Unit 3 Paper-Unfinished

Virtually Connected: The New World of Facebook Friendship

            Imagine someone on the street coming up to you and offering you $1000 to list all of your friends.  Who would you name?  Do you include the person you shared your pudding with in first grade? What about the barista you exchange niceties with every morning?  Does your mother count as one of your friends?  What about your nieces and nephews?  The meaning of friendship differs from person to person and relationship to relationship, depending on whom one asks.  Even the good people at dictionary.com can’t come up with a single definition for friend, stating, “a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard”, “a person who is on good terms with another”, and “a member of the same nation, party, etc.”, all of which provide extremely different connotations for the word.  The meaning of friendship is expanding even more now that we’re living in the digital world of online social networks that have become so popular today.  The most common understanding of friendship is that friends are the people you confide in and make time to physically see.  Through the connection of social networks, the term “friends” has become much broader, encompassing people you talk to daily, people you haven’t spoken to in years, and people you might not even personally know.    

            Facebook.com, created by former Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg with the intent to replace printed “face books” containing pictures and information about incoming college students, exploded onto the web in 2004.  Today, the site has invaded most American universities (and several international ones), opened its doors to anyone with a valid e-mail address, and connected people from all over the world (Lupsa, 2006).  But it has also changed how we as humans envision friendship.  Anyone to whom Facebook user connects is called a “friend”, regardless of their actual relationship.  In perusing my personal Facebook “friends” list, I found people I went to high school with but never spoke to, people I randomly met once, girls I lived on the same floor with freshman year but never really liked, kids that attended the same leadership conference as me, family members, and quite frankly some people that I don’t even like. All of these people are classified as “friends”, but I feel as if my actual relationships with them are not ones of friendship.  Internet social networks like Facebook have redefined friendship based on the digital world as opposed to the physical, and have allowed people to sustain connections that would otherwise not be in place.

danah boyd, a PhD candidate at the iSchool at UC Berkely and a Fellow at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, broaches the topic of “Friendship” in her 2006 paper “Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing Community Into Being on Social Network Sites”.  While the paper does not explicitly discuss Facebook, many of her ideas and theories apply to social networks in general, and can be seen on different users’ Facebook profiles.  Boyd first argues that the meaning of friendship tends to differ from the physical to the digital world, although not in every case.  On social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace, the term “friend” overrides all relationships.  Instead of being someone’s boyfriend or sister, all relationships are clumped under the title “friend” (boyd, 2006).  While Facebook does continue to call all connected users “friends”, there is the option of specifying how one knows another, but in my personal experience most users ignore it.  Quite frankly, it takes too much effort to think about all the ways you’re connected to another person when the “Skip this step” button is right in front of you.  Even connections to people we don’t particularly like are termed as friendships, mainly because there are no other options.  A logical-thinking human that has never experienced Facebook may be wondering what point there is in establishing a connection with someone you don’t even like.  Boyd covers this topic in her paper, and lists a variety of reasons, including “It would be socially inappropriate to say no because you know them”, “Having lots of Friends makes you look popular”, “It’s the only way to see a private profile”, and my personal favorite, “It’s easier to say yes than no” (boyd, 2006).  The first quoted reason seems interesting, because there is in fact a difference between the physical and digital worlds.  However, for some people, the two are intertwined in such a way that the “snub” of a denied friend request leads to a real life grudge.  As boyd explains, whoever sent the request then falls at the behest of the recipient, who is faced with the option to “confirm” or “ignore” (on Facebook specifically).  The request remains until the recipient chooses one of the options.  When a request is denied, the sender, while not blatantly notified, can assume that the request has been ignored when the pages are not connected.  It is possible to just not respond to a request, but the notification then remains on the user’s homepage until a response is given, and in the digital world, it’s considered rude to not immediately respond (boyd, 2006).  The virtual rejection can lead to real-life conflict when the sender and the recipient come across each other outside the realm of Facebook.

In the physical world, we fall back on the term “friendship” in order to refrain from hurting anyone’s feelings.  The same is done in the digital world by just accepting anyone’s friend request (“It’s easier to say yes than no”).  While at first this seems rather absurd, anyone that is a Facebook user should think about how many times they’ve clicked “confirm” rather than “ignore” on a friend request because they simply could care less.  Boyd points out that many times it actually is just easier to friend someone than to deal with the drama that comes from declining a friend request (boyd, 2006).  In some cases, a face-to-face encounter between the rejected and the rejecter can result in an awkward question and answer session about exactly why a request was ignored.  Rather than dealing with the possible backlash, some users (myself included) simply accept others as Friends without a second thought.  Another option is to just not care about potential consequences of denying a friend request, and ignoring anyone you don’t like or don’t know.  Most people can conclude and acknowledge that their broach of “friendship” has been refused, but for some, acceptance is not in the cards.  I’ve recently begun ignoring friend requests from people that really have no reason to be “friending” me.  For example, a student from my high school that is a senior this year with my younger brother (but whom my brother has never been friends with) recently requested to be my Facebook friend.  I found this to be rather comical, but absurd at the same time, because having never spoken to the boy, I really have little knowledge of him other than his name.  So, figuring that I would never really have to deal with the consequences of my actions, I ignored his request.  The next day, when I did my morning ritual of “wake up and immediately get on Facebook”, I had another friend request waiting for me.  Lo and behold, it was the same boy, who apparently did not get the picture that I didn’t particularly care to be his Friend.  Being the stubborn individual that I am, I ignored the request again, and being the stubborn individual that he apparently is as well, he requested me again.  We’ve been playing this little game for a few days now, and I think he may have finally realized that no, I do not want to be Facebook friends with him.  While repeatedly ignoring a friend request admittedly isn’t the same as a public shouting match, it still is an inconvenience that takes place as a result of denying a friend request, making it easier to simply accept someone instead.  Perhaps one day I’ll realize this for myself, and accept the poor high school boy who apparently has nothing better to do with his time than attempt to view my Facebook profile.

