Social Network Information Value (SNIV)

Allow me to present a thought experiment.

Social networks are complex entities. In fact, social network analysis has evolved as a mathematical tool to model the intricate workings of social networks. Mathematical algorithms that map out social networks include the social network potential (SNP), a mathematical coefficient that represents both the size of an individual's social network and their ability to influence that network. Many variables contribute to a person’s SNP, including group memberships, leadership roles, peer recognition, publication of electronic and non-electronic media, and frequency of past distribution of information within a network.

Although social network analysis is an effective tool for mapping out the complexities of social information exchange, this inherent complexity is also its shortcoming. Social network analysis focuses on the network itself, not on the individual. What appears to be lacking is a simple metric that measures the magnitude of information a person exchanges within a social network regardless of the type of information exchanged, the complexity of the network, or the level of influence the person has on the network. I call this measure the Social Network Information Value (SNIV). It is defined as: the magnitude of information a person exchanges within a social network. This magnitude is defined by two factors: 1) the overall size of the network in terms of direct contacts to other people (via an electronic or physical medium), and 2) the amount of personal information (P) that the person exchanges with each member of their network. If one considers that each person in a social network has a certain amount of personal information that can be shared, the maximum value of P=1 (or 100%) only happens if a person shares EVERY bit of personal information, including demographic information, private medical information, personal thoughts, secrets, etc.

A visual model of SNIV is shown below. Person A and Person B each have multiple direct contacts (smiley faces). Imagine that the size of each smiley face represents the amount of information exchanged. Person A exchanges more information with her close friends than does Person B, but Person B has more direct contacts overall. Therefore, Person B may have a greater SNIV depending on the exact number of contacts and the amount of information exchanged with each contact.














Mathematically, this can be expressed as:













Where n equals the total number of personal contacts in the social network for a given person, Pi is the percentage of personal information exchanged with each person i, and P bar equals the average amount of personal information exchanged.

In reality, this model is slightly more complex. P, the percentage of information that one exchanges with a social contact, is really a combination of the personal information that one gives out (shares) and the personal information that one receives (cares). People within a social network do not necessarily give and receive information equally. Some are more likely to relate information about their personal life, but do not wish to hear about the lives of their contacts. Others may thrive on gossip and scuttlebutt, but they are very protective of their own privacy. By plotting a person’s overall SNIV on a y-axis and a person’s ratio of sharing to caring on an x-axis as shown below, one can visualize four emerging population segments: Hermits, Socialites, Voyeurs, and Exhibitionists.





















Hermits have very few to no personal contacts, and they exchange little to no information. Socialites have many social contacts, and they maintain a balance between information given and received. Voyeurs and Exhibitionists are obviously the extremes of the sharing/caring balance described above.

Therefore, if one assumes that P is in fact the sum of the share factor (percentage of personal information one shares with each contact, S) and the care factor (percentage of personal information one receives from each contact, C), the SNIV equation is rewritten thusly:

In other words, a person’s SNIV consists of the total amount of information one gives out to one’s contacts plus the total amount of information that one receives from one’s contacts. To maximize one's SNIV, one needs to balance sharing and caring.

More importantly, a related value can be calculated to ascertain a person’s potential for engaging in a social network. I call this value the Social Network Information Threshold (SNIT). The SNIT can be defined as the total amount of information one is willing to give out to one’s contacts plus the total amount one is willing to receive. The quotient of SNIV over SNIT (QSNIT) reflects the balance of one’s potential for sharing information compared to one’s actual practice of sharing information.

The psychological implications of this balance could be a whole field of study in itself. A person with a QSNIT of 1 is in equal balance. Whether this person prefers to be a Hermit, Socialite, Voyeur, or Exhibitionist, this person is exactly as connected as he or she wishes to be.

However, a QSNIT below 1 suggests that the person is not as socially connected as he or she would like, and this could lead to feelings of alienation and depression. A person operating below threshold must find a way to reconnect with a social network to maintain balance. Simply establishing personal connections is not enough to raise one’s QSNIT. One must actually exchange personal information to raise the quotient.

