PADGETS D1.1.doc Policy Gadgets Mashing Underlying Group Knowledge in Web 2.0 Media
Deliverable 1.1 Categorization of Web 2.0 Social Media and Stakeholder Characteristics
Internal Report
Project Reference No. EP-07-01-004 Deliverable No. D1.1 Relevant workpackage: WP1: Associating Policy Making and Social Media Group Knowledge Nature: R=Report Dissemination Level: CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Document version: Final V2.0 Date: 28/06/2010
Page 1 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Editor(s): V. Diamantopoulou, Y. Charalabidis, E. Loukis, (AEGEAN), A. Triantafillou, G. Sebou (ATC), Prof. Paul Foley, Annalisa Deluca, Ian Wiseman (Tech4i2), T. Koutzeris (OBS)
Contributors and Reviewers E. Ferro (POLITO)
All user partners (CEGD, PIEMONTE, OBS)
Document description: This deliverable provides an overview of the current landscape of web2.0 tools and platforms that people use massively today in order to get a better understanding and fulfill specific need. It also provides a detailed stakeholders analysis of public engagement in web2.0 History Version Date Reason Prepared / Revised by 0.20 1/3/2010 Pre draft version AEGEAN 0.20 10/4/2010 Pre draft version ATC, TECH4i2 0.30 15/4/2010 First overall draft of D1.2 ATC 0.40 3/5/2010 Review to the First overall draft All partners 0.50 0.80 Internal Versions ATC, AEGEAN, TECH4i2 0.90 15/6/2010 Final Version sent for internal review. ATC 0.91 0.93 25/6/2010 Internal Reviews All partners 1.00 30/6/2010 Final Version 1.00 AEGEAN
Page 2 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 9
2. POPULAR WEB 2.0 MEDIA AND USER ACTIONS ...... 12
2.1 BASIC CONCEPTS OF WEB 2.0 ...... 12 2.2 SOCIAL MEDIA ...... 14 2.3 SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS CLASSIFICATION ...... 18 2.3.1 Methodological Approach for classification ...... 18 2.3.2 Additional Features for Classification ...... 20 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ...... 21 2.4.1 Platforms for Communication ...... 21 2.4.2 Platforms for Collaboration ...... 73 2.4.3 Platforms for Sharing ...... 79 2.4.4 Platforms for Review/Rate/Express Opinion ...... 93 2.5 LIST OF POPULAR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ...... 97 2.6 SUMMARY AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS ...... 101
3. UNDERLYING GROUP KNOWLEDGE ...... 103
3.1 TYPES OF CONTENT IN SOCIAL MEDIA ...... 103 3.2 PURPOSE OF CONTENT IN SOCIAL MEDIA ...... 104 3.3 POLICY IN WEB 2.0 ...... 105 3.4 SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS ...... 107 3.4.1 Engaging constituencies at political level ...... 108 3.4.2 Social media as an additional channel of service delivery ...... 109 3.4.3 Social media applications for public policy ...... 111 3.5 SUMMARY AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS ...... 113
4. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ...... 114
4.1 CATEGORIZATION OF USER PROFILES IN SOCIAL MEDIA ...... 114 4.1.1 Who is online? ...... 114 4.1.2 Activities carried out online ...... 129 4.1.3 Who is on Social Media? ...... 136 4.1.4 Why use social media? ...... 139 4.2 GROUPS OF USERS IN SOCIAL MEDIA (IN TOP SM SITES) PER SECTOR ...... 148 4.2.1 A methodology to examine the characteristics of social media ...... 148 4.2.2 Overview of results from the innovative research method ...... 156 4.2.3 Social networks ...... 158 4.2.4 Blogging ...... 174 4.2.5 Collaborative bookmarking ...... 175 4.2.6 Virtual worlds ...... 178 Page 3 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
4.3 SOCIAL MEDIA AND POLICY MAKING ...... 178 4.3.1 Results from the literature review on policymaking in Social Media ...... 178 4.3.2 Social Media and Policy Making: A synthesis ...... 185 4.4 SUMMARY AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS ...... 186
5. IMPLICATIONS FOR PADGETS ...... 189
5.1 MAPPING CURRENT POLICY MAKING RELATED SOCIAL MEDIA APPLICATIONS ...... 189 5.1.1 Mapping social media use for policymaking ...... 189 5.1.2 Conclusions from the mapping exercise ...... 193 5.2 THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN THE PILOT ORGANISATIONS ...... 193 5.2.1 Stakeholder engagement in the pilot organisations ...... 194 5.2.2 Key development themes: Participatory budgeting ...... 194 5.2.3 Key development themes: eSkills development ...... 195 5.3 POTENTIAL THEMES FOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 195 5.4 POTENTIAL PLATFORMS FOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 196 5.5 SUMMARY AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS ...... 197
6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 199 7. ANNEX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ...... 201
7.1 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 & 3 ...... 201 7.2 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 ...... 203 7.3 ONLINE RESOURCES ...... 208
8. ANNEX B: WEB 2.0 AT A GLANCE ...... 210 9. ANNEX C: TABLES ...... 214
Page 4 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Executive Summary The paradigm behind Web2.0 is to use the collective contributions of web users by letting them interact in communities. Users join these communities because of common interests and to find interesting content and contacts. Active participation by users leads to an accelerated deployment of new content, applications, communication relations and patterns. Web2.0 is the evolution of the Internet towards a more open, flexible and participatory platform for content, applications and business models. In this context, this deliverable titled as “Categorisation of Web 2.0 Social Media and Stakeholder characteristics” is deliverable D1.1 of the PADGETS project and aims at analysing the current landscape of web2.0 tools and platforms that people use massively today in order to get a better understanding and fulfill specific needs. More specifically, the present deliverable examines the underlying tools and platforms in Web 2.0 for Communication, collaboration, sharing, reviewing/Rating/Expressing opinions; in order to determine how social engagement in these tools can be re used in the scope of policy making process as a policy ‘gadget’. Based on this examination, we have categorized the underlying group knowledge according to users’ capabilities, users’ generated content as well as users’ profiles. Moreover, this deliverable outlines the policy making process of the three organisations Figure 1.1: The heterogeneous zoo of Web2.0 participating in the project and the current methods [54] which are using for the engagement of the citizens and stakeholders. Finally, the document presents, based on the previous examination, the most suitable media for the Policy Making Process as well as the most candidate themes for development during the pilots’ period. This document is organized as follows: Section 1, presents the rational and methodological approach of this deliverable, while section 2 presents the most popular Web 2.0 media as well as the users’ actions. Section 3, describes the underlying group knowledge which includes an analysis of the main types of content as well as give some perspectives relevant to the purpose of these types of content. Section 4, describes the results of the Stakeholders Analysis, which includes an analysis of a general categorization of user profiles in Web 2.0 Social Media, while section 5, present based on the previous analysis the implications for PADGETS. The deliverable closes with the conclusions and the relevant annexes.
Page 5 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: The heterogeneous zoo of Web2.0 [54] ...... 5 Figure 1.2: Methodological Approach for D1.1 ...... 10 Figure 3 1: (Swedish data) ...... 109 Figure 3 2: Italian candidates on Twitter ...... 109 Figure 3 3: Washington State Department of Transportation on Twitter ...... 110 Figure 3 4: Skatteverket on Second Life ...... 111 Figure 3 5: Data.gov.uk applications ...... 111 Figure 3 6: Code for America ...... 112 Figure 3 7: Apps for the Army ...... 112 Figure 4 1: Broadband subscribers in Europe (2007 data) ...... 114 Figure 4 2: Users vs Contributors ...... 115 Figure 4 3: Internet by gender (UK) ...... 116 Figure 4 4: Empowered women (US) ...... 116 Figure 4 5: Internet users’ demographics by age groups ...... 117 Figure 4 6: Internet by age groups (UK) ...... 118 Figure 4 7: Internet by age groups (US) ...... 118 Figure 4 8: Internet use by income (UK) ...... 119 Figure 4 9: Internet use by education (UK) ...... 120 Figure 4 10: Regular users by education (EU) ...... 120 Figure 4 11: Internet regular use disparity indicator (EU) ...... 121 Figure 4 12: Gadgets’ ownership among adults (US) ...... 123 Figure 4 13: Mobile internet penetration by market ...... 124 Figure 4 14: Use of mobile phone features (UK) ...... 125 Figure 4 15: % of teens who own a mobile phone, by age and income (US) ...... 125 Figure 4 16: Millennials and mobile phones (US) ...... 126 Figure 4 17: Millennials and text messages (US) ...... 127 Figure 4 18: Mp3 players among teens (US) ...... 127 Figure 4 19: Game consoles (left) and portable gaming devices (right) ...... 128 Figure 4 20: Conceptual typology of internet use ...... 129 Figure 4 21: User’s most frequent online activities ...... 130 Figure 4 22: Online activities by demographics (EU) ...... 130 Figure 4 23: Internet use to share content (EU) ...... 131 Figure 4 24: Internet use as a communication tool ...... 132 Figure 4 25: Internet as a diversion ...... 133 Figure 4 26: Monthly time spent watching online videos by ages (US) ...... 134 Figure 4 27: Use of video sharing sites nearly doubles from 2006 2009 ...... 135 Figure 4 28 – source: NetPop Research ...... 136
Page 6 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 29: Audience utilities, video and social media (left); time spent increase, video and social media (right) ...... 136 Figure 4 30: Increase in online reach of member community websites (i.e. social networks) (US) ...... 137 Figure 4 31: Member communities’ audience broken down by age ...... 137 Figure 4 32: Age groups and social media (US) ...... 138 Figure 4 33: Social Media Moms ...... 139 Figure 4 34: Social media users’ categories ...... 140 Figure 4 35: User groups (EU) ...... 141 Figure 4 36: User groups by country ...... 142 Figure 4 37: Users’ adoption of social media (US) ...... 143 Figure 4 38: Creativity and production online (UK) ...... 144 Figure 4 39: Adults posting blog comments (US) ...... 145 Figure 4 40: Users posting videos (US) ...... 145 Figure 4 41: Content sharing online (US) ...... 146 Figure 4 42: Online content customisation (US) ...... 147 Figure 4 43: Content sharing on social media ...... 147 Figure 4 44: Social media by gender (EU and US) ...... 149 Figure 4 45: Social media by average aggregate age groups (EU and US) ...... 150 Figure 4 46: Social media by age groups (EU and US) ...... 151 Figure 4 47: Social media by educational groups (EU and US) ...... 152 Figure 4 48: Social media by education (EU and US) ...... 153 Figure 4 49: Social media by income groups (EU and US) ...... 154 Figure 4 50: Social media by income (EU vs US) ...... 155 Figure 4 51: Use of social networks (US) ...... 160 Figure 4 52: (US data) ...... 161 Figure 4 53: Teens’ activities on social networking sites (US) ...... 162 Figure 4 54: Shift in member community websites’ audience ...... 163 Figure 4 55: Growth in use of online social networks (US) ...... 163 Figure 4 56: (US data) ...... 164 Figure 4 57: Social networks and mobile access ...... 165 Figure 4 58: Most popular website categories from mobile ...... 166 Figure 4 59: Social networking site user segments ...... 167 Figure 4 60: Increase in total amount of time spent on Facebook ...... 167 Figure 4 61: Increase in Facebook users by gender ...... 168 Figure 4 62: Facebook users by country ...... 168 Figure 4 63: Trends in Twitter and social network status updates ...... 169 Figure 4 64: Online adults who use Twitter or similar websites ...... 170 Figure 4 65: Twitter users by age groups ...... 170 Figure 4 66: Twitter metrics ...... 171 Figure 4 67: Mobile users more likely to tweet ...... 171
Page 7 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 68: Internet users age 18 44 more likely than other to use Twitter ...... 172 Figure 4 69: Adults blogging over time ...... 175 Figure 4 70: Age of collaborative bookmarking users ...... 176 Figure 4 71: Educational attainment of collaborative bookmarking users ...... 177 Figure 4 72: Educational attainment of collaborative bookmarking users ...... 177 Figure 4 73: Age groups and civic engagement activities ...... 180 Figure 4 74: Political activity by income ...... 180 Figure 4 75: Internet and broadband use by income ...... 181 Figure 4 76: Online/Offline civic engagement by different demographic groups ...... 182 Figure 4 77: Online and Offline Civic Participation by Internet users ...... 183 Figure 4 78: Social networking and Politics ...... 183 Figure 4 79: Content sharing and creation during 2008 US elections ...... 184 Figure 4 80: Use of online Government services ...... 185 Figure 5 191: The GoRequest iPhone application ...... 190 Figure 5 2: The cylcial nature of the policy making process ...... 191 Table 1: Social Media Categorisation ...... 19 Table 2: Most popular Social Media at a glance ...... 98 Table 3: Categorisation of the most popular Social Media ...... 101 Table 4: Candidate Social Media Platforms ...... 197
Page 8 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
1. Introduction In order to investigate the exploitation of Web 2.0 social media by government agencies in their public policy processes, through creating and publishing in these media ‘policy gadgets’ (padgets), initially it is necessary to form a deeper understanding of Web 2.0 from this perspective: as a space and means of political communication and interaction. In this direction this Deliverable 1.1 titled ‘Categorization of Web 2.0 Social Media and Stakeholder Characteristics’ aims at conducting from this perspective an in depth analysis of the existing tools and platforms in Web 2.0 serving various purposes, such as news sharing, social networking, publishing and broadcasting, communication and collaboration (i.e. Social Networks, Blogs, Wikis, Forums, Content and News Sharing Platforms, etc). Therefore this analysis does not aim at gaining a better understanding of Web 2.0 social media in general, but on the contrary focuses on some particular properties and elements of them which are associated to the objectives of the PADGETS project, and determine i) which parts of the social engagement is these tools can be used in the scope of the policy making process through policy gadgets, and ii) how. For this purpose it is necessary in various important Web 2.0 social media to analyse and categorise from this perspective the capabilities provided to the users, their demographics, their activities and also the type content they produce and the knowledge it contains, and identify categories of interest for this project. The findings from the above analysis will be used in the Deliverable D1.2 titled “ Standards, Interfaces & APIs for inter platform communication in Web2.0 Social Media’, in the Deliverables D2.1 titled ‘Padget Design and Decision Model for Policy Making’ and also for the planning and preparation of the pilots in the Deliverable D4.2 titled ‘Pilots Planning and Preparation’. These interrelations of this D1.1 Deliverable with other Deliverables of the project are shown in Figure 1.1. D1.1 Deliverable ‘Categorization of Web 2.0 Social Media and Stakeholder Characteristics’ D.1.2 Deliverable D2.1 Deliverable D4.2 Deliverable ‘Standards, Interfaces & APIs for ‘Padget Design and Decision ‘Pilots Planning and inter platform communication in Model for Policy Making’ Preparation’ Web2.0 Social Media’ FIGURE 1.1: Interrelations of the D1.1 Deliverable with other Deliverables The following sections of this introductory chapter provide an outline of the basic concepts of Web 2.0 (section 1.1) and Social Media (section 1.2), while a description of the methodology followed in this Deliverable and its structure is also presented in section 1.4. Page 9 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
1.1 Methodology and Structure of the Deliverable In order to achieve the abovementioned objective of this Deliverable (gaining a better understanding of aspects of Web 2.0 social media which are associated with political communication and interaction, and in general with the objectives of this project, so that we can determine which part of the social engagement in these media can be exploited for the purposes of our project and how), we followed a methodology consisting of three stages as presented in the following figure.
Figure 1.2: Methodological Approach for D1.1
I. Categorization of user capabilities and user activities in Web 2.0 Social Media, in order to identify the ones that can be exploited in this project (i.e. answer to the question: what are users doing in these media?). This stage is described in chapter 2 titled ‘Popular Web 2.0 media and user actions’, which includes an analysis of the main Web 2.0 social media platforms and their services and user activities. II. Categorization of content and knowledge that users create through their engagement in Web 2.0 Social Media, with the objective to identify content related to the policy making process (i.e. answer to the question: what kind of content are users creating in these media?). This stage is described in chapter 3 titled ‘Underlying Group Knowledge’, which includes an analysis of the main types of content one may come across while surfing in Web 2.0 as well as an attempt to give some perspectives to what is the purpose of these types of content. Also, the relevant IPTS studies are reviewed. III. Study on the profiles of the people using Web 2.0 Social Media tools and platforms today, by synthesizing the results of relevant studies and reports in international and country level, in order to determine the characteristics of their users, are identify the more suitable ones to be exploited in the policy making process (i.e. answer to the question: who is using these media?). This stage is described in chapter 4 titled ‘Stakeholder Analysis’, which includes an analysis of a general categorization of user profiles in Web 2.0 Social Media. Also, groups of users in the top Web 2.0 sites per sector are presented (focusing on Social Media, blogging, collaboration bookmarking and Virtual Worlds). Based on this analysis the most suitable media for the Policy Making Process are
Page 10 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
identified. The chapter concludes with sample scenarios used to illustrate practices or features that might be incorporated or further developed by following work packages in this project. IV. Initial selection of targeted social media and key thematic areas that the pilot organisations might support for the development of social media applications by this programme. This stage is described in chapter 5 titled ‘Implications for PADGETS, which includes an examination of the applications that have been developed on leading social media platforms for the use by government organisations in the policy making process as well as an analysis of the policy making process in the three pilot organisations participating in the programme. Finally, in chapter 6 titled ‘Conclusions’ we present the main conclusions drawn from the above analyses and their implications for the following workpackages of the project.
Page 11 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
2. Popular Web 2.0 media and user actions The section provides an overview of the current landscape of web 2.0 tools and platforms in order to get a better understanding of them and draw some first conclusions as to their potential as spaces of government citizens’ interaction. More specifically, it provides an initial categorization of the most popular Social Media tools and platforms, based on the examination of the existing web 2.0 tools and social media as well as on the review of pertinent literature. For each platform category the activities that users are allowed to perform are also recorded in order to isolate specific patterns of user actions in today’s social media that could be of use to the policy making process.
2.1 Basic Concepts of Web 2.0 The term “Web 2.0” is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web [1]. The fundamental characteristic of a Web 2.0 site is that it allows its users to interact with each other as contributors to the website's content, in contrast to non – interactive websites, where users are limited to the passive viewing of information that is provided to them. This term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly since the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004 [2] [3]. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end – users use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners – Lee, who called the term a “piece of jargon” [4] – precisely because he specifically intended the Web to embody these values in the first place. Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide “Network as platform” computing, allowing users to run software – applications entirely through a browser [3]. Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data. These sites may have an “Architecture of participation” that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it [2] [3]. The concept of Web – as – participation – platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem, a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the “participatory Web” [5], regarding the Web – as – information – source approach as a previous and less mature stage of it titled Web 1.0. However, at the same time is mentioned the impossibility of excluding group – members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from ‘sharing profits’, which drives some ‘rational members’ to withhold their contribution of effort and free – ride on the contribution of others [6]. This requires what is sometimes called Radical Trust by the management of the website. According to Best [7], the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom [8] and collective intelligence [9] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client – and server – side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards – oriented web browsers may use plug ins and software extensions to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide Page 12 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment now known as “Web 1.0”. According to Andrew McAfee Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features and techniques, with the acronym SLATES being to refer to them [10]:
- Search: Finding information through keyword search. - Links: Connects information together into a meaningful information ecosystem using the model of the Web, and provides low – barrier social tools. - Authoring: The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many rather than just a few web authors. In wikis, users may extend, undo and redo each other's work. In blogs, posts and the comments of individuals build up over time. - Tags: Categorization of content by users adding “tags” – short, usually one – word descriptions = to facilitate searching, without dependence on pre – made categories. Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as “folksonomies” (i.e., folk taxonomies). - Extensions: Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. - Signals: The use of syndication technology such as RSS to notify users of content changes. While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. The new Web 2.0 report from O'Reilly [11] is quite effective and diligent in interweaving the story of Web 2.0 with the specific aspects of Enterprise 2.0. It includes discussions of self – service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in the enterprise. The same report also makes many recommendations around starting small with pilot projects and measuring results, among a fairly long list. In Figure 1.2 we can see a Web 2.0 framework from [12] which illustrates many of its abovementioned fundamental characteristics.
FIGURE 1.2: Web 2.0 Framework [12] Page 13 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
2.2 Social Media Social media is an umbrella term for the mixing of information and communication technologies (digital words, sounds and pictures which are typically shared via the Internet) and social interaction for the co creation of value (cultural, societal or even financial). Social media support the democratization of knowledge and information and transform people from content consumers to content producers. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as a group of Internet – based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and allow the creation and exchange of user – generated content [14]. Businesses also refer to social media as user – generated content (UGC) or consumer – generated media (CGM). Social media utilization is believed to be a driving force in defining the current period as the “Attention Age” [15]. In this section we describe the main categories of social media. I. Communication - Blogs: e.g. Blogger, LiveJournal, Open Diary, TypePad, WordPress, Vox, ExpressionEngine, Xanga A blog (a contraction of the term “web log”) [16] is a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog. Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (Art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos (Video blogging), music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting). [17] - Micro blogging / Presence applications: e.g. FMyLife, Jaiku, Plurk, Twitter, Tumblr, Posterous, Yammer, Qaiku Microblogging is another type of blogging, featuring very short posts. [17] - Social networking: e.g. Facebook, Geni.com, Hi5, LinkedIn, MySpace, Ning, Orkut, Skyrock, Qzone, Vkontakte, RenRen, Kaixin, ASmallWorld, studivz, Xing, RunAlong.se, Bebo, BigTent, Elgg, Hyves, Flirtomatic A social network is a social structure made of individuals (or organizations) called “nodes”, which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, common interest, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of beliefs, knowledge or prestige. Social network analysis views social relationships in terms of network theory consisting of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. The resulting graph based structures are often very complex. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. Research in a number of academic fields has shown that social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in Page 14 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc determining the way problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals. In its simplest form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between all the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to measure social capital the value that an individual gets from the social network. These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines. [18] - Social network aggregation: e.g. NutshellMail, FriendFeed,dillidost.com Social network aggregation is the process of collecting content from multiple social network services. The task is often performed by a social network aggregator, which pulls together information into a single location [19], or helps a user consolidate multiple social networking profiles into one profile [20]. Various aggregation services provide tools or widgets to allow users to consolidate messages, track friends, combine bookmarks, search across multiple social networking sites, read RSS feeds for multiple social networks, see when their name is mentioned on various sites, access their profiles from a single interface, provide “lifestreams”, etc. [20]. Social network aggregation services attempt to organize or simplify a user's social networking experience [21], although the idea has been satirized by the concept of a “social network aggregator”. [22] - Events: Upcoming, Eventful, Meetup.com II. Collaboration - Wikis: e.g. Wikimedia, PBworks, Wetpaint A wiki is a website that allows the easy [23] creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG text editor. Wikis are typically powered by wiki software and are often used to create collaborative websites, to power community websites, for personal note taking, in corporate intranets, and in knowledge management systems. They may exist to serve a specific purpose, and in such cases users use their editorial rights to remove material that is considered “off topic” (such is the case of the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia). In contrast, open purpose wikis accept content without firm rules as to how the content should be organized. [24] - Social bookmarking (or social tagging): e.g. Delicious, StumbleUpon, Google Reader, CiteULike Social bookmarking is a method for Internet users to share, organize, search, and manage bookmarks of web resources. Unlike file sharing, the resources themselves aren't shared, merely bookmarks that reference them. Descriptions may be added to these bookmarks in the form of metadata, so that other users may understand the content of the resource without first needing to download it for themselves. Such descriptions may be free text comments, votes in favor of or against its quality, or tags that collectively or collaboratively become a folksonomy. Folksonomy, also called social tagging, is defined as “the process by which many users add metadata in the form of keywords to shared content” [25]. In a social bookmarking system, users save links to web pages that they want to remember and/or share. These bookmarks are usually public, and can be saved privately, shared only with specified people or groups, shared only inside certain networks, or another combination of public and private domains. The Page 15 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc allowed people can usually view these bookmarks chronologically, by category or tags, or via a search engine. Most social bookmark services encourage users to organize their bookmarks with informal tags instead of the traditional browser – based system of folders, although some services feature categories/folders or a combination of folders and tags. They also enable viewing bookmarks associated with a chosen tag, and include information about the number of users who have bookmarked them. Many social bookmarking services provide web feeds for their lists of bookmarks, including lists organized by tags; this allows subscribers to become aware of new bookmarks as they are saved, shared, and tagged by other users. As these services have matured and grown more popular, they have added extra features such as ratings and comments on bookmarks, the ability to import and export bookmarks from browsers, emailing of bookmarks, web annotation, and groups or other social network features [26][27]. - Social news: e.g. Digg, Mixx, Reddit, NowPublic The term social news refers to websites where users submit and vote on news stories or other links, thus determining which links are presented. Social news was pioneered by community sites like Slashdot and Fark. It became more popular with the advent of Digg, which combined Delicious and Slashdot's features. Digg and Delicious have a number of other competitors in the social news business, with one of their biggest being Reddit. More recently, the social news phenomenon has spawned a number of news aggregator sites. These collect and group articles based on growing web interest – presenting users with a reflexive news feed. [28] III. Social Multimedia Social multimedia can be defined as an online source of multimedia resources that fosters an environment of significant individual participation, and promotes community curation, discussion and re – use of content. Based on this definition, social multimedia offers different avenues for research and engineering in the multimedia domain, the results of which can significantly improve existing multimedia applications. Such activities may include analyzing community activity around multimedia resources, deriving metadata from social activity and resources, and pooling of content in social settings. Indeed, one way to look at social multimedia is the additional context it provides for us to understand and reason about multimedia content. The context adds to multimedia tools and applications and may enable improved content analysis. In other words, we can leverage existing human activity around multimedia content to facilitate our attempts to bridge the semantic gap, famously defined by Smeulders et al [29] as the discrepancy between the information that one can extract from the visual data and the interpretation that the same data holds for a user in a given situation. For instance, it is clear that if someone was able to review someone else’s well – organized trip down memory lane, there would be a great difference between the information one can perceive out of the multimedia documentation of the events and the experiences, thoughts and interpretations that the original documenter held and may still hold regarding these events. [30] - Photography and art sharing: e.g. deviantArt, Flickr, Photobucket, Picasa, SmugMug, Zooomr - Video sharing: e.g. YouTube, Viddler, Vimeo, sevenload, Zideo Page 16 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
- Livecasting: e.g. Ustream.tv, Justin.tv, Stickam, Skype, OpenCU - Music and audio sharing: e.g. MySpace Music, The Hype Machine, Last.fm, ccMixter, ShareTheMusic - Presentation sharing: e.g. slideshare, scribd IV. Reviews and opinions - Product reviews: e.g. epinions.com, MouthShut.com - Business reviews: e.g. Customer Lobby, yelp.com - Community Q&A: e.g. Yahoo! Answers, WikiAnswers, Askville, Google Answers V. Entertainment - Media and entertainment platforms: e.g. Cisco Eos - Virtual worlds: e.g. Second Life, The Sims Online, Forterra A virtual world is a genre of online community that often takes the form of a computer based simulated environment, through which users can interact with one another and use and create objects [31]. Virtual worlds are intended for its users to inhabit and interact, and the term today has become largely synonymous with interactive 3D virtual environments, where the users take the form of avatars visible to others graphically [32]. These avatars are usually depicted as textual, two dimensional, or three dimensional graphical representations, although other forms are possible [33] (auditory [34] and touch sensations for example). Some, but not all, virtual worlds allow for multiple users. The computer accesses a computer simulated world and presents perceptual stimuli to the user, who in turn can manipulate elements of the modeled world and thus experiences telepresence to a certain degree [35]. Such modeled worlds may appear similar to the real world or instead depict fantasy worlds. The model world may simulate rules based on the real world or some hybrid fantasy world. Communication between users has ranged from text, graphical icons, visual gesture, sound, and rarely, forms using touch, voice command, and balance senses. [36]. - Game sharing: e.g. Miniclip, Kongregate “Online gaming is a technology, rather than a genre, a mechanism for connecting players together rather than a particular pattern of gameplay”. Online games are played over some form of computer network, now typically on the Internet. One advantage of online games is the ability to connect to multiplayer games, although single – player online games are quite common as well. An online game is a game played over some form of computer network. This almost always means the Internet or equivalent technology, but games have always used whatever technology was current: modems before the Internet, and hard wired terminals before modems. The expansion of online gaming has reflected the overall expansion of computer networks from small local networks to the Internet and the growth of Internet access itself. Online games can range from simple text based games to games incorporating complex graphics and virtual worlds populated by many players simultaneously. Many online games have associated online communities, making online games a form of social activity beyond single player games. The rising popularity of Flash and Java led to an Internet revolution where websites could utilize streaming video, audio, and a whole new set of user interactivity. When Microsoft began packaging Flash as a pre installed component of IE, the Internet began to shift from a data/information spectrum Page 17 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc to also offer on demand entertainment. This revolution paved the way for sites to offer games to web surfers. Some online multiplayer games like World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XI and Lineage II charge a monthly fee to subscribe to their services, while games such as Guild Wars offer an alternative no monthly fee scheme. Many other sites relied on advertising revenues from on site sponsors, while others, like RuneScape, or Tibia (computer game) let people play for free while leaving the players the option of paying, unlocking new content for the members. [37] VI. Brand monitoring - Social media monitoring: e.g. Attensity Voice of the Customer, Sysomos Heartbeat - Social media analytics: e.g. Sysomos MAP VII. Other - Information Aggregators: e.g. Netvibes, Twine (website) The following Figure 1.3 illustrates the current social media landscape.
FIGURE 1.3: Social Media Landscape
2.3 Social Media Platforms Classification
2.3.1 Methodological Approach for classification Based on the above analysis, the scope of this section is to create a ‘map’ of the most popular social Media platforms that people use massively today.
Page 18 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Taking a look at “social media” it is difficult to comprehend the dizzying number of sites, tools and applications that are proliferating before our eyes. We could recently sample about 3,000 social media sites, tools and applications. Many sites and tools are similar and hard to differentiate. Other social media sites and tools are interconnected or cross functional, feeding or supporting each other on some level. Further, most of these sites and tools share similar features, such as user ratings, messaging, profiling, and “friending.” All of this creates some overlap and impacts how sites or tools may be meaningfully categorized. As an initial approach, we have focused to establish the more obvious categorization based on their main activities (such as Communicate, Collaborate, Share, Review/Rate & Express opinions) and purpose of use (Work/Business, Leisure, Democratic Engagement) as presented in the following table.
Activity/Purpose Work/Business Leisure Democratic Engagement
Social networks Professional Social network aggregation networks Dating networks Talk to your local MP Communicate Events Micro blogging/presence Blogging management Events management Bloggin Blogging Social bookmarking Policy idea suggestions Wikis Collaborate Wikis Wikis Social news Social news Social news Documents Photography and art sharing sharing Share Presentations Video sharing Livecasting sharing Music and audio podcasting Livecasting Livecasting Holiday reviews Public service review Product reviews Shops and restaurants Review/Rate/Ex Parliament activities’ Business reviews review press opinion monitoring Community Q&A Entertainment reviews Community Q&A Community Q&A
Table 1: Social Media Categorisation Additionally, we have examined the social media focusing on the number of their registered users (mainly we focused on those sites with more than 1.000.000 unique users) and produced a general description of each one referring to their main features, type of content, available languages, user engagement, accessibility and political representation. From this examination, it has been derived a consolidated table presenting the most popular Social Media tools and platforms classified according to their focus, top popularity, type of registration, number of unique users, multilingual support, Alexa ranking, political representation and basic category.
Page 19 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
2.3.2 Additional Features for Classification Apart from the initial categorisation of the Social Media based on their main activities and purpose as described in Table 1, we have used also some additional features in order to produce a more detailed classification. These features are presented as follows. Focus The classification of the social websites is accomplished by the support that the networks provide, like content and services. As content, we take into consideration the reason why the users join in these sites and create user profiles. Some of these reasons could be professional interface, social interaction (make friends, connect with friends, photo sharing) and more specialized social networks about art, music and specific countries (Cultures/Foreign Languages). Concerning the services, we can mention the multimedia, which maintain these sites. Top Popularity This feature is referred to the countries where the usage of each social network is the most famous, according to Alexa and Wikipedia. Type of Registration The majority of social networking sites have no restrictions as to who can join or when. Meanwhile, in some of them users are not permitted to sign in unless they satisfy some terms such as age boundaries. These sites are registration based, where a person simply fills out a form of required details such as name, location, e mail address and desired password. There are some sites where an existing connection to a user on a site is required before membership to that site can be obtained. For example, to become a member of Orkut, a non member would have to contact a friend or acquaintance who is already a member of the site and ask for an invitation, or alternatively an existing member would send an invitation to a non member to join the site. Number of Unique Users This attribute shows how many people are registered in each social network. The “Number of users” holds the primary role for choosing and analyzing the below fifty –three sites. Multilingual Support It is about the available languages, which the networks support. The number of languages depends on the country where the site is created and the general public which is aimed. Definitely, English language, which is the international language, is included to the majority of social networks apart from some exceptions. More specifically, there are some very popular sites in which are not used worldwide languages (Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian etc) and that is the reason why we just mention them without further information.
Page 20 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Alexa Ratings Alexa is a very powerful tool used to rank web site traffic. We used it in order to find out web site’s traffic stacks up against all the other competitors. This is one of the most accurate freely available tools to find out how well a site ranks up against millions of other sites on the Web. Political Representation This attribute shows if there is some type of political discussion or political content creation in general in the examined social media tool or platform (e.g. images or video associated with political opinions). Main Category Based on the examination of the existing Social Media, and also on the review of pertinent literature, initially four basic categories of web 2.0 tools and platforms were distinguished (as presented above) with respect to users’ activity, supporting communication, collaboration, sharing of resources (e.g. textual documents, images, video, etc.) and Review/Rating/Opinions Expressing). Therefore, this attribute shows in which category each Social Media belongs.
2.4 Description of Social media platforms In the following sections, we have examined the most popular web 2.0 social media having more than 1.000.000 unique users. Each of them was analyzed in detail as to the main features and capabilities it provides to the users, the type of content provided by them, the languages supported, its accessibility and also whether it hosts any type of political opinions/content/activities. The sites are presented per main category.
2.4.1 Platforms for Communication Examples of social communication media applications include:
2.4.1.1 Blogs:
Typepad
Description TypePad is a blogging service from company Six Apart Ltd. Originally launched in October 2003, TypePad is based on Six Apart's Movable Type platform, and shares technology with Movable Type such as templates and APIs, but is marketed to non technical users and includes additional features like multiple author support, photo albums and moblogging. TypePad now supports a LinkedIn application that pulls blog posts into LinkedIn. URL http://www.typepad.com/
Page 21 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Typepad
Logo
Main Features TypePad gives you complete control over what, when and how you publish content to your blog. You can create blog posts in minutes, from your desk or on the go, and make your blog stand out with our easy to use features. TypePad offers unlimited ways for you to customize the look and feel of your blog design. You can alter our design templates as much as you want right down to the pixel! TypePad offers you more flexibility to design the blog you want than any other blogging platform Measure Your Blog Traffic Build an Online Community TypePad makes it easy for people to find your blog. All of our blogs are search engine optimized so that readers looking for similar content can find you TypePad AntiSpam is a built in benefit of our hosted service. It allows genuine comments to make it through, and blocks invasive comments before they disrupt the conversation. We count on our bloggers to report any spam that does make it through, so that the system becomes more effective all the time TypePad provides numerous opportunities for you to make money on your site. From advertising to eCommerce, you can use your TypePad blog to create revenue and take your success to the bank Create a Podcast Add Widgets Add Web Pages If you belong to sites or web services like Facebook and LinkedIn, now you can connect them with your TypePad blog Type of Text, video, music, photos content Available 10 (English UK, Japanese, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Finish, Belgian, Languages Dutch, English US) User Publish a blog Engagement Create and edit posts Build a community Upload photos Accessibility Web browser and mobile phone Political N/A Representation
Page 22 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Xanga
Description Xanga is a website that hosts weblogs, photoblogs, and social networking profiles. Xanga's origins can be traced back to 1999, when it began as a site for sharing book and music reviews. URL http://www.xanga.com/ Logo
Main Features All Xanga members receive a "Xanga Site", a web site made up of a weblog, a photoblog, a videoblog, an audioblog, a "Pulse" (mini blog), and a social networking profile. Members also have the option of joining or making blogrings (groups). Type of Text, photos, videos content Available 3 (English etc) Languages User Comment on weblogs Engagement Upload photos and videos Join groups Send – receive e mails Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/storage/working papers/RHUL PIR Representation NPCU_Working_Paper 05_Anstead_Chadwick_Parties_Election_Campaigning_Internet_Comparative.pdf
LiveJournal
Description LiveJournal is a virtual community where Internet users can keep a blog, journal or diary. LiveJournal is also the name of the free and open source server software that was designed to run the LiveJournal virtual community. LiveJournal's differences from other blogging sites include its WELL like features of a self contained community and some social networking features similar to other social networking sites. LiveJournal was started on April 15, 1999 by Brad Fitzpatrick as a way of keeping his high school friends updated on his activities. URL http://www.livejournal.com/ Logo
Main Features Each journal entry has its own web page, which includes the comments left by other users. In addition, each user has a journal page, which shows all of his or her most recent journal entries, along Page 23 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
LiveJournal
with links to the comment pages. The most distinctive feature of LiveJournal is the "friends list," which gives the site a strong social aspect in addition to the blog services. The friends list provides various syndication and privacy services as described below. Each user has a friends page, which collects the most recent journal entries of the people on his or her friends list. Each user also has a "User Info" page, which contains a variety of data including contact information, a biography, images (linked from off site sources) and lists of friends, interests, communities and even schools which the user has attended in the past or is currently attending. LiveJournal also allows "voice posts" to their paid and sponsored users, where one can call into the system and record an entry. Currently LiveJournal has five account levels: basic (comprising approximately 95% of the network); plus (sponsored with advertising); "early adopters" who were registered prior to 2000; paid and permanent. Permanent accounts are normally not available to the "average user;" there have been occasional sale days or special offers, but such sales are not guaranteed in the future. Prior to March 12, 2008, "basic" accounts were ad free; in August, 2008, LiveJournal resumed new basic account creation but changed that account level to display ads to non logged in readers. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 32 Languages User Post to journals Engagement Leave comments Post photos Send receive messages Upload videos and photos Join a community Create a community Find friends Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (access to LiveJournal by installing the Windows mobile application on a mobile device) Political On April 22, 2009, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev opened his Representation own blog on the LiveJournal service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveJournal List of the politicians who are users in LiveJournal: o Garry Kasparov, username garry_kasparov, a Russian former World Chess Champion, writer, and political activist. o Boris Berezovsky, username platon elenin[, a.k.a. Platon Elenin, exiled Russian Jewish billionaire.
