IS470

Reviewing Social Media Growth and Impacts:

Social, Economic and Political Aspects

Candidate Number
31271
Word Count: 2,869

2013/2014

Information Systems and Innovation Group

Department of Management

Abstract
Social Media has become an essential part of our daily lives. By having an account
with few friends on Facebook, a blog, or a YouTube channel, we become embedded
into complicated information systems, where people communicate and exchange
knowledge. In part one of this essay, some aspects of social media growth and
development are discussed, and how relationships are built between people who
either know or dont know each other. Scholars positions on growth of social
networks in a linear manner are explored, by making use of the Diffusion of
Innovations theory and opinion leaders, versus the idea of information diffusion
through users informal and personal ties. Part two reviews arguments which
critically assess influence and control of social media, focusing on social, economic
and political challenges and undesirable impacts, in contrast to the known benefits
of adopting social media. The final part sheds light onto some further research
requirements that arise due to social media.

Keywords: Web 2.0, Media Technology, Social Media, Social Networks, Diffusion
of Innovations

messages communication in 1792,

radio and telephone in the 1800s, and
IRC (Internet Relay Chat) in 1980s.
They mention that many social
networking sites existed in the 1990s.
However, OReilly (2005) says that the
rise of Web 2.0 introduced the concept
of content contribution by networked
users. Downey and Jones (2012) stress
that a social dimension, which is based
on generation and control of content,
exists around Web 2.0 communities
and social networks.

Introduction: Is Web 2.0 a

Revolution?
The definition of social media (as per
the Merriam-Webster dictionary) is
forms of electronic communication (as
Web sites for social networking and
microblogging) through which users
create online communities to share
information, ideas, personal messages,
and other content (as videos). Blogs,
social networks, podcasts and wikis
come under the umbrella of social
media that produce user-created
content, and provide user connectivity
and sharing of information. Examples
of social media websites are Facebook,
YouTube,
Twitter
and
LinkedIn
(Edosomwan et al., 2011; OECD,
2007).

The term Participative Web has been

used to outline the use of the Internet
as a platform for creativity and
communication.
This
concept
of
participation among users has allowed
creating, customizing and distributing
multimedia content widely on the
Internet. It is also responsible for the
emerging of amateur creators as
opposed to the traditional professional
producers of such content, like writers

Edosomwan et al. (2011) claim that the

concept of social media is not new.
They make a similarity between social
media and the use of telegraph for
3

and journalists (OECD, 2007, p.17).

According to Susarla et al. (2012), who
studied diffusion of content on
YouTube, there is a dual nature of user
participation, in content creation as
well as opinion formation which was
not the case before Web 2.0, where
there was no rich features of social
interaction (p.23). Castells (2013) also
considers interactive communication
as new multimedia system that
caused a transformation from mass
communication
to
mass
selfcommunication (p.58-59).

at least once (Young, 2011). This is not

exactly the same on all social media
websites, because on social media, all
users are the same, whether known or
unknown (Gilbert & Karahalios, 2009).
For example, on Twitter, which is
classified as a micro-blogging website
rather than only a social network,
users can follow, mention or
retweet
others
without
their
permission, which can end up causing
viral propagation of information,
which make the study of how this
content propagates through the web
essential (Grabowicz et al., 2012, p.2).

Social Media
Development

Social networks play an essential role

in speeding up innovation. It is
certainly important to study the growth
of communications networks and how
ideas spread out to a large number of
users. One of the necessary theories,
studied by Rogers (2003) in his
influential book, to be used for this
purpose is the Diffusion of Innovations
(DOI),
which
demonstrates
how
innovation
spreads
out
through
communication networks and channels
over time. There are two positions on
the growth of social networks. The DOI
literature addresses social networks
growth in a linear manner; that
networks are built in the form of
relationships that influence each other,
such that innovation spreads across
the network, stressing that when users
have similar opinions, the links
between them intensify, and hence the
network
evolves
step-by-step
(Deroian, 2002, p.835). In addition,
some researchers, (Yang & Leskovec,
2010), developed a Linear Influence
Model of diffusion of information
through social networks, by studying
how nodes in the network influence
each other, and modeling global

