"The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online"

r biases and work to counter them.

4) The Internet has enabled many new voices to enter the political fray, but not everyone is sitting at the table. There's a terrible tendency in this country, and especially among politically minded folks, to interpret an advancement as a solution. We have not eradicated racism. We have not eradicated sexism. We have not eradicated inequality. While we've made tremendous strides in certain battles, the war is not over. The worst thing we can do is to walk away and congratulate ourselves for all of the good things that have happened. Such attitudes create new breeding grounds for increased stratification.

Highlighted by reuvenwe

a rough unedited crib of the actual talk

Highlighted by grahamperrin

boyd, danah. 2009. "The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online." Personal Democracy Forum, New York, June 30.

Highlighted by grahamperrin

Given what we've experienced and what we witness today, we tend to believe that these technologies are the great equalizers, that they can help ANYONE participate, that the technologies in and of themselves can revitalize democracy. In other words, we tend to believe in a certain utopian myth of the internet as the savior. What if this weren't true?

Highlighted by takuya514

we tend to believe that these technologies are the great equalizers,

Highlighted by hamacleod

I'm worried about the rhetoric we use when we talk about technology

Highlighted by iguana

In other words, we tend to believe in a certain utopian myth of the internet as the savior

Highlighted by iguana

You need to understand the sticking points in order to move the needle in the right direction.

Highlighted by hamacleod

Given what we've experienced and what we witness today, we tend to believe that these technologies are the great equalizers, that they can help ANYONE participate, that the technologies in and of themselves can revitalize democracy. In other words, we tend to believe in a certain utopian myth of the internet as the savior. What if this weren't true?

Highlighted by margolis

has everything to do with "access"

Highlighted by hamacleod

For decades, we've assumed that inequality in relation to technology has everything to do with "access" and that if we fix the access problem, all will be fine. This is the grand narrative of concepts like the "digital divide." Yet, increasingly, we're seeing people with similar levels of access engage in fundamentally different ways. And we're seeing a social media landscape where participation "choice" leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions. This is most salient in the States which is intentionally the focus of my talk here today.

Highlighted by palpitt

Yet, increasingly, we're seeing people with similar levels of access engage in fundamentally different ways.

Highlighted by hamacleod

where participation "choice" leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions.

Highlighted by hamacleod

I want you to think about the ways in which technology is not equally available or equally transformative

Highlighted by iguana

For decades, we've assumed that inequality in relation to technology has everything to do with "access" and that if we fix the access problem, all will be fine. This is the grand narrative of concepts like the "digital divide." Yet, increasingly, we're seeing people with similar levels of access engage in fundamentally different ways. And we're seeing a social media landscape where participation "choice" leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions.

Highlighted by chrishp

And we're seeing a social media landscape where participation "choice" leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions

Highlighted by iguana

For decades, we've assumed that inequality in relation to technology has everything to do with "access" and that if we fix the access problem, all will be fine. This is the grand narrative of concepts like the "digital divide." Yet, increasingly, we're seeing people with similar levels of access engage in fundamentally different ways.

Highlighted by jrstoltz

Rather than staying in land of abstract, let's go concrete.

Highlighted by akochan

And we're seeing a social media landscape where participation "choice" leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions.

Highlighted by jrstoltz

Yet, increasingly, we're seeing people with similar levels of access engage in fundamentally different ways. And we're seeing a social media landscape where participation "choice" leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions.

Highlighted by margolis

Rather than staying in land of abstract

Highlighted by margolis

In a business environment where monetization is shaky, the only definition of success is "growth."

Highlighted by iguana

I'm an ethnographer

Highlighted by iguana

The numbers show that MySpace has neither grown nor faded in the last year while Facebook has expanded rapidly and has finally reached the same size

Highlighted by margolis

As is the case in many situations, teenagers are a darn good indicator of broader trends. I'm an ethnographer. For the last four years, I've been traveling the United States, talking to American teenagers about their use of social media. During the 2006-2007 school year, I started noticing a trend. In each school, in each part of the country, there were teens who opted for MySpace and teens who opted for Facebook. (There were also plenty of teens who used both.) At the beginning of the school year, teens were asking "Are you on MySpace? Yes or No?" At the end of the school year, the question had transformed to "MySpace or Facebook?"