Page 24 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
LiveJournal o Alexander Lebedev, username alex lebedev, a Russian billionaire, member of the State Duma, former KGB agent, owner of a third of Aeroflot and part owner of Novaya Gazeta. o Valeria Novodvorskaya, username vnovodvorskaia, prominent dissident and critic of both the Soviet and succeeding Russian governments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_LiveJournal_users#Politicians “China Blocks LiveJournal” http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/03/72872 Finally LiveJournal has its own place where its users publish articles/opinions about politics http://www.livejournal.com/news and politics/
Page 25 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Blogger
Description Blogger is a blog storage service that allows private or multi user blogs with time stamped entries. In the 23th August in 1993 this service was launched by Pyra Labs and later in February 2003, it was bought by Google under certain terms. URL https://www.blogger.com Logo
Main Features In Blogger the registration is free. It offers to users the ability to create their own blog where they can share their thoughts about upcoming events or what is happening in their lives and generally whatever they find curious to talk about with the rest of the users. Users in order to create their blogs have to achieve a few steps, starting with photos, videos and more to the blog. It is free to post and it is even free to post as often as the user desires. The interface that someone uses in order to fix his blog it is easy and simply he can uses fonts, bold, italics or change the colours of his blog’s background. Every time that a change takes place, Blogger saves it automatically. The interface that the service provides helps each one add labels to his blog and make any changes in how the blog looks like. When a user is registered the service offers him an available URL and if he wants he can change it with a different URL. Blogger offers to every user a domain name and provides him with all the essential features in order to get started. He can choose from many templates for his blog and he can easily create a free Picasa Web Albums account where he can organize photos into albums. A user can upload a video through blogger on Google Video. When a user reads a post, has the opportunity to leave a comment and receives notification when another one leaves a comment too, or add or change a photo or a video of his blog. The notifications arrive to the user only if he is a member in a community of friends. A user has the ability to create a team blog or make his blog private and allow to certain users view his blog. Blogger has imposed some limitations on content storage and bandwidth for every user. The number of blogs is unlimited, the number of labels cannot be up to 20 unique labels for every post and the number of pictures has to be Up to 1 GB of total storage. The size of pages is limited to 1 MB and the size of pictures is limited to 250 KB for every picture. In conclusion, team members have to be 100. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 41 (English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Chinese, Languages Japanese, Korean etc.) User A user can post text, photos and videos to his blog Engagement Create a team blog Accessibility A user can post to his blog from a web browser A user can post to his blog from his mobile phone or through a secret Mail Page 26 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
to Blogger email address. He can even use the Blogger Post Gadget to publish posts directly from his iGoogle homepage. Political Some groups have been created dealing with politics in this service. Representation The sussex Politics Blog http://thesussexpoliticsblog.blogspot.com/ The Co operative Party http://politicsforpeople.blogspot.com/
2.4.1.2 Micro blogging / Presence applications:
Description Twitter is a social networking and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read messages known as tweets and it was created in 2006 by Jack Dorsey. URL http://www.twitter.com Logo
Main Features Twitter allows you to send and read other users updates (known as tweets) Twitter messages(tweets) are limited to 140 characters (microblogging) You can send and receive updates via the Twitter website, SMS(text messages), RSS (receive only), emails or a third party application. You can restrict delivery to your circle of friends (delivery to everyone is the default). You can use third party application such as Tweetie, Twitterrific, and Feedalizr to send Twitter messages. You can search for people by name or user name, import friends from other networks, or invite friends via email You can register at twitter sign up page and tweet Users can follow lists of authors instead of following individual authors. Type of content Text messages Available 6 (English, Italian, Spanish,German, French, Japanese) Languages User Engagement Send messages Read messages Search for people Follow lists of authors instead of following individual authors Accessibility Users can send and receive tweets via the Twitter website, Short Message Service (SMS) or external applications. While the service itself costs
Page 27 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
nothing to use, accessing it through SMS may incur phone service provider fees. Political Twitter was used by candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential Representation campaign throughout the race. Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama used it for publicity. The Nader–Gonzalez campaign updated its ballot access teams in real time with Twitter and Google Maps. Twitter use increased by 43 percent on the day of the United States' 2008 election. The traffic on Twitter.com rose 43% on Election Day in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/11/cnn_msnbc_web_sites_most_popu l.php In 2009, the Republican Party in Connecticut set up fake Twitter accounts in the names of 33 Democratic members of the state legislature. The Republicans used the accounts to send out tweets in the names of the Democrats. When Twitter, Inc. discovered the scheme, it shut down the 33 fake accounts, explaining the applicable company policy: "A person may not impersonate others through the Twitter service in a manner that does or is intended to mislead, confuse or deceive others." The Hartford Courant editorialized: "Republicans get an A for innovation but a D for ethics." In June 2009, following allegations of fraud in the Iranian presidential election, protesters used Twitter as a rallying tool and as a method of communication with the outside world after the government blocked several other modes of communication. On June 15 Twitter rescheduled a planned 90 minute maintenance outage after a number of Twitter users and the US State Department asked Twitter executives to delay the shutdown because of concerns about the service's role as a primary communication medium by the protesters in Iran. CNN's coverage of the conflict was criticized in tweets with the hashtag #CNNfail. Twitter was also used to organize DDoS attacks against Iranian government websites. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/443634 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061603391.html?hpid=topnews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter In August 2009, when American opponents of President Barack Obama's health insurance reform proposals attacked the British National Health Service, thousands of NHS users took part in a Twitter campaign expressing their support for the NHS with use of the #welovetheNHS hashtag. The hashtag was initiated by Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan, who said he wanted to use a twitter campaign "as a counterweight against the lies of the American right". The campaign also received the support of several politicians Page 28 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/52231,news comment,news politics,graham linehan we love the nhs twitter campaign and the power of twitter brown cameron hannan http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6021362/Gordon and Sarah Brown join US pro NHS Twitter campaign.html http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/52120,news comment,technology,how father ted creator graham linehan sparked nhs backlash on twitter against fox news glenn beck and the american right New York City activist Elliot Madison used twitter to report an order to disperse message from the Pittsburgh police during the 2009 G 20 Pittsburgh protests. Police raided Madison's hotel room, and one week later Madison's New York home was raided by FBI agents, who conducted a sixteen hour search. Police claim Madison and a co defendant used computers and a radio scanner to track police movements and then passed on that information to protesters using cell phones and the social networking site Twitter. Madison is being charged with hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility, and possession of instruments of crime. The FBI took miscellany such as refrigerator magnets, and a Curious George stuffed animal, despite that the warrant issued actually asked for evidence that indicated that potentially there were violations of federal rioting laws. In light of the United States Department of State's recent public support of twitter use in the politics of Iran, Moldova, and Honduras it is asked whether the State Department supports free speech in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/6/twitter_crackdown_nyc_activist _arrested_for When The Guardian newspaper was served in October 2009 with an unprecedented "super injunction" banning it from reporting on a parliamentary matter, it published a cryptic article reporting what little it could. The paper claimed that this case appears "to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights". Alan Rusbridger, the paper's editor, credited Twitter users with taking the initiative to uncover the muck that the press was not allowed to print, namely that the injunction was taken out by the London solicitors Carter Ruck on behalf of commodities trader Trafigura, who did not want public discussion of the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal and the resulting Minton Report (available on Wikileaks) The reporting injunction was lifted the following day, as Carter Ruck withdrew it before The Guardian could challenge it in the High Court. Rusbridger credited the rapid back
Page 29 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
down of Carter Ruck to Twitter,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter cite_note 122 as did a BBC article; the Wikipedia Reference Desk also quickly figured out what the cryptic article referred to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8304908.stm Twitter came to the attention of the Canadian House of Commons in October 2009 when MP Ujjal Dosanjh apologized on the floor for improperly "tweeting about matters that ought not to have been tweeted about" during in camera proceedings of a parliamentary committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/10/twoops.html In October 2009, Twitter once again came to the attention of the Canadian public when Vancouver Councilor Andrea Reimer tweeted regarding the British Columbia Minister of Housing and Social Development Rich Coleman's weight in response to provincial legislation proposed by Coleman to bring homeless people to shelters during extreme weather. Reimer posted that instead of police bringing homeless people to shelters during extreme weather that she was thinking of introducing legislation to have the police bring Coleman to Jenny Craig, an international weight loss company, on his next visit to Vancouver. Coleman responded by calling the comment amateurish and from a Councilor that "doesn't know any better."Reimer later apologized for the posting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091030/bc_Twitter_a pology_091030/20091030/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british columbia/story/2009/10/30/bc andrea reimer rich coleman tweet.html In December 2009, Supreme Federal Court of Brazil became the first court in the world to display items on the day planner of the ministers, to inform the actions that arrive daily to the Court, and the most important decisions made by them on Twitter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter Late December 2009 the Ukrainian non profit organization Interenet Ukraine launched a project aimed at monitoring 2010 Ukrainian presidential election based on Twitter. http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/56431/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter In Britain, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills released a Twitter strategy written for the use of other departments. The strategy advised the departments on why Twitter was used by the Government and how they could tweet and promote their doing so effectively. The ICAEW suggested that the document could also be Page 30 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Twitter useful to the private sector or as a general introduction to Twitter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://blogs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/digitalengagement/post/2009/07/21/Tem plate Twitter strategy for Government Departments.aspx In the United States, a number of environment agencies and NGOs are on Twitter. At the local level, police and fire departments are beginning to use Twitter to keep the public informed of incidents. Some of these departments, such as the Los Angeles Fire Department, issue up to 10 tweets per day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter In October 2008, a draft U.S. Army intelligence report identified Twitter as a "potential terrorist tool". The report said it "is already used by some members to post and/or support extremist ideologies and perspectives." http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/10/terrorist cell/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter David Saranga of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that on December 30, 2008, that Israel would be the first government to hold a worldwide press conference via Twitter to take questions from the public about the war against Hamas in Gaza. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2008/12/29/1001867/israeli consulate to hold public press conference via twitter On April 10, 2008, James Buck, a graduate journalism student at University of California, Berkeley, and his translator, Mohammed Maree, were arrested in Egypt for photographing an anti government protest. On his way to the police station Buck used his mobile phone to send the message “Arrested” to his 48 "followers" on Twitter. Those followers contacted U.C. Berkeley, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and a number of press organizations on his behalf. Buck was able to send updates about his condition to his "followers" while being detained. He was released the next day from the Mahalla jail after the college hired a lawyer for him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/25/twitter.buck/ On April 7, 2009, thousands of young anti communist protesters stormed the presidency and the parliament building in Chi in u, the capital of Moldova, accusing the government of electoral fraud. Information about these events was disseminated through Twitter using hashtag #pman. This hashtag came from the name of the central square in Chi in u: Pia a Marii Adun ri Na ionale. Twitter was also used to mobilize for the protests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter
Page 31 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/moldovans turn to twitter to organize protests/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/moldova/5119 449/Students use Twitter to storm presidency in Moldova.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi bin/blogs/techchron/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=58976 Msndc.com uses Twitter to promote its own site in which its repoter write articles about politics. http://twitter.com/msnbc_politics President Barack Obama's tech savvy administration has taken another leap into cyberspace with the roll out of 'White House 2.0.' linking it to social networks includung micro blogging service Twitter. 'Today the White House is taking steps to expand how the administration is communicating with the public,' the White House blog said Friday announcing the additions to the recently launched official Flickr photostream. http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/white house leaps onto facebook myspace twitter/ The White House has announced on its Twitter page that President Barack Obama will have a prime time news conference on Wednesday. http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/white house announces news conference next week via twitter/ Former vice presidential US candidate Sarah Palin is enjoying a huge fan following on social networking sites including Twitter. On Twitter she has close to 140,000 people following her, which again is second only to America's first man. The politician's feeds on these sites have helped put her opinions across on the national health care debate, on energy policy and on tort reform. http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/sarah palin enjoys huge fan following on facebook twitter/ Twitter’s part in Iran elections 2009 http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_postpones_mainten ance_as_iran_furor_builds.php According to a report today from the BBC, Iranians are able to text message one another for the first time since the day before the presidential elections. SMS service, which political dissidents had used to spread messages and organize protests, has been restricted since June 11, causing many Iranians to use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social sites to broadcast and communicate. Iran's broken digital communication infrastructure caused many Page 32 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Iranians to turn to services such as Twitter, using proxies to work around government restrictions for web use. Twitter became so integral to Iranians' communication, particularly with the wider global community, that the U.S. State Department asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance which would have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the election and resultant protests. Other services rushed to add Persian translation features. Hopefully, the unblocking of text messaging in Iran is a sign that communication channels are returning to normal. So, does this mean that everyone's new favorite color, "Solidarity Green," will begin to fade away from social web avatars sometime soon? Once the country and its government emerge from crisis mode, what news will come from Iran, and what will the Internet have to say about it? http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/irans_mobile_sms_up_runn ing_will_twitter_start_to.php The effects of Twittering have found successfully their way, albeit relative, into the hearts and minds of the political pundits and reporters as they Twitter away, sharing their views with high powered politicians. President Obama quite successfully maneuvered the social networking stratosphere with Facebook, MySpace and Twitter and with its help, cinched the presidency. He was able to gather large, massive followings, much of which is still growing even until today. He has used these platforms to further his agenda and to share his political message. Since what he has done with these platforms is such a success, many other politicians are taking note of it and using it for their own purposes. Obama’s staunch political opponent, John McCain, seemed to have been a reluctant one who did not go as far as Obama did in finding and securing the online vote like Barack did. Did it perhaps cause him the presidency? Could he have increased his chances had he embraced social media? No one can say for sure whether or not heavy networking on these social scenes could have helped, or even hurt his chances. But one thing is for sure and that is that social networking works, it works well and its here to stay. Suggestion: get on the social networking train! Recently, George Stephanopoulos interviewed John McCain on what was a first time interview on the social networking powerhouse of Twitter. The full transcript is available to read, but what was even more interesting about the interview was the way that G. Stephanopoulos (Good Morning America Anchor and ABC News Chief Political Correspondent) gathered his material for the interview: He asked follow Twitterers. Twitter does it again! Aside from it being a powerful tool for marketing and networking, politics is becoming a heavy hitter component of the social networking arsenal. People are doing more than connecting and Tweeting on their sites. But, what does social networking mean for politics? Politicians must learn to go where their voters are. If their voters want to
Page 33 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
hear the issues and their take on them, they should deliver it to them in a format that they can readily accept and understand. The world has rapidly moved toward technology and there is absolutely no slowing down in terms of technology, new developments and speed. The smartest and best thing for anyone to do is to get on board. Including politicians. It just makes sense. Did the social networking component have any bearing on your voting decision this past election? Do you think it’s at all critical for a politician to have a MySpace page, or do you think you’d like to know what their having for lunch at any given day? Do you think it’s silly or is it something that needs attention? http://www.corporate eye.com/blog/2009/03/the effects of twitter on politics its not just for profits/ How Do Politicians Use Twitter? A Case Study of Rep. Laura Brod http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/07/how_do_politici ans_use_twitter.php Politics Twitter Lists http://tweepml.org/tag/politics/
2.4.1.3 Social networking:
Facebook Description Facebook is a social networking website owned by Facebook Inc. URL http://www.facebook.com Logo
Main Features A user is registered in facebook free. The user’s profile is private. A member can create a profile with photos, personal information such as his name, his country, the name of city he lives in and his age, contact information including a valid e mail address and a list of his personal interests. A user can send or receive e mails either private or public or using a chat feature. Using this social network the user has the ability of adding new friends. A user can update his personal profile sending notifications to friends about him. A member has the opportunity to join networks organized by city, workplace, and school or college. He can join several groups some of Page 34 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
which are created from organizations as a mean of advertising, or create his own interesting group. Users can upload an unlimited number of photos (200 photos per album) and have the ability to "tag", or label users in a photo Members can change their private settings and decide what is going to be visible in their profile. Users can utilize plain. Wall, a space on every user's profile page that allows friends to post messages for the user to see Pokes, which allows users to send a virtual "poke" to each other (a notification then tells a user that they have been poked) Status, which allows users to inform their friends of their whereabouts and actions News Feed appears on every user’s homepage and indicates the information that is updated or upcoming events. Users can send gifts to their friends Marketplace allows users to post free classified ads Events give to user updated information and events that are going to happen and video lets the users to upload their favorite videos. Facebook events are a way for members to let friends know about upcoming events in their community and to organize social gatherings. Events require an event name, network, host name, event type, start and end time, location, and a guest list of friends invited. Events can be open, closed, or secret. When setting up an event the user can choose to allow friends to upload photos or videos. Users can play games (Texas HoldEm Poker, Mafia Wars, FarmVille etc.) Type of Text, video, photos content Available 63 Languages User Invite friends Engagement Send – receive e mails Chat with friends Upload photos and videos Tag Poke Post free ads Send gifts Play games Join groups Organise social gatherings Accessibility Mobile (iPhone, blackberry, Nokia S60 devices, Motorola Droid), web browser
Page 35 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Political In USA in the 5th January of 2008 Democratic and Republican debates took place. Representation In that day facebook in cooperation with the ABC and Saint Anselm College allowed users to give live feedback from the debates. Members joined in groups of the two parts of the debate and organized topics of discussion. Over 1.000.000 users installed the application “US politics” in order to take part in these groups. This use of facebook showed how popular the service was and how immediate the response of people and the general involvement in elections of 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Politics/story?id=3899006&page=1 http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6187779654&topic=3582 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4091460&page=1 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/04/politics/uwire/main4568563.shtml In Greece, the four political parties that obtained the greater majority of votes in elections of 2009 did have a homepage in facebook. They also had supporters and groups in which they promoted their plans, videos and photos of their speeches and tried to attract as more users as possible http://www.facebook.com/neadhmokratia http://www.facebook.com/pages/63661884/17484026282 http://www.facebook.com/pages/ KKE KOMMOUNISTIKO KOMMA ELLADAS/117263823056 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5995388839 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32534672292 http://www.facebook.com/george.a.papandreou In England the leaders of Labour, Conservatives and Greens had pages in facebook promoting themselves through videos, photos and conversations on their wall http://www.facebook.com/labourparty?v=app_2513891999#/labourparty?v=wall http://www.facebook.com/conservatives http://www.facebook.com/thegreenparty#/thegreenparty?v=wall http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tony Blair/11845614865#/pages/Tony Blair/11845614865?v=wall http://www.facebook.com/DavidCameron#/DavidCameron?v=info http://www.facebook.com/pages/Caroline Lucas/8948360263#/pages/Caroline Lucas/8948360263?v=wall
Qzone Description Qzone is a social networking website, which was created by Tencent in 2005. URL http://qzone.qq.com Logo
Main Features A user can write blogs A user can keep diaries Send photos Page 36 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Qzone
Listen to music. Users can set the background of Qzone and accessories based on their preferences so that every Qzone is customized to the user's taste. Most services of Qzone are not free; only after buying the "Canary Diamond" can users access every service without paying extra. Type of content Text,photos,music Available 1 (Chinese) Languages User Engagement Write blogs Keep diaries Send photos Listen to music Accessibility Web browser A mobile version is available at extra cost Political N/A Representation
MySpace
Description MySpace is a social networking website. Its headquarters are in Beverly Hills, California, US, where it shares an office building with its immediate owner, News Corp. Digital Media, owned by News Corporation. URL http://www.myspace.com Logo
Main Features Bulletins: Bulletins are posts that are posted on to a "bulletin board" for everyone on a MySpace user's friends list to see. Bulletins can be useful for contacting an entire friends list without resorting to messaging users individually. Some users choose to use Bulletins as a service for delivering chain messages about politics, religion, or anything else and sometimes these chain messages are considered threatening to the users, especially the ones that mention bad luck, death, or topics similar to that.[34] They have also become the primary attack point for phishing. Bulletins are deleted after ten days. Groups: MySpace has a Groups feature which allows a group of users to share a common page and message board. Groups can be created by anybody, and the moderator of the group can choose for anyone to join, or to approve or deny requests to join. MySpaceIM: In early 2006, MySpace introduced MySpaceIM, an instant messenger that uses one's MySpace account as a screen name. A MySpace user logs in to the client using the same e mail associated with his or her MySpace account. Unlike other parts of MySpace, MySpaceIM Page 37 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
MySpace
is stand alone software for Microsoft Windows. Users who use MySpaceIM get instant notification of new MySpace messages, friend requests, and comments. MySpaceTV: A service similar to the YouTube video sharing website. MySpace has been showing videos as early as 2006, but it has changed it name to MySpaceTV for a while. In 2009, MySpaceTV has reverted back to MySpace Video once again. Applications: In 2008, MySpace introduced an API with which users could create applications for other users to post on their profiles. The applications are similar to the Facebook applications. In May 2008, MySpace had added some security options regarding interaction with photos and other media. MySpace News: Displays news from RSS feeds that users submit. It also allows users to rank each news story by voting for it. The more votes a story gets, the higher the story moves up the page. MySpace Classifieds: Full service classifieds listing offered beginning in August 2006. It has grown by 33 percent in one year since inception. MySpace Classifieds was launched right at the same time the site appeared on the internet. MySpace Karaoke: Launched April 29, 2008, ksolo.myspace.com is a combination of MySpace and kSolo, which allows users to upload audio recordings of themselves singing onto their profile page. Users' friends are able to rate the performances. A video feature is not yet available, but Tom Anderson, MySpace co founder and president, states that it is in the works. MySpace Polls: MySpace Polls is a feature on MySpace that was brought back in 2008 to enable users to post polls on their profile and share them with other users MySpace forums: MySpace uses an implementation of Telligent Community for its forum system Type of content Text, videos, photos, music Available 15 Languages User Engagement Search for friends, find old friends, make new friends Upload pictures & videos Add music Send messages Create groups, join groups Post to forums Accessibility There are a variety of environments in which users can access MySpace content on their mobile phone. American mobile phone provider Helio released a series of mobile phones in early 2006 that can utilize a service known as MySpace Mobile to access and edit one's profile and Page 38 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
MySpace
communicate with, and view the profiles of, other members. Additionally, UIEvolution and MySpace developed a mobile version of MySpace for a wider range of carriers, including AT&T, Vodafoneand Rogers Wireless. Political During the 2008 presidential election in the United States, candidates set up Representation MySpace profiles, presumably in an effort to attract younger voters. Most profiles feature photos, blogs, videos, and ways for viewers to get involved with campaigning. MySpace features these politicians' profiles on its front page in the "Cool New People" section, on what appears to be a random rotation. Many political organizations have created MySpace accounts to keep in touch with and expand their membership base. These range from larger organizations like the John Birch Society and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to smaller locally focused environmentalist groups and Food Not Bombs activists. A lot of interested articles have posted at MySpace, like: Community broadens online campaign activity by launching site devoted to U.S. presidential contest. http://www.pcworld.com/article/129987/myspace_enters_politics.html MySpace now available in China minus politics and religion http://texyt.com/China+MySpace+censorship+politics+religion+064+monitor The Future President, on Your Friends List http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/fashion/18myspace.html
Windows Live Spaces Description Windows Live Spaces (MSN Spaces) is Microsoft's blogging and Social Networking platform. The site was originally released in early 2004 under the MSN Spaces name to compete with other social networking sites. URL http://spaces.live.com Logo Main A user can add or delete features. Features The user can drag and drop sections of his Windows Live Spaces profile to make it look just the way he wants. There are several different layouts to choose from, to design the Windows Live Spaces profile and many different themes. The colors of just about anything on the page can be changed. Windows Live Spaces has an IM program that the user can use right from his Windows Live Spaces profile, which lets you keep in touch with friends easily. A user can add a blog and photo album to Windows Live Spaces profile page. A user can add music and video to Windows Live Spaces profile hosted elsewhere. To sum up basic functionality of Windows Live Spaces includes:
Page 39 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Windows Live Spaces
Blogs including support for comments, trackbacks, and RSS Photos including support for grouping by album, comments, and RSS Lists including Music lists, Movie lists, Book lists, and support for RSS Friends including tags and notes on friends and support for RSS Profile including basic info, personal info (defaulted to non public), work info, and social info Guestbook for visitors to comment on the space Type of Text, photos, videos, music content Available 48 Languages User Invite friends Engagement Send – receive mails Send photos and videos Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political Philippines star 'sorry' in election campaign row. Philippine talk show host Kris Representatio Aquino has apologised after she provoked a fellow celebrity into launching a n campaign against her presidential candidate brother Benigno Aquino. http://arabia.msn.com/News/entertainment/AFP/2010/March/1281006.aspx? ref=rss Habbo
Description Habbo is a social network focused on teenagers. URL http://www.habbo.com Logo
Main Features It has created a virtual world called Hotel. In the habbo, 31 communities have been created and the users are from 13 to 18 years old. It is a social network where teenagers communicate with each other, play games and have fun. Entering the virtual world, the users create profiles and especially, characters that are called avatars. Avatars have different kinds of shape, color, facial features and, usually, tend to look like their users in the real world. The users can explore their community and play lots of games, contact with others, make friends, create a virtual home with all the essential equipment and furniture and generally express themselves in any way. They have also the ability to join groups and organize events or gatherings. Users have access to Habbo Hotel either from Habbo sites or from Page 40 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Habbo
another social network, facebook. In facebook, all communities are available and it is more easily for the user to find his friends and exchange their experiences in the virtual world of habbo. In order to enter the Habbo world a user doesn’t have to pay, but if he desires to acquire services of a higher level he has to pay with a credit card. Habbo uses tools like automatic language filtering, user education and active moderation. This means that the creators of habbo are in constant control of the new users and always pay attention in the conversations. In this way, some users are obliged to leave the community and the environment of the service remains safe. Some users are provided with a reporting tool in order to inform the staff when content seems to be inappropriate. Habbo’s users are provided with lots of information so that they educate themselves in a more rapid rhythm. Type of content Text Available 31 Languages User Engagement Play games Join groups Make friends Communicate with others Accessibility Web browser Political In this social network users have the ability to appear in their profile’s Representation page if they are interested in politics or not http://www.habbo.com/tag/politics
Orkut Description Orkut is Google’s version of a social networking website. The service is designed to help users meet new friends and maintain existing relationships. The website is named after its creator, Google employee Orkut Büyükkökten. This website was created and officially launched in 2004. URL http://www.orkut.com Logo
Main Features A user can create and join a wide variety of online communities to discuss current events, reconnect with old school mates or even exchange favorite recipes.
Page 41 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Orkut
Before getting to know an orkut member, user can read their profile and even see how they're connected to him through the friends network. To join orkut, a user has to sign in with Google Account and begin to create profile right away. Orkut has a large number of members, from all around the world. Orkut system is easy to use. Functions Communities: There are lots of communities you can join to meet like minded friends. Photo Album: Add photos to your online Orkut photo album. Scrapbook: Not only can you add to your scrapbook but your friends can too. No Music or Video: There is no music or video to add to your Orkut profile and no way for you to add your own. Type of content Text, photos Available 48 Languages User Engagement Connect with friends and family using scraps and instant messaging Discover new people through friends of friends and communities Share videos, pictures, and passions all in one place Join communities Discuss current events Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, Android, Windows mobile, Blackberry, Nokia Symbian , Java Samsung LG and Sony Ericsson phones) Political India’s election campaigns. Parties, candidates and NGOs (non Representation governmental organizations) in the country are increasingly using Web 2.0 tools to campaign and raise awareness among voters. http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044908,62053192,00.htm Election campaigns go online in India. All the parties have special internet units along with their media group that leads their campaigns over the internet. Both the Congress and BJP have their unofficial Orkut communities. While the BJP has almost 18.5K members the Congress has just over 10K members. Interestingly while searching for Congress or BJP at Orkut the communities ‘We hate congress’ and ‘We hate BJP’ also comes among the first few results.In India these online sentiments can never be taken as that of the aam aadmi. These political parties still has to depend lot on traditional road shows and door to door campaigning to get their support. Hopefully these online promos might bring more youth to the polling station. And who know in the coming Parliament elections we might see some Google ads of these political parties. http://www.nikpages.com/election campaigns goes online in india/ Page 42 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Orkut
India. On October 10, 2006, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench served a notice on Google for allowing a hate campaign against India. This referred to a community on Orkut called 'We Hate India', which initially carried a picture of an Indian flag being burned and some anti India content. The High Court order was issued in response to a public interest petition filed by an Aurangabad advocate. Google had six weeks to respond. Osama bin Laden fan clubs build online communities. Al Qaeda sympathizers are using Orkut, to rally support for Osama bin Laden, share videos and Web links promoting terrorism and recruit non Arabic speaking Westerners, according to terrorism experts and a survey of the sites. This "community" on Orkut declares, "The World Needs More Osamas." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006 03 08 Orkut al qaeda_x.htm
Friendster
Description Friendster is a social network. It has 90.000.000 registered users. It was founded in 2002 and its headquarters are in Sidney, Australia. Until September 2007 it was available only in English. From 2007 till January 2009, 10 more languages were added which are Filipino, Thai, Malay, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish and Friendster became very popular in Southeast Asia. Nowadays, over the 70% of people worldwide have the ability to use this service online. URL http://www.friendster.com/ Logo
Main Features Users of this website can enter content in any language. Friendster Asian languages and others on a single domain so that users from all over the world can communicate with each other. Members have the opportunity to make friendships, contact with them, talk to each other, create strong bonds with one another and maintain them. They can share information, photos, videos and content through their conversations using the contact list. Members can post comments on photos or videos of another user, or talk about their interests and hobbies and have a date if they desire. The users have the ability to join to their favorite groups and be informed about the upcoming events and participate.
Page 43 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Friendster
A user can view another member’s profile. In Friendster 40 different entities have created a fan profile. An entity could be a famous artist, actor, model, musician or organization. A profile like that helps them because through their fans they promote themselves. Their fan profile is accessible not only to the members of this website, but also to users of others social networks. That move has as a result a rapid growth of fans and an even more successful promotion. Fans have the ability to be informed for their latest news, their concerts or their appearances. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 12 Languages User Make friendships Engagement Talk to each other Share information, photos, videos and content Post comments on photos or videos of another user, or talk about their interests and hobbies and have a date if they desire. Users can join their favorite groups and be informed about the upcoming events and participate Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political A political forum has been created and it is called politicalarena.com. In Representation the forum discussions have been made not only from the members of Friendster but also from politicians that desired to take part in the conversations. http://politicalarenaph.blogspot.com/2009/09/friendster of politics launched comelec.html
hi5 Description Hi5 is a social networking site and it was created by Ramu Yalamanchi, who is an Indian entrepreneur, at June 27, 2003. Its revenues amount to $10.9 million and Alexa Page ranking is 51. Today, the users, who have been registered, are over 80.000.000 but no children allowed. Registrations are opened only to people 13 and older. Although created and headquartered in the United Stages, it is more popular in other countries, particularly in Latin America, being ranked 37th in the world only among people who have the Alexa toolbar installed on their browser but only 84th in the US. It is very known in India, Thailand, Portugal, Mongolia, Romania, Jamaica, Central Africa, also. URL http://www.hi5.com/
Page 44 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
hi5
Logo
Main Features Users create an online profile in order to show information such as interests, age and hometown and upload user pictures where users can post comments. The user can create personal photo albums and set up a music player in the profile. Users can send friend requests via e mail to other users. When a person receives a friend request, he may accept or decline it, or block the user altogether. If the user accepts another user as a friend, the two will be connected directly or in the 1st degree. The user will then appear on the person's friend list and vice versa. Some users opt to make their profiles available for everyone on Hi5 to view. Other users exercise the option to make their profile viewable only to those people who are in their network. The network of friends consists of a user's direct friends (1st degree), the friends of those direct friends (2nd degree) and the friends of the friends of direct friends (3rd degree). Hi5 has been using spam methods to gain more users. It sent an invitation e mail to all your Gmail contacts if you weren't paying attention at the registration process. Type of content Text, photos, music Available 40 Languages User Engagement Invite friends Create personal photo albums and set up a music player in the profile Post comments Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political Recently, an article was published at site of HI5, which is referred to a Representation politic problem. A woman of Thailand became the US citizen in June of 2007 legally. However, she didn’t vote for next the US president and she since has dim view about US government. http://appleland.hi5.com/friend/p226694590 Apple_Rowan html There is a politic group in HI5 and the name of category is “Government and Politics. Mehran Asghar created it at December 31, 2004 and today it has 783 members. http://www.hi5.com/friend/group/118053 Politics front html
Tagged Description Tagged.com is a social networking site founded in 2004 and based in San Francisco, California, United States. Page 45 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Tagged
URL http://www.tagged.com Logo
Main Features Tagged members can play popular and exclusive social games, meet new people based on suggestions, and share tags and virtual gifts. After signing up for a free account, Tagged users can customize their profile page, in which users can upload photos and albums, receive and accept messages from other users, post a biography about themselves and their interests, send virtual "winks" to each other, and post status updates to inform their friends of their whereabouts and actions. Users can see which other users have recently viewed their profile, send virtual tags to their friends, and sort videos by most viewed, top rated and most liked. Users may send virtual gifts to their friends. Gifts are bought with "gold" which users can buy with actual money (the site allows you to buy via Paypal, cash, Amazon payments or by telephone) or by completing special offers or tasks. There are visual chat rooms in which users engage in real time online chat in different "rooms" according to their age and mood. With a tendency towards relationships and dating, Tagged allows users to send and receive notifications for "Luv", "Winks" and "Meet Me", a rating engine that allows users to rate the attractiveness of photos submitted voluntarily by others. Online video games featured on the site include Zynga games such as "Poker", "Pets", where users can earn cash to virtually buy people as pets, and "Mafia Wars". Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 7 (English, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, German and Bahasa Languages Melayu) User Engagement Users can upload photos and albums Receive and accept messages from other users Leave comments Post a biography about themselves and their interests Send virtual "winks" to each other Users can post status updates to inform their friends of their whereabouts and actions. Users may send virtual gifts to their friends Users can chat on line Play games Accessibility Web browser (very limited functionality on iPhones, Blackberries and other mobile devices)
Page 46 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Tagged
Political N/A Representation Vkontakte
Description Vkontakte is the most popular social network service in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Because of its design and functionality, VKontakte is often claimed to be a clone of Facebook, accommodating not only a similar concept, but also a comparable business model. However, its incorporation of other features makes it more like YouTube, Pandora, and MySpace rolled into one, with an interface highly reminiscent of Facebook. URL http://vk.com/ Logo
Main Features The site’s functionality includes: personalized pages easy access to friends pages and news a photo and videohosting a simple messaging system groups that users can participate in notes ability to host audiofiles in groups and personal pages "Opinions" function allowing one to express personal thoughts about a friend on the network anonymously "Offers" to ask people whether one wants to do something together with the user "Questions" to answer the question that is asked by user "Applications", containing Flash API based games, tools, chat rooms etc. Type of content Text, videos, photos Available 19 (English, Russian, Ukrainian, Azerbaijani, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Languages French, Chinese, Polish, Hungarian, Slovak, Serbian, Greek, Albanian, Romanian, Czech, Belarusian, and Georgian) User Invite friends Engagement Send messages Chat with friends Upload photos and videos Express opinions Make offers Make questions Play games Join groups
Page 47 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Vkontakte
Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone) Political Socialisation sites Vkontakte.ru and Odnoklassniki.ru could be Representation suspended in Ukraine. The decision was taken by the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Iulia Timosenko. Suspension of the sites is planned for February 1. Prime Minister from Kiev considers these socialization Russian sites have a negative influence on Ukrainian Internet consumers. In addition, the sites targeted by the decision of the Ukrainian Prime Minister is considered to destabilize the sociopolitical situation in Ukraine. The plan to block these sites was achieved by the Security Service of Ukraine, and this could be done in the night of January 31, with two weeks until the second round of presidential elections Ukraine. On the Internet already appeared several users Ukrainian reactions, stating they are shocked by the decision of Kiev. Some security experts consider blocking these sites will suggest more groups of hackers to attack government sites. Party of Regions of Ukraine didn't confirme nor denied this information. Vitalii Homutinnik, member of this formation, declared his party will do everything possible to respect the freedom of communication of Ukrainian citizens. Secretariat of the Ukrainian presidency declared its attitude for freedom of communication of Ukrainians, considering it the greatest achievement of the Ukrainian people. http://www.jurnal.md/en/news/odnoklassniki ru and vkontakte ru could be suspended in ukraine 166533/ Russian Youth Charged for Online Extremism. The Moscow Times reports that prosecutors in the northern Russian port region of Arkhangelsk have opened a criminal case against a student for “inciting ethnic hatred through pictures and comments posted on the Internet,” which could lead to a two year prison sentence if convicted. MT continues: The student posted pictures “humiliating Africans and Jews as ethnic groups,” as well as comments inciting ethnic and national hatred and “accessories resembling Nazi ones” on the Vkontakte.ru social network, the Investigative Committee said on its web site on Wednesday. The Russian Internet is generally a surprisingly open space when compared to broadcast media (particularly TV), and Russia has rarely prosecuted bloggers for online speech, especially when compared to countries like Iran and China that go to great lengths to limit speech they disagree with. Those cases where bloggers have been charged usually revolve around extremist or racist commentary. The Independent reported recently that the Kremlin is now concerned with Russian nationalist groups it has long tolerated (and even encouraged), but that are now seen as a threat to national security. According to The Independent, Russia’s large migrant population, mostly from neighboring former Soviet states, are increasingly being made scape goats for rising poverty and unemployment caused by the economic crisis and diminished oil revenues. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/2009/05/
Page 48 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Flixster
Description Flixster is a social network with 63.000.000 users. It is a movie site and is available only in England. It was founded by Joe Greenstein in 2007 and its base is in San Francisco, CA. URL http://www.flixster.com/ Logo
Main Features This service offers to its users a wide range of movies which they can watch, discuss the story at the end and recommend it if they liked it or not. Users can create their own profiles, invite friends, rate movies and actors, and post movie reviews as well. Users have the ability to share movie ratings, to join groups with similar aspect of view and find new that interest them. In its official site, with much more details, there is a list of tools which the user can utilize. There is a list with the movies including photos, trailers, ratings, showtimes and the actors that perform in each movie. The profile of the user contains his list with his favorite movies, actors, videos and ratings. He can view popular celebrity photos, read the latest movie news, and watch video clips from popular movies. There is a list of friends that the user communicates with in order to discuss about the movies and adopt similar points of view. The user is able to add a friend and shave a conversation if he desires. The user has the opportunity to contact with a friend or meet him in forums related with movies. He can have fun and entertain himself playing on line games or quizzes and tests or he can watch streaming videos and TV shows. Type of content Text, photos, videos, movies Available 1 (English) Languages User Engagement Invite friends Watch a wide range of movies Rate movies and actors Post movie reviews Join groups Contact with a friend in forums View popular celebrity photos Read the latest movie news Watch video clips from popular movies Play online games Watch streaming videos and TV shows Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, Blackberry, Palm Pre, Adroid)
Page 49 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Flixster
Political In this social website a group has been created dealing with politics. Representation http://www.flickr.com/groups/tbgpolitics/ Netlog
Description Netlog (formerly known as Facebox and Bingbox) is a Belgian social networking website, specifically targeted at the European youth demographic. In July 2003, Lorenz Ogaert and Toon Coppens founded Netlog in Ghent, Belgium. URL http://www.netlog.com Logo
Main Features Members can create their own web page, extend their social network, publish their music playlists, share videos, post blogs and join groups. Once registered, users can join "clans" which are social groups. As well as create their own web page, post their blog and playlists, publish their own music, share videos and find new friends to extend their social network. Using its localization technology, Netlog is able to personalize each member's profile and ensure that all content be geotargeted. Thus, providing it's users with an easy localized search that displays profiles relevant to his/her community. Type of content Text, photos, videos, music Available 29 (Afrikaans, Albanian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese, Croatian, Languages Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish) User Engagement Add friends Join groups Share videos, photos Post blogs Send – receive messages Publish music playlists Play games Add events Chat Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, iPod Touch) Political A group has been created at Netlog, in which are posted politic Representation articles. The link is: http://en.api.netlog.com/groups/politics/myfriends Page 50 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Description LinkedIn is a business oriented social networking site. Founded in December 2002 and launched in May 2003, it is mainly used for professional networking. LinkedIn is headquartered in Mountain View, California, with offices in Omaha, Chicago, New York and London. URL http://www.linkedin.com/ Logo
Main Features Allows registered users to maintain a list of contact details of people they know and trust in business Users have to be 18 and older The people in the list are called Connections Users can invite anyone (whether a site user or not) to become a connection This list of connections can be used in a number of ways (find jobs, people and business opportunities recommended by someone in one's contact network or employers can list jobs and search for potential candidates) Users research companies with which they may be interested in working. When typing the name of a given company in the search box, statistics about the company are provided. Type of content Text, photos Available 6 (Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese and Spanish) Languages User Engagement Find past and present colleagues and classmates quickly Invite friends Discover inside connections when you’re looking for a job or new business opportunity. Ask questions Create groups Join groups Send and receive e mails Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political LinkedIn’s site has published different articles, which are referred to Representation politic issues. For example: “Obama using LinkedIn for politics” or “ Campaigns & Elections’ Politics magazine” http://sorendayton.com/2007/09/12/obama using linkedin for politics/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=131300 http://www.linkedin.com/companies/institute of world politics
Page 51 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
MyLife
Description MyLife, formerly Reunion.com (http://www.reunion.com/) is a social network service, which founded in 2002 by Jeffrey Tinsley after meeting his wife at their high school reunion. The company began with the acquisition of highschoolalumni.com and PlanetAlumni.com. The website claims to help members find and keep in touch with friends, relatives and lost loves. URL http://www.mylife.com/ Logo Main Features In April, 2007 Reunion.com announced that it had signed an agreement with Wink to provide Wink's people profiles (from on line social networks and other sources on the web) to Reunion's members. In August 2007 Reunion.com announced an agreement with ZoomInfo to provide ZoomInfo's business related people profiles to Reunion.com members. Although member privacy is protected through a blind relay e mail system preventing that e mail addresses and contact information is revealed, it is possible to allow Reunion to access all your email addresses stored on your computer upon registration. These e mail addresses are then used, under your name, to solicit more members. MyLife.com claims that its members voluntarily choose to share their e mail usernames, passwords and the contents of their mail boxes. Many people know MyLife.com because they received a spoofed e mail. People who subscribe to MyLife.com often unwittingly allow Reunion to access all email addresses stored in their free e mail accounts. These are then used to solicit more members under their name by altering the sender address and other parts of the email header to appear as though the email originated from the person who subscribed. So although the e mail resembles an e mail that is sent by a friend, family member, business contact or another relation, it is in fact sent by Reunion.com. Such fraudulent e mail activity is known as e mail spoofing and is often used for e mail spam. Type of content Text Available 1 (English)) Languages User Engagement A user can find and keep in touch with friends and relatives Accessibility Web browser Political N/A Representation
Page 52 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Classmates.com
Description Classmates.com is a social networking system and was created on 1995 by Randy Conrads who founded Classmates Online, Inc. This website has members that are trying to find friends and classmates form the kindergarten to college as well as work and the military. It has members from United States and from Canada. URL http://www.classmates.com/ Logo
Main Features Classmates.com has free registration. By default all members are Basic members. Users are able to create their own profile and look up for friends or classmates. Users can post or read comments that are written in the community board and receive information about the upcoming reunion. In order for an e mail to be sent, the sender has to become a paid member. If a member wants to have visibility to other members’ profile he can upgrade his status to a Gold member by paying a fee. In that case he will be able to send and receive e mails and view the profiles, videos and photos, biographies, interests, announcements. He will also see comments posted in the community board and write his own comments, see others who have signed the guest book. In addition he will have the ability to use tools for making his own group or to contact with friends and organize a reunion or a gathering. A member can designate his location on a map with a free account, but to view anyone else's location he will have to pay for a membership. A Gold membership gives the option to build a private photo album and message board. The membership of Classmates.com has to be auto renewed at the end of every billing period. This social network forbid to all members exchange their phone numbers, e mail addresses, street addresses with one another because this will allows them to have communication and meetings outside the website and as a result the members will not pay the fee. Generally, this service is similar to the other social networks. It is a classic social network where members want to keep in touch with old friends from high school, college, military, even with people that have lived in the same neighborhood for years. It is the only place where a member can find most people he is looking for and create his own network with friends from the past because it is the only network that has a large scale of information. When a user is registered to Classmates.com he is asked to provide
Page 53 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Classmates.com
certain information such as his real name, e mail address, phone number, birth date or year and group affiliations, which are kindergarten, high school, college, military and neighborhood. When the member wants to sign up for a paid or buy products then again some certain information is needed like credit card number and the real name. When the user uses the message center in order to receive or send a message, the service hides the addresses in order to protect the privacy. If someone desires to make changes to his profile there are tools that he can utilize and these changes appear in the community board. Type of content Text Available 4 (English, German, French, Swedish) Languages User Engagement Users can post or read comments that are written in the community board and receive information about the upcoming reunion Send – receive e mails View the profiles, videos and photos, biographies, interests, announcements Accessibility Web browser Political N/A Representation
MyHeritage Description MyHeritage is a family oriented social network service and genealogy website. It allows members to create their own family websites, share pictures and videos, organize family events, create family trees, and search for ancestors. MyHeritage is one of the largest sites in the social networking and genealogy field. In 2003, CEO Gilad Japhet and a team of genealogy enthusiasts founded MyHeritage in Japhet's living room in the small town of Bnei Atarot, just outside Tel Aviv, Israel. URL http://www.myheritage.gr/ Logo
Main Features The MyHeritage product line focuses on services for families, family historians, and genealogists. Its primary service is the family pages, which are online profiles for entire families.