Growth

and

Reasons behind users creating content

and publishing it vary, they could be
changes
in
technological,
social,
economic, institutional and legal
factors. Motivations for this are, for
example, friends connecting to each
other, self-expression, or seeking fame
(OECD, 2007). Whereas in the context
of
organizational
communications
electronic networks of practice, the
motives can be the users possession
of experience and desire to enhance
their reputation (Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
As for the public sector, the increase in
adoption of social media came as a
result of the increased usage by the
population and business organisations;
they would obtain information and
connect with government officials
online (Downey & Jones, 2012).
Studying relationships among users in
the Web 2.0 era is an interesting topic.
Studies conducted on Facebook, as a
social network, showed that 98% of a
survey respondents friends on the
website were acquaintances and
people who they have met face-to-face
4

influence of a node on the rate of

diffusion (p.599).

through peer influence, what is termed

as viral marketing (p.57) and
conduct an empirical study, in which
they analyse the influence of friends in
marketing
and
making
purchase
decisions. It is argued that this
networking is mostly informal, and is
associated with personal ties, and that
personal and social networks are
capable of promoting information and
knowledge exchange that are essential
for innovation (Assimakopoulos, 2007).
This previous point of view is also
supported by Vishwanath and Barnett
(2011),
for
they
highlight
the
significance
of
the
social
surroundings , i.e. personal networks,
in determining the adoption rate of
innovation by individuals in a network
(p.149).

Diffusion of Innovations Theory can be

applied by organisations, in order to
determine
participants
who
are
influential in the network opinion
leaders, who can spread certain
information and this way, communities
can be built, by creating a word of
mouth chain reaction diffusing the
information or innovation (Downey &
Jones, 2012, p.3). Rogers (2003)
defines opinion leadership as the
extent to which a person can
informally
affect
others
explicit
behavior in a certain manner. Cho et
al. (2012) mention, based on different
literature, that diffusion is first
introdused by opinion leaders and then
accelerated
depending
on
the
centrality, which is the aspect that
characterizes the most influential
actors in a social network, and using
this point of view, the initial set of
users can be selected as first adopters
for the message to be diffused, and
thus, increasing the diffusion of the
message (p.98). This view is also
supported by Ma et al. (2013), who
conclude, based on their empirical
research results, that opinion leaders
are the most powerful drivers of users
to share news on social media.

The groundbreaking theory on weak

ties, set by Granovetter (1973), is an
important factor while discussing the
diffusion of information through social
networks. Granovetter discusses the
strength and importance of weak ties
that link different and distant groups,
which were unlikely to be linked with a
direct strong tie. Quantitative research
done by Zhao et al. (2011), using data
from Facebook networks, showed that,
for online social networks, weak ties
play an essential role in speeding up
the diffusion of information, and that a
random strategy for choosing ties
turned out to be more effective than
choosing the strong ties. This position
weakens the need for opinion leaders
and supports the role of informal ties in
the diffusion of information.

In contrast to the previous position

that claims that opinion leaders are
more influential and have a role in
managing
and
maintaining
relationships
over
the
network,
different opinions exist about users
decisions to adopt an innovation.
Researchers claim that some are
influenced by friends opinions and not
opinion leaders (Downey & Jones,
2012). Domingos and Richardson
(2001) favor the idea of diffusion

To sum up, it is indeed interesting to

see the evolving of technologies, and
how ideas are adopted and diffused.
However, a crucial point is made by
Cho et al. (2012) that previous

research has not shed light on

communication behavior in social
systems but rather much on the
socioeconomic
characteristics
of
opinion leaders (p.98). Organisations
can benefit from this understanding
and work on improving their outreach
to customers through networks. From
the economic aspect, according to
Susarla et al. (2012), studying users
behavior can largely help businesses
who seek to monetize social search
and digital content (p.39). Therefore,
it is particularly important to study the
relationships that emerge from the
adoption of social networks, in order to
determine
the
communication
effectiveness (Downey & Jones, 2012).

