shopping and TikTok Shop, facilitate transaction fees on in-app purchases, but these remain marginal, often under 10% of totals, as platforms prioritize scalable ad ecosystems over direct sales.[105] Overall, these tactics hinge on user scale and behavioral data, with advertising's dominance persisting due to low marginal costs and high targeting precision, despite regulatory scrutiny on privacy.[110]Data Economics and User Value Extraction
Social networking services derive their primary economic value from user-generated data, which serves as the foundational input for algorithmic targeting in digital advertising. Platforms collect extensive behavioral signals—including profiles, connections, interactions, content shares, and inferred preferences—to construct detailed user models that enhance ad relevance and conversion rates. This data-driven approach underpins nearly all revenue, as evidenced by Meta Platforms, where approximately 97.5% to 99% of total revenue stems from advertising reliant on such personalization.[111][112] In 2023, Meta's advertising revenue reached $131.95 billion, rising to over $160 billion in 2024 for its family of apps, with average revenue per user (ARPU) climbing to $49.63, largely attributable to data-enabled targeting efficiencies.[113][6] The extraction mechanism operates through an implicit exchange: users provide data and attention in return for free access to networking features, while platforms commodify this input to auction ad inventory to third parties. Behavioral data allows for predictive modeling of user actions, increasing ad click-through rates and advertiser willingness to pay; for instance, platforms like Facebook and TikTok process billions of daily interactions to refine these models, generating value far exceeding the marginal cost of service provision. Economic analyses indicate that access to off-platform and on-platform personal data significantly boosts platform utility and revenue, with restrictions on data flows potentially reducing firm value by limiting targeting precision.[114][115] This model aligns with causal incentives where denser data networks yield network effects, amplifying user retention and ad scalability, though it concentrates value capture at the platform level rather than distributing it to individual data contributors.[116] Quantifying user value extraction reveals asymmetries: while platforms report aggregate revenues tied to data (e.g., global social media ad spend projected at $275.98 billion in 2025), individual user contributions are not compensated, reflecting a zero-price service subsidized by data rents. Critics, including Shoshana Zuboff in her framework of "surveillance capitalism," argue this entails unilateral extraction of behavioral surplus for behavioral modification and prediction products sold to advertisers, though empirical evidence supports that data's role is primarily facilitative for mutual gains in ad efficiency rather than inherent exploitation.[117][118] Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok employ similar models, with TikTok's algorithm leveraging video interaction data for rapid monetization growth, underscoring data's role as the core economic asset in sustaining platform dominance.[114]Platform Dominance, Competition, and Barriers to Entry
Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook) maintains dominance in personal social networking services, with its family of apps—including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—collectively serving over 3.98 billion monthly active users as of Q2 2025, representing approximately 76% of the global social media user base of 5.24 billion.[114] This scale enables Meta to capture the majority of social commerce and advertising revenue, projected to exceed $150 billion annually by late 2025, dwarfing competitors through integrated ecosystems that facilitate cross-platform user retention and data synergies.[6] TikTok, owned by ByteDance, poses the primary competitive threat in short-form video content, with an estimated 1.7 billion monthly active users globally in 2025, eroding Meta's share in younger demographics via algorithmic virality but struggling to expand into broader social graphing features like direct messaging or long-term connections.[119] Other platforms, such as X (formerly Twitter) with around 550 million users and Snapchat with 800 million, remain niche players, unable to replicate Meta's interpersonal network depth despite innovations in real-time discourse or ephemeral sharing.[120] Network effects constitute the foremost barrier to entry, wherein a platform's utility scales non-linearly with user adoption—often modeled as proportional to the square of connected users—rendering new entrants valueless until achieving critical mass, a threshold rarely crossed without incumbents' concessions or external shocks.[121] Empirical analyses confirm these effects drive 20-30% of social platforms' value through direct user-to-user interactions, compounded by indirect effects from advertisers and content creators who prioritize high-density audiences, thus entrenching Meta's position as users face switching costs from lost social capital. Capital-intensive infrastructure demands further deter competition; scaling to billions of users requires billions in annual investments for data centers, AI-driven moderation (Meta employs over 15,000 content reviewers), and compliance with evolving regulations, costs that startups cannot amortize without venture backing or proven traction.[122] Regulatory and antitrust scrutiny amplifies these barriers, as evidenced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's ongoing case against Meta (initiated 2020, trial commencing April 2025), alleging monopolization via acquisitions like Instagram (2012) and WhatsApp (2014) that neutralized potential rivals, though Meta contends such moves spurred innovation absent durable foreclosure.[123] European Union probes under the Digital Markets Act similarly target gatekeeper platforms like Meta and TikTok for interoperability failures that perpetuate silos, yet enforcement has yielded limited disruption, with Meta prevailing in a 2025 user data antitrust dismissal.[124] While data accumulation aids personalization—Meta's proprietary datasets train superior recommendation engines—claims of insurmountable "data moats" overstate exclusivity, as open-source alternatives and user-generated content enable bootstrapping, though causal evidence links incumbents' scale to sustained 80-90% market concentration in core social features.[125] Challengers like Threads (Meta's 2023 Twitter rival, reaching 200 million users by 2025) illustrate intra-incumbent pivots, but decentralized protocols (e.g., Mastodon) falter against centralized efficiency, underscoring how causal realism favors consolidated networks for reliability and virality over fragmented alternatives.[126]Societal and Behavioral Impacts