Highlighted by chrishp

Even if you think that Facebook is winning the game, we need to account for the fact that *70 million* people in the US visited MySpace. That's not small potatoes.

Highlighted by margolis

Facebook is less competitive than MySpace. It doesn’t have the Top 8 thing or anything like that, or the background thing

Highlighted by gazbryn825

Kat (14, Mass.): I'm not really into racism, but I think that MySpace now is more like ghetto or whatever, and Facebook is all... not all the people that have Facebook are mature, but its supposed to be like oh we're more mature. … MySpace is just old.

Highlighted by takuya514

Rather than staying in land of abstrac

Highlighted by margolis

Anastasia (17, New York): My school is divided into the 'honors kids,' (I think that is self-explanatory), the 'good not-so-honors kids,' 'wangstas,' (they pretend to be tough and black but when you live in a suburb in Westchester you can't claim much hood), the 'latinos/hispanics,' (they tend to band together even though they could fit into any other groups) and the 'emo kids' (whose lives are allllllways filled with woe). We were all in MySpace with our own little social networks but when Facebook opened its doors to high schoolers, guess who moved and guess who stayed behind… The first two groups were the first to go and then the 'wangstas' split with half of them on Facebook and the rest on MySpace... I shifted with the rest of my school to Facebook and it became the place where the 'honors kids' got together and discussed how they were procrastinating over their next AP English essay.

Highlighted by takuya514

All of this would be fine and dandy if friendships and aesthetics and values weren't inherently intertwined with issues of race, socio-economic status, education, and other factors that usually make up our understanding of "class." But they are. And the further into the analysis you go, the more uncomfortable the data might make you feel.

Highlighted by iguana

Craig (17, California): The higher castes of high school moved to Facebook. It was more cultured, and less cheesy. The lower class usually were content to stick to MySpace. Any high school student who has a Facebook will tell you that MySpace users are more likely to be barely educated and obnoxious. Like Peet’s is more cultured than Starbucks, and Jazz is more cultured than bubblegum pop, and like Macs are more cultured than PC’s, Facebook is of a cooler caliber than MySpace.

Highlighted by takuya514

Kat (14, Mass.): I'm not really into racism, but I think that MySpace now is more like ghetto or whatever, and Facebook is all... not all the people that have Facebook are mature, but its supposed to be like oh we're more mature. … MySpace is just old.

Highlighted by chrishp

In looking through my data, I found that teens who prefer Facebook are far more likely to be condescending towards those who use MySpace than vice versa. Teens who use MySpace may lament teen Facebook users as "stuck-ups" or "goodie two-shoes" or the "good kids." But they're not nearly as harsh in their language as Facebook users are of those who use MySpace.

Highlighted by takuya514

Teens - and adults - use social categories and labels to identify people with values, tastes, and social positions. As teens chose between MySpace and Facebook, these sites took on the frames of those social categories. Nowhere is this more visible than in the language that those who explicitly chose Facebook over MySpace.

Craig (17, California): The higher castes of high school moved to Facebook. It was more cultured, and less cheesy. The lower class usually were content to stick to MySpace.

Highlighted by chrishp

This quote provides the key to understanding the distinction between MySpace and Facebook. Choice isn't about features of functionality. It's about the social categories in which we live. It's about choosing sites online that reflect "people like me." And it's about seeing the "other" site as the place where the "other" people go

Highlighted by margolis

One explanation comes from looking at the origin points. Early adopters matter - they shape services in the long-term. MySpace came out first and quickly attracted urban 20-somethings. It spread to teenagers through older siblings and cousins as well as those who were attracted to indie rock and hip hop music culture. Facebook started at Harvard and spread to the Ivy Leagues before spreading more broadly. The first teenagers to hear about Facebook were those connected to the early adopters of Facebook (i.e. the Ivy League bound types). The desirability of the site spread from those college-bound teens. As word of these sites spread, teens went to where their friends were. The origin points of these sites explain many of people's choices, especially when it comes to first adoption because people adopt the sites that their friends adopt. Yet, it doesn't explain why people some people left MySpace to join Facebook and others did not.

