Representations of friendships on social networking sites
Friday, October 2, 2009 by claudia
In my opinion, traditional social networking sites online do not give a realistic representation of the variety of friendships a person can have. The aim in some ways seems to be more about accumulating associations and networking, and as suggested in the lecture they appear to flatten the idea of friendship.
Taking Facebook for an example, there are attempts to convey the different types of relationships in a person’s life (such as the option to say how you know a person, and the ability to hide people’s actions from your feed), but these are limited. Everyone you have accepted on Facebook is placed on the same level and is considered a ‘friend’, whether that is their relationship to you in the ‘real world’ or not. SNS do not account for the idea that relationships on them can be very one way; although I regularly check up on my friend’s profile page in Ireland, that does not mean say to that she checks up on mine as regularly, if ever. They also do not include Robert Putman’s idea of strong and weak ties as they blur the boundaries between them.
Friendships are hierarchical as they are made up firstly of those people you consider close (strong ties), and those who you see as general friends, or just acquaintances (weak ties). Even within these two categories I believe people can create an even more detailed ranking system such as a best friend, close friends, old friends, ‘friends’, work friends, acquaintances. Relationships can also range from those that need everyday work, to those that can be left a good year. By categorising all associations you have on a SNS as ‘friends’, sites like Facebook only seem to simplify the idea of a friendship, and in doing so flatten them.
Judith Donath suggests her ‘Comment Flow’ tool more accurately visualises the communication patterns that happen on SNS. However, although this tool may visually show who contacts whom, and the strength of that bond depending on the interactions they have, it does not take into account that people may not interact with their strong ties online as much because they see them, or contact them on a more regular basis off line.
Taking Facebook for an example, there are attempts to convey the different types of relationships in a person’s life (such as the option to say how you know a person, and the ability to hide people’s actions from your feed), but these are limited. Everyone you have accepted on Facebook is placed on the same level and is considered a ‘friend’, whether that is their relationship to you in the ‘real world’ or not. SNS do not account for the idea that relationships on them can be very one way; although I regularly check up on my friend’s profile page in Ireland, that does not mean say to that she checks up on mine as regularly, if ever. They also do not include Robert Putman’s idea of strong and weak ties as they blur the boundaries between them.
Friendships are hierarchical as they are made up firstly of those people you consider close (strong ties), and those who you see as general friends, or just acquaintances (weak ties). Even within these two categories I believe people can create an even more detailed ranking system such as a best friend, close friends, old friends, ‘friends’, work friends, acquaintances. Relationships can also range from those that need everyday work, to those that can be left a good year. By categorising all associations you have on a SNS as ‘friends’, sites like Facebook only seem to simplify the idea of a friendship, and in doing so flatten them.
Judith Donath suggests her ‘Comment Flow’ tool more accurately visualises the communication patterns that happen on SNS. However, although this tool may visually show who contacts whom, and the strength of that bond depending on the interactions they have, it does not take into account that people may not interact with their strong ties online as much because they see them, or contact them on a more regular basis off line.