Quantifiable Benefits: Connectivity and Information Dissemination
Social networking services enable users to sustain interpersonal connections that might otherwise weaken due to physical separation. Empirical research indicates that platforms facilitate bridging and bonding social capital, with social-oriented usage patterns positively correlating with perceived network strength and reduced isolation. For instance, a study of university students found that cognitive and hedonic engagement with social media significantly boosted both bridging (diverse, weak ties) and bonding (close, strong ties) social capital, as measured by validated scales assessing trust, reciprocity, and mutual support.[127] In long-distance relationships, frequent social media interactions, including sharing multimedia updates, predict higher satisfaction levels compared to geographically close couples relying solely on asynchronous texting, by providing immersive glimpses into partners' routines.[128] A 2015 Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. teenagers revealed that 57% credited social media with enhancing their connection to friends' real-life events and emotional states, while 70% reported receiving emotional support online from peers during challenges.[129] These platforms quantify connectivity through metrics like friend counts and interaction frequency; active users often report expanded networks, with one review synthesizing evidence that social media use leads to measurable gains in friendship formation and community building, countering loneliness in demographic groups prone to social fragmentation.[130] Regarding information dissemination, social networking services accelerate the propagation of updates beyond traditional media latencies, often achieving exponential reach. Analyses of diffusion dynamics demonstrate that content spreads via reinforcement mechanisms, with studies modeling how initial posts can cascade to millions within hours through shares and algorithms prioritizing novelty.[131] During the Arab Spring protests starting in December 2010, platforms like Facebook mobilized initial participants in Egypt, where a dedicated page amassed over 400,000 followers by January 2011, coordinating calls to action that shaped discourse and drew verifiable turnout in the tens of thousands for key demonstrations, as quantified in mobilization data.[132] [133] In disaster scenarios, social media's role in real-time sharing yields tangible efficiencies, such as crowdsourced alerts reaching affected populations faster than centralized broadcasts. Research on crisis communication shows platforms enable bidirectional flows, with users posting geotagged updates that inform responders; for example, during events like hurricanes, adoption rates for official accounts surge, disseminating evacuation orders to subscribers numbering in the millions instantaneously.[134] While causal attribution demands controlling for offline factors, these mechanisms have been linked to improved situational awareness, with empirical models estimating reduced response times through network effects.[135] Academic sources, often drawing from event-specific datasets, affirm these speeds but note potential overestimation if not cross-verified against ground truth, given institutional tendencies to highlight technological enablers.Adverse Outcomes: Addiction, Division, and Behavioral Shifts
Social networking services (SNS) have been linked to addictive patterns of use, with global users averaging 143 minutes daily in 2024, a figure that equates to over 40 hours monthly and reflects platform designs exploiting dopamine-driven feedback loops such as likes and notifications.[6] Empirical estimates suggest around 210 million people worldwide exhibit symptoms of social media addiction, characterized by compulsive checking and interference with daily functioning.[136] Peer-reviewed studies confirm that excessive SNS engagement correlates with impaired impulse control and withdrawal symptoms akin to substance dependencies, with neuroimaging evidence showing activation of reward centers similar to gambling.[137] Among adolescents, 45% reported in 2025 surveys feeling they spend excessive time on platforms, correlating with higher rates of self-perceived overuse.[138] SNS contribute to social and political division through mechanisms like selective exposure, where algorithms prioritize ideologically congruent content, fostering affective polarization. A systematic review of 94 studies found consistent evidence that pro-attitudinal news on social media drives viewpoint reinforcement and reduces cross-cutting exposure, exacerbating partisan divides.[139] In the U.S., platform usage intensifies existing hatred rather than originating it, with machine learning analyses of 2025 data revealing linguistic polarization in interactions that mirrors offline tribalism but amplifies it via viral outrage dynamics.[140] [141] However, evidence is mixed; some longitudinal data indicate no net increase in polarization from SNS alone, attributing rises more to broader cultural shifts, though echo chambers on platforms like Facebook sustain divisions by limiting diverse viewpoints.[142][143] Behavioral shifts induced by SNS include diminished attention spans and heightened anxiety from constant connectivity, with studies documenting correlations between heavy use and self-harming tendencies among youth.[144] Features like infinite scrolling and quantified social approval trigger repetitive checking behaviors, altering neural pathways to prioritize short-form content over sustained focus, as evidenced by reduced cognitive endurance in frequent users.[145] Fear of missing out (FoMO), amplified by real-time updates, drives narcissistic traits and rivalry-seeking, mediating shifts toward superficial interactions over deep relationships.[146] Long-term exposure also disrupts sleep and elevates distress, fostering avoidance of offline responsibilities in favor of virtual validation loops.[137] These changes manifest empirically in increased cyberbullying participation and body image distortions, where curated feeds set unattainable norms leading to exclusionary behaviors.[147]Demographic Usage Patterns and Empirical Correlations