Highlighted by takuya514

Herein lies the reality that makes all of this quite messy to deal with. It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality... What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

Highlighted by takuya514

there's plenty of documentation about how teenagers from wealthier, more educated backgrounds are more willing to participate in environments alongside adults than those from poorer backgrounds

Highlighted by jrstoltz

Facebook started at Harvard and spread to the Ivy Leagues before spreading more broadly. The first teenagers to hear about Facebook were those connected to the early adopters of Facebook

Highlighted by iguana

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed. Those who are from privileged backgrounds tend to be far more condescending towards those who are not than vice versa. Many of us in this room come from privileged worlds where we want to "help" those who are not well-off. Here is where a privilege-check is necessary. How often do our language and mannerisms reflect a problematic level of condescension? Perhaps we should look at our teens. They are certainly speaking in a manner that reveals distrust and condescension.

Highlighted by takuya514

I suspect that, more often than not, what we're dismissing are the values and cultures of people who are different.

Highlighted by hamacleod

Fear of the "other" is core to white flight; it is core to suburban attitudes about urban life.

Highlighted by hamacleod

moral panics around MySpace and online sexual predators. The data has consistently shown that MySpace is not a site of increased risk for youth and that risky behavior is more likely to occur in chatrooms than on MySpace.

Highlighted by hamacleod

Early adopters matter - they shape services in the long-term. MySpace came out first and quickly attracted urban 20-somethings. It spread to teenagers through older siblings and cousins as well as those who were attracted to indie rock and hip hop music culture. Facebook started at Harvard and spread to the Ivy Leagues before spreading more broadly. The first teenagers to hear about Facebook were those connected to the early adopters of Facebook (i.e. the Ivy League bound types). The desirability of the site spread from those college-bound teens. As word of these sites spread, teens went to where their friends were. The origin points of these sites explain many of people's choices, especially when it comes to first adoption because people adopt the sites that their friends adopt. Yet, it doesn't explain why people some people left MySpace to join Facebook and others did not.

Highlighted by chrishp

Are you scared of the display of sexuality or just the display of working class sexuality?

Highlighted by hamacleod

What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook

Highlighted by iguana

In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality... What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

Highlighted by danholt

In many ways, adult worlds are even more divided than teen worlds. Adults are less likely to know other adults who aren't like them than teens are. There's a concept in sociology called "homophily." It means birds of a feather stick together. Whites know whites. Democrats know Democrats. Urbanites know urbanites. Tech people know tech people. Rich people know rich people. And before you immediately start listing the people you know that aren't like you, realize that this is the auto-reaction to an uncomfortable reality (more colloquially noticeable when people refer to "my black friend..."). Structurally, social networks are driven by homophily even when there are individual exceptions. And sure enough, in the digital world, we see this manifested right before our eyes.

Highlighted by takuya514

Herein lies the reality that makes all of this quite messy to deal with. It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality... What happened was modern day "white flight."

Highlighted by chrishp

And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed.

Highlighted by iguana

How often do our language and mannerisms reflect a problematic level of condescension? Perhaps we should look at our teens.

Highlighted by iguana

Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

Highlighted by chrishp

Early adopters matter - they shape services in the long-term

Highlighted by margolis

I highlight this because I think that we need to think twice when we dismiss or devalue popular "mainstream" trends and environments

Highlighted by iguana

So why am I telling you that Facebook and MySpace are divided by race, class, education, and other factors? Because it matters.

Highlighted by hamacleod

when people are structurally divided, they do not share space with one another and they do not communicate with one another.