they have expanded the boundaries of

organisations
and
enhanced
governmental-citizens communication.
An individuals circle of acquaintances
has expanded through social networks,
from which the emergence of new
relationships takes place, as discussed
earlier. For example, companies and
government agencies can use social
networks to spread information on
their services and be more involved
with their stakeholders. Business
organisations can also improve their
customer service, gain new customers,
and interact with suppliers (Downey &
Jones, 2012). The use of social media
has
even
expanded
to
include
disastrous events, where people gather
important information faster than
traditional media and government
channels, like for example during the
Iran elections crisis of 2009, where
users used hashtags on Twitter to
post live updates (Potts & Jones, 2011).

Challenges, Constraints and

Control
of
Social
Media:
Social, Economic and Political
Aspects

However, does the adoption of social

media always result in improved
communication and collaboration? On
the contrary to the above mentioned
motives of adopting social media,
Olesen and Myers (1999) examine a
social
networking
project
on
organizational level, before even the
Web 2.0 era, that didnt produce
successful results. They conclude that
it is essential to study the social
environment of the project, before
applying
technological
efforts
to
enhance communication, since it is not
always easy to change users norms
and organisational culture. In addition,
Chirumalla (2013) talks about the
challenges faced while adopting social
media
technologies,
including
incentivizing
employees
for
participation, monitoring the validity of
shared knowledge (on wikis for

The significant role of social media in

business
and
communication
changeover cannot be overlooked.
Researchers claim that the fastest
way to grow a business entity is
through social media and networking.
The benefits of social media in such
field are various, including decreased
communication time in organisations,
building
business
brand
and
reputation, marketing, source for
recruitment, and a tool to keep an eye
on
employees
enthusiasm
and
creativity;
and
hence
causing
enhanced productivity. (Edosomwan et
al., 2011, p.79).
Social Network Theory can be used,
which was previously used in offline
environments,
to
highlight
relationships and their structure on
social networks, in order to show how
6

example), and preventing businesses

know-how from leakage. Chirumalla
concludes that effective use of such
tools requires a change of behaviors
and values at both the individual and
the organizational level (p.53).
From a personal aspect, social
networks
expand
the
user
acquaintances boundaries, yet, on the
other hand impact the privacy of users.
Tools of privacy protection on social
websites are not used efficiently by
users, and the impacts of simple posts
online become magnified, exposing
and threatening, since employers can
fire employees who speak negatively
of them, and also check social
networks profiles of applicants before
hiring them (Gilbert & Karahalios,
2009), university officials monitor
students profiles on social websites,
and tax authorities scan social
networks for proof of fiscal fraud.
Stressing that publishing personal
information increases the risk of
identity theft, stalking and physical
harm (Van Eecke & Truyens, 2010, p.
535-536). However, different studies,
summarized by Young (2011) who
takes Facebook as a specific example,
claim that most of the online social
networks users are aware about the
security and privacy threats, and that
their decisions regarding what personal
information to post in public are
becoming more sensible, which is
something that can certainly be argued
against, in view of undesirable
implications of the use of online data
by different stakeholders.

whether
accepting
anonymous
friendship requests endanger their
profiles information. Number of friends
on a users list became a status
symbol,
effectively
causing
the
boundaries between private life and
professional life to become increasingly
blurred. What is even more alarming
is that social network websites install
cookies on users machines, to monitor
the users location and web navigation
pattern, and use this data, which has
an economic value now, for targeted
advertising (p.536). As a consequence,
for
instance,
Canadian
privacy
commission directed an investigation
on Facebook and many data protection
authorities signed a letter to Google.
Moreover, the data that a user shares
isnt limited to the user only but to
other people in his network, which
provides social network websites rich
information, when data mining and
face recognition tools are used,
resulting in commercial benefits of
course, but certainly less privacy for
the
whole
network
of
people.
Moreover, even if the user is aware of
being monitored by personal or
professional acquaintances, it is hard
to present oneself on social media in a
professional way that exposes high
intellectual skills, which might not be
the real image about the persons
self, and at the same time present the
private image about the users
personality, to friends and others
(Lovink, 2011). Therefore, the effects
of exposing personal data on social
websites
should
never
be
underestimated.

