Debate: Twitter is not a social network
I think people have it all wrong about Twitter. I really don’t think Twitter is any more a social network than email is or text messaging is. The only difference between Twitter and those tools is that its wide open.
I think a social “network” is something you enter into mutually with other people. It’s a community. Twitter is a 1-to-many relationship. You can’t join my Twitter network. You can follow me, in which case you can receive my updates. But just because a lot of people follow a person and receive their updates, that doesn’t make them a “network”. It’s no different than joining my email newsletter list.
Here’s an example. When you go to a conference and hear someone speak, do you have a social relationship with them? No, of course not. That’s Twitter. Sure, you can raise your hand and ask a question during the Q&A, but that’s about the extent of your relationship.
Facebook, however, is a social network. It’s a relationship that two people mutually agree to enter into.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot because I’m on a panel next week at the Integrated Marketing Summit in Atlanta. The topic is, “Can email and social live happily ever after”. I’m starting to come to the conclusion that they are two completely different things. I think the real question might be, “Can your brand.com website survive in the social web.”
I know most of you reading this think Twitter is very much a social network. Let’s debate.
* full disclosure, I had this debate a while back with @ivey. I doubt he has the stones to jump back into it with me.
I think that's very true but it boils down to a mathematical definition. Both Twitter and FaceBook (and email and everything for that matter) are not networks at all – they are graphs.
In some graphs all connecting lines are bidirectional, in others they vary. The nature of the graph determines your ability to perform operations like measuring adjacency and distance which correlate to “social networks” as “friends” or even the degrees of separation on LinkedIn.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory
I agree completely. By definition a network is interconnected.
Twitter = microblogging. Blogs are a piece of the social network puzzle, but I agree with you neither is a social network by itself.
If you follow someone, they don't follow you, and you never talk – it's not social. But Twitter can *facilitate* social networking. For example, I followed a band in Kenya that I like. I tweeted about them, they started following me (both following each other) and now we talk on Twitter and re-tweet each other's posts. I think this, by definition, IS an online relationship.
Twitter is definitely part of the social media puzzle, but by true definition is not a “network” since there doesn't have to be a 1 to 1 relationship like Facebook or LinkedIn. However, many people put blogging under the big umbrella of “social media/networking” but is it? No. Not by definition.
At first reading, I see your point and can agree. There definitely is a difference between a 1:1 and a 1:many conversation.
But there are exceptions to every rule. Think of switching up your privacy settings, and now Twitter is private and Facebook is public. Who your “network” is comes down to who you allow to view your updates. I would say that by choosing to allow your Twitter to be public is electing the entire world (or interested parties, at least) to be in your network, same as if you were approve someone to follow you on Twitter or friend you on Facebook. It's all about the choice you as the user make.
And, really, in the simplest form, Brian Solis says social is “is any tool or service that uses the internet to facilitate conversations.” If online conversation is the heart of what a social network is, who exactly that network consists of isn't the determining factor.
I’d argue that there are two types of relationships in the social realm: direct and indirect. Personal (direct) relationships with friends and colleagues most certainly fall into your mutually agreed upon “network” category, whether it’s on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. But indirect relationships (speakers at a conference – or a celebrity for that matter) are important, too.
For example, after hearing you speak at the Integrated Marketing Summit I may choose to follow you because your opinions and views are interesting to me. I dig the content you’re providing and that’s a benefit to me. And even if you don’t follow me back on Twitter, you’ll also benefit from indirect connections to my network via retweets, posts to my wall on Facebook, etc. as it furthers your voice and your brand.
In either case – direct or indirect – it all sounds pretty networked to me.
You can very much form a relationship via Twitter much like penpals could form a relationship back in the day. That makes Twitter a communications channel, not a social network, but there is more…
On Wednesday, I was at TAG's (Technology Association of Georgia) event – the Georgia Technology Summit. I was tweeting about what I was hearing from the speakers on stage along with several other folks in the audience. Out of the see of 500+ attendees at the event, those of us tweeting formed a little club, re-tweeting each others commentary on the proceedings. We were able to connect with each other in a way that would not have been possible, thus creating an ad-hoc network. During one of the breaks, I was able to have a quick physical conversation with several of my fellow-tweeters. We would NOT have connected in person without the tool. Emailing or text messaging could not have allowed this connection I had with my peers. In my opinion, Twitter is very much a social network.
Never saw, it's a billboard. Pure one way communications and that's not limited to 140 characters.
Damn, you just made me smarter. Very interesting stuff on graph theory, thanks Andrew.
Damn, you just made me smarter. Very interesting stuff on graph theory, thanks Andrew.
So by that definition are you saying email would also be a social network? So if you and I correspond via email, is that a micro-social network? And then if you and I text each other, is THAT a social network?
Right, blogging is a social activity but not sure if its a network.
So what makes Twitter “social” and not just a new form of communication like email or text? What I'm getting to is why did we label it “social” at all? I'm having a hard time seeing why its different than email. Is it social because its more public?
I recently quoted R.J. Rummel to help define social behavior:
“Behavior that is peculiarly social is oriented towards other selves. Such behavior apprehends another as a perceiving, thinking, Moral, intentional, and behaving person; considers the intentional or rational meaning of the other's field of expression; involves expectations about the other's acts and actions; and manifests an intention to invoke in another self certain experiences and intentions. What differentiates social from nonsocial behavior, then, is whether another self is taken into account in one's acts, actions, or practices.”