Page 54 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
MyHeritage
Members can use their family pages to invite other family members, share photos and videos, schedule birthday parties and events, and stay in touch with their family. MyHeritage is able to automatically tag the faces of people in photos that members upload onto their family pages. If the person in the photo is in the family tree, then the software can also identify them automatically. MyHeritage offers facial recognition technology that allows users to upload a picture of themselves and find out who they look like. Users can compare their faces to celebrities and also find out whether a child looks more like their mother or father. The software is able to detect human faces automatically, without the need for the user to tag their face in the photo. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 34 (English, Spanish, Portuguese, Portuguese, French, Chinese, Japanese, Languages Korean, Turkish, Italian, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian, Hebrew, Dutch, Greek, Thai, Hindi, Ukrainian, Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Finnish, Danish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Lithuanian, Malay, Arabic, Persian) User Invite other family members Engagement Share photos and videos Post to forums Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political N/A Representation Odnoklassniki
Description Odnoklassniki (Classmates in Russian) is a social network service for classmates and old friends reunion popular in Russia and other former Soviet Republics. It was created by Albert Popkov in March 2006. URL http://odnoklassniki.ru/ Logo
Main Features Picture galleries, groups and chat There are no closed profiles, which means that every user can see others’ pictures. Registration on the site is payable Type of content Text, photos Available 2 (Russian and Ukrainian) Page 55 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Odnoklassniki
Languages User Upload photos Engagement Chat Accessibility Web browser Political N/A Representation
Ning Description Ning is an online platform for people to create their own social networks, launched in October 2005. Ning was co founded by Marc Andreessen and Gina Bianchini. Ning is Andreessen's third company (after Netscape and Opsware). The word "Ning" is Chinese for "peace" (simplified Chinese: ; traditional Chinese: ; pinyin: níng), as explained by Gina Bianchini on the company blog. URL http://www.ning.com/ Logo
Main Features The unique feature of Ning is that anyone can create their own social network for a particular topic or need, catering to specific membership bases. At its launch, Ning offered several simple base websites developed internally and by members of a closed beta. In late September 2006, Ning narrowed its focus to offering a group website, a photos website, and a videos website for people to copy and use for any purpose. These three templates were later superseded by a single customizable application aimed at enabling anyone to easily create their own social network. Ning allows developers to have some source level control of their social networks, enabling them to change features and underlying logic. Feature modification was temporarily disabled on October 21, 2008. The company will replace full source control with the ability to bring in new features or change the logic of existing features via OpenSocial and a set of new APIs to be relaunched in early 2009. Ning has both free and paid options. When someone creates a social network on Ning, it is free by default and runs ads that Ning controls. If the person creating the social network chooses, they can pay to control the ads (or lack thereof), in exchange for a monthly fee. A few other premium services such as extra storage and bandwidth and non Ning URLs are also available for additional monthly fees. Page 56 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Ning
Ning has also been used by educators in S GI to conduct a book study on Curriculum Mapping. Many educators, including Latin and Greek teachers, are using Ning for developing educational resources. Ning launched support for OpenSocial APIs that Google announced in the summer of 2008. Developers will be able to run OpenSocial gadgets within their networks. The social networks running on Ning's service are programmed with PHP and the platform itself is built in Java. In November 2008, Ning announced a partnership with Scripts4Ning, integrating the developer's products directly into Ning and offering them for free. Ning network administrators can select from options that govern various levels of viewability and membership. Ning networks are subject to COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) regulations. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 25 (Czech, Deutsch, English, Greek, French, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Languages Polish, Portugese, Roumanian, Slovenian, Swedish etc.) User Create a social network Engagement Share photos, videos Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone) Political N/A Representation
Bebo Description Bebo is a social networking website and was founded in January 2005 in California by Michael Birch, a British entrepreneur. Bebo is an acronym for "Blog early, blog often". Its headquarters are in San Francisco, California, United States and was brought by AOL in the 13th March of 2008 for $850 m. URL http://www.bebo.com/ Logo
Main Features It has an incredibly strong brand identity and it focuses particularly on the teenagers and young adults. The profile that a user can create is divided in two parts. The first is a section where other members can leave a message and the second is a list that includes the number of user’s friends. There is a wide range of other modules that the members can utilize for enriching their profile. Page 57 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Bebo
When a person is registered in this service his profile is by default private, minimizing the access to all profiles but enhancing the privacy. The user can change his profile privacy. If he chooses to change it into Public Profile then all members can visit his profile. The user can also modify the background of his personal profile using a specific pattern. Using the Bebo a member has multiple options such as uploading videos or images, commenting on others albums of photos, visiting blogs with comments, joining in groups or bands he is interested in and finding out the tour dates or other people who have also joined the similar groups. Even authors can join this service and have the right to upload chapters from their books. A Video Box can be added in profile, either linked from youtube directly to bebo’s servers, or copied from a Bebo Media Content Provider's page. The recent changes that have been made in the profiles of the users’ friends can be sighted from the ‘Home’ menu. If a user of Bebo has accounts in Facebook, Twitter, Flickr or other social networks, the recent changes that have been made in these services are visible to him. A member has the ability to see who has seen his profile by using a map only if his profile is in public view and he is at his profile at the same time with the one is looking at it. A member has the opportunity to create and share digital content and experience a different environment. The user can organize in a better way his messages with Bebo’s Social Inbox. Life stream Platform delivers the more recent updates from the other users and the timeline which displays in a chronological order the users’ events. The mobile service allows users to communicate with messages and configure their profiles via a mobile device. They can even communicate with instant messaging. Companies can utilize a platform in order to distribute their products and services. Type of Text, photos, videos content Available 7 (English, Polish, German, French, Dutch, Spanish and Italian) Languages User Send – receive messages Engagement Upload videos or images Comment on others albums of photos
Page 58 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Bebo
Visit blogs with comments Join in groups or bands Authors can join and have the right to upload chapters from their books. Create and share digital content Instant messaging Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political This service is used by grouping dealing with politics, some political parties have Representation uploaded videos, and photos even their leaders. Karatzaferis from the political party LA.O.S. in Greece. http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=4745487492&TUUID=d28128a3 1238 4391 8ab9 ac813c0bb9e7 Fianna Fail a republican political party in Ireland. http://upload.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=458175183 Group called Politics Society and focuses on young people who are interested in politics and desire to express their opinion. http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=4778652612 The University College Cork Green Party Society has a homepage in Bebo and informs users about the upcoming events and about different topics that interest them. http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=2371156110&TUUID=d28128a3 1238 4391 8ab9 ac813c0bb9e7
Badoo Description Badoo is a worldwide socializing system managed out of a London headquarters, but owned by a company in Cyprus. It is free to use for all members but with a charge of higher prominence through a "Rise Up" feature. URL http://www.badoo.com Logo
Main Features This social service gives to its members the ability of communicating with other people in and around their local area and making friendships. Its main purpose is to offer games and tools that its users need in order to draw attention and expand their social circles. It provides the user with direct control in proportion to the size of its audience. Members have the opportunity to activate features so that they can allege their profiles. Badoo focuses on instant messaging, uploads of videos and photos in great speed and the possibility to see who views your profile and Page 59 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Badoo
albums. The site avoids advertising and bases its business model on a set of premium features. It is more a dating or flirting site and not at all political. If the user wants to gain more attention to his profile on the site he has to pay a small fee by Premium SMS. Mostly, Badoo offers “multilog” services and that means that it allows the users to keep profile alive for a longer period of time by uploading videos, photos or text in a greater percentage. The more the user texts in, the more his profile is promoted to other users. If a member desires to have his entries and profiles be placed at the top of badoo’s search results in order to help him acquire more popularity, he can purchase badoo’s Rise Up!, a feature to push his identity to the top of the site’s search results. By the time a person is registered providing certain information, the service confirms his identity and then he is able to upload photos or videos that are referred only to him and no one else and, chat with the other members of the community and make changes to his profile privacy, if needed. Type of content Text, videos, photos Available 12 (Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Languages Russian, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish) User Instant messaging Engagement Upload videos and photos Chat with others Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political N/A Representation Mixi
Description Mixi, Inc. is one of several social networking websites in Japan. Its name comes from the music artist with the name “Mixi”, an American musician. Founded by Kenji Kasahara, under E Mercury, Inc. (actually Mixi, Inc.). mixi is headquartered in Tokyo. URL http://mixi.jp/ Logo
Main Features The focus of Mixi is "community entertainment", that is, meeting new
Page 60 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Mixi
people by way of common interests. As is typical of social networking sites, users can send and receive messages, write in a diary, read and comment on others' diaries, organize and join communities and invite their friends. Mixi is invitation only, meaning that one can only join via an invitation from a current member. However, once invited, membership is free and open to anyone over 15. It is currently difficult to join Mixi if you do not live in Japan. As of April 7, 2008, a secure email address is required for virtually all new registrants. As the site only recognises Japanese cellphone, educational (ie. university) or paid email addresses, this happens to restrict foreign registrations. A community is a place for people to share their opinions through an online forum and a way to express tastes and hobbies. A footprint (ashiato ( ?)) is a function that allows a user to see who has visited their page. myMIXI, or MAIMIKU for short means buddy or friend. This is similar to a contact in flickr or zooomr, or friend on Myspace, and involves an approval process. The maximum possible number of myMIXI user allowed to have is 1,000. The word Mixi is a combination of mix and I, referring to the idea that the user, "I", "mixes" with other users through the service. "Mixi Station" is an application that detects songs being played in iTunes and Windows Media Player and uploads them automatically to a communally accessible list in the "Music" section, and was implemented late in June 2006. By July 2006, support for winamp was implemented via a winamp plugin, which was quickly made official by Mixi. Batara Eto was the only developer at the start of the social networking site. Mixi heavily uses open source: Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl. It uses several hundred MySQL servers. "Mixi Fatigue (mixi tsukare ( ?))" is a psychological state of a Japanese youth experiencing a sense of tiring from using Mixi and voicing a desire to discontinue using Mixi and finally deciding to terminate the Mixi account. Mixi added the feature to upload your own video content, along with the ability to post content from YouTube. Type of content Text, photos, videos, music Available 1 (Japanese) Languages User Send and receive messages Page 61 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Mixi
Engagement Write in a diary Read and comment on others' diaries Organize and join communities Invite friends Upload videos Accessibility Web browser Political N/A Representation Skyrock
Description Skyrock.com is a social networking site. Skyrock.com began as a blogging site, Skyblog.com, founded by Skyrock CEO Pierre Bellanger in December 2002. In May 2007, after abandoning the Skyblog.com brand, Skyrock.com was launched as a full scale social network. URL http://skyrock.com/ Logo
Main Features Skyrock offers its members a free, personal web space where they can create a blog, add a profile, and exchange messages with other registered members. The site also offers a specific space for members who create blogs showcasing their original musical compositions. Type of content Text, photos, videos, photos Available 7 (French, English, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese) Languages User Create a blog Engagement Exchange messages Chat Join groups Search for people, articles, groups, artists, music, photos, videos, profiles, web, blogs Accessibility Web browser, mobile device (iPhone or iPod Touch) Political Blogs and text messages spread call to violence. The banners and Representation bullhorns of protest are being replaced in volatile French neighborhoods by mobile phone messages and Skyblog, a Web site hosting messages inflammatory enough to prompt three criminal prosecutions this week. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/world/europe/08iht blogs.html?_r=1 A few prominent French political institutions have opted to create a Skyrock Blog as a preferred tool to communicate messages. An example is la HALDE, the nation’s High Authority on the Fight Against Page 62 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Skyrock
Discrimination and Exclusion. BlackPlanet
Description BlackPlanet is an online social networking site that focuses especially in the Black community. It was created in the 1st September of 1999 by Omar Wasow and Its headquarters are in New York, USA. URL http://www.blackplanet.com/ Logo
Main Features BlackPlanet is a very popular online social network for African Americans to express themselves. It offers the opportunity to users to socialize making friends, communicating with others and meeting new people. It provides the ability to upload videos and photos. If a user joins this social network, he can speak freely, discuss with other people topics that are on concern in forums, groups or blogs. This service helps you become social and learn how to interact in a community. A member can show his talents or the interests he is keen on and find praise from the community. Also, BlackPlanet is a space where you can be yourself and have fun. It provides users with an e mail address, a creation of an account at the site, a personal website, the ability to communicate through chat rooms or instant messaging service, news, advertising and information for work. There are groups dealing with the job information and promote college parties in order to help young people more easily find a place for work. Its disadvantage is that people who advertise a product by uploading some videos and pictures not good for the services are sometimes abusing the privacy. However, fortunately, the pages of the users are monitoring very often so these incidents appear rarely. Moreover, some members believe that the network has been modified for the better. In the past it was more a chatting room but now it is plenty of information and has a variety of news. Others consider that the most popular activity the site has is dating. There are many aspects for both sides. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 1 (English) Languages User Make friends Engagement Upload videos and photos Discuss with others hot topics in forums, groups or blogs Communication through chat rooms or instant messages Page 63 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
BlackPlanet
Showcase his talent & find praise from the community Have fun playing in a space where he can be him Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political Barak Obama, the President of the United States, has a personal website in Representation which there are uploaded videos or photos from his speeches in different places http://www.blackplanet.com/barack_Obama/ Group called Black Politics has been created and it provides its users with the latest news and information about the African American community http://www.blackplanet.com/groups/group.html?group_url_name=bpotw
myYearbook
Description myYearbook is a free Internet social network service similar to other social networking sites. It could be seen as a less polished version of the popular social networking site MySpace. URL http://www.myyearbook.com/ Logo
Main Features The site has added a number of features that are commonly found on other social networking sites but use different names. The Quizzes and Pimp sections of the site contain a collection of various graphics and user generated material that can also be used on other social networking sites. There are also several other featured pages for entertainment. Like the social networking site MySpace, you do not need to be a member to do most things on the site, but you can do more with a myYearbook account. One of the most noteworthy tools available on the site is called Match, and is an application that allows people to secretly admire other people registered on the site. If two people should secretly admire each other, a match is made and both parties are informed of the mutual interest. This is similar to these matchmaking applications that could be found on the more major sites and the site could be used as a dating service, such as eCRUSH (=network comprises two major sites: eCRUSH.com and eSpin.com A new feature, one like Match has been added. It is called Blind Date. You choose four people you are interested in. Then, you are asked questions, the system matches you with people who chose the same answer. If you did not get match the user you wanted, you get a second chance. Type of content Text, photos Available 1 (English) Page 64 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
myYearbook
Languages User Invite friends Engagement Create a new group Send and receive messages Upload photos and videos Play games Accessibility Web browser Political A tab has been made in myYearbook (myMag Forums >Culture >News&Politics), Representation in which are referred political issues. The most recently articles are: Poll: Most obnoxious poster on the politics section The News and Politics Forum on a regular day Urgent ATTN : MYB Politics Section. http://www.newslish.com/2010/01/myyearbook rolls out its crowdsourced redesign/
Buzznet Description Buzznet is a photo, journal, and video sharing social media network. Marc Brown, Steve Haldane, Kevin Woolery and Anthony Batt. founded buzznet.com. URL http://www.buzznet.com/ Logo
Main Features Buzznet is a place for members to share content based on their personal interests Buzznet members participate in communities that are created around ideas, events and interests; most predominantly, music, celebrities and the media. The Buzznet homepage links site viewers to music, pop culture, community, photo, and video pages on Buzznet. On the homepage, recent news about celebrities, musicians and other elements of pop culture is displayed and frequently updated. The homepage also contains a search utility, capable of locating a search query within all Buzznet media. Banners displayed on the homepage link to Buzznet’s contest groups and Buzznet polls. Each Buzznet contest is typically endorsed by a band, celebrity, or record label. The homepage also links to music features, festival updates, and Internet stars. User pages are controlled by individual members and can be customized with colors and text. Upon sign in, registered members are prompted to upload videos, photos, or post journals, all of which can be tagged to appropriate tag topic pages. Tag topic pages house all photos, videos, journals, and links that have been tagged to a particular topic. Topics are most commonly a band, celebrity, or content genre. Tag topic pages also have a user generated forum that hosts open discussions on subjects related to the tag. Page 65 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Buzznet
Group pages have features similar to tag topic pages, but are generally more content specific and exclusive. Group pages are generally used for contests, events, and fan bases. Members are recognized for their popularity in the Buzznet community based on the amount of buzz they receive. Each photo, video, and journal can receive buzz from other members. Top buzzed members and top content contributors are recognized throughout the site. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 1 (English) Languages User Share millions of photos, videos and blog posts Engagement Create and post journals Add friends Create groups Send messages Accessibility Web browser Users can access Buzznet from a mobile device in four different ways. They can upload content directly via email, with ShoZu, or access their account with mobile and iPhone versions of the site. With the mobile version, users can update their account, upload photos, and post journals. Political N/A Representation
Google Buzz Description Google Buzz is a social networking and messaging tool from Google, designed to integrate into the company's web based email program, Gmail. URL http://www.google.com/buzz Logo
Main Features Users can share links, photos, videos, status messages and comments organized in "conversations" and visible in the user's inbox. Users can choose to share publicly with the world or privately to a group of friends each time they post. Picasa, Flickr, Google Reader, YouTube, Blogger, FriendFeed, identi.ca and Twitter are currently integrated. Buzz includes several interface and interaction elements from other Google products (e.g. Google Reader) such as the ability to "like" a post. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 40
Page 66 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Google Buzz
Languages User Start conversations Engagement Share links, photos, videos, status messages Sent comments Accessibility Web browser When the service is accessed with a supported mobile device, Buzz tags posts with the user's current location. Users are only permitted to use the actual physical location reported by the device for their Buzz posts; unlike the Google Latitude location sharing service, Buzz does not allow users to manually specify an arbitrary location. The mobile version of Buzz integrates with Google Maps so users can see who is around them. Buzz posts made through Google Maps are public, and can be seen by anybody else using the software. In addition to text, mobile users' posts may include an uploaded photo. Current platforms supported are limited to devices running Android 1.6+, iPhone/iPod Touch, Windows Mobile, Openwave, and S60. Political N/A Representation
Google Wave Description Google Wave is an online software application product from Google, described as a "personal communication and collaboration tool". It was first announced at the Google I/O conference on May 27, 2009. It is a web based service, computing platform, and communications protocol designed to merge e mail, instant messaging, wikis, and social networking. It has a strong collaborative and real time focus supported by extensions that can provide, for example, spelling/grammar checking, automated translation among 40 languages, and numerous other extensions. Initially released only to developers, a preview release of Google Wave was extended to 100,000 users in September 2009, each allowed to invite additional users. On the 29th of November 2009, Google accepted most requests submitted soon after the extended release of the technical preview in September 2009. URL http://wave.google.com Logo
Main Features Google Wave is written in Java using OpenJDK and its web interface uses the Google Web Toolkit. Google Wave works like previous messaging systems such as email and Usenet, but instead of sending a message along with its entire Page 67 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Google Wave
thread of previous messages, or requiring all responses to be stored in each user's inbox for context, message documents (referred to as waves) that contain complete threads of multimedia messages (blips) are perpetually stored on a central server. Waves are shared with collaborators who can be added or removed from the wave at any point during a wave's existence. Waves, described by Google as "equal parts conversation and document", are hosted XML documents that allow seamless and low latency concurrent modifications. Any participant of a wave can reply anywhere within the message, edit any part of the wave, and add participants at any point in the process. Each edit/reply is a blip and users can reply to individual blips within waves. Recipients are notified of changes/replies in all waves in which they are active and, upon opening a wave, may review those changes in chronological order. All replies/edits are visible in real time, letter by letter, as they are typed by the other collaborators. Multiple participants may edit a single wave simultaneously in Google Wave. Thus, waves can function not only as e mails and threaded conversations but also as an instant messaging service when many participants are online at the same time. A wave may repeatedly shift roles between e mail and instant messaging depending on the number of users editing it concurrently. The ability to show messages as they are typed can be disabled, similar to conventional instant messaging. The ability to modify a wave at any location lets users create collaborative documents, edited in a manner akin to wikis. Waves can easily link to other waves. It is in many respects a more advanced forum. A wave can be read and known to exist by only one person, or by two or more. It can also be public, available for reading and writing to everyone on the Wave. The history of each wave is stored within it. Collaborators may use a playback feature in Google Wave to observe the order in which a wave was edited, blips that were added, and who was responsible for what in the wave. The history may also be searched by a user to view and/or modify specific changes, such as specific kinds of changes or messages from a single user. Google Wave access can be requested. Developers have been given access to Wave proper, and all wave users invited by Google can nominate at least 35 others. Type of content Text, photos, videos
Page 68 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Google Wave
Available 40 Languages User A wave is a conversation with multiple participants participants are Engagement people added to a wave to discuss and collaborate on its content. Participants can reply any time and anywhere within a wave, and they can edit content and add more participants as a wave develops. It's also possible to rewind waves with the playback functionality, to see what happened, and when. Accessibility Web browser, mobile phones (Android or iPhone) Political N/A Representation
2.4.1.4 Social network aggregation:
FriendFeed Description FriendFeed is a real time feed aggregator that consolidates the updates from social media and social networking websites, social bookmarking websites, blogs and micro blogging updates, as well as any other type of RSS/ Atom feed. It is possible to use this stream of information to create customized feeds to share, as well as originate new posts discussions, (and comment) with friends. The goal of FriendFeed according to their website is to make content on the Web more relevant and useful by using existing social network as a tool for discovering interesting information. URL http://friendfeed.com/ Logo
Main Features Users can be an individual, business or organization. Bloggers writing about FriendFeed have said that this service addresses the shortcomings of social media services which exclusively facilitate tracking of their own members' social media activities on that particular social media service, whereas FriendFeed provides the facility to track these activities (such as posting on blogs, Twitter and Flickr) across a broad range of different social networks. Some bloggers are concerned about readers commenting on their posts inside FriendFeed instead of on their blogs, resulting in fewer page views for the blogger. A user can configure their FriendFeed account to aggregate content from
Page 69 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
FriendFeed
the following services: Blogging (Ameba, Baidu, Blogger, Tumblr, LiveJournal, Skyrock) Bookmarking (Delicious, Diigo, Furl, Hatena, Ma.gnolia, Mister Wong, StumbleUpon, Twine) Books (Goodreads, LibraryThing) News (Digg, Google Reader, Meneame, Mixx, Reddit) Photos (Flickr, Fotolog, Photobucket, Picasa, SmugMug, Zooomr) Status (Brightkite, Facebook, Gmail/Google Talk, identi.ca, Jaiku, Plurk, Twitter) Music (iLike, Last.fm, Pandora) Video (12seconds, Dailymotion, Joost, Seesmic, Smotri, Vimeo, YouTube) Comments (Backtype, Disqus, Intense Debate) Miscellaneous (Custom RSS/Atom, Amazon.com, LinkedIn, Netflix, Netvibes, Polyvore, tipjoy, Upcoming, Wakoopa, Yelp) Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 10 (English, Persian, German, Spanish, French, Japanese, Russian, Languages Simplified Chinese, Turkish, Italian) User Invite friends Engagement Send direct messages to multiple people at the same time. Create or join a group Share photos Post videos Comment on shared items Pull in updates from other sites around the web, and even publish your feed to services you already use, like Twitter. Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone )iPhone optimized web interface) Political / Representation
Page 70 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Events:
Meetup.com
Description Meetup.com (also called Meetup) is an online social networking portal that facilitates offline group meetings in various localities around the world. URL http://www.meetup.com/ Logo
Main Features Meetup allows members to find and join groups unified by a common interest, such as politics, books, games, movies, health, pets, careers or hobbies. Users enter their ZIP code (or their city outside the United States) and the topic they want to meet about, and the website helps them arrange a place and time to meet. Topic listings are also available for users who only enter a location. Type of content Text, photos Available 1 (English) Languages User Find and join groups of common interest Engagement Accessibility Web browser Political From 2002 to 2004, Meetup.com was one of the fastest growing online Representation social networks in the world. It took center stage in the American political consciousness in 2003, when it attracted the attention, first of campaign staff for Presidential candidate Howard Dean, then of pundits in New York City and Washington, D.C., and was soon being used by a number of candidates for the Democratic nomination, to build and energize their grassroots support. By January 2004, 30% of the site's members were signed up for the three most popular topics: Dean in 2004, Clark in 2004, and Kerry in 2004. Following Dean's departure from the race, the "Dean Meetup days" became the model for similarly organized "National Democratic Party Meetup Days." Meetup.com has also been used by conservative Internet organizers, including the Heritage Foundation's Townhall.com and the re election campaign of George W. Bush.
Google Calendar Description Google Calendar is a free time management web application offered by Google. It became available on April 13, 2006, and exited the beta stage in Page 71 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Google Calendar
July 2009. Users are required to have a Google Account in order to use the software. URL http://www.calendar.google.com Logo
Main Features The interface of Google Calendar, is similar to desktop calendar applications such as Microsoft Outlook or iCal on Mac OS X. The Ajax driven interface enables users to view, add, and drag and drop events from one date to another without reloading the page. It supports view modes such as weekly, monthly, and agenda. Users can "quick add" calendar events by typing standard English phrases, such as "Dinner with Michael 7pm tomorrow". Users can also set the number of days to show in their custom view mode. Events are stored online, meaning that the calendar can be viewed from any location that has Internet access. In the case of a user experiencing a hard drive failure, it also means that no data is lost. The application can import Microsoft Outlook calendar files (.csv) and iCalendar files (.ics, the de facto open calendaring file format), although at this stage only when the fields are all in U.S. format. Multiple calendars can be added and shared, allowing various levels of permissions for the users. This enables collaboration and sharing of schedules between groups. General calendars available for importing into one's account include those containing national holidays of various countries. Users can add "live" iCalendar URLs that update regularly. Google Calendar allows multiple calendars to be created and shown in the same view. Each can be shared, either read only or with full edit control, and either with specified people or with everyone (public calendars). Type of content Text Available 40 Languages User Users can view, add, and drag and drop events from one date to Engagement another Invite other people to events of the user’s calendar Accessibility Web browser Currently, Google Calendar can be synchronized with mobile devices (e.g., BlackBerry, Palm, iPhone, Pocket PC) or with PC applications (e.g., Microsoft Outlook) via third party software, and natively with Apple's iCal (workarounds required for iCal 3.x, full functionality with iCal 4.x). Google Calendar is natively supported on Android based mobile phones such as the T Mobile G1 and the Motorola CLIQ. Event
Page 72 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Google Calendar
reminders can be sent via email, as well as via SMS to mobile phones in over 80 countries and regions. Google Calendar is integrated with various other Google services: Gmail, Google's webmail service. When an e mail that contains trigger words (such as "meeting", or dates and times) arrives, an "add to calendar" button is automatically displayed alongside it. iGoogle, the user designed Google homepage, in which users can choose and organize content in the form of "gadgets". The calendar is shown as a module on your homepage. This "gadget" offers options to edit how the time is displayed, which day the week starts on, and a link to "Add Event". Google Desktop, Google's desktop search software for Windows or Mac OS X. The mini calendar gadget allows you view your agenda without having to open your browser. For supported mobile carriers in the United States, the GVENT feature of Google Calendar allows users to create new events and check calendar information via SMS. Google Calendar offers offline support. Google Calendar offers to do lists. Google Calendar runs on virtually any operating system, provided that the OS has a browser which supports the required web technologies. Browser compatibility includes Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, 7, and 8; Mozilla Firefox 2.0+; Opera 9.5; Google Chrome; and Safari 2.0.3. Google Calendar supports exporting calendar data through a permanent HTTP URL containing iCalendar data, either at a public or "private" (hard to guess) address. This bears resemblance to the Webcal "protocol". Public calendars were searchable until February 2009. The data can be integrated with, among many others, Novell Evolution, and Windows Calendar in Windows Vista (using the subscribe feature). The web link for the location of the calendar can be found in Google Calendar Settings in the Private Address section. Google Calendar also supports CalDAV using iCal 3.x. Political N/A Representation
2.4.2 Platforms for Collaboration Examples of the most popular social collaboration media applications include:
Page 73 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
2.4.2.1 Wikis:
Wikipedia Description Wikipedia is a free, web based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau from wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick") and encyclopedia (from ancient Greek meaning "the circle of arts and sciences"). Wikipedia's 15 million articles (3.2 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site. It was launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet. URL http://wikipedia.org/ Logo
Main Features Users can search for content Users can read and edit content Users can create an article Users can upload images and multimedia Users can find current events, random facts and "on this day" articles Type of content Text, photos Available 240 active editions (272 in total) Languages User Create an article Engagement Upload images and multimedia Edit wikipedia pages Join groups Accessibility Wikipedia's original medium was for users to read and edit content using any standard web browser through a fixed internet connection. However, Wikipedia content is now also accessible through offline media, and through the mobile web. On mobile devices access to Wikipedia from mobile phones was possible as early as 2004, through the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), through the Wapedia service. In June 2007, Wikipedia launched en.mobile.wikipedia.org, an official website for wireless devices. In 2009 a newer mobile service was officially released, located at en.m.wikipedia.org, which caters to more advanced mobile devices such as the iPhone, Android based devices, or the Palm Pre. Several other methods of mobile access to Wikipedia have emerged (See Help:Mobile device). Several devices and applications optimise or enhance the display of Wikipedia content for mobile devices, while some also Page 74 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Wikipedia
incorporate additional features such as use of Wikipedia metadata (See Wikipedia:Metadata), such as geoinformation. Collections of Wikipedia articles have been published on optical disks. An English version, 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, contained about 2,000 articles. The Polish version contains nearly 240,000 articles. There are also German versions. Political N/A Representation
2.4.2.2 Social bookmarking (or social tagging):
StumbleUpon
Description StumbleUpon is an Internet community that allows its users to discover and rate Web pages, photos, and videos. It is a personalized recommendation engine which uses peer and social networking principles. URL http://www.stumbleupon.com/ Logo
Main Features Web pages are presented when the user clicks the "Stumble!" button on the browser's toolbar. StumbleUpon chooses which Web page to display based on the user's ratings of previous pages, ratings by his/her friends, and by the ratings of users with similar interests. Users can rate or choose not to rate any Web page with a thumbs up or thumbs down, and clicking the Stumble button resembles "channel surfing" the Web. StumbleUpon also allows their users to indicate their interests from a list of nearly 500 topics to produce relevant content for the user. There is also one click blogging built in as well. Toolbar versions exist for Firefox, Mozilla Application Suite, Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, but StumbleUpon also works with some independent Mozilla based browsers. Third party toolbars have also been created for Safari, and Opera. Service details StumbleUpon uses collaborative filtering (an automated process combining human opinions with machine learning of personal preference)
Page 75 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
StumbleUpon
to create virtual communities of like minded Web surfers. Rating Web sites updates a personal profile (a blog style record of rated sites) and generates peer networks of Web surfers linked by common interest. These social networks coordinate the distribution of Web content, so that users "stumble upon" pages explicitly recommended by friends and peers. Users rate a site by giving it a thumbs up, thumbs down selection on the StumbleUpon toolbar, and can optionally leave additional commentary on the site's review page, which also appears on the user's blog. This social content discovery approach automates the "word of mouth" referral of peer approved Web sites and simplifies Web navigation. Stumblers also have the ability to rate and review each others' blogs and join interest groups, which are community forums for specific topics. Users can post comments in the manner of a discussion board in these groups and post links to Web sites that apply to the specific topic. StumbleVideo On December 13, 2006 StumbleUpon launched their StumbleVideo site at http://video.stumbleupon.com/. The new site allows users without a toolbar to "stumble" through all the videos that toolbar users have submitted and rate them using an AJAX interface. The site currently aggregates videos from YouTube, Google Video, Metacafe, and MySpace Videos. StumbleUpon launched a version of StumbleVideo for the Internet Channel Web browser that runs on the Wii console on February 12, 2007. This version of StumbleVideo is optimized for the Wii's smaller screen resolution and offers similar functionality to that of the original version. StumbleThru In April 2007 StumbleUpon launched the StumbleThru service, allowing users of the toolbar to stumble within sites such as Youtube, The Onion, Public Broadcasting Service and Wikipedia. According to the announcement of the feature, StumbleUpon plans on adding additional Web sites in the future. Su.pr In March 2009, StumbleUpon launched the Su.pr service. Its primary usage is for Twitter and Facebook statuses and updates The service is similar to that of bit.ly and tinyURL. In March through May, the su.pr service was only available to people who have gotten an invite code. In June, the service went under public beta. This service has gotten mixed reviews. Type of content Text, videos, photos
Page 76 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
StumbleUpon
Available 1 (English) Languages User Discover and share great websites Engagement Connect with friends Join groups Accessibility Web browser Political N/A Representation
Delicious
Description Delicious (formerly del.icio.us, pronounced "delicious") is a social bookmarking web service for storing, sharing, and discovering web bookmarks. The site was founded by Joshua Schachter in 2003 and acquired by Yahoo! in 2005. It is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. URL http://delicious.com/ Logo
Main Features Delicious uses a non hierarchical classification system in which users can tag each of their bookmarks with freely chosen index terms (generating a kind of folksonomy). A combined view of everyone's bookmarks with a given tag is available; for instance, the URL "http://delicious.com/tag/wiki" displays all of the most recent links tagged "wiki". Its collective nature makes it possible to view bookmarks added by other users. Delicious has a "hotlist" on its home page and "popular" and "recent" pages, which help to make the website a conveyor of internet memes and trends. It is one of the most popular social bookmarking services. Many features have contributed to this, including the website's simple interface, human readable URL scheme, a novel domain name, a simple REST like API, and RSS feeds for web syndication. Use of Delicious is free. The source code of the site is not available, but a user can download his or her own data through the site's API in an XML or JSON format, or export it to a standard Netscape bookmarks format. All bookmarks posted to Delicious are publicly viewable by default, although users can mark specific bookmarks as private, and imported bookmarks are private by default. The public aspect is emphasized; the site is not focused on storing private ("not shared") bookmark collections. Delicious linkrolls, tagrolls, network badges, RSS feeds, and the site's daily blog posting feature can be used to display bookmarks on weblogs. Type of content Text Available 1 (English) Languages Page 77 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Delicious
User Engagement Users can tag each of their bookmarks with freely chossen index terms Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political http://delicious.com/search?p=politics&chk=&context=recent%7C%7Clanguage& Representation fr=del_icio_us&lc
2.4.2.3 Social news:
Digg
Description Digg is a social news website and was launched to the world on December 5, 2004, by Kevin Rose, Owen Byrne, Ron Gorodetzky, and Jay Adelson. URL http://digg.com/ Logo Main Features Digg is made for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the Internet, by submitting links and stories, and voting and commenting on submitted links and stories. Voting stories up and down is the site's cornerstone function, respectively called digging and burying. Manyy stories get submitted every day, but only the most Dugg stories appear on the front page. In July 2005, the site was updated to "Version 2.0". The new "version" featured a friends list, the ability to "digg" a story without being redirected to a "success" page, and a new interface designed by web design company silverorange. The site developers have stated that in future versions a more minimalist design will likely be employed. On Monday June 26, 2006 version 3 of Digg was released with specific categories for Technology, Science, World & Business, Videos, Entertainment and Gaming as well as a View All section where all categories are merged. Digg has grown large enough that submissions sometimes create a sudden increase of traffic to the "dugg" website. This is referred to by some Digg users as the "Digg effect" and by some others as the site being "dugg to death". However, in many cases stories are linked simultaneously on several popular bookmarking sites. In such cases, the impact of the "digg effect" is difficult to isolate and assess. On August 27, 2007, Digg altered its main interface, mostly in the profile area. The domain "digg.com" attracted at least 236 million visitors annually by 2008 according to a Compete.com survey. Type of content Text, Photos, videos Available 41 Languages User A user finds an article, image, or video online and submits it to Digg.com Engagement A user participates in the collaborative editorial process by Digging the stuff that he likes best. If a user finds stories with bad links, off topic content, or duplicate entries, he can click “Bury.” Page 78 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Digg
A user can invite friends or find friends on Digg and add them to his friends list. A user can send his friends (Diggers or non Diggers) the stories that he Diggs through e mail. A user can share his opinions by commenting on stories,, images, and videos as well as Digging and Burying comments by other users. Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone,Android) Political Digg has its own tab about politics. Representation http://digg.com/politics Some posts: o We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, Now you get mad!? o China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier Killer’ o Is Social Security Completely Doomed? o A History of Anti Government Rage and Violence US Congressman Tries Digg for Politics http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/us_congressman_digg_for_politics.php