In the United States, social media adoption rates differ markedly by age, with 93% of adults aged 18-29 using YouTube, 76% using Instagram, and 68% using Facebook, compared to 86% YouTube usage among those aged 50-64 but only 36% for Instagram.[148] Globally, the largest user cohorts are adults aged 25-34 (36.6% of users) and 18-24 (34.2%), reflecting platforms' appeal to younger demographics through visual and short-form content.[149] Gender distributions vary by platform; for instance, Instagram's user base is nearly balanced at 50.6% male and 49.4% female as of early 2024, while platforms like Pinterest skew female and LinkedIn male.[150] Higher education and income levels correlate with greater usage of professional networks like LinkedIn, where users with college degrees outpace those without by a factor of two in adoption rates, per surveys of U.S. adults.[7] In contrast, lower-income groups show higher engagement with entertainment-focused platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat.[7] Worldwide, social media penetration reaches 63.9% of the population in 2025, with over 5.24 billion active users, disproportionately concentrated in urban and middle-income regions of Asia and North America.[151] [152] Empirical studies link heavy social media use—particularly passive scrolling and upward social comparison—with elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress, especially among adolescents, where a systematic review of 13 studies identified consistent positive correlations with mental health problems.[153] Usage exceeding 2-3 hours daily shows small but statistically significant associations with depressive symptoms (effect sizes around 0.1-0.2 standard deviations), though causation remains debated due to bidirectional influences and confounding factors like pre-existing vulnerabilities.[154] A 2024 analysis of youth data further ties platform-specific features, such as Instagram's image-centric feeds, to body image issues and self-esteem declines in girls.[155] On political polarization, longitudinal data indicate social media amplifies partisan divides through algorithmic reinforcement of echo chambers, with users exposed primarily to congruent views showing 10-20% greater attitude extremity over time compared to offline baselines.[156] Cross-national surveys from 2024 reveal that frequent news consumption via platforms correlates with heightened affective polarization, where out-group hostility rises independently of traditional media effects.[157] Productivity correlations are negative for intensive users; experimental reductions in access yield modest gains in focus and output (e.g., 5-10% in task completion rates), attributed to distraction and dopamine-driven checking behaviors rather than inherent content value.[154]| Demographic Group | Key Platforms (High Usage) | Notable Patterns |
|---|---|---|
| Ages 18-29 | YouTube (93%), Instagram (76%), Snapchat (65%) | High daily engagement; preference for video and ephemeral content.[148] |
| Ages 30-49 | YouTube (94%), Facebook (78%) | Balanced professional and social use; growing TikTok adoption.[148] |
| Ages 50+ | YouTube (86%), Facebook (70%) | Lower overall adoption; focus on family connectivity.[148] |
| College Graduates | LinkedIn, Twitter/X | 2x higher LinkedIn use vs. non-grads.[7] |
Key Controversies
Privacy Violations and Surveillance Capitalism
Social networking services operate within the framework of surveillance capitalism, a term coined by Shoshana Zuboff to describe the commodification of personal human experiences into behavioral data for economic gain, where platforms unilaterally extract user data as raw material to predict and influence actions through targeted interventions.[118] This model emerged prominently with companies like Google and Facebook in the early 2000s, evolving to encompass vast surveillance of online interactions, location data, and inferred preferences to generate "behavioral surpluses" sold to advertisers for precision targeting.[158] Empirical analysis reveals that such platforms collect data far exceeding service necessities, including metadata from non-users via device tracking, enabling probabilistic forecasts of user behavior with minimal explicit consent.[10] A hallmark violation occurred in the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, where the firm harvested data from approximately 87 million Facebook users without authorization, initially via a 2014 personality quiz app that accessed friends' profiles under lax API policies.[159] This data, collected between 2014 and 2015, was used to build psychographic profiles for political micro-targeting in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Brexit campaign, demonstrating how platforms' permissive data-sharing enabled third-party manipulation.[160] Facebook faced no immediate criminal charges but settled with the FTC, agreeing to privacy reforms after prior 2012 consent decree violations, underscoring systemic failures in enforcing user controls.[159] Subsequent breaches amplified concerns, such as Meta's 2023 GDPR violations involving Facebook and Instagram, resulting in a €1.2 billion fine for inadequate data transfer safeguards to the U.S., affecting millions of EU users' personal information.[161] Platforms routinely engage in shadow profiling, aggregating data from likes, shares, and dwell times to infer sensitive attributes like political leanings or health status, often without transparency, as evidenced by internal leaks revealing algorithmic prioritization of engagement over privacy.[162] TikTok incurred a $5.7 million FTC fine in 2019 for collecting children's data unlawfully, highlighting persistent issues in age verification and data minimization across services.[163] Critics argue this extractive paradigm erodes individual autonomy by fostering dependency on platforms that monetize predictions of behavior, with Zuboff positing it as a "rogue mutation" concentrating unprecedented power in private hands.[164] Defenders counter that users implicitly consent through participation and that surveillance enables valued services like personalized feeds, though empirical studies show privacy concerns correlate with reduced disclosure yet sustained usage due to network effects.[165] Regulatory scrutiny has intensified, yet economic incentives—where user data constitutes the core asset—perpetuate violations, as platforms prioritize scale over stringent controls, evidenced by recurring fines totaling billions without altering foundational business logics.[166]Misinformation Propagation and Echo Chamber Dynamics
