This document discusses factors that influence user adoption of social media features. It summarizes current research on relationships like strong ties, weak ties, and temporary ties. However, it argues this research does not predict which tools people will use. Instead, it proposes examining specific social transactions and whether tools make those transactions easier and cheaper by reducing "permission boundaries," which capture the costs of sharing information online. Tools that facilitate transactions with strong ties through low permission boundaries will see more adoption.
47. Information is not as fluid in RL. There is no “hot” information (like hot money)
48. We are already good at controlling and managing our personas and actions in RL.
49.
50. All of these aspects are managed in physical world, we know how to so this. But online just starting and the cost of managing can be high and inconvenient and consequences big.
51.
52.
53. We don’t have to worry about these in real world since there is a perception that information is far easier to control, different groups don’t cross as easily, information is less fluid in RL and there are many visual, spatial and temporal cues we have to be able to define and control our permission boundaries.
54.
55.
56.
57. There are a ton of different social transactions that happen.
58. Instead of trying to come up with a single unified theory of all human behavior that translates seamlessly to an evolving online environment.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63. He pulled from published information and internally research from Google.
96. There is evidence that when online games involving social interaction reach about 150 active users, group cohesion collapses, resulting in dissatisfaction and defection.
97.
98.
99.
100. It is ready made to customize and requires almost no effort.
112. Some young adults use email to communicate with their strongest ties because their social network is overloaded with information from lots of different people, and their message might not be noticed.
113.
114. Status updates are often perceived as a narcissistic activity. But research has indicated that they support important social functions. People have four primary reasons for updating their status:
115. - People update their status to shape how others perceive them.
116. - People update their status to maintain and grow relationships.
117. - People update their status to share content that others might find valuable.
118.
119.
120. These are ties that are explicitly connected to one time or very infrequent social transactions.
121. To me, its like trying to lump all the unknown “friend” categories into one bucket.
122. To me, its far more valuable, in terms of tool and feature selection, to drop that category.
123.
124. That’s why the less you need to manage of it, the better.
125. This is a key to how “elastic” a permission boundary is in social network system. The lower the overhead is to manage identity and privacy (i.e. the user assumes the system is doing it for them) the more elastic the permission boundary i.e. the more free the information will flow in and out. The boundary will bend to allow more to pass in and out.
126.
127.
128. Or that it should be a requirement on your RFP for a solution you are purchasing.
129. It means that you need to understand the full import of the transaction you are asking or allowing users to conduct on your network.
130.
131.
132. 44% take steps to limit the amount of personal information available about them online
157. The cost is weighed against their permission boundaries (which tries to capture the nuanced and complex nature of people’s relationships with each other)