2.4.3 Platforms for Sharinng Examples of the most popular social sites for multimedia & sharing include.
2.4.3.1 Photography and art sharing:
devianART Description DeviantArt (official typeset as deviantART; commonly abbreviated as dA) is an online community showcasing various forms of user made artwork. Scott Jarkoff, Matthew Stephens, Angelo Sotira and others, first launched it on August 7, 2000. DeviantArt, Inc. is headquartered in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles, California, United States. URL http://www.deviantart.com/ Logo Main Features DeviantArt aims to provide a place for any artist to exhibit and discuss works. Works are organized in a comprehensive category structure, including photography, digital art, traditional art, literature, Flash, filmmaking, skins for applications, Furry and others, along with extensive downloadable resources such as tutorials and stock photography. "Fella," a small robotic cat character, is the official DeviantArt mascot. Type of content Text, images, films, literature Available 6 Languages
Page 79 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
devianART
User Explore over 100 million original works of art Engagement Exhibit artwork to an audience of over 12 million members Create galleries, and build a fan base Communicate, collaborate and learn from artists from over 190 countries Make money selling your art in the deviantART Shop Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone or iPod Touch device) Political This site has its own forum about everything related to politics. Some posts which Representation are created in this forum are: Why does religion always interfere with politics? Republican Party is full of losers tax... (USA) Is the War on Terror really a war on Islam? Atheists hate Obama? The political spectrum: Liberalism and Conservatism? why can't taxes be voluntary? http://forum.deviantart.com/community/politics/1349152/
Flickr Description Flickr is a photo sharing and video hosting website offering web services in an online community. It was developed by Ludicorp, a Vancouver based company that launched it in February 2004 and its owner is Yahoo! Inc. URL http://www.flickr.com/ Logo
Main Features Upload photos and videos and share them with other people. A submitter has to organize images using tags, which means that he has to put together photographs that are related to the same topic. The user has access to images that were tagged with the most popular keywords. Users can put into groups photographs resembling to the heading. The groups of photos can be sets of photos of another larger group and so on. Flickr provides the opportunity of using web based applications and in order to do that users should know their Flickr NSIDs. Another tool that members have under control is the organizer. It is a web application which allows users to modify their photos, change tags, choose other sets or groups in order to categorize the photos and place them on a world map provided from Yahoo. This social network offers both private and public image storage. A member can upload a photo and decide who wants to see it or not through privacy terms of use. Private photos are visible only to the up loader and to those friends that he has marked. If a user desires to add a photo in a group and the group is private, then the photo is Page 80 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Flickr
visible only to the members of the group. If the group is public, then he photo is public to all members. This service, also, provides a contact list in order to control access to photos for a specific set of members. Type of content Photos, videos Available 8 (Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish) Languages User Upload photos and videos Engagement Edit photos Organise photos and videos around a certain theme Share photos and videos Explore photos and videos by photographer, tag, time, text, group, place Turn Flickr images into beautiful prints, cards, photo books, calendars, and much more Accessibility Web browser, mobile, e mail, various free third party desktop programs Political Group in the service that focuses on politics Representation http://www.flickr.com/groups/britishpolitics/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/worldpolitics/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeministergr/
Photobucket
Description Photobucket is an image hosting, video hosting, slideshow creation and photo sharing website. It was founded in 2003 by Alex Welch and Darren Crystal and received funding from Trinity Ventures. It was acquired by Fox Interactive Media in 2007. In December 2009, Fox's parent company, News Corp sold Photobucket to Seattle mobile imaging startup Ontela. URL http://photobucket.com/ Logo
Main Features Photobucket is usually used for personal photographic albums, remote storage of avatars displayed on internet forums, and storage of videos. Photobucket's image hosting is often used for eBay, MySpace (now a corporate cousin), Bebo, Neopets and Facebook accounts, LiveJournals, Open Diarys, or other blogs, and message boards. Users may keep their albums private, allow password protected guest access, or open them to the public. Photobucket offers 500MB free storage (reduced from 1GB on 19th
Page 81 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Photobucket
August 2009). This reduction of storage space frustrated users, who were locked out of adding new images to their accounts unless they agreed to pay the upgrade fee. (Unlimited space with paid PRO account), Unlimited (was 100GB but went to 25GB in July 2008 and down to 10GB on August 19, 2009) monthly bandwidth. Unlimited space and bandwidth is valid only for non commercial use. Uploaded photos must either be smaller than 1 MB or 1024x768 in size (5 MB or 2240x1680 with paid account), uploaded videos must be five minutes or shorter (10 min with paid account). Since Photobucket does not allow sexually explicit or objectionable content, they may remove content at their discretion due to violations of their TOS. Photobucket supports FTP uploads, but the user must be a Pro account holder. Windows XP Publisher is supported as an alternative to FTP. It is available in free accounts. Photobucket offers: Sharing of photos, videos, and albums by email, IM, and mobile phone Group albums A scrapbook builder A slideshow builder A remix builder Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 1 Languages User Upload all photos, videos, and images for free Engagement Make photo slideshows to share with friends Host and share photos, videos and albums Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political N/A Representation
Picasa Description Picasa is a software application used for organizing and editing digital photos. This service was originally created by Idealab and since 2004 it is owned by Google. "Picasa" is a combination that Pablo Picasso created and it comes from the phrase mi casa for "my house" and "pic" for pictures. In July 2004, Google acquired Picasa and since then Picasa was offered to users through free download. There are versions of Picasa for Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Mac OS X and are available
Page 82 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Picasa
through Google Labs. For Windows 98, Windows Me and Windows 2000, only an older version is available. URL http://picasa.google.com/ Logo
Main Features Picasa offers to users the ability to organise photos. This is achieved through a file which imports features, facial recognition and collections for further use. It also provides the user with several basic photo editing functions, including colour enhancement, red eye reduction and cropping. There are also other useful features including slide shows, printing and image timelines. Images can be used for e mailing or printing. There is also integration with online photo printing services. Furthermore, Picasa uses picasa.ini files to keep track of keywords for each image. Picasa attaches IPTC keyword data only to JPEG files. Keywords attached to JPEG files can be read by other image library software like Adobe Photoshop Album, Adobe Bridge, digiKam, and iPhoto. Moreover, Picasa has a search bar that everyone can see when he searches the library. There is also, a search bar will search filenames, captions, tags, folder names and other information. This service supports boolean operators for searching and is much alike to the Google's web search. What is more, it also has an experimental feature in the search bar where images can be searched by colour using the "color:" operator. Picasa has no separate view window and there is only an "edit view" with a viewing area. In 2006, Google acquired Neven Vision whose technology can be used to search for features through pictures. Google applied this technology for face recognition in Picasa for digital photo and video images. Picasa is often compared to websites like Flickr that share pictures and videos. It gives to users the ability of sharing 1 GB of photos free. Picasa also used Hello, a computer program that gave the opportunity to users to send images through internet and upload them in their blogs. Type of content Photos Available 38 (Bulgarian, Filipino, Japanese, Slovak, French, Finnish, Latvian, Languages Slovenian, Catalan, Korean, Lithuanian, Spanish, Chinese, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Croatian, Greek, Polish, Thai, Czech, Hindi, Portuguese, Turkish, Danish, Hungarian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Indonesian, Russian, Vietnamese, English, Italian, Serbian etc) User Upload photos Engagement Share photos Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political There are uploaded photos about politics in general Representation http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=politics&psc=G&filter=1#
Page 83 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Fotolog
Description Fotolog is a photoblog website based on web 2.0 and it is owned by Hi Media Group. URL http://www.fotolog.com/ Logo Main Features Both registration and creation of account is free for any user. Nevertheless, free account has limitations. A user can upload only one photo per day and receive only 20 comments in his guestbook. The service offers him the ability to customize his page and add new friends in his names’ list. If a member desires having more benefits than simple user, he pays a fee and he becomes a Gold Member. Gold members are known as “Gold camera patrons” can upload up to 6 images per day, receive 200 comments per picture and acquire better customer support. These users can post on any guestbook and have further features that are able to use. Every time that a gold member comments on another member’s photo, his photo is being updated. Also, he can take part in different groups and have fun. Each group has a certain topic and is created by fotolog users. Furthermore, each group can upload not more than 50 photos per day and the pictures can be added by any member of the community. Type of content Text, photos Available 12 (Basque, Catalan, Czech, Dutch, English, French, Italian, German, Polish, Languages Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish) User Upload a photo Engagement Add friends and favorites to his list Leave messages to friends Join groups Create groups Find people Send gifts to friends Vote his favourite member Accessibility Web browser Mobile service is accessible via Web enabled phones at http://m.fotolog.com. Political N/A Representation
Page 84 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
2.4.3.2 Video sharing:
YouTube
Description YouTube is a video sharing website. In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google Inc. URL http://www.youtube.com Logo Main Registered users are permitted to upload an unlimited number of videos. Features Unregistered users can watch the videos Videos that are considered to contain potentially offensive content are available only to registered users over the age of 18. The uploading of videos containing defamation, pornography, copyright violations, and material encouraging criminal conduct is prohibited by YouTube's terms of service. The account profiles of registered users are referred to as "channels". Type of Movie clips, TV clips, and music videos, as well as amateur content such as content video blogging and short original videos. Available 14 (22 if different language variations are taken into account) Languages User Upload video, comment, respond to videos with more videos; Engagemen Bloggers mostly embed music videos (31%) and entertainment clips (15%). t Sports (6%), animation (3.2%) and science videos (2.9%) rank at the bottom of the most often embedded YouTube videos. Interestingly, the film (3.6%) and how to (3.1%) categories also ranked very low in Sysomos' index. Accessibilit Web browser y YouTube Mobile Application for Windows Mobile and Nokia S60 Phones Political “Queen Uses YouTube to Break Down Stereotypes.” Queen Rania of Representa Jordan, the current queen consort of King Abdullah II, has launched a tion YouTube channel on which she intends to break down Western stereotypes about the Arab world. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/queen_uses_youtube_to_break_ down_stereotypes.php http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/18/youtube.effect/index.html “YouTube: The Flattening of Politics” http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100019 “Campaign 2008: It‘s on YouTube. Since the last presidential election, the ‘bubble’ in which the press once operated ‘has become a fishbowl.” http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100018 “YouTube’s Impact on the 2008 Election: The Hype and the Fact” http://www.openculture.com/2007/05/youtubes_impact.html Scott H. Church: “YouTube Politics: YouChoose and Leadership Rhetoric Page 85 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
YouTube
During the 2008 Election” Margot Turkheimer: “YouTube Moment in Politics: An Analysis of the First Three Months of the 2008 Presidential Election” Fall 2006/Spring 2007 Eleanor Hall: “Politics in the Youtube Age: Tranforming the Political and Media Culture”, Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper, University of Oxford, Trinity Term 2009 Øyvind Kalnes Lillehammer : Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns” University College, NORWAY, Paper for IAMCR Conference, July 21 24, 2009 in Mexico City Aysu KES ERKUL, R. Erdem ERKUL: “Web 2.0 in the Process of e participation: The Case of Organizing for America and the Obama Administration”, 2009
2.4.3.3 Livecasting: Skype
Description Skype is a software application that allows users to make voice calls over the Internet. Skype was developed by Estonian developers Ahti Heinla, Priit Kasesalu and Jaan Tallinn, who had also originally developed Kazaa. The Skype Group, founded by Swedish born entrepreneur Niklas Zennström and the Dane Janus Friis, has its headquarters in Luxembourg, with offices in London, Stockholm, Tallinn, Tartu, Prague, and San Jose, California. URL http://www.skype.com/ Logo
Main Features Calls to other users within the Skype service are free, while calls to both traditional landline telephones and mobile phones can be made for a fee using a debit based user account system. Skype has also become popular for their additional features which include instant messaging, file transfer and video conferencing. Users can communicate by both voice and more traditional instant messaging. Voice chat allows both calling a single user and conference calling. It uses a proprietary audio codec. Skype's text chat client allows group chats, emoticons, storing chat history, offline messaging and (in recent versions) editing of previous messages. The usual gamut of features familiar to instant messaging users such as user profiles, online status indicators, and so on is also included.
Page 86 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Skype
SkypeIn allows Skype users to receive calls on their computers dialed by regular phone subscribers to a local Skype phone number; local numbers are available for Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A Skype user can have local numbers in any of these countries, with calls to the number charged at the same rate as calls to fixed lines in the country. Some jurisdictions, including France, Germany and South Africa, forbid the registration of their telephone numbers to anyone without a physical presence or residency in the country. Video conferencing between two users was introduced in January 2006 for the Windows and Mac OS X platform clients. Skype 2.0 for Linux, released on March 13, 2008, also features support for video conferencing Skype for Windows, starting with version 3.6.0.216, supports "High Quality Video" with quality and features, e.g., full screen and screen in screen modes, similar to those of mid range videoconferencing systems. Skype audio conferences currently support up to 25 people at a time, including the host. A discontinued feature called "Skypecasting" allowed recordings of Skype voice over IP voice calls and teleconferences to be used as podcasts, which allow audio or video content to be syndicated over the Internet. Skype launched its "Skypecasts Beta" service in 2006. It remained in beta until its end. Skypecasts hosted public conference calls, up to 100 people at a time. Unlike ordinary Skype p2p conference calls, Skypecasts supported moderation features suitable for panel discussions, lectures, and town hall forums. Skype operated a directory of public Skypecasts. On August 26, 2008, Skype announced that Skypecasts would be discontinued beginning September 1, 2008 Skypecasts were shut down without any concrete explanation on 1 September 2008 at 12:00 UTC. In late 2009 the company, Skype for Power Gamers (S4PG), announced that in Q2 2010 it would be releasing both a client and server Skype Add on that will enable Skype end users to host their own "Skypecast like" auto conference rooms. Skype does not provide the ability to call emergency numbers such as 911 in the United States and Canada, 111 in New Zealand, 000 in Australia, 112 in Europe, or 999 in the UK. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ruled that, for the purposes of section 255 of the Telecommunications Act, Skype is not an "interconnected VoIP provider". As a result, the U.S. National Emergency Number Association recommends that all VoIP users have Page 87 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Skype
an analog line available as a backup. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 23 Languages User Make voice calls over the Internet Engagement Instant messaging File transfer Video conferencing Accessibility On April 24, 2008, Skype announced that they offer Skype on around 50 mobile phones. On October 29, 2007, Skype launched its own mobile phone under the brand name 3 Skypephone, which runs a BREW OS. Skype is available for the Nokia N800 and Nokia N810 Internet Tablets, which use the Linux Maemo environment. Skype is integrated in the Nokia N900, which uses Maemo 5. Skype is available on both the Sony mylo COM 1 and COM 2 models. Skype is available for the PSP (PlayStation Portable) Slim and Lite series, but the user needs to purchase a specially designed microphone peripheral. The new PSP 3000 has a built in microphone which allows communication without the Skype peripheral. PSP Go has the ability to use Bluetooth connections with the Skype application, in addition to its built in microphone. Skype is available on mobile devices running Windows Mobile. In February 2010, Skype announced its decision to discontinue development Skype for Windows Mobile. The official Symbian version was under development in 2006; it was announced on December 10, 2009 that a limited beta version would be released. It was available for several different Nokia phones. Official Skype support is available as part of X Series together with mobile operator 3. However this uses a regular mobile phone call and iskoot to a Skype gateway, rather than mobile internet. Other companies produce dedicated Skype phones which connect via WiFi. Third party developers, such as Nimbuzz and Fring, have allowed Skype to run in parallel with several other competing VoIP/IM networks (Nimbuzz has even NimbuzzOut as competing paid service) in any Symbian or Java environment. Nimbuzz has made Skype available to BlackBerry users. An official free Skype application for the iPhone OS was released in the iTunes store on March 31, 2009. The latest version, v1.3, was released on 19 January 2010, and added support for landscape format instant messaging and a call quality indicator. Skype also claims to have a 3G version of the application ready to enter the App Store
Page 88 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Skype
approval process. However, some network operators do not allow Skype calls to be made over their 3G network, restricting it to WiFi use only. Skype and Verizon Wireless have launched a new service, Skype mobile™ that enables customers to use Skype on a variety of best selling Verizon Wireless BlackBerry® and Android™ 3G Smartphones. In addition to free Skype to Skype global calling and low rates to international landlines and cell phones, Skype is ‘always on’, meaning customers can receive Skype calls, instant messages and see friends’ presence anytime. And, Skype usage isn't charged against customers’ monthly Verizon Wireless minute allowance when calling another Skype account (Skype to Skype). Customers in the US will use minutes from their calling plan when calling US land lines or cell phones. For continued and immediate updates in relation to skype services users can access or follow on Twitter via @skype. Political N/A Representation
Ustream Description Ustream, established March 2007, is a website which consists of network of diverse channels providing a platform for lifecasting and live video streaming of events online. URL http://www.ustream.tv/ Logo
Main Features Ustream is a site, which is connected with twitter, facebook and youtube, so photos, videos and data are exchanged. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 1 (English) Languages User Users can watch streams live Engagement Users can broadcast videos Upload photos Users can interact, such as vote in polls, rate, chat etc. Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, Android) Political During the 2008 United States presidential election, the website was used by Representation nearly all the main candidates to help their campaign, by allowing a greater number of voters to ask political questions. Former Senator and 2008 Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel became the first candidate ever to stream an alternate debate on Ustream that allowed Sen. Gravel to respond to all of the questions being asked, as well as comment on the responses from the other candidates throughout a nationally televised debate. Page 89 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Music and audio sharing: Last.fm
Description Last.fm is a popular Internet radio site for music, founded in 2002. On 30 May 2007, CBS Interactive acquired Last.fm for $280m USD. URL http://www.last.fm/ Logo
Main Features Using a music recommender system called "Audioscrobbler", Last.fm builds a detailed profile of each user's musical taste by recording details of the songs the user listens to, either from Internet radio stations, or the user's computer or many portable music devices. This information is transferred to Last.fm's database ("scrobbled") via a plugin installed into the user's music player. The profile data is then displayed on the user's profile page. The site offers numerous social networking features and can recommend and play artists similar to the user's favourites. Users can create custom radio stations and playlists from any of the audio tracks in Last.fm's music library, and are able to listen to some individual tracks on demand, or download tracks if the rights holder has previously authorised it. For users living inside the UK, US, Ireland and Germany, the radio service will require a subscription option for extra features at €3/month. In all other countries, free 30 Track trial, then subscription required. Free for Xbox Live Gold members (In regions available). Some of the extra features that paid users receive are: No advertising More radio options (custom user playlists and loved tracks radio) The ability to view recent visitors to one's own profile page Priority on Last.fm server The ability to play Last.fm radio outside of the UK, US or Germany The most recent expanded service on Last.fm is a revamped personal recommendations page known as "The Dashboard". This is only visible to the user concerned and lists suggested new music, events, journal entries and other people with similar tastes, all tailored to the user's own preferences. Type of content Text, music, videos Available 12 (English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portugese, Languages Swedish, Turkish, Roumanian, Chinese) Page 90 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Last.fm
User Users can create custom radio stations and playlists from any of the Engagement audio tracks in Last.fm's music library Users can listen to some individual tracks on demand, or download tracks if the rights holder has previously authorised it. Join groups and create groups Find people Add videos Upload music Receive messages Add friends Accessibility Web browser, iPhone and iPod Touch’s discussions Political Because of recently financial courses, anyone can watch a video of Greek Representation Prime Minister, in which he describes financial issues, via Last.fm http://www.wikio.co.uk/high tech/internet/internet_radio/last.fm http://www.ft.com/cms/0d71e1fe 068c 11df b952 0144feabdc0.html?_i_referralObject=13893278&fromSearch=n There is an article at site of Last.fm “Corporations have right to buy their influence in US politics”. Many members have written comments. http://cn.last.fm/forum/23/_/597374/1#f11651383 http://www.fromthewestwing.com/topic/Last.fm+Ltd
Page 91 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
2.4.3.5 Presentation sharing:
Scribd
Description Scribd is a document sharing website which allows users to post documents of various formats, and embed them into a web page using its iPaper format. URL http://www.scribd.com/ Logo
Main Features iPaper is a rich document format similar to PDF built for the web, which allows users to embed documents into a web page. iPaper was built with Adobe Flash, allowing it to be viewed the same across different operating systems (Windows, Mac OS, and Linux) without conversion, as long as the reader has Flash installed (although Scribd announced non Flash support for the iPhone ). All major document types can be formatted into iPaper including Word docs, PowerPoint presentations, PDFs, OpenOffice documents, and PostScript files. All iPaper documents are hosted on Scribd. Scribd allows published documents to either be private or open to the larger Scribd community. The iPaper document viewer is also embeddable in any website or blog, making it simple to embed documents in their original layout regardless of file format. Scribd iPaper requires that Flash cookies are enabled, which is the default setting in Flash. If the requirements are not met, there is no message; the white or gray display area is simply blank. Scribd launched its own API to power external/third party applications, however, only a few applications use this API. Its revenue model has gained coverage on numerous blogs such as TechCrunch. Type of content Text Available 1 (English) Languages User Explore documents Engagement Search for documents Read documents Download documents Write documents Publish documents Share documents with others Accessibility Web browser A user can send documents to his mobile device as long as he is logged
Page 92 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Scribd
into Scribd. Scribd supports the following devices: Amazon's Kindle (Kindle, Kindle 2 & Kindle DX), Barnes & Noble's Nook, Apple's iPhone, Android Phones, Windows Mobile Devices, BlackBerry Devices, Palm Devices, Onyx Boox, jetBook Lite, EZReader, COOL ER, IREX Digital Reader, enTourage eDGe Reader, eSlick Reader Political N/A Representation
2.4.4 Platforms for Review/Rate/Express Opinion
2.4.4.1 Product reviews:
MouthShut.com Description MouthShut.com is a user generated content and consumer review site on the Internet. The company is headquartered in Mumbai (Bombay), India and according to India's largest newspaper, The Times of India, Mouthshut.com continues to be the leader in the user generated content space in India. URL http://www.mouthshut.com/ Logo
Main Features Any visitor can become a member (for free) and then can influence or be influenced by others. A user can writie reviews, share photos and diaries Members create buzz about brands and products. Type of content Text, photos, videos Available 1 (English) Languages User Write reviews Engagement Upload and share photos Post blogs and diaries Share virtual gifts Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone (Users can send SMS based reviews) Political / Representation
Business reviews: Yelp.com
Description Yelp.com is a Web 2.0 company that operates a social networking, user
Page 93 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Yelp.com
review, and local search web site of the same name. URL http://www.yelp.com/ Logo
Main Features The Yelp sites have listings for businesses throughout the United States and Canada and accept reviews of any business or service Listings vary widely in nature with the site including listings for storefronts such as restaurants and shops; service businesses such as doctors, hotels, and cultural venues; and non business locations such as schools, museums, parks, and churches. Yelp released a free REST and JSON based application programming interface (API) in August 2007. The API provides access to business listing details, reviews, photos, and ratings and can be used to add business information to a website, widget, or mobile application. The API has been used to integrate business reviews into existing Google Maps applications such as on Zillow.com and HotelMapSearch.com. Type of content Text, photos Available 1 (English) Languages User Search for reviews, events, special offers, lists Engagement Write a review Send messages Invite friends Talk with other Yelpers Add an event Every business owner (or manager) can setup a free account to post offers, photos and message his customers Accessibility Web browser Mobile phone at http://m.yelp.com, or use Yelp for iPhone, Yelp for BlackBerry, Yelp for Palm Pre, and Yelp for Android Political N/A Representation
2.4.4.3 Community Q&A:
Yahoo!Answers Description Yahoo! Answers is a community driven question and answer (Q&A) site
Page 94 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Yahoo!Answers
launched by Yahoo! on July 5, 2005 that allows users to both submit questions to be answered and answer questions asked by other users. The site gives members the chance to earn points as a way to encourage participation and is based on Naver's Knowledge iN. URL http://answers.yahoo.com/ Logo
Main Features Any question is allowed on Yahoo! Answers, except ones that violate the Yahoo! Answers community guidelines. Helpful participants are occasionally featured on the Yahoo! Answers Blog, to encourage good answers. The service itself is free, but the content of answers is owned by the respective users — while Yahoo! maintains a non exclusive royalty free worldwide right to publish the information. Chat is explicitly forbidden in the Community Guidelines, although categories like politics and religion/spirituality are mostly chat. Users may choose to reveal their Yahoo! Messenger ID on their Answers profile page. A user needs a Yahoo! ID in order to open an account, but can use any name as identification on Yahoo! Answers. A user can be represented by a picture from Yahoo! Avatars or an uploaded picture. When answering a question, a user can perform a Yahoo! or Wikipedia search for research. Questions are initially open to answers for four days. However, the asker can choose to close the question after a minimum of four hours or extend it for a period of up to eight days. To ask a question the user has to have a Yahoo! account with a positive score balance of five points or more. The points system is weighted to encourage users to answer questions and to limit spam questions. There are also levels (with point thresholds) which give more site access. Points and levels have no real world value, cannot be traded, and serve only to indicate how active a user has been on the site. A notable downside to the points/level side is that it encourages people to answer questions even when they do not have a suitable answer to give, in order to gain points. Users receive ten points for contributing the "Best Answer" which is selected by the question's asker or voted on by the community. Contributors often vote for their own answer regardless of its quality or appropriateness. On the other hand, many people ask questions not to gain more knowledge. The point system encourages users to answer as many questions as they possibly can, up to their daily limit. Once a user shows that they
Page 95 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Yahoo!Answers
are knowledgeable within a specific category they may receive an orange "badge" under the name of their avatar naming them a "Top Contributor". The user can then lose this badge if they do not maintain their level and quality of participation. Once a user becomes a "Top Contributor" in any category, the badge appears in all answers, questions, and comments by the user regardless of category. Type of content Text Available 12 Languages User Ask questions Engagement Answer questions Vote for best answers Browse, rate and comment on questions and answers Accessibility Web browser, mobile phone Political Several celebrities and notables have appeared on Yahoo! Answers to ask Representation questions. These users have an "official" badge below their avatar and on their profile page. During the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney posted questions on Yahoo! Answers in addition to YouTube. In an awareness campaign, "UNICEF Up Close 2007", nine UNICEF ambassadors asked questions. The launch of Answers on Yahoo! India included a question from A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, the President of India at that time. Other guests have included international leaders (Queen Rania of Jordan candidate for United Nations Secretary General, Shashi Tharoor), Nobel Peace Prize laureates (Al Gore, Muhammad Yunus) and other international activists (Bono, Jean Michel Cousteau), intellectuals (Stephen Hawking, Marilyn vos Savant), and numerous other celebrities.
WikiAnswers Description WikiAnswers is an ad supported website where knowledge is shared freely in the form of questions and answers (Q&A). Created in 2002 by Chris Whitten as FAQ Farm, the site and all corresponding domains were acquired by Answers Corporation in November 2006 to become the user generated content (UGC) component of Answers.com. Following the acquisition, the product was re named WikiAnswers. URL http://wiki.answers.com/
Page 96 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
WikiAnswers
Logo
Main Features Anyone can ask a question and anyone from anywhere in the world can answer it. This sharing of knowledge in turn becomes part of a permanent information resource. WikiAnswers.com leverages wiki technology and fundamentals, allowing communal ownership and editing of content. Each question has a “living” answer, which is edited and improved over time by the WikiAnswers.com community. WikiAnswers.com uses an Alternates System – where every answer can have dozens of different Questions that “trigger” it. When a Contributor asks a question similar to an existing one, the system connects the question to it as an “alternate.” This prevents duplicate entries in an effort to promote cohesive answers and a better user experience. Type of content Text Available 6 (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Tagalog) Languages User Ask questions Engagement Answer questions Post messages in community forums Accessibility Web browser Political N/A Representation
2.5 List of popular Social Media Platforms Based on the above analysis, the following table presents at the glance the list of the 53 most popular and well known social media sites and their main features. The order of the social media sites is based on their popularity (having more than 1,000,000 unique users). It is remarkable that 12 of them have more than 100,000,000 unique users, reflecting the rapid increase of adoption and take up by citizens of web 2.0 social media, and the big opportunities it creates for government organizations for a wider interaction with their citizens. From this analysis it was concluded that in a considerable portion of the 53 analyzed highly popular web 2.0 social media there is some type of political discussion or political content creation in general. It should be also emphasized that 12 of them have worldwide audience, while the remaining have audiences from particular countries. It also derives that according to the categorization per activity and purpose of the 53 most popular social media, the 35 are tools and platforms mainly supporting communication, the 10 are relevant for sharing, the 4 for reviewing and expression of opinions and finally, 4 are supporting collaboration. Page 97 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Table 2: Most popular Social Media at a glance Top Unique Multilingual Political Basic No. Name Focus Registration ALEXA Popularity Users Support Representation Category 1 Skype Voice calls Worldwide Open 521.000.000 23 260 Sharing 2 Facebook General Worldwide Open 370.000.000 63 2 Communication 3 Wikipedia encyclopedia US open 310.000.000 272 6 Collaboration Cultures/Foreign Communication 4 Qzone Languages China open 200.000.000 1 10 Review/Rate/Ex 5 Yahoo!Answers Q&A Worldwide open >13 200.000.000 12 1.658.727 press Opinion Social networking and Communication 6 Google Buzz messaging tool Worldwide open>18 150.000.000+ 40 N/A A free time management Communication 7 Google Calendar web application Worldwide open>18 150.000.000+ 40 N/A Software Communication 8 Google Wave application Worldwide open>18 150.000.000+ 40 N/A Windows Live Communication 9 Spaces General Worldwide open 120.000.000 48 5 10 YouTube Video sharing Worldwide open 120.000.000 22 3 Sharing 11 Habbo General Worldwide open >13 117.000.000 31 6.545 Communication 12 Orkut General Brazil, India open >18 100.000.000 48 60 Communication 13 MySpace General Worldwide open >13 80.000.000 15 17 Communication 14 Twitter Miscellaneous US open 80.000.000 6 12 Communication Image, videos, slideshows, Sharing photo sharing 15 Photobucket Image hosting Mostly in US open 75.000.000 1 54 16 TypePad Blog hosting US open >13 75.000.000 10 170 Communication 17 Vkontakte General Russia open 65.000.000 19 38 Communication 18 Flixster Miscellaneous Worldwide open >13 63.000.000 1 1.018 Communication 12 Netlog General Europe , Canada open >13 61.000.000 29 209 Communication Page 98 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Top Unique Multilingual Political Basic No. Name Focus Registration ALEXA Popularity Users Support Representation Category 20 LinkedIn Professional US open >18 60.000.000 6 42 Communication 21 Bebo General Worldwide open >13 56.000.000 7 341 Communication 22 Flickr Photo sharing Worldwide open >13 55.000.000 8 34 Sharing 23 MyLife Miscellaneous US open 51.000.000 1 1.481 Communication Document Sharing 24 Scribd Sharing US open 50.000.000 1 239 25 MyHeritage Miscellaneous US open 47.000.000 34 2.953 Communication Review/Rate/Ex 26 WikiAnswers Q&A Mostly in US open>13 46.300.000 6 136 press Opinion Cultures/Foreign Communication 27 Odnoklassniki Languages Russia, Ukraine open 45.000.000 2 95 News Communication 28 Blogger Bookmarking Worldwide open 41.000.000 41 7 29 Badoo General Europe (Spain) open >18 37.000.000 12 179 Communication India, Central Communication 30 hi5 General Africa, Latin America open >13 35.000.000 40 51 Business ratings Review/Rate/Ex 31 Yelp.com and reviews US open 25.000.000 1 281 press Opinion Cultures/Foreign Communication 32 Mixi Languages Japan invite only 24.323.160 1 85 South America Sharing 33 Fotolog Photo sharing Spain open 22.000.000 12 227 34 Skyrock General France open 22.000.000 7 111 Communication General for Black Communication 35 BlackPlanet Community US open 20.000.000 1 2350 Connecting with Communication 36 myYearbook Friends US open >13 20.000.000 1 851 37 LiveJournal General Russia, US open 17.564.977 32 81 Communication 38 Tagged General US open 16.000.000 7 137 Communication News Collaboration 39 Digg bookmarking USA open 14.000.000 41 100 40 Ning General Worldwide open>13 13.000.000 25 127 Communication Page 99 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Top Unique Multilingual Political Basic No. Name Focus Registration ALEXA Popularity Users Support Representation Category 41 Friendster General Southeast Asia open >16 13.000.000 12 146 Communication 42 Last.fm Music US open 11.000.000 12 310 Sharing 43 Buzznet Music US open 10.000.000 1 736 Communication 44 deviantART Arts Worldwide open 9.040.962 6 97 Sharing 45 Meetup.com General US open 6.817.111 1 526 Communication Connecting with Communication 46 Classmates.com Friends US, Canada open >18 6.700.000 6 799 Web site ranking Collaboration 47 StumbleUpon and discovery US open 5.500.000 1 204 News Collaboration 48 Delicious Bookmarking Worldwide open 5.100.000 1 367 Consumer Review/Rate/Ex generated press Opinion 49 MouthShut.com reviews India open 3.200.000 1 2.316 50 FriendFeed Social aggregator Worldwide open 2.400.000 10 705 Communication 51 Xanga Miscellaneous Hong Kong, US open 2.200.000 3 768 Communication 52 Ustream Video sharing USA, Japan open 2.000.000 1 512 Sharing 53 Picasa Photo sharing India, Indonesia open N/A 38 889.746 Sharing
Page 100 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
2.6 Summary and main conclusions In this chapter we have examined and analysed the current landscape of web 2.0 tools and platforms in order to get a better understanding of them and draw some first conclusions as to their potential as spaces of government citizens’ interaction. Based on the examination of the existing web 2.0 tools and social media as well as on the review of pertinent literature, initially four basic categories of web 2.0 tools and platforms were distinguished with respect to their activities and purpose supporting communication, collaboration, sharing of resources and Review/Rating/Opinions Expressing. As a next step we focused on the 53 most popular web 2.0 social media having more than 1,000,000 unique users; each of them was analyzed in detail as to the main features and capabilities it provides to the users, the type of content provided by them, the languages supported, its accessibility and also whether it hosts any type of political opinions/content/activities. It is remarkable that 12 of them have more than 100,000,000 unique users, reflecting the rapid increase of adoption and take up by citizens of web 2.0 social media, and the big opportunities it creates for government organizations for a wider interaction with their citizens. From this analysis it was concluded that in a considerable portion of the 53 analyzed highly popular web 2.0 social media, the 29 have some type of political representations in the form of political campaign or political content creation in general (e.g. images or video associated with political opinions), further confirming their political potential. It should be also emphasized that 12 of them have worldwide audience, while the remaining have audiences from particular countries (mainly USA) or geographic regions. Finally, it derives that according to the categorization per activity and purpose of the 53 most popular social media, the 35 are tools and platforms mainly supporting communication, the 10 are relevant for sharing, the 4 for reviewing and expression of opinions and finally, 4 are supporting collaboration. Based on this categorization we have classified the 53 most popular social media sites according to the activities and purpose as presented in the table (table 2).
Table 3: Categorisation of the most popular Social Media
Activity/Purpose Work/Business Leisure Democratic Engagement
Social networks: Facebook, Talk to your local MP: Qzone, MySpace, Windows Facebook, MySpace, Live Spaces, Habbo, Orkut, Professional Windows Live Spaces, Friendster, hi5, Tagged, networks: Habbo, Orkut, Friendster, Vkontakte, Flixster, Netlog, LinkedIn hi5, Vkontakte, Flixster, LinkedIn, MyLife, Events Netlog, LinkedIn, Bebo, Classmates.com, Communicate management: Skyrock, BlackPlanet, MyHeritage, Odnoklassniki, Google Calendar myYearbook, Twitter, Ning, Bebo, Badoo, Mixi, Bloggin: TypePad, MySpace Skyrock, BlackPlanet, Xanga, LiveJournal, Blogging: Xanga, myYearbook, Buzznet, Blogger LiveJournal, Blogger Google Buzz, Google Wave Events management: Social network Meetup.com aggregation: FriendFeed Page 101 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Dating networks: Tagged, Badoo, BlackPlanet, myYearbook Micro blogging/presence: Twitter Events management: Meetup.com, Google Calendar Blogging: TypePad, Xanga, LiveJournal, Blogger Social bookmarking: Policy idea suggestions Wikis: Wikipedia StumbleUpon, Delicious Social news: Digg Collaborate Social news: Digg Wikis: Wikipedia Social bookmarking: Social news: Digg Delicious Photography and art sharing: Photobucket, Photography and art Documents Flickr, deviantART, Picasa, sharing: Picasa, Flickr, sharing: Scribdt Fotolog deviantART Presentations Share Video sharing: YouTube Video sharing: YouTube sharing: Scribdt Music and audio Music and audio Livecasting: Skype, podcasting: Last.fm podcasting: Last.fm Ustream.tv Livecasting: Ustream, Livecasting: Ustream Skype Holiday reviews: Product reviews: MouthShut.com MouthShut.com Shops and restaurants Business reviews: review: MouthShut.com Review/Rate/Ex Community Q&A Yelp.com Entertainment reviews: press opinion Yahoo!Answers Community Q&A: MouthShut.com Yahoo!Answers, Community Q&A: WikiAnswers Yahoo!Answers, WikiAnswers
Page 102 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
3. Underlying Group Knowledge The following section presents the underlying group knowledge focusing in particular in the content that users create through their engagement in the most popular social media with the objective to identify and relate specific content type and related activities to the policy making process. In this context, the section starts with a generic overview of the different types of content, while it also analyses the different purposes of this content in the social media. Additionally, it gives a generic overview of the role of the web2.0 and social media in the policy making and provides relevant examples. The chapter closes with the summary and the main conclusions.
3.1 Types of content in Social Media The quality of user generated content varies drastically from excellent to abuse and spam [41]. As the availability of such content increases, the task of identifying high quality content sites based on user contributions social media sites becomes increasingly important. Social media in general exhibit a rich variety of information sources: in addition to the content itself, there is a wide array of non content information available, such as links between items and explicit quality ratings from members of the community. In this section, we will try to focus more on the different types of social media content. More specifically, we will look at segmenting social media content into different types. Therefore, in its simplest form, there are three types of social media, content according to [42]: 1. News Content 2. Entertainment Content 3. Resources/Educational Content 1. News Content This type of content is time sensitive, and is based on facts, events, and happenings. As thousands of news sites exist, the latest news is almost always syndicated and distributed to these thousands of additional sites within minutes of its release. This makes the news itself a commodity and ultra competitive. In reality, there are two types of ‘news’ in terms of social media opportunities: a) the news that users read about from other sources and share b) the news that users create (a blog, an opinion etc..) 2. Entertainment Content This type of content is most often not based on fact, but rather on personal opinion or speculation, and is designed to entertain or attract attention. There are thousands of submissions to this effect, many of which are "Top 10" type lists, staged videos, majestic images. These entertainment focused submissions typically perform very well on general social media sites like Digg, Reddit, or Stumbleupon, but do poorly on industry, organizations /vertical sites. Page 103 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
3. Resource/Educational Content Resource/educational posts are based on research and facts in most cases, or at the very least professional opinion. These types of posts are typically well researched and they can also take the form of very large and relatively comprehensive lists (e.g. U.S. Universities Offering MBA Programs by State). The fact based nature of these posts, and the depth and comprehensiveness of information, increases the likelihood that they'll be bookmarked or saved for future reference. As a result of the time and effort invested, these types of posts are relatively rare, and perform exceptionally well on certain types of social media but not others. Obviously, people do not necessarily think in terms of these categories when creating content. Accordingly, most social media submissions will involve some combination of the above types. In this context, there are some additional possible types based on combinations of the original three such as News/Entertainment, News/Resource, and Entertainment/Resource and so on. In this context, it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the three types of social media content (and the related additional combinations), for many reasons, including: a. Selecting the right type of content to fit the blog's purpose and scope b. Selecting the right type of content to fit the medium (Digg, Delicious, Flickr, Stumbleupon, etc.) c. Selecting the best type of content pieces for an organization The following section presents the different purpose of social media content as well as what type of content is most popular for the end users.