Social networking services facilitate the rapid propagation of misinformation through network structures and algorithmic incentives that prioritize user engagement over factual accuracy. False information often spreads faster and farther than true information due to its novelty and capacity to evoke emotional responses, such as surprise or outrage, which drive shares and retweets. A comprehensive analysis of over 126,000 verified news stories cascaded on Twitter from 2006 to 2017, involving roughly 3 million users and more than 4.5 million retweets, revealed that false news diffused to 1,500 people on average compared to 100 for true news, penetrated deeper into networks (six hops versus four), reached broader audiences across ideological lines, and was 70% more likely to be retweeted.[167][168] This pattern holds independent of bot activity, attributing spread primarily to human behavior rather than automated accounts.[167] Algorithmic feeds exacerbate this by ranking content based on predicted interactions, inadvertently amplifying sensational falsehoods that sustain attention longer than corrective facts. Empirical models of diffusion in ideologically segregated networks demonstrate that misinformation proliferates more efficiently within homogeneous clusters, where low cross-group ties limit debunking. For instance, simulations and data from online platforms show that under conditions of high homophily—users connecting preferentially with like-minded individuals—false claims achieve higher penetration rates, as verification signals fail to traverse boundaries effectively.[169] During events like the COVID-19 pandemic, health-related misinformation, such as unsubstantiated vaccine risks, spread via these mechanisms, outpacing official corrections and contributing to hesitancy rates exceeding 20% in affected demographics per platform analytics.[170] Echo chamber dynamics arise from the interplay of user-driven homophily and platform algorithms that curate personalized feeds, reinforcing preexisting beliefs and insulating users from countervailing evidence. On political topics, Twitter data from 2009–2019 indicate pronounced echo chambers, quantified by elevated homophily in interaction graphs (e.g., partisan retweet ratios above 0.8 in polarized clusters) and selective exposure biases, where users engage 2–3 times more with congruent content.[88] This creates feedback loops: repeated affirmation entrenches convictions, elevates perceived consensus (illusory truth effect), and heightens polarization, with studies linking such environments to increased affective divides between groups.[88] However, empirical assessments reveal echo chambers are not absolute silos; cross-ideological exposure persists through weak ties, trending topics, and algorithmic serendipity, comprising 20–30% of feeds in large-scale audits. Systematic reviews of over 50 studies conclude that while homophily and selective avoidance foster fragmentation—particularly in right-leaning U.S. communities during elections—outright isolation is rare, with average users encountering diverse viewpoints at rates comparable to offline media.[87][171] Causal analyses attribute dynamics to both structural factors (e.g., friend selection) and behavioral ones (e.g., confirmation bias), but overstate platform culpability risks conflating correlation with causation absent randomized controls. These patterns amplify risks in high-stakes domains like elections, where echo-reinforced misinformation swayed voter perceptions by margins of 5–10% in 2016 U.S. analyses, though causal attribution remains contested due to confounding variables like offline influences.[87]Mental Health Detriments and Addiction Mechanisms
Empirical studies, including meta-analyses of longitudinal data, indicate small but statistically significant positive associations between social media use and symptoms of depression and anxiety, with effect sizes typically ranging from r=0.10 to r=0.23 across large samples of adolescents and young adults.[172][173] For instance, a 2025 cohort study of U.S. adolescents aged 12-15 (n=6,595) found that spending more than three hours daily on social media doubled the risk of depression and anxiety symptoms after adjusting for baseline mental health.[174] These correlations persist even after controlling for confounders like sleep disruption, though causality remains debated due to bidirectional influences, with experimental reductions in use showing modest improvements in well-being.[175] In youth populations, heavier social media engagement correlates with elevated risks of self-harm and suicidality, particularly among teenage girls. A 10-year longitudinal analysis by Brigham Young University linked excess social media time to higher suicidality risk in young teen girls, independent of other factors.[176] Similarly, a scoping review of adolescent data noted temporal alignment between the rise of social media platforms post-2010 and increases in depression and suicidal behaviors, with problematic use independently associated with suicide attempts in cross-national samples.[177][178] Platforms like Instagram exacerbate body image distortions, as revealed in Meta's internal 2019-2021 research, which documented that the app worsened body image issues for one in three teen girls by promoting upward social comparisons via curated visuals.[179] Addiction-like behaviors in social media arise from engineered reward systems mimicking variable ratio schedules, akin to slot machines, which trigger intermittent dopamine surges in the brain's mesolimbic pathway to sustain engagement.[180][181] Notifications, likes, and algorithmic feeds deliver unpredictable positive feedback, amplifying dopamine release during anticipation and receipt, fostering compulsive checking and reduced impulse control over time.[137] This mechanism underlies problematic use, defined by criteria similar to substance dependence, with meta-analyses linking it to heightened depression and anxiety via reinforcement loops that prioritize platform interaction over real-world activities.[182][183] Longitudinal evidence suggests these patterns contribute to tolerance, where users escalate time spent to achieve equivalent satisfaction, correlating with prefrontal cortex alterations observed in neuroimaging studies of behavioral addictions.[184]Content Moderation Biases and Free Speech Constraints
Major social networking services (SNS) have implemented content moderation policies that critics argue exhibit systematic biases, particularly against conservative, libertarian, or dissenting viewpoints, leading to disproportionate suppression of such content compared to left-leaning equivalents. Internal documents from pre-2022 Twitter revealed visibility filtering and "blacklisting" mechanisms that reduced the reach of accounts like Stanford epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya, who advocated for focused protection strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic, without formal violations of platform rules.[185] Similarly, Twitter executives suppressed the New York Post's October 14, 2020, reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop, citing hacked materials policies, despite internal debates acknowledging the decision's potential political implications; this action limited dissemination ahead of the U.S. presidential election.