Facebook allows its users to maintain an unlimited number of relationships by making it incredibly easy to establish a connection (click “Add *name* as a friend” and wait for the person to confirm or deny the request).  However, many of these relationships only exist in the digital world, and do not carry over into the physical.  Christopher Allen, an entrepreneur, advisor and technologist from California, explores the difference between meaningful relationships and just connections in his blog Life With Alacrity.  One of his main points involves the theory of the Dunbar Number, which says that humans only have the cognitive ability to maintain 150 stable relationships at any given time (Allen, 2004).  Allen uses his own knowledge and experience along with others’ research to determine how this ties in with the interconnectedness of online networks, and found that 150 is the approximate number of contributing group members in several different online communities.  However, Allen also suggests that “a community size of 150 will not be a mean for a community unless it is highly incentivized to remain together” (Allen, 2004).  There are some people whose professions require a large base network, such as politicians, but these people have a great motivation to maintain stable relations with vast amounts of people.  Allen further explores the concept of preserving a cognitively impossible number of friendships in his entry “Dunbar Triage: Too Many Connections” (2006).  He offers a variety of ideas, one of which is the prioritization of connections.  This seems rather unreasonable though, because the rejection would be incredibly offensive.  He correctly poses the question, “How do you tell someone ‘I’m sorry, but I’m overly Dunbarred, so I have removed you from my list’” (Allen, 2006).  A second solution that requires technological support from social networking sites themselves is a program that would remind users about connections that may have been unutilized for quite some time.  Allen provides the example of the networking site Spoke, which has a “Keep In Touch” feature that reminds the user to contact his or her friends every so often (Allen, 2006).

In applying Allen’s thoughts and ideas to Facebook, we see that Zuckerberg and the other Facebook administrators have attempted to create their own solution to overextension of connections that combines Allen’s proposals.  Users can now categorize their friends into separate lists at their own disposal, with as few or as many lists as they please.  The categories are nameable per user; for example, my own lists include “Alpha Betas” (my pledge class for my sorority), and “Home Friends”.  These lists are in addition to the networks that Facebook already allows users to join when they create a profile, and that other users within the same network can see (if one’s security settings allow).  By having lists for each separate group of friends or acquaintances, Facebook users have the ability to categorize their Friends based on who they want or need to contact most often, otherwise known as prioritizing like Allen suggests.

There are a few ways that Facebook currently reminds its users about Friends that may have been forgotten.  When a Facebook user clicks the “Friends” tab at the top of his or her homepage, the website automatically generates a list of users based on who has updated their status most recently (a user’s status is an option that allows users to express what they’re doing or how they’re feeling that is displayed right on the profile).  By choosing a non-partisan way of creating a Friends list, Facebook can remind users of who they have connected to at some point but may not have spoken to recently.  This allows users to retain knowledge of their connections without specifically telling them to contact anyone.  By clicking the “Friends” tab, users can also view whoever has just updated their profile.  This is another fairly random fashion of refreshing the Friends list, because you never know who has just gotten sick of their entire profile and decided to revamp it.  In these ways, Facebook has tried to make it possible to maintain a higher number of relationships than the Dunbar number hypothesizes.

One of the main points of social networks is to display the connections that have been established between users.  On any given Facebook profile, six other users’ profile pictures are displayed from the main network of whoever’s profile you’re looking at.  These profile pictures can connect you to the user’s profile if their security settings allow, or can just inform you of who else from that network is on Facebook.  If you share common friends with whoever’s profile you’re viewing, up to 3 of them are displayed as well.  This allows people to make connections where connections are unlikely.  This has happened to me on a few occasions.  The most impressive one was when I saw that a girl that I had met in one of my EDU classes freshman year was friends with a girl I graduated high school with.  I asked Katherine how she knew this girl, because we weren’t from the same area and I had been attending school with Charise since kindergarten, so I knew she hadn’t gone to school anywhere else.  As it turns out, the two girls had recently become cousins by marriage.  By putting “Friendships” out in the open for anyone to see, Facebook is establishing what danah boyd and Judith Donath, head of the Media Lab’s Sociable Media group, call “public displays of connection”.  In their 2004 article of the same name, the two explore how people have come to view the internet as a social space and how the connections established through networking sites reflect upon each individual user.