Highlighted by hamacleod

The data has consistently shown that MySpace is not a site of increased risk for youth and that risky behavior is more likely to occur in chatrooms than on MySpace

Highlighted by iguana

Structurally, social networks are driven by homophily even when there are individual exceptions. And sure enough, in the digital world, we see this manifested right before our eyes.

Highlighted by abo46n2

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed. Those who are from privileged backgrounds tend to be far more condescending towards those who are not than vice versa. Many of us in this room come from privileged worlds where we want to "help" those who are not well-off.

Highlighted by chrishp

It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality... What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook.

Highlighted by jrstoltz

The #1 predictor for how someone will side in issues of gay rights is whether or not they know someone who is gay.

Highlighted by hamacleod

One thing to keep in mind about social media: the internet mirrors and magnifies pre-existing dynamics.

Highlighted by abo46n2

Many of you know people who joined Facebook in the last year. Well, numerous adults have also joined MySpace in the last year

Highlighted by iguana

All this said, people are already divided and we accept that people from different backgrounds inhabit different environments. We cannot expect technology to automatically integrate people and generate cultural harmony. Although most of you call these sites "social networking sites," there's almost no networking going on. People use these sites to connect to the people they know. In other words, even if they could talk across the divide, they might not anyhow. And even when people talk across differences, it doesn't automatically solve underlying tensions. Racial integration of schools was valuable for many reasons, but it didn't solve racism in this country.

Highlighted by takuya514

People use these sites to connect to the people they know

Highlighted by hamacleod

Although most of you call these sites "social networking sites," there's almost no networking going on

Highlighted by hamacleod

But here's the main issue with social divisions. We can accept when people choose to connect to people who are like them and not friend different others. But can we accept when institutions and services only support a portion of the network? When politicians only address half of their constituency? When educators and policy makers engage with people only through the tools of the privileged? When we start leveraging technology to meet specific goals, we may reinforce the divisions that we're trying to address.

Highlighted by takuya514

What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

Highlighted by margolis

If you want people to connect around politics and democracy, information and ideas, you need to understand the divisions that exist. Many of us in this room see social network sites as a modern day incarnation of the public sphere. Politicians login to these sites to connect with constituents and hear their voices. Campaign managers and activists try to rally people through these sites. Market researchers try to get a sense of people's opinions through these sites. Educators try to connect with students and build knowledge sharing communities. This is fantastic. But there isn't one uniform public sphere. There are numerous publics (and counterpublics).

Highlighted by takuya514

One thing to keep in mind about social media: the internet mirrors and magnifies pre-existing dynamics. And it makes many different realities much more visible than ever before

Highlighted by iguana

In many ways, the Internet is providing a next generation public sphere. Unfortunately, it's also bringing with it next generation divides. The public sphere was never accessible to everyone. There's a reason than the scholar Habermas talked about it as the bourgeois public sphere. The public sphere was historically the domain of educated, wealthy, white, straight men. The digital public sphere may make certain aspects of public life more accessible to some, but this is not a given. And if the ways in which we construct the digital public sphere reinforce the divisions that we've been trying to break down, we've got a problem.

Highlighted by takuya514

In many ways, the Internet is providing a next generation public sphere.

Highlighted by hamacleod

Unfortunately, it's also bringing with it next generation divides.

Highlighted by hamacleod

he scholar Habermas talked about it as the bourgeois public sphere.

Highlighted by hamacleod

MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape.

Highlighted by margolis

Although most of you call these sites "social networking sites," there's almost no networking going on. People use these sites to connect to the people they know.

Highlighted by abo46n2

First off, when people are structurally divided, they do not share space with one another and they do not communicate with one another

Highlighted by iguana

If you don't know people who are different than you, you don't trust them

Highlighted by iguana

Where you and your colleagues hang out matters.

Highlighted by hamacleod

Unlike teens who are often straddling MySpace and Facebook, most adults are active on one or the other unless they have a specific professional or hobby-based reason to be on both. Many of you know people who joined Facebook in the last year. Well, numerous adults have also joined MySpace in the last year. My guess is that no many of you know adults who have recently created accounts on MySpace. Why? Because they probably aren't like you.

