Last week, danah boyd generated significant discussion with her piece Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace (comments here). After reading it this morning (I was offline last week), and then exploring some of the controversy surrounding the piece, I thought I’d share some of my thoughts.
In the essay, danah draws on her ongoing ethnography to explore class distinctions between Facebook and Myspace. Using frank language, she divides the representative “classes” of users – Facebook’s users are more systematically mainstream, whereas Myspace has become the catch-all for the second-class and minority cliques oft thought of as non-elite. As one might imagine, this argument created uproar, especially after it was grossly genericized in the press. While I think dichotomizing an audience as large as Facebook’s or Myspace’s is inherently problematic, danah’s essay was a meditation, meant to be thought-provoking and controversial.
danah’s work often draws the parallels between physical spaces and so-called “networked” or “digital” publics. As young people spend more of their lives interacting socially online, the expectations, norms and cultural baggage of our offline existences often show up in these online places. As a result, our online spaces become political and value-laden, and certainly the press and public-opinion treatment of Myspace is a prime exemplar.
How Myspace became a “scary” place is beyond the scope of this article; however, I’ve cataloged enough press clippings about social networks to clearly see an editorial slant. This is no surprise, as the “social networks as dangerous spaces” narrative has been a dominant theme for years now. But as we pull the layers back, I think danah brings up an interesting point for analysis – was Myspace easier to stigmatize because its userbase wasn’t the elite? Certainly, if we look at a Myspace/Facebook split in coverage, you’ll see differences in the volume and tone.
As we go down this path, one could argue that the systematic bias that pervades coverage of Myspace is a artifact of how the audience/userbase is generally covered; and if you buy danah’s characterization, this makes sense. I mean, when is the last time you read a positive mainstream press article about goths? And while I certainly don’t trust the press enough to throw away any of these possibilities, I think the larger effect we see in differences of coverage is due to access. That is, reporters/parents/schoolteachers have always had access to Myspace, whereas open access to Facebook is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Social networks as scary places is a media narrative that lasted longer than it should have. It played on parent’s worst fears (sexual exploitation) and turned teenage technical sophistication into a bad thing (i.e. savvy teens vs. clueless parents). I think the only reason the narrative is burning out is because the stories have been written so many times. Now, Facebook is emerging as an alternative – and it is being cast in the light of the “good alternative.” It is the anti-Myspace, which is a sentiment echoed up and down the food chain. Of course, in being the anti-Mypsace, we see a good/bad dichotomy between the two services. Those who use Facebook are good, advanced, self-respecting – while those who continue to populate Myspace – ouch.
As with anything boiled down into headline or paragraph, the nuance and complexity of the issue often overlooked. If Facebook is “good”, why doesn’t everyone just switch? And are those who don’t switch “bad” or second class? Of course not. I believe a good deal of this confusion can be explained by social network switching, or transition, costs.
If you’re reading my blog, it is likely you’ve heard of the network effect. In a nutshell, network effect means that as more people join a network, the network becomes more valuable. Imagine if you have 125 friends on Myspace, but you only know 10 people on Facebook; since you can get more social information from your 125 friends on Myspace, that network is much more valuable to you. Make no mistake, social network sites are social information hubs – the value of these hubs are directly related to the relevance of the network to the consumer. If you get more value out of your Myspace network, are you going to switch? Of course not – at least for now.
For the past three years, however, Facebook’s network has been growing amongst college and high-school students. Even though hundreds of thousands of people are joining Facebook each week, the strong ties and large networks in Facebook are generally populated by the students – they are the first-class network in Facebook, without a question. Because those who attend college can be grouped into secioeconomic classes, there’s certainly an effect for this self-selection. However, the reason one class can leave Myspace easier than the other is simply because switching costs are lower. If you’re of a “class” where many of your peers attend or have attended college, it is likely that you’ll have a rich network to join once you make the leap to Facebook. If you don’t, well – you’re a first adopter, and we know what that portion of the curve looks like. Does this mean that these “second-class” users can’t or won’t join – absolutely not – they will simply wait until Facebook’s network becomes valuable enough for them to join. In this sense, rational economic judgement (value of information networks) is keeping some users in situ, while others depart.
Of course, this analysis neglects a reality that some Facebook users do look down on Myspace (just as some Myspace users look down at Facebook). Are the Facebook users the kids with the new sneakers? Can we make this argument about digital publics? And perhaps having the social capital to be able to make the leap from Myspace to Facebook is a class statement. I think the problem here is that we’re overvaluing the tastemakers.
