Social Web 2.0 Class Week 4: Social Networks, Privacy


Published on

Week 4 slides from the class "Social Web 2.0" I taught at the University of Washington's Masters in Communication program in 2007. Most of the content is still very relevant today. Topics: Social networks, privacy.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Background as needed for the project Prior work, relevant product groups, others you’ve collaborated with in MSR, etc.
  • Goals: Support lightweight impression management and impression formation Profiles, blogs, conversations, pictures, music, social maps Increase serendipitous interactions Centralized point of communication and awareness of people in network Increased sense of presence through rich media updates Increased opportunities in UI for bumping into people Extension of social network Exposure to media about people on periphery of network I’ll like people if people I like also like them
  • Social Web 2.0 Class Week 4: Social Networks, Privacy

    1. 1. Social Web 2.0 Implications of Social Technologies for Digital Media Shelly Farnham, Ph.D. Com 597 Winter 2007
    2. 2. Week 4 <ul><li>Social Networks </li></ul><ul><li>Privacy </li></ul>
    3. 3. Social Networks <ul><li>Defined </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Set of pair-wise relationships vs. individual relationships or groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social network analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>examine density, boundedness, size, heterogeneity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Study flows of influence, information, social support </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network vs. group social structure </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Social Networks <ul><li>Measuring Ties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ties: friendship, role sharing, common event, common property, co-occurrence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tie strength: affection, frequency of interaction, trust, frequency of co-occurrence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Network structures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>singletons, stars, middle region, giant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tend to be reciprocal (84% in yahoo, 70% in flickr) </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Social Networks Today <ul><li>Modern transformation in how things get done </li></ul><ul><ul><li>communication, collaboration, information flow </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social networks most appropriate model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lateral, not hierarchical command chains </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ad hoc teams, not static groups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developing social capital – the value of social networks </li></ul><ul><li>NetWORK </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s not what you know, it’s who you know </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intensional networks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Building </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Maintaining </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Activating when need to get work done </li></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Social Networks Online <ul><li>100 million on MySpace, 80% of total </li></ul>
    7. 7. Why Articulate Social Networks Online <ul><li>Social networks contextualizes information and behavior </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase accountability by putting people back in social context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informational context, understanding author </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploit transitive trust (implicit and explicit referrals) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase relevance via similarity/affiliation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide access to weak ties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Define access/sharing/subscription (filter out as much as increase access) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Navigation tool </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Browse network vs. directed search </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Info transfer horizontal, across hierarchical boundaries </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Social Networks Online cont’d <ul><li>Processing outside user awareness: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative “similarity” measures aside from explicit friend/family lists: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-links </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Communication patterns </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Co-occurrence in groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Co-occurrence of semantic tags </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prioritize match-making by distance in network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ We recommend you check out Jon’s story…” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Closer is better, # of overlap is better, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network/cluster analysis, use for </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>prioritizing search results </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>developing semantic hierarchies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Extraction of groups (dense, tightly bounded networks) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Isolate connectors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identify people connected across network clusters, able to transfer info/trust </li></ul></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Online Social Networking Issues <ul><li>Often binary (friend/no friend) with friend list glut </li></ul><ul><li>Assume one network per person, no subnets causing role conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Social capital of “connector” lost </li></ul><ul><li>Systems do not expect social networks to be dynamic, become out of date </li></ul><ul><li>“ Now what” – ok so I built my network, now what? </li></ul><ul><li>No cross-property integration, building network over and over </li></ul><ul><li>Developing critical mass </li></ul><ul><li>Visualizations often outside comprehension of average user </li></ul>
    10. 11. Teens use <ul><li>55% of online teens use social networks </li></ul><ul><li>66% of those have private profile </li></ul><ul><li>48% visit daily </li></ul><ul><li>More common in older teen girls (70%) than boys (54%) </li></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Friends as center of life, 91% say to keep up with friends </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stage of life: expanding network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not have face-to-face access (parental control) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Manage communications outside email (less spam) </li></ul></ul>
    11. 12. Implicit Social Networks <ul><li>Based on who’s interacting with whom </li></ul><ul><li>Provide sense of who’s important to whom </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic, changes as levels of interaction change </li></ul><ul><li>Minimal maintenance required </li></ul>Personal Map Point to Point Inner Circle Wallop managing, knowledge seeking, communication and sharing
    12. 13. Personal Map Automatically organize contacts in a way that is meaningful/intuitive to user <ul><li>Infers implicit social groups from communication behavior in email </li></ul><ul><li>Provide sense of who’s important </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic, changes as levels of interaction change </li></ul><ul><li>Minimal maintenance required </li></ul>Shelly Farnham::Will Portnoy Similarity (A B) = (sum (AB * significance))/sqrt(A * B) Grouped using hierarchical cluster analysis
    13. 14. Personal Map User Study Personal Map Accuracy <ul><li>15 MS employees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>85% spent no time organizing contacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>contacts not very organized (M = 2.3) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>They liked the Personal Map (M = 5.1) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ wow” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ that’s cool” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ makes more sense sooner than the contact list” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>They did not find it confusing or difficult to use (M = 2.9) </li></ul><ul><li>They rated it as very accurate (M = 5.7) </li></ul><ul><li>on scale of 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely so </li></ul>
    14. 15. Point to Point facilitate knowledge exchange by exploiting corporate social network information At Microsoft: 75,000 mailing lists, each person belongs to on average 11 mailing lists Social network info presented relative to self Shelly Farnham::Will Portnoy
    15. 16. Point to Point User Study I <ul><li>39 employees completed task </li></ul><ul><li>Participants listed 15 closest co-workers, used to assess accuracy of point to point map </li></ul>People most similar to the user tended to also be on the user’s list of coworkers. People most similar to the user were not crossed off map as not belonging.
