J Comp Mediated Comm (2007) Social Network Sites Definition History and Scholarship

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Social Network Sites: Definition, History,

and Scholarship
danah m. boyd
School of Information
University of California-Berkeley
Nicole B. Ellison
Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media
Michigan State University
Social network sites (SNSs) are increasingly attracting the attention of academic and
industry researchers intrigued by their affordances and reach. This special theme section
of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication brings together scholarship on
these emergent phenomena. In this introductory article, we describe features of SNSs
and propose a comprehensive definition. We then present one perspective on the history
of such sites, discussing key changes and developments. After briefly summarizing exist-
ing scholarship concerning SNSs, we discuss the articles in this special section and con-
clude with considerations for future research.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Introduction
Since their introduction, social network sites (SNSs) such as MySpace, Facebook,
Cyworld, and Bebo have attracted millions of users, many of whom have integrated
these sites into their daily practices. As of this writing, there are hundreds of SNSs,
with various technological affordances, supporting a wide range of interests and
practices. While their key technological features are fairly consistent, the cultures
that emerge around SNSs are varied. Most sites support the maintenance of pre-
existing social networks, but others help strangers connect based on shared interests,
political views, or activities. Some sites cater to diverse audiences, while others attract
people based on common language or shared racial, sexual, religious, or nationality-
based identities. Sites also vary in the extent to which they incorporate new infor-
mation and communication tools, such as mobile connectivity, blogging, and photo/
video-sharing.
210 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association
10836101, 2007, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [20/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Scholars from disparate fields have examined SNSs in order to understand the
practices, implications, culture, and meaning of the sites, as well as users’ engage-
ment with them. This special theme section of the Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication brings together a unique collection of articles that analyze a wide
spectrum of social network sites using various methodological techniques, theoret-
ical traditions, and analytic approaches. By collecting these articles in this issue, our
goal is to showcase some of the interdisciplinary scholarship around these sites.
The purpose of this introduction is to provide a conceptual, historical, and
scholarly context for the articles in this collection. We begin by defining what con-
stitutes a social network site and then present one perspective on the historical
development of SNSs, drawing from personal interviews and public accounts of sites
and their changes over time. Following this, we review recent scholarship on SNSs
and attempt to contextualize and highlight key works. We conclude with a descrip-
tion of the articles included in this special section and suggestions for future research.
Social Network Sites: A Definition

We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1)
construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate
a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse
their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and
nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.
While we use the term ‘‘social network site’’ to describe this phenomenon, the
term ‘‘social networking sites’’ also appears in public discourse, and the two terms are
often used interchangeably. We chose not to employ the term ‘‘networking’’ for two
reasons: emphasis and scope. ‘‘Networking’’ emphasizes relationship initiation, often
between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary
practice on many of them, nor is it what differentiates them from other forms of
computer-mediated communication (CMC).
What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet
strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social
networks. This can result in connections between individuals that would not other-
wise be made, but that is often not the goal, and these meetings are frequently
between ‘‘latent ties’’ (Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection.
On many of the large SNSs, participants are not necessarily ‘‘networking’’ or looking
to meet new people; instead, they are primarily communicating with people who are
already a part of their extended social network. To emphasize this articulated social
network as a critical organizing feature of these sites, we label them ‘‘social network
sites.’’
While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features, their back-
bone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends1 who are
also users of the system. Profiles are unique pages where one can ‘‘type oneself into
being’’ (Sundén, 2003, p. 3). After joining an SNS, an individual is asked to fill out
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association 211
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association

Figure 1 Timeline of the launch dates of many major SNSs and dates when community sites
re-launched with SNS features
212
forms containing a series of questions. The profile is generated using the answers to
these questions, which typically include descriptors such as age, location, interests,
and an ‘‘about me’’ section. Most sites also encourage users to upload a profile photo.
Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multimedia content or
modifying their profile’s look and feel. Others, such as Facebook, allow users to add
modules (‘‘Applications’’) that enhance their profile.
The visibility of a profile varies by site and according to user discretion. By
default, profiles on Friendster and Tribe.net are crawled by search engines, making
them visible to anyone, regardless of whether or not the viewer has an account.
Alternatively, LinkedIn controls what a viewer may see based on whether she or
he has a paid account. Sites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want
their profile to be public or ‘‘Friends only.’’ Facebook takes a different approach—by
default, users who are part of the same ‘‘network’’ can view each other’s profiles,
unless a profile owner has decided to deny permission to those in their network.
Structural variations around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that
SNSs differentiate themselves from each other.
After joining a social network site, users are prompted to identify others in the
system with whom they have a relationship. The label for these relationships differs
depending on the site—popular terms include ‘‘Friends,’’ ‘‘Contacts,’’ and ‘‘Fans.’’
Most SNSs require bi-directional confirmation for Friendship, but some do not.
These one-directional ties are sometimes labeled as ‘‘Fans’’ or ‘‘Followers,’’ but many
sites call these Friends as well. The term ‘‘Friends’’ can be misleading, because the
connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense,
and the reasons people connect are varied (boyd, 2006a).
The public display of connections is a crucial component of SNSs. The Friends
list contains links to each Friend’s profile, enabling viewers to traverse the network
graph by clicking through the Friends lists. On most sites, the list of Friends is visible
to anyone who is permitted to view the profile, although there are exceptions. For
instance, some MySpace users have hacked their profiles to hide the Friends display,
and LinkedIn allows users to opt out of displaying their network.
Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave messages on their
Friends’ profiles. This feature typically involves leaving ‘‘comments,’’ although sites
employ various labels for this feature. In addition, SNSs often have a private mes-
saging feature similar to webmail. While both private messages and comments are
popular on most of the major SNSs, they are not universally available.
Not all social network sites began as such. QQ started as a Chinese instant
messaging service, LunarStorm as a community site, Cyworld as a Korean discussion
forum tool, and Skyrock (formerly Skyblog) was a French blogging service before
adding SNS features. Classmates.com, a directory of school affiliates launched in
1995, began supporting articulated lists of Friends after SNSs became popular.
AsianAvenue, MiGente, and BlackPlanet were early popular ethnic community sites
with limited Friends functionality before re-launching in 2005–2006 with SNS
features and structure.
Beyond profiles, Friends, comments, and private messaging, SNSs vary greatly in
their features and user base. Some have photo-sharing or video-sharing capabilities;
others have built-in blogging and instant messaging technology. There are mobile-
specific SNSs (e.g., Dodgeball), but some web-based SNSs also support limited
mobile interactions (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, and Cyworld). Many SNSs target
people from specific geographical regions or linguistic groups, although this does
not always determine the site’s constituency. Orkut, for example, was launched in the
United States with an English-only interface, but Portuguese-speaking Brazilians
quickly became the dominant user group (Kopytoff, 2004). Some sites are designed
with specific ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, political, or other identity-driven
categories in mind. There are even SNSs for dogs (Dogster) and cats (Catster),
although their owners must manage their profiles.
While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homoge-
neous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to
segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that
typically segment society (Hargittai, this issue), even if that was not the intention
of the designers.
A History of Social Network Sites
The Early Years

