A Different Kind of Social Physics:
Online Communities and the Revolution in the
Architecture of Our Social Spaces
Zeynep Tufekci, Ph.D
Advanced Physics Laboratory,
Johns Hopkins
Wednesday May 28, 2008
Technologically-Mediated Sociality
Social Computing or Web 2.0






Online Social Network Sites
Youtube
Blogs
Personal Web Pages
Some discussion groups
Immersive Virtual Environments (Second Life,
World of Warcraft, etc)
Online Social Network(ing) Sites
(SNS)
Different degrees of Offline/Online Integration




Facebook: high
Myspace: mixed
Virtual World: none to mixed
Discussion groups: high to none
Social Network(ing) Site Research
College Students




Diverse Sample, Public, Mid-sized School
Qualitative and quantitative
Multiple Surveys (n approaching 1000)
Interviews and Focus Groups (n of 75)
SNS Research
Central to social interactions of young
adults
Sites are centered around profiles
Social networks are publicly expressed
Sociology of the Internet
Internet is a socio-cultural sphere. It is not
a subculture. (Subcultures exist on the
Internet, too, as everywhere else).
Internet as a socio-cultural sphere is just
another among other socio-cultural
spheres. (Say, education or sports).
Theoretical Groundwork
The Internet does not represent a doubling
of the world (the virtual world is not a
separate world).
People do not become texts (persons are
embodied, and interactions are situated).
However, the ontology of the medium
(digital, persistent, pervasive, searchable,
different rules of visibility) matters.
Ontology of the Medium (Internet)
“Practically Hidden” becomes Searchable
Ephemeral becomes Persistent
Duplication is effortless / costless
Traversable (links, nodes, hypertext)
Interactive (invites socialness)
Different Kind of Optics
Two way visibility becomes Enhanced
One-Way Visibility.
You can’t see who’s looking
No longer true!
On the Domesticated Internet...
... people routinely engage in social
interaction;
... people routinely engage in identityconstruction, self-expression, and
impression-management.
However, the ontology of the medium has
profound consequences stemming from
the aggregate of these routine actions.
Grassroots Surveillance
(On the Internet, Everyone
Knows You’re a Dog)
Grassroots Surveillance
The mundane social interactions and
cultural production engaged by millions in
this particular medium (with attributes of
persistance, searchability, and visibility)
give rise to Grassroots Surveillance.
A Social Space of High Visibility
85% has a profile in at least one social
networking site
94% use their real name on Facebook! (62
percent on Myspace)!
A substantial percent do not put any
restrictions on who can view their profile
(42% on Facebook and 59 percent on
Myspace)
Photo-tagging
Facebook allows users to upload pictures. Most
do.
Further, you can click on a face and identify it by
name (“tagging it”). The tagged photo is now
linked to the profile of that person.
In other words, someone else can take a picture
of you, upload it, tag you and it is now linked to
your profile (until you untag it).
Disclosure and friending
Since a “friend” only means adding a link,
restricting to “friends” often means
hundreds (and restricting to “friends of
friends” often means tens of thousands) of
people can see profiles.
Profiles by norm, by design and by actions
of users include large amounts of
disclosure.
Relationship status
Facebook has an explicit field for
“relationship status.” Students indicate if
they are dating someone, and often link to
the profile.
Students indicate the new “talk” is about
when to change the relationship status
field.
“Facebook is the Devil”
Lost a job: 10%
Did not get hired: 6%
Fight with girl/boy friend: 48%
Broke up with girl/boy friend: 30%
Fight with friend: 44%
Fight with parent: 23%
Legal problem: 12%
Consequences of the
Ontology of the Medium
Audience Issues: The situated nature of
the interaction (Goffman) is lost.
Natural boundaries of here and now can
be drastically different on the Internet.
(What is here is also everywhere. What
exists now continues existing tomorrow).
Grassroots Surveillance


In most literature, privacy is generally seen only from
the negative -- However, grassroots surveillance is
different than a credit card company losing your data,
or the government listening in on your phone
conversations (Just joking; would never happen).
The representation is actively constituted by the
person in order to be looked at. The question is one of
audience, visibility and control.
Altman’s Model
Boundary Regulation
Optimization , NOT on/off
Social Ecology not credit card theft
Palen and Dourish update the
model for technology
Spatial Threats (visibility)
Temporal Threats (persistence)
Intersection (picture at party can show up
on your job interview)
Findings Here:
General Privacy Concerns not Important
The detailed data shows that general concerns
also do not matter at specific disclosures (age,
favorite books and movies, sexual orientation,
etc)
Findings About Privacy
Students concerned about privacy slightly
less likely to use Facebook
But once on, they disclose a lot
Shows importance of cultural norms and
social expectations in online social
environments – you are expected to
disclose so you do.
That’s just the beginning...
It’s misleading just to look at levels of
disclosure. A profile is not a static thing, it
is an evolving picture of an articulated
social network.
Response to the Ontology
Students also do not alter behavior based
on future audiences
The only protections they take are
analogous to spatial boundaries (walls and
locks) for which we already have cultural
modalities of protection, and not much
thought goes into the novel privacy threats
(temporality, intersection of
environments)b
Facebook, Grooming and
Gossip
Learning from the Non-Users
Non-Users!
Persistent Non-User Population