    16. 17. Point to Point User Study II <ul><li>17 employees completed 16 choices using Point to Point </li></ul><ul><li>Decide between two randomly selected people whom you would like to meet for knowledge exchange </li></ul>network information affected decision-making
    17. 18. Point to Point User Study II How people currently find information about people and groups within their corporation. Self-reported importance of features in deciding whom participants would meet (where 1 = not at all and 7 = extremely so).
    18. 19. Wallop embed interactions in social context to activate prosocial norms Sean Kelly :: Shelly Farnham :: Alwin Vynmeister :: Richard Hughes :: Will Portnoy :: Ryszard Kott :: Lili Cheng <ul><li>Blog, share media, build conversations in context of social network </li></ul><ul><li>Use communication and sharing behavior to build implicit network </li></ul><ul><li>Use network to define scope of search, notifications, sharing </li></ul>
    19. 20. Wallop: Large Scale Deployment <ul><li>August 01 2004 – present </li></ul><ul><li>Over 47,000 registered users </li></ul><ul><li>26% become active, logging in and adding content at least once a week </li></ul><ul><li>72% users in Chinese Time zone </li></ul>
    20. 21. Wallop Basic Usage Statistics <ul><li>People building conversations, responding to each other’s content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Total threads with > 1 messages: 47,074 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>~38% of blog entries have a threaded conversation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Average thread length: 2.98 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Average # participants: 2.53 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Longest thread: 40 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>People customizing look of blog </li></ul><ul><ul><li>48% active users have selected profile image </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>23% have selected a background image </li></ul></ul>
    21. 22. Wallop Basic Usage Statistics <ul><li>Social Network of Active Users </li></ul><ul><li>Average number of people in visible network: 8.25 </li></ul><ul><li>People wanted ability to explicitly add/remove people, but did not use too heavily </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each user explicity include 1.7 people on their network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each user explicitly excluded .7 people from their network </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Size of network largely determined by invite quota: r = .56 </li></ul>
    22. 23. Managing Viral Growth <ul><li>Invite only membership </li></ul><ul><li>Tiered invite process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited invites by generations to optimize “seed” person’s network. </li></ul></ul>1 st Generation: 10 invites 2 nd Generation: 5 invites 3 rd Generation: 5 invites 4 th Generation 0 invites
    23. 24. Managing Viral Growth <ul><li>Goal: linear system growth </li></ul><ul><li>Daily/lifetime activity quotas </li></ul><ul><li>Daily recapture of invite quota from inactive users </li></ul><ul><li>Prioritize and promote healthy users for granting invite quota requests </li></ul><ul><li>Invite allocation = Function (System cap - Current registered users - Outstanding Invitation Liability) </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>
    24. 25. Promoting Healthy Users <ul><li>Health = </li></ul><ul><li>Function ((logins, content creation, commenting) * recency * longevity) </li></ul><ul><li>Characteristics of a Healthy User </li></ul><ul><li>Many active contacts in network </li></ul><ul><li>Daily posts with pictures and music </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple comments from contacts on each post </li></ul><ul><li>Rich customization of profile and blog </li></ul><ul><li>Visits lots of other people’s pages </li></ul><ul><li>Long discussion threads </li></ul>
    25. 26. Wallop Users Feedback <ul><li>Users value the visual appeal of the user interface </li></ul><ul><li>The interface is very cool! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The incredible ease of use and just plain &quot;coolness&quot; factor that allow me and friends who do not live close to interact on a daily basis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Expressing myself” rated most important reason for use of Wallop, over sharing with friends and meeting new people </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I found we Chinese are really poor at expressing our passion, especially for our family members, we love them indeed, but we are not able or dare not to speak it out. Fortunetely, wallop has provided me such a chance to record my feeling down. It's a great tool, sometimes i think it's amazing, disantce don't exist here, we can go everywhere in the community. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Needed better tools for managing bad behavior </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implemented blocking, and protecting network: public but read only </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On average, 8% of active people have blocked someone (3 times each), and 8% have protected their network </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Chinese users, UI problems and language problems </li></ul>
    26. 27. Wallop Deployment Lessons <ul><li>Implicit network effective for bootstrapping, low maintenance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication and invitations most useful measures of connection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People still want ability add/remove/pin people </li></ul></ul><ul><li>People valued identity play and social interactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personalization and value expressive features rated most important by users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conversation around blogs and media actively used feature </li></ul></ul>