Social network sites are effective ways of raising a QSNIT in that they give a person an almost limitless number of contacts and an easy way to exchange information. What has to be managed, however, is exactly how much information is given or received. The ease that one can disseminate personal information to others through a social network site can artificially raise a person’s QSNIT above 1. When this happens, a person moves past their privacy comfort level. What is most insidious about social network sites is that a person may not realize they have exceeded their privacy comfort level until they take a full inventory of their contacts and their level of intimacy, at which point their privacy has been compromised beyond repair.

Zev Winicur is Now Your Friend

(Originally posted 2/21/09)

Well, I finally broke down and did it. After years of avoiding the inevitable, I swallowed my pride, shredded my dignity, sold my soul, and joined the masses.

Yes, last week I set up a Facebook page.

I don't have anything against social networking sites (SNSs). In fact, I've allowed my LinkedIn network to expand slowly and organically over the years. Furthermore, I am an avowed email addict, and the only reason that I don't have Internet access on my cell phone is that I might forget to eat after a while. But Facebook, MySpace, and their ilk all seemed to be different animals. These were the SNSs of the young and hip, or as I like to refer to them, the MOUM (masses of unmotivated morons). MySpace was to real blogs what Tammy Faye Bakker was to...well, Michelle Obama. One was overly decorated, overly self indulgent, and totally lacking in any real content. And the other was Michelle Obama.

Yes, I think I'm going to start referring to Wolfsong Enterprises as the Michelle Obama of blogs. But I digress...

I had reconnected with an old high school friend through his blog (the Janeane Garofalo of blogs), and he destroyed my last bulwark of resistance. He enticed me onto the site with the promise of seeing many an old colleague and friend. Curiosity final won out.

The moment I entered the site, I felt as if I had stumbled upon a trap door to a secret underground world where all of my old acquaintances were hiding. I stepped through the magic door, and suddenly all my old high school buddies, college buddies, grad school buddies, and my rabbi were waving to me from the open bar. "Zev!" they all seemed to shout, "We were wondering when you'd make your way down here. Have a drink!" It was, and still is, a bit unsettling.

Naturally, it wasn't long before I downloaded the most flattering picture I could find of myself (the one from last summer AFTER I lost some weight) as well as a couple pictures of my family. I only downloaded two pictures because my wife values her privacy a whole lot more than I do, and she gets very squirrelly and grumpy when I mention her by name on my blog. So, I am now a lot more careful about what information I share about my wife 'Brunhilda'.

In fact, it was many days before I admitted to my wife Helga that I had set up a Facebook page. She looked at me as if I had reported proudly, "Hey, guess what? I just got a tattoo, earring, ponytail, and a High School Musical lunchbox. Don't I look cool?"

"Isn't that for college students?" she asked. "Well..." I answered...and then I shared with her my first impressions from my week on Facebook. In fact, these are Zev's Quick Observations About Facebook.

#1: FACEBOOK IS WASTED ON THE YOUNG.

According to a 2007 Forrester Research report, 74% of young adults (age 18-21) have a profile on some SNS. Compare that to 53% of teenagers (ages 12-17) and 25% of adults (ages 18+). About 42% of young adults use Facebook compared to only about 8% of adults. Facebook certainly appears to be a young persons toy.

College students primarily use Facebook as a social activity, that is to view and discuss people's profiles. According to a 2007 article in First Monday, for most young adults, Facebook is primarily used as a "friend function," that is "Accepting, adding, browsing through, or reviewing friends; seeing how friends are connected; showing friends other individuals." College students also use Facebook as a virtual directory of contact information for friends they already know.

My theory is that in the next 5 years, the percentage of adult users on Facebook will skyrocket. The reasons are fourfold:

1. Facebook no longer requires a university email address. Therefore, the doors have been thrown open to EVERYBODY.


2. All the young adults currently on Facebook will eventually become old adults, and they will take their Facebook accounts with them. Once an email addict, always an email addict. The same goes for SNSs.