Connections established between users on a social networking site generally have four things in common: they are mutual, public, unnuanced, and decontextualized.  Links between users are mutual in that both parties have to approve of the link; they are public because other users can see them (even with certain security settings, users that someone has connected to can still view all of his or her Friends); they are unnuanced as there is no differentiation between close friends and mere acquaintances; and they are decontextualized in the way that there is no possible way to only show a portion of the network to the public (Donath & boyd, 2004).  The links that are established between friends on Facebook fall into all these generalizations in some way, shape, or form.  A “Friendship” can only be created if one user requests a connection and the other approves, and there is a link that lists a user’s connections available on every profile.  Furthermore, everyone a user connects to is a Friend regardless of their actual relationship, and all of a user’s Friends (and for some, everyone in their network) can see every connection the user has made.  In these ways, Facebook Friendships are common to every connection established by social networking sites, but there are a few ways in which Facebook is unique. 

In many of danah boyd’s works, she examines other networking sites such as Friendster or MySpace, and on these sites it is common for users to create pseudonyms that mask the user’s true identity.  In “Public displays of connection”, boyd and Donath discuss how a user’s network of friend provides validity to others who may want to connect to someone.  On social networking sites, pseudonyms can decrease a user’s legitimacy in the eyes of others (Donath & boyd, 2004).  With Facebook, however, most users refuse to Friend someone unless he or she knows them (Klassen & Hampp, 2007).  When a group of your friends that you already know and trust connect to someone, you will be more willing to connect to that person as well because you have the verification from mutual acquaintances that it is the profile of the actual person.  As boyd and Donath put it, “Knowing that someone is connected to people one already knows and trusts is one of the most basic ways of establishing trust with a new relationship” (Donath & boyd, 2004).  Unfortunately, very few Facebook users connect only to people that they personally know well and trust, but the intent of Facebook is a step in the right direction to legitimize social networking sites.

Donath and boyd compare how public displays of connection are exhibited in the physical world and the digital world.

References

Allen, C. (2004). The dunbar number as a limit to group sizes. Life With Alacrity. Retrieved March

6, 2008 from http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html

Allen, C. (2005). Dunbar triage: too many connections. Life With Alacrity. Retrieved April 8, 2008

from http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/02/dunbar_triage_t.html

boyd, d. (2006).  Friends, friendsters, and top 8: writing community into being on social network

sites. First Monday, 11. Retrieved March 19, 2008 from

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html

Donath, J. & boyd, d. (2004).  Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22. Retrieved

April 8, 2008 from http://www.danah.org/papers/PublicDisplays.pdf

Klassen, A., & Hampp, A. (2007, July 9).  This 23-year-old has Google sweating.  Advertising

Age, 78(27).  Retrieved January 25, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Lupsa, C. (2006, December 13).  Facebook: A campus fad becomes a campus fact; The social

networking website isn’t growing like it once did, but only because almost every US student

is already on it.  Christian Science Monitor.  Retrieved January 25, 2008, from ProQuest

database.

Unit 3 Topic Proposal

For my Unit 3 paper, I would like to discuss how Weinberger’s arguments concerning order are connected to Facebook, and more specifically Facebook “friends”.  It seems as if the definition of friendship changes from the physical world to the virtual world of Facebook.  I would discuss how initially, Facebook only classified friends by what network they belonged to, and on a user’s profile, only friends in the same network as the user would appear on the profile.  As the site has developed, however, Facebook users could view their friends in different ways; alphabetically, who has updated their profile most recently, who has updated their “status” most recently, who was the last person added as a friend, who the user went to college with, etcetera.  Facebook has now also added the ability to sort one’s friends into lists based on how whatever criteria the users wants, such as “friends from home” or “people I met on vacation in Washington”.  This gives the user unlimited room to classify his or her friends.  On each user’s public profile, the site randomly pulls up six “friends” that are in the same main network as the user, and also shows the person viewing whether or not they have friends in common.  However, with the addition of applications, a “Top Friends” application was added, and those who have downloaded it can order their friends publicly, regardless of what network they belong to. 

            Weinberger’s opinions of order are definitely applicable.  With the latest upgrade to the site, Facebook users can classify their friends based on their personal references instead of following predetermined criteria.  Furthermore, the “Top Friends” application requires users to place their friends in order.  But based on what?  Most commonly assume that it’s whoever the user is closest to, but this does not always have to be the case.  Perhaps users want to put their friends in order of how long they’ve known them, or whose profile they visit the most.  Several discussions of order that Weinberger has can be found in Facebook friends.

