A Different Kind of Social Physics:

1
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
2
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)

3
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

4
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)

5
SNS Research

• Central to social interactions of young adults
• Sites are centered around profiles
• Social networks are publicly expressed

6
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).

7
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.

8
Ontology of the Medium (Internet)

• Practically Hidden becomes Searchable
• Ephemeral becomes Persistent
• Duplication is effortless / costless
• Traversable (links, nodes, hypertext)
• Interactive (invites socialness)

9
Different Kind of Optics

• Two way visibility becomes Enhanced One-Way
  Visibility.
• You cant see whos looking
• No longer true!

10
On the Domesticated Internet...

• ... people routinely engage in social
  interaction
• ... people routinely engage in identity-constructi
  on, self-expression, and impression-management.
• However, the ontology of the medium has profound
  consequences stemming from the aggregate of these
  routine actions.

11
(No Transcript)
12
Grassroots Surveillance (On the Internet,
Everyone Knows Youre a Dog)
13
(No Transcript)
14
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.

15
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)

16
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).

17
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.

18
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.

19
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

20
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).

21
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.

22
Altmans Model

• Boundary Regulation
• Optimization , NOT on/off
• Social Ecology not credit card theft

23
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)

24
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)

25
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.

26
Thats just the beginning...

• Its 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.

27
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

28
Facebook, Grooming and GossipLearning from the
Non-Users
29
Non-Users!

• Persistent Non-User Population
• About 14 percent
• Relatively Steady Over Two Years
• Interviews with Non-Users
• Survey Data

30
Social Grooming

• Robin Dunbars 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

31
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 havent seen you in seven years,
  if Ive seen you at all.
• Look at what Katie did this weekend, shes with
  who now? sighs You dont even know this
  person.
• I dont understand what people get out of
  looking at other peoples profile. Live your
  life.

32
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
33
No Difference
I am a very busy person User 3.13
I am a very busy person Non-User 3.21
I am usually bored User 2.32
I am usually bored Non-User 2.23
I am always in a hurry User 2.50
I am always in a hurry Non-User 2.55
I value efficiency highly User 3.44
I value efficiency highly Non-User 3.50
I am shy User 2.43
I am shy Non-User 2.45
I am worried about wasting time on the internet User 2.29
I am worried about wasting time on the internet Non-User 2.10
34
Heres the Difference
I am curious about other people's lives User 3.12
I am curious about other people's lives Non-User 2.93
I am curious about people from my past User 3.13
I am curious about people from my past Non-User 2.82
I like keeping in touch with friends User 3.46
I like keeping in touch with friends Non-User 3.24
I like to follow trends User 2.43
I like to follow trends Non-User 2.11
35
Reasons For Non-Use

• Its not Privacy
• Users of Online Banking
• Mildly more concerned about Privacy
• They are not Technophobes
• They have similar levels of close friends
• Its not Efficiency
• Its Social Grooming

36
Social Capital Women Bonding, Men Searching
37
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.

38
Bonding Social Capital

• Measured Social Support Using Well-Established
  Scales (Cohen)
• Controlled for Loneliness (UCLA-Loneliness Scale)

39
Gender Differences

• Regression Modeling Level of Social Support

R2 .395
The interaction term between gender and level of
SNS use is statistically significant!
40
Gender Differences

• Regressions Modeling Level of Social Support

41
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

42
(No Transcript)
43
Thank You

• For more information (and papers)
• http//userpages.umbc.edu/zeynep/
• Questions
• zeynep_at_umbc.edu