In which we are reminded how uniquely qualified sociologists are to fabricate new race issues out of thin air:
As many Americans use Facebook and MySpace, she said. But which Americans?
Using teens as the indicators of where the world is heading, Boyd described some of her research among them and took the words of one 14-year-old, Kat from Massachusetts, to describe her central thesis:
"I'm not really into racism, but I think that MySpace now is more like ghetto or whatever, and Facebook is all...not all the people that have Facebook are mature, but its supposed to be like oh we're more mature...MySpace is just old."
For Boyd, the sites we go to reflect our idea of what "people like us" do. Another teen, 17-year-old Craig from California, put it extremely baldly (especially for a Californian):
"The higher castes of high school moved to Facebook. It was more cultured, and less cheesy. The lower class usually were content to stick to MySpace. Any high school student who has a Facebook will tell you that MySpace users are more likely to be barely educated and obnoxious."
Boyd, who is also a researcher at Microsoft Research New England (Microsoft being a prominent investor in Facebook), described the migration from MySpace to Facebook as being akin to white folks setting up their own communities. Yes, the places that spawned the allegedly desperate housewife. This wasn't that Facebook was newer or cooler. This was "modern day 'white flight.'"
The wealthier, the whiter, the more suburban left MySpace and, if they went anywhere, they went to Facebook for a "more peaceful, quiet, less-public space."
In an observation that might echo the private views of quite a few who might be watering their lawns on a summer's evening, Boyd noted far greater condescension by Facebook users toward MySpace users than vice versa.
Here's the fear as Boyd sees it: governments, commercial organizations, and others will see the likes of Facebook as being the whole community, whereas in reality they are representing the status quo, traditionally occupied by "educated, wealthy, white, straight men." (Although, some would say that both political parties have certainly shown that at least one of those descriptors is a myth.)
Well, at least Craig got it right in describing MySpace as a tasteless, crass web site filled primarily with obnoxious users. It's what Fark would be if it allows its users to have blogs and control the layout.
I don't see why this is either non-obvious or surprising. People have aligned themselves with like individuals since the first human tribes came into existence. We are like any other pack or herd species in that respect.
Now here's a theory for you that won't jive well with their expectations. The real reason why you see the separation between these classes online is because of fundamental psychological differences. The same sort of mind that naturally gravitates toward a more middle class environment will, at the very least, tend to subconsciously scoff at the cheesiness and painful aesthetic of MySpace. Facebook has its drawbacks, but it is appealing to the middle class (especially white middle class) because it is clean, organized, customizable and functional. MySpace is aesthetically compatible with the personality types that tend to "keep the poor down."
The problem for people like Boyd is that governments, commercial organizations and others will see Facebook and MySpace, but regard Facebook as the one that matters. Any halfway competent marketing department or government public relations office figures out its target audience, and for the people who have the money and pull, they'll go wherever they are. Since those people happen to be at Facebook more than MySpace, that's where they'll go. It isn't that they'll think that Facebook is representative of the greater Internet, but rather the part of the Internet (in the US at least) that matters to them.
And it is not as if the poor don't have the money to move into the "rich neighbourhood." Anyone can sign up to either.
I don't get the controvery. As bethyada said, both are free. Having one does not prevent the other. Everyone can have both, plus a twitter, livejournal, flicker, youtube, and texting device. What ghetto? When I read the descriptions above, all I heard was "snob". The people on one media coming up with excuses for why their own choice was the superior and obvious choice, when really their sole consideration was, "that is where my friends are".
If I had my way, I'd round up all the sociologists in the world and force the to work 14hrs a day in salt mines.
Needless to say, I'm a dick.
It's a Palo Alto/Stanford vs. Santa Monica/UCLA thing. ;-)
I've got both.
Myspace is consistently ugly. I don't know anybody that has an attractive site. I signed up just so I could comment on my son's site. He's in Sicily. There's no other reason for me to go on myspace so I ignore all friend requests (which seem to be mostly pornographic spam) and only sign in when I'm leaving a note on his site.
Facebook is clean looking and easy to use. I actually do use it a little to stay in contact with some friends around the country. I'm not a daily user though, but I don't dread using it like I do myspace. Probably because the design doesn't remind me of somebody vomiting code on my screen.
Last, but not least, most teenagers are idiots. They're trying to put a class structure on something that doesn't have classes. They're both free, as mentioned earlier, how can one be more ghetto than the other?
I don't use either. I have no friends.
IMO as a design-guy/user-interfasce guy it appears to me that MySpace is set-up in such a way as to violate all rules of Design everywhere, and it is nearly impossible NOT to produce a hideous pistache of squirming, noisy widgetry - probably even an insult to scrap-bookers everywhere.
On the design-side as a practicioner I would argue that there is a class-structure or at least a divide or division between sprawling, loud, and trashy -vs.- clean, quiet, and streamlined.
And as noted above, besides having a large idiot-population, teenagers are desperately needy approval-seeking herd animals who band together for safety under the slightest fashion banner. Without the behavior of *Teenagers* to observe and study, many-many Sociologists (who are only a bare step above Teenagers themselves) would be out of work. :-)
That is one of those heresies that many of us recognize, but few of us are willing to say. As others have pointed out, there is nothing preventing people from having accounts at both sites because both sites are free and open to the public. In fact, both sides would love for everyone to have an account that they actively use. The catch is that each site appeals to different people for different reasons. Most of those reasons are not politically correct with regard to class.
I'm going with the divide between Mass-Cultural Trash-TV Beverly Hills-90210 Soap-Opera style, vs. the Affluent-Rectitude of Brahmin-Liberal Educationalist "Bay-Aryan" 94301. ;-)
I have both, and use them both the same. Which is to say that I log in and scroll down and then leave. Perhaps its just as the Prof above and that I have no friends. Perhaps its just cuz I don't care to share my life in constant twitters or updates. In fact, a good many of my thoughts I know to keep to myself so there really is little reason to use such things. Oh, and for the record, I don't care for the facebook layout anymore than myspace. But as I also don't visit other's pages perhaps I just don't get the chance to be offended (some truly ARE obnoxious)