Social network: search for the subject of study
Making an attempt to determine the content of the term “social network”, he only confirmed for himself the importance of this undertaking. The content is vague and interpreted by different people in different ways. Works no end.
It turned out to be obvious that to go by describing the properties of a subjectively selected website is not productive. Firstly, another person may describe the same site in his own way or even take another site as an example; secondly, any property can be questioned as belonging to a social network. How to be? It is possible to jointly explore a subject that is one for researchers. But which site to take as a representative?
And maybe the hype about social networks is exaggerated? Maybe in the future, the opportunities offered by the current social networks will simply be a good tone for any site? As previously were: guestbook, forum. Maybe a social network is not a "trick", but a necessity? Maybe this is the most suitable form for the web, satisfying the human need to be in unity with their own kind?
')
The demand for services that organize social networks is generated by the fact that people are social beings, and the Network, as a creature of man, will be endlessly improving in forms, embodying its aspirations. So they waited for a new form for eternal content - a social network.
I don’t remember what happened before: either guestbooks and forums were bolted to the site, or first they were made into separate websites. But now, among the sites that provide the ability to create a social network, there is the same ambivalence: a social network is either an ancillary feature or is the main goal of the site.
A person has the power to change places and turn it upside down: a part can be a whole and a means - a self-sufficient goal, as well as vice versa: the whole can be taken as a part, and a goal as a means. If the tool becomes the goal, then content is removed along this path. More precisely, the content itself becomes the tool.
Modern sites can be divided according to the place they assign to sociality itself - the first or the second.
We get a range of sites:
1. For collective projects, such as Wikipedia , the first place is the subject, and not the links of the co-authors. But it is open to all.
2. For the author's blog - the network of co-authors is an important additional property, but only an additional one. When meeting like-minded people in the blog space, the development of interpersonal relations towards the next type of web projects will be logical.
3. For a thematic content project whose contents are born as a team, the connection of the participants will be very important. The black sheep will be in such a community a person who does not speak to the topic, even if it is highly respected in another area, as well as someone who will behave asocially. It is possible that it would be appropriate to mention the "Habrahabr" here.
4. Odnoklassniki projects, My Circle , toodoo, although there is a subject, but the bias is already being made on the connection itself. Hence the possibility of unity of people from various social and other strata, for which projects are suitable.
5. In MySpace , Comby projects , the content is the connection between people, and therefore they are indifferent to the subject around which the connection is built. These services are suitable for everyone. However, it is necessary to make a reservation, since the absolutization of communication as a subject in these projects does not reach the final goal, then the subject is still required: it must be something to chat about.
6. Of his perfection, the idea of communication as an absolute goal is embodied in the mamba - dating machine. Communication and only communication matters. Communication is different and even intimate expose publicly. As the saying goes: “... why waste time wasting. At midnight at the barn? ”
In my opinion, social networking sites are those that are of type 4 and 5. You can not all where people interact to call a social network. These two types of sites are probably indicative of the study of such a phenomenon on the Internet as a social network. The third type can rather be called a professional network (of course it is also social, but the emphasis here is on a particular, specific community of people). The sixth is not a network at all. A 1 is not a network, but on the idea of sociality.
What is your opinion?
It turned out to be obvious that to go by describing the properties of a subjectively selected website is not productive. Firstly, another person may describe the same site in his own way or even take another site as an example; secondly, any property can be questioned as belonging to a social network. How to be? It is possible to jointly explore a subject that is one for researchers. But which site to take as a representative?
And maybe the hype about social networks is exaggerated? Maybe in the future, the opportunities offered by the current social networks will simply be a good tone for any site? As previously were: guestbook, forum. Maybe a social network is not a "trick", but a necessity? Maybe this is the most suitable form for the web, satisfying the human need to be in unity with their own kind?
')
The demand for services that organize social networks is generated by the fact that people are social beings, and the Network, as a creature of man, will be endlessly improving in forms, embodying its aspirations. So they waited for a new form for eternal content - a social network.
I don’t remember what happened before: either guestbooks and forums were bolted to the site, or first they were made into separate websites. But now, among the sites that provide the ability to create a social network, there is the same ambivalence: a social network is either an ancillary feature or is the main goal of the site.
A person has the power to change places and turn it upside down: a part can be a whole and a means - a self-sufficient goal, as well as vice versa: the whole can be taken as a part, and a goal as a means. If the tool becomes the goal, then content is removed along this path. More precisely, the content itself becomes the tool.
Modern sites can be divided according to the place they assign to sociality itself - the first or the second.
We get a range of sites:
1. For collective projects, such as Wikipedia , the first place is the subject, and not the links of the co-authors. But it is open to all.
2. For the author's blog - the network of co-authors is an important additional property, but only an additional one. When meeting like-minded people in the blog space, the development of interpersonal relations towards the next type of web projects will be logical.
3. For a thematic content project whose contents are born as a team, the connection of the participants will be very important. The black sheep will be in such a community a person who does not speak to the topic, even if it is highly respected in another area, as well as someone who will behave asocially. It is possible that it would be appropriate to mention the "Habrahabr" here.
4. Odnoklassniki projects, My Circle , toodoo, although there is a subject, but the bias is already being made on the connection itself. Hence the possibility of unity of people from various social and other strata, for which projects are suitable.
5. In MySpace , Comby projects , the content is the connection between people, and therefore they are indifferent to the subject around which the connection is built. These services are suitable for everyone. However, it is necessary to make a reservation, since the absolutization of communication as a subject in these projects does not reach the final goal, then the subject is still required: it must be something to chat about.
6. Of his perfection, the idea of communication as an absolute goal is embodied in the mamba - dating machine. Communication and only communication matters. Communication is different and even intimate expose publicly. As the saying goes: “... why waste time wasting. At midnight at the barn? ”
In my opinion, social networking sites are those that are of type 4 and 5. You can not all where people interact to call a social network. These two types of sites are probably indicative of the study of such a phenomenon on the Internet as a social network. The third type can rather be called a professional network (of course it is also social, but the emphasis here is on a particular, specific community of people). The sixth is not a network at all. A 1 is not a network, but on the idea of sociality.
What is your opinion?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/4380/
All Articles