            There are two possible fields of academia that I can consult to do research.  The first is the obvious field of technology, because were it not for the internet, sites like Facebook would not exist at all.  The other field that has potential to provide me with sources is psychology.  It would be interesting to see how people prefer things to be in order, and if this has any connection to how they order their friends on a social networking site.  One source that could possibly be helpful is an article called “Checking Out Facebook.com: The Impact of a Digital Trend on Academic Libraries” by Laurie Charnigo and Paula Barnett-Ellis.  It describes some ways that Facebook users interact with one another.  However, I feel that the most useful source will be Facebook itself, and personally viewing how friends can be ordered.  

Content Analysis Final Draft

           After a hard day of classes, the first thing I do is calm my brain by spending some quality time on Facebook catching up with my friends’ lives.  The Minifeed keeps me updated as to who’s dating whom, how everyone’s days went, and what embarrassing pictures from the weekend have been posted.  My little sister has updated her profile, so I spend a few minutes harmlessly stalking her by going through her wall posts, pictures, and recent actions.  This way, I can keep tabs on her despite being 80 miles away at school.  Facebook, the newest internet start-up, is a social networking site that originally targeted college students, but has now expanded its audience to include anyone with an e-mail address.  Users can belong to different networks based on the college they attended, where they live, or where they work.  Facebook is unique in that its owner, Mark Zuckerberg, has decided to keep the company independent, despite offers from corporations such as Yahoo for as much as $1 billion.  With over 60 million members, Facebook is enormously successful, but has created its fair share of controversy (www.facebook.com).  Twice recently, Facebook users opposing new additions to the site successfully petitioned to have them removed, saying that it was imposing on their privacy.  Colleges and universities, the thriving ground of Facebook, have also begun to wonder whether Facebook causes privacy issues, with threats and other disturbing information appearing on individuals’ profiles. 

            Perhaps the most prominent controversy surrounding Facebook is whether or not it has the tendency to invade its users’ privacy, or be used as a means to invade someone’s privacy.  While some say that people who are willing to post personal information on a website have given up their right to privacy, where is the line?  In Cristian Lupsa’s (2006) article “Facebook: A campus fad becomes a campus fact”, college students voice concern that potential employers might use Facebook as a means of making hiring decisions.  Lupsa (2006) sited a recent study done at the University of Dayton in Ohio which showed that 42% of students believe that employers’ use of Facebook in hiring decisions is an invasion of privacy.  Images of potential staff members drinking underage and participating in other activities, legal or not, often deters employers from hiring what would otherwise be a probable candidate.  Lupsa (2006) points out that a generation gap currently exists between college students and the people deciding whether or not to hire them.  In the same survey, 40% of employers questioned thought it was okay to use Facebook in hiring decisions.  Lupsa (2006) writes that students are not the only ones concerned with whether their privacy is being invaded; college officials are as well.  The article points out that school administrators have grown increasingly aware to the potential problems Facebook creates, and are actively working to provide students with information that will allow them to make appropriate decisions.  Lupsa (2006) lists different approaches, including the one taken at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where a “dummy profile” was created under the name “Lloyd Unemployed”, and “brags about doing nothing and hopes to find a job that pays him to drink beer”.  At other schools, officials have signed themselves up on Facebook and monitor their students online (Lupsa, 2006). 

            Facebook has also recently introduced some programs that have had users in an uproar over the invasion of their privacy.  Most recently, as reported in the New York Times by Louise Story and Brad Stone (2007), Facebook users were appalled by a new advertising program called Beacon.  Story and Stone (2007) explain that other online companies like Google, AOL, and Microsoft use the program to track what sites their users access and then send them ads based on the sites or searches they have done.  Facebook, on the other hand, takes this to another level, sending users’ friends news alerts about good and services viewed or purchased on the internet.  The authors validate the invasion of privacy, offering a story about how one Facebook user found out what she was receiving for Christmas because it was advertised as being purchased by her sister at another site (Stone and Story, 2007).  Stone and Story (2007) also provide Facebook’s defense, quoting owner Mark Zuckerberg as saying the new ads are like a “recommendation from a trusted friend”.  Users disagree, the authors point out, describing many users as being outraged at the program’s use.  People might be willing to post information on Facebook for their friends to see, but they are able to control that content, and do not want others to see other places they visit on the internet.

            Another concern that Facebook creates is the issue of internet stalking.  Social networks like Facebook allow users to post personal information such as phone numbers and addresses on the internet for anyone to access, and many do not consider the possible consequences.  In “This 23-year-old has Google sweating”, Abbey Klaassen and Andrew Hampp (20070 mention that on Facebook, users will only connect to a profile if they know the person, unlike its biggest competitor-MySpace-where phony profiles are the norm.  However, only connecting to people you know personally does not guarantee safety by any means.  For The Christian Science Monitor, Lupsa (2006) talked to college officials that have seen Facebook used in disputes to threaten or stalk students.  He tells the story of the associate dean of students at Purdue University, Pablo Malavenda.  After Malavenda caught a clique of students selling cocaine and removed them from campus, the angry undergraduates started a Facebook group called “We Hate Pablo” to retaliate.  The group contained directions to his home and instructions to hurt him (Lupsa 2006).  While instances like this are rare, it proves the possible dangers that Facebook enhances.  Malavenda also described stories of couples ending relationships because they had read their significant other’s “wall” and realized he or she was seeing someone else (Lupsa 2006).  Facebook profiles allow people to catch up with their friends, but many forget that others, including those they do not know, can catch up with them too.