Moreover, Van Eecke and Truyens

(2010) further discuss that there is no
clear standard on how to use social
networks, with users unaware of what
information they should share, and

From a political aspect, governments

do
realize
completely
the
pervasiveness of social media, and
several instances highlight the official
uses of it. For example, the Queen of

England published her 2007 Christmas

broadcast on YouTube, which also
broadcasted
the
United
States
presidential candidates debates in
2008. In spite of that, in 2008, 40% of
the US population still obtained their
political news from local television. On
the other hand, there is a rise of using
social media in scandal politics, where
opponents spread embarrassing viral
posts about each other online. Added
to that, social media has become an
enabler for social and rebellious
movements worldwide, providing a
platform for debate, planning and
communication, yet, still not replacing
the traditional aspects of activism on
the ground (Castells, 2007; 2013).

against regimes occur (Trottier, 2012;

Castells, 2007).
All in all, through social media, new
revolutionary concepts like people
building their own system of mass
communication
have
evolved
(Castells, 2007, p.246). Some hard-toanswer questions still hold, like, how
far data on the web can be controlled
and
manipulated
by
business
organisations and governments, and
how social media will continue to
become a powerful enabler of open
communication, given that the media
space is largely shaped by business
and governments as elaborated by
Castells (2007, p.246). These issues
bring into focus the importance of
studying how the multiple socioeconomic
and
political
aspects
continue shaping media technologies.
It is also crucial to monitor the changes
in the ways social media and the
availability of huge amounts of public
data on social networks affect our
lives, specifically when it comes to
aspects of privacy and personal and
professional relationships.

However, not all of the political

influence on social media, and vice
versa, is favourable. A much more
crucial aspect is imposing pressures on
social networks by governments on
freedom of expression and censorship
of content (Castells, 2013). On the
other hand, scholars argue that the
unbounded flow of information caused
by
the
Internet
can
pressure
governments
to
become
more
transparent, causing to eventually
enhance freedom of expression and
weaken the practice of censorship
(Abdulla, 2005). Moreover, social
media can be viewed as a surveillance
tool, where control of content is
exercised. Also, police gets to acquire
information and evidence online and
even request data from social media
websites, which on legal terms
facilitate giving away users data. This
could be a positive help to track
criminals, however, policing social
media raises immediate concerns
about the privacy of social life of an
individual, as well as the safety of
activists in countries where uprising

A Look towards the Future

In an era of convergence and social
web, it is stimulating to monitor how
social media will continue to influence
relationships, ties, ways of interactions,
and traditional media in the future.
Persistent issues with data mining;
analyzing the amounts of Big Data
available from user-generated content
on social platforms still exist, whether
in computer science researchers
capabilities to develop algorithms to
mine and analyse data, or in social
researchers and other interested
parties (e.g. journalists and market
8

researchers) need for effective not-socomplicated

data
analysis
tools.
Legislation,
censorship,
openness,
transparency, freedom of expression,
security and privacy remain topics that
need to be explored in depth, from
socio-economic and political angles, as
they continue to emerge as alarming
challenges and constraints for social
media.

leaders
in
the
diffusion
of
technological innovation: A social
network approach. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change,
79(1), pp.97106.
Deroian, F. (2002) Formation of social
networks
and
diffusion
of
innovations. Research Policy, 31,
pp.835846.
Domingos, P. and Richardson, M.
(2001) Mining the network value of
customers. In Proceedings of the
seventh ACM SIGKDD international
conference
on
Knowledge
discovery and data mining KDD 01, pp.5766.