According to the definition above, the first recognizable social network site launched
in 1997. SixDegrees.com allowed users to create profiles, list their Friends and,
beginning in 1998, surf the Friends lists. Each of these features existed in some form
before SixDegrees, of course. Profiles existed on most major dating sites and many
community sites. AIM and ICQ buddy lists supported lists of Friends, although those
Friends were not visible to others. Classmates.com allowed people to affiliate with
their high school or college and surf the network for others who were also affiliated,
but users could not create profiles or list Friends until years later. SixDegrees was the
first to combine these features.
SixDegrees promoted itself as a tool to help people connect with and send
messages to others. While SixDegrees attracted millions of users, it failed to become
a sustainable business and, in 2000, the service closed. Looking back, its founder
believes that SixDegrees was simply ahead of its time (A. Weinreich, personal com-
munication, July 11, 2007). While people were already flocking to the Internet, most
did not have extended networks of friends who were online. Early adopters com-
plained that there was little to do after accepting Friend requests, and most users
were not interested in meeting strangers.
From 1997 to 2001, a number of community tools began supporting various
combinations of profiles and publicly articulated Friends. AsianAvenue, BlackPlanet,
and MiGente allowed users to create personal, professional, and dating profiles—
users could identify Friends on their personal profiles without seeking approval for
those connections (O. Wasow, personal communication, August 16, 2007). Likewise,
shortly after its launch in 1999, LiveJournal listed one-directional connections on
user pages. LiveJournal’s creator suspects that he fashioned these Friends after
instant messaging buddy lists (B. Fitzpatrick, personal communication, June 15,
2007)—on LiveJournal, people mark others as Friends to follow their journals and
manage privacy settings. The Korean virtual worlds site Cyworld was started in 1999
and added SNS features in 2001, independent of these other sites (see Kim & Yun,
this issue). Likewise, when the Swedish web community LunarStorm refashioned
itself as an SNS in 2000, it contained Friends lists, guestbooks, and diary pages
(D. Skog, personal communication, September 24, 2007).
The next wave of SNSs began when Ryze.com was launched in 2001 to help
people leverage their business networks. Ryze’s founder reports that he first intro-
duced the site to his friends—primarily members of the San Francisco business and
technology community, including the entrepreneurs and investors behind many
future SNSs (A. Scott, personal communication, June 14, 2007). In particular, the
people behind Ryze, Tribe.net, LinkedIn, and Friendster were tightly entwined per-
sonally and professionally. They believed that they could support each other without
competing (Festa, 2003). In the end, Ryze never acquired mass popularity, Tribe.net
grew to attract a passionate niche user base, LinkedIn became a powerful business
service, and Friendster became the most significant, if only as ‘‘one of the biggest
disappointments in Internet history’’ (Chafkin, 2007, p. 1).
Like any brief history of a major phenomenon, ours is necessarily incomplete. In
the following section we discuss Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook, three key SNSs
that shaped the business, cultural, and research landscape.
The Rise (and Fall) of Friendster

Friendster launched in 2002 as a social complement to Ryze. It was designed to
compete with Match.com, a profitable online dating site (Cohen, 2003). While most
dating sites focused on introducing people to strangers with similar interests, Friend-
ster was designed to help friends-of-friends meet, based on the assumption that
friends-of-friends would make better romantic partners than would strangers (J.
Abrams, personal communication, March 27, 2003). Friendster gained traction among
three groups of early adopters who shaped the site—bloggers, attendees of the Burning
Man arts festival, and gay men (boyd, 2004)—and grew to 300,000 users through word
of mouth before traditional press coverage began in May 2003 (O’Shea, 2003).
As Friendster’s popularity surged, the site encountered technical and social dif-
ficulties (boyd, 2006b). Friendster’s servers and databases were ill-equipped to han-
dle its rapid growth, and the site faltered regularly, frustrating users who replaced
email with Friendster. Because organic growth had been critical to creating a coherent
community, the onslaught of new users who learned about the site from media
coverage upset the cultural balance. Furthermore, exponential growth meant a col-
lapse in social contexts: Users had to face their bosses and former classmates along-
side their close friends. To complicate matters, Friendster began restricting the
activities of its most passionate users.
The initial design of Friendster restricted users from viewing profiles of people
who were more than four degrees away (friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends). In
order to view additional profiles, users began adding acquaintances and interesting-
looking strangers to expand their reach. Some began massively collecting Friends, an
activity that was implicitly encouraged through a ‘‘most popular’’ feature. The ulti-
mate collectors were fake profiles representing iconic fictional characters: celebrities,
concepts, and other such entities. These ‘‘Fakesters’’ outraged the company, who
banished fake profiles and eliminated the ‘‘most popular’’ feature (boyd, in press-b).
While few people actually created Fakesters, many more enjoyed surfing Fakesters for
entertainment or using functional Fakesters (e.g., ‘‘Brown University’’) to find peo-
ple they knew.
The active deletion of Fakesters (and genuine users who chose non-realistic
photos) signaled to some that the company did not share users’ interests. Many
early adopters left because of the combination of technical difficulties, social colli-
sions, and a rupture of trust between users and the site (boyd, 2006b). However, at
the same time that it was fading in the U.S., its popularity skyrocketed in the
Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia (Goldberg, 2007).
SNSs Hit the Mainstream