            While Facebook is most commonly known as a social networking site, it is attempting to move beyond this title in many ways.  As previously stated, Story and Stone (2007) argue that the invasive Beacon program was supposed to be like making recommendations to friends.  While many sites that provide goods and services have testimonials available, the Facebook “recommendation” is coming from someone you know instead of an anonymous user, making it more personal and supposedly reliable (Story and Stone, 2007).  After all, if your friend is willing to use the site, you would assume that the site was helpful, and perhaps be willing to use it yourself. 

            In a further attempt to move away from the label of “social networking”, Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg has opened his site to other corporations.  Vauhini Vara (2007) reports in the Wall Street Journal that Zuckerberg has begun allowing other companies to provide services through Facebook.  Klaassen and Hampp (2007) recount the same information in their article in Advertising Age.  The two inform that developers will now be able to create and even monetize applications on the site.  Vara (2007) verifies, explaining that companies whose application service a user adds will then be able to link into the user’s network of friends.  She claims that this move has the potential to turn Facebook into a web hub such as Yahoo, but one that allows the user to connect to his or her friends as well.  For example, if a company built an application that allowed Facebook users to recommend music to their friends, their friends would not have to go elsewhere to access that information.  While Google and Yahoo can give a user access to the content, those sites do not have the ability to connect users to their friends (Vara, 2007).  Klaassen and Hampp (2007) suggest that because there is already a connection between users there, it would be more intimate to search for content on Facebook than on another site.  A recommendation from a friend is generally more reliable than a recommendation from an unknown source.  By allowing its users the opportunity to access these commendations, Facebook is opening itself up as an information portal as well as a social network. 

            The only way for Facebook to remain a success is to keep its user base of over 60 million people satisfied with the site.  While the site was once directed mainly towards collegiate students, Vara’s (2007) article informs that in the autumn of 2006, Zuckerberg opened the site to anyone with an e-mail address as opposed to just university e-mail addresses like it had previously been.  However, college students are still the majority of the audience that Facebook reaches.  Klaassen and Hampp (2007) offer that a recent college graduate, when asked to name her friends that were not on Facebook, could only come up with one.  It has become obvious that the best way to reach college-aged adults is through Facebook, and Lupsa (2006) reports that politicians have started using it as a means to campaign towards students.  He also writes that at the University of Iowa, campus organizations have started using Facebook to advertise events instead of the conventional flier method (Lupsa 2006).

            Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, when Facebook users are unhappy, they ensure that Facebook’s owner, and many times the media, are informed.  Facebook’s users have a large amount of sway in decisions made by the owner, which can be seen through recent actions taken by the executives in response to what users want.  Most recently, as mentioned by Story and Stone (2007), Zuckerberg had to respond to the outcry over the Beacon program.  In the first ten days after was introduced, over 50,000 Facebook members signed a petition to have the program removed.  Because of such a massive objection, the program became optional, with an opt-out box available in the settings.  However, some of the other participating websites such as Overstock.com had already pulled out of the program, not wanting to deter potential clients.  This was not the first time Facebook faced criticism over implementing a new program that was extremely invasive.  Story and Stone (2007) follow by accounting as to when the Newsfeed on Facebook was first introduced.  Over 700,000 users protested, leading to Zuckerberg publicly apologizing for some aspects of the program.  Facebook’s users obviously play a huge role in decisions made by the company, and are true testament to the phrase “the customer is always right”. 

            In a web-based world like the one we live in today, social networking sites allow us to keep in touch, and Facebook is no exception.  However, several patterns have emerged in the publicity Facebook is getting, and all question users’ privacy.  True, Facebook does allow others to keep closer tabs on one another, but is it too much?  Whether it is an invasion of privacy or not, Facebook users are still logging in, making some question the value of privacy in this day and age.  The constructs of privacy have clearly changed, and the internet has opened an entirely new realm of possibility in terms of what is personal and what is not.  As long as users are still willing to post their confidential information on sites like Facebook, the private sphere of society will continue to shrink.  The media will hopefully carry on providing information as to the possible dangers of Facebook, and increase awareness on how to maintain privacy.

