While we're so engrossed in this topic - to throw in briefly something else I just noticed in reading an airplane magazine (and in fact, I think I noticed it before somewhere else, just can't remember where): some people are using "social network/ing" to refer specifically to "online social network/ing". As if social networks don't exist IRL, or as if they are phenomena that have emerged specifically from Web 2.0. The article is here: http://usairwaysmag.com/2007_06/digital_life.php "Social networks form the heart of what digital hipsters call Web 2.0, an assortment of sites where users generate the site's content and determine what other people see when they visit. The classic example is youtube.com. Say that on youtube.com you post a video of something funny your cat did. Other members offer comments and rate it. The higher the video's rating, the more likely it will show up in searches for "funny cats." Before long, you're part of the Amusing Feline Group and sharing grooming tips for your cat with other youtube.com regulars. That's a social network. If you don't belong to some kind of social network, you soon may not belong anywhere. Fortunately, there's a vast and growing selection of networks built around all kinds of interests...." To me, this indicates further problems with the terminology we've been using, on top of whether it's appropriate to use "network" or "networking," but that at least to some, uptake of the term "social network/ing site" or "online social network/ing" has involved an erasure of the qualifier "online" or "site," or the (mis?)understanding that social networks *are* just an online thing. Then again, the fact that I notice this and consider it problematic probably points to some conceptual dividing lines between IRL and online social networks, when actually, as I know from research as well as my own experience, they are (usually) not mutually exclusive. What got me the most was that first sentence of second paragraph up there: "If you don't belong to some kind of social network, you soon may not belong anywhere." ... I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean other than being a dramatic sell for social network sites, but the implication is obviously that if you're not part of an ONLINE social network, you'll have no reason to be online at all; or, you'll have no social life? But we all have social networks that aren't contingent on broadband, yes? That emerge via neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, hobbies, travel..... Anyway, this usage got my goat, for whatever reason. LS -- lauren m. squires lx: http://polyglotconspiracy.net cmc: http://sociocmc.blogspot.com

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/20/rumors-of-the-decline-of-myspace-are-ex... "The negotiations between News Corp and Yahoo that would see MySpace owned by Yahoo in exchange for 25% of Yahoo itself have bought out some interesting assessments of MySpace. Most commentary has been negative, Michael Arrington describes MySpace as a fading star and others have suggested that MySpace is struggling, that it has lost the battle based on the fact that Facebook gains far more attention amongst early adopters. [...] MySpace is not in decline, MySpace is growing. At current growth rates Facebook may take several years to come close to matching MySpace in terms of traffic and user numbers baring a massive drop in user numbers by MySpace during that time. (charts etc follow) [...]"