I created my Facebook profile at the age of 13 when I was going into high school. At the time, social networking was relatively new – the transition from Myspace to Facebook introduced a new form of online communication. We use Facebook as platform for social interactions, and this behavior is widespread among people our age. Nearly 50% of users are between the ages of 13 and 25, and my particular age group has been with Facebook since it became available to non-university students. However, as we near our 6^th year with the site, we must address the question if we’re becoming “too old” for Facebook.

Many of my friends and I had the same experience in our early Facebook years – the scariest possible scenario was having our parents create an account and force us to friend them. Thus, all of our deepest secrets and personal interactions with our friends become available to mom and dad. This obviously wasn’t the most comforting thought, so I changed my privacy settings to hide wall posts and photos from my parents. Quite honestly, I think that my parents only have a Facebook so they can stay involved in their children’s’ lives beyond the household, which leads me to wonder what will happen when I have kids of my own.

Facebook originally spread amongst teens not only because it was an excellent social application, but also because all of one’s friends were on the site. From there, it allowed you to stay connected and involved with the lives of those in your social circle. However, when I graduate college and enter the workforce, what priority will Facebook have in my life? There’s no more reason to use it religiously – the lives of my college friends no longer have as much of an impact on me. Instead of maintaining relationships, I’ll have to concern myself with matters of more importance such as work, bills, and family.

In such, I suppose the professional social network LinkedIn would better suit my purposes once I become an adult. It’s far preferable to maintain corporate relationships between individuals instead of socialized ones that may share inappropriate details. Indeed, the average age of LinkedIn users is over 35 while Facebook users tend to range from the teens to early 20s. Judging from the revenue growth that LinkedIn has shown in recent quarters compared to Facebook’s less impressive statistics, it stands to reason that we may see the rise of the professional network in the near future over its social counterpart.

In a recent addition to its user interface, Facebook introduced the option of placing your friends into lists – not unlike the Circles that Google+ utilized. “Smart Lists” automatically organizes your friends into different groups, while the user can also add friends into the default groups “Close Friends” and “Acquaintances” along with other lists he can create. However, it stands to reason that lists may not be the best form of association – after all, Google+ was not very successful with its attempt to create a social media platform. This poses the following question: why do people prefer to have their friends in a large, uncategorized mob as opposed to in neat and orderly divisions?

The main problem is that the entire process is far too tedious for the average Facebook user to undergo. The “Smart Lists” function, which bypasses the manual labor required to individually divide one’s friends, does not perform its task efficiently and accidentally groups people into inaccurate lists. Therefore, the only effective way to ensure that each friend is where he belongs is via the manual lists. Of course, the user encounters problems through this as well.

Firstly, to efficiently arrange lists for friends, the average user will certainly have to create a list aside from “Close Friends” and “Acquaintances.” From there, they may be unsure where to place their friends and where to exclude them. If a user makes a mistake while ordering, he may have to delete a list and start all over again. Facebook’s old policy, dumping everyone in one pile, may prove superior to the Google+ method of grouping for a variety of reasons.

Lumping friends together has its downsides – it facilitates the two extremes of data sharing. Oversharing, where a user may post information that is not appropriate to certain audiences, and undersharing, where a user may limit his social media presence to timid, meaningless updates. Nevertheless, given these two occurrences, Facebook has continued to thrive and grow amidst various privacy and security concerns.

To embark on a tangent regarding security, one may argue that the old Facebook provides a better medium for data security. For example, users who group their close friends together may post inappropriate information that can easily be leaked to the public eye. Users may become a little too comfortable in their digital homes and become careless with their Internet privacy.

Social media was meant to be an enjoyable process in which the user enjoys spending time on the website. In reality, none of us have to physically organize our groups into separate sections – this occurs naturally, by our actions and behavior. On Facebook, the posts that I make will usually only apply to a certain group, and there exists a tacit agreement between those excluded from that group and myself not to interact on that specific platform. When a friend breaks this unspoken rule, Facebook becomes a rather awkward place. Therefore, this tenet is usually upheld in conventional online social media use, and is far superior to the lists that Facebook has implemented. The environment that has been established allows us to create implicit divisions – Facebook doesn’t have to do it for us.

For the past few days, a “meme” has been spreading around Facebook where people declare the information on their profiles as their rightful property. Because Facebook recently changed their guidelines regarding user privacy, Facebook members decided to take it upon themselves to declare a “copyright” on personal information shared online.

“In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, music, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berne Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.”