Highlighted by chrishp

Social network sites are not like email where it doesn't matter if you're on Hotmail or Yahoo. When you choose MySpace or Facebook, you can't send messages to people on the other site.

Highlighted by iguana

In the US, we can talk about MySpace and Facebook, but the politics are different in every country. What divides people often differs as well, although "class" is still salient almost everywhere. For example, if you look at Indian use of social media, you'll see a divide between Orkut and Facebook that plays out along caste and professional lines. Even if you're not working in the States, you need to account for social divisions. You just might have to look in different places.

Highlighted by takuya514

In many ways, adult worlds are even more divided than teen worlds. Adults are less likely to know other adults who aren't like them than teens are. There's a concept in sociology called "homophily." It means birds of a feather stick together.

Highlighted by chrishp

Although most of you call these sites "social networking sites," there's almost no networking going on

Highlighted by iguana

In many ways, the Internet is providing a next generation public sphere. Unfortunately, it's also bringing with it next generation divides. The public sphere was never accessible to everyone. There's a reason than the scholar Habermas talked about it as the bourgeois public sphere. The public sphere was historically the domain of educated, wealthy, white, straight men. The digital public sphere may make certain aspects of public life more accessible to some, but this is not a given. And if the ways in which we construct the digital public sphere reinforce the divisions that we've been trying to break down, we've got a problem.

Highlighted by abo46n2

Divides also play out inside sites. Consider everyone's beloved Twitter. For starters, who uses the site represents a small minority of American (let alone international) online participants. Teens, for example, are not using the site. But even among those who are, they aren't part of one gigantic public space. Consider the discussion of the Iranian election. If you were in certain cohorts, you couldn't miss the green-ification of people's profiles, the discussions of #iranelection. But, even though said conversations were massively prolific, only a small percentage of the user base was even aware of this beyond the trending topic. Those who were following 50cent and Miley Cyrus were oblivious to these conversations. And, in a matter of moments, this became visible when Michael Jackson died and captured the attention of a much broader swath of users, nearly taking Twitter down with it. In your world, Iran probably matters more than Michael Jackson. But don't for a second think that this is universal.

Highlighted by takuya514

One thing to keep in mind about social media: the internet mirrors and magnifies pre-existing dynamics. And it makes many different realities much more visible than ever before. Racial divisions in American society should not shock anyone in this room, but the explicit-ness of them online can be quite startling.

Highlighted by chrishp

MySpace vs. Facebook is not the only divide taking place online nor will it be the last. These divides are going to keep on happening as social media becomes increasingly prevalent and as features of social media are baked into every site on the web.

Highlighted by takuya514

If you want people to connect around politics and democracy, information and ideas, you need to understand the divisions that exist

Highlighted by iguana

even schools that are "integrated" show racial rifts through Friending practices. You can see homophily online and you can see the ways in which people who share physical space do not share emotional connections.

Highlighted by jrstoltz

In many ways, the Internet is providing a next generation public sphere

Highlighted by iguana

Habermas talked about it as the bourgeois public sphere. The public sphere was historically the domain of educated, wealthy, white, straight men

Highlighted by iguana

First off, when people are structurally divided, they do not share space with one another and they do not communicate with one another. This can and does breed intolerance. Sociologists are obsessed with homophily because of the social and economic implications for such divisions. If you don't know people who are different than you, you don't trust them. Think about this in the context of the politics around gay rights. The #1 predictor for how someone will side in issues of gay rights is whether or not they know someone who is gay.

Highlighted by chrishp

Structurally, social networks are driven by homophily even when there are individual exceptions

Highlighted by margolis

If you aren't part of these networks, these technologies may feel very foreign.

Highlighted by iguana

One thing to keep in mind about social media: the internet mirrors and magnifies pre-existing dynamics. And it makes many different realities much more visible than ever before.

