Digitally mediated social networking practices: A focus on connectedness and disconnectedness

Research into digitally mediated networks is important as these are becoming increasingly intertwined with other aspects of our everyday lives as we invest as much effort in the relationships developed there as elsewhere. Over the past few years we have witnessed the rise of digital media usage (at least in the developed world) as exemplified by such Web 2.0 enabled networks as Facebook, YouTube and the like. It appears that Wittel’s (2001) hypothesis that ‘network sociality’ will become ever more important has come to fruition. Socialization for many has become deeply embedded in technology and is characterised by an assimilation of work and play (Wittel 2001). As Judith Donath states: “information that was once local is becoming global. The dramas of high school friends, blind date traumas, and mundane job irritations, once hot gossip only to be the immediate circle of the people involved, are now published for worldwide consumption on blogs and network sites.” (Donath 2007). Social networks comprise relations amongst those who deem each other to be important or relevant to them in some way (Wellman 1996). Thus, social networking sites aim to lubricate such relations. Social networking sites are often discussed in terms of features which allow users to create profiles, which in addition to images, text, and video created by the member, may also contain comments from other members, and a public list of the people that one identifies as being friends with within the network. Such sites are usually presented as friendship oriented sites (albeit they have been commercialised and appropriated for professional networking of late). However, if we return to Wellman’s notion of social networks, it is not much of a leap to state that digitally mediated social networks can take many forms. I am are aware of debates surrounding what constitutes a social networking site, and indeed whether it is appropriate to use this term or ‘social network site’ (Beer and Burrows 2007; boyd and Ellison 2007). However, I am purposefully using the term social networking as, in my experience of researching this area I have found that digitally mediated networking activity involves the formation of new relationships as well as the activities associated with maintaining those started in other ways. Social networking sites, as far as I am concerned, are not just about maintaining existing networks via a digitally mediated environment. Moreover, we have to be aware of the continuous shaping of technologies to incorporate new features. Social networking sites are flexibly interpreted; they can, and do, have other functions ranging from offering a platform for organising political action to arranging meetings for casual sex. Friendster, for example, originally began life as an Internet dating site and Facebook was, originally only accessible to Harvard College students. However, with a few exceptions my reading of the situation is that much of this work focuses upon fairly mainstream networking sites, emphasising egocentricity over other network mechanisms. Indeed, Nancy Baym (2007) emphasises other forms of online networks to critique danah boyd’s (2006) pronouncement that egocentric networks – as exemplified by social network sites – are replacing online groups. That said, I do not dismiss this line of inquiry, but as with any field of study, there is always more to be done. Since 1999 I have been studying a site, arguably one of the forerunners of social networking and Internet dating, as we know it today – Gaydar.co.uk (Fletcher and Light 2007; Light 2007; Light et al. 2008). Gaydar.co.uk is essentially a dating/networking service marketed towards men who have sex with men. Through this work I have surfaced, amongst other things,