References
Abdulla, R. A. (2005) Taking the e-train:
the development of the Internet in
Egypt.
Global
Media
and
Communication, 1(2), pp.149165.

Downey, E. and Jones, M. A. (2012)

Public service, governance and
Web 2.0 technologies: future
trends in social media. USA:
Information Science Reference.

Assimakopoulos,
D.
G.
(2007)
Technological communities and
networks: triggers and drivers for
innovation. London: Routledge.

Edosomwan, S. et al. (2011) The

History of social Media and its
impact on business. Journal of
Applied
Management
and
Entrepreneurship, 16(3), pp.7991.

Castells, M. (2007) Communication,

power and counter-power in the
network
society.
International
Journal of Communication, 1(June
2006), pp.238266.

Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. (2009)

Predicting tie strength with social
media. In Proceedings of the 27th
international conference on Human
factors in computing systems - CHI
09. New York: ACM Press, pp. 211220.

Castells, M. (2013) Communication

power (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chirumalla,
K.
(2013)
Managing
knowledge
for
product-service
system innovation: The role of Web
2.0
technologies.
ResearchTechnology Management, 56(2),
pp.4553.

Grabowicz, P. et al. (2012) Social

features of online networks: the
strength of intermediary ties in
online social media. PloS one, 7(1),
pp.1-9.

Cho, Y., Hwang, J. and Lee, D. (2012)

Identification of effective opinion
9

Granovetter, M.S. (1973) The strength

of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology, 78(6), pp.13601380.

Potts, L., and Jones, D. (2011)

Contextualizing
experiences:
tracing the relationships between
people and technologies in the
social web. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 25(3),
338358.

Lovink, G. (2011) Networks without a

cause, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ma, L., Lee, C.S. and Goh, D.H. (2013)
Investigating influential factors
influencing users to share news in
social media: A Diffusion of
Innovations
Perspective.
In
Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEECS joint conference on digital
libraries JCDL 13. pp. 403404.

Rogers, Everett M (2003) Diffusion of

innovations (5th edition). New York:
Free Press.
Susarla, A. et al. (2012) Social
networks and the diffusion of usergenerated content: evidence from
YouTube.
Information
Systems
Research, 23(1), pp.2341.

OReilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0:

design patterns and business
models for the next generation of
software.
OReilly
Media.
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/wha
t-is-web-20.html (accessed on 16
November 2013).

Trottier, D. (2012) Social media as

surveillance: rethinking visibility in
a
converging
world.
Surrey:
Ashgate.

OECD (2007) Participative web and

user-created content: Web 2.0,
wikis and social networking. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Van Eecke, P. and Truyens, M. (2010)

Privacy
and
social
networks.
Computer Law & Security Review,
26(5), pp.535546.
Vishwanath, A. and Barnett, G.A.
(2011) The diffusion of innovations:
a
communication
science
perspective. New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.

Olesen, K. and Myers, M. (1999) Trying

to improve communication and
collaboration
with
information
technology: An action research
project which failed. Information
Technology & People 12(4), 317332.

Wasco, M. and Faraj, S. (2005) Why

should we share? Examining social
capital and knowledge contribution
in electronic networks of practice,
MIS Quarterly 29(1), 35-57.
Yang, J. and Leskovec, J. (2010)
Modeling information diffusion in
implicit networks. In 2010 IEEE
10

International Conference on Data

Mining. IEEE, pp. 599608.

Zhao, J. et al. (2011) Information

propagation in online social
networks: a tie-strength
perspective. Knowledge and
Information Systems, 32(3),
pp.589608.

Young, K. (2011) Social ties, social

networks
and
the
Facebook
experience. International Journal of
Emerging
Technologies
and
Society, 9(1), pp.2034.

11