Highlighted by margolis

When you choose MySpace or Facebook, you can't send messages to people on the other site. You can't Friend people on the other site. There's a cultural wall between users. And if there's no way for people to communicate across the divide, you can never expect them to do so.

Highlighted by chrishp

what's the meeting point for our conversations? Is it MySpace or Facebook? Twitter or IRC? What you choose matters

Highlighted by iguana

people are already divided and we accept that people from different backgrounds inhabit different environments. We cannot expect technology to automatically integrate people and generate cultural harmony. Although most of you call these sites "social networking sites," there's almost no networking going on.

Highlighted by chrishp

Are you embracing difference or are you only taking into account that with which you are comfortable?

Highlighted by iguana

Social network sites complicate this even further. Social network sites are not like email where it doesn't matter if you're on Hotmail or Yahoo. When you choose MySpace or Facebook, you can't send messages to people on the other site. You can't Friend people on the other site. There's a cultural wall between users. And if there's no way for people to communicate across the divide, you can never expect them to do so.

Highlighted by billguinee

What divides people often differs as well, although "class" is still salient almost everywhere

Highlighted by iguana

4) The Internet has enabled many new voices to enter the political fray, but not everyone is sitting at the table. There's a terrible tendency in this country, and especially among politically minded folks, to interpret an advancement as a solution. We have not eradicated racism. We have not eradicated sexism. We have not eradicated inequality. While we've made tremendous strides in certain battles, the war is not over. The worst thing we can do is to walk away and congratulate ourselves for all of the good things that have happened. Such attitudes create new breeding grounds for increased stratification.

Highlighted by takuya514

when people are structurally divided, they do not share space with one another and they do not communicate with one another. This can and does breed intolerance.

Highlighted by margolis

But here's the main issue with social divisions. We can accept when people choose to connect to people who are like them and not friend different others. But can we accept when institutions and services only support a portion of the network? When politicians only address half of their constituency? When educators and policy makers engage with people only through the tools of the privileged? When we start leveraging technology to meet specific goals, we may reinforce the divisions that we're trying to address.

Highlighted by jrstoltz

1) Social stratification is pervasive in American society (and around the globe). Social media does not magically eradicate inequality. Rather, it mirrors what is happening in everyday life and makes social divisions visible. What we see online is not the property of these specific sites, but the pattern of adoption and development that emerged as people embraced them. People brought their biases with them to these sites and they got baked in.

2) There is no universal public online. What we see as user "choice" in social media often has to do with structural forces like homophily in people's social networks. Social stratification in this country is not cleanly linked to race or education or socio-economic factors, although all are certainly present. More than anything, social stratification is a social networks issue. People connect to people who think like them and they think like the people with whom they are connected. The digital publics that unfold highlight and reinforce structural divisions.

Highlighted by abo46n2

1) Social stratification is pervasive in American society (and around the globe). Social media does not magically eradicate inequality. Rather, it mirrors what is happening in everyday life and makes social divisions visible. What we see online is not the property of these specific sites, but the pattern of adoption and development that emerged as people embraced them. People brought their biases with them to these sites and they got baked in.

Highlighted by reuvenwe

When you choose MySpace or Facebook, you can't send messages to people on the other site. You can't Friend people on the other site. There's a cultural wall between users. And if there's no way for people to communicate across the divide, you can never expect them to do so.

Highlighted by margolis

MySpace vs. Facebook is not the only divide taking place online nor will it be the last. These divides are going to keep on happening as social media becomes increasingly prevalent and as features of social media are baked into every site on the web.

Highlighted by iguana

adoption and development that emerged as people embraced them. People brought their biases with them to these sites and they got baked in.

2) There is no universal public online. What we see as user "choice" in social media often has to do with structural forces like homophily in people's social networks. Social stratification in this country is not cleanly linked to race or education or socio-economic factors, although all are certainly present. More than anything, social stratification is a social networks issue. People connect to people who think like them and they think like the people with whom they are connected. The digital publics that unfold highlight and reinforce structural divisions.