[186] These practices often involved coordination with government entities, including the FBI flagging content for review on election integrity and COVID-19 topics, raising concerns over state-influenced private censorship.[187] Empirical analyses of moderation outcomes indicate disparities: a 2024 University of Michigan study of Reddit communities found that moderators, whose political leanings often skew left, removed comments opposing their ideological orientation at higher rates, exacerbating echo chambers by curating ideologically homogeneous feeds.[188] On YouTube, Google admitted in September 2025 congressional testimony to censoring content at the Biden administration's behest, including COVID-19 skepticism and election-related videos, with promises to reinstate affected accounts; this followed patterns of demonetization and algorithmic downranking disproportionately impacting conservative creators, as evidenced by lawsuits from groups like PragerU alleging viewpoint discrimination.[189][190] Facebook's moderation, informed by third-party fact-checkers and algorithmic adjustments, has shown similar asymmetries, with internal reviews post-2020 election revealing higher scrutiny of right-leaning misinformation claims, though platform defenders attribute this to volume differences rather than intent.[191] Such biases stem partly from employee demographics—SNS staff political donations overwhelmingly favor Democrats—and vague policy enforcement reliant on human judgment, fostering perceptions of selective application.[192] These moderation practices impose free speech constraints by incentivizing user self-censorship: surveys and behavioral data indicate that fear of algorithmic demotion or account suspension deters expression of controversial opinions, particularly on topics like election fraud or pandemic policies, reducing overall discourse diversity.[193] A 2023 PNAS study quantified moderation's efficacy in reducing harmful content but noted trade-offs, including chilled speech where neutral or dissenting views are preemptively flagged, amplifying echo chambers as users cluster in ideologically safe spaces.[194] Post-acquisition reforms at X (formerly Twitter) under Elon Musk in late 2022, including reduced proactive moderation and reinstatement of suspended accounts like Donald Trump's on November 19, 2022, aimed to mitigate these issues, correlating with reported increases in user-reported viewpoint diversity, though advertiser pullbacks ensued due to unmoderated content resurgence.[192] Critics from mainstream media outlets, which exhibit documented left-leaning biases in coverage, often frame such revelations as conspiratorial, yet primary internal evidence underscores non-neutral enforcement undermining platforms' roles as open forums.[195][196] Overall, biased moderation erodes trust in SNS as neutral arbiters, prompting calls for transparency mechanisms like public appeals data and algorithmic audits to align practices with first-amendment-equivalent principles in private digital spaces.Legal and Regulatory Landscape
Landmark Cases, Laws, and Investigations
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted in 1996, grants interactive computer services immunity from liability for third-party content, forming the legal backbone for social networking platforms' operations by shielding them from publisher-like responsibilities.[197] This provision has been pivotal in enabling platforms like Facebook and Twitter to host user-generated content without routine editorial oversight, though it has faced criticism for potentially fostering unchecked harmful material.[198] The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), implemented in 1998, mandates verifiable parental consent for collecting personal information from children under 13, imposing compliance burdens on platforms with youth-oriented features.[199] Violations have led to multimillion-dollar fines, such as the Federal Trade Commission's 2019 settlement with TikTok predecessor Musical.ly for $5.7 million over inadequate child data protections. In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective May 25, 2018, requires explicit consent for data processing and grants users rights to access, rectify, and delete personal data, compelling platforms to overhaul global privacy practices.[197] The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), enforced from February 2024 for large platforms, mandates transparency in algorithmic recommendations and rapid removal of illegal content, with fines up to 6% of global turnover for non-compliance.[197] Landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases have tested these frameworks. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the Court struck down a law barring registered sex offenders from social media, affirming such sites as protected public forums under the First Amendment.[200] Elonis v. United States (2015) clarified that social media threats require proof of subjective intent to menace, raising the bar for prosecutions involving ambiguous posts.[200] More recently, in Gonzalez v. Google LLC (2023) and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (2023), the Court upheld Section 230 protections, dismissing claims that platforms aided terrorism by recommending ISIS recruitment videos, emphasizing that algorithmic curation does not equate to endorsement.[198] In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice (argued 2024), the Court signaled skepticism toward state laws in Texas and Florida compelling platforms to host viewpoint-diverse content, viewing such mandates as potential First Amendment violations against private editorial discretion.[201] Major investigations have scrutinized platform practices. The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed how the firm harvested data from up to 87 million Facebook users without consent for political targeting, prompting global probes including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's $5 billion settlement with Facebook in 2019 for privacy lapses.[202] The FTC's 2024 staff report on six major platforms, including Meta, Google, and TikTok, detailed "vast surveillance" via data collection and third-party sharing, often without adequate user safeguards, based on a multi-year inquiry.[90] In 2025, ongoing U.S. litigation requires Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify on social media's youth impacts, stemming from claims of addictive design features contributing to mental health harms.[202] The UK's Information Commissioner's Office launched 2025 investigations into TikTok, Reddit, and Imgur for child data handling, focusing on age-appropriate protections and content personalization for minors aged 13-17.[203] The FTC's February 2025 inquiry into tech censorship examines how platforms restrict content access, potentially informing future enforcement against perceived biases in moderation.[204]Antitrust Challenges and Monopoly Scrutiny