3.2 Purpose of content in Social Media Anyone can be a publisher on the Web and many Internet users are. They have contributed to the online commons by creating or contributing to Web sites, posting photos and sharing files. They are taking advantage of new Web applications like blogging and in many cases, faster bigger internet connection to facilitate their contributions. According to Pew Internet [43], roughly two thirds of adult internet users' have created material for the web by: writing material on a social networking site such as Facebook: 57% of internet users do that sharing photos: 37% of internet users do that contributing rankings and reviews of products or services: 30% of internet users do that creating tags of content: 28% of internet users do that posting comments on third party websites or blogs: 26% of internet users do that posting comments on other websites: 26% of internet users do that using Twitter or other status update features: 19% of internet users do that creating or working on a personal website: 15% of internet users do that creating or working on a blog: 15% of internet users do that taking online material and remixing it into a new creation: 15% of internet users do that with photos, video, audio or text
Page 104 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
According to the same survey [43], it has been difficult to keep track of all the ways that people can create content and even more difficult to find general descriptions of content creation activities. On the other hand, there are no consistent readings over time surveys that would give a clear picture of how the number of media creators has grown over time. It is safe to say, though, that the size of the media sphere where people are telling stories, giving personal testimonies, contributing their ideas, and interacting with others has vastly expanded. Moreover, participation itself in the online world creates a distinct sense of belonging and empowerment in users. Pew Internet [44] consistently finds that online participators – those who contribute their thoughts, rank and review material, tag content, upload pictures and videos – are at least a fifth of internet users on a range of subjects. For instance, 37% of internet users have made their own contributions to news coverage. Some 18% of online Americans have used social media tools to participate in politics. Some 20% of e patients have contributed health related content. Finally, 19% of internet users have posted civic and political material. They are the most active and engaged with their subjects and those are the most important precursors of personal influence. At the same time, there are also qualitatively new kinds of social arrangements that are arising in a media environment in which it is so easy to create and share thoughts and pictures [44]. Through content creation, networked individuals can expand the strategies they use to be socially engaged and have their needs met. The creation of personal media, in other words, is a networking activity. As a consequence, there are several new kinds of activities that have become popular thanks to the growth of social media such as: 1) networked individuals can produce content online that helps them expand their social network and increase their social standing by building an audience; 2) they can use social media to create social possess to solve problems; and 3) they can construct just in time just like me support groups through telling their stories and building archives or links to others’ content.
3.3 Policy in Web 2.0 Web 2.0 was initially used by people for personal and social communication purposes, and later by several private sector industries, such as advertising and media, mainly for marketing purposes, and had an important impact on them. There is recent literature proposing some guidelines and frameworks for the exploitation of Web 2.0 by private sector firms [39], [40]. Recently, there has been some first evidence [38] that Web 2.0 applications are already being used in government, not only for ‘soft’ issues, such as public relations and public service announcements, but also for ‘core’ tasks, such as intelligence services, reviewing patents, knowledge management, cross agency collaboration, public services evaluation by citizens, regulation, law enforcement and public participation. In particular, in this report are described a number of interesting case studies of successful applications of Web 2.0 in government in the following areas: Regulation: Peer to Patent is a web based platform where patent applications are published and pre assessed by self appointed experts on a purely voluntary basis, and then the main points and opinions raised are submitted to the US Patent Office for evaluation and decision.
Page 105 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Cross agency collaboration: Intellipedia is a wiki platform managed by the CIA, which enables the direct interaction and collaboration between the analysts of the 14 US Intelligence agencies. Knowledge management: An international law firm has implemented an internal knowledge management platform, which enables informal knowledge sharing through blogs, group newsfeeds and group bookmarking (though this case is from the private sector, the authors argue that it includes elements that could easily be transferred to the public sector). Service provision: PatientOpinion is a website, which was launched by a General Practitioner, in order to improve the National Health Service. It collects and publishes patients' feedback and ratings on the services they have received at hospitals. Political participation: Petitions.gov.uk is a website, where citizens can submit petitions directly to the Prime Minister (including full justification and argumentation), and view and sign petitions submitted by other users. Law enforcement: Mybikelane is a website where cyclists post photos of cars illegally parked, aiming to raise awareness about the problem. These applications of Web 2.0 in government have as users both civil servants and citizens, and aim to enable a more active ‘user’ role. In particular, they have four categories/levels of users according to [38]: a) a smaller group of ‘active users’, who take an active part in designing and delivering content and services (e.g. public servants contributing to wiki based intelligence reports in ‘Intellipedia’, or citizens creating a new petition online), b) a larger number of users who support these services by providing comments and reviews (e.g. feedback on the treatment they have received at public hospitals in the ‘PatientOpinion’), c) an even larger number of people who use these Web 2.0 applications and benefit from the content and services provided by other users (e.g. people reading other patients' comments on ‘PatientOpinion’ and taking them into account in their decisions), and d) many more ‘indirect’ users, i.e. Internet users who, though they do not deliberately use Web 2.0 applications, but through the use of various online services provide input and intelligence that is transformed by Web 2.0 applications into services for other users (e.g. persons with these characteristics used this). The specific benefits of citizens taking a more proactive role through such Web 2.0 applications are identified as making government more:
- Simple and user oriented: e.g. PatientOpinion helps government understand user needs and the public feedback, while the citizens rating system stimulates user orientation of government agencies.
Page 106 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
- Transparent and accountable: e.g. applications such as theyworkforyou.com and planningalerts.com enable citizen awareness and monitoring of government activities.
- Participative and inclusive: e.g. eParticipation applications, such as ePetitions, which stimulate debate and participation of citizens in public decision making/policy making, enabling better government decisions/policies. - Joined up and networked: e.g. Intellipedia and the knowledge management platform of Allen and Overy enable better collaboration across and within government agencies, and in this way reduce the "silo effect" and duplication of efforts. However, the same report identifies some risks in these efforts, such as low citizens’ participation, participation restricted to an elite, low quality of contributions with much "noise" and limited substance, loss of control due to excessive transparency, destructive behavior by users, manipulation of content by interested parties and privacy infringements.
3.4 Social Media and the Policy Making Process
Further to the above, this section examines research that has been undertaken investigating the use of social media in the policymaking process. According to [45][4.4], survey respondents belonging to the young generation consider traditional institutions, in particular politicians and journalists, to have a great impact on society while ‘citizens’ are thought to have limited impact. Even though almost one in ten considers blogs to have a medium or great impact, the majority considers bloggers to have a small impact on society. Thus, the young generation still believes in traditional institutions more than new Social Medias when it comes to influence. But how does the young generation want to communicate with decision makers? Some people think younger people expect decision makers to chat and communicate at the forums where the young people are. However, the PwC survey suggests that the young generation is reluctant to communicate with the decision makers in their own social forums. Privacy is surely one reason for this: 1. they want to have their private sphere; 2. they want to be able to know that the sender and the information is reliable; 3. they want to keep a sense of exclusivity to their network. Accenture [45] believes that Web 2.0 technologies are finding resonance among governments today because they are, in fact, supportive of a broader evolution in public service: a new relationship with government that is about genuine engagement of people in their own governance.
This reinvention of government breaks down silos, improves citizen service and opens up the possibilities of collaboration and broader participation among agencies and by citizens themselves. In effect, Web 2.0 represents another step in the inexorable move to more citizen centric and participatory government. New citizen sponsored governance initiatives led by electronic, online, mobile and social networking technologies are augmenting, but not replacing, the traditional controls and value of governments and public service agencies. Page 107 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Is the Italian Government the only thing stopping Facebook? [49] The issue of low productivity in the Italian workforce has been taken on by the Minister for Public Administration. Last year Renato Brunetta, declared war on the “fannulloni” – sluggards – of the Italian public sector workforce, achieving a near 50% drop in the number of sick days within a few months. Facebook is also a target and Italian companies, both public and private, are blocking access to the site – Poste Italiane (the Italian mail service) being the first to do so in November 2008. However, there are compromises – employees within the Naples municipality are allowed an hour per day on Facebook.
3.4.1 Engaging constituencies at political level According to [47] there is a large amount of research describing how young citizens are abandoning traditional democratic institutions. Fewer people join political parties and fewer people vote in general elections. This has led to a discussion on whether traditional representative forms of democratic governance are out of date. If so, through which types of actions is a modern citizenship defined? Is it true that the youth of today has a limited interest in politics and democracy? The youth of today are supposed to belong either to the self centered and lazy generation Y – only caring about themselves, or the digital natives of generation Z, preferring to speak through MSN than face to face. Is this picture correct? According to [46], Google is the primary starting point when the eGeneration wants to investigate an issue. Via this search engine the goal is to quickly and simply identify the facts concerning a given topic. The distribution of the information must, however, involve a broad perspective and must offer a variety of different contacts and communication channels. The results of the survey indicate that youth – parallel with having digital relation ships – also seek the possibility of having direct contact with organisations, if and when their interest in a particular area grows. However, the survey also highlights the fact that young people do not always think that taking a position via virtual medium is effective. According to the survey, many of those belonging to the eGeneration believe that politicians and journalists have the greatest possibility of making an impact, whilst bloggers are seen to have less influence. In spite of the bloggers being seen to have limited possibilities to have an impact on a situation, the eGeneration manifests it opinions, to a major degree, online. Consequently, the premises for a new type of interaction regarding basic issues, concerning democracy, welfare and sustainable development, are created via these meeting places.
Page 108 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 3 1: (Swedish data)
Source: [46] The U.S. Congress is perhaps the biggest user of Twitter, but Downing Street has an account, as well. Many candidates for the European elections— from Ireland to Germany to Italy—are using a variety of social networking technologies to support their efforts. Taking inspiration from the Regional elections taking place in March 2010, LaDemocrazia.it1 has collected information regarding all the candidates on whether and how they owned and managed a Twitter account and analysed the information to obtain some interesting observations: a comparative chart on the number of followers and a “mention meter”, that is an application that measures the number of mentions on Twitter for each candidate (see Figure 3 2).
Figure 3 2: Italian candidates on Twitter
3.4.2 Social media as an additional channel of service delivery The Washington State Department of Transportation's use of Twitter2 is one interesting example of Web 2.0 benefits that exceeded the organization's original vision. Originally, the department's Twitter feed—providing traffic alerts, information about automobile accidents, as well as route changes for ferries—was conceived as delivering on an outcome of providing additional channels of information and valuable mobile information capabilities to citizens. What the department discovered eventually, 1 http://www.lademocrazia.it/regionali2010/ 2 http://twitter.com/wsdot Page 109 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc however, was that the additional channel eased the load on its Web servers. During emergencies, such as major snowstorms or other weather events, the website often could not handle spikes in user traffic, temporarily bringing down the system. The Twitter feed has eased Web congestion and now supports an additional outcome for the state: continuity of operations. However, this use of Twitter is concerned with publishing or broadcasting information rather than facilitating users to engage and participate in democratically engaging activities.
"But on July 31, three major traffic incidents nearly brought the Web site down it's a very popular site for getting traffic information. Our Web guru started ‘tweeting' on the situation, and suddenly the number of people who were following us went from 20 to 160." 3
Ever since, WSDOT has been the spreading the word about its Twitter feed and can now count over 8,000 followers.
Figure 3 3: Washington State Department of Transportation on Twitter
With the recent Open Data directive and Open Government policies in place, all levels of US government are currently implementing strategies to use internet and social media tools to become more transparent, accessible, and engaging with its citizens. While most effort is currently put into web portals, smart phones – like the iPhone or Google Android equipped phones – are expected to become the dominant platform to access the web. New Gov 2.0 start up company DotGov4 (launching in May 2010) is jumping in to fill this gap by developing a mobile platform that will provide faster and easier access to all sorts of city and county services and will make use of the location based GPS features most smart phones have nowadays. Individuals will have their government in their pocket, literally.
3 http://www.govtech.com/gt/423688 4 http://www.dotgov.com Page 110 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
A useful example of inviting citizen engagement in democratic engagement is the Swedish National Tax Board who co hosted a seminar on Second Life5 with the aim of introducing social media as a two way communication medium.
Figure 3 4: Skatteverket on Second Life
3.4.3 Social media applications for public policy The UK government is opening up data for reuse through its data.gov.uk website, which seeks to give a way into the wealth of government data. Within this project, an Application sharing initiative has been launched6, which encourages users to submit their ideas for public sector applications. So far about 50 proposals have been submitted; examples include TellThemWhatYouThink7, which allows to search and browse UK Government consultations, set up email alerts and get feeds.
Figure 3 5: Data.gov.uk applications
Similarly, Code for America8 was founded to help the brightest minds of the web2.0 generation transform city governments to become more efficient, transparent and participatory. The project aims
5 http://www.slideshare.net/eteigland/sl and business education 209207 6 http://data.gov.uk/apps 7 http://www.tellthemwhatyouthink.org/api/ 8 http://codeforamerica.org/ Page 111 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc to produce a web application that will help a city, and all cities, run more efficiently, and to make a lasting change on the culture and thinking of municipal employees.
Figure 3 6: Code for America
National Defence is an area where applications have been spreading relatively quickly. This may be due to the fact that online information submitted by users have historically been of remarkable relevance for governments to gather information on possible threats to national safety and security. It is well known, for instance, that some governments have been monitoring the recurrence of certain keywords in emails, blog posts, etc. It is therefore hardly a surprise that, given the high potential of social media, the United States Army have launched a competition for application developers. Suppose you are an American solider suddenly dropped into Seoul, South Korea, where you do not know how to speak the language, how to abide by local customs, or even how to find a decent place to get a fortifying bowl of hot steaming noodles. Hopefully the Army will have several apps for that, if all goes well with the Apps for Army contest9.
Figure 3 7: Apps for the Army
The question is: will other agencies, which may not have the same incentive for implementing social media, follow suit? How crucial will social media policies play in recruiting and retaining the current and future generation of federal workers?
9 http://www.army.mil/ news/2010/03/01/35148 g 6 launches apps for the army contest/ Page 112 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
3.5 Summary and main conclusions Web 2.0 was initially used by people for personal and social communication purposes, and later by several private sector industries, such as advertising and media, mainly for marketing purposes. The first use and evidence of Web 2.0 applications by government are starting to emerge. Web 2.0 is being used by government not only for ‘soft’ issues, such as public relations and public service announcements, but also for ‘core’ tasks, such as intelligence services, reviewing patents, knowledge management, cross agency collaboration, public services evaluation by citizens. This range of applications shows the ways in which Web2.0 can be used by government to publish, interact and transform activities. This potential reinvention of government has the potential to improve citizen service and open up the possibilities of collaboration and broader participation among agencies and by citizens themselves. In effect, Web 2.0 represents another step in the inexorable move to more citizen centric and participatory government. As the next section describes in detail Web 2.0 has the potential to re engage younger people in the democratic process. There is a large amount of research describing how young citizens are abandoning traditional democratic institutions. Fewer young people join political parties and fewer vote in general elections. This has led to a discussion on whether traditional representative forms of democratic governance are out of date. Since younger people are the highest (proportionate) users of Web 2.0 it might offer and ideal channel for re engaging them in democratic processes. Despite the potential for Web 2.0 use by citizens, businesses and government it must be acknowledged that the quality of user generated content varies drastically from excellent to abuse and spam. As the availability of content increases, the task of identifying high quality content sites based on user contributions social media sites becomes increasingly important and difficult. Nonetheless, Web 2.0 offers interesting possibilities not least because recent studies suggest roughly two thirds of adult Internet users' have created material for the web. This includes: Writing material on a social networking site (57% of internet users) Sharing photos (37% of internet users) Contributing rankings and reviews of products or services (30% of internet users) Creating tags of content (28% of internet users) Posting comments on third party websites or blogs (26% of internet users) Posting comments on other websites (26% of internet users)
Perhaps the most interesting example of inviting citizen engagement in democratic engagement is the Swedish National Tax Board who co hosted a seminar on Second Life10 with the aim of introducing social media as a two way communication medium.
10 http://www.slideshare.net/eteigland/sl and business education 209207 Page 113 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
4. Stakeholder Analysis Further to the previous analysis about what exactly are the social media? Why have they grown to become so popular and – most of all – who is using them today and what for. This section will mainly depict a picture of overall Social Media users on the basis of a range of socio economic demographic characteristics. Furthermore, will comment on facts and figures emerging on the use of specific Social Media platform that are popular today and will hence serve the purpose of illustrating the current and potential use of Social Media in policy making,.
4.1 Categorization of user profiles in Social Media
4.1.1 Who is online? The use of Social Media has undergone a sudden craze, mostly unforeseen by experts across different sectors. Platforms like Twitter were largely underestimated and have widely exceeded people’s expectations in creating important social value, like increased news circulation. Such a boom in traffic can largely be attributed to an increase in internet access, especially broadband, which is the main (but not sole) enabler for the take up of internet services [4.41]. According to a 2008 Report on Broadband Coverage in Europe [4.37], 101.4 million fixed broadband subscribers were registered in the 29 European countries surveyed at the end of 2007, a good 24% increase over only one year. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 4 1 below, Germany (19.6 million), the UK and France (15.6 each) are the largest contributors to this figure and altogether account for half of the broadband subscribers in Europe. This represents a 20.3% penetration rate on average (that is, 20.3 subscribers per 100 inhabitants) and 22.9% for Western countries alone (EU15 + Norway and Iceland). Figure 4 1: Broadband subscribers in Europe (2007 data)
source: [4.37] Page 114 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
The observation that a steep increase in internet traffic is strictly related to an increase in internet access is further corroborated and enriched by the results of NetPop Research (see Figure 4 2 below), which display a correlation between broadband users and active contribution to the web via social media: the faster the speed of connection, the more intense the activity online.
Figure 4 2: Users vs Contributors
Source: http://netpopresearch.com/ A methodological note on data collection is paramount at this time as the report attempts to provide a full picture of the European scenario on use of social media: a plethora of researches and surveys are available for almost any aspect of internet use and this is mainly due to the fact that internet use is highly traceable through cookies and web metrics. It should not be inferred however that available data are homogenous and consistent and an appropriate choice between sources therefore becomes essential: every effort has been made to sort such pandemonium of sources in accordance with the accountability and reliability of the analysed resources. Furthermore, it is important to underline that the vast majority of studies carried out by research institutes and marketing companies on internet users’ behaviour refers to the US (and partly the UK). In some areas, where there is a paucity of information, it has therefore been necessary to draw comparisons between the EU and the US. European information is the primary focus for this section, US and information from other sources is only used where there is a shortage of information about Europe.
4.1.1.1 Demographics and internet use According to [4.20], almost all users (95%) access the internet at home. Work (41%), another person’s home (35%) and school (16%) are also frequently named as access locations for the internet. As use of the internet has grown internet cafes and public libraries have become more important as access points. 8% of internet users access the internet at an internet cafe (3% in 2003) and 14% at a public library (5% in 2003).
Page 115 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Gender and internet use Results from [4.20] also highlight that there are few significant differences between men and women with respect to where they accessed the internet. They are equally likely to access the internet at home (95%) and at another person’s home (35%). However, men are more likely to access the internet at work (44% v. 38%), on the move (24% v. 15%) and somewhat more likely at school (18% v. 14%). Even though a gender divide in use is still present, the difference in internet use between men and women has been decreasing since 2003. In 2009 the difference in internet use between men and women was only 3 percentage points: 71% of men and 68% of women used the internet.
Figure 4 3: Internet by gender (UK)
source: [4.20] According to [4.69], there is a specific gender group that deserves particular attention at this time: so called “empowered women”. Empowered women are women ages 25 to 54 who feel that the internet helps them manage their family life (see Figure 4 4). Empowered women are highly influential as household decision makers as well as among their peers, as they are much more likely to be asked by friends for recommendations. Empowered women tend to be more active online than the average adult across the board, but certain behaviours really stand out.
Figure 4 4: Empowered women (US)
source: [4.69]
Page 116 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Age and internet use As a matter of fact, according to [4.62], while the demographic profile differences of users around the globe are not that pronounced, there are some interesting observations to make, as illustrated in Figure 4 5. The US online population skews more to the age 50+ than the other countries listed, with the UK and Switzerland tied for second and Australia third. Brazil is more skewed to the youth (2 17) demographic, and China (CN in the chart in Figure 4 5) by a significant margin to the 18 34 segment.
Figure 4 5: Internet users’ demographics by age groups
source: [4.62] Also according to [4.39], the web continues to be populated largely by younger generations, as over half of the adult internet population is between 18 and 44 years old. However larger percentages of older generations are online now than in the past, and they are carrying out more activities online, according to the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project surveys taken from 2006 2008. The biggest increase in internet use since 2005 can be seen in the 70 75 year old age group. While just over one fourth (26%) of American 70 75 year olds were online in 2005, 45% of that age group is currently online. Much as we watch demographic and age groups move up in “degrees of access” on our “thermometers,” one can probably expect to see these bars become more level as time goes on. For now, though, young people dominate the online population. Results from [4.50] complete the picture: as of September 2009, 93% of American teens between the ages of 12 and 17 went online, a number that has remained stable since November 2006. In comparison, adults are less likely than teens to be online. As of December 2009, 74% of adults use the internet. The youngest adults, 18 29 year olds, go online at a rate equal to that of teens (both 93%). Over the past decade, young adult have remained the age group that is most likely to go online even as the internet population has grown, and even as other age cohorts – such as adults 65 and older have increased the percentage of their populations online. In addition, among adolescents, both boys and girls are equally likely to go online, but younger teens remain slightly less likely to go online than older teens. Fully 95%
Page 117 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc of teens ages 14 17 go online compared with 88% of teens ages 12 13. Twelve year olds, of whom 83% go online compared to 92% of 13 year olds, account for most of the variance among younger teens.
Figure 4 6: Internet by age groups (UK)
source: [4.19] By way of comparing Figure 4 6, which refers to the UK, and Figure 4 7, which refers to the US, it is worth noting that – despite a slight difference in data collection (5 age groups for the US, 3 for the UK) and bearing in mind that the US chart refers to 2009 figures while the UK chart refers to 2003 2007 – the overall results are rather similar and do not present remarkable differences. We may therefore assume for the rest of this section that US data present strong similarities with the UK – thus setting the value for the top tier of the European range. In other words, US data can be taken to give a good approximation of the highest achieving countries in Europe, i.e. the UK. This is important where there are gaps in European data for some of the areas under investigation. In these cases US information is considered instead.
Figure 4 7: Internet by age groups (US)
source: [4.50] According to [4.50], nearly two thirds of teen internet users (63%) go online every day – 36% of teens go online several times a day and 27% go online about once a day. More than one quarter (26%) of teens
Page 118 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc go online weekly and 11% go online less often than that, patterns that have been in place since November 2006. There are few differences in frequency of use based on demographic categories. Older teens ages 14 17 are more likely to go online frequently than younger teens. Nearly four in ten (39%) older teens say they go online several times a day, while a little more than a quarter (28%) of younger teens go online as frequently.
Income and internet use According to [4.20], one type of divide is structured by the social, economic, geographical or physical situation of individuals, such as not being able to afford a computer for one’s household; this is called ‘digital exclusion’. A second type is more subject to personal choices of individuals. These choices are shaped by an individual’s cultural or social characteristics, such as their gender, but more amendable to choice. This is called ‘digital choice’. Divides between internet users and non users are created by both exclusion and choice. The difference between income groups remained stratified, but stable from 2003 to 2009. People in the highest income category were more than twice as likely to use the internet in 2009 (97%) than those in the lowest income category (38%). Internet use remained in general the same in all income groups between 2007 and 2009. The only considerable increase was among households in the highest income group. From 91% in 2007, internet use increased to 97%.
Figure 4 8: Internet use by income (UK)
source: [4.20]
Education and internet use According to [4.20], as in 2007, important differences in internet use could be observed for people with different levels of education. Among people with basic education (up to secondary school), only 49% used the internet, while most (93%) of those with a higher (university) education used the internet. The gap between those with basic and higher education increased between 2007 and 2009, from a 35 to a 44 percentage point difference.
Page 119 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 9: Internet use by education (UK)
source: [4.20] Socio economic characteristics influence each other. Therefore, in order to isolate the impact of individual factors on internet/broadband take up it is necessary to undertake econometric analysis on microdata for individuals/households. Studies of this type suggest that age and education are the two most important factors influencing internet take up (Figure 4 10).
Figure 4 10: Regular users by education (EU)
source: [4.24] To monitor disparities in internet use and digital literacy over time, Eurostat [4.24] has developed a penetration rate index that measures disparity in regular internet use between a given disadvantaged group and the average for the total population. Values below 1 imply a lower rate than the population and those above 1 imply a higher rate than the population. This section focuses on the first index, digital literacy will be dealt with later.
Page 120 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
The index of regular internet use has increased to 0.66 in 2008, from 0.60 in 2005, showing a marked improvement (Figure 4 11). The disadvantaged groups which have made the best progress are the low educated (+0.1 p.p.), inactive and aged 55 64 (+0.08 p.p. each). The least progress was made in the group of individuals living in sparsely populated areas (+0.01 p.p.). This means that the development in regular use of the internet for this group has been similar to that of the average EU population. While there has been good progress in reducing disparities with respect to the old, inactive and low educated, they remain to a large extent digitally excluded. In contrast, the category women, whose starting position was not that different from the average, has already achieved its Riga target.
Figure 4 11: Internet regular use disparity indicator (EU)
source: [4.24] The preceding figures and text have demonstrated that the number of internet users is growing. Underlying trends have seen the gender divide decrease, the number of women users now almost equals the number of men. The internet is still a medium predominantly used by younger people, but an increasing number of older people are joining them. There is a strong relationship between income and internet use. Those with higher levels of educational attainment are also more likely to be internet users, but this division is also becoming eroded. The number of internet users is growing and the number of people spending more of their online time networking on social media is also increasing. The traditional internet foci of browsing, games playing and shopping are now being matched by the number of people networking. Call it communicating, call it sharing, call it what you may: the trend is clear. 101.4 million Europeans with broadband connections now contribute regularly to social networking sites. The trend is causing traditional content creators to lose their longstanding preeminent position. Content – once exclusively produced and distributed top down – competes with individually produced and distributed media channels: simple and always distinctive personal profile pages. This naturally leads to the definition that Kaplan [4.40] provides of web2.0 and user generated content, contained in the abovementioned definition of Social Media. Page 121 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Web2.0 is a term that was first used in 2004 to describe (…) a platform whereby content and applications are no longer created and published by individuals, but instead are continuously modified by all users in a participatory and collaborative fashion. (…)
The term User Generated Content (UGC), which achieved broad popularity in 2005, is usually applied to describe the various forms of media content that are publicly available and created by end users.
4.1.1.2 Demographics on gadget ownership Understanding an individual’s technological environment provides an insight into how people use the internet, connect with others and access information. Recent studies [4.35] have noted that internet connectivity is increasingly moving off desktop and into the mobile and wireless environment, particularly for specific demographic groups. Information about the range of media used by individuals in Europe is relatively sparse, but a US study [4.50] provides an insight to device ownership and use. In September 2009, respondents were asked about seven gadgets: mobile phones, laptops and desktops, mp3 players, gaming devices and eBook readers. Out of a possible seven gadgets, adults owned an average of just under 3 gadgets. Young adults ages 18 29 average nearly 4 gadgets while adults ages 30 to 64 average 3 gadgets. And adults 65 and older on average own roughly 1.5 gadgets out of the 7.
Computers Results from [4.50], report that nearly seven in ten (69%) teens ages 12 17 have a computer. Teens from wealthier families earning more than $75,000 a year are slightly more likely (74%) than less well off teens to personally have a desktop or laptop computer. Older teens are also more likely to report owning a desktop or laptop; 73% of 14 17 year olds have a computer while 60% of 12 and 13 year olds do. Among adults, desktop computers are slightly more popular than laptop computers and netbooks. Overall, six in ten adults (58%) own a desktop computer, compared with 46% who own a laptop or netbook. However, while laptop computers have been increasing in popularity among adults over the past three years, desktop computers have been decreasing in popularity. It is important to note that young adults – those under age 30 – are significantly more likely than all other adults to own a laptop or netbook, and among this group, laptops have overtaken desktops in popularity. Among adults ages 18 29, 66% own a laptop or netbook while just 53% own a desktop. Computer ownership rates also increase with rising educational attainment and income.
Page 122 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 12: Gadgets’ ownership among adults (US)
Source: [4.50]
Mobile phones According to [4.62], any discussion about online audience behavior would be incomplete without understanding the mobile dynamic. In Europe mobile internet penetration is greatest in the UK (16.9%), France (13.5%), Italy (13.2%) and Spain (12.4%)(see Figure 4 13). The highest penetration of mobile subscribers among the markets the Nielsen report studied was in the US, Canada had the third highest level. In the US today, nearly 50 million mobile subscribers access the Web via their devices on a monthly basis. The mobile internet audience grew 74% between February 2007 and February 2009. Internationally, the US is one of the leading markets for mobile internet penetration, with more than 18% of subscribers accessing mobile web. mobile internet adoption, followed by the UK where nearly 17% of subscribers used mobile web.
Page 123 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 13: Mobile internet penetration by market
source: [4.62] As stated in [4.62], the accelerating adoption of the mobile Web is explained by three main trends: 1. The proliferation of smartphones; 2. The expanded availability of unlimited data packages; 3. An increasingly compelling consumer experience, benefiting from 3G network speeds that can be as much as six times as fast as their 2 and 2.5G predecessors, as well as optimized mobile web experiences. ComScore found smartphone users in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain grew 32% to 51.6m during the year to January 2010, up from 39m a year earlier. The research also found the UK recorded the fastest growth in the number of subscribers. High tier subscribers (those paying £35 or more a month) grew 60% year on year while mid to low tier subscribers (paying under £35 a month) grew 76%. The iPhone is the predominant smartphone in Europe. The iPhone operating system has had 78% share of the market in Europe in 2009; In North America the proportion was only 54 per cent. The iPhone, had a US audience of 5.1 million unique users in January 2009. iPhone users are unique in their mobile phone use. For instance, they are more than four times as likely as a typical subscriber to use mobile internet, six times as likely to use mobile applications and six times as likely to consume mobile video. Further research [4.20] in the UK showed that the use of the mobile phone to access internet related applications increased significantly since 2007: Figure 4 14 shows that 24% accessed email or the internet through their mobile phone in 2009, up from 15% in 2007. Sending photos by mobile phone also increased, from 44% in 2007 to 51% in 2009. Using the mobile phone for listening to music was also more popular in 2009 than it was in 2007 (33% v. 25%). Other than making a phone call, texting was the most common use of the mobile phone with 88% of mobile phone users saying they sent text messages.
Page 124 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 14: Use of mobile phone features (UK)
Source: [4.20] According to [4.50], majority of growth in teen cell phone ownership is among younger teenagers. Cell phones are nearly ubiquitous in the lives of teens today, with ownership cutting across demographic groups. Beyond age, there are few differences in cell phone ownership between groups of teens. Boys and girls are just as likely to have a phone, though they do not always use it in the same way. However, as shown in Figure 4 15, as with computers, socioeconomic status is one area where cell phone ownership rates vary, with teens from lower income families less likely to own a mobile phone. Information about phone ownership and income in Europe is sparse. However, studies in the US show more than half (59%) of teens in households earning less than $30,000 annually have a mobile phone, whereas more than 3 quarters of teens from wealthier families own one.
Figure 4 15: % of teens who own a mobile phone, by age and income (US)
Source: [4.50] According to [4.65], more than eight in ten (86%) adults now have a cell phone, including majorities across all age groups. Millennials are somewhat more likely than all other age groups to have a cell phone: 94% have one, as do 90% of Gen Xers and 89% of Boomers. Although significantly fewer in the Silent generation have a cell phone, even 62% among this group now have a cell phone. According to the Pew Research Center’s recent projections, based on data from the National Health Interview Survey, 21% of all adults depend exclusively on a cell phone for calls and do not have landline phones in their homes. The proportion of adults who have only a cell phone has steadily increased since 2003; the share of adults who have both a landline and cell phone has also grown during this time. Page 125 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Millennials continue to be far more likely than other age groups to rely only on a cell phone for their communication needs. In the survey, 41% of Millennials were reached on a cell phone and say they have no landline at home. By comparison, 24% of Gen Xers, 13% of Boomers and 5% of those in the Silent generation have become cell phone only.
Figure 4 16: Millennials and mobile phones (US)
Source: [4.65] Moreover, Millennials are more likely than older Americans to treat their cell phones as a necessary and important appendage. Many even bring their cell phones to bed. A majority (57%) of the public has placed their cell phone on or right next to their bed while sleeping. Millennials are more likely than their elders to do so: 83% have placed their cell phone on or right next to their bed while sleeping. A large majority (68%) of Gen Xers also have slept with or near their cell phone, as have 50% of Boomers. Of the Silent generation, the least likely to have a cell phone, just 20% have kept their cell phones nearby while sleeping. A majority of Americans (59%) say they use their cell phone to send or receive text messages, while 26% have not used their cell phones to text and 14% do not use cell phones at all. Nearly half of the public (48%) reports sending or receiving text messages in the 24 hours preceding the survey. Among those who texted in the previous 24 hours, the median number of messages sent and received is 10. Millennials are more likely than older adults to use their cell phones to send and receive text messages: 88% use their cell phones to text, as do 77% of Gen Xers and 51% of Boomers. Only 9% of those in the Silent generation use their cell phones to text. A similar pattern is evident when it comes to texting in the previous 24 hours, but the gap between Millennials and those in other age groups is even larger. Four in five (80%) Millennials texted in the previous 24 hours, compared with 63% of Gen Xers, 35% of Boomers and 4% of Silents. As illustrated in Figure 4 17, among Millennials who have texted in the last 24 hours, there are age and racial differences in the number of texts sent and received. Among younger Millennials (those 18 to 24), the median number sent or received is 40, compared with 12 for Millennials ages 25 to 29. Similarly, among blacks who have texted in the previous day, the median number of texts sent or received is 50 compared with 20 among whites.
Page 126 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 17: Millennials and text messages (US)
Source: [4.65]
Mp3 players In Q4 2008 Synovate EMS found that amongst the 13 per cent most affluent people in 13 leading European countries 54% owned an Mp3 player. This figure was slightly less than the proportion that owned a laptop or notebook computer (62%). According to [4.50], among different gadgets (namely, computers, mp3 players, game consoles, portable gaming devices, and e book readers), mp3 players are most popular with adults (43% own one), while just 3% of adults own an e book reader. Mp3 players are especially popular with young adults. With numbers that match teens, fully three quarters of 18 24 year olds own an mp3 player; that compares with slightly more than half of 25 29 year olds (56%) and 30 49 year olds (55%) and just one fifth of adults age 50 or older (20%). As with other gadgets, mp3 ownership is positively correlated with educational attainment and income. Ownership of mp3 players by adults has risen steadily since the question was first asked in January 2005, when just 11% of adults owned a digital music player. Among teens, the percentage of teens with an mp3 player has also increased significantly, from 51% of teens in November 2006 to nearly 80% today. Once again, although the percentage might not reflect the European scenario, proportions are much likely to be very similar.
Figure 4 18: Mp3 players among teens (US)
Source: [4.50]
Gaming devices Furthermore, research carried out in [4.50] shows that teens are enthusiastic consumers of gaming devices both wired and portable. Fully 80% of teens between the ages of 12 and 17 have a game console
Page 127 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc like a Wii, an Xbox or a PlayStation. While younger and older teens are equally likely to have a game console, boys are more likely than girls to have one. Nearly 9 in 10 (89%) boys have a game console, while 70% of girls report ownership. Younger teens, ages 12 to 15 are more likely to own a game console than 16 17 year olds. Half of teens (51%) have a portable gaming device like a PSP, DS or a Gameboy. Unlike other tech gadgets, portable gaming devices are more often owned by younger teens, with two thirds (66%) of teens ages 12 13 owning a portable game player compared with 44% of 14 to 17 year olds. As with consoles, boys are more likely than girls to own a portable gaming device; 56% of boys own one, as do 47% of girls. Beyond the age and gender differences in ownership, portable and console gaming platforms are equally likely to be found in households regardless of race, ethnicity, household income or parent’s education. Overall, 37% of adults report owning a game console like an XBox or Play Station, and 18% report owning a portable gaming device such as a PSP or DS. Not surprisingly, adults under age 30 are more likely than older adults to own gaming consoles, but they are not just for the very young. While 59% of adults under age 30 own a gaming console, that number drops just eight percentage points to 51% among 30 49 year olds. Moreover, 18 29 year olds are less likely than 30 49 year olds to own a portable gaming device (22% v. 30%). There are also gender differences in this area; men are slightly more likely than women to own a game console (39% v. 34%), while women are slightly more likely to own a portable gaming device (20% v. 16%).
Figure 4 19: Game consoles (left) and portable gaming devices (right)
Source: [4.50] Contrary to common belief, there is little evidence to support the concern that playing video games promotes behaviors or attitudes that undermine civic commitments and behaviors. At the same time, there is little evidence to support the idea that playing video games, in general, is associated with a vibrant civic or political life. An interesting survey and analysis carried out by [4.48] concludes that neither the frequency of game play nor the amount of time young people spend playing games is significantly related to most of the examined civic and political outcomes – i.e. following politics, persuading others how to vote, contributing to charities, volunteering, or staying informed about politics and current events. The frequency of gaming was related to only two civic and political outcomes—political interest and protesting—with differences only emerging between the highest and lowest frequency of game play. Longitudinal and quasi experimental studies have identified that teens with the most (top 25%) civic gaming experiences were more likely to report interest and engagement in civic and political activities than teens with the fewest (bottom 25%). Page 128 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Having defined Social Media and illustrated the their booming relevance through increased high speed internet access and users’ enthusiasm in related ICT gadgets, one would be keen to know what activities are carried online.
4.1.2 Activities carried out online Multivariate analysis carried out by Eurostat [4.24] has allowed the development of a conceptual typology of the ways the internet is used: Recreational: it is associated with playing, downloading media or software, using social networking sites, sharing videos and photos, etc.; Resource enhancing: this use includes e learning, reading the news, social networking and work; Instrumental: this usage includes buying and selling, eBanking and dealing with the public administration.
Figure 4 20: Conceptual typology of internet use
Source: [4.24] The figure (above) shows that the categories are not mutually exclusive: about one quarter of EU27 internet users fall under all categories. On the contrary, 18% of EU27 users make "tentative users": they use e mails and search engines but have not yet engaged in more advanced applications. Literature overflows with facts and figures on the use of the internet among American users and consumers, however the information on Europe appears to be much more fragmented and sometimes incomplete. Nevertheless, recent European studies and surveys [4.21] [4.41] attempt to shed light on the genre of activities carried out online. From these analyses, it emerges that the percentage of the EU population using internet services has grown substantially since 2005 (Figure 4 21). The largest increases have occurred with respect to the proportion of the population using the internet for sending and receiving e mails, as well as for finding information about goods and services, increasing by 11 points percentage, to 53% and 50% respectively, over the period up to 2008. Government take up has also grown, with 28 and 68% of citizens and business using eGovernment services respectively. Other less popular services which require more advanced internet skills (such as making phones calls using online Page 129 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc services like Skype and reading/downloading online newspapers and magazines) have also grown markedly, with the proportion of the population using these increasing by between 6 and 10 points percentage.
Figure 4 21: User’s most frequent online activities
Source: [4.41] In particular, users with higher educational levels use the internet more intensively, in particular for online transactions and electronic public services ( Figure 4 22). Not only do those with higher education use these services more, they also use them to a higher level; using more, and more complex, functionalities. This is shown, for example, in the use of eGovernment services where those with tertiary education are far more likely to go beyond basic information and use the internet to submit forms and carry out transactions.
Figure 4 22: Online activities by demographics (EU)
Page 130 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Source: [4.24] Similar conclusions can be drawn in relation to sharing content (Figure 4 23). Downloading music for instance is the main activity performed by Europeans in 2008, carried out by 24% of EU individuals and followed by listening to web radios and/or watching web TV (20%). Movie downloading is also a very common activity, whereas playing online video games with others (7%) and activities requiring uploading of information (images, photos, videos or music) (12%) are not yet as widespread as content downloading. Only 7% of respondents declared that they have used peer to peer applications. It is worth pointing out that activities that involve downloading seem to be far more popular than activities involving uploading (self generated content, peer to peer). This is consistent with information provided later in this section with regard to user categories such as Creators and Spectators.