3. Many adults need a networking site that is less stodgy than LinkedIn but less tacky than MySpace. (Take THAT Rupert Murdoch)


4. Adults have an even greater need than young adults for a networking site that puts us in contact with friends old and new for the simple reason: WE ARE OLDER AND WE KNOW MORE PEOPLE.

Q.E.D. Facebook will soon belong to the 40-year olds. Of course I'll be an old man of 50 when that happens. But I'll be a cool, happenin' 50-year old.

#2: ANONYMITY REQUIRES A CONSCIOUS EFFORT

In the days before the Internet, anonymity was an inevitable and unfortunate result of the lack of a tangible network of local friends and family. Many people asked themselves, "If I died, how many days would it take before people notice?" Maintaining a public identity required constant activation energy.

And then came the Internet and Web 2.0 with email and SNSs. I worried that my father-in-law (i.e. Thelma's father) was headed for near obscurity when he retired and dropped his daily contact with his university crowd. Then he discovered email. Now his social life is richer than my own.

In other words, you have to be constantly vigilant just to stay hidden. It is too easy to create a Google Spoor.

By the way, Google Spoor--the trail of information one leaves on the Internet that is visible through a Google search--is my own term and my own concept. You may use it in your daily discourse. Just remember that you heard it here FIRST.

#3: PRIVACY IS A DELUSION

Identify theft is a real threat in this country as evidenced by the increased number of TV advertisements for free credit report sites. And yet, many SNS users post enough information on their Websites for a moderately talented identity thief to deduce and steal their Social Security Number. In fact, over 80% of Facebook users post their name, birthday, hometown, high school, and email, as well as posting potentially incriminating information about their personality, such as favorites, interests, political views, and relationships. Facebook allows its users to set privacy settings restricting viewer access, and although 84% of users reported that they knew of the privacy settings, only 48% actually made use of the privacy settings. In fact, 54% of Facebook users have added friends that they would not consider friends.

In other words, in this day and age, no one can use the excuse that they did not know they were revealing too much personal information. We all know. We just don't care.

#4: BY CONTROLLING OUR LANGUAGE, SNSs ARE CONTROLLING OUR THOUGHTS

The moment I got on Facebook, the system started telling me who my friends were. "Zev is now friends with Bob." Really? Bob (not his real name) was my college roommate. I've known him since the 8th grade. He was one of my groomsmen at my wedding. And only now he has become my friend? "Zev has become a fan of Tom Lehrer." Hello, I've been listening to Tom Lehrer since I was 12. But only now that I've clicked on a link am I a true fan.

The most insidious aspect of Facebook is the Update Status. Unlike a blog, in which the writer may spend hours wordsmithing his intelligent discourse or arguing a cogent theory (or just sayin' stuff), the Update Status allows us to report our immediate deeds and thoughts. My first Update was, "Zev is typing that Zev is typing." I thought it would implode the system. It didn't. All it did was wait for me to tell the world something else that I was doing. And now, before I go to bed, I have the opportunity to tell my network of 'real' friends that I am going to bed.

Eventually, keyboard interfaces will give way to direct neural taps that allow us to telepathically connect to the Internet. When that happens, we will be able to report to the world everything we are doing and thinking as we are doing and thinking it. And what's to stop the download from going both ways?

"Zev Winicur is feeling Hungry. Zev Winicur has become a fan of Burger King. Zev Winicur is now ordering five BK Veggies. Zev Winicur is now a fan of Pepto-Bismol."

It could happen.

#5 FACEBOOK--LIKE EMAIL, NICOTINE, AND GAMBLING--IS ADDICTIVE

Clinical discussions of Internet addiction go back at least 10 years. Yes, even CBS news reported on the phenomenon last summer.

Let's face it, I'm doomed. I'm becoming a Facebook junkie already, and I've only been on a week. I'm giving up my privacy, my every move is being scrutinized by high school acquaintances, and a computer is telling me who I'm allowed to be friends with. The best that I can hope for is that my father-in-law never discovers this beast. On the other hand, maybe he can become friends with his daughter...Muffy.