C A n soCI A L ne t WoRK sI t es en A BL e PoL I t IC A…

       C A n soCI A L ne t WoRK sI t es
        en A BL e PoL I t IC A L AC t Ion ?

                              danah boyd




  "   Technology's majestic luster makes it easy to
      fool people into believing that its structure determines



               "
      practice.




s         ocial network sites (SNSes) like MySpace and Facebook have
          reorganized the Web. Activists have fantasized about ordinary
          citizens using SNSes for political action and speaking truth to
power. Yet these daydreams are shattered through even a cursory look
at actual practices. To date, the passion and interest for sharing politi-
cal and policy information far and wide through SNSes--particularly
by and for young people--doesn't match the capability of the SNSes.
It is this lack of motivation that we need to understand and address to
improve our democracy and our government.
      People participate in public life for many reasons: identity devel-
opment, status negotiation, community maintenance, and, yes, civic
engagement. Typical SNS participants are more invested in adding
glitter to pages and SuperPoking their "friends" than engaging in any


                                   
danah boyd                                                         n   


form of civic-minded collective action. How did this happen, and is
this outcome predetermined?
     Technology's majestic luster makes it easy to fool people into
believing that its structure determines practice. The conclusions seem
obvious--video games will make us violent, the Internet will make us
more informed, and social network sites will make us politically acti-
vated. Unfortunately, techno-determinist doctrine does not hold up to
interrogation. Technologies are shaped by society and reflect society's
values back at us, albeit a bit refracted.
     If we accept that technologies mirror and magnify everyday culture,
what do social network sites say about society? While we may wish that
they shine a positive light on us, the most insidious practices on SNSes
highlight how status-obsessed and narcissistic we are as a society. We
may wish to blame the technology for creating self-absorbed people,
but more likely, egoists love social network sites because of their desire
to exhibit themselves for the purposes of mass validation. By demoniz-
ing the technology, we fail to fully grasp the not-so-subtle message that
society values beauty, exhibitionism, and self-aggrandizement. Social
network sites provide opportunities for ordinary people to showcase
themselves as pseudo-celebrities. While these performances may not
be "real," anyone can self-construct how to put their best foot forward,
they are certainly less scripted than reality TV. It may not be possible
for participants to get as much mindshare as Paris Hilton, but social
network sites certainly provide a platform for attention-seeking people
to do their thing.
     While such a critique surely evokes profiles of women in pro-
vocative poses, the most active egoists on social network sites are
musicians, politicians, marketers, and other populations who desper-
ately want attention. By and large, when politicians and activists talk
about using MySpace and Facebook, they aren't talking about using
     n           CAn soCIA L ne t WoRK sIt es enABL e PoLItICA L AC tIon?


it the way most people do; they are talking about leveraging it as a
spamming device.
     Most people are simply logging in to hang out with the friends that
they already know. The warnings about stranger danger have worked;
most people are not looking to meet new people, but to gather with
friends when physical co-presence is impossible or impractical. For
active participants on SNSes, particularly young people, networked
publics substitute for physical publics that have become inaccessible,
untenable, heavily regulated, or downright oppressive. If you can't grab
a beer at a pub with friends or hang out in a public setting without
being banned or shooed away for loitering, where else can you gather
with friends? Online, of course.
     A key aspect of SNSes is scale. Telephones allow people to com-
municate over long distances. Activists know that the bullhorn of the
Web lets them reach many more people, even in the context of a sup-
posed shared space. The Internet not only collapses space and time,
but beyond bandwidth, there is no additional structural cost between
communicating with ten people and broadcasting to millions.
     Infinite scaling may be structurally possible online, but the atten-
tion economy--the tax on people's time and attention--regulates what
actually scales. Just because someone wants to reach millions does not
mean that they can effectively do so. Content may be public, but the
public may not be interested in your content. Likewise, just because a
private message is intended for ten people does not guarantee that it
will stay just with those people if there is broader interest. Public and
private are only guidelines online because there are no digital walls that
can truly keep what is desired in and what is not out.
     This possibility of scaling is what tickles the fancy of most political
dreamers, who see the Internet as the ultimate democratizing tech-
nology. However, people pay attention to what interests them. Not
surprisingly, offline or online, gossiping is far more common and inter-
danah boyd                                                         n   


esting to people than voting. While the Internet makes it much easier for
activated people to seek out information and networks of like-minded
others, what gains traction online is the least common denominator.
Embarrassing videos and body fluid jokes fare much better than serious
critiques of power. Gossip about Hollywood celebrities is alluring; the
war in Iraq is depressing.
     Over the last decade, the dominant networked publics have shifted
from being topically organized to being structured around personal
networks. Most users no longer seek out chat rooms or bulletin boards
to discuss particular topics with strangers. Instead, they are hanging
out online with people that they already know. SNSes are explicitly
designed to be about "me and my friends." Structurally, a social network
site is the quintessential personal network tool. People are exposed to
the things that their friends choose to share. If that content is valued,
it is spread further through friend networks. Lack of shared interest
results in a lack of spreadability.
     Social network sites create cavernous echo chambers as people
reiterate what their friends posted. Given the typical friend overlap
in most networks, many within those networks hear the same thing
over and over until they believe it to be true. It was the echo chambers
of the blogosphere in 2004 that convinced mass media that Howard
Dean had more traction in the U.S. presidential campaign than he did.
Echo chambers are problematic because they give the impression that
activists have spread a message further than they have.
     Just as politically engaged people know one another, alienated and
uninterested people mainly know people like themselves. Bridging the
structural holes that divide these groups is just as challenging online as
offline, if not more so. Offline, you know if a door has been slammed
in your face; online, it is impossible to determine the response that the
invisible audience is having to your message.
     Rather than fantasizing about how social network sites will be a
    n           CAn soCIA L ne t WoRK sIt es enABL e PoLItICA L AC tIon?


cultural and democratic panacea, perhaps we need to focus on the
causes of alienation and disillusionment that stop people from partici-
pating in communal and civic life. If we can figure out how to activate
unmotivated groups, perhaps we can convince them to leverage their
own networks and convince others to participate. The infrastructure
is available for people to spread information, but the motivation is not
there to either share or receive it. That's the problem we need to solve,
and we'll know when we're successful from the messages that will be
written on Facebook and MySpace.



About the Author
danah boyd is a PhD candidate at the University of California, Berkeley's
School of Information and a Fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman
Center for Internet and Society. Her research focuses on youth
engagement in networked publics like MySpace and Facebook.