Content Analysis Draft

          After a hard day of classes, the first thing I do is calm my brain by spending some quality time on Facebook catching up with my friends’ lives.  The minified keeps me updated as to who’s dating who, how everyone’s days went, and what embarrassing pictures from the weekend have been posted.  My little sister has updated her profile, so I spend a few minutes harmlessly stalking her by going through her wall posts, pictures, and recent actions.  This way, I can keep tabs on her despite being 80 miles away at school.  Facebook, the newest internet start-up, is a social networking site that originally targeted college students, but has now expanded its audience to include anyone with an e-mail address.  Users can belong to different networks based on the college they attended, where they live, or where they work.  Facebook is unique in that its owner, Mark Zuckerberg, has decided to keep the company independent, despite offers from corporations such as Yahoo for as much as $1 billion.  With over 50 million members, Facebook is enormously successful, but has created its fair share of controversy.  Twice recently, Facebook users opposing new additions to the site successfully petitioned to have them removed, saying that it was imposing on their privacy.  Colleges and universities, the thriving ground of Facebook, have also begun to wonder whether Facebook causes privacy issues, with threats and other disturbing information appearing on the different profiles. 

            Perhaps the most prominent controversy surrounding Facebook is whether or not it has the tendency to invade its users privacy, or be used as a means to invade someone’s privacy.  While some say that people who are willing to post personal information on a website have given up their rights to privacy, where is the line?  In Cristian Lupsa’s article “Facebook: A campus fad becomes a campus fact”, a large concern that college students have is whether potential employers use Facebook as a means of making hiring decisions.  Lupsa sited a recent study done at the University of Dayton in Ohio which showed that 42% of students believe that employers use of Facebook in hiring decisions is an invasion of privacy.  Images of potential staff members drinking underage and participating in other activities, legal or not, often deters potential employers from hiring what would otherwise be a probable candidate.  Lupsa points out that a generation gap currently exists between college students and the people deciding whether or not to hire them.  In the same survey, 40% of employers questioned thought it was okay to use Facebook in hiring decisions.  Lupsa writes that students are not the only ones concerned with whether their privacy is being invaded; college officials are as well.  The article points out that school administrators have grown increasingly aware to the potential problems Facebook creates, and are actively working to provide students with information that will allow them to make appropriate decisions.  Some have signed themselves up and monitor their students online.  Lupsa lists different approaches, including the one taken at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where a “dummy profile” was created under the name “Lloyd Unemployed”, and “brags about doing nothing and hopes to find a job that pays him to drink beer”. 

            Facebook has also recently introduced some programs that have had users in an uproar over the invasion of their privacy.  Most recently, as reported in the New York Times by Louise Story and Brad Stone, Facebook users were appalled by a new advertising program called Beacon.  Story and Stone explain that other online companies like Google, AOL, and Microsoft use the program to track what sites their users access and then sent them ads based on the sites or searches they have done.  Facebook, on the other hand, takes this to another level, sending users’ friends news alerts about good and services viewed or purchased on the internet.  The authors validate the invasion of privacy, offering a story about how one Facebook user found out what she was receiving for Christmas because it was advertised as being purchased by her sister at another site.  Stone and Story also provide Facebook’s defense, quoting owner Mark Zuckerberg as saying the new ads are like a “recommendation from a trusted friend”.  Users disagree, the authors point out, describing many users as being outraged at the program’s use. 

            Another concern that Facebook creates is the issue of internet stalking.  Social networks like Facebook allow users to post personal information such as phone numbers and addresses on the internet for anyone to access, and many do not consider the possible consequences.  In “This 23-year-old has Google sweating”, Abbey Klaassen and Andrew Hampp mention that on Facebook, users will only connect to a profile if they know the person, unlike its biggest competitor, MySpace, where phony profiles are the norm.  This does not provide safety, though.  Lupsa talked to college officials that have seen Facebook used in disputes to threaten or stalk students.  He tells the story of the associate dean of students at Purdue University, Pablo Malavenda.  After catching a group of students selling cocaine and removing them from campus, the angry students started a Facebook group called “We Hate Pablo” to retaliate.  The group contained directions to his home and instructions to hurt him.  While instances like this are rare, it proves the possible danger that Facebook enhances.  Malavenda also described stories of couples ending relationships because they had read their significant other’s “wall” and realized he or she was seeing someone else. 

            While Facebook is most commonly known as a social networking site, it is attempting to move beyond this title in many ways.  As previously stated, Story and Stone argue that the invasive Beacon program was supposed to be like making recommendations to friends.  While many sites that provide goods and services have recommendations available, the Facebook “recommendation” is coming from a friend instead of an anonymous user, making it more personal and reliable.  After all, if your friend is using the site, it must be okay. 

            In a further attempt to move away from the label of “social networking”, Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg has opened his site to other corporations.  Vauhini Vara reports in the Wall Street Journal that Zuckerberg has begun allowing other companies to provide services through Facebook.  Klaassen and Hampp recount the same information in their article in Advertising Age.  The two inform that developers will now be able to create and monetize applications on the site.  Vara verifies, explaining that companies whose application service a user adds will then be able to link into the user’s network of friends.  She then claims that this move has the potential to turn Facebook into a web hub such as Yahoo, but one that also allows the user to connect to his or her friends.  For example, if a company built an application that allowed Facebook users to recommend music to their friends, their friends would not have to go anywhere else to access that information.  While Google and Yahoo can give a user access to the content, those sites do not have the ability to connect users to their friends.  Klaassen and Hampp suggest that because there is already a connection between users there, it would be more personal to search for content on Facebook than on another site. 