Figure 4 23: Internet use to share content (EU)
Source: [4.41] Use of advanced communication services is also on the rise (Figure 4 24). According to Eurostat figures [4.21], in 2008 35% of Europeans had used the internet in the last 3 months prior to the survey for advanced communication services, these include creating or maintaining web logs, using instant messaging, posting messages to chat sites, newsgroups or online discussion forums, telephoning over the internet and video calls and reading web logs. Within advanced services, instant messaging appears as the most attractive communication application of the internet with 22% of EU citizens using it, followed by internet telephoning and video calls (16%) and posting of messages to news groups and online fora (16%), along with reading blogs (15%). For
Page 131 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc younger people, e mail is also a very dominant application (78%) closely followed by instant messaging (59%). Posting of messages (44%) and reading blogs (35%) are the following most common services. Interestingly, telephone over the internet and video calls is not one of the most demanded uses by younger users, exactly the opposite of what happens with people aged 55 to 74, of which 7% seem to find in internet telephony and video calls the most interesting service.
Figure 4 24: Internet use as a communication tool
Source: [4.41] According to [4.74], three quarters of online economic users are using the internet as a diversion and way to relax and take their minds off of their economic troubles. Listening to music and watching online videos are among the most common of the activities evaluated; roughly half of all online economic users have done each of these activities to relax. Approximately one third of online economic users have played online games or chatted with friends on a social networking site, listserv or other online. Listening to music and watching online videos are among the most common of the activities evaluated; roughly half of all online economic users have done each of these activities to relax. Approximately one third of online economic users have played online games or chatted with friends (on a social networking site, listserv or other online group), while an additional 22% have taken their minds off of their economic or financial circumstances by creating or posting content online (Figure 4 25 left). As shown in (Figure 4 25 right), the youngest online economic users (those ages 18 29) are significantly more likely than other age groups to engage in a wide range of online relaxation activities. Among these young online economic users, three quarters say that they go online to relax by watching online videos (74%) or listening to music online (73%); roughly half play online games (52%) or go online to chat with friends (55%); and two in five post their own original creations online. Although the youngest online economic users turn to the internet in the largest numbers to relax, those in other age groups tend to do so as well. For instance, among online economic users ages 30 49, more
Page 132 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc than half say they relax by watching online videos (58%) or listening to music online (52%); additionally, one third play online games (34%) or chat with friends online (33%).
Figure 4 25: Internet as a diversion
Source: [4.74]
4.1.2.1 Demographics and online activities According to [4.61], it is important to dispel a number of myths about teens’ generation and their use of new media: Teens are NOT abandoning TV for new media: In fact, they watch more TV than ever, up 6% over the past five years in the US; Teens love the internet but spend far less time browsing than adults: they spend 11 hours and 32 minutes per month online—far below the average of 29 hours and 15 minutes; Teens watch less online video than most adults, but the ads are highly engaging to them: they spend 35% less time watching online video than adults 25–34, but recall ads better when watching TV shows online than they do on television (Figure 4 26); Teens read newspapers, listen to the radio and even like advertising more than most: teens who recall TV ads are 44% more likely to say they liked the ad; Teens play video games, but are as excited about play along music games and car racing games as they are about violent ones: just two of their top five most anticipated games since 2005 are rated “Mature”; Teens’ favorite TV shows, top websites and genre preferences across media are mostly the same as those of their parents. As with internet access at large, discussed in more detail in this report, the gap between teen and adult time spent is less an indication of lackluster interest and more a function of access. Unlike adults, many of whom spend hours of the workday with a broadband internet connection, much of a teen’s waking moments are spent in the classroom, at extracurricular activities, at a part time job and moving about an otherwise hyper social high school ecosystem.
Page 133 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 26: Monthly time spent watching online videos by ages (US)
Source: [4.61] According to [4.39] Teens and Generation Y (internet users age 18 32) are the most likely groups to use the internet for entertainment and for communicating with friends and family. These younger generations are significantly more likely than their older counterparts to seek entertainment through online videos, online games, and virtual worlds, and they are also more likely to download music to listen to later, to read other people’s blogs and to write their own; they are also considerably more likely than older generations to use social networking sites, to create profiles on those sites, and to send instant messages to friends. By a large margin, teen internet users’ favorite online activity is game playing; 78% of 12 17 year old internet users play games online, compared with 73% of online teens who email, the second most popular activity for this age group. Online teens are also significantly more likely to play games than any other generation, including Generation Y, only half (50%) of whom play online games. Perhaps less surprisingly, Generation Y is also gaining significant ground in some activities previously dominated by Generation X and older. In addition to becoming more likely to do banking online, Generation Y has also grown more likely to make their travel reservations online. In 2005, half (50%) of Generation Y internet users had booked travel arrangements online, and, in 2008, that number rose to 65%. During the same time, the percentages of Generation X and older generations to make online travel reservations remained about the same. Internet users 18 32 are going online more than ever to do research for their jobs. In 2007, 51% said they used the internet for their jobs other than for email, compared with 44% of the same group in 2005. Generation X (internet users ages 33 44) continues to lead in online shopping. Fully 80% of Generation X internet users buy products online, compared with 71% of internet users ages 18 32. Interest in online shopping is significantly lower among the youngest and oldest groups; 38% of online teens buy products online, as do 56% of internet users ages 64 72 and 47% of internet users age 73 and older. Generation X internet users have also maintained their edge in online banking, as they are significantly more likely than any other generation to do their banking online (67%). As Generation Y users get older, however, they have grown much more likely to bank online as well: the percentage of online Generation Y to do their banking online is up from 38% in 2005 to 57% in 2008. There has been no significant growth among older generations when it comes to banking online. Older generations use the internet as a tool for research, shopping and banking: compared with teens and Generation Y, older generations use the internet less for socialising and entertainment and more as a tool for information searches, emailing, and buying products. In particular, they are significantly more Page 134 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc likely than younger generations to look online for health information. Health questions drive internet users age 73 and older to the internet just as frequently as they drive Generation Y users, outpacing teens by a significant margin. They are also more likely to look online for religious information and they are more likely to visit government websites in search of information. Video downloads, online travel reservations, and work related research are now pursued more equally by young and old: a few online activities that were previously dominated by either older generations or younger generations are now being done more equally across all generations under 73 years old. One such activity is downloading videos, an activity that in 2005 was significantly more popular with teens and Generation Y than with any other generation. Generation X is catching up, as 31% of that generation claim to download videos as of 2007, compared with 38% of Generation Y. Generations on the oldest end of the spectrum also became significantly more likely than they had been two years before to download videos. Some 13% of G.I. Generation internet users (age 73+) reported downloading videos, up from 1% in 2005, and another 13% of the online Silent Generation (ages 64 72) say they download videos, up from 8% in 2005. According to [4.57], while much of the content on video sharing sites is user generated, there is also a growing archive of professional content available through YouTube and newer network sponsored video portals like Vimeo. Efforts to lure viewers to these portals appear to be paying off, as more than a third of internet users (35%) now say they have viewed a television show or movie online. In comparison, just 16% of internet users said they had watched or downloaded movies or TV shows when asked a similar question in 2007. As internet users become accustomed to regular on demand video viewing online, many are choosing to watch from the comfort of their couch. Among those who watch TV shows or movies online, 23% say they have connected their computer to a television screen so they could view video from the internet on their TV. That amounts to roughly 8% of all internet users.
Figure 4 27: Use of video sharing sites nearly doubles from 2006 2009
Source: [4.57]
Page 135 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
4.1.3 Who is on Social Media? According to [4.62], we are seeing exceptional growth over the last couple of years in both video and social media sites. While Member Communities have been generating impressive audience numbers for the last five years, video audiences have been growing at meteoric rates, surpassing e mail audiences in November 2007 (left in Figure 4 29). Moreover, from a time spent perspective, Member Communities surpassed e mail for the first time in February 2009. Video has been running neck and neck with search for the last year or so (right in Figure 4 29). Figure 4 28 – source: NetPop Research
Figure 4 29: Audience utilities, video and social media (left); time spent increase, video and social media (right)
Source: [4.62] According to [4.60], social networking was the global consumer phenomenon of 2008. Two thirds of the world’s internet population now visits a social network or blogging site and the sector accounts for almost 10% of all internet time. So called member communities’ has overtaken personal e mail to become the world’s fourth most popular online sector after search, portals and PC software applications. Member communities now reach over 5 percentage points more of the internet population than it did a year ago – a growth rate more than twice that of any of the other four largest sectors. The strongest growth has come in Germany where the sector now reaches 51% of Germans online compared to 39% a year ago – an increase of 12 per cent.
Page 136 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Large growth has also occurred in the UK, Spain, Italy and Switzerland – the sector reaching ten per cent more of the online population in each of these countries than it did a year ago.
Figure 4 30: Increase in online reach of member community websites (i.e. social networks) (US)
Source: [4.60] According to [4.60], Germans’ reluctance to disclosing personal data resulted in social networking taking off later than in most other countries. However, the activity is starting to spread to the wider online population due to sites like Wer kennt wen11, (literally translated as “Who Knows Whom). Facebook has also started to make a bigger impression since launching a German language interface in March 2008 – the last six months of 2008 saw the site triple its audience to over 2.4 million unique visitors. Figure 4 31, on the other hand, shows that use of social networking sites cuts across all age groups:while just over half (51%) of the unique audience of member communities were under 35, nearly a quarter of those who logged on to a member community in August 2007 were over 50.
Figure 4 31: Member communities’ audience broken down by age
Source: [4.63]
11 http://www.wer kennt wen.de/ Page 137 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
4.1.3.1 Age groups and social media As illustrated in Figure 4 32 below, more than one third of European online consumers ages 43 to 63 already read social media such as blogs and forums on a regular basis, and around one tenth are already uploading their own content — such as videos and music — onto the Web. Overall, 47% of Younger Boomers (online adults ages 43 to 52) now engage with social media on a regular basis, and 41% of Older Boomers (those ages 53 to 63) do. Boomers in the different European countries exhibit different behaviours, just as their younger compatriots do – for example, 69% of Dutch 43 to 52 year olds (and 60% of 53 63 year olds) use social media on a regular basis, whilst only around a third of German Boomers do.
Figure 4 32: Age groups and social media (US)
Source: [4.29] According to research carried out by MediaBadger12, users aged 12 25 tend to use more mobile social media tools, such as SMS/txt and mobile oriented social media tools. Ages 25 45 cross over in a mix between web based and mobile usage. The most popular social media tool for this group is email, although a trend towards more use of social networking tools for communication is observed, with a preference for Facebook whereas mobile usage of social tools seems to be around Twitter, Blackberry messenger or iPhone apps. Many similarities in usage patterns across the two halves of the group are found, when the groups is ordinarily split into two segments. This group also likes less text in blogs and on websites and enjoys video. Their content creation however, remains heavily text oriented and very little use of video. The group 46 55 generally sticks to the web (about 90% of the time) rarely using SMS/txt messaging. They’ll use a blog but rarely a microblog. This group is likely to print and read a document on paper rather than a monitor. They are more distrustful of social media and the content therein. Their approach to content creation is textual and rarely visual through video and images.
12 http://www.mediabadger.com/2009/03/age groups and social media habits/ Page 138 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
From 56 to 65 there is fairly regular use of social media and this seems to be driven as the result of familiar communications. New tools are not easily adopted and this age range is more politically conservative and traditional in their media consumption habits (radio, TV, print news.) Use of social tools seems to be on services like Facebook where they can work within a set framework. Users over 65 use of social tools drops significantly as would be expected. Clearly there are generational preferences to the tools available. One issue that is brought to attention is that the under 25 bracket have little to no loyalty to a specific service, whereas the 25 45 bracket seem to be far more loyal to a social tool/service.
4.1.3.2 Gender and social media According to a Nielsen global study [4.62] and as shown in Figure 4 33, Mums in general and in particular New Mums (younger, one child) are much more likely to visit social networking sites and publish or own a blog than most other online users. Social networking plays a prominent role with Mothers aged 25 35 with at least one child at home. In addition to e mail, they are 85% more likely to spend time with Facebook compared to the average online consumer. “Power” Moms aged 39 54 are only 23% more likely to post comments on a social network. While “Established” Moms (aged 40 50 with 3+ children) are heavy online shoppers who stay connected via e mail and dabble in social networking. Moreover, according to Facebook, women aged 40 50 in the home are the fastest growing demographic group on the site.
Figure 4 33: Social Media Moms
Source: [4.62]
4.1.4 Why use social media? In a European study Forrester Research [4.27] have elaborated an interest classification of people according to how they use social media. As shown in Figure 4 34, Creators represent the top of the ladder: creator users make social content go; they write blogs or upload videos, music and text. Following, Critics respond to content from others; they post reviews, comment on blogs, participate in forums, and edit wiki articles. At mid position, Collectors organize content for themselves or other using RSS feeds, tags, and voting sites like Digg.com, while at the bottom of the ladder Joiners connect in social networks like Facebook and MySpace and Spectators simply look up social content including blogs, user generated video, podcasts, forums, or reviews. Page 139 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 34: Social media users’ categories
Source: [4.27] Forrester Research goes on to quantify the presence of each online group of users within the European population. The results of their surveys tell us that Spectators represent the largest group with 49%, followed by inactive users (40%); interestingly, the smallest group is represented by Collectors. If compared, with US data, it is worth noting that, despite the almost identical ranking of the six user groups, each group presents a remarkably higher percentage of users thus highlighting a much active online population in terms of content creation. In the US inactive users account for 18% of total users, in comparison with 40% in Europe. Data shown in Figure 4 35 can be further broken down by gender; this shows that European males are above average for all user groups except Joiners, whereas figures are exactly reversed for women. Inactive users account for 37% amongst men and 43% amongst women. Therefore overall there exists a gender gap on use of social media. As for age groups, users age 18 24 display rates of participation well above average for all active groups; the same applies to the group 25 34 albeit with lower gaps from the average rate. Age group 35 44, on the other hand, displays rates that are slightly below average for all user groups except Spectators. Finally groups 45 54 and 55+ present figures below average for all user groups, although the latter displays wider gaps from the average; both groups account for the highest rates of inactive users.
Page 140 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 35: User groups (EU)
Source: [4.52] A few interesting remarks also stem from Figure 4 36 below. Firstly, the study shows that spectators are still a very high proportion of European internet users (49%), surprisingly enough with ICT advanced countries like the Netherlands in pole position (29%). However, on a more positive note, the Collector group represent a comparatively low rate (6%), which seems to be rather homogeneous in all six observed countries. Interestingly, Italy shows a higher than average percentage of Creator users (17% versus 14%), which suggests an encouraging cultural trend that is taking shape on the web.
Page 141 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 36: User groups by country
Source: [4.52] Preceding analysis of European internet use and uptake would suggest that younger generations should be the most active creators and critics. This is corroborated by Figure 4 37. European data was not available so the figure is based on a US survey, but other underlying results suggest similar European trends and these results therefore provide an insight into European younger generations’ online behavior within the wider online community. First and foremost, the chart tells that age group 18 24 displays higher rates than average for every activity carried out online in relation to social media – in some cases with a rather wide divide from the average: i.e. having visited a social networking site, having created or updated a personal profile, having watched an online video produced by others.
Page 142 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 37: Users’ adoption of social media (US)
Source: [4.29]
4.1.4.1 Creating content According to an Oxford Internet Institute study [4.20] the production and creation of content online increased dramatically between 2005 and 2007, largely due to the development of Web 2.0 (social networking) opportunities which have made it easier for users to generate content. For example, while in 2005 only 18% posted photos online, in 2009 almost half (44%) did this, making it the most popular creative activity online after social networking (49%). Other creative and productive activities also increased significantly since 2007. In 2009, 33% posted messages on discussion boards, 27% used distribution lists and around one fifth of internet users maintained a blog (22%) or website (20%). Men were in general more likely to create online content than women; they were more likely to post messages (39%), write blogs (26%) and to maintain a website (25%). Nevertheless, women were just as likely to update their social networking profile as men (49%). Amongst women the most popular activity was to post photos (42%) although this was still less popular than amongst men. Women were least likely to maintain a website (16%) or write a blog (18%).
Page 143 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 38: Creativity and production online (UK)
Source: [4.20] Other studies carried out in the US ([4.47], [4.49], [4.50]) have highlighted that teens are avid and clever creators of digital content. Recent data suggest that some online content creating activities have remained constant over time, while others have shown slight or even significant declines since 2006. Adults, however, have shown some increases in content creating over the past few years, with most of the increases found among adults older than 30. The proportion of adults who create or work on a website (either a personal site, or someone else’s) has remained consistent over the last two years. Fourteen percent of online adults maintain a personal webpage (unchanged from the 14% who did so in December 2007), while 15% work on the webpages of others (also unchanged from the 13% who did so in December 2007). Adult internet users under age thirty are more likely than those ages thirty and up to work on a personal webpage (18% vs. 13%) as well as to work on a webpage for someone else (21% vs. 13%). Within the under thirty cohort, those ages 18 24 and those 25 29 are equally likely to work on webpages of any kind. Men are more likely than women to work on their own webpage (16% of online men do so, compared with 12% of online women) as well as to work on webpages for others (17% vs. 12%). As illustrated in Figure 4 39, posting comments online (such as on a news group, website, blog or photo site) has become somewhat more common among adults over the last two years. Just over one quarter (26%) of wired adults posted comments online in September 2009, this increased from 22% of wired adults in late 2007. As with many of the content creation activities discussed here, those under the age of thirty are no more likely to post online comments in 2009 then they were in 2007, while for older adults commenting has become more popular in recent years. In 2009 33% of internet users ages 18 29 posted comments online (unchanged from the 35% who did so in December 2007). Among internet users ages thirty and up, one quarter (24%) now post comments online, up from 18% in late 2007. As reported earlier, teens are enthusiastic online commenters within the social network context. Fully 86% of social networking teens post comments to a friend’s page or wall on a social network site and 83% post comments on friends’ photos posted to an online social network. There is little variation in online commenting by adults based on gender, race/ethnicity or income. However, education does play a role—31% of adult internet users with at least some college experience post comments online, significantly higher than the 20% of those with a high school degree or less who do so.
Page 144 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 39: Adults posting blog comments (US)
Source: [4.50] According to [4.65], only 7% of the public has ever posted a video of themselves online, but Millennials are much more likely than older Americans to have done so. One in five Millennials (20%) have posted video of themselves online, compared with only 6% of Gen Xers, 2% of Boomers and 1% of those in the Silent generation. There are significant differences among Millennials by age, gender and education. About a quarter (24%) of younger Millennials have posted a video of themselves on the internet, compared with 14% of older Millennials. In addition, more men (24%) than women (16%) have posted video of themselves online. Millennials with at least some college education are also more likely to have uploaded video of themselves; 23% of those with college experience have posted their videos online, compared with 16% of Millennials who have never attended college.
Figure 4 40: Users posting videos (US)
Source: [4.65]
4.1.4.2 Sharing content As reported in [4.50], teens share self created content online like photos, videos, artwork or stories. Online sharing of content that teens have created themselves has remained steady since 2006; 38% of internet using teens say they shared content online in 2009, similar to the 39% who said the same in November 2006. There is no variation among teens today in sharing self created content by sex or socioeconomic status – all groups are equally likely to share. By comparison, in 2006, girls and older Page 145 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc teens were more likely to share content online. Still, in 2006 and in 2009, there were no differences in sharing content by race, ethnicity, family income or parent’s education level. While creative content sharing among teens has not increased significantly since 2006, more adults now share self created content online than did so two years ago. Three in ten online adults (30%) share online content as of September 2009, up from 21% of such adults in December 2007. Interestingly, almost none of this growth over time has come from young adults. Thirty seven percent of online 18 29 year olds now share their personal creations online, a figure that is unchanged from the 36% who did so in 2007. In contrast, 28% of internet users ages thirty and up now take part in this activity, a twelve point increase from the 16% who did so in 2007. There are no major differences in online content sharing among adults based on gender or race/ethnicity, although there is some variation based on educational attainment. One third (34%) of internet users with at least some college experience post their own creations online, compared with one quarter (24%) of those with a high school degree or less.
Figure 4 41: Content sharing online (US)
Source: [4.50]
4.1.4.3 Customising content As with content sharing, teens have held steady in their reports of remixing online content – taking material they find online such as songs, text or images and remixing it into their own artistic creations – as reported in [4.50]. About one in five online teens (21%) report customising digital content, which is not a statistically meaningful difference from our previous finding that 26% of teens reported remixing in November 2006. Girls are more likely to remix content than boys, with one quarter (26%) of online girls remixing online material compared to 15% of boys. Younger boys are the least likely to customise content – just 9% of online boys ages 12 13 remix. Customising shows no variation by race, income or parent’s level of education. Remixing in 2006 showed similar patterns to 2009, with the only difference being that boys and girls were equally likely to report remixing content in 2006. Among online adults, 15% take part in remix culture—and as with online content sharing, remixing has grown somewhat in popularity among older adults over the last two years and not at all among young adults or teens. One in five (19%) online 18 29 year olds remixes content they find online (unchanged from the 20% who did so in late 2007), while 13% of internet users ages thirty and up do so (a five percentage point increase from the 8% who did so in 2007). In contrast to teens, among adults, men and women are equally likely to remix content. There is little variation among adults based on socio economic status.
Page 146 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 42: Online content customisation (US)
Source: [4.50] According to [4.80] and as illustrated in Figure 4 43, Facebook now dominates sharing activities, with 24 percent of shares from the widget consisting of users posting items to the social network. That exceeds email (11.1 percent) and Twitter (10.8 percent), making the world’s most popular social network also the most popular service for sharing content. This is undoubtedly welcome news at Facebook, as the site continues to emphasise sharing and prepares for the launch of its own real time search engine.
Figure 4 43: Content sharing on social media
Source: [4.80]
Page 147 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
4.2 Groups of Users in Social Media (in top SM sites) per sector Notwithstanding the general definition of Social Media provided previously, there are various types of Social Media that need to be further described. However, there is no widely accepted systematic way in which different Social Media platforms have been categorised.
For instance, [4.40] relies on a set of theories in the field of media research (social presence, media richness) and social processes (self presentation, self disclosure), the two key elements of Social Media. They therefore assume that a first classification can be made based on the richness of the medium and the degree of social presence it allows – as visualized in the table.
Source: [4.40]
4.2.1 A methodology to examine the characteristics of social media It was noted earlier that wherever possible European information and studies are used in this report to investigate internet and social media use. In a number of categories, most notably demographics (4.1.2.1), age (4.1.3.1), gender (4.1.3.2), education (4.1.3.5) and income (4.1.3.6) of people using social media there was a paucity of information or studies from Europe. In order to obtain a better understanding of the characteristics of users of different social media an innovative methodology was adopted to address these gaps. The approach uses Google ad Planner. This is a research and media planning tool that connects advertisers and publishers. When using Google Ad Planner, users simply enter demographics and sites associated with their target audience, and the tool will return information about sites (both on and off the Google content network) that the target audience is likely to visit. The element of the applications most useful for this study was the ability to drill down further to get more detail like demographics and related searches for a particular site. However it should be noted that the Google Ad Planner methodology is based on cookies. The application updates data about sites in real time so results may vary overtime. In order to address this problem all results for the next four pages were collected on the same day (March 11th, 2010). Data was not available for Pageflakes, Google Buzz, Google Wave, Youtube, Picasa, Msn Live, Orkut. The data has the ability to enable the characteristics of users (of the same site) located in Europe to be compared with those in the US. For example the figure below shows that the gender divide for the use of 25 leading social media sites amongst European users is relatively male dominated. Across the 25 sites shown in the figure
Page 148 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc approximately 67 per cent of users are male and 33 per cent are female. The site nearest to parity amongst European users is Facebook, this has 53 per cent male users. In the US the situation is much closer to parity. On average 56 per cent of users are male and 44 per cent are female.
Figure 4 44: Social media by gender (EU and US)
Source: authors’ elaboration The figure overpage provides the age characteristics of users of the 25 social media in Europe and the US. The aggregate age profiles for the 25 social media sites are very similar. In Europe 59.5 per cent of users are aged between 25 and 44. In the US the figure for the same age group is 51.9 per cent of users. In Europe only 20.8 per cent of users of the 25 social media sites are over the age of 45. In the US the proportion is 23.1 per cent. In Europe Bebo (42.8 per cent) and Friendster (32 per cent) have the youngest age profiles, with 42.8 per cent and 32 per cent of users respectively being under the age of 24. In the US Bebo (49 per cent) and Chatroulette (41 per cent) have the youngest age profiles. In Europe the highest proportion of users over the age of 55 can be found at Wikipedia (11.2 per cent) and Linkedin (10 per cent). In the US the highest proportion of users over the age of 55 can be found at Classmates (14 per cent) and Linkedin (13 per cent). Page 149 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Europe USA
Figure 4 45: Social media by average aggregate age groups (EU and US)
Page 150 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 46: Social media by age groups (EU and US) Source: authors’ elaboration The figure overpage provides the educational characteristics of users of the 25 social media in Europe and the US. The aggregate age profiles for the 25 social media sites are different. In Europe 50.1 per cent of users are from the two lowest levels of education (limited and high school). In the US the proportion of users from these groups comprise only 26.9 per cent of all users. However, it must be noted that comparisons between age or stage of education and the different educational systems in Europe and the US can be fraught with difficulties. are aged between 25 and 44. In the US the figure for the same age group is 51.9 per cent of users. In Europe only 20.8 per cent of users of the 25 social media sites are over the age of 45. In the US the proportion is 23.1 per cent. In Europe Linkedin (14.4 per cent) and Friendfeed (10.6 per cent) are the most popular sites for most educate group (graduates). In the US Linkedin (14 per cent), Delicious and Wikipedia (both 12 per cent) are the most popular for this group.
Page 151 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
At the other end of the scale in Europe the most popular sites for those in the lowest educational group are Hi5 (37.6 per cent) and Tagged (34.8 per cent). In the US Bebo (41 per cent) and Myspace (32 per cent) are the most popular for this group.
Figure 4 47: Social media by educational groups (EU and US) Europe USA
Page 152 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 48: Social media by education (EU and US)
Source: authors’ elaboration The figure above provides the wealth characteristics of users of the 25 social media in Europe and the US. The aggregate age profile for the 25 social media sites are similar amongst the wealthiest three categories, but very different amongst the least wealthy. In Europe those in the two least wealthy categories make up a far greater proportion of users (Europe 54.2 per cent and 44 per cent in the US). In Europe Livejournal (47 per cent) and Friendfeed (46 per cent) are the most popular sites for the least wealthy group. In the US Friendfeed (29 per cent) and Myspace (24 per cent) are the most popular for this group. At the other end of the scale in Europe the most popular sites for those in the highest income group are Linkedin (15 per cent) and Facebook (11 per cent). In the US Linkedin (10 per cent) and Wikipedia (5 per cent) are the most popular for this group. Page 153 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 49: Social media by income groups (EU and US) Europe USA
Page 154 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 50: Social media by income (EU vs US)
Source: authors’ elaboration Page 155 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
4.2.2 Overview of results from the innovative research method The use of Google Ad Planner as method to investigate internet and social media use and overcome problems in obtaining information in a number of areas where there was a paucity of European data. The method appears to be robust for obtaining information about demographics (4.1.2.1), age (4.1.3.1), gender (4.1.3.2), education (4.1.3.5) and income (4.1.3.6). However, the methodology is based on analysis derived from cookies. Some users prefer not to enable cookies so these more cautious users might be not be represented in the analysis. It is also important to remember that the application updates data about sites in real time so results may vary overtime. Repetition at number of diverse days and times might enable the results to be ‘double checked’. Nonetheless, the results do provide a valuable insight into social media use in Europe. One of the objectives of this research is to suggest social media that might be used in later stages of the study for the development of applications. The platforms should be as representative of all European social media users as possible. The tables below list the top five European social media sites for different user characteristics investigated during the research. Top 5 Female % Top 5 Male % Facebook.com 47.6 Friendfeed.com 83.2 Hi5.com 42 Reddit.com 81.2 Myspace.com 42 Stumbleupon.com 81 Wikipedia.org 41.4 Digg.com 79.8 Friendster.com 39.6 Delicious.com 78.6 Top 5 Under 24 % Top 5 Over 55 % Bebo.com 32.8 Wikipedia.org 11.2 Friendster.com 32 Linkedin.com 10 Xanga.com 32 Blogger.com 9.2 Last.fm 27.2 Facebook.com 9 Livejournal.com 26.8 Netvibes.com 8 Lowest two educational Highest two % % groups educational groups Bebo.com 60.6 Linkedin.com 37 Hi5.com 60.4 Classmates.com 31 Xanga.com 60.2 Delicious.com 28.2 Friendster.com 59 Netvibes.com 27.2 Tagged.com 57.4 Friendfeed.com 26.2
Page 156 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Lowest two income Highest two income % % groups groups Xanga.com 71.8 Linkedin.com 25.8 Classmates.com 63.8 Facebook.com 24 Friendfeed.com 63 Wikipedia.org 21.4 Livejournal.com 62.2 Twitter.com 18.2 Reddit.com 60.8 Last.fm 17.8 The table below shows that five social media platforms provide good coverage of the above categories. Each of the five social media appears in three of the top five sites listed in the preceding tables. It is suggested that these platforms provide a sound basis for the development of applications that will have the widest appeal to European social media users. 24 55 Male Lowest Lowest Female income income Highest Highest Over Under education education
Facebook.com Y Y Y Friendfeed.com Y Y Y Friendster.com Y Y Y Linkedin.com Y Y Y Xanga.com Y Y Y
Bebo appears in first place in two of the top five sites (under 24 and low education) listed in the preceding tables Any decision about which site to adopt for further development by the project will probably take into account other factors. Google Ad Planner also provides details about a number of other site characteristics. The table below shows key characteristics including the nature of the site, the number of unique visitors (this is not available for Europe, but the total number worldwide [excluding the US] can be calculated) and the technology platforms on which the site operates.
Page 157 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Unique vistors Alexa traffic Technology Type (excluding US) ranking platform
Social Web, mobile, app, Facebook.com 610 million 2nd Networking gadgets OK Social Friendfeed.com 2.8 million 721st Web, mobile, app, Networking Social Web, mobile, app, Friendster.com 11.6 million 266th Networking gadgets OK Social Web, mobile, app, Linkedin.com 40 million 29th Networking gadgets OK Xanga.com Blogging 2.6 million 1,057th Web, mobile,
Bebo is a social networking site with 11.5 million visitors (Alexa rank 553rd) operating on the web, mobile and gadgets OK.
4.2.3 Social networks Some commentators [4.18] suggest that examples of online social networking in its broadest sense can actually be traced back ten years earlier to 1987 with the development of a range of mainly green and ecological networks, which led to the formation of the Association of Progressive Communications (APC) in 1990. Since then, however, social networks have changed radically and millions of people around the world are actively using social networking sites, integrating their use into their daily lives. Boyd & Ellison [4.14] for instance offer the following definition for today’s Social Networking Sites:
Web based services (…) allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users within whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within their system.
In a recent report published by the UK Department for Communities and Local Government [4.18], a categorisation of social networks is provided in the attempt to map the variety of examples that are comprised in this bigger container that is labeled social network: Profile based services: these are primarily organised around members’ profile pages. Bebo, Facebook and MySpace are all good examples of this. Users develop their ‘web space’ in various ways and can often contribute to each other’s spaces – typically leaving text, embedded content or links to external content. In addition, some offer their users the ability to embed video
Page 158 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
content from sites such as YouTube13. These social networks tend to give the user the ability to choose where different content can be located on their social network pages. All services cited above are very different in their appearance and this undoubtedly influences which networks the different types of user sign up to. Content based social networks: With these services, the user’s profile remains an important way of organising connections. However, they play a secondary role in the posting of content. Photo sharing site Flickr is an example of this type of service, one where groups and comments are based around pictures. Shelfari is one of the current crop of book focused sites, with the members ‘bookshelf’ being a focal point of their profile and membership14. White label social networks: These sites offer members the opportunity to create and join communities – this means that users can create their own ‘mini MySpace’s’, small scale, personalised social networking sites about whatever the creator wants them to be about. One interesting example is WetPaint15, which uses social wikis as its format to enable social networking. Groups of people can become members of a specific social wiki enabling them to join in with generating content on their chosen subjects and to interact with those who share a similar interest. Multi User Virtual Environments: Gaming environments such as Runescape and virtual world sites like Second Life allow users to interact with each other’s avatars are a virtual representation of the user16. Mobile social networks: Many social networking sites are now offering mobile access to their services, allowing members to interact with their personal networks via their mobile phones. Two examples are Facebook and Bebo. Increasingly, there are mobile led and mobile only based communities emerging, such as Wadja17. Micro blogging/Presence updates: Many services let users post status updates i.e. short messages that can be updated to let people know what mood you are in or what you are doing. These types of networks enable users to be in constant touch with what their network is thinking, doing and talking about. Twitter and Wayn are examples18. Social Search: Sites like Wink and Spokeo19 generate results by searching across the public profiles of multiple social networking sites. This allows anyone to search by name, interest, location and other information published publicly on profiles, allowing the creation of web based ‘dossiers’ on individuals.
13 www.bebo.com, www.facebook.com, www.myspace.com, www.youtube.com 14 www.flickr.com, www.shelfari.com 15 www.wetpaint.com 16 www.runescape.com, www.secondlife.com 17 www.wadja.com 18 www.twitter.com, www.wayn.com 19 www.wink.com, www.spokeo.com Page 159 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Local Forums: Though often not included in social network definitions, place based fora such as Eastserve, Onsnet, and Cybermoor20 provide a localised form of social networking, linking online with offline activity. Thematic Websites: The building of networks around areas of common interest is one way in which people can be brought together successfully. Sites like Netmums21 also add in a local dimension by putting mums in touch with others in their area, where they can share advice, information, recommendations, information on schools and are able to network both at the local and national levels. In addition, there are also sites for those with a disability such as DeafGateway22, which provides a place for deaf people to interact.
4.2.3.1 Social networks and demographics A study carried out by the PewInternet Research Centre in the US [4.50] shows that both teen and adult use of social networking sites has risen significantly, yet there are shifts and some drops in proportions worth mentioning: since 2006 the number of wired teenagers using social networking websites has increased from 55% to 73% (see Figure 4 51 below); however, the use they make of such facilities has changed seeing as a smaller proportion of them now send daily messages to friends, bulletins, groups messages, etc. While young adults (18 29 yrs) use social networks in the same proportion of teens (72%), figures show that 47% of other online adults (30+) used networking sites in 2009 compared to 37% from the previous year.
Figure 4 51: Use of social networks (US)
Source: [4.50]23 Another study [4.65] focuses on unveiling the apparently contradictory aspects of the so called Millennial generation – which refers to people born after 1980. Figure 4 52 below illustrates the gap that exists between this generation of ‘digital natives’ and older generations: 75% of Millennials own an online profile on a social network, as opposed to barely half of the Generation X and a mere 30% of Boomers (these represent mostly the Millennials’ parents) and 6% of the Silent generation. Considering that on average the US show a higher degree of digital literacy compared to Europe, these figures should be taken to exceed expectations when applied to the European scenario.
20 www.eatserve.com, www.onsnetnuenen.nl, www.cybermoor.org 21 www.netmums.com 22 www.deafgateway.info 23 The chart in Figure 4 51 contains a misprint – 40% should read 47% Page 160 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 52: (US data)
Source: [4.65] Interestingly, the study also confirms results from the innovative research presented in 4.2.1. The sites preferred by younger to maintain their profiles are different to those used by older adults: young profile owners are much more likely to maintain a profile on MySpace (66% of young profile owners do so, compared with just 36% of those thirty and older) but less likely to have a profile on the professionally oriented LinkedIn (7% vs. 19%). In contrast, adult profile owners under thirty and those thirty and older are equally likely to maintain a profile on Facebook (71% of young profile owners do so, compared with 75% of older profile owners).
Page 161 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 53: Teens’ activities on social networking sites (US)
Source: [4.50] According to [4.60], the increase in popularity is only half the story when it comes to the social networking phenomenon – the time people spend on these networks is also increasing dramatically. The total amount spent online globally increased by 18% between December 2007 and December 2008. In the same period, however, the amount of time spent on ‘Member Community’ sites rose by 63% to 45 billion minutes; and on Facebook by a massive 566% – from 3.1 billion minutes to 20.5 billion. Because time spent on social networks is growing at a dramatically faster rate than the internet average, social networks are gaining a larger share of all internet time. In most of the countries monitored the share of time accounted for by ‘Member Communities’ has more than doubled. In Switzerland, for example, the share of time has tripled from 3% to 9.3%. A year ago ‘Member Communities’ accounted for one in every 15 online minutes globally – now it accounts for one in every 11. In Brazil alone, ‘Member Communities’ accounts for almost one in every four minutes. In the UK they now account for one in every six minutes (up from every 13 minutes a year ago) and in Italy one in every seven (up from one in 14 a year ago).
Page 162 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 54: Shift in member community websites’ audience
Source: [4.60]
4.2.3.2 Social networks highlights According to [4.43], online social network applications are mainly used for explaining and maintaining personal networks, and most adults, like teens, are using them to connect with people they already know: 89% use their online profiles to keep up with friends; 57% use their profile to make plans with friends; 49% use them to make new friends; Other uses: organize with other people for an event, issue or cause; flirt with someone; promote themselves or their work; make new business contacts. The use of social networks is on the rise. In February 2005, just 2% of adult internet users had visited an online social network “yesterday” while 19% of adult internet users had done so in December 2008.
Figure 4 55: Growth in use of online social networks (US)
Source: [4.43]
Page 163 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Overall, adults tend to use social networks for personal reasons more than professional ones. This is true of both the networks that adults choose to use, as well as the reasons they give for using these applications. As noted above, 6% use LinkedIn, an online social network dedicated to professional networking, while 72% use other social networks (MySpace and Facebook) that are used for both professional and personal networking purposes. Among social network users, more than one third (37%) visit their profile daily. Another quarter (23%) visit every few days and 15% view their most visited profile once a week. One quarter of social network users (23%) visit their profile less often than once a week.
Figure 4 56: (US data)
Source: [4.43] According to [4.60], the increasing popularity of social networks has resulted in increasing demand to access them on the move. Mobile is a natural fit for social networks, as consumers are used to connecting with friends via mobile calls and text. Using the phone to access social networks doesn’t require much change in consumer mindset. Subscribers access social networks on their mobile through three primary means: by browsing over mobile web, through downloaded applications and by SMS (text messaging). UK mobile web users have the greatest propensity to visit a social network through their handset with 23% of them (2 million people) doing so, compared to 19% in the US (10.6 million people). The numbers of people doing so are a big increase on last year – 249% in the UK and 156% in the US. The most popular social networks via PCs/laptops tend to be the most popular via mobile too. Facebook is the most popular in five of the six countries where Nielsen measures mobile activity – only Xing in Germany bucks this trend. As anticipated in earlier sections, mobile applications for handsets such as Apple’s iPhone are playing a substantial role in the expanded mobile use of these networks. Soon after the launch of the 3G iPhone, Facebook, was one of the most popular iPhone applications available, surpassed MySpace in mobile usage in the U.S. Text messaging is the third way users can interact with their social networks on the go. Primarily used for “status updates,” users can register a phone to send text message posts directly to their user profile. By the end of 2008, Nielsen estimated that almost 3 million U.S. mobile users were texting Facebook on a regular basis.
Page 164 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 57: Social networks and mobile access
Source: [4.60] According to [4.62], there is an increasingly broad range of content consumed over mobile web. While many initially expected the platform to be dominated by e mail, news and weather, the latest U.S. mobile internet research reveals a long tail of content interest. Portals, e mail, weather and news do garner audiences of more than 20 million unique mobile users each, but categories such as food and dining, travel, and health and fitness also attract millions of mobile internet users each month. The reports maintains that one of the most important categories of mobile web use today is social networking—important not just because more than 12 million US mobile subscribers access their social networks over their phone, but because social networking has the potential to be a bridge category that draws even more subscribers into the mobile web experience. At the end of 2008, Facebook was just slightly ahead of MySpace in terms of unique mobile users: 7 million compared to 5.7 million. Mobile usage of social networking sites grew 260% during 2008 in the US.