When this popped up on my News Feed, I’ll admit I was skeptical – how would a simple post on your profile prevent Facebook from doing what it wants with your information? I found it ironic that people share their information with all of their friends via the Facebook platform, but take offense when Facebook has access to that data. As it turns out, posting this doesn’t do anything as there was not a change of policy to begin with, as Facebook pointed out in a recent response to the widespread meme:

There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users’ information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been.

-http://newsroom.fb.com/Fact-Check

But, as Professor Ed Felten points out in his blog post titled “Facebook Copyright Statement not Entirely Silly,” the users have reason in reposting the meme. How naïve is it to believe that Facebook would change their policies without the general public knowing? After all, their terms of use don’t contain the most heartening words – “Your continued use of Facebook following changes to our terms constitutes your acceptance of our amended terms.” I’ll admit that when I first saw the post going around, I became a bit worried for my own security and re-posted the status (albeit with the privacy settings set to “Only Me”).

So why are the posters getting so much flack from their friends? I, for one, have seen many a friend get comment-blasted with phrases such as “legal naivety” and “meaningless jargon” along with the more cruel ones such as “you don’t know what the –censored- you’re talking about.” Indeed, the popular comedy site Collegehumor made a video entitled “Facebook Law for Idiots” (which you can see here: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6851490/facebook-law-for-idiots) which bashes people for their uninformed use of legal terms. However, what’s wrong with overprotecting yourself? It’s already been established that Facebook users are justified in being concerned about their information security – you’re using a site that won’t even tell you when they change their policies.

I found it interesting that the Facebook reply didn’t address the enforceability of the post. I noticed this the first time that I read it, and my suspicions were confirmed when I read Professor Felton’s post. Given the hypothetical scenario that Facebook did change their policies, what on earth could the users do to counteract it? Continued use of the site is a tacit agreement of the terms of use, but then personal information is unprotected. Thus, a user may reason, if Facebook can tell me that words on a webpage constitute a binding agreement, then why wouldn’t I think the same of my posts?

I would like to end this post with the following hypothetical: say I posted something on my wall. Then, a friend copied the post and made it his own status. Who do those words belong to? We’re using Facebook’s servers to host our personal information, but a third party can sweep in and do with the data what they will. Honestly, I don’t think that there really can be such thing as “owning one’s personal information” on such an open area such as the Internet. What belongs to whom becomes a confusing subject when access to information becomes easier by the day.

In the digital age, the advancement of social technologies has facilitated the growth of many innovative and beneficial products. However, access to such a large number of resources demands a certain level of responsibility. Every Internet user runs the risk of having his or her privacy breached, but a more personal danger is that of cyberbullying. The prevalence of this relatively new phenomenon is supported by studies conducted throughout the world – in 2000, a study from the University of New Hampshire showed that around 6% of people under the age of 18 have been harassed online. Today, according to the i-SAFE foundation, this statistic is well over 50% – with roughly the same amount as the antagonist. A number of these adolescents are also victims of cyberthreats and online sexual harassment. Obviously, cyberbullying is a necessary evil that comes with the territory of social media, but how does it compare to traditional bullying? The argument can be made that this new form of harassment is more harmful than its physical counterpart. Two main reasons that support this claim are the use of anonymity and the nature of information posted on the Internet.

Perhaps the crux of why cyberbullying is so rampant is the existence of anonymity. The person typing hateful words or spreading vicious rumors is faceless and nameless. This incentivizes the bully because he or she can find it easier to express their dislike for another individual without suffering consequences. Conventionally, the so-called “bully in the playground” runs the risk of getting told on by the victim or being caught by an authority figure. A case study of how anonymity enables bullying is evidenced through the suicide of a Long Island teen in 2010 where hateful messages were posted through the site “formspring.me,” even after her death. Formspring allows users to ask questions or post comments anonymously on another person’s profile. When the victim receives hateful messages, they rarely have the options of retaliation or avoidance. Traditionally, one could go into the comfort of one’s home to avoid the physical or verbal assault from a bully at school. In modern times, walls do not hamper text messages, email, and online social media. Repeated instances of this can lead to extreme isolation and alienation.

