Christian Fuchs: Social Networking Sites and the Surveillance Societyplatform. This includes not only the platforms that boyd and Ellison have in mind, butalso chats, discussion boards, mailing lists, email, etc – all web 2.0 and 3.0technologies. Social network site is therefore an imprecise term. Such imprecision canarise from a lack of social theory foundations in SNS research: Definitions are givenwithout giving grounds to them. David Beer (2008b: 519) argues that the definition byboyd and Ellison is too broad and does not distinguish different types of sites such aswikis, folksonomies, mashups, and social networking sites. ”My argument here issimply that we should be moving toward more differentiated classifications of the newonline cultures not away from them”. He suggests to use web 2.0, not SNS, as anumbrella term.We agree with Beer and therefore consider it feasible to start from a theory of web 1.0,2.0, 3.0 (Fuchs 2008, 2009, Fuchs, Hofkirchner, Schafranek/Raffl, Sandoval & Bichler2008). Online platforms such as MySpace or Facebook are web-based platforms ofcommunication and community-building, i.e. not only web 1.0 systems, but also web2.0 and 3.0 systems. What makes them distinct is that they are integrated platforms thatcombine many media and information and communication technologies, such aswebpage, webmail, digital image, digital video, discussion group, guest book,connection list, or search engine. Many of these technologies are social network-toolsthemselves. It surely is feasible, as boyd and Ellison argue, that profiles, connectionlists, and tools for establishing connections are the central elements, but missing is theinsight that platforms such as Facebook are meta-communication technologies,technologies of communication technologies. Tim O’Reilly (2005b) argues in thiscontext that “the network as platform, spanning all connected devices” is a centraltechnological feature of web 2.0.We find it therefore more appropriate to speak of integrated social networking sites(ISNS). ISNS are web-based platforms that integrate different media, information andcommunication technologies, that allow at least the generation of profiles that displayinformation that describes the users, the display of connections (connection list), theestablishment of connections between users that are displayed on their connection lists,and the communication between users. ISNS are just like all computer technologiesweb 1.0 systems because they reflect and display dominant collective values of societythat become objectified and are confronting users. They are web 2.0 technologiesbecause they are used for communication and establishing connections in the form ofconnection lists. ISNS are web 3.0 technologies because they allow the establishmentof new friendships, communities, and the maintenance of existing friendships. Byfriendship we mean a continuous social relationship between humans that is based onempathy and sympathy. Therefore ISNS provide means for establishing virtualcommunities understood as “social aggregations that emerge from the Net whenenough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient humanfeeling, to form webs of personal relationship in cyberspace“ (Rheingold 2000, xx). ForRheingold, a virtual community is not the same as computer-mediated communication(CMC), but continuous CMC that results in feelings of affiliation.Not all social relations established or maintained on ISNS are forms of community.There might be superficial relations that just exist by a display of connection in theconnection list. This can be the case for example if one adds friends of friends whomone has never met and with whom one does not continuously interact, if one adds9
Christian Fuchs: Social Networking Sites and the Surveillance Societypeople arbitrarily in order to increase the friend’s list, or if one adds people who shareone’s interests, but with whom one also does not communicate. In this case, the usageof ISNS remains on the web 2.0 level. Web 3.0 in the sense of a virtual community isthen a mere unrealized potential. It is likely that any concrete ISNS will consists ofmany loose connections and many virtual communities that exist in parallel. ISNS onthe technological level provide potentials for web 2.0 and web 3.0. Only web 2.0 isautomatically realized by establishing connections, the emergence of web 3.0communities on ISNS requires more sustained communicative work so that socialbonds emerge. Feelings of community can either emerge on ISNS or can be importedfrom the outside world. If individuals make use of ISNS for staying in touch with alreadyestablished friends and contacts more easily and over distance, then existingcommunities or parts of them are transformed into virtual communities that crystallizeon ISNS. If individuals make new social bonds with people whom they did not know inadvance and whom they have met on ISNS, then community emerges inherently fromISNS. One can speak of a virtual community in both cases. Web 3.0 is (besidescollaborative online labour, which can be found in the case of wikis, but is not anecessary condition) about the production of social bonds and feelings of belongingand togetherness. ISNS support web 3.0, but do not automatically realize web 3.0communities.It is clear that all ISNS are inherently used for communication and establishingconnections. However, it is not obvious if they are used primarily for maintainingalready established contacts, or primarily for establishing new contacts, or for bothendeavours. Some speak of social network platforms (for maintaining existingrelationships), whereas others of social networking platforms (for building newrelationships). However, all networks are based on the permanent reproduction ofrelations, i.e. on networking, new relations can emerge more or less frequently.Therefore networks and networking cannot be strictly separated and the terminologicalquestion can be resolved by arguing that ISNS have potentials for both contactmaintenance and formation, i.e. they have a reproductive and a productive role insocial relationships. Therefore one aspect of the case study is to clarify what studentssee as the primary task of ISNS. By asking them what they think is the major advantageof ISNS, we expect to find out how important various types of online contacts are forthem.10