I also like where Joe Koufman was heading with his reply. If I were pushed into a corner, I would agree that no, Twitter itself is not a social network. However, I think that that it can be utilized and/or manipulated to act as a social network for both personal and business purposes. It really boils down to intent and strategy. At the very least, Twitter is a conduit for the building of “definition correct” social networks…and as such it is a tool to that end.
back on this topic again, are you? I agree, I do not think it is a “social network” in the same way that say Facebook is. But, I think it may be that we are trying to define social network too finitely. Perhaps if we say something like facebook is a social networking “portal”…and twitter is simply a social network that doesn't necessarily have the same type of portal hub. At the end of the day, it DOES allow people to connect and interact and have social exchanges. I'm not quite convinced that I think it is “different” than email versus being an evolution of what an email distribution list is. Why couldn't twitter in some ways be considered the next generation List Serve in some ways? a list serv that allows for more robust interactions than the old days…and therefore turns the old school perspective of an email group list into the new school form of social networking
I don't see your point.
A network is just an interconnected series of points.
Connections between people is a network. As you've pointed out, it's also a graph, since you can measure/examine more than just the existence of a connection.
Here's my point. Why when Twitter was “invented” did we deem it a new social network? Why wasn't it just a new twist on text or email? I'm saying if you call Twitter a social network, then you have to call email a social network and text a social network. I don't see the difference.
I think nowadays when new things pop up online, people call them “social” right away instead of just new digital communications.
Neither are social networks (although they are networks.)
A social network/graph is an abstraction of the connections shared between people. There's really only one–the one that actually exists.
Facebook and Twitter are services that sit on top of the social network. Although they do seem to shape the social network, they reflect different parts of the social network.
Twitter largely reflects the connections between people that are created by sharing thoughts and ideas and experiences. (Tweeting about an event, tweeting content, etc.)
Facebook largely reflects connections created by personal relationships (people we've met, people our friends have met).
Blogs reflect the social network as well. They reflect connections between people around ideas (the community of people discussing the topics of a blog).
If there are connections between people, it's reflecting the social network. Connections between people take many forms.
I think what makes it “social” (along with things like blogging) is how the content is created and shared. The public factor probably does come into play since what goes on in your email between you and another person, I may never know about. But if you post something on Twitter, I'm going to see it and perhaps engage in the conversation as well, thereby making it more social, even though it isn't necessarily social if you look at the definition of the word.
However, you could use my same argument to say they're all social networks. If there are connections between people of any form, it's a social network.
I tend to side with the perspective that there is only one social network, and that these services reflect it.
Very smart stuff from @KevinVogelsang here on what a social network actually is (and isn't).
It's an intriguing idea that there is only one social network and these tools (Facebook, Twitter) allow us to connect with it or use it in different ways. I'll be noodling on that one.
One way I've been able to make sense of Twitter being or not being a social network is to think of Twitter as having the unique ability to create a time- and place-aware, limited-use social network. So to your point, Twitter is able to create a social network for a limited time and then have it disappear when you're done with it.
It's a new communication tool with “social network-esque” features. End of story.
(That comment was in response to Andrew Watson)
I think it's a good question. And I think the answer largely comes down to buzz words, marketing, and a little bit of intent. “Social” is hot. People want to make it and use it. The intent of creating information flow between people that isn't direct,like email, often connotes “social” too in people's minds.
I think your example of email potentially being social is a good example to think about–look what they're trying to do with it via Buzz.
I think you could be right that perhaps Twitter is akin to a list serv. In fact, read the definition of a list serv: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LISTSERV – the first electronic mailing list software application, consisting of a set of email addresses for a group in which the sender can send one email and it will reach a variety of people.
Yep, sounds very close to Twitter. So back to my question, why do people call Twitter a social network? Why when someone says, “What social networks are you focusing on for your brand?” are the first two answers, “Facebook and Twitter”. Is it possible to come out with anything new from a digital perspective that isn't labeled “social”?
I think you could be right that perhaps Twitter is akin to a list serv. In fact, read the definition of a list serv: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LISTSERV – the first electronic mailing list software application, consisting of a set of email addresses for a group in which the sender can send one email and it will reach a variety of people.
Yep, sounds very close to Twitter. So back to my question, why do people call Twitter a social network? Why when someone says, “What social networks are you focusing on for your brand?” are the first two answers, “Facebook and Twitter”. Is it possible to come out with anything new from a digital perspective that isn't labeled “social”?
I think you could be right that perhaps Twitter is akin to a list serv. In fact, read the definition of a list serv: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LISTSERV – the first electronic mailing list software application, consisting of a set of email addresses for a group in which the sender can send one email and it will reach a variety of people.
Yep, sounds very close to Twitter. So back to my question, why do people call Twitter a social network? Why when someone says, “What social networks are you focusing on for your brand?” are the first two answers, “Facebook and Twitter”. Is it possible to come out with anything new from a digital perspective that isn't labeled “social”?
For me, Twitter is like a curated Google Reader. Instead of picking RSS feeds to follow, you choose people (or companies or organizations or Darth Vader) to follow. You follow the people that tweet about things that are interesting to you, just as you pick your RSS feeds the same way.
Unlike an RSS you can converse with those people if you both choose to do so, but in the end Twitter feels like a curated news feed of cool and interesting stuff as opposed to a social network.
Honestly, I think we are tyring to hard to make it fir into a SINGLE box based on some old definitions. Why not create a new term for what twitter and similar services are? If we forever try to make things fit into old definitions, we're sort of limiting ourselves to the past, rather than acknowledging the difference and progressing toward the future.
Anson, I very much agree with you that Twitter can be a “curated Google Reader”. That is certainly one of the ways that I use it, but I think we're limiting it's capabilities if we box it in to that function alone.
Many people use Twitter to have conversations with people rather than to consume news, much like they might with email, as you know. Twitter can also be used as a live search engine. It also is a good pulse of the web at any given point.
It has a multitude of uses, I'm just trying to figure out what category to put it in vs. calling it a “social network”.
[…] does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, I said that in March of 2010 and people were freaking out. Turns out people are kinda passionate about what you do and […]