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated an antitrust lawsuit against Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook) on December 9, 2020, accusing the company of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the "personal social networking services" market through a pattern of acquisitions and exclusionary tactics.[205] The complaint specifically targeted Meta's 2012 acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion and its 2014 purchase of WhatsApp for $19 billion, alleging these moves eliminated nascent competitors and entrenched Meta's dominance by leveraging network effects, where users' value derives from connections to existing networks, creating high barriers to entry for rivals.[206] Proponents of the case, including FTC Chair Lina Khan, argued that Meta's control over approximately 70% of the U.S. personal social networking market stifled innovation and consumer choice, as evidenced by internal documents showing strategic efforts to "buy or bury" threats.[207] However, Meta countered that the defined market is artificially narrow, ignoring competitors like TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, which have captured significant user engagement through short-form video and other innovations, and that its acquisitions improved services without harming competition.[126] The case proceeded to a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia starting April 14, 2025, marking one of the first major U.S. antitrust challenges seeking structural remedies like divestitures in the tech sector since the Microsoft case in 2001.[208] During the six-week proceedings, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified, defending the acquisitions as pro-competitive enhancements that expanded user bases and features, such as Instagram's evolution into a photo-sharing and Stories platform under Meta's resources.[209] Critics of the FTC's approach, including economists at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, highlighted the government's failure to demonstrate consumer harm under the Sherman Act, noting that social networking markets exhibit rapid dynamism—evidenced by TikTok's rise to over 1 billion users by 2020—rather than static monopoly power, and that free services complicate traditional antitrust metrics like price gouging.[126] As of mid-2025, the trial concluded without a final ruling, but legal analysts predicted challenges for the FTC in proving willful monopolization given the voluntary nature of user engagement and absence of direct evidence of reduced output or quality.[210] In parallel, the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA), effective from March 2024, designated Meta as a "gatekeeper" in September 2023 due to its systemic market power in social networking and related services, subjecting it to ex-ante obligations to prevent anti-competitive practices like self-preferencing or data interoperability barriers.[211] The European Commission fined Meta €200 million in April 2025 for breaching DMA rules on "mix-and-match" options, which require gatekeepers to allow users to combine services without forcing bundling, as Meta's "pay or consent" model for ad-free subscriptions was deemed to undermine choice and reinforce data-driven dominance.[212] This regulatory framework contrasts with U.S. case-by-case enforcement by imposing proactive duties, such as mandating API access for third-party developers, to foster contestability; however, Meta appealed the fine, arguing it complies with GDPR privacy standards and that DMA obligations overlook causal links between its practices and actual market foreclosure.[213] Empirical data from EU reports indicate gatekeepers like Meta control over 45% of digital advertising revenues in core platform services, justifying scrutiny, though enforcement risks overregulation in winner-take-most markets driven by scale economies rather than illegal exclusion.[214] Broader monopoly scrutiny extends to other platforms, with a coalition of 48 U.S. states filing a separate suit against Meta in 2020 for similar anti-competitive conduct, including platform policies that penalized third-party app developers integrating with Facebook.[215] These challenges underscore debates over defining relevant markets amid network effects, where first-mover advantages and user lock-in can mimic monopoly without violating antitrust standards, as seen in failed prior FTC attempts dismissed in 2021 for insufficient evidence.[216] Despite aggressive litigation, outcomes remain uncertain, with remedies like breakups potentially disrupting global user networks without guaranteed competitive gains, as historical precedents show mixed results in fostering innovation.[217]International Policy Variations and Enforcement
Social networking services operate under diverse regulatory frameworks globally, reflecting national priorities on content control, data privacy, user safety, and national security. In the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields platforms from liability for third-party content, fostering innovation while permitting minimal federal intervention beyond antitrust scrutiny, though this has drawn international criticism for enabling unchecked harms like misinformation export.[218] In contrast, the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), effective for very large platforms since August 2023, imposes obligations for risk assessments, content moderation transparency, and rapid removal of illegal content, with fines up to 6% of global annual revenue for non-compliance.[219] China's regime, enforced by the Cyberspace Administration, blocks foreign platforms like Facebook and Twitter since the early 2010s and mandates real-name registration, algorithmic censorship, and alignment with state ideology on domestic services such as Weibo, resulting in swift account suspensions for "pessimistic" or dissenting posts, as seen in 2025 crackdowns in Xi'an.[220] [221] Enforcement mechanisms vary sharply, with authoritarian states achieving high compliance through direct state control and surveillance, while democracies face jurisdictional hurdles and platform resistance. The EU Commission preliminarily ruled in October 2025 that Meta and TikTok breached DSA transparency rules on recommender systems and user reporting, initiating proceedings that could lead to multimillion-euro fines and mandated audits.[222] [223] India's Information Technology Rules, 2021, amended in October 2025, require platforms to label AI-generated content, verify synthetic media declarations, and comply with takedown orders from senior officials within 36 hours, aiming to curb deepfakes while limiting arbitrary junior-level directives; non-compliance risks loss of safe harbor protections.