Highlighted by reuvenwe

In many ways, the Internet is providing a next generation public sphere. Unfortunately, it's also bringing with it next generation divides. The public sphere was never accessible to everyone. There's a reason than the scholar Habermas talked about it as the bourgeois public sphere. The public sphere was historically the domain of educated, wealthy, white, straight men. The digital public sphere may make certain aspects of public life more accessible to some, but this is not a given.

Highlighted by chrishp

3) If you are trying to connect with the public, where you go online matters. If you choose to make Facebook your platform for civic activity, you are implicitly suggesting that a specific class of people is more worth your time and attention than others. Of course, splitting your attention can also be costly and doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be reaching everyone anyhow. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. The key to developing a social media strategy is to understand who you're reaching and who you're not and make certain that your perspective is accounting for said choices. Understand your biases and work to counter them.

4) The Internet has enabled many new voices to enter the political fray, but not everyone is sitting at the table. There's a terrible tendency in this country, and especially among politically minded folks, to interpret an advancement as a solution. We have not eradicated racism. We have not eradicated sexism. We have not eradicated inequality. While we've made tremendous strides in certain battles, the war is not over. The worst thing we can do is to walk away and congratulate ourselves for all of the good things that have happened. Such attitudes create new breeding grounds for increased stratification.

Highlighted by abo46n2

connected. The digital publics that unfold highlight and reinforce structural divisions.

3) If you are trying to connect with the public, where you go online matters. If you choose to make Facebook your platform for civic activity, you are implicitly suggesting that a specific class of people is more worth your time and attention than others. Of course, splitting your attention can also be costly and doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be reaching everyone anyhow. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. The key to developing a social media strategy is to understand who you're reaching and who you're not and make certain that your perspective is accounting for said choices. Understand your biases and work to counter them.

Highlighted by reuvenwe

Social media does not magically eradicate inequality

Highlighted by akochan

Rather, it mirrors what is happening in everyday life and makes social divisions visible.

Highlighted by akochan

the pattern of adoption and development that emerged as people embraced them.

Highlighted by akochan

People connect to people who think like them and they think like the people with whom they are connected. The digital publics that unfold highlight and reinforce structural divisions.

Highlighted by akochan

We can accept when people choose to connect to people who are like them and not friend different others. But can we accept when institutions and services only support a portion of the network?

Highlighted by margolis

I recommend each and every one of you to login to MySpace and try to make sense of it today. It will feel foreign to you because it's not your community, it's not your friends. Now imagine how people who aren't like you feel when they walk into Facebook or Twitter.

Highlighted by chrishp

Most of you in this room learned to use Twitter and Facebook through your friends. Collectively, you set the norms for what is appropriate among your network. If you aren't part of these networks, these technologies may feel very foreign.

Highlighted by jrstoltz

The key to developing a social media strategy is to understand who you're reaching and who you're not and make certain that your perspective is accounting for said choices. Understand your biases and work to counter them.

Highlighted by akochan

If you want people to connect around politics and democracy, information and ideas, you need to understand the divisions that exist. Many of us in this room see social network sites as a modern day incarnation of the public sphere. Politicians login to these sites to connect with constituents and hear their voices. Campaign managers and activists try to rally people through these sites. Market researchers try to get a sense of people's opinions through these sites. Educators try to connect with students and build knowledge sharing communities. This is fantastic. But there isn't one uniform public sphere. There are numerous publics (and counterpublics).

Highlighted by margolis

We can use technology as a tool to connect with people, but we can't assume that it will eliminate all of the serious issues we have to face in this country.

Highlighted by reuvenwe

If you choose to make Facebook your platform for civic activity, you are implicitly suggesting that a specific class of people is more worth your time and attention than others

Highlighted by iguana

we also need to re-engage around broader issues of inequality, intolerance, and social divisions.

Highlighted by akochan

if you look at Indian use of social media, you'll see a divide between Orkut and Facebook that plays out along caste and professional lines. Even if you're not working in the States, you need to account for social divisions. You just might have to look in different places.