About 14 percent
Relatively Steady Over Two Years
Interviews with Non-Users
Survey Data
Social Grooming
Robin Dunbar’s Theory of Language



Most conversation is about sociality
Gossip as a main human interest
Affirming displaying bonds, finding about
about others, entrenching status
Interviews with Non-Users Confirm
Focus Groups Turned into a Support
Meeting for Non-Gossipers Anonymous
Social Grooming
“People from my high school would try to find me.
... I had 39 pending friendship requests. I looked
at the list and I knew five of these people. Five.
Who the hell are you? Why are you bothering
me? I haven’t seen you in seven years, if I’ve
seen you at all.”
“Look at what Katie did this weekend, she’s with
who now? … sighs … You don’t even know this
person.”
“I don’t understand what people get out of looking
at other people’s profile. Live your life.”
Differences Between Users and
Non-Users (Logistic Regression)
Odds of SNS USE
Female
4.987***
Age
.837†
Lives Dorm
1.235
Internet Per Day
1.130
Weekly Friends Kept in Touch W.
1.333*
Uses IM
.464
Online Privacy Concern
.666*
Expressive Internet
1.493***
Instrumental Internet
.923
No of Very Close People
1.036
Somewhat Close People
1.051
Online Friendship
.787
Baseline odds (constant)
3.093
No Difference
I am a very busy person
I am usually bored
I am always in a hurry
I value efficiency highly
I am shy
I am worried about wasting
time on the internet
User
3.13
Non-User
3.21
User
2.32
Non-User
2.23
User
2.50
Non-User
2.55
User
3.44
Non-User
3.50
User
2.43
Non-User
2.45
User
2.29
Non-User
2.10
Here’s the Difference
I am curious about
other people's
lives**
I am curious
about people
from my past ***
I like keeping in
touch with
friends**
I like to follow
trends***
User
Non-User
3.12
2.93
User
Non-User
3.13
2.82
User
Non-User
3.46
3.24
User
Non-User
2.43
2.11
Reasons For Non-Use
It’s not Privacy


Users of Online Banking
Mildly more concerned about Privacy
They are not Technophobes
They have similar levels of close friends
It’s not Efficiency
It’s Social Grooming
Social Capital: Women Bonding,
Men Searching
Social Capital
Social Capital



Civic (Putnam, Pol-Sci, Econ)
Bridging (Granovetter, Weak Ties)
Bonding (Mostly Ignored, Strong Ties)
Portes asks: What is the Resource
Mobilized with Social Capital?
For Bonding Social Capital, the Resource
is “specific reciprocity and mobilizing
solidarity” – Social Support.
Bonding Social Capital
Measured Social Support Using WellEstablished Scales (Cohen)
Controlled for Loneliness (UCLALoneliness Scale)
Gender Differences
Regression Modeling Level of Social Support
COMBINED MODEL
Beta (standardized)
Intensity of social networking site use
How many friends linked
Lives at dorm
Daily time on the Internet
Uses Instant Messaging
UCLA loneliness scale
Male
Male * intensity
.241***
-.019
-.064
-.105
.045
.570***
.489†
-.563*
R2 .395
The interaction term between gender and
level of SNS use is statistically significant!
Gender Differences
Regressions Modeling Level of Social Support
SOCIAL SUPPORT, ONLY MEN
Beta (standardized)
Intensity of social networking site use
How many friends linked
Lives at dorm
Daily time on the Internet
Uses Instant Messaging
UCLA loneliness scale
-.065
-.031
-.171
.034
.099
.558***
SOCIAL SUPPORT, ONLY WOMEN
Beta (standardized)
Intensity of social networking site use
How many friends linked
Lives at dorm
Daily time on the Internet
Uses Instant Messaging
UCLA loneliness scale
.261**
.031
-.026
-.219**
-.008
.561***
Social Capital and SNS
Associated with Bonding Social Capital


For Women – who use SNS to talk to existing
friends
But not for Men – who use SNS to search
Internet Use in General is Negatively
Associated with Bonding Capital for
Women (No Effect for Men).
The Internet is Not Only About Weak Ties
Thank You
For more information (and papers):
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~zeynep/
Questions:
[email protected]