From 2003 onward, many new SNSs were launched, prompting social software
analyst Clay Shirky (2003) to coin the term YASNS: ‘‘Yet Another Social Networking
Service.’’ Most took the form of profile-centric sites, trying to replicate the early
success of Friendster or target specific demographics. While socially-organized SNSs
solicit broad audiences, professional sites such as LinkedIn, Visible Path, and Xing
(formerly openBC) focus on business people. ‘‘Passion-centric’’ SNSs like Dogster
(T. Rheingold, personal communication, August 2, 2007) help strangers connect
based on shared interests. Care2 helps activists meet, Couchsurfing connects travelers
to people with couches, and MyChurch joins Christian churches and their members.
Furthermore, as the social media and user-generated content phenomena grew,
websites focused on media sharing began implementing SNS features and becoming
SNSs themselves. Examples include Flickr (photo sharing), Last.FM (music listening
habits), and YouTube (video sharing).
With the plethora of venture-backed startups launching in Silicon Valley, few
people paid attention to SNSs that gained popularity elsewhere, even those built by
major corporations. For example, Google’s Orkut failed to build a sustainable U.S.
user base, but a ‘‘Brazilian invasion’’ (Fragoso, 2006) made Orkut the national SNS of
Brazil. Microsoft’s Windows Live Spaces (a.k.a. MSN Spaces) also launched to luke-
warm U.S. reception but became extremely popular elsewhere.
Few analysts or journalists noticed when MySpace launched in Santa Monica,
California, hundreds of miles from Silicon Valley. MySpace was begun in 2003 to
compete with sites like Friendster, Xanga, and AsianAvenue, according to co-
founder Tom Anderson (personal communication, August 2, 2007); the founders
wanted to attract estranged Friendster users (T. Anderson, personal communication,
February 2, 2006). After rumors emerged that Friendster would adopt a fee-based
system, users posted Friendster messages encouraging people to join alternate SNSs,
including Tribe.net and MySpace (T. Anderson, personal communication, August 2,
2007). Because of this, MySpace was able to grow rapidly by capitalizing on Friend-
ster’s alienation of its early adopters. One particularly notable group that encouraged
others to switch were indie-rock bands who were expelled from Friendster for failing
to comply with profile regulations.
While MySpace was not launched with bands in mind, they were welcomed.
Indie-rock bands from the Los Angeles region began creating profiles, and local
promoters used MySpace to advertise VIP passes for popular clubs. Intrigued,
MySpace contacted local musicians to see how they could support them (T. Anderson,
personal communication, September 28, 2006). Bands were not the sole source of
MySpace growth, but the symbiotic relationship between bands and fans helped
MySpace expand beyond former Friendster users. The bands-and-fans dynamic
was mutually beneficial: Bands wanted to be able to contact fans, while fans desired
attention from their favorite bands and used Friend connections to signal identity
and affiliation.
Futhermore, MySpace differentiated itself by regularly adding features based on
user demand (boyd, 2006b) and by allowing users to personalize their pages. This
‘‘feature’’ emerged because MySpace did not restrict users from adding HTML into
the forms that framed their profiles; a copy/paste code culture emerged on the web to
support users in generating unique MySpace backgrounds and layouts (Perkel, in
press).
Teenagers began joining MySpace en masse in 2004. Unlike older users, most
teens were never on Friendster—some joined because they wanted to connect with
their favorite bands; others were introduced to the site through older family mem-
bers. As teens began signing up, they encouraged their friends to join. Rather than
rejecting underage users, MySpace changed its user policy to allow minors. As the site
grew, three distinct populations began to form: musicians/artists, teenagers, and the
post-college urban social crowd. By and large, the latter two groups did not interact
with one another except through bands. Because of the lack of mainstream press
coverage during 2004, few others noticed the site’s growing popularity.
Then, in July 2005, News Corporation purchased MySpace for $580 million
(BBC, 2005), attracting massive media attention. Afterwards, safety issues plagued
MySpace. The site was implicated in a series of sexual interactions between adults
and minors, prompting legal action (Consumer Affairs, 2006). A moral panic con-
cerning sexual predators quickly spread (Bahney, 2006), although research suggests
that the concerns were exaggerated.2
A Global Phenomenon
While MySpace attracted the majority of media attention in the U.S. and abroad,
SNSs were proliferating and growing in popularity worldwide. Friendster gained
traction in the Pacific Islands, Orkut became the premier SNS in Brazil before
growing rapidly in India (Madhavan, 2007), Mixi attained widespread adoption in
Japan, LunarStorm took off in Sweden, Dutch users embraced Hyves, Grono cap-
tured Poland, Hi5 was adopted in smaller countries in Latin America, South Amer-
ica, and Europe, and Bebo became very popular in the United Kingdom, New
Zealand, and Australia. Additionally, previously popular communication and com-
munity services began implementing SNS features. The Chinese QQ instant messag-
ing service instantly became the largest SNS worldwide when it added profiles and
made friends visible (McLeod, 2006), while the forum tool Cyworld cornered the
Korean market by introducing homepages and buddies (Ewers, 2006).
Blogging services with complete SNS features also became popular. In the U.S.,
blogging tools with SNS features, such as Xanga, LiveJournal, and Vox, attracted
broad audiences. Skyrock reigns in France, and Windows Live Spaces dominates
numerous markets worldwide, including in Mexico, Italy, and Spain. Although SNSs
like QQ, Orkut, and Live Spaces are just as large as, if not larger than, MySpace, they
receive little coverage in U.S. and English-speaking media, making it difficult to track
their trajectories.
Expanding Niche Communities

