Is Facebook elitist?
It’s easy to mistrust a network that not everyone is allowed to join: Skull and Bones, the Bilderberg Group, the Stone Cutters — you get the picture. But what about a network that just feels exclusive?
There was a time when Facebook really was exclusive — limited to students at the nation’s most prestigious universities. I can remember a friend of mine having to organize a petition in the summer of 2004 to bring the network to my lowly alma mater. But by the fall of 2006, the network was open to absolutely anyone.
Still, there’s talk of class distinctions between Facebook and MySpace, as if one were clearly walled off from the other. On the one hand — the data doesn’t lie, as one group of users does make substantially more money than the other. But then again, both networks are open to everyone who wants to join. The only thing stopping you is the number of people you know on a given network, because most people won’t sign up until a few of their friends do. Facebook began as an elitist group, and it is taking a while for it to gain critical mass among non-college-educated users. But I think it will get there eventually.
In the meantime, I’m not convinced that network segmentation is a bad thing. Smaller, more focused networks are often more useful. It’s easier to reach out and meet new people on a network when you’re all there for a common purpose. When someone I don’t know tries to friend me on Facebook, I hesitate. Why does this person want to talk to me? When it’s an invite on LinkedIn, I know this person is looking to connect with me in a professional capacity, so I’m much more likely to accept. As long as you’re choosing which networks you belong to (and not the other way around) I think that’s both productive and fair.
Is Facebook elitist? Am I right about it shifting over time? Are tightly focused networks a good idea? Where does Twitter fit into this discussion?
Image credit, KLH49, via iStock
Related posts:
Tags: class, elitism, Facebook, MySpace
Categories: Editor's Take
Permalink
Posted by uberVU - social comments on February 5th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by weileekit: RT @sbosm: Is Facebook elitist? http://ow.ly/14i5R...
Posted by Victor Panlilio on February 5th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Every in-group needs an out-group, a “them” vs. “us” — or, as Groucho Marx once said, “I wouldn't want to belong to any group that would have me as a member.”
Posted by Corey Q on February 5th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I run a Facebook fan page with nearly 6,000 members. From the demographic information I see, my fans are mostly in the 13-24 year-old range. Reading their comments, I sincerely hope they aren't college educated. If they are, colleges aren't nearly what they used to be!
Posted by Susan on February 5th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
For the sake of credibility, I believe focused networks or network segmentation is best. I, too, question someone “friending” me on Facebook if I don't know them. On LinkedIn, if I don't know/remember the person, I check their profile to see if we have mutual business connections or some other professional interest in common before I “link.” I also draw the distinction between personal information I may divulge on Facebook and professional-only information I include on LinkedIn. I don't consider Facebook elitist in that it gives anyone the opportunity to connect with friends and family anywhere in the world (a real benefit for those of us whose families are spread out all over the globe). I was never invited to “connect” with my children, nieces/nephews when they were on MySpace. From a marketing/advertising perspective, having different networks with different demographics is beneficial in that it gives everyone a forum.
Posted by Michael on February 5th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Given that both sites have open-membership policies, the socio-economic and other demographics that emerge from their respective memberships is likely a reflection of humans organizing themselves more or less organically. There's no accounting for taste, however, and that's a fact. But I don't think that Facebook, at least, has a distinctive socio-economic user base–their user base is massive, after all, and is much larger than that of MySpace now. Their members, by virtue of their number, must represent the full spectrum of social class, income, race, education, and other factors. What's different–and what may be perceived as elitist, though I find it interesting that one would use such a term–is that Facebook's user interface is and always has been more elegantly designed, less customizable (and, therefore, easier to use), and the site itself is generally technologically innovative. MySpace has none or few of those qualities–and even if it were to undergo a massive redesign tomorrow, it will have been too late. I personally don't want to use a Web site where my 500 or so friends would each have a profile page with its own layout, graphics, music player (and god-knows-what music playing when the page finishes loading) and any number of other aesthetic qualities that I–and apparently tens of millions of other users–consider annoying and inconvenient or at the very least in poor taste. Taste is something that one could classify as elitist, but good design is good design. If you interpret is as elitist, it says more about you than the thing you criticize. Furthermore, MySpace's inability to cope with spam and bogus profiles early on alienated a lot of users (like me) who flocked to Facebook for a sense of orderliness and, well, decency. There's only so many friend requests I can take from vaguely eastern European prostitutes before I'm ready to jump ship and go someplace else. MySpace's role seems to be moving back toward a music-centric place in the social networking universe, where bands and artists can promote themselves and their music. I'm perfectly happy with that evolution.
Posted by Melanie on February 5th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
“On the one hand — the data doesn’t lie, as one group of users does make substantially more money than the other.”
This doesn't mean anything other than the demographic for MySpace is teenagers and Facebook is adults. Of course the adults are going to make substantially more money than kids.
MySpace is an abortion of sparkly unicorns and bears hugging hearts. Just because you have the tools to design your own MySpace page, doesn't mean you should. Facebook keeps a consistency that is easy on the eye, not distracting and full of junk. That helps retain users. Consistency and predictability in a user interface is key – especially with the high volume constant stream of content that is added to the site daily.
I don't see any elitism in Facebook. It's open to anyone, therefore not elitist.
Posted by Rob on February 5th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I get very tired of being called an elitist just because I am educated, can spell and try to use grammar properly. Now, I'm an elitist because I participate in a social network that has over 350 million members?
Posted by Is Facebook elitist? | The Perfect Storm Team on February 6th, 2010 at 1:45 am
[...] Is Facebook elitist? | SmartBlog On Social Media. [...]
Posted by Tweets that mention Is Facebook elitist? | SmartBlog On Social Media -- Topsy.com on February 8th, 2010 at 6:05 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Philip Nowak, SmartBrief on SocMed, Social Media, davidjdeal, NetDocuments and others. NetDocuments said: Is Facebook elitist? http://ow.ly/14jI3 [...]
Posted by sabreangel on February 9th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
I agree with everyone talking about the draw to Facebook's more uniform and real-time design. I think it's helped them keep a larger base of people because it's still conversation centered. MySpace is actually more just an attack on the senses. Sure you have your photos, but your layout is all decked out and you have your favorite song blaring. Not to mention all the videos that you love that are permanently glued to your home page. On Facebook, if you post a video you like it gets put on your wall and into the news feed but filters through eventually when it's replaced with newer more relevant information. It doesn't just sit on your profile.
I always viewed MySpace as one of those kindergarten colleges you cut and pasted together as an eager child. Photos, glitter, and other various visuals about “who you are.” It's not centered on information and conversation like Facebook, it's more masturbatory. Maybe this is because it was created by Harvard students and generated popularity through college kids (who are more prone to want information.) If this makes it elitist, then fine. I don't think it is, it's just simply part of facebook's history.
Posted by meredith on March 1st, 2010 at 3:13 pm
This article is about a year too late. Facebook USED to be the elite of social networks. When I joined a year ago Facebook was considered more exclusive and classier than Myspace; now its bloated and unweildy. The privacy settings are complicated and horrible, the livefeed annoying and the wall (so clean and simple a year ago) is cluttered. There is nothing consistant about Facebook, other than the background being solid white throughout the site (a selling point for me when I joined). Settings change on an almost weekly basis and you have to be constantly vigilant about what privacy settings have changed with it. Myspace may assault the senses with glitter and music (which by the way can be turned off) but at least it's consistent and gives you control over what information you put out. I know many, many people college educated and of varying ages who would delete their account in a heartbeat if they did not have so many family contacts.