Highlighted by chrishp

echnology isn't the savior, but it sure can highlight the work we need to do. We have some serious work to do, work that goes beyond technology. We can use technology as a tool to connect with people, but we can't assume that it will eliminate all of the serious issues we have to face in this country.

Highlighted by akochan

Divides also play out inside sites. Consider everyone's beloved Twitter. For starters, who uses the site represents a small minority of American (let alone international) online participants. Teens, for example, are not using the site. But even among those who are, they aren't part of one gigantic public space. Consider the discussion of the Iranian election. If you were in certain cohorts, you couldn't miss the green-ification of people's profiles, the discussions of #iranelection. But, even though said conversations were massively prolific, only a small percentage of the user base was even aware of this beyond the trending topic. Those who were following 50cent and Miley Cyrus were oblivious to these conversations. And, in a matter of moments, this became visible when Michael Jackson died and captured the attention of a much broader swath of users, nearly taking Twitter down with it. In your world, Iran probably matters more than Michael Jackson. But don't for a second think that this is universal.

Highlighted by chrishp

We desperately need to address issues of access and media literacy to combat this, but we also need to re-engage around broader issues of inequality, intolerance, and social divisions

Highlighted by iguana

So as we think about creating public spaces, what's the meeting point for our conversations? Is it MySpace or Facebook? Twitter or IRC? What you choose matters. Where you and your colleagues hang out matters. The "voices" of the Internet that you get are biased by the people who are in the places that you hang out. But do you know this? Do you account for it? Are you working to represent all people or just the people that you can see and hear? When you're trying to reach out to people, are you trying to reach out to all people or just the people in the environments that you understand? Are you embracing difference or are you only taking into account that with which you are comfortable?

Highlighted by margolis

1) Social stratification is pervasive in American society (and around the globe). Social media does not magically eradicate inequality. Rather, it mirrors what is happening in everyday life and makes social divisions visible. What we see online is not the property of these specific sites, but the pattern of adoption and development that emerged as people embraced them. People brought their biases with them to these sites and they got baked in.

Highlighted by chrishp

2) There is no universal public online. What we see as user "choice" in social media often has to do with structural forces like homophily in people's social networks. Social stratification in this country is not cleanly linked to race or education or socio-economic factors, although all are certainly present. More than anything, social stratification is a social networks issue. People connect to people who think like them and they think like the people with whom they are connected. The digital publics that unfold highlight and reinforce structural divisions.

Highlighted by chrishp

MySpace vs. Facebook is not the only divide taking place online nor will it be the last. These divides are going to keep on happening as social media becomes increasingly prevalent and as features of social media are baked into every site on the web.

Highlighted by margolis

3) If you are trying to connect with the public, where you go online matters. If you choose to make Facebook your platform for civic activity, you are implicitly suggesting that a specific class of people is more worth your time and attention than others. Of course, splitting your attention can also be costly and doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be reaching everyone anyhow.

Highlighted by chrishp

The key to developing a social media strategy is to understand who you're reaching and who you're not and make certain that your perspective is accounting for said choices. Understand your biases and work to counter them.

Highlighted by chrishp

If you choose to make Facebook your platform for civic activity, you are implicitly suggesting that a specific class of people is more worth your time and attention than others.

Highlighted by jrstoltz

The more that we rely on certain kinds of social media as the solution, the more we define a modern day "second class citizenship." We desperately need to address issues of access and media literacy to combat this, but we also need to re-engage around broader issues of inequality, intolerance, and social divisions. Technology isn't the savior, but it sure can highlight the work we need to do.

Highlighted by chrishp

The key to developing a social media strategy is to understand who you're reaching and who you're not and make certain that your perspective is accounting for said choices. Understand your biases and work to counter them.

Highlighted by margolis

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0

Rank

URL Tag Cloud

Groups (0)

Related Lists

Bookmark History

Public Comment

on 2009-07-27 by grahamperrin

Public Sticky notes

Site Community

Readers (63)