Wikipedia’s entry, for example, terms them social networking services. According to Wikipedia’s editors, a social networking service “focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others.” danah boyd and Nicole Ellison also interrogate the terminology, arguing for a comprehensive definition under the name social network sites, as opposed to the more common social networking sites that continues to dominate the popular press today. boyd and Ellison write, “We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”

As a basic definition of the main characteristics these networks share in common, boyd and Ellison provide an excellent starting point. And their attempt at refining the terminology makes a fine and necessary distinction between the nature and activities in these networks: “‘Networking’ emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers… What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks.”

Nevertheless, I would argue that there are two key omissions of characteristics of these networks embedded in the terms social networking sites or social network sites, and one by social network services that could be rectified with yet another shift in terminology to branded social networks. In 2009, it makes sense to drop the word “site” as it limits access points to browser interfaces, while many networks are now regularly accessed through a variety of mobile device applications. In addition, many of these networks host events in the offline world as opposed to the online, and much of the activity that takes place on these networks can be described as coordination of “real world” or offline activities (argued by Donald Roberts and Ulla Foehr). Thus, the boundary between online and offline worlds is both permeable and fluid so no limitation is necessary.

Finally, it makes sense to include the more commercially-oriented vocabulary of branded because branding is the central organizing principle of these networks. Many members are proud to be affiliated with one network, and have actively rejected identification with another. This aspect of brand affiliation cannot be ignored in discussing how members engage with each other and with the networks themselves. In addition, the dominant networks that exist are for-profit companies, and their networks and members are big business. To ignore this element of BSNs is to preclude a discussion of motives and catalysts for certain types of growth and use.

That’s it, let me know what you think in the comments.

How does this relate to democratization, which would indicate a shift in decision-making structures? This is simple a demographic shift to a more balanced profile reflective of the US Internet-using population. There’s nothing to indicate that social networks are shifting to a more representative management system (although this is something that HAS happened at Facebook).

I’d respectfully suggest that Pew might want to rethink their free and easy use of the term democratization, tempting as it might be to throw in as a click-worthy buzzword that gets media attention and coverage!

The Democratization of Online Social Networks

We’ll slowly be adding sections on the survey, profiles, and resources.