Alongside these open services, other SNSs launched to support niche demographics
before expanding to a broader audience. Unlike previous SNSs, Facebook was
designed to support distinct college networks only. Facebook began in early 2004
as a Harvard-only SNS (Cassidy, 2006). To join, a user had to have a harvard.edu
email address. As Facebook began supporting other schools, those users were also
required to have university email addresses associated with those institutions,
a requirement that kept the site relatively closed and contributed to users’ percep-
tions of the site as an intimate, private community.
Beginning in September 2005, Facebook expanded to include high school students,
professionals inside corporate networks, and, eventually, everyone. The change to open
signup did not mean that new users could easily access users in closed networks—
gaining access to corporate networks still required the appropriate .com address, while
gaining access to high school networks required administrator approval. (As of this
writing, only membership in regional networks requires no permission.) Unlike other
SNSs, Facebook users are unable to make their full profiles public to all users. Another
feature that differentiates Facebook is the ability for outside developers to build
‘‘Applications’’ which allow users to personalize their profiles and perform other tasks,
such as compare movie preferences and chart travel histories.
While most SNSs focus on growing broadly and exponentially, others explicitly
seek narrower audiences. Some, like aSmallWorld and BeautifulPeople, intentionally
restrict access to appear selective and elite. Others—activity-centered sites like
Couchsurfing, identity-driven sites like BlackPlanet, and affiliation-focused sites like
MyChurch—are limited by their target demographic and thus tend to be smaller.
Finally, anyone who wishes to create a niche social network site can do so on Ning,
a platform and hosting service that encourages users to create their own SNSs.
Currently, there are no reliable data regarding how many people use SNSs,
although marketing research indicates that SNSs are growing in popularity world-
wide (comScore, 2007). This growth has prompted many corporations to invest time
and money in creating, purchasing, promoting, and advertising SNSs. At the same
time, other companies are blocking their employees from accessing the sites. Addi-
tionally, the U.S. military banned soldiers from accessing MySpace (Frosch, 2007)
and the Canadian government prohibited employees from Facebook (Benzie, 2007),
while the U.S. Congress has proposed legislation to ban youth from accessing SNSs in
schools and libraries (H.R. 5319, 2006; S. 49, 2007).
The rise of SNSs indicates a shift in the organization of online communities.
While websites dedicated to communities of interest still exist and prosper, SNSs are
primarily organized around people, not interests. Early public online communities
such as Usenet and public discussion forums were structured by topics or according to
topical hierarchies, but social network sites are structured as personal (or ‘‘egocentric’’)
networks, with the individual at the center of their own community. This more
accurately mirrors unmediated social structures, where ‘‘the world is composed of
networks, not groups’’ (Wellman, 1988, p. 37). The introduction of SNS features has
introduced a new organizational framework for online communities, and with it,
a vibrant new research context.
Previous Scholarship
Scholarship concerning SNSs is emerging from diverse disciplinary and methodo-
logical traditions, addresses a range of topics, and builds on a large body of CMC
research. The goal of this section is to survey research that is directly concerned with
social network sites, and in so doing, to set the stage for the articles in this special
issue. To date, the bulk of SNS research has focused on impression management and
friendship performance, networks and network structure, online/offline connec-
tions, and privacy issues.
Impression Management and Friendship Performance

Like other online contexts in which individuals are consciously able to construct an
online representation of self—such as online dating profiles and MUDS—SNSs
constitute an important research context for scholars investigating processes of impres-
sion management, self-presentation, and friendship performance. In one of the earliest
academic articles on SNSs, boyd (2004) examined Friendster as a locus of publicly
articulated social networks that allowed users to negotiate presentations of self and
connect with others. Donath and boyd (2004) extended this to suggest that ‘‘public
displays of connection’’ serve as important identity signals that help people navigate
the networked social world, in that an extended network may serve to validate identity
information presented in profiles.
While most sites encourage users to construct accurate representations of them-
selves, participants do this to varying degrees. Marwick (2005) found that users on
three different SNSs had complex strategies for negotiating the rigidity of a prescribed
‘‘authentic’’ profile, while boyd (in press-b) examined the phenomenon of ‘‘Fakest-
ers’’ and argued that profiles could never be ‘‘real.’’ The extent to which portraits are
authentic or playful varies across sites; both social and technological forces shape
user practices. Skog (2005) found that the status feature on LunarStorm strongly
influenced how people behaved and what they choose to reveal—profiles there
indicate one’s status as measured by activity (e.g., sending messages) and indicators
of authenticity (e.g., using a ‘‘real’’ photo instead of a drawing).
Another aspect of self-presentation is the articulation of friendship links, which
serve as identity markers for the profile owner. Impression management is one of the
reasons given by Friendster users for choosing particular friends (Donath & boyd,
2004). Recognizing this, Zinman and Donath (2007) noted that MySpace spammers
leverage people’s willingness to connect to interesting people to find targets for their
spam.
In their examination of LiveJournal ‘‘friendship,’’ Fono and Raynes-Goldie
(2006) described users’ understandings regarding public displays of connections
and how the Friending function can operate as a catalyst for social drama. In listing
user motivations for Friending, boyd (2006a) points out that ‘‘Friends’’ on SNSs are
not the same as ‘‘friends’’ in the everyday sense; instead, Friends provide context by
offering users an imagined audience to guide behavioral norms. Other work in this
area has examined the use of Friendster Testimonials as self-presentational devices
(boyd & Heer, 2006) and the extent to which the attractiveness of one’s Friends (as
indicated by Facebook’s ‘‘Wall’’ feature) impacts impression formation (Walther,
Van Der Heide, Kim, & Westerman, in press).
Networks and Network Structure