Aside from the concept of anonymity, cyberbullying becomes much worse when the future consequences are considered. On the Internet, it is almost impossible to erase what has already been done. A post on Facebook or a text message can be deleted, but between the time it is posted and the time it is gone, a third party can come and screenshot the evidence and distribute it. When the bullying goes beyond simply the aggressor and the victim, the effects become magnified and therefore more harmful. This sort of “viral bullying” is conducted through means such as email forwarding and word-of-mouth. Incidentally, a case at Princeton where a chat between two individuals was forwarded through a variety of listservs is a testament to how damaging cyberbullying can be for one’s reputation. The spread of defamatory material is a difficult problem to address as once it has begun, as it is nearly impossible to identify the original antagonist and thus no disciplinary action can be filed.

At its peak, Farmville had around 76 million monthly users playing the popular social-based game. In 2009, Zynga made over $300 million using a game that involved not much more than crops and clicks. The game’s popularity baffled many, even those who played it. It’s addictive tendencies, however, are rooted in brilliant gaming and marketing strategies.

What encourages us to flock to Farmville? Objectively, it’s not a very “good” game. It’s monotonous and routine – a game defined by responsibility. You plant and harvest crops, investing clicks after clicks on a virtual plot of land. Incredibly, this seems to be the root of Farmville’s popularity. People want to tend to their farms everyday, playing for meaningless Internet points.

This seemingly banal reason can be explained by a more thorough analysis of human behavior – people actually invest physical effort and time into their harvest. In such, one would take pride in the resulting product. The fruits of one’s labor can be used to spend on in-game benefits, such as larger plots of land, animals, buildings, and decorations. The consistent factor of input and output encourage the user to continue playing the game for one’s own gratification.

Farmville’s in-game farming strategy ropes people in by forcing them to come back to attend to their crops. By choosing what to plant, the player can choose his own time frame in which to return to harvest them – but if you come too late, the crops can die. This window in which the player can find profit is a powerful motivator to return and harvest, thereby progressing.

Of course, the element of competition cannot be forgotten. Farmville is a social and public game, and this is a vital aspect of its success. After all, what’s the point of growing the largest farm in the world if you have no one to show it to? Massively multiplayer online role-playing games such as Maplestory and Runescape have proved time and time again that competition fosters the best type of gamers – dedicated ones. As long as your friends are playing Farmville, you’ll be playing as well. Incidentally, Zynga has designed some ingenious techniques to wrap people in to playing its repetitive and shallow game.

Firstly, a player can invite his friends to Farmville – and he is indeed encouraged to do so. If you invite a “neighbor,” and send them a gift, you also receive an in-game achievement. Neighbors are highly beneficial in Farmville as they can help you tend to your farm and allow you to earn bonuses and expand your farmland. Indeed, it’s almost impossible to advance in Farmville (without spending actual money) without having neighbors. This pulls in your social circles to the game – once they’re involved, they’ll feel obliged to stick around and help you rebuild your farm and expand their own interests. Again, the element of competition comes into play – they’ll be encouraged to compete with you, resulting in another cyclic network effect.

Interestingly, the philosophy of playing Farmville doesn’t seem that alien. Citizens of a community help each other out, supporting other farms to advance the communal good. Friendly competition encourages capitalistic behavior, allowing players to improve their own “wellbeing” through dedicated work ethic. However, there does come a point where a distinction should be made between good citizenship and mindlessly clicking on pixels.

According to OpenSite, in 2008, 1.8 million tweets were sent on Election Day. During the first debate alone, more than 10 million tweets were made in the 90-minute verbal battle. Social media is taking an ever-present spot in politics – and whether we like it or not, it’s here to stay. In October, a study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project showed that 39% of American adults use social media to discuss politics.

Obviously, the election is pretty important to the average voter, so they take to online sites to express their opinions. Each tidbit of input they have has a small influence in their respective social circles. However, it’s the social media campaign that each candidate embarks upon that arguably has the most influence on the election. For 2012, Obama was not only victorious in his quest for re-election, but also in his efforts to recreate the 2008 social presence that greatly contributed to his first presidential term.

The infographic that we observed in class regarding both Obama’s and Romney’s Facebook posts showed the techniques that each candidate’s campaign team implemented in order to appeal to voters. Obama’s Facebook was deeply personalized and heartwarming – pictures of him with his wife and kids elicited touching sentiments and allowed Obama to connect on a more individual level with his supporters. Romney’s posts, on the other hand, were blocks of texts encouraging his supporters to “like” his Facebook page. These actions did give him many likes, but only in spurts – indeed, the behavior of his followers seemed strangely robotic, only reacting when ordered. Although our guest in class, Zeynep Tufekci, mentioned that Obama’s social media presence would be frowned upon elsewhere in the world, I feel as if Americans are heartened by the proverbial “family man.” Obama certainly edged out Romney when it came to likeability and personality, and this significantly contributed to his victory this year.