[224] [225] Brazil's Supreme Court, in June 2025, eliminated safe harbor for platforms failing to remove illegal content promptly, holding them directly liable amid efforts to combat election-related disinformation, as evidenced by ongoing probes into platforms' roles in 2022 unrest.[226] Cross-border enforcement poses persistent challenges, as platforms headquartered in the US often apply uniform global policies influenced by Section 230, clashing with extraterritorial demands from regulators like the EU or India, leading to geo-blocking or localized compliance teams.[227] In China, foreign platforms are effectively barred, forcing domestic alternatives under strict oversight, with violations punished via account deletions or fines exceeding millions of yuan annually.[228] Emerging economies like Brazil and India emphasize misinformation curbs tied to political stability, but inconsistent judicial application and platform appeals delay outcomes, as seen in stalled "fake news" bills.[229] These variations underscore tensions between innovation-friendly regimes and safety-focused ones, with enforcement efficacy hinging on platform cooperation and resource allocation, often resulting in over-moderation in restrictive jurisdictions to avoid penalties.Domain-Specific Applications
Professional Networking and Career Mobility
Social networking services dedicated to professional purposes, such as LinkedIn, enable users to build and maintain connections with industry peers, recruiters, and potential employers, thereby facilitating information exchange and opportunity discovery. Launched on May 5, 2003, LinkedIn has expanded to over 1 billion registered members across more than 200 countries by 2024, with approximately 310 million monthly active users.[230][231] These platforms differ from general-purpose sites by emphasizing verified professional profiles, endorsements of skills, and targeted job postings, which support structured networking over casual interactions. Empirical research indicates that LinkedIn usage correlates with enhanced professional outcomes, particularly through external networking—connections outside one's immediate organization—which predicts higher platform engagement and informational benefits such as access to job leads and industry insights (correlation coefficient r = 0.56, p < 0.01).[232] A 2019 study of professionals found that external networkers exhibit greater active and passive LinkedIn use, including posting content and expanding weak ties, though platform activity does not fully mediate direct networking effects on benefits.[232] Approximately 75% of job seekers incorporate LinkedIn into their search process, reflecting its role in amplifying traditional networking.[233] Large-scale analyses underscore LinkedIn's causal impact on career mobility via weak ties—acquaintances with limited prior interaction—which outperform strong ties in transmitting job opportunities. A 2022 MIT-led experiment, analyzing data from over 20 million users and 600,000 job acceptances between 2015 and 2019, manipulated LinkedIn's "People You May Know" algorithm to prioritize weak connections, revealing that moderately weak ties (sharing about 10 mutual contacts) maximize employment transmission, especially in digital sectors like technology.[234][235] This aligns with Granovetter's 1973 theory of weak ties bridging informational gaps, with modern evidence showing such connections accelerate job acquisition by providing novel opportunities unavailable through close networks.[235] LinkedIn also supports career advancement through job mobility, where frequent role changes—enabled by visible profiles and recruiter outreach—yield salary premiums. Data from LinkedIn's economic graph indicates professionals entering the workforce hold twice as many positions over their careers compared to those 15 years prior, correlating with higher earnings from strategic moves.[236] Recruiters source 97% of candidates via the platform, with 35.5 million users reportedly hired through connections formed there, though success depends on profile optimization and proactive outreach rather than passive presence.[237] While effective for informational bridging, benefits accrue more to extroverted users with protean career orientations—prioritizing self-directed growth—highlighting that platform efficacy stems from user agency, not mere participation.[238]Educational and Knowledge-Sharing Tools
Social networking services (SNS) incorporate features such as discussion groups, live video streaming, and file-sharing mechanisms that enable users to disseminate educational content and collaborate on learning activities. These tools facilitate real-time interactions, resource sharing, and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange, extending beyond traditional classrooms to global audiences. For instance, platforms allow educators to host virtual lectures or Q&A sessions, while users upload and annotate educational videos or documents, fostering informal learning environments.[239][240] Empirical research indicates that increased chatting, discussions, and file sharing within SNS correlate with higher levels of knowledge sharing and improved student learning outcomes. A 2023 study of university students found that social media usage positively influences knowledge dissemination through enhanced communication and collaboration, though it also highlighted potential distractions that can dilute focus. Similarly, analyses of higher education contexts demonstrate that SNS integration in teaching boosts engagement and academic performance by providing accessible, interactive platforms for content delivery and feedback. These effects stem from the platforms' ability to leverage network effects, where users build on shared contributions to refine understanding.[241][240][242] In professional and academic settings, SNS tools like wikis, blogs, and intranets integrated into networks support structured knowledge-sharing sessions, such as training modules or research collaborations. A systematic review of 130 educational technology articles from 2011–2021 confirmed that social media serves as an effective teaching aid, particularly for interactive learning, with platforms enabling rapid dissemination of scholarly insights via threads or hashtags. However, outcomes vary by usage; unstructured sharing can amplify misinformation, underscoring the need for moderated educational applications to prioritize verified content.[243][244][245] Key features enhancing educational utility include:- Discussion boards and groups: Enable threaded conversations for topic exploration, as seen in community-driven forums where users crowdsource explanations and resources.