Social network sites also provide rich sources of naturalistic behavioral data. Profile
and linkage data from SNSs can be gathered either through the use of automated
collection techniques or through datasets provided directly from the company,
enabling network analysis researchers to explore large-scale patterns of friending,
usage, and other visible indicators (Hogan, in press), and continuing an analysis
trend that started with examinations of blogs and other websites. For instance,
Golder, Wilkinson, and Huberman (2007) examined an anonymized dataset con-
sisting of 362 million messages exchanged by over four million Facebook users for
insight into Friending and messaging activities. Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2007)
explored the relationship between profile elements and number of Facebook friends,
finding that profile fields that reduce transaction costs and are harder to falsify are
most likely to be associated with larger number of friendship links. These kinds of
data also lend themselves well to analysis through network visualization (Adamic,
Buyukkokten, & Adar, 2003; Heer & boyd, 2005; Paolillo & Wright, 2005).
SNS researchers have also studied the network structure of Friendship. Analyzing
the roles people played in the growth of Flickr and Yahoo! 360’s networks, Kumar,
Novak, and Tomkins (2006) argued that there are passive members, inviters, and
linkers ‘‘who fully participate in the social evolution of the network’’ (p. 1). Scholar-
ship concerning LiveJournal’s network has included a Friendship classification
scheme (Hsu, Lancaster, Paradesi, & Weniger, 2007), an analysis of the role of
language in the topology of Friendship (Herring et al., 2007), research into the
importance of geography in Friending (Liben-Nowell, Novak, Kumar, Raghavan,
and Tomkins, 2005), and studies on what motivates people to join particular com-
munities (Backstrom, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Lan, 2006). Based on Orkut data,
Spertus, Sahami, and Buyukkokten (2005) identified a topology of users through
their membership in certain communities; they suggest that sites can use this to
recommend additional communities of interest to users. Finally, Liu, Maes, and
Davenport (2006) argued that Friend connections are not the only network structure
worth investigating. They examined the ways in which the performance of tastes
(favorite music, books, film, etc.) constitutes an alternate network structure, which
they call a ‘‘taste fabric.’’
Bridging Online and Offline Social Networks

Although exceptions exist, the available research suggests that most SNSs primarily
support pre-existing social relations. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) suggest
that Facebook is used to maintain existing offline relationships or solidify offline
connections, as opposed to meeting new people. These relationships may be weak
ties, but typically there is some common offline element among individuals who
friend one another, such as a shared class at school. This is one of the chief dimen-
sions that differentiate SNSs from earlier forms of public CMC such as newsgroups
(Ellison et al., 2007). Research in this vein has investigated how online interactions
interface with offline ones. For instance, Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2006) found
that Facebook users engage in ‘‘searching’’ for people with whom they have an offline
connection more than they ‘‘browse’’ for complete strangers to meet. Likewise, Pew
research found that 91% of U.S. teens who use SNSs do so to connect with friends
(Lenhart & Madden, 2007).
Given that SNSs enable individuals to connect with one another, it is not sur-
prising that they have become deeply embedded in user’s lives. In Korea, Cyworld
has become an integral part of everyday life—Choi (2006) found that 85% of that
study’s respondents ‘‘listed the maintenance and reinforcement of pre-existing social
networks as their main motive for Cyworld use’’ (p. 181). Likewise, boyd (2008)
argues that MySpace and Facebook enable U.S. youth to socialize with their friends
even when they are unable to gather in unmediated situations; she argues that
SNSs are ‘‘networked publics’’ that support sociability, just as unmediated public
spaces do.
Privacy
Popular press coverage of SNSs has emphasized potential privacy concerns, primarily
concerning the safety of younger users (George, 2006; Kornblum & Marklein, 2006).
Researchers have investigated the potential threats to privacy associated with SNSs.
In one of the first academic studies of privacy and SNSs, Gross and Acquisti (2005)
analyzed 4,000 Carnegie Mellon University Facebook profiles and outlined the
potential threats to privacy contained in the personal information included on the
site by students, such as the potential ability to reconstruct users’ social security
numbers using information often found in profiles, such as hometown and date of
birth.
Acquisti and Gross (2006) argue that there is often a disconnect between stu-
dents’ desire to protect privacy and their behaviors, a theme that is also explored in
Stutzman’s (2006) survey of Facebook users and Barnes’s (2006) description of the
‘‘privacy paradox’’ that occurs when teens are not aware of the public nature of the
Internet. In analyzing trust on social network sites, Dwyer, Hiltz, and Passerini
(2007) argued that trust and usage goals may affect what people are willing to
share—Facebook users expressed greater trust in Facebook than MySpace users
did in MySpace and thus were more willing to share information on the site.
In another study examining security issues and SNSs, Jagatic, Johnson, Jakobsson,
and Menczer (2007) used freely accessible profile data from SNSs to craft a ‘‘phishing’’
scheme that appeared to originate from a friend on the network; their targets were
much more likely to give away information to this ‘‘friend’’ than to a perceived
stranger. Survey data offer a more optimistic perspective on the issue, suggesting that
teens are aware of potential privacy threats online and that many are proactive about
taking steps to minimize certain potential risks. Pew found that 55% of online teens
have profiles, 66% of whom report that their profile is not visible to all Internet users
(Lenhart & Madden, 2007). Of the teens with completely open profiles, 46% reported
including at least some false information.
Privacy is also implicated in users’ ability to control impressions and manage
social contexts. Boyd (in press-a) asserted that Facebook’s introduction of the ‘‘News
Feed’’ feature disrupted students’ sense of control, even though data exposed
through the feed were previously accessible. Preibusch, Hoser, Gürses, and Berendt
(2007) argued that the privacy options offered by SNSs do not provide users with the
flexibility they need to handle conflicts with Friends who have different conceptions
of privacy; they suggest a framework for privacy in SNSs that they believe would help
resolve these conflicts.
SNSs are also challenging legal conceptions of privacy. Hodge (2006) argued that
the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and legal decisions concerning
privacy are not equipped to address social network sites. For example, do police
officers have the right to access content posted to Facebook without a warrant? The
legality of this hinges on users’ expectation of privacy and whether or not Facebook
profiles are considered public or private.
Other Research
In addition to the themes identified above, a growing body of scholarship addresses
other aspects of SNSs, their users, and the practices they enable. For example, schol-
arship on the ways in which race and ethnicity (Byrne, in press; Gajjala, 2007),
religion (Nyland & Near, 2007), gender (Geidner, Flook, & Bell, 2007; Hjorth & Kim,
2005), and sexuality connect to, are affected by, and are enacted in social network
sites raise interesting questions about how identity is shaped within these sites.
Fragoso (2006) examined the role of national identity in SNS use through an inves-
tigation into the ‘‘Brazilian invasion’’ of Orkut and the resulting culture clash
between Brazilians and Americans on the site. Other scholars are beginning to do
cross-cultural comparisons of SNS use—Hjorth and Yuji (in press) compare Japa-
nese usage of Mixi and Korean usage of Cyworld, while Herring et al. (2007) examine
the practices of users who bridge different languages on LiveJournal—but more work
in this area is needed.
Scholars are documenting the implications of SNS use with respect to schools,
universities, and libraries. For example, scholarship has examined how students feel
about having professors on Facebook (Hewitt & Forte, 2006) and how faculty par-
ticipation affects student-professor relations (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007).
Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007) found that librarians are overwhelmingly aware of
Facebook and are against proposed U.S. legislation that would ban minors from
accessing SNSs at libraries, but that most see SNSs as outside the purview of librar-
ianship. Finally, challenging the view that there is nothing educational about SNSs,
Perkel (in press) analyzed copy/paste practices on MySpace as a form of literacy
involving social and technical skills.
This overview is not comprehensive due to space limitations and because much
work on SNSs is still in the process of being published. Additionally, we have not
included literature in languages other than English (e.g., Recuero, 2005 on social
capital and Orkut), due to our own linguistic limitations.
Overview of This Special Theme Section