    27. 28. Design Implications <ul><li>Building social network should not be an end in itself -- for users task is not grow network but </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>define who I share with </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>define who I watch </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Share who I know to help others find info/support </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Users want to see how people are connected, provides context </li></ul><ul><li>Network info should be used to prioritize/structure information </li></ul><ul><li>Build in referrals, intros through network </li></ul><ul><li>Reflect dynamism of relationships, multiplicity of networks </li></ul><ul><li>Simplify user interface to relevant data </li></ul>
    28. 29. Friendster Home Page <ul><li>Dating: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hookups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Direct Pestering </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Familiar Stranger </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fakesters </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cultural </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Passing </li></ul></ul>
    29. 30. FaceBook Home Page
    30. 31. FaceBook Home Page
    31. 32. Wallop Home Page
    32. 33. MySpace Home Page
    33. 34. Tribe Home Page
    34. 35. Tribe Tribe page
    35. 36. MySpace Invite Build through invitations
    36. 37. Myspace Add Friend Add person when viewing profile Network used Primarily to find similar others (in same crowd, Same age etc) For dating
    37. 38. LinkedIn Invite Building business Relationships, Transitive trust important
    38. 39. LinkedIn – Social Network Users want to see how connected Friend of a friend meaningful, not beyond that
    39. 40. LinkedIn -- Add
    40. 41. LinkedIn Introduction Chain
    41. 42. Facebook Emphasis on Similarity by Org, used to define access etc.
    42. 43. Facebook
    43. 44. Evite – managing network
    44. 45. Evite -- inviting
    45. 46. Gmail – managing network Email still the “killer app”
    46. 47. Inner Circle (from MSR) Goal: provide easy access to communication history and shared documents according to important people and groups Infers importance from transaction history Authorship and sharing history natural way to organize information
    47. 48. Sharing Models <ul><li>Privacy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The right and desire of a person to control disclosure of personal health information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sharing models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Models for defining who has access to what information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Opposing tensions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Desire to learn and share vs. privacy concerns </li></ul></ul>
    48. 49. Privacy <ul><li>Personally identifying information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifies online persona with real world you </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>First name, last name </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pictures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SS #, credit card numbers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Re-identification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can piece together is neighbor Joe because he’s the only one with prostrate cancer in small town of springfield </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must be Jane because she’s the only person with breast cancer who’s a patient of Doctor Smith in Cincinatti </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Sensitivity of privacy info </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential for abuse by industries, employers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shame, embarrassment </li></ul></ul>
    49. 50. Design Implications -- privacy <ul><li>Identity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anonymity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pseudonimity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Within-system identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(need transition to out of system) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Privacy through aggregation </li></ul><ul><li>Access controls </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perimeter definition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>By class, by person, by similar others, everyone, by data type, by organization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access levels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>password protected, unlisted, public/searchable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of detail by distance in network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Strong tie, weak tie, 1 st , 2 nd 3 rd degree </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Default settings: site should be more conservative than users </li></ul>
    50. 51. Design implications -- sharing <ul><li>When sharing, people often less concerned with privacy than they say </li></ul><ul><ul><li>People tend to go with default settings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Favor easy options over wise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Users want sense of control, sense of who sees what </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Make audience known, concrete </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Want to see what audience sees </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Requires social intelligence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Plausible deniability about status, not in your face you are not categorized as “friend” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not “delete” people, remove them from sharing list </li></ul></ul>
    51. 52. MySpace privacy settings
    52. 53. FaceBook Privacy settings
    53. 54. Facebook – privacy settings
    54. 55. Facebook -- privacy
    55. 56. LinkedIn Privacy Settings <ul><li>See friend of friend but not beyond </li></ul><ul><li>Profile fields, none basic or full </li></ul>
    56. 57. Social Networks in an Age of Web 2.0 <ul><li>FOAF </li></ul>