            The only way for Facebook to remain a success is to keep its user base of over 60 million people satisfied with the site.  While the site was once directed mainly towards collegiate students, Vara informs that in the fall of 2006, Zuckerberg opened the site to anyone with an e-mail address as opposed to just university e-mail addresses like it had previously been.  However, college students are still the major audience that Facebook reaches.  Klaassen and Hampp offer that a recent college graduate, when asked to think of her friends that were not on Facebook, could only come up with one name.  It has become obvious that the best way to reach college-aged adults is through Facebook, and Lupsa reports that politicians have started using it as a means to campaign towards students.  He also writes that at the University of Iowa, campus organizations have started using Facebook to advertise events instead of the conventional flier method.

            Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, when Facebook users are unhappy, they are not quiet about it.  Facebook’s users have an extreme about of sway in decisions made by the owner, which can be seen through recent actions taken by the executives in reaction to users want.  Most recently, as mentioned by Story and Stone, Zuckerberg had to respond to the outcry over the Beacon program.  In the first ten days after the program was introduced, over 50,000 Facebook members signed a petition to have it removed.  Because of such a massive objection, the program became optional, with an opt-out box available in the settings.  However, some of the other participating websites such as Overstock.com had already pulled out of the program, not wanting to deter potential clients.  This was the second time Facebook had faced criticism over implementing a new program that was extremely invasive.  Story and Stone follow by accounting as to when the Newsfeed on Facebook was first introduced, over 700,000 users protested, leading to Zuckerberg publicly apologizing for some aspects of the program.  Facebook’s users obviously play a huge role in decisions made by the company, and are true testament to the phrase “the customer is always right”. 

            In a web-based world like the one we live in today, social networking sites allow us to keep in touch, and Facebook is well on its way to becoming king.  However, several patterns have emerged in the publicity Facebook is getting, and all question users’ privacy.  True, Facebook does allow others to keep closer tabs on one another, but is it too much?  Whether it is an invasion of privacy or not, Facebook users are still logging in, making some question the value of privacy in this day and age.  As long as users are content, Facebook will remain engraved in society as an essential part of college life. 

Content Analysis Body Paragraph Draft

        The most prominent controversy surrounding Facebook is whether or not it has the tendency to invade its users’ privacy, or it is used as a means to invade one’s privacy.  While some say that people who are willing to post personal information on a website have given up their rights to privacy, where is the line?  For example, a New York Times article discussed how after a huge user uprising, Facebook agreed to cut back the invasiveness of its new program, Beacon.  Beacon is a program commonly used by other sites such as Google or AOL to track where its users are going online, and send ads based on visited sites.  Facebook took it to another level, sending user’s friends information based on sites they’ve used.  In one case, a gift was ruined because Facebook advertised that a user had bought a game, and the person the game was intended for saw the announcement.  Until users protested, there was no box on Facebook to option out of the service.  Another case where user protest caused Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg to tone down aspects of his site was the Newsfeed, introduced in 2006, which made announcements as to what one was doing on Facebook to all of the user’s friends.  As time passed, people grew more accustomed to the application, but at first many were outraged at how it invaded their privacy by reporting their actions.  The way Facebook is used has also been a concern for users.  In a recent survey, 42% of students believed that it was a violation of privacy for potential employers to use Facebook to check on people actions and screen them before hiring.  Most college students post pictures on the site, and many pictures show underage drinking and other various activities, both legal and illegal.  Is it possible to say that information that one willingly posts on the internet should not be considered in a hiring decision?  Either way, Facebook has made it more difficult to keep one’s personal life just that; personal.

Content Analysis Introduction

        After a hard day of classes, the first thing I do is clam my brain by spending some quality time on Facebook catching up with my friends’ lives.  The minified keeps me updated as to who’s dating who, how everyone’s days went, and what embarrassing pictures from the weekend have been posted.  My little sister has updated her profile, so I spend a few minutes harmlessly stalking her by going through her wall posts, pictures, and recent actions.  This way, I can keep tabs on her despite being 80 miles away at school.  Facebook, the newest internet start-up, is a social networking site that originally targeted college students, but has now expanded its audience to include anyone with an e-mail address.  Users can belong to different networks based on the college they attended, where they live, or where they work.  Facebook is unique in that its owner, Mark Zuckerberg, has decided to keep the company independent, despite offers from corporations such as Yahoo for as much as $1 billion.  With over 50 million members, Facebook is enormously successful, but has created its fair share of controversy.  Twice recently, Facebook users opposing new additions to the site successfully petitioned to have them removed, saying that it was imposing on their privacy.  Colleges and universities, the thriving ground of Facebook, have also begun to wonder whether Facebook causes privacy issues, with threats and other disturbing information appearing on the different profiles. 