The articles in this section address a variety of social network sites—BlackPlanet,
Cyworld, Dodgeball, Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube—from multiple theoretical
and methodological angles, building on previous studies of SNSs and broader the-
oretical traditions within CMC research, including relationship maintenance and
issues of identity, performance, privacy, self-presentation, and civic engagement.
These pieces collectively provide insight into some of the ways in which online
and offline experiences are deeply entwined. Using a relational dialectics approach,
Kyung-Hee Kim and Haejin Yun analyze how Cyworld supports both interpersonal
relations and self-relation for Korean users. They trace the subtle ways in which
deeply engrained cultural beliefs and activities are integrated into online communi-
cation and behaviors on Cyworld—the online context reinforces certain aspects of
users’ cultural expectations about relationship maintenance (e.g., the concept of
reciprocity), while the unique affordances of Cyworld enable participants to over-
come offline constraints. Dara Byrne uses content analysis to examine civic engage-
ment in forums on BlackPlanet and finds that online discussions are still plagued
with the problems offline activists have long encountered. Drawing on interview and
observation data, Lee Humphreys investigates early adopters’ practices involving
Dodgeball, a mobile social network service. She looks at the ways in which networked
communication is reshaping offline social geography.
Other articles in this collection illustrate how innovative research methods can
elucidate patterns of behavior that would be indistinguishable otherwise. For
instance, Hugo Liu examines participants’ performance of tastes and interests by
analyzing and modeling the preferences listed on over 127,000 MySpace profiles,
resulting in unique ‘‘taste maps.’’ Likewise, through survey data collected at a college
with diverse students in the U.S., Eszter Hargittai illuminates usage patterns that
would otherwise be masked. She finds that adoption of particular services correlates
with individuals’ race and parental education level.
Existing theory is deployed, challenged, and extended by the approaches adopted
in the articles in this section. Judith Donath extends signaling theory to explain
different tactics SNS users adopt to reduce social costs while managing trust and
identity. She argues that the construction and maintenance of relations on SNSs is
akin to ‘‘social grooming.’’ Patricia Lange complicates traditional dichotomies
between ‘‘public’’ and ‘‘private’’ by analyzing how YouTube participants blur these
lines in their video-sharing practices.
The articles in this collection highlight the significance of social network sites
in the lives of users and as a topic of research. Collectively, they show how
networked practices mirror, support, and alter known everyday practices, espe-
cially with respect to how people present (and hide) aspects of themselves and
connect with others. The fact that participation on social network sites leaves
online traces offers unprecedented opportunities for researchers. The scholarship
in this special theme section takes advantage of this affordance, resulting in work
that helps explain practices online and offline, as well as those that blend the two
environments.
Future Research
The work described above and included in this special theme section contributes to
an on-going dialogue about the importance of social network sites, both for practi-
tioners and researchers. Vast, uncharted waters still remain to be explored. Meth-
odologically, SNS researchers’ ability to make causal claims is limited by a lack of
experimental or longitudinal studies. Although the situation is rapidly changing,
scholars still have a limited understanding of who is and who is not using these
sites, why, and for what purposes, especially outside the U.S. Such questions will
require large-scale quantitative and qualitative research. Richer, ethnographic research
on populations more difficult to access (including non-users) would further aid
scholars’ ability to understand the long-term implications of these tools. We hope
that the work described here and included in this collection will help build a foun-
dation for future investigations of these and other important issues surrounding
social network sites.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the external reviewers who volunteered their time and expertise to
review papers and contribute valuable feedback and to those practitioners and ana-
lysts who provided information to help shape the history section. Thank you also to
Susan Herring, whose patience and support appeared infinite.
Notes
1 To differentiate the articulated list of Friends on SNSs from the colloquial term
‘‘friends,’’ we capitalize the former.
2 Although one out of seven teenagers received unwanted sexual solicitations online, only
9% came from people over the age of 25 (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2006). Research
suggests that popular narratives around sexual predators on SNSs are misleading—
cases of unsuspecting teens being lured by sexual predators are rare (Finkelhor, Ybarra,
Lenhart, boyd, & Lordan, 2007). Furthermore, only .08% of students surveyed by the
National School Boards Association (2007) met someone in person from an online
encounter without permission from a parent.
References
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing,
and privacy on the Facebook. In P. Golle & G. Danezis (Eds.), Proceedings of 6th Workshop
on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (pp. 36–58). Cambridge, UK: Robinson College.
Adamic, L. A., Büyükkökten, O., & Adar, E. (2003). A social network caught in the Web. First
Monday, 8(6). Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_6/
adamic/index.html
Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Lan, X. (2006). Group formation in large
social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution. Proceedings of 12th International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. 44–54). New York: ACM Press.
Bahney, A. (2006, March 9). Don’t talk to invisible strangers. New York Times. Retrieved July
21, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/fashion/thursdaystyles/
09parents.html
Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday,
11(9). Retrieved September 8, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/
barnes/index.html
BBC. (2005, July 19). News Corp in $580m Internet buy. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4695495.stm
Benzie, R. (2007, May 3). Facebook banned for Ontario staffers. The Star. Retrieved July 21,
2007 from http://www.thestar.com/News/article/210014
boyd, d. (2004). Friendster and publicly articulated social networks. Proceedings of ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1279–1282). New York: ACM
Press.
boyd, d. (2006a). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on
social network sites. First Monday, 11(12). Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://
www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/
boyd, d. (2006b, March 21). Friendster lost steam. Is MySpace just a fad? Apophenia Blog.
Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay.html
boyd, d. (in press-a). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social