Now, however, I would like to delve deeper into Obama’s campaign strategy. It didn’t only rely on Facebook and other common mediums like Twitter – his team also used the brilliant tactic of using Reddit as an opportunity to directly connect with the common voters. Given, Reddit is certainly pro-Obama, but even so his AMA (ask me anything) did much more than propagate an already widespread positive opinion. Its short notice actually crashed Reddit, which already handles over 2 billion page views a month. Although Obama only answered a select few questions, the general reaction to him taking the time out of his day to post on a forum was overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, it’s interesting to note that shortly before Election Day, Obama returned to Reddit and posted a link encouraging Redditors to go vote. When viewed as a whole, his strategy was brilliant – he established a presence on the site, incentivized discussion, and returned with a call to action encouraging Redditors to support him. This sort of social marketing is unprecedented; Romney did nothing of the sort, but I’m sure that we’ll see very similar political behavior in the future.

A final issue that I’d like to address was Romney’s negative social media presence. Events such as the Mother Jones video, the Big Bird comment, and the now-infamous “binders full of women” certainly did not contribute positively to his campaign. In short, Romney cited “47% of Americans believe they are victims,” in a leaked video where he asserted that this group also paid no income tax and are dependent on the government. In a debate, Romney attempted to soften his stance on cutting funding for PBS by uttering the inane statement “I love Big Bird,” a phrase that resulted in a social media wave of Twitter accounts and memes. The same reaction was observed when Romney claimed he had “binders full of women” when attempted to defend his stance on equality in the workplace.

All in all, I believe that this election was the beginning of a new type of battle – a so-called “social media election.” A direct correlation can be found between Obama’s online campaigning efforts and his results. I am sure that the online social network will find new and creative ways of participating in upcoming elections.

The information in this article was taken from http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-sorkin-responds-to-commenter-in.html.

             After our discussion in class regarding the pervasive misogyny in The Social Network, I decided I would do a bit more research on what Sorkin himself said regarding the topic. I found a post he wrote in response to a Tarazza who said the following:

I found it intriguing that Sorkin felt it was necessary to punch the audience in the face using the misogynist culture that is the tech industry. More specifically, he states “Facebook was born during a night of incredible misogyny…” Mark Zuckerberg is trying to get back at his girlfriend so he writes hateful blog posts and creates Facesmash, a website which compares girls’ attractiveness. This shallow evaluation is pretty easy to understand, but why does Sorkin go to such extreme lengths to showcase women as prizes?

The point Sorkin wanted to make was that women weren’t just eye candy or pretty things nerds surrounded them with. The women portrayed in the movie are objects to be controlled. Sorkin comments that the people who created Facebook weren’t the “…cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 70s. They’re very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren’t women who challenge them.” This commentary is exemplified through the character of Sean Parker – he is constantly surrounding himself with women. These women are objectified – we see a Victoria Secret model, two girls getting high on the couch, girls doing drugs.

Interestingly, through the chauvinistic tone of the movie, the character of Mark Zuckerberg shows an uncharacteristic (in the perspective of the movie) soft spot. When he asks Sean Parker about Napster, Parker says he created it to steal a girl he liked from the high school football star. When Zuckerberg follows up with the question of whether Parker still thinks about her, Sean responds with a vehement no. Zuckerberg, however, seems to have created Facebook in order to impress Erica – this was illustrated when he tells Eduardo that they have to expand after their unfortunate confrontation at the club. At the end of the film, an interesting continuity is shown when Zuckerberg clicks on the refresh button on his computer waiting for Erica to respond to his friend request. This scene demonstrates that Zuckerberg hasn’t forgotten about his roots. Although this certainly is fiction, the closing scene provides some consolation regarding the film’s misogynistic tendencies.

Aaron Sorkin apologizes to Tarrazza at the end of his response, but I think the film’s sexism contributes to the overall message. Indeed, this nuance makes the movie more Hollywood-esque and appealing to the male demographic.

When one considers these two companies, the following thought immediately springs to mind: “LinkedIn deals with professional profiles, Facebook serves as a social medium.” One would also imagine that Facebook is the more profitable company, given their widespread reputation and large user base. However, a closer examination of the statistics between the two social media behemoths yields some interesting results.