Annotated Bibliography

References 

Facebook (2008).  http://www.facebook.com.  Retrieved January 31, 2008.

 

Facebook recently opened a new option called “applications” which allows users to personalize the look of their page.  This page has several applications, including “Bumper Stickers” which are little stickers that display pictures or sarcastic messages that you can send to your friends, and “Superpoke”, which takes the original “poke” application from Facebook and takes it to an extreme, allowing anyone to “do” a multitude of things to their friends.  

  Klassen, A., & Hampp, A. (2007, July 9).  This 23-year-old has Google sweating.  Advertising

Age, 78(27).  Retrieved January 25, 2008, from ProQuest database.

 

Klassen and Hampp argue that the new internet sensation, Facebook, could potentially turn users away from search engines such as Google because it allows people to search the web and connect to each other at the same time.  While Facebook has the same essential purpose as its main competitor, MySpace, its audience is growing much faster than MySpace’s did, although MySpace still has more users at 69 million.  Facebook’s newest addition, “applications”, allow other developers to advertise through the site, and allow users to share information that they might otherwise go elsewhere to get.

  

Lupsa, C. (2006, December 13).  Facebook: A campus fad becomes a campus fact; The social

networking website isn’t growing like it once did, but only because almost every US student is already on it.  Christian Science Monitor.  Retrieved January 25, 2008, from ProQuest database.

 

Lupsa argues that Facebook is a fad that campus administrators and faculty members are desperately trying to catch up with because of its influential effects.  Staff members are making profiles, and campus organizations use it to advertise for events.  However, with the good comes the bad; Facebook makes it easier to harass, stalk, and threaten people, with or without their knowledge.  This has caused some colleges to take action, attempting to ban the website.

  Story, L. & Stone, B. (2007, November 30).  Facebook retreats on online tracking.  New York

Times.  Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com.

 

The authors report that Facebook has recently had to reign in its new advertising program, called Beacon, due to the outcry from users.  The program tracks what users purchase from other websites and broadcasts it to their friends through a Facebook advertisement.  Users wanted to be able to opt out of the program through the settings on their Facebook profiles, which is now an option, although it wasn’t before.  Facebook executives stick by their decision to use the program, saying that users will eventually grow used to it.

  Vauhini, V. (2007, May 21).  Facebook opens its pages as a way to fuel growth.  Wall Street

Journal.  Retrieved January 25, 2008, from ProQuest database. 

 

Vauhini writes that Facebook’s owners have made a strategic decision to open its pages to other companies to offer their services through the website, potentially creating a web hub similar to Yahoo.  While other start-up sites like MySpace and YouTube have sold out to larger corporations, Facebook has remained independent.  At the time the article was written, Facebook’s user base had doubled in the previous six months, and was adding another 100,000 users per day.  It had also increased its user potential by opening the site to everyone with an e-mail address, not just a university e-mail address as it had previously been.

   

Eubanks Assignment- question 4

            After reading Eubanks’ chapter entitled “Poetics and Narrativity”, it becomes clear that literary figures are more complex than their common definitions lead one to believe.  While it seems unlikely, figures such as narrative and metaphor can be found in even the most common texts, such as a recent article found on the New York Times website about the Democratic debate in South Carolina, titled “Obama and Clinton Tangle at Debate”.  The common metaphor found throughout the entire piece is Politics is War.  Several verbs such as “assailed”, “slashed”, and “sparring” give the connotation of the Democratic debate taking place in a combat zone.  Not only were the two major candidates trying to impress upon the voting public their plans for if elected, but they also used the debate as a battlefield to destroy the other’s integrity.  There are several similarities between war and politics that can be found in this piece.  The most important one in this text is that in both war and in politics, there is only one winner, and both sides will use whatever means necessary in order to be that winner.

            While this text is mainly an informative article, narrative is present in the background that is provided in an attempt to explain why the candidates were so aggressively attacking each other.  One of Clinton’s attacks focused on past legal work that Obama did for a business man who was indicted of fraud.  The author of the text had to explain Obama’s background in order for the claim to make sense to readers who might not know about his past.  This explanation created a narrative about Obama’s past, and other explanations about Clinton’s background did the same.

            Obama attempted to instill a metonymy in the public by creating the belief that Senator Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, were merged together in one unit that is inseparable; the “Clinton machine”.  A metonymy is when one associates someone or something with another person or thing, but the two don’t share similar characteristics.  Obama was inferring that Senator and President Clinton were synonymous, though not necessarily alike.  Clinton attempted to defend herself by saying that her husband was just her spouse in this election, and in the same way that the other candidates had spouses supporting them, her husband supported her.  However, by Obama bringing up the association, it’s easy to believe that some citizens were reminded of the controversy surrounding the previous Clinton administration.  Without literary figures such as metaphor, narrative, and metonymy, this article would be informative but boring.  With background provided through narrative, and the huge underlying metaphor of Politics is War, the text comes alive. 

WRT 205

Apparently this is working if this post can be seen.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!