convergence. Convergence, 14(1).
boyd, d. (in press-b). None of this is real. In J. Karaganis (Ed.), Structures of Participation.
New York: Social Science Research Council.
boyd, d. (2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics
in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media
(pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
boyd, d., & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on
Friendster. Proceedings of Thirty-Ninth Hawai’i International Conference on System
Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
Byrne, D. (in press). The future of (the) ‘race’: Identity, discourse and the rise of
computer-mediated public spheres. In A. Everett (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Book
Series on Digital Learning: Race and Ethnicity Volume (pp. 15–38). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Cassidy, J. (2006, May 15). Me media: How hanging out on the Internet became big business.
The New Yorker, 82(13), 50.
Chafkin, M. (2007, June). How to kill a great idea! Inc. Magazine. Retrieved August 27, 2007
from http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070601/features-how-to-kill-a-great-idea.html
Charnigo, L., & Barnett-Ellis, P. (2007). Checking out Facebook.com: The impact of a digital
trend on academic libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(1), 23.
Choi, J. H. (2006). Living in Cyworld: Contextualising Cy-Ties in South Korea. In A. Bruns &
J. Jacobs (Eds.), Use of Blogs (Digital Formations) (pp. 173–186). New York: Peter Lang.
Cohen, R. (2003, July 5). Livewire: Web sites try to make internet dating less creepy. Reuters.
Retrieved July 5, 2003 from http://asia.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3041934
comScore. (2007). Social networking goes global. Reston, VA. Retrieved September 9, 2007
from http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1555
Consumer Affairs. (2006, February 5). Connecticut opens MySpace.com probe. Consumer
Affairs. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/02/
myspace.html
Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4),
71–82.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social
networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of AMCIS 2007,
Keystone, CO. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from http://csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/research/
DwyerAMCIS2007.pdf
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends’’: Exploring
the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and social capital.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 1. Retrieved July 30, 2007
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
Ewers, J. (2006, November 9). Cyworld: Bigger than YouTube? U.S. News & World Report.
Retrieved July 30, 2007 from LexisNexis.
Festa, P. (2003, November 11). Investors snub Friendster in patent grab. CNet News.
Retrieved August 26, 2007 from http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5106136.html
Finkelhor, D., Ybarra, M., Lenhart, A., boyd, d., & Lordan, T. (2007, May 3). Just the facts
about online youth victimization: Researchers present the facts and debunk myths.
Internet Caucus Advisory Committee Event. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://
www.netcaucus.org/events/2007/youth/20070503transcript.pdf
Fono, D., & Raynes-Goldie, K. (2006). Hyperfriendship and beyond: Friends and social norms
on LiveJournal. In M. Consalvo & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Internet Research Annual
Volume 4: Selected Papers from the AOIR Conference (pp. 91–103). New York: Peter Lang.
Fragoso, S. (2006). WTF a crazy Brazilian invasion. In F. Sudweeks & H. Hrachovec (Eds.),
Proceedings of CATaC 2006 (pp. 255–274). Murdoch, Australia: Murdoch University.
Frosch, D. (2007, May 15). Pentagon blocks 13 web sites from military computers. New York
Times. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/
15block.html
Gajjala, R. (2007). Shifting frames: Race, ethnicity, and intercultural communication in online
social networking and virtual work. In M. B. Hinner (Ed.), The Role of Communication in
Business Transactions and Relationships (pp. 257–276). New York: Peter Lang.
Geidner, N. W., Flook, C. A., & Bell, M. W. (2007, April). Masculinity and online social
networks: Male self-identification on Facebook.com. Paper presented at Eastern
Communication Association 98th Annual Meeting, Providence, RI.
George, A. (2006, September 18). Living online: The end of privacy? New Scientist, 2569.
Retrieved August 29, 2007 from http://www.newscientist.com/channel/tech/
mg19125691.700-living-online-the-end-of-privacy.html
Goldberg, S. (2007, May 13). Analysis: Friendster is doing just fine. Digital Media Wire.
Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/05/14/
analysis-friendster-is-doing-just-fine
Golder, S. A., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. A. (2007, June). Rhythms of social interaction:
Messaging within a massive online network. In C. Steinfield, B. Pentland, M. Ackerman, &
N. Contractor (Eds.), Proceedings of Third International Conference on Communities and
Technologies (pp. 41–66). London: Springer.
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks.
Proceedings of WPES’05 (pp. 71–80). Alexandria, VA: ACM.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,
Communication, & Society, 8(2), 125–147.
Heer, J., & boyd, d. (2005). Vizster: Visualizing online social networks. Proceedings of
Symposium on Information Visualization (pp. 33–40). Minneapolis, MN: IEEE Press.
Herring, S. C., Paolillo, J. C., Ramos Vielba, I., Kouper, I., Wright, E., Stoerger, S., Scheidt, L.
A., & Clark, B. (2007). Language networks on LiveJournal. Proceedings of the Fortieth
Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006, November). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and
student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at CSCW, Banff, Alberta.
Hjorth, L., & Kim, H. (2005). Being there and being here: Gendered customising of mobile 3G
practices through a case study in Seoul. Convergence, 11(2), 49–55.
Hjorth, L., & Yuji, M. (in press). Logging on locality: A cross-cultural case study of virtual
communities Mixi (Japan) and Mini-hompy (Korea). In B. Smaill (Ed.), Youth and Media
in the Asia Pacific. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hodge, M. J. (2006). The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the ‘‘new’’ Internet:
Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 31, 95–122.
Hogan, B. (in press). Analyzing social networks via the Internet. In N. Fielding, R. Lee, & G.
Blank (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
H. R. 5319. (2006, May 9). Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. H.R. 5319, 109th Congress.
Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5319
Hsu, W. H., Lancaster, J., Paradesi, M. S. R., & Weninger, T. (2007). Structural link analysis
from user profiles and friends networks: A feature construction approach. Proceedings of
ICWSM-2007 (pp. 75–80). Boulder, CO.
Jagatic, T., Johnson, N., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007). Social phishing.
Communications of the ACM, 5(10), 94–100.
Kopytoff, V. (2004, November 29). Google’s orkut puzzles experts. San Francisco Chronicle.
Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/
29/BUGU9A0BH441.DTL
Kornblum, J., & Marklein, M. B. (2006, March 8). What you say online could haunt you.
