Taking the tube out of YouTube
Take the movies out of YouTube. Would people still come to the site to engage in a conversation? No, I guess not. The website would indeed disappear, or reconnect somewhere else around a similar object of shared interest. Now take the Dutch Hyves or Facebook. There’s nothing really there to do is there? It seems to be just about the connection to other people. But still people log in regularly to engage in conversations or simply to connect. So Jyri’s argument might be a bit flawed. It should rather be: social networks that were formed around social objects disappear if the object is taken away. But social networks that don’t have such objects to center around, might in fact be much stronger, because that what is shared is not an activity or a thing. The connection is much stronger there.
Network or system?
I would even argue that YouTube is not a social network in the first place. We’ve been discussing the definition of a network quite extensively these last couple of weeks at FreedomLab. And one of the remarks in the many discussions was that a network would always be able to ‘reform’, ‘reshape’, or in short still be there if one of the nodes was taken out of it. It supposedly is a ‘natural’ thing for a network to adapt to any situation and still be alive. In contrast, a system is a process in which the elements play such a crucial role, that if you take one node out, the system shuts down. If this reasoning were true, all the sites that form around social objects, such as YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, are not networks but systems to begin with.
There’s one more thing that we’ve been contemplating in this respect, and that is that a network is all about the connection rather than about the nodes (which would be what a system is about). Similarly, if it’s about the connection Facebook, is a real network, that ties people together that share something together of a much more profound nature: the need to connect. The natural need a social being as the human has is to be on touch and in the vicinity of others. That is the fabric that ties a social network together, not the object.
So I’d like to state that YouTube, Flickr, Twitter are social systems not social networks. What do you think?
YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook are nothing more than tools (or systems)! Systems are (social) constructions while networks were already there since ‘Adam and Eve’ ;-)
a network can be constructed just as well, in a way, or not? or would you formulate ‘human interference’ or ‘human intent’ in forming a network differently?
What I meant to say was that for a network to exist there should be at least only two people with a relation between them; networks are nothing new we only talk and think about it more ‘consciously’ (we think ;-) ) nowadays and that is a good thing if you ask me.
Just like you say somewhere else, networks are ever changing (because of ‘learning’, ‘errors’ and more). And never forget, human beings are bounded rationally :-) People can’t know everything all the time and for that reason they depend on other human beings who are bounded rationally too. (@Jörgen: That’s why there do not exist any ‘laws’ or models which represent social behavior, because social behavior is just too hard to catch totally.)
And again just to think about ‘human interference’ and ‘human intent’: people are bounded rationally. That’s something we should never ever forget! Let’s live with that (interesting) fact ;-)
and a network without people? is that possible at all?
Yes it is, but a social network without people isn’t that social I think ;-) A network without social beings tends to be more like a system and a system with social beings ‘in it’ are like social networks but more bounded, NOT totally bounded…
can you give an example of a network without people? (people as part of the network, i mean.)
A definition of a network I prefer is this one:
————-
A network is equivalent to the notion of graph in mathematics. It has a non-empty set of vertices, i.e. nodes, and a (possibly empty) relation defined for these nodes, i.e. a set of ties. Furthermore, ties may have values, and there can be multiple relations (Bruggeman and others).
————-
It is nothing more than a way to represent nodes and the relations between those nodes. And when people are involved the relations are social and the network is a social network.
Representing social relations the ‘network way’ gives wonderful insights with which you can in a very bounded way transform the network by for example power/influence/reputation/etc.. But, as I said before, people are bounded rationally and also for example born talent matters and not to forget ‘culture’; a lot of factors are involved.
you didn’t give me an example (i have no idea of an example of a network without people.)
but are there any restrictions on the links and/or nodes that make it a network? (in this definition every system is a network.)
Yes, in this definition every system is a network, BUT not every network is a SOCIAL network. That’s why social networks did exist already when ‘Adam and Eve’ were there.
(And why should I give examples that are so obvious? A computer network, a network of books that refer to each other, my cellphone and the connected parts inside, etc… Ok, you could say that everything and everyone is connected or ‘linked’, so in that way there are no networks without people but to make and get things clear we select and choose parts of the ‘overall’ network…)
And Jurg, in your new post ‘Networks as a paradigm’ you give an example of a network without people yourself ;-)
And if you look at AIDS/HIV in the way you actually mean it is about SOCIAL networks….