- Live streaming and polls: Support synchronous teaching, with real-time feedback mechanisms that mimic classroom dynamics and improve retention through active participation.[246]
- Multimedia sharing: Allows embedding of videos, infographics, or datasets, accelerating knowledge transfer in fields like science and language learning.[247]
Political Mobilization and Grassroots Movements
Social networking services have facilitated political mobilization by enabling rapid dissemination of information, coordination of decentralized participants, and amplification of grievances at low cost, often bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. Empirical analyses indicate that platforms like Facebook and Twitter allow for "connective action," where personalized digital content substitutes for collective organization, drawing in participants through shared networks rather than formal hierarchies. A 2015 study of Twitter data from the Arab Spring uprisings found that surges in online revolutionary rhetoric preceded major protest events by two to three days, with conversation volumes correlating to on-the-ground mobilization in countries like Egypt and Tunisia.[249] Similarly, quantitative tracking during the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests revealed that the hashtag #OWS accounted for approximately one in every 500 Twitter hashtags globally by mid-October, aiding the spread from New York to over 900 cities worldwide via real-time updates and calls to action.[250] Grassroots movements on both the political left and right have leveraged these tools for rapid scaling. The Tea Party movement, emerging in early 2009 amid opposition to economic stimulus policies, utilized Facebook groups to organize tax-day protests attended by tens of thousands across hundreds of locations, linking local activists with national libertarian networks and enabling "nimble" responses to policy developments.[251] On the left, Occupy Wall Street's 2011 encampments relied on Twitter for micro-mobilization, with activists creating city-specific accounts to share logistics and counter repression, as state interventions at initial sites prompted diffusion to new locales through digital replication.[252] In conservative contexts, such platforms have sustained ongoing engagement, as seen in Tea Party-affiliated groups maintaining momentum into subsequent election cycles via targeted online outreach.[253] International cases further illustrate SNS-driven dynamics in repressive environments. During the 2019 Hong Kong protests against extradition legislation, Telegram channels coordinated over one million marchers on June 9, with encrypted groups facilitating anonymous planning and live-streamed evidence of police actions to garner global support, evolving from prior movements like the 2014 Umbrella Revolution.[254][255] The Black Lives Matter network, originating as a 2013 Facebook post following Trayvon Martin's killing, grew into decentralized chapters using hashtags and viral videos to mobilize protests after events like the 2014 Ferguson shooting, amassing millions of participants by 2020 through algorithmic promotion of user-generated content.[256] However, studies emphasize that while SNS lower barriers to entry—evident in exponential user growth during uprisings in 191 countries since 2010—sustained impact depends on offline translation, with digital tools often amplifying rather than originating causal drivers of unrest.[257][258]Commercial Integration and E-commerce Synergies
Social networking services integrate commercial features by embedding e-commerce tools directly into user feeds, stories, and messaging interfaces, allowing seamless product discovery, tagging, and transactions without external redirects. This reduces purchase friction and capitalizes on impulse-driven behaviors inherent in social scrolling. Platforms like Meta's Facebook and Instagram offer Shops, where businesses create catalogs accessible via tagged posts or dedicated tabs, with in-app checkout powered by partnerships such as Stripe or PayPal. TikTok's Shop, rolled out in the U.S. in September 2023, integrates short-form videos and live streams for product showcases, enabling affiliate commissions and direct sales.[259][260] These integrations yield synergies through the platforms' algorithmic personalization and social proof mechanisms, where user interactions—likes, shares, and follows—inform targeted recommendations that outperform traditional e-commerce search. Influencer collaborations amplify reach, as endorsements within authentic content contexts drive higher trust and conversion rates compared to static ads; for example, live shopping on TikTok has facilitated real-time Q&A and flash deals, boosting engagement by leveraging network effects from viewer comments and shares. Platforms earn revenue via transaction fees (typically 2-8% per sale), advertising tied to commerce inventory, and premium seller tools, diversifying beyond ad dependency.[261][262][261] Empirical growth underscores these synergies: the global social commerce market reached an estimated USD 1.16 trillion in 2024 and is forecasted to expand to USD 1.63 trillion in 2025, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of over 30% driven by mobile penetration and Gen Z adoption. In the U.S., social commerce sales are projected to hit USD 114.7 billion in 2025, up 14.4% year-over-year, with TikTok Shop contributing notably—generating USD 100 million on Black Friday 2023 alone, a 179% increase from the prior year. Instagram Shopping, linked to Facebook's ecosystem, has correlated with reported 20% revenue uplifts for brands utilizing tagged product features, attributed to integrated analytics that refine targeting via social data.[263][264][265][260][266]| Platform | Key Feature | 2023-2025 Revenue Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Instagram/Facebook | Shoppable posts, in-app checkout | Contributed to Meta's USD 132 billion total revenue in 2023, with commerce features enhancing ad-to-sale funnels[261] |
| TikTok Shop | Video/live integration | USD 100 million Black Friday sales (2023); projected role in USD 80 billion U.S. social commerce by 2025[260][259] |