Page 165 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 58: Most popular website categories from mobile
Source: [4.62] Another study [4.63] concludes that social networkers differ in their attitudes to social networking sites and in their behaviour while using them. Ofcom’s qualitative research indicates that site users tend to fall into five distinct groups based on their behaviours and attitudes. These are described as follows: Alpha Socialisers – (a minority) people who used sites in intense short bursts to flirt, meet new people, and be entertained; Attention Seekers – (some) people who craved attention and comments from others, often by posting photos and customising their profiles; Followers – (many) people who joined sites to keep up with what their peers were doing; Faithfuls – (many) people who typically used social networking sites to rekindle old friendships, often from school or university; Functionals – (a minority) people who tended to be single minded in using sites for a particular purpose.
Page 166 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 59: Social networking site user segments
Source: [4.60]
Facebook According to [4.60], the global rise of social networks in 2008 has primarily been driven by Facebook, which overtook MySpace to become the world’s most popular social network. Less than four years after Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook in February 2004, its rapidly soaring popularity saw it included in the 2008 edition of the Collins English Dictionary (as a noun and a verb). Facebook is now visited by three in every ten people online across the world. Facebook started out as a service for university students but now almost one third of its global audience is aged 35 49 years of age and almost one quarter is over 50 years old. In the UK, for example, if the average month on month audience changes over the last six months were to continue; by mid June 2009 there would be as many 35 49 year olds on Facebook as 18 34 year olds.
Figure 4 60: Increase in total amount of time spent on Facebook
Source: [4.60] Social networks online started out amongst the younger audience. However, as the networks have become more mainstream with the passage of time, it isn’t surprising to see the audience becoming broader and older. Again, this shift has primarily been driven by Facebook, whose successful formula opened up the possibilities of social networking to a much wider audience. Page 167 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
In terms of sheer audience numbers, for example, the greatest growth for Facebook has come from people aged 35 49 years of age (+24.1 million). Furthermore, Facebook has added almost twice as many 50 64 year olds visitors (+13.6 million) than it has added under 18 year old visitors (+7.3 million). Consequently, people under 18 years old are making up less of the social network and blogging audience, whereas the 50+ age group are accounting for more of the audience.
Figure 4 61: Increase in Facebook users by gender
Source: [4.60] Based on a simple design, broad demographic appeal and a focus on connecting, Facebook has become the most popular social network in the majority of countries measured by Nielsen Online. It has the greatest reach in the UK, being visited by 47% of Britons online, and actually has a greater online reach in both Italy (44%) and Australia (38%) than it does in its country of origin the USA (33%).
Figure 4 62: Facebook users by country24
Source: [4.60]
MySpace According to [4.43], among adults, MySpace is the most popular online social network. Half (50%) of adult social network users age 18 and older are on MySpace, while 22% of adult social network users have an account on Facebook. Another 6% have an account on LinkedIn, 2% have an account on Yahoo, 24 Orange rectangles indicate that Facebook is not the most popular social network in that country Page 168 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc and 1% each have accounts on YouTube and Classmates.com. Another aggregate 10% of adult online social network users have profiles on other sites, including BlackPlanet, Orkut, Hi5 and Match.com. There is some variation in the types of people who tend to use each of the top three social networks. Typically, MySpace users are more likely to be women, Hispanic or black, to have a high school education or some experience with college. The median age of a MySpace user is 27 years old. Facebook users are more likely to be men and to have a college degree. The median age of a Facebook user is 26 years old. LinkedIn users are more likely to be men, to be white and to have a college degree. The median age of a LinkedIn user is 40 years old.
Twitter According to [4.28], internet users who already use social network sites such as MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn are likely to also use Twitter: 35%, compared to 6% of internet users who do not use such social network sites. Statistical analysis of the Pew Internet Project’s September 2009 survey data shows that internet users who use social network sites are more likely to use Twitter or another status updating service, independent of other factors such as that group’s relative youth or propensity to go online via mobile devices.
Figure 4 63: Trends in Twitter and social network status updates
Source: [4.28] One interesting observation about Twitter is worth highlighting since it may dispel some myths about the use of micro blogging. According to [4.50], it emerges that teens are not using Twitter in large numbers: in fact, only 8% of users aged 12 17 like to update their status on this social network – perhaps with the only exception of high school girls (14 17 yrs) who account for 13%. On the other hand, young adults lead the way when it comes to using Twitter or status updating. About one third of online 18 29 year olds post or read status updates.
Page 169 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Many other social networking sites offer the ability to post short status updates, and usage of social networking sites is highly correlated with status update behavior—fully 35% of social networking site users also post status updates online, compared with just 6% of internet users who do not use social networking websites. There is little variation in the use of status update services based on race, ethnicity or socio economic status; however, online women (21% of whom use Twitter or other status update services) are more likely to use these services than men (17% of whom do so).
Figure 4 64: Online adults who use Twitter or similar websites
Source: [4.50] According to [4.65], some 8% of all adults use Twitter. According to research by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, use of Twitter and online status updating increased from 2008 to 2009 but has leveled off since autumn 2009. Roughly comparable proportions of Millennials (14%) and Gen Xers (10%) use Twitter. By comparison, only 6% of Boomers and 1% of Silents use Twitter. There are no significant differences by age, gender, or race and ethnicity in Twitter usage among Millennials. But college educated Millennials are more likely to tweet; 17% of young people who have attended college use Twitter, compared with 9% of Millennials who have not attended college.
Figure 4 65: Twitter users by age groups
Source: [4.65] According to [4.62], the steady upward march of micro blogging site Twitter will likely be the biggest online media story this year. Figure 4 66 takes an interesting look at the relative buzz about the big three social networking sites: MySpace, Facebook and Twitter. Conversations around Facebook
Page 170 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc surpassed MySpace in late 2008 and early 2009, while conversations around Twitter surpassed Facebook during March and appear to be stretching their lead in the year ahead.
Figure 4 66: Twitter metrics
Source: [4.62] According to [4.28], as of September 2009, 54% of internet users have a wireless connection to the internet via a laptop, cell phone, game console, or other mobile device. Of those, 25% use Twitter or another service, up from 14% of wireless users in December 2008. By comparison, 8% of internet users who rely exclusively on tethered access use Twitter or another service, up from 6% in December 2008. Statistical analysis also shows that wireless access is an independent factor in predicting whether someone uses Twitter or another status update service. It is not simply because this group is likely to be young or tech savvy. Owning and using a wireless internet device makes an internet user significantly more likely to tweet.
Figure 4 67: Mobile users more likely to tweet
Source: [4.28]
Page 171 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
The study [4.28] also maintains that the median age of a Twitter user is 31, which has remained stable over the past year. The median age for MySpace is now 26, down from 27 in May 2008, and the median age for LinkedIn is now 39, down from 40. Facebook, however, is graying a bit: the median age for this social network site is now 33, up from 26 in May 2008.
Figure 4 68: Internet users age 18 44 more likely than other to use Twitter
Source: [4.28]
LinkedIn LinkedIn is a business oriented social networking site. Launched in May 2003, it is mainly used for professional networking. On 10 June 2010 V3.co.uk reported that LinkedIn had more than 70 million registered users, spanning more than 200 countries and territories worldwide. The site is available in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. Four million users are resident in the UK and V3.co.uk suggest that UK users had grown by more than one million in the last nine months. Growth in membership has been significant since 2009, when growth was reported to be at the rate of a million every 12 days. See the graphic below for trends in recent growth.
Page 172 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
LinkedIn has been global since inception — about half of their membership is international. In 2009 there were 11 million users in Europe and India was the fastest growing country for membership. The Netherlands has the highest rate of adoption per capita outside the US, at 30%. The graphic below shows the search volume index worldwide for Linkedin.
Linkedin enables registered users to maintain a list of contact details of people they know and trust in business. The people in the list are called Connections. Users can invite anyone (whether a site user or not) to become a connection.
This list of connections can then be used in a number of ways:
A contact network is built up consisting of their direct connections, the connections of each of their connections (termed second degree connections) and also the connections of second degree connections (termed third degree connections). This can be used to gain an introduction to someone a person wishes to know through a mutual, trusted contact. It can then be used to find jobs, people and business opportunities recommended by someone in one's contact network. Employers can list jobs and search for potential candidates. Job seekers can review the profile of hiring managers and discover which of their existing contacts can introduce them. Users can post their own photos and view photos of others to aid in identification. Users can now follow different companies and can get notification about the new joining and offers available. Users can save jobs which they would like to apply (like bookmark). Page 173 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
The "gated access approach" (where contact with any professional requires either a preexisting relationship, or the intervention of a contact of theirs) is intended to build trust among the service's users. LinkedIn claimed that a quarter of companies in the UK FTSE 100, and 50 per cent of Fortune 100 companies, now recruit through the site, and that one billion people searches have been carried out on LinkedIn between mid 2009 and mid 2010.
4.2.4 Blogging
4.2.4.1 Blogging and demographics In December 2007 blog search engine Technorati was tracking more than 112 million blogs. American studies [4.50] show that since 2006 blogging has dropped among teens and young adults while simultaneously rising among older adults. In fact, figures indicate that 14% of online teens now say they blog, down from 28% of teen internet users in 2006. As the tools and technology embedded in social networking sites change, and the use of sites continue to grow, youth may be exchanging ‘macro blogging’ for ‘micro blogging’ with status updates. This decline is also reflected in the decline of the number of teens who say they comment on blogs within social networking websites – 52% of social network using teens report commenting on friends’ blogs within these sites, down from 76% commenting in 2006. Continuing a trend in teen blogging that first emerged in 2006, teens from lower income families – those earning below $50,000 annually – are more likely to report keeping a blog than teens from households earning more than $50,000. While 23% of online teens from families earning less than $50,000 per year keep a blog, just 8% of teens from households earning more than $50,000 a year say they keep a blog. Unlike in years past, boys and girls are statistically just as likely to keep a blog. There are no racial or ethnic differences in blogging by teens. This decline in teen blogging mirrors a similar decrease in blogging activity among the youngest adult internet users (Figure 4 69). In December 2007, fully 28% of online 18 24 year olds maintained a blog. By September 2009 that figure had fallen by half, and just 14% of internet users ages 18 24 maintained a blog. Despite this decline among young adults, the proportion of all adult internet users who blog has not budged over this same time period (12% of adult internet users did so in 2007, and 11% do so now).
Page 174 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 69: Adults blogging over time
Source: [4.50] The prevalence of blogging among adults as a whole has remained consistent because the decline in blogging among young adults has been marked by a corresponding increase in blogging among older adults. For example, in December 2007, 24% of online 18 29 year olds reported blogging, compared with 7% of those thirty and older. By 2009, that difference had nearly disappeared—15% of internet users under age thirty and 11% of those ages thirty and up now maintain a personal blog. Among adult internet users, blogging is equally common among men and women and those with low and high levels of income and education. Corporate and organizational blogs Blogs have also been developed for business purposes. Corporate Blogs can used internally within an organisation to enhance the communication and culture in a corporation or externally for marketing, branding or public relations purposes. Blogs have also been developed by clubs, societies and many other types of groups and organisations.
4.2.4.2 Blogging highlights Worldwide there are probably over 110 million blogs. Research suggests that interest and use of blogging since 2006 has dropped among teens and young adults while simultaneously rising among older adults. The number of teens and younger adults (18 24) blogging have halved since 2006, Between December 2007 and December 2009 the proportion of over 30 year olds internet users blogging increased from seven to eleven per cent. There appears to be no gender divide in blogging. Women are just as likely to blog as men.
4.2.5 Collaborative bookmarking Collaborative or social bookmarking is a method for Internet users to share, organize, search, and manage bookmarks of web resources. In the same way that one bookmarks one personal favourite sites or items online collaborative bookmarking allows users to share the sites they have found with others and browse/search the sites that others have found. Unlike file sharing, the resources themselves aren't shared, merely bookmarks that reference them. Descriptions may be added to these bookmarks in the form of metadata, so that other users may understand the content of the resource without first needing to download it for themselves. Such Page 175 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc descriptions may be free text comments, votes in favor of or against its quality, or tags that collectively or collaboratively become a folksonomy. Folksonomy is also called social tagging. It has been described by Golder and Huberman (2006) as "the process by which many users add metadata in the form of keywords to shared content".
4.2.5.1 Collaborative bookmarking and demographics No significant research found yet Studies of the demographics and characteristics of the users of collaborative bookmarking are relatively limited and the few that do exist are now somewhat dated. Consequently our analysis of the users of collaborative bookmarking is derived from the data obtained from our study of three platforms – Delicious, Digg and Redditt, see Annex C. Female Male Delicious.com 21.4 78.6 Digg.com 20.2 79.8 Reddit.com 18.8 81.2 Average 20 80 Users of the three collaborative platforms in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK were analysed. The gender divide is very similar across all three platforms. Male users outnumber female users by four to one.
Figure 4 70: Age of collaborative bookmarking users
Like other types of social media collaborative bookmarking is dominated by younger adults users. 55.5 per cent of users (in the five European countries) are under 34. Only 5.6 per cent of users are over 55. Page 176 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 71: Educational attainment of collaborative bookmarking users
Figure 4.71 reveals that the educational attainment of collaborative bookmarking users is broadly similar to the pattern for all social media users (see figure 4.47). Only 22.6 per cent of users come from the two highest educational groups
Figure 4 72: Educational attainment of collaborative bookmarking users
Figure 4.72 reveals that wealth of collaborative bookmarking users is broadly similar to the pattern for all social media users (see figure 4.49). On average, across the three platforms, 53.5 per cent of users are in the least wealthy user groups and only 12.8 are in the wealthiest two groups
Page 177 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
4.2.5.2 Collaborative bookmarking highlights Collaborative bookmarking sites are dominated by males; there are four male users for every female. Against other criteria, such as age, education and income the characteristics of users are very similar to the pattern of European social media users found in section 4.2.1.
4.2.6 Virtual worlds
4.2.6.1 Virtual worlds and demographics Virtual worlds are persistent online play spaces that allow users to determine the direction of game play. There appears to be relatively little research undertaken on the characteristics of virtual world users. PewInternet research is one of the few studies in this area. The findings of the study on Social Media carried out by PewInternet Research [4.50] conclude that use of virtual worlds is more common among teens than among adults. In September 2009 it was observed that 4% of online adults visit virtual worlds. Usage of virtual worlds is relatively consistent across age cohorts, with 4% of internet users under age 30 and 4% of those thirty and up visiting virtual worlds. Among adults there are no differences on virtual world use related to gender, income or education. Teen use of virtual worlds has remained steady since February 2008 – currently, 8% of online teens say they visit virtual worlds like Gaia, Second Life or Habbo Hotel, similar to the 10% of such teens who visited virtual worlds in 2008. Younger teens continue to be more enthusiastic users of virtual worlds – 11% of online teens 12 13 use virtual worlds, while 7% of teen internet users 14 17 use them.
4.3 Social Media and Policy Making
4.3.1 Results from the literature review on policymaking in Social Media Thus far, the study of ICT as a tool for policymaking has concentrated on making services available online to citizens –so called eGovernment. However, the development of new forms of communication on the internet—like blogs and social networking sites—potentially expands the opportunities for civic engagement. These rapidly developing modes of internet based expression and communication are very much a work in progress. As pointed out in [4.76], at this point, we are in a position to pose questions, but not to draw definitive conclusions, about two significant matters. First, might these new forms of interaction engage new groups of people, thus offering an avenue for civic involvement to the historically inactive? Secondly, will these new forms of communication, which often involve large numbers of people on the internet, have the effect of mobilising people to undertake the kinds of activities, whether offline or online, that have the intent or effect of informing and influencing government action – either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies? That is, will activities like writing about political issues on a blog or signing up as a friend of a candidate – like old fashioned political discussions at dinner or at work— lead to political participation?
Page 178 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
What is most unambiguous is that posting material about political or social issues on the Web and using social networking sites politically are forms of online engagement that are dominated by the young adults. Recall that, when it comes to online political activities, within the population as a whole, the youngest adults (those 18 to 24) are less likely than other age groups to take part in online political activities and more likely to do so than those aged 65 and over. This pattern is largely a function of the extraordinarily high rates of internet use by young adults. When we look just at internet users, 18 to 24 year olds are actually the least likely of all age groups to take part in online political acts as emailing a public official or making an online political donation (see Figure 4 73 below). In contrast, civic involvement on social network sites and blogs exhibits a much different pattern. Whether one is looking at the population as a whole or only at those who are online, these modes of online civic engagement decline steadily with age—with the youngest adults much more likely than their elders either to make political use of social networking sites or to post material about political or social issues. Among internet users, just 18% of 18 to 24 year olds engage in two or more acts of traditional political participation, but fully 33% make political use of social networking sites, and 34% post political material on the Web. Put another way, those under age 35 represent 28% of the respondents but make up fully 72% of those who make political use of social networking sites, and 55% of those who post comments or visual material about politics on the Web. The youngest members of this group – those under age 25 – constitute just 10% of the survey respondents but make up 40% of those who make political use of social networking sites and 29% of those who post comments or visual material about politics online. It is noteworthy that neither political involvement on social networking sites nor posting material about political or social issues on the Web is strongly associated with socio economic factors. For the scale of online political activity we presented earlier, the difference between the lowest and highest income groups was 27%. For political use of social networking sites on the other hand, the difference is 3% and, for posting political content online, the difference is 5%.
Page 179 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 73: Age groups and civic engagement activities
Source: [4.76] According to [4.76], online political activities are marked by the same high levels of stratification by income and education as their offline counterparts. Nearly all traditional forms of civic activity are stratified by socio economic status. This stratification holds not only for offline political acts but also for political participation online. Nearly one in five (18%) of those in the lowest income category (who earn less than $20,000 per year) take part in two or more offline activities, compared to 45% of those earning $100,000 or more per year, a difference of 27 percentage points. For online activities the difference between these two income groups is identical: 8% of those in the lowest income category as opposed to 35% for those in the highest income group (see Figure 4 74 below).
Figure 4 74: Political activity by income
Source: [4.76]
Page 180 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
To be sure, access to the internet is part of the story. Those with higher levels of income are much more likely than those at lower levels of income both to use the internet and to have high speed internet access at home. Moving from the lowest income category to the highest, internet usage rates rise from roughly 50% to more than 90%, and home broadband adoption rises from roughly one in three to nearly nine in ten. Thus, at least one factor responsible for lower levels of online political activity among those at the lower end of the income spectrum is a lack of internet access (see Figure 4 75 below).
Figure 4 75: Internet and broadband use by income
Source: [4.76] Lack of internet access is a signficant, but not a full, explanation for the lower levels of online political activity among those with low levels of income. When we consider three groups—all adults, internet users, and those that have a home broadband connection— separately, we find that for all groups there is a strong relationship between online internet political activity and income. A similar pattern holds for education as well (see Figure 4 76 below). In short, income and education have the same relationship to online and offline political activity, and there is no evidence that web based political participation fundamentally alters the long established association between offline political participation and these socio economic factors.
Page 181 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 76: Online/Offline civic engagement by different demographic groups
Source: [4.76] Compared to income and education, the relationship between age and these political activities is somewhat more complex. For offline political participation, young adults (those ages 18 24) are the group that is least likely to take part. In contrast, when it comes to online political activity, for the population as a whole, the participatory deficit of young adults is less pronounced, and it is seniors who are the least active group. This relationship, however, is largely a function of very high rates of internet use among young adults. The patterns are similar for specific activities—for instance, contacting a government official directly about an important issue. There is a high correlation with income for both online and offline methods of contacting government officials. Indeed, the difference between the highest and lowest income groups is actually higher for contacting a government official by email than it is for contacting a government official by phone or by letter (27 percentage points for online contact, compared to 14 percentage points for offline contact). According to [4.20], one fifth (21%) of internet users undertook at least one civic action on the internet, compared to one third (34%) of users who had done this offline. The most frequently undertaken activity online continued to be signing a petition. 15% of internet users signed an online petition in 2009 (v. 7% in 2007), and 20% of users did this offline (down from 25% in 2007). Deliberately buying certain products on the internet increased; 7% did this in 2009 (v. 2% in 2007) and 15% did this offline. The only other online civic activity that has gone up significantly was contacting a politician, from 2% online in 2007 to 8% in 2009.
Page 182 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 77: Online and Offline Civic Participation by Internet users
Source: [4.20] Despite socio economic and demographic hindrances, according to [4.43], during the latest American presidential campaign, online social network sites were used for political information seeking, declarations and organisation.
Figure 4 78: Social networking and Politics
Source: [4.43] Furthermore [4.75] maintains that, during the 2008 presidential election in the US, one in ten adults has forwarded or posted commentary or writing they found online, and similar numbers have signed an online petition or signed up to receive email from one of the candidates or campaigns. In total, 30% of internet users and 22% of all adults have done at least one of the nine activities listed below at this point in the 2008 election cycle. Additionally, the number of potential voters going online to watch video clips about the candidates or campaigns has skyrocketed—from 13% of all adults in 2004 and 2006 to 35% today. Most notably, the percentage of all adults who have forwarded or posted someone else’s political Page 183 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc commentary or writing doubled, from 5% (7% of internet users) in fall 2006 to 11% (14% of internet users) in spring 2008.
Figure 4 79: Content sharing and creation during 2008 US elections
Source: [4.75] According to [4.20], use of government services online was undertaken by a relatively large proportion of the population and increased considerably since 2005. In 2009, 59% of users undertook at least one such activity online, compared to 46% in 2007 and 39% in 2005. This increase was considerable across all different interactions we measured with government services. Users looked for information about local council services (35%) and central government services (33%) more often than they looked for information on schools and education (27%). Most other activities were undertaken online by between one tenth and one fifth of users (13%–20%) online.
Page 184 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 4 80: Use of online Government services
Source: [4.20]
4.3.2 Social Media and Policy Making: A synthesis Studies by groups such as Accenture suggest that Web 2.0 technologies are finding resonance among governments today because they are, in fact, supportive of a broader evolution in public service: a new relationship with government that is about genuine engagement of people in their own governance. The use of ICT as a tool for policymaking has largely concentrated on making services available online to citizens through eGovernment activities. The development of new forms of communication on the internet like blogs and social networking sites expands opportunities for civic engagement. Posting material about political or social issues on the Web and using social networking sites have the potential to engage younger adults since use of these media is greatest amongst this younger age group. This is also the group that has been least likely to engage with traditional political activities. Among internet users, just 18% of 18 to 24 year olds engage in two or more acts of traditional political participation, but 33% make political use of social networking sites and 34% post political material on the Web. Interestingly, these two online activities are not strongly associated with socio economic factors. Income and education seem to have little correlation with participation in online and traditional political activity. There is no evidence that web based political participation fundamentally alters the traditionally higher level of political engagement by better educated and wealthier individuals.
Page 185 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Social media is not just for the young anymore. Older adults have embraced social media, making social marketing a viable tool for reaching more than just teens and young adults, increasing numbers of politicians and political institutions throughout the world are using a variety of social networking technologies. However, most of these individuals and organisations have only made limited use of the real capability of social networking. Most have only used the platforms as another method of publishing or broadcasting their views or information. A relatively small number enter into two way dialogue transparent to the wider audience. A good example of inviting citizen engagement in two way democratic engagement is the Swedish National Tax Board who co hosted a seminar on Second Life. It is significant that The Power of Information review, supported by the UK Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, suggested that the Government formulate a strategy to explore the role of Government in helping to maximise benefits for citizens in this social media society. The report suggests that helping, not hindering online member communities should be on the agenda, instead of reinventing the wheel with similar government systems.
4.4 Summary and main conclusions This chapter provided an overview of internet and social media users and the types of social media that are most popular. Importantly it considered the social media that might be most appropriate for the development of later stages of the project. Much of the evidence concerning the characteristics of Internet and social media users is derived from US studies. To address this problem and provide a better understanding of the European perspective an innovative methodology was adopted. The approach used Google ad Planner to find the characteristics of social media users. There are many factors that affect Internet and social media use. In 2009 the difference in internet use between men and women was only 3 percentage points: 71% of men and 68% of women used the internet. In Europe the ratio of male to female social media users was 67:33. However, in the same way that male dominance of the internet has slowly been eroded it is expected that a similar convergence will happen for social media sites in the future. Income was also an important distinguishing factor for Internet use. People in the highest income category were more than twice as likely to use the internet in 2009 (97%) than those in the lowest income category (38%). However, this study found that those with lower incomes dominated social media use. Social media users from the two lowest income groups comprised 54.2 per cent of all users; only 15.7 per cent of users came from the two wealthiest groups. Studies of internet and social media use suggest that education and age are the two most important factors influencing take up. Among people with basic education (up to secondary school), only 49% used the internet, while most (93%) of those with a higher (university) education used the internet. Page 186 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Interestingly, a converse pattern emerged with social media use. Those in the two lowest educational categories in Europe comprised 50.1 per cent of all users. Only 21.8 per cent of users came from the two most educated groups. The web continues to be populated largely by younger generations, 44 per cent of the adult Internet population in the EU25 is between 16 and 34 years old, but they only constitute 34.3 per cent of the population (between 16 and 74), see the figure below. This graphic is thought to be the first to compare the population profiles of different age groups with the profiles for Internet use, interaction with government and use of social media (data for the first three categories was taken from Eurostat for the EU25, data for social media use was derived from Google Ads) The figure below shows in relation to the age distribution of internet and online government service users in the EU25 it would be a mistake to regard the online population as representative of the entire population of the EU25. The internet might facilitate interaction with citizens, but it will be important to ensure that other methods are used to enable a more representative cross section of the population to take part in policymaking activities. This observation is most important in relation to the use of social media. This has a distribution that is much skewed towards uptake by younger age groups. 51.9 per cent of all social media users are under 35. Some commentators have suggested social media is not just for the young anymore. They argue that older adults have embraced social media, making social marketing a viable tool for reaching more than just teens and young adults. Our research suggests that this assertion is probablly incorrect.
Source: Eurostat and Google Ads analysis
EU25: Percentage distribution in different age groups for the population, use of the Internet, interaction with government and use of social media
Page 187 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
In the context of the proposed next steps for the development of the project it is important to highlight that the greatest risk arising from online collaboration is alienating those that do not use the Internet. This will include those unable to use the internet because they do not have sufficient mental and physical abilities, those that are poor and cannot afford the technology, those that do not have the skills to use the internet (many older groups fall into this category) and those that do not have the desire to use the internet. Any discussion about online and social media audience behavior would be incomplete without understanding the mobile dynamic. In Europe mobile internet penetration is greatest in the UK (16.9%), France (13.5%), Italy (13.2%) and Spain (12.4). The UK had the highest penetration of mobile subscribers in a Nielsen study after the US. More than eight in ten (86%) adults now have a cell phone, including majorities across all age groups. Studies have suggested that social networking was the global consumer phenomenon of 2008. Two thirds of the world’s internet population now visits a social network or blogging site and the sector accounts for almost 10% of all internet time. So called member communities’ have overtaken personal e mail to become the world’s fourth most popular online sector after search, portals and PC software applications. An Oxford Internet Institute study [4.20]found that the production and creation of content online increased dramatically between 2005 and 2007, largely due to the development of Web 2.0 (social networking) opportunities which have made it easier for users to generate content. For example, in 2005 only 18% posted photos online, by 2009 almost half (44%) did this, making it the most popular creative activity online after social networking (49%). Online social network applications are mainly used for explaining and maintaining personal networks. The most popular activities are:
89% use their online profiles to keep up with friends 57% use their profile to make plans with friends 49% use them to make new friends
One of the objectives of this chapter is to suggest social media that might be used in later stages of the study for the development of applications. It is recommended that the platforms should be as representative of all European social media users as possible. Five social media platforms were suggested. Facebook has the highest number of users (610 million) and is probably one of the best sites for contacting higher proportions (than other social media sites) of females, over 55’s and those in higher income groups. Friendster has a smaller number of users (11.6 million), but it is best suited towards targeting females, under 24’s and those in lower educational groups.
Page 188 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
5. Implications for PADGETS This sections starts with the examination of the applications that have been developed on social media platforms for policy making. Additionally, analyse the policy making process in the three pilot organisations participating in the programme. Importantly, section 5.2 identifies the key areas that these organisations might support for the development of social media applications by this programme. This is important because whatever themes are selected they must be relevant, useful and enhance ‘buy in’ from the three pilot organisations. Collectively this section provides an insight into the social media platforms / applications and themes that will be most suitable for development in later parts of this programme.
5.1 Mapping current policy making related social media applications
A mapping exercise was undertaken to benchmark the current state of the art for the use by government organisations of applications on leading social media for attracting stakeholder involvement in the policymaking process. The exercise was undertaken by selecting nine key words (government, authority, administration, local authority, local administration, regional government, neighborhood, community, international) and using them to search for appropriate applications on Facebook, MySpace, linked in, digit and twitter. iPhone applications were also analysed. As preceding sections have shown these social media are amongst those with the largest number of users.
5.1.1 Mapping social media use for policymaking Interestingly, the mapping exercise only found 21 applications supporting stakeholder involvement in the policymaking process. This suggests that whilst the preceding sections have documented the large number of users of social media and highlighted their potential for civic engagement the real level of current utilisation in the policymaking process is relatively small. For example it was noted earlier that many administrations use social media as another ‘broadcasting’ or publishing medium to provide information, rather than as a platform to engage with users and/or to enable stakeholders to share views about important issues of concern to the administration or the administration itself. Nonetheless, a review of the characteristics of these applications provides an interesting insight into current activity. The mapping exercise categorised the applications against a number of criteria, these included: 1. Tier of government initiating the application 2. Country of origin 3. Stage of the policy making process 4. Technology platform 5. Interaction style 6. Target user type 7. Focus for interaction
Page 189 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 5 3 provides a short description of the 21 applications. 71% (15) of the applications discovered in the mapping exercise were developed in the US, three were UK applications and two were Australian. Just over half of the applications (11) were developed by national government organisations. 43% (9) were developed by local administrations. All the applications targeted all genders and all age groups. There did not appear to be any particular emphasis on targeting the younger age groups that preceding analysis has shown are the largest users of social media. Figure 5 2, provides an overview of different stages of the policymaking process (largely focusing around strategy development, operational implementation and performance monitoring). The majority of the applications provide information to citizens and enable them to comment or report their views and concerns. At the local level issues that can be reported include fires, abandoned vehicles, graffiti and street lighting these applications take on more of an operational focus, rather than being purely concerned with the strategy development stage of the policymaking process. However, as the GoRequest application shows, these applications usually have the ability to include the submission of pictures and include comments or other documents.
Figure 5 181: The GoRequest iPhone application
Applications focus on a number of different areas of the policymaking process. The process is generally conceptualized as a cyclical process, see the figure below. Commencing with strategy development, moving through operations and service delivery, performance monitoring is then undertaken to investigate impact and strategies might be revised again and the process can re commence. There are opportunities for citizen input at all three of the key stages of the policymaking process.
Page 190 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 5 82: The cylcial nature of the policy making process
Source:[53] The 21 applications supporting stakeholder involvement 52% (11) sought input to the strategy development stage of the policymaking process. 24% (5) focused on reporting information and performance to citizens and enabling them to comment on the information provided. 24% (5) had a primary focus at the operational stage of the policymaking process.
Figure 5 3: The 21 applications supporting stakeholder involvement Title Description Platform ASBOrometer Provides maps and graphs of local anti social behaviour for a iPhone App location input by UK users Better Birmingham Allows Birmingham, US citizens to report problems in their area. iPhone App CFA Country Fire Information about fires, weather, links to fire reports, general fire Facebook Authority news in Australia CFA FireReady Provides maps, fire warnings and information about fires in the iPhone App Victoria area, Australia Citizens Connect Tool enabling Boston, US residents to capture information about iPhone App the state of the city and share that info with City Government Contact Senators Provides access to the email addresses, phone numbers and iPhone App addresses of US senators. Also provides information for two staffers of each senator. eJournal Published by United States Department of State Bureau of Facebook International Information Programs. Publishes new policy, meetings, polls and poll results email my Member of UK users insert home postcode and can then send a message and iPhone App Parliament attach pictures to their MP Facebook and To show governments how they can best use Facebook. Articles, Facebook Government examples etc Federal Housing Information on US Federal Housing Administration housing and Facebook Administration mortgages
Page 191 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
GORequest Allows US citizens to report problems in their area. iPhone App Gov20Camp, US Unconference about using social media tools and Web 2.0 Twitter technologies to create more effective, efficient and collaborative government iBurgh iBurgh allows the residents of Pittsburgh, US to stay in touch iPhone App with their city government by reporting incidents conveniently and quickly, even while residents are on the go. iCongress Gives direct access to US government representatives' twitter, iPhone App phone, address, wikipedia, email, website Most Wanted Shows users most wanted criminal and missing children. Provides iPhone App a direct link to the FBI to give information OpenGov, US Links to information, news, questions, polls, government Twitter updates. Orange County Fire Information about the fire service, photos and news of recent Facebook Authority, US fires and rescues. New York Port Connects directly to the Port Authority Police Department, New iPhone App authority York when citizens spot suspicious behaviour. Scotgovweb Scottish government outlines of new policy, information, news, Twitter statistics. Upcounty Regional The Upcounty Regional Services Centre, Montgomery County, US, Facebook Services Centre functions as a link to the County Executive's Office; coordinates policy making and service delivery that focus on the particular needs of the upcounty area. Veterans Health Relevant information and news items concerning US veteran's Facebook Administration health concerns. Interestingly, there were more applications developed for iPhones (11) than were found on the other social media platforms (10). The majority of applications (15) enabled users to contribute text, audio, pictures and video to discussion groups or to the administration. 29% (6) only allowed text contributions. The level and style of interaction varied between the applications. Five (24%) were little more than web sites publishing information, with only minimal feedback encouraged by users. Six (29%) provided information and invited users to review or rate the information or provide further feedback. Seven (33%) engendered collaboration between the application’s originator and other users. The majority of applications enabled the administration to restrict topics for discussion/feedback and/or the administration set the agenda. Only one application enabled users to set their own agenda. 43% of applications focused on a variety of issues and had no single dominant theme, see Figure 5 4. Crime and safety was the most popular theme, it was the focus for six (28%) of the applications. The next most popular theme was the environment, four applications focused on this issue. Page 192 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Figure 5 4: The key themes for the 21 applications
5.1.2 Conclusions from the mapping exercise The mapping exercise only found 21 applications supporting stakeholder involvement in the policymaking process. Despite numerous commentators suggesting the considerable potential for citizen engagement and the large number of users of social media the number of applications developed so far is relatively small. 71% of the applications were developed in the US. Development in Europe currently appears to be limited. Amongst the applications studied just over half of the applications (11) were developed by national government organisations. 43% (9) were developed by local administrations. The applications targeted all genders and all age groups. There did not appear to be any particular emphasis on targeting the younger age groups that preceding analysis has shown are the largest users of social media. The majority of applications enabled administrations to restrict topics for discussion/feedback and/or the administration to set the agenda. Only one application enabled users to set their own agenda. User contributions were also ‘managed’, contributions were generally between the user and the administration and not viewed by other stakeholders. Only seven applications adopted a more collaborative approach enabling users and administrative staff to observe and comment on the views of all contributors. The mapping exercise shows there is considerable scope for the development of good quality European applications. Very few are currently available and PADGETS will be developing innovative activities in a new area that could offer ground breaking developments and the opportunity to share experiences to help others to further develop the area.
5.2 The policy making process in the pilot organisations Page 193 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Three partners have been selected to support the launch of the pilot projects developed by the programme. These are: Centre for eGovernance Development, Slovenia Observatory for the Greek Information Society Regione Piemonte, Italy Each of the partners provided information about current methods of engagement with citizens and stakeholders to discover their current methods and possible use of social media. They were also asked about the topics of greatest current concern that might usefully provide a focus for the development activities to be undertaken by the project.
5.2.1 Stakeholder engagement in the pilot organisations All three organisations try to engage with stakeholders during the policymaking process. All are constrained in the number of individuals or organisations they can engage with, so discussions often take place with groups that are representative of their wider stakeholder audience, for example neighborhood organisations to obtain a citizen viewpoint, unions to obtain workers views and Chambers of Commerce and Trade as surrogates for employer views. Whilst all three organisations had recognized the value of social media and Web 2.0 applications in enabling consultation and input with a much larger group of stakeholders more cost effectively only the Observatory for the Greek Information Society had utilised online methods through the eGovernment Forum (http://e governmentforum.gr). They also noted that since November 2009, the Office of the Greek Prime minister had developed a Web 2.0 public deliberation platform on general Government policy issues (http://www.opengov.gr/home/). The platform has a special section that is particular for eGovernment (http://labs.opengov.gr/), this concentrates in inviting stakeholder opinion on eGovernment services design and it is open to all (citizens, NGOs, special interest groups, ICT sector, etc). The platform is implemented in open source allowing user created content and features the usual Web 2.0 capabilities (access relevant documents, RSS news, twitter, stipulate opinions, vote on an issue, upload material, comment on other people opinions or content, etc).
5.2.2 Key development themes: Participatory budgeting All three organisations noted that over the next two years they would be facing increasingly difficult budget issues due to shrinking resources. This gave rise to the first possible theme for the Padgets programme to develop. Participatory budgeting – this directly involves local people in the decision making process for spending and priorities for a defined public budget. Several individuals and organisations have argued that broader participation in budget setting is essential for effective, democratic and relevant governance. Participatory Budgeting establishes a process in which the effects of people’s involvement are directly seen in either policy change or spending priorities. It is not just a consultation exercise; some argue it is an embodiment of direct, deliberative democracy.
Page 194 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Participatory budgeting directly involves people in making decisions on the spending and priorities for a defined public budget. This approach can include some or all of the following activities through engaging citizens to Discuss and vote on spending priorities Make spending proposals Vote on spending proposals Give users a role in the scrutiny and monitoring of the budgeting and appending processes Enable users to see the impact of spending through sharing performance monitoring information Participatory budgeting processes can be defined by geographical area (neighbourhood, authority, region or nation) or by theme. Any applications developed should therefore be scalable and re usable across many tiers of government and organisations.
5.2.3 Key development themes: eSkills development The second area of interest highlighted by the Centre for eGovernance Development and the Observatory for the Greek Information Society was the development of eSkills training particularly for disadvantaged groups. Both of these organisations noted that to provide access to the information society many of their stakeholders needed greater support to understand the benefits of technology and to then acquire the necessary training and skills to more effectively use ICT. One of the respondents noted that many citizens have insufficient knowledge and skills necessary to use contemporary eGovernment applications. They expected that the end result of the development of an application in this area would be higher usage of eGovernment services among a wider range of societal groups and in particular facilitation of eGovernment usage among the most vulnerable groups of citizens.
5.3 Potential themes for development
The mapping exercise described in the previous chapter revealed that there is considerable scope to enhance the quality of applications available through social media. Consultation with the three organisations that will be supporting the launch of the pilot projects developed by the programme identified one common problem and a common area of interest that they thought should be developed. The Centre for eGovernance Development and the Observatory for the Greek Information Society both highlighted the need for the development of eSkills training particularly for disadvantaged groups. Earlier sections of the previous chapter noted that the number of Internet users is increasing but many people are still to be convinced of the value of the internet and to acquire the skills required to utilise ICT and to use contemporary eGovernment applications. They expected that the end result of the development of an application in this area would be higher usage of eGovernment services among a wider range of societal groups and in particular facilitation of eGovernment usage among the most vulnerable groups of citizens. Skills development and training materials, processes and organisations
Page 195 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc are relatively well developed throughout Europe. Utilisation of existing materials and obtaining support from knowledgeable individuals and organisations should be relatively easy to obtain. The one common problem that was facing all three organisations is the difficulty of operating with reduced resources. This provides the opportunity to develop participatory budgeting applications. Participatory budgeting processes can be defined by geographical area (neighbourhood, authority, region or nation) or by theme. Any applications developed should therefore be scalable and re usable across many tiers of government and organisations. Various studies, such as Van der Sluijs et al (2008), have suggested that participatory budgeting results in more equitable public spending, higher quality of life, increased satisfaction of basic needs, greater government transparency and accountability, increased levels of public participation (especially by marginalized or poorer residents), and democratic and citizenship learning. In Europe, towns and cities in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom have initiated participatory budgeting processes. However, these exercises have usually taken place face to face in public meetings or ‘planning for real exercises’ run over a weekend. The development of this approach on a social media platform could enhance involvement and obtain a better understanding of the major problems facing all tiers of government throughout Europe. Participatory Budgeting establishes a process in which the effects of people’s involvement are directly seen in either policy change or spending priorities. It is not just a consultation exercise; some argue it is an embodiment of direct, deliberative democracy.