In 2004, students joined Facebook just because – not because it was the anti-Mypsace. Facebook grew from this point, and became the college social network. Yes – we consider this bloc to be the tastemakers (largely a function of their lifetime spending potential), but simply because they’re on Facebook – does that make it better? I think that’s the question we have to ask ourselves – because there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy on Myspace. Will the transition? Sure, I think transition is inevitable. Just as bars and restaurants go in and out of popularity, so will online social places. And just when those places become popular, the tastemakers will depart for new opportunities. But those who are left behind – do we need to worry about them? Honestly, I can’t really say – but my gut tells me they’ll fend for themselves just fine. There’s just too many parallels between this and everything else in life for me to believe that’s not the case.
Tags: culture, facebook, myspace, social networks, transitions
Just a quick note on the last point: In my personal experience, once Facebook was opened up to High School it was welcomed not only as a desirable college-thing, but also as a viable non-myspace construct fulfilling the social networking niche for those same people tracking towards college. So while it wasn’t necessarily important that it be the ‘anti-myspace’ it was good enough that it be ‘not-myspace’ to a great many people I know.
I find this a very interesting article as I use both, myspace and facebook. I have noticed significant differences between the two, most are mentioned in your post. I actually use facebook mostly to keep in contact with old classmates and then I use myspace to speak my mind. Although, I think that the new social aspects are already being created, such as blogger.com and other sites like it. I won’t be surprised if something like that pushes myspace and facebook off to the side in the near future.
Nice article though, I enjoyed the read, thank you. :)
In my experience with both, myspace acts sloppy as a company. Facebook seems to care more about the quality of its product.
If this is the corollary, cause, or effect to some of the demographic aspects Danah is playing with at the moment, I don’t know. (I agree with you that their respective starting targets are the major cause of their positioning, but as to networks going forward . . . )
I do know that I feel disrespected by myspace. Their system does not work well, in that I get bombarded with spam from strippers / porn promoters constantly and if that we’re not enough, myspace itself runs True ads with nearly naked women constantly.
It feels sleazy.
It’s a sad comment, but from my vantage point, Facebook is partially the anti-myspace simply because it doesn’t feel sleazy.
I find your article insightfully analytical. For me, as a college student, I find myself using Facebook every so often. In a very overt manner, the transition from MySpace to Facebook, I think is a reflection which networking site provides quality and ease of use. Facebook benefits from these enormously with a squeaky clean interface and from the socioeconomic standpoint, some (at least ever so slightly) more “educated” users.
I have to say that I like danah’s vocabulary better: hegemonic versus subordinate sets the line between attitude towards social norm which appears crucial from here.
Just my other two cents: MySpace is clearly associated with music here in France, and FaceBook to find lost friends from childhood, and international travellers; these uses actually match two other, now defunct, services.
This topic is very helpful.I have linked to the page because of its content to share with my readers.Thanks for the resource man!
……blogspot rules the virtual interface world.
I found the article and the comments very informing. I must admit that I do not use either, but I have a youngin’ who does. I’ve seen my child’s page on many occasions, but I had no idea the MySpace had sleazy ads. I bet some of those kids would be on FaceBook if their parents knew. But seriously, I agree that FaceBook is just a new social network (club) and when a newer, more savvy network is introduced, we’ll be having these discussions all over again. Challenge the minds of your young people at YouthPlay.
Having used both sites I agree that there are distinctions, although I echo a previous posters comments that the the level of spam filtration is a major reason for myspace being considered “ghetto”. I will be interested to watch how opening facebook up to those outside of education changes the atmosphere.
I know many people (myself included) that see Facebook allowing people beyond college in as a bad thing. It took the niche in which it thrived and expanded it too broadly. Now, people on Facebook are only there because they already had profiles and are too lazy to move. I have personally deleted my profile because of this.
Joseph Stevens
High School Spanish Teacher, PhD Student
Free Online Spanish Lessons Conversational for Fun, Travel, Work and more!
How about http://www.linkedin.com/ ?
I wonder if, by virtue of the speed online tastes change, this insight might not, already, be a bit late.
Speaking of who looks down upon who, there is a clear line of prestige in the online community beginning with people that own and operate their own domains, then to Blogger and other similar services, then user generated profiling sites like facebook and MySpace and finally the truly old (by internet standards) first generation user generated sites like LiveJournal.
Though, as with issues of ascribed status in the non-digital world, one’s position in this progression can be worn as a badge of honor or shame.
The simple truth is that we don’t yet know the life cycle of these sorts of sites. I predict that, because it is free and easy to join and because so many people use more than one such service, eventually having numerous profiles will become the norm with only very little attention paid to which sites host those profiles.
Do you proofread?