Indeed, Facebook has more users – an enormous 1 billion compared to a paltry 175 million. However, according to statistician Geoge Anders of Forbes, LinkedIn receives $1.30 in revenue for every hour a person uses their site. Facebook? A measly 6.2 cents. Granted, the average LinkedIn user spends 18 minutes on the site a month compared to the average Facebook user who devotes 6.4 hours to the site. Nevertheless, LinkedIn’s profit growth is expected to double this year to $70 million. How does LinkedIn, referenced by Forbes magazine as the “Anti-Facebook,” have such a sustainable and rapidly growing business model?

For starters, LinkedIn spends a whopping 33% of its revenue on sales and marketing. This is more than twice the amount that Facebook dedicates to their marketing campaign, 15%. The answer to LinkedIn’s successful model lies within these numbers. Recruiter, LinkedIn’s main product for talent scouts, turns a person’s résumé into a money-making scheme. Big-name companies lease Recruiter seats for as much as $8,200 a year – Adobe rents 70 seats, bringing in nearly $500,000 a year to LinkedIn alone. This mutually beneficial process allows LinkedIn to maintain a steady profit from year-to-year without having to worry about many potential setbacks.

Facebook’s revenue model is entirely different from that of LinkedIn’s. Roughly 84% of their revenue comes from advertisements, but users only click once every 2,000 ads. This obviously only applies when you’re on Facebook, for that’s the only time that ads can make an impression. LinkedIn’s Recruiter process works even when you’re offline, a distinct difference that translates to a difference millions of dollars in yearly revenue.

Both LinkedIn and Facebook operate as “information-rich” systems, but LinkedIn touts itself as the #1 professional network in the world, as opposed to Facebook’s social network. The latter doesn’t necessarily serve a greater purpose than connecting people on a basic level. However, LinkedIn produces jobs, fulfilling the need that is professional recruitment. In a corporate setting, there is a greater purpose for information that attracts both large and small businesses. Simply put, a company can benefit greatly from searching for a job candidate who fulfills a set number of requirements. Ad companies can personalize their target audience, but even after customization their impression is very low, with sales at an even lower rate.

Clearly, the target markets and business plans for both companies differ greatly – LinkedIn focuses on the middle-aged white-collar workers and college graduates. Facebook tends to appeal more towards the pre-teen and teenage populations. Both are excellent businesses leading their respective fields, but it will be interesting to see the comparison of their performances in the coming years.

As our social circles migrate from real-life interactions to blocks of text and images on a website, there are a myriad of subtle nuances that affect us in our everyday lives. A specific implication of social networking I plan to focus on in this post is the issue of “friends.” What constitutes a friendship between two individuals, and what consequences do online actions have on relationships?

A “friend” has been a pretty easily definable word – until now. In elementary school, I would classify my friend circle as people I enjoyed being around and could hang out with. Strangers would be people I wouldn’t see as often or converse with. Online, however, the line between the two is blurred – there are people on Facebook who friend request you, yet you’ve never met them in your entire life. You both may share a small number of mutual friends, but that’s about as far as your relationship goes. So, if you accept your friend request, what category does this individual fall under? He’s neither a friend nor a stranger, but I would conjecture that he’s more of the latter. In essence, Facebook has been desensitizing the intimate connections that all discrete individuals share with others. Nevertheless, there exists an interesting phenomenon where behavior on a social networking site still has enormous implications on relationships.

Conventions of friendship have transferred to social media – declaring couples, friendships, apologies, etc. Society now gives people the power to break off friendships online, without even a word to the former friend. Is it proper for Facebook to facilitate a culture where friends are disposable? “Defriending” another person seems to be an awfully simple way to terminate a connection. Interestingly, society has devolved to allowing bonds to be controlled with the click of a button. This movement can be further investigated and other sociological effects can be pinpointed. For example, your interactions with others over Facebook can be used to infer your inner and outer social circles – social media is not only cheapening relationships, but appears to be even replacing its conventional form. A recent study showed that Americans are more likely to know their online friends’ names than their neighbors – a striking comparison between the virtual and real world. With such a transformation in social policy, one can only wonder what Facebook will revolutionize next.

With the recent exponential rise in social media, nearly everyone has an online presence – namely, a Facebook account. Though the reach of virtual networking affects anyone with a profile, a demographic which may be feeling the most negative effects is that of the prospective working class. People searching for jobs naturally have to go through a process in which they are evaluated for the position. This usually includes a job interview – a meeting where Facebook has been steadily increasing its presence. Lately, in the news, there has been a rise in reports of a potential employer asking job seekers for their Facebook login information. This obviously is morally questionable, but it’s the legal implications that are intriguing.

Continue reading →