Reading Response: Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites

In Boyd’s piece, she focuses on discussing certain questions that have arisen in response to the rise of the use of social network sites by teenagers in the United States as well as other countries. Some of the questions raised appear to be easily answered at first, such as “why do teenagers flock to these sites” (as many teens might answer, because “it’s cool.”) but when looked at in more depth, they raise some of the other questions, such as what exactly are they expressing on them, and are like face-to-face friendships; are they different or complementary? One of the ones I found most intriguing was what they learn from their participation, as the question of what is gained by using the internet is asked by many. A question Boyd left out which is just as important though, is what do they contribute by using these websites.

In reflecting on past readings, one thing these social networking sites enable is Warschauer’s idea of social capital, and the contribution of it. All three types of social capital are demonstrated when teenagers use websites like Facebook, MySpace, Friendster etc. The bonding of social capital occurs among groups of friends when they connect online, such as the two girls mentioned by Boyd who made fake profiles for their parents to see and had other profiles that they kept active. The bridging of social capital I felt was exemplified by the girl quoted at the start, saying how she posts things on her Xanga that she doesn’t feel she is able to share in class, because “I think if kids in school read what I have to say and how I say it, they'll want to be my friend.” This provides the opportunity for members of other social groups to reach out to her, and therefore bridge social capital. The norm related social capital is also shown in Boyd’s piece, when she describes how often when starting a profile online, teenagers will look to other profiles of their friends to see what they said, and what is acceptable to post.

In asking what exactly is it that they are expressing on these websites and if these are different or complementary to face-to-face friendships, I would have a month ago said that they are very different at least in regards to those who have not met online. That being said, after learning about virtual as fake and virtual as potential, it brings me to reconsider that question.
Boyd’s concept of networked publics was also an interesting one, as she describes a networked public as being mediated, the network mediating the interactions between members of the public. This made me think of websites like Wikipedia, or even Google chat, and if Boyd would consider them to be a networked public, as the argument could be made that there are not enough rules and boundaries for chatting that could make it considered to be mediated. Many of the parents of teenagers who are using these social networking sites would most likely also not consider them to be mediated by the network, and in need of more regulations.
Overall, while Boyd’s piece was intended to answer questions, for me it ended up raising more questions about the usage of the social networking websites and how it benefits those who use them, and perhaps also how it might provide a disservice to those who use them.

Reading Response: O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0

According to O’Reilly, Web 2.0 has many key characteristics, such as being very user interactive, with users sharing the data, hypertexting and increasing the popularity as well as the speed of the service. The service also being a key characteristic, instead of packaged software, such as Netscape which quickly was overshadowed. Another key characteristic O’Reilly mentions as uses Amazon as an example of, is having ‘hard to recreate’ data sources, where he then compared Amazon to Barnes and Noble – same products but through using the actual users and tagging, or folksonomy, the product sold on Amazon has more users either backing it up or not. Interestingly enough, though these are some of what O’Reilly states are “Core” competencies of Web 2.0, he also states right after listing them that “excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven.”

Throughout the entire article, O’Reilly makes Web 2.0 sound like it is far better than Web 1.0, as it is a step forward, and yet in some of his comparisons, it is questionable. Marketing wise Web 2.0 appears much for targeted and therefore successful. That said, one of the “Web 1.0 v. Web 2.0” comparisons O’Reilly makes is Brittanica Online v. Wikipedia. While perhaps Wikipedia is more Web 2.0 as it allows users to make entries, update them etc, “with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," he quotes. With some non controversial ‘topics’ or entries that may be the case, but as someone who was an intern and had to check and edit the definitions of “Veal” & “Foie Gras” on Wikipedia on a daily basis, it really depends on who had a faster server and more time (or employees) to devote to the issue. (In my case, Hudson Valley Foie Gras won out.)

Some other quotations he had jumped out at me, the first one being that “Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage.” This made me think of in the past, when DVD’s first started taking over, where you could barely find VHS versions of anything, and even now, where analog televisions will no longer work and everything has been switched to digital. Even now, everyone has seen commercials for Blue Ray discs, and it has frequently sparked discussion that often begins with “why would we use that when we have DVD’s” and yet it’s the same argument used for tapes v. CD’s, and PC v. laptop, and now it makes me look at the current standoffs or shake ups, between DVD’s v. Blue Ray, or even Windows Vista v. Mac. While one of the characteristics of Web 2.0 was that users didn’t have to upgrade constantly and buy new software (as with Netscape) it seems that in the big picture, we are having to upgrade in order to stay with what is now Web 2.0, and in the future I’m sure 3.0 and all those that follow