USA Today. Retrieved August 29, 2007 from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/
internetprivacy/2006-03-08-facebook-myspace_x.htm
Kumar, R., Novak, J., & Tomkins, A. (2006). Structure and evolution of online social
networks. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data
Mining (pp. 611–617). New York: ACM Press.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs.
social browsing. Proceedings of CSCW-2006 (pp. 167–170). New York: ACM Press.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfeld, C. (2007). A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as
signals in an online social network. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 435–444). New York: ACM Press.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007, April 18). Teens, privacy, & online social networks.
Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://
www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Privacy_SNS_Report_Final.pdf
Liben-Nowell, D., Novak, J., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., & Tomkins, A. (2005) Geographic
routing in social networks. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 102(33)
11,623–11,628.
Liu, H., Maes, P., & Davenport, G. (2006). Unraveling the taste fabric of social networks.
International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 2(1), 42–71.
Madhavan, N. (2007, July 6). India gets more Net Cool. Hindustan Times. Retrieved July 30,
2007 from http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/
StoryPage.aspx?id=f2565bb8-663e-48c1-94ee-d99567577bdd
Marwick, A. (2005, October). ‘‘I’m a lot more interesting than a Friendster profile:’’ Identity
presentation, authenticity, and power in social networking services. Paper presented at
Internet Research 6.0, Chicago, IL.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘‘Facebook:’’ The effects of
computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and
classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1–17.
McLeod, D. (2006, October 6). QQ Attracting eyeballs. Financial Mail (South Africa), p. 36.
Retrieved July 30, 2007 from LexisNexis.
National School Boards Association. (2007, July). Creating and connecting: Research and
guidelines on online social—and educational—networking. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved
September 23, 2007 from http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/41400/41340.pdf
Nyland, R., & Near, C. (2007, February). Jesus is my friend: Religiosity as a mediating factor in
Internet social networking use. Paper presented at AEJMC Midwinter Conference,
Reno, NV.
O’Shea, W. (2003, July 4-10). Six Degrees of sexual frustration: Connecting the dates with
Friendster.com. Village Voice. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.villagevoice.com/
news/0323,oshea, 44576, 1.html
Paolillo, J. C., & Wright, E. (2005). Social network analysis on the semantic web: Techniques
and challenges for visualizing FOAF. In V. Geroimenko & C. Chen (Eds.), Visualizing the
Semantic Web (pp. 229–242). Berlin: Springer.
Perkel, D. (in press). Copy and paste literacy? Literacy practices in the production of
a MySpace profile. In K. Drotner, H. S. Jensen, & K. Schroeder (Eds.), Informal Learning
and Digital Media: Constructions, Contexts, Consequences. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge
Scholars Press.
Preibusch, S., Hoser, B., Gürses, S., & Berendt, B. (2007, June). Ubiquitous social
networks—opportunities and challenges for privacy-aware user modelling. Proceedings of
Workshop on Data Mining for User Modeling. Corfu, Greece. Retrieved October 20, 2007
from http://vasarely.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/DM.UM07/Proceedings/05-Preibusch.pdf
Recuero, R. (2005). O capital social em redes sociais na Internet. Revista FAMECOS, 28,
88–106. Retrieved September 13, 2007 from http://www.pucrs.br/famecos/pos/
revfamecos/28/raquelrecuero.pdf
S. 49. (2007, January 4). Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. S. 49, 110th Congress.
Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/
;c110dJQpcy:e445:
Shirky, C. (2003, May 13). People on page: YASNS. Corante’s Many-to-Many. Retrieved July
21, 2007 from http://many.corante.com/archives/2003/05/12/people_on_page_yasns.php
Skog, D. (2005). Social interaction in virtual communities: The significance of technology.
International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(4), 464–474.
Spertus, E., Sahami, M., & Buyukkokten, O. (2005). Evaluating similarity measures: A
large-scale study in the orkut social network. Proceedings of 11th International Conference
on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. 678–684). New York: ACM Press.
Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network
communities. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3(1), 10–18.
Sundén, J. (2003). Material Virtualities. New York: Peter Lang.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., & Westerman, D. (in press). The role of friends’
appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the
company we keep? Human Communication Research.
Wellman, B. (1988). Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance.
In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach
(pp. 19–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: Five years later.
Report from Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire.
Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV138.pdf
Zinman, A., & Donath, J. (2007, August). Is Britney Spears spam? Paper presented at the
Fourth Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, Mountain View, CA.
About the Authors
danah m. boyd is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Information at the University of
California-Berkeley and a Fellow at the Harvard University Berkman Center for
Internet and Society. Her research focuses on how people negotiate mediated con-
texts like social network sites for sociable purposes.
Address: 102 South Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720–4600, USA
Nicole B. Ellison is an assistant professor in the Department of Telecommunication,
Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. Her research explores
issues of self-presentation, relationship development, and identity in online environ-
ments such as weblogs, online dating sites, and social network sites.
Address: 403 Communication Arts and Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

J Comp Mediated Comm (2007) Social Network Sites Definition History and Scholarship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Comp Mediated Comm (2007) Social Network Sites Definition History and Scholarship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Comp Mediated Comm (2007) Social Network Sites Definition History and Scholarship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Social Network Sites: Definition, History,

Social Network Sites: A Definition

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 210–230 ª 2008 International Communication Association

A History of Social Network Sites

The Early Years

The Rise (and Fall) of Friendster

SNSs Hit the Mainstream

Expanding Niche Communities

Impression Management and Friendship Performance

Networks and Network Structure

Bridging Online and Offline Social Networks

Overview of This Special Theme Section

You might also like