Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life by Danah Boyd
-Social Media sites are important parts of teen social life
-Thesis: “I argue that social network sites are a type of networked public with four properties that are not typically present in face-to-face public life: persistence, searchability, exact copyability, and invisible audiences. These properties fundamentally alter social dynamics, complicating the ways in which people interact. I conclude by reflecting on the social developments that have prompted youth to seek out networked publics, and considering the changing role that publics have in young people’s lives.”
-Used ethnographic data on youth engagement with MySpace, also analyzed profiles and blogs
-Not all teens are participating. 2 types of non participants- 1. disenfranchised teens = those who lack internet access, parents ban them from participation and those whose only access to the Internet is at school/other public venues where social networks are not allowed 2. conscientious objectors = politically minded teens who are against the corporate owner of MySpace. Obedient teens who respect their parents restrictions. Marginalized teens who don’t feel they belong on myspace (its only for cool kids) and teens who think they are too cool for the sites.
-even without 100% participation all teens know of it, and have an opinion on it
-race and class does not seem to affect participation
-gender DOES affect participation.
-Friendster popularized features that define current social networks: profiles, friend lists, public comments, ect. but lacked ability to promote bands, which MySpace did.
-youth are large consumers of music, and MySpace provided access under 21 youth had not had before.
-by 2005 various different social network sites were popular amongst different demographics. Facebook=U.S. college students. Friendster = teens in Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Orkut and Hi5 = young adults and teens in brazil and india. Yet those in different countries on the same site do not interact.
-Also in 2005 Fox Interactive Media bought Myspace
- social network sites are based on profiles, friends, and comments.
-MySpace capitalized on users ability to add personal coding, CSS and HTML, to alter profiles appearances. also offers privacy settings.
-development of writing “private” messages on public profiles- moving from testimonials to comments
-profiles, friends and comments take place in public. “Friends are publicly articulated, profiles are publicly viewed, and comments are publicly visible.”
- Various meanings of public, “Social network sites allow publics to gather. At the same time, by serving as a space where speech takes place, they are also publics themselves. The sites themselves also distinguish between public and private, where public means that a profile is visible to anyone and private means that it is Friends-only.”
-distinguishes these sites as “publics”spaces and audiences tied together by technological networks, “Networked publics are one type of mediated public; the network mediates the interactions between members of the public. Media of all stripes have enabled the development of mediated publics.”
-architectural differences that affect social interaction. Unmediated environments = boundaries and audiences of a public are structurally defined, access is limited by physical boundaries, audience is restricted by those physically present.
-Mediated technologies change this relationship = reproductions can be made.
-networked publics = add the searchability component.
- 4 components that separate unmediated publics from networked publics:
1. persistence = extends existence of any given speech act
2. searchability = easily find someones “digital body”
3. replicability = expressions can be copied word for word, cant distinct original from copy.
4. invisible audiences = “our expression may be heard at a different time and place from when and where we originally spoke.”
- success of MySpace relies on ability to socialize with pre existing friends. Teens spend time there for entertainment, provides insight to society. Teens learn what representations are socially acceptable. Learn social and technological codes.
-Mediated environments reveal different signals. Online profiles are easier to control but because they are dense, misinterpretations are more likely.
-teens audience may not be who they think it is. teens attempt to make it difficult for parents to access their profiles by use of structural tactics. “mirror networks”, setting profile to “private”, “security through obscurity” how can teens be cool to their friends and at the same time appropriate to parents?
- “When outsiders search for and locate participants, they are ill prepared to understand the context; instead, they project the context in which they relate to the individual offline onto the individual in this new online space. For teens, this has resulted in expulsions, suspensions, probations, and being grounded.”
-structural and social barriers that don’t allow teens to engage in public life: mobility. MySpace provides a solution to this.
-“While peer socialization is obviously valuable and important, it is fundamentally different from being socialized into adult society by adults themselves; generations emerge and norms rapidly change per generation. By segregating people by age, a true dichotomy between adult and teen emerged.”
-Internet gives teens access to be apart of unregulated publics. This is controversial. Teens need access to publics in order to mature.
-concludes by asking for society to figure out how to inform teens on navigating social structures.
Do you believe myspace and other social networking sites are beneficial or detrimental to teens social development? Does it cause more good or harm?
Did Boyd’s account of myspace and its relation to teens stand true to your experiences with the site while growing up?
Mediated Subjectivity 
briej102 8:35 pm on November 12, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do think social networking sites are ‘detrimental’ to teens social development. When myspace was the new phenomenon when we were about 13 or so, most teens spent more time developing their identities and social relationships online opposed to in person. More so, when teens were socializing in school or even outside of school, the topic of conversation revolved around, began from, or referenced myspace. I feel like more drama sprouts from social networking sites whether or not a profile is public or private. I’ve seen fights within relationships over who commented on what, why someone commented that etc.
However, I do agree with Boyd about how myspace opened up a huge and creative window for bands and artists for all demographics.
And of course, if you guys haven’t seen the South Park episode about Facebook, it is a necessity!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s14e04-you-have-0-friends
Dorry Funaki 6:38 pm on November 13, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I thought that Boyds account of myspace was very similar to my experiences on Myspace while growing up. I remember hiding my myspace account from my parents when I was 12.
I really think that myspace was beneficial to me as teen because it allowed me to construct my own identity outside of the protective circle of my family.
That’s what makes the internet so beneficial because it gives teens the “access to publics in order to mature”. The new publics that offered spaces to mature remind of 4chan because they were places where you were had the freedom to fail. Of course, I might have taken the freedom to fail, a little liberally on Mysapce and Facebook, and their archival system has kept a log of my “failures” .
These spaces do provide a place to mature and that is incredibly beneficial yet the datamining of these sites might be detrimental to the future social lives of its users.
maxschneiderschumacher 10:16 am on November 14, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The existence of this second, digital, public is going to have a real interesting effect on teenagers growing up in this age and how they relate to technology and other people. Due to the fact it is such a relatively recent phenomenon, we have yet to truly see the effects these social media websites will have on the physical public when youth that have been raised with this alternate public mature. But, it is certainly undeniable that the way individuals relate to one another has changed and will continue to change more and more in time. The question is whether or not the emergences of this new digital public is good for youth or is detrimental. How is it going to effect the physical social public? As is written in the article, ”While peer socialization is obviously valuable and important, it is fundamentally different from being socialized into adult society by adults themselves; generations emerge and norms rapidly change per generation.” Norms are changing and adapting in all platforms. With the generations to come, we will see a far more drastic change to these public norms in the physical realm.
emilyellens 11:25 am on November 14, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Doing both these readings it was hard not to think about my own experiences using both MySpace and Twitter. In both articles boyd pointed to the invisible audience who the user invents but is probably not actually a specific kind of group (as imagined by a tweeter or myspacer). While moot didn’t specifically use this vocabulary I think this was the issue that he was trying to address as well. I agree that adults aren’t any better at navigating the idea of a singular identity, I can’t tell if the ability to do so is necessarily a bad thing. Most people do not stop engaging with the world once they go online, so the plurality of identity as we are familiar with it continues. Online space is not “IRL” and perhaps we get more confused when we try to treat it as such? However I do wonder if constituting an online identity at such a young age will have an effect on behavior outside of the internet.
Veronika Höglund 12:21 pm on November 14, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It was most certainly a throwback reading the study on Myspace and its role within the lives of teenagers. While the article was a bit outdated, as it was published in 2007, I didn’t entirely agree with the conclusions he came to through his research. I thought it was very much an outsider’s point of view, in the sense that many of his observations seemed a bit exaggerated. For one, I think that as the Myspace medium was essentially a new form of expression for our generation, I am not entirely sure that the issue of privacy and public was yet of concern.