5.4 Potential platforms for development This section tries to summarise and record the publicly available methods of social media platforms that might “fit” and be ‘used for the development of applications in the PADGETS project. Based on the above analysis and mapping of the social media, it is appropriate to deal mainly with the predominant and most widespread in the western world platforms, with which there is a degree of familiarity and which have been used for some period of time. Additionally, in the section 4.2.2, we have identified the five social media platforms that provide the best coverage of European users based on different demographic categories, such as gender, age, education and income. Based on the above parameters, the five platforms that might be used for the development of applications are as follows. Facebook.com Friendfeed.com Friendster.com Linkedin.com Xanga.com Further to the above, we have made a further classification, separation and selection of the targeted social media based on three additional critical parameters such as 1) Popularity, 2) Locality, 3) APIs support Page 196 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
1. Most Popular by Category: Based on the nature (content type and user activities) of each platform we might chose the most popular (based on ALEXA rating) and those with the most dynamic (rates of user growth). For example, if one looks for a general social network platform that includes all forms of content types and user experience (picture, video sharing, friendships, comments), then Facebook platform is the best choice. Also, if we want a blogging service, we select the WordPress and Blogger platforms, while in cases like mini blogging, Twitter is the only choice worldwide. 2. Locality: Platforms which are popular only in specific countries, and use other languages than English, are omitted. For example, “Qzone” from China or “Skyrock” from France cannot be included in the final selection list. 3. API Support: All beta version services are also excluded from the candidate list. A characteristic example is the Google Wave service which is currently on a trial version. Finally, other services with limited API support and functionality (i.e. Support only retrieving content functionality) are also excluded as for example the “Yahoo! Answers” platform.
Based on the above parameters, we conclude with a list of the most candidate and relevant platforms as presented in the table below that might be used by the PADGET technical partners for the development of the policy making applications.
Table 4: Candidate Social Media Platforms Social Networks Facebook Video YouTube; Picasa Broadcasting Live broadcasting Ustream Image Share Flickr; Picasa (because of direct connection to Google’s other social media platforms, like Blogger) Micro Blogging Twitter News bookmarks Digg; Delicious Blogging Blogger
5.5 Summary and main conclusions In this section we have examined the current state of the art for the use by government organizations of special applications on leading social media for attracting stakeholder involvement in the policy making process. We found only 21 such applications supporting stakeholder involvement in the policy making process, and then analyzed them from several perspectives (71% of these applications were developed in the USA, while such development in Europe currently appears to be limited). This suggests that whilst the preceding sections have documented the large number of users of web 2.0 social media Page 197 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc and highlighted their potential for civic engagement, the real level of their current utilization in the policy making process is relatively small. Therefore there is still much unexploited potential in this domain, and many opportunities for developing specialized applications allowing a better exploitation of web 2.0 social media by government organizations for useful interactions with citizens on important policy related issues. This creates great opportunities for PADGETS project in developing innovative activities in a new area that could offer ground breaking developments and the opportunity to share experiences to help others to further develop the area. One of the objectives of this chapter was also to provide some preliminary scenarios concerning the pilots that will be implemented later as part of WP4, in cooperation with the corresponding partners responsible for these pilots (Centre for e Governance Development, Slovenia, Observatory for the Greek Information Society, Greece, and Regione Piemonte, Italy). From the analysis, the key themes for the pilots have been derived which are relevant to the participatory budgeting (involvement of local people in the decision making process for defining spending priorities in the usually decreasing budgets of these public organizations) and development of eSkills training (particularly for disadvantaged groups). Finally, the chapter provides a preliminary list of most relevant candidate social media tools and platforms that might be used in later stages of the study for the development of applications. It is recommended that the platforms should be as representative of all European social media users as possible. For example, Facebook has the highest number of users and is probably one of the best sites for contacting higher proportions (than other social media sites) of females, over 55’s and those in higher income groups. Additionally, we have selected a number of other relevant criteria such as: degree of users’ familiarity, best coverage of EU users, popularity by category of SM, Locality and Application Programming Interface (API) Support.
Page 198 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
6. Conclusions In the previous sections of this document we analyzed the current landscape of web 2.0 tools and platforms in order to get a better understanding of them and draw some first conclusions as to their potential as spaces of government citizens’ interaction. Based on the examination of the existing Social Media, and also on the review of pertinent literature, initially four basic categories of web 2.0 tools and platforms were distinguished with respect to users’ activity, supporting communication, collaboration, sharing of resources (e.g. textual documents, images, video, etc.) and Review/Rating/Opinions Expressing). As a next step we focused on the 53 most popular web 2.0 social media having more than 1,000,000 unique users; each of them was analyzed in detail as to the main features and capabilities it provides to the users, the type of content provided by them, the languages supported, its accessibility and also whether it hosts any type of political opinions/content/activities. It is remarkable that 12 of them have more than 100,000,000 unique users, reflecting the rapid increase of adoption and take up by citizens of web 2.0 social media, and the big opportunities it creates for government organizations for a wider interaction with their citizens. From this analysis it was concluded that in a considerable portion of the 53 analyzed highly popular web 2.0 social media there is some type of political discussion or political content creation in general (e.g. images or video associated with political opinions), further confirming their political potential. It should be also emphasized that 12 of them have worldwide audience, while the remaining have audiences from particular countries (mainly USA) or geographic regions. As a next step we examined the type of content knowledge generated by users in web 2.0 social media. We distinguished three main categories of such content: news (facts, events, and happenings), entertainment content and educational/professional opinion content (though in many cases there were combinations of them). This content is generated as part of some new kinds of behaviors and activities that have become popular thanks to the growth of social media, such as: i) networked individuals producing content online that helps them expand their social network and increase their social standing by building an audience; ii) individuals constructing ‘just in time just like me’ support groups through telling their stories and building archives or links to others’ content; iii) or using social media to create social processes for solving problems. We particularly focused on policy related content, generated by candidates in various elections, government departments and citizens; interesting success stories have been studied, providing a wealth of ideas and ‘food for thought’ for the present project. Also, we examined the current state of the art for the use by government organizations of special applications on leading social media for attracting stakeholder involvement in the policymaking process. We found only 21 such applications supporting stakeholder involvement in the policymaking process, and then analyzed them from several perspectives (71% of these applications were developed in the USA, while such development in Europe currently appears to be limited). This suggests that whilst the preceding sections have documented the large number of users of web 2.0 social media and highlighted their potential for civic engagement, the real level of their current utilization in the policymaking process is relatively small. It was noted that many administrations use social media as another ‘broadcasting’ or Page 199 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc publishing medium to provide information, rather than as a platform to engage with users and/or to enable stakeholders to share views about important issues of concern to the administration. Therefore there is still much unexploited potential in this domain, and many opportunities for developing specialized applications allowing a better exploitation of web 2.0 social media by government organizations for useful interactions with citizens on important policy related issues. This analysis showed that there is considerable scope for the development of good quality European applications in this area. Finally we examined the demographics of the users of the Internet in general, and several web 2.0 social media in particular. It was concluded that in these user groups are not equally represented the various citizens’ segments modern societies comprise, e.g. with respect to gender (though gender differences show decreasing trends), age (younger ages are overrepresented), education, income, etc. This representation shows significant differences among various web 2.0 social media (e.g. in some of them wealthier groups are overrepresented, while in some others they are underrepresented). This indicates that in order to draw reliable conclusions from the policy related content generated in various web 2.0 social media (e.g. postings, ratings, comments, etc.) it is necessary to take into account the composition of their user groups from all the above perspectives. Based on the insights gained by the above analysis of the current landscape of web 2.0 tools and platforms:
- We developed some preliminary scenarios concerning the pilots that will be implemented later as part of WP4, in cooperation with the corresponding partners responsible for these pilots (Centre for e Governance Development, Slovenia, Observatory for the Greek Information Society, Greece, and Regione Piemonte, Italy). Their key themes are participatory budgeting (involvement of local people in the decision making process for defining spending priorities in the usually decreasing budgets of these public organizations) and development of eSkills training (particularly for disadvantaged groups). - We made a preliminary list of the most relevant candidate web 2.0 social media platforms that might be used in the next WPs of this project by the technical partners for the development of the policy making applications, based on the following criteria: number and composition of users, content type, user activities, locality and Application Programming Interface (API) Support.
Page 200 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
7. Annex A: Bibliography and References
7.1 References for Chapter 2 & 3 [1] "Core Characteristics of Web 2.0 Services", http://www.techpluto.com/web 20 services/ [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html [3] http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what is web 20.html [4] developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners Lee, http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm int082206txt.html [5] http://www.flock.com/node/4500 [6] Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: "Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free Rider Problem", The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 1335–1360 [7] Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven [8] Greenmeier, Larry and Gaudin, Sharon. "Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of Warning – Web 2.0 – InformationWeek", http://www.informationweek.com/news/global cio/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199702353 [9] O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, 30, p.2005 [10] McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management review. Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 21–28 [11] http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=71 [12] http://www.rossdawsonblog.com/Web2_Framework.pdf [13] http://www.fredcavazza.net/2008/06/09/social media landscape/ [14] Kaplan Andreas M., Haenlein Michael, (2010), Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media, Business Horizons, Vol. 53, Issue 1, p. 59 68 [15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Age [16] Weblogs: A History And Perspective, Rebecca Blood, September 7, 2000, http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html. [17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network [19] Rachael King, "When Your Social Sites Need Networking", BusinessWeek, http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070615_141976.htm [20] Stan Schroeder, "20 Ways to Aggregate Your Social Networking Profiles", http://mashable.com/2007/07/17/social network aggregators/ [21] Beth Snyder Bulik, Upstart websites aim to consolidate social networking. Advertising Age. "The latest trend in the space is aggregation websites... [Which] all present variations on the theme of organizing or simplifying a consumer's social networking experience". [22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_aggregation Page 201 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
[23] Mitchell, Scott, Easy Wiki Hosting, Scott Hanselman's blog, and Snagging Screens, MSDN Magazine, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en us/magazine/cc700339.aspx [24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki [25] Golder, Scott; Huberman, Bernardo A. (2006). "Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging Systems". Journal of Information Science 32 (2): 198–208, http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/198 [26] Ben Lund, Tony Hammond, Martin Flack and Timo Hannay (2005). "Social Bookmarking Tools (II): A Case Study – Connotea". D Lib Magazine 11 (4) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/lund/04lund.html [27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmarking [28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_news [29] http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi?doc=abs/trans/tp/2000/12/i1349abs.htm [30] http://blog.radvision.com/videooverenterprise/2009/09/01/social media multimedia social multimedia/ [31] Bishop, J. (2009). Enhancing the understanding of genres of web based communities: The role of the ecological cognition framework. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 5(1), 4 17. [32] Cook, A.D. (2009). A case study of the manifestations and significance of social presence in a multi user virtual environment. MEd Thesis, http://library2.usask.ca/theses/available/etd 09102009 012757/ [33] Biocca, Frank; Levy, Mark R. (1995), “Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality”, pp 40 44, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [34] Begault, Durand R. (1994), “3 D Sound for Virtual Reality and Multimedia”, San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press Professional, Inc., http://human factors.arc.nasa.gov/publibrary/Begault_2000_3d_Sound_Multimedia.pdf [35] Biocca, Frank; Levy, Mark R. (1995), “Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality”, pp 41 47, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_world [37] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_game [38] D. Osimo, Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2008, retrieved online at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC45269.pdf [39] E. Constantinides, Social Media/Web 2.0 as Marketing Parameter: An Introduction, in Proceedings of 8th International Congress Marketing Trends, 2009, Paris, France [40] E. Constantinides, Connecting Small and Medium Enterprises to the New Consumer: The Web 2.0 as Marketing Tool, in Global Perspectives on Small and Medium Enterprise, IGI Global, 2010, Hershey, Pennsylvania [41] E. Agichtein, G.C. Castillo, D. Donato, A. Gionis, G. Mishne ; “Web Search and Web Data Mining”, Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining table of contents, p.183-194, 2008 [42] "Types of Social Media Content - A Conceptual Overview”, 2008: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/080408-070000 [43] Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Fallows, D. (2004). Content Creation Online. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/Content Creation Online.aspx [44] L.Rainie “How users of social media have changed the ecology of information” , 2010 Conference, Melbourne Australia
Page 202 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
[45] Accenture. (2009). Web 2.0 and the Next Generation of Public Service: Driving high performance through more engaging, accountable and citizen focused service. Retrieved from [46] Arvidsson, S. and Karlander, J. (2009). The eGeneration: How do we energise and involve young citizens? Retrieved online www.pwc.com/sv_SE/se/publikationer/assets/e generation_en.pdf [47] Arvidsson, S. and Karlander, J. (2009). eRevolution: How do we energise and involve young citizens? Retrieved online http://www.pwc.com/sv_SE/se/kommuner/assets/eRevolution full.pdf [48] Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J., Gerber, M.M. (2009). The Internet in Britain 2009. Oxford Internet Institute – University of Oxford. [49] Nielsen. (2009). Global Faces and Networked Places: A Nielsen report on Social Networking’s New Global Footprint. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp content/uploads/2009/03/nielsen_globalfaces_mar09.pdf [50] Smith, A., Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S., Brady, H. (2009). The Internet and civic engagement. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/15 The Internet and Civic Engagement.aspx [51] Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social networks websites. PewInternet. Retrieved online http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults and Social Network Websites.aspx [52] Smith, A., Rainie, L. (2008). The internet and the 2008 election. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/252/report_display.asp [53] Foley, P., Alfonso, X., Wiseman, I. (2007). Local Information Systems: A review of their role, characteristics and benefits. IERC for the Department for Communities and Local Government. [54] White Paper “Monetizing Web 2.0” http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/NR/rdonlyres/6A60D899 2BB9 439C AFF6 4F27F4946A0B/0/Web2_A4_2605.pdf
7.2 References for Chapter 4 [4.1] Accenture. (2009). Web 2.0 and the Next Generation of Public Service: Driving high performance through more engaging, accountable and citizen focused service. Retrieved from http://www.accenture.com/Global/Services/By_Industry/Government_and_Public_Service/PS_ Global/R_and_I/EvolutionPSDWeb20.htm [4.2] Anderson, J.Q., Rainie, L. (2010). The Future of the internet. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/topics/Future of the internet.aspx [4.3] Arvidsson, S. and Karlander, J. (2009). The eGeneration: How do we energise and involve young citizens? Retrieved online www.pwc.com/sv_SE/se/publikationer/assets/e generation_en.pdf [4.4] Arvidsson, S. and Karlander, J. (2009). eRevolution: How do we energise and involve young citizens? Retrieved online http://www.pwc.com/sv_SE/se/kommuner/assets/eRevolution full.pdf [4.5] Becker, S., Crandall, M.D., Fisher, K.E., Kinney, B., Landry, C., Rocha, A. (2010). Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries. Institute of Museum and Library Services. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
Page 203 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
http://cis.washington.edu/usimpact/2010/03/22/opportunity for all groundbreaking study reveals how people use internet access at the public library/ [4.6] Beland, D. (2007). The social exclusion discourse: ideas and policy change. The Policy Press. 35 (1), 123 139. [4.7] Benevenuto, F., Rodrigues, T., Cha, M., Almeida, V. (2009). Characterising user behavior in online social networks. Proceedings of Usenix/ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 49 62. [4.8] Bollen, J., Pepe, A., Mao, H. (2009). Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio economic phenomena. International World Wide Web Conference. [4.9] Boyd, D. (2010) Stream of Content, Limited Attention. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/Web2Expo.html [4.10] Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In Buckingham, D. (ed.). Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. 119–142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [4.11] Boyd, D. (2006a). Friendster lost steam. Is MySpace just a fad? Apophenia Blog. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay.html [4.12] Boyd, D. (2006b). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday. 11 (12). Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsFriendsterTop8.pdf [4.13] Boyd, D. (2004). Friendster and publicly articulated social networks. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1279–1282. New York: ACM Press. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/CHI2004Friendster.pdf [4.14] Boyd, D., Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 13, 210 230. Retrieved from http://www.webdialogues.net/cs/cdc new_media library/download/dlib/1065/Social%20Nework%20Sites%20 %20Definition,%20History.pdf?x r=pcfile_d [4.15] Boyd, D., Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. Proceedings of Thirty Ninth Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/HICSS2006.pdf [4.16] Codagnone, C., Osimo, D. (2009). Future technology needs for future eGovernment Services Deliverable D.6: Beyond i2010 – eGovernment current challenges and future scenarios. RSO & Sineura for European Commission DG Information Society and Media. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/funding/results/docs/d6_high _level_summary.pdf [4.17] Department for Communities and Local Government. (2008). Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. Retrieved from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/digitalinclusionanalysis
Page 204 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
[4.18] Department for Communities and Local Government. (2008). Online social networks: research report. Retrieved online http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/onlinesocialnetworks [4.19] Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J. (2007). The Internet in Britain 2007. Oxford Internet Institute – University of Oxford. [4.20] Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J., Gerber, M.M. (2009). The Internet in Britain 2009. Oxford Internet Institute – University of Oxford. [4.21] European Commission. (2009). Benchmarking i2010: Trends and main achievements. COM(2009) 390. [4.22] Eurostat. (2010). A statistical perspective on women and men in the EU27. Eurostat Press office STAT/10/35. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/10/35&format=HTML&aged=0 &language=EN&guiLanguage=en [4.23] Eurostat. (2009a) Internet access and use in 2009: one person in two in the EU27 uses the internet daily. Eurostat Press Office 176/2009. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4 08122009 BP/EN/4 08122009 BP EN.PDF [4.24] Eurostat. (2009b). Commission sets new information society challenge: becoming literate in new media. IP/09/1244. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1244 [4.25] Ferro, E., Molinari, F. (2009). Making Sense of Gov 2.0 Strategies: ‘No Citizens, No Party’. Proceedings of EDEM 2009. September 7 8, Vienna. [4.26] Foley, P., Alfonso, X., Wiseman, I. (2007). Local Information Systems: A review of their role, characteristics and benefits. IERC for the Department for Communities and Local Government. [4.27] Forrester Research. (2009). European Technographics Benchmark Survey, Q2 2009, 25, 932. Retrieved from http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/profile_tool.html [4.28] Fox, S., Zickuhr, K., Smith, A. (2009). Twitter and status updating, fall 2009. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/17 Twitter and Status Updating Fall 2009.aspx [4.29] Greene, M. (2009). Justifying Social Marketing Spending. Forrester Research. [4.30] Hampton, K.N., Sessions, L.F., Her, E.J., Rainie, L. (2009). Social isolation and new technology: how the internet and mobile phones impact Americans’ social networks. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/18 Social Isolation and New Technology.aspx [4.31] Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry. 80 (1), 92 113. [4.32] Hitwise and Experian. (2008). The Impact of Social Networking in the UK. Retrieved from http://www.bergenmediaby.no/admin/ressurser/QCetFnO$_11_Social_Networking_Report_20 08.pdf [4.33] Horrigan, J. (2009). The mobile difference. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/5 The Mobile Difference Typology.aspx Page 205 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
[4.34] Horrigan, J. (2009). Home Broadband adoption 2009. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/10 Home Broadband Adoption 2009.aspx [4.35] Horrigan, J. (2009). Wireless Internet use. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/12 Wireless Internet Use.aspx [4.36] Horrigan, J. (2008). Use of cloud computing applications and services. PewInternet. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/262/report_display.asp [4.37] IDATE. (2008). Broadband Coverage in Europe – 2008 Survey. Final Report for the DG Information Society and Media. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/broadband_cover age_2008.pdf [4.38] Jin, L., Psarrou, A., Cao, S., Chen, Y. (2009). Trends on interactive platforms for social media through web2.0. International Conference on Management and Service Science. [4.39] Jones, S. (2009). Generations Online in 2009. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations Online in 2009.aspx [4.40] Kaplan, A., Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons. 53 (1), 59 68. [4.41] Kountzeris, A. (forthcoming). Trends in advanced internet services use in Europe and Greece. Observatory for the Greek Information Society. [4.42] Langran, E. (2007). Adolescent social networking activities: what adults don’t know. Retrieved online:http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2009/program/search_results_details.php?sessioni d=43193237&selection_id=51807462&rownumber=2&max=6&gopage= [4.43] Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social networks websites. PewInternet. Retrieved online http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults and Social Network Websites.aspx [4.44] Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and mobile phones over the past five years: Pew Internet looks back. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://authoring.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/14 Teens and Mobile Phones Data Memo.aspx [4.45] Lenhart, A. (2009). The democratization of online social networks. PewInternet. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/.../41 The Democratization of Online Social Networks.aspx [4.46] Lenhart, A., Fox, S. (2009). Twitter and status updating. PewInternet. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/.../Twitter and status updating [4.47] Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Fallows, D. (2004). Content Creation Online. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/Content Creation Online.aspx [4.48] Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Macgill, A.R., Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics. PewInternet. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/.../Teens Video Games and Civics.aspx [4.49] Lenhart, A., Madden, M., MacGill, A.R., Smith, A. (2007). Teens and Social Media. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens and Social Media.aspx [4.50] Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1484/social media mobile internet use teens millennials fewer blog Page 206 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
[4.51] Lerman, K. (2007). User participation in social media: Digg study. International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. [4.52] Li, C., Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world Transformed by social technologies. Forrester Research. [4.53] Li, N., Chen, G. (2009). Analysis of a location based social network. 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. 263 270. [4.54] Livingstone, G., Parker, K., Fox, S. (2009). Latinos Online, 2006 2008: Narrowing the gap. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=119 [4.55] Loof, A., Seybert, H. (2009). Internet usage in 2009 – Households and Individuals. Eurostat: Data in Focus 46/2009. [4.56] M+R Strategic Services. (2010). Non Social Media Benchmarks Study: an Analysis of Growth and Social Engagement Metrics for Nonprofit Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.e benchmarksstudy.com/socialmedia [4.57] Madden, M. (2009). The audience for online video sharing sites shoots up. Retrieved from http://fe01.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/13 The Audience for Online VideoSharing Sites Shoots Up.aspx [4.58] Maia, M., Almeida, J., Almeida, V. (2008). Identifying user behavior in online social networks. European Conference on Computer Systems. 1 6. [4.59] Mayo, E., Steinberg, T. (2007). The Power of Information Review: online advice sites could improve citizen empowerment. UK Cabinet Office. Retrieved from http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2007/070405_power.aspx [4.60] Nielsen. (2009). Global Faces and Networked Places: A Nielsen report on Social Networking’s New Global Footprint. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp content/uploads/2009/03/nielsen_globalfaces_mar09.pdf [4.61] Nielsen. (2009). How Teens Use Media: A Nielsen report on the myths and realities of teen media trends. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/reports/nielsen_howteensusemedia_june09.pdf [4.62] Nielsen. (2009). The Global Online Media Landscape: Identifying Opportunities in a Challenging Market. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp content/uploads/2009/04/nielsen online global lanscapefinal1.pdf [4.63] Office of Communications. (2008a). Social networking: a quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours and use. Retrieved from www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media.../socialnetworking/report.pdf [4.64] Office of Communications. (2008b). Ofcom’s Response to the Byron Review. Retrieved from http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/telecoms/reports/byron/ [4.65] Osimo, D., Codagnone, C. (2009). Future technology needs for future eGovernment Services Deliverable D.4: Disclosure of concealed R&D. RSO & Sineura for European Commission DG Information Society and Media. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/funding/results/docs/d4_discl osure_of_concealed_research_report.pdf Page 207 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
[4.66] PewResearchCenter. (2010). Millennials – a Portrait of Generation Next: Confident. Connected. Open to Change. Retrieved from http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials confident connected open to change.pdf [4.67] Rainie, L. (2010). Internet, broadband, and cell phone statistics. PewInternet. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/.../Internet broadband and cell phone statistics.aspx [4.68] Regan, D. (2009). Overview of trends in tax administration: web 2.0 around the world. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.at/NR/rdonlyres/EBA5B37E BF2A 4096 815B B0D695311B31/0/Accenture_Revenue_Tax_Adminstration_Web_20_Regan_Transcript_3.pdf [4.69] Riley, E. (2009). Reaching Empowered Women Through Social Media. Forrester Research. [4.70] Riley, E. (2009). Redefining Attribution in the Social Computing Era. Forrester Research. [4.71] Rossel, P., Finger, M., Misuraca, G. (2006). Mobile e Government Options: Between Technology driven and User centric. The Electronic Journal of e Government. 4 (2), 79 86. [4.72] Saiz, A., Simonsohn, U. (2008). Downloading wisdom from online crowds. Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor – Discussion Paper Series IZA DP No. 3809. [4.73] Singh, R.R. and Tomar, D.S. (2009). Approaches for user profile investigation in Orkut social network. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security. 6 (2), 259 268. [4.74] Smith, A. (2009). Internet as a diversion. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/16 The Internet as a Diversion.aspx [4.75] Smith, A., Rainie, L. (2008). The internet and the 2008 election. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/252/report_display.asp [4.76] Smith, A., Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S., Brady, H. (2009). The Internet and civic engagement. PewInternet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/15 The Internet and Civic Engagement.aspx [4.77] Smith, M., Hansen, D.L., Gleave, E. (2009). Analyzing Enterprise social media networks. 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. 705 710. [4.78] Young Adult Library Services Association. (2006). Social Networking and DOPA. Retrieved from www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ifissues/positive_uses.pdf [4.79] Young Adult Library Services Association. (2009). Teens and social networking in school and public libraries: a toolkit for librarians and library workers. Retrieved from www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/yalsa/.../socialnetworkingtool.pdf
7.3 Online Resources [4.80] Business Insider. (July 21, 2009). How People Share Content on the Web. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart of the day social networking sites dominate sharing 2009 7 [4.81] NielsenWire. (November 2, 2009). A Pocket Guide to Social Media and Kids. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/a pocket guide to social media and kids/ [4.82] NielsenWire. (October 5, 2009). Social Media: The Next Great Gateway for Content Discovery?. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/social media the next great gateway for content discovery/ Page 208 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
[4.83] NielsenWire. (July 17, 2009). Social Media Stats: Myspace Music Growing, Twitter’s Big Move. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/social media stats myspace music growing twitters big move/
Page 209 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
8. Annex B: Web 2.0 at a Glance (Sources: based on [12]) Characteristics Participation: Every aspect of Web 2.0 is driven by participation. The transition to Web 2.0 was enabled by the emergence of platforms such as blogging, social networks, and free image and video uploading, that collectively allowed extremely easy content creation and sharing by anyone. Standards: Standards provide an essential platform for Web 2.0. Common interfaces for accessing content and applications are the glue that allows integration across the many elements of the emergent web. Decentralization: Web 2.0 is decentralized in its architecture, participation, and usage. Power and flexibility emerges from distributing applications and content over many computers and systems, rather than maintaining them on centralized systems. Openness: The world of Web 2.0 has only become possible through a spirit of openness whereby developers and companies provide open, transparent access to their applications and content. Modularity: Web 2.0 is the antithesis of the monolithic. It emerges from many, many components or modules that are designed to link and integrate with others, together building a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. User Control: A primary direction of Web 2.0 is for users to control the content they create, the data captured about their web activities, and their identity. This powerful trend is driven by the clear desires of participants. Identity: Identity is a critical element of both Web 2.0 and the future direction of the internet. We can increasingly choose to represent our identities however we please, across interactions, virtual worlds, and social networks. We can also own and verify our real identities in transactions if we choose. Technologies Aggregation: Bringing multiple content sources together into one interface or application. AJAX: (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) a combination of technologies that enables highly interactive web applications. API: (Application Programming Interface) a defined interface to a computer application or database that allows access by other applications. Embedding: Integrating content or an application into a web page, while the original format is maintained. Folksonomy: Rich categorization of information that is collectively created by users, through tagging and other actions. (cf. taxonomy) Mashups: Combination of different types of content or data, usually from different sources, to create something new. Remixing: Extracting and combining samples of content to create a new output. The term was originally used in music but is now also applied to video and other content. RSS: (Really Simple Syndication) A group of formats to publish (syndicate) content on the internet so that users or applications automatically receive any updates. Ruby on Rails: An open source web application framework that is frequently used in Web 2.0 website development. Page 210 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Tag cloud: A visual depiction of tags that have been used to describe a piece of content, with higher frequency tags emphasized to assist content comprehension and navigation. Tagging: Attaching descriptions to information or content. Virtual architecture: The creation of avatars (alternative representations of people), buildings, objects, and other artefacts inside virtual spaces. Widget: Small, portable web application that can be embedded into any web page. XML (eXtensible Markup Language): An open standard for describing data, which enables easy exchange of information between applications and organizations. Domain Open web: The entire space of the World Wide Web open to anyone to access and participate. This has been the initial domain in which Web 2.0 technologies, applications, and attitudes have developed. Enterprise: Inside the firewalls of organizations and their business partners. The powers of Web 2.0 technologies, originally developed on the open web, are now being applied within enterprises to enhance performance and achieve business outcomes. This domain is sometimes termed Enterprise 2.0. [2] Glossary Sources: [4.63] [4.79] - Applications: Pieces of software usually created by third party developers that interact with the core features of a social networking site. Examples include mini games, film trivia quizzes and online travel maps. - Avatar: computer user’s graphical representation of him or herself. An avatar can be two or three dimensional. - Bebo: one of the three most popular social networking sites in the UK, founded in 2005. - Blog: blog is short for weblog. A weblog is a journal (or newsletter) that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs generally represent the personality of the author or the Web site. - Blurb: MySpace’s term for a short summary about a user on their profile Cyberbullying Term used to describe bullying committed on the internet. - Cloudcomputing: an emerging architecture by which data and applications reside in cyberspace, allowing users to access them through any web connected device. - Early adopter: someone who embraces new technologies before the majority of the rest of the population do. - Facebook: one of the three most popular social networking sites in the UK, founded in 2004. Flickr A social networking site based around photo sharing. - Friend: anyone who either accepts an invitation from another social networking site user to be friends, or who accepts an invitation from another user. When a user adds someone as a friend, their connection is displayed on the user’s friend list. On social networking sites a friend can be an offline friend, a family member, an acquaintance, a friend of a friend, or someone who you have never met before. Page 211 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
- Friends Reunited: a group of social networking sites based around the theme of getting back in contact with old school friends. The main site was founded in 1999. - Friendster: an initially very popular social networking site founded in 2002. - Habbo: (or the Habbo Hotel) A social networking site aimed at teenagers, which is based around virtual hotel rooms. Each user has a customisable avatar to represent them. ICT Information and communications technology. - KateModern: an interactive video drama hosted on Bebo. Fans are able to use the tools on Bebo to influence the storyline and fully interact with the series. The production is funded via fully integrated product placement. - LinkedIn: a social networking site based around business networking. - Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG): An online computer game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. Examples include Second Life, Runescape and World of Warcraft. - Media literacy: according to Ofcom, media literacy is ‘the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts’. - Member community: category of website used by Nielsen Online. Examples include Bebo, Facebook, MySpace and Blogger. - Microblog: a blog that is made up of short posts usually only of 140 characters or less. - MSN groups: an online community site created by Microsoft in 1995 MySpace One of the three most popular social networking sites in the UK, founded in 2003. - Podcasts: audio files available for download via subscription, so you can automatically download it to a computer or MP3 player (like an iPod). - Poke: a gesture or symbolic cue on Facebook. A user who is poked by their friend receives a message saying ‘you have been poked by...’. Other sites have similar features such as nudges, giving five, or giving love. - Profile: the personal homepage on a social networking site, usually including information about a user, photos, and their friend list. Profiles form the basis of social networking sites. - RSS: a way for subscribers to automatically receive information from blogs, online newspapers and podcasts. - Sagazone: a social networking site for the over 50s launched in 2007 by Saga. - Second Life: a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game based around a virtual world. Users create an avatar and meet others, socialise and create and trade items. Launched in 2003. - Skin: the background or texture of a users profile. It can include patterns, animations, photos and other formatting. Many social networking sites allow users to edit their profile skin using html code. - Skype: a software programme that allows users to make telephone calls over the internet. - Social Networking Site (SNS): a site which allows users to create a personal page or profile and construct and display a social network of their online contacts.
Page 212 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
- Tagging: refers to the ability to add subject headings to content in order to organize information in a meaningful way and to connect to others that tag similar content in the same way. - User Generated Content (UGC): online content that is produced by the users or consumers of the site. Examples of UGC include blogs, and photos and videos that users upload. - Virtual worlds: allow for real time communication & collaboration with people from all over the world. Each person in a virtual world uses an avatar as a virtual representation of herself. - Web 2.0: a technical term describing a perceived second generation of web based communities and hosted services such as social networking sites and wikis, which facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. - Wiki: a collaborative space for developing web content. No web design knowledge is needed to create a wiki. - YouTube: a popular video sharing site founded in 2005.
Page 213 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
9. Annex C: Tables GENDER SOCIAL MEDIA Unique Visitors Unique Users W M Bebo.com 15000000 5600000 USA 3500000 1100000 66 34 UK 55 45 Germany 38 62 Italy 28 72 Spain 38 62 France 26 74 EU5 average 37 63 Blogger.com 73000000 41000000 USA 21000000 8100000 62 38 UK 36 64 Germany 30 70 Italy 30 70 Spain 38 62 France 30 70 EU5 average 32.8 67.2 Chatroulette.com 6700000 2600000 USA 2000000 620000 43 57 UK 38 62 Germany 22 78 Italy 18 82 Spain 15 85 France 24 76 EU5 average 23.4 76.6 Classmates.com 19000000 6700000 USA 17000000 6200000 66 34 UK 48 52 Germany 28 72 Italy 34 66 Spain 36 64 France 28 72 EU5 average 34.8 65.2 Delicious.com 8200000 5100000 USA 2900000 1200000 55 45 UK 30 70 Germany 13 87 Italy 21 79 Spain 26 74 France 17 83 EU5 average 21.4 78.6 Page 214 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
GENDER SOCIAL MEDIA Unique Visitors Unique Users W M Digg.com 25000000 14000000 USA 12000000 5100000 43 57 UK 30 70 Germany 17 83 Italy 18 82 Spain 18 82 France 18 82 EU5 average 20.2 79.8 Facebook.com 1100000000 370000000 USA 490000000 130000000 60 40 UK 55 45 Germany 45 55 Italy 45 55 Spain 45 55 France 48 52 EU5 average 47.6 52.4 Flickr.com 110000000 55000000 USA 37000000 14000000 55 45 UK 45 55 Germany 32 68 Italy 38 62 Spain 41 59 France 32 68 EU5 average 37.6 62.4 Friendfeed.com 3800000 2400000 USA 990000 430000 57 43 UK 28 72 Germany 11 89 Italy 21 79 Spain 15 85 France 9 91 EU5 average 16.8 83.2 Friendster.com 14000000 13000000 USA 2400000 740000 57 43 UK 45 55 Germany 45 55 Italy 34 66 Spain 48 52 France 26 74 EU5 average 39.6 60.4 Hi5.com 50000000 35000000 USA 5000000 1800000 55 45 UK 43 57 Germany 38 62 Page 215 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
GENDER SOCIAL MEDIA Unique Visitors Unique Users W M Italy 34 66 Spain 50 50 France 45 55 EU5 average 42 58 Last.fm 24000000 11000000 USA 7600000 2600000 55 45 UK 41 59 Germany 36 64 Italy 28 72 Spain 34 66 France 32 68 EU5 average 34.2 65.8 Linkedin.com 82000000 41000000 USA 42000000 16000000 50 50 UK 41 59 Germany 26 74 Italy 32 68 Spain 32 68 France 28 72 EU5 average 31.8 68.2 Livejournal.com 26000000 6800000 USA 16000000 2300000 55 45 UK 43 57 Germany 28 72 Italy 34 66 Spain 36 64 France 22 78 EU5 average 32.6 67.4 Myspace.com 210000000 80000000 USA 140000000 41000000 66 34 UK 48 52 Germany 45 55 Italy 38 62 Spain 41 59 France 38 62 EU5 average 42 58 Netvibes.com 2400000 1200000 USA 390000 170000 52 48 UK 30 70 Germany 13 87 Italy 22 78 Spain 30 70 France 21 79 EU5 average 23.2 76.8 Page 216 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
GENDER SOCIAL MEDIA Unique Visitors Unique Users W M Ning.com 37000000 13000000 USA 17000000 4600000 64 36 UK 43 57 Germany 38 62 Italy 38 62 Spain 45 55 France 32 68 EU5 average 39.2 60.8 Reddit.com 5100000 2400000 USA 2800000 1000000 34 66 UK 24 76 Germany 12 88 Italy 15 85 Spain 19 81 France 24 76 EU5 average 18.8 81.2 Stumbleupon.com 11000000 5500000 USA 6200000 2400000 52 48 UK 32 68 Germany 12 88 Italy 16 84 Spain 19 81 France 16 84 EU5 average 19 81 Tagged.com 28000000 16000000 USA 8100000 2800000 64 36 UK 52 48 Germany 38 62 Italy 24 76 Spain 45 55 France 36 64 EU5 average 39 61 Twitter.com 150000000 80000000 USA 54000000 21000000 60 40 UK 43 57 Germany 26 74 Italy 26 74 Spain 32 68 France 26 74 EU5 average 30.6 69.4 Vimeo.com 18000000 8300000 USA 920000 320000 50 50 UK 32 68 Germany 21 79 Page 217 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
GENDER SOCIAL MEDIA Unique Visitors Unique Users W M Italy 26 74 Spain 30 70 France 22 78 EU5 average 26.2 73.8 Wikipedia.org 550000000 310000000 USA 160000000 56000000 52 48 UK 45 55 Germany 38 62 Italy 38 62 Spain 43 57 France 43 57 EU5 average 41.4 58.6 Wordpress.com 210000000 110000000 USA 59000000 21000000 57 43 UK 45 55 Germany 34 66 Italy 38 62 Spain 43 57 France 34 66 EU5 average 38.8 61.2 Xanga.com 4600000 2200000 USA 2000000 630000 66 34 UK 50 50 Germany 43 57 Italy 32 68 Spain 36 64 France 21 79 EU5 average 36.4 63.6 AGE GROUPS SOCIAL MEDIA 0 17 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55 64 >65 Bebo.com USA 41 8 11 16 16 6 2 UK 38 14 18 15 10 4 1 Germany 17 11 19 22 20 7 4 Italy 10 18 35 22 14 0 0 Spain 9 18 46 18 10 0 0 France 24 5 20 23 23 4 0 EU5 average 19.6 13.2 27.6 20 15.4 3 1 Blogger.com USA 7 7 22 27 20 13 4 UK 4 15 33 21 15 8 3 Germany 9 8 26 20 24 8 4 Page 218 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
AGE GROUPS SOCIAL MEDIA 0 17 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55 64 >65 Italy 4 12 31 29 16 7 1 Spain 6 11 41 29 9 4 0 France 10 5 24 32 18 9 2 EU5 average 6.6 10.2 31 26.2 16.4 7.2 2 Chatroulette.com USA 14 17 20 25 17 6 2 UK 8 33 33 14 8 3 1 Germany 12 11 34 16 21 5 2 Italy 0 17 36 30 14 4 0 Spain 5 12 56 16 6 3 0 France 15 11 25 25 17 5 1 EU5 average 8 16.8 36.8 20.2 13.2 4 0.8 Classmates.com USA 11 3 7 18 31 23 8 UK 0 12 25 26 23 14 0 Germany 0 0 34 41 25 0 0 Italy 0 0 41 31 28 0 0 Spain 0 0 57 43 0 0 0 France 0 0 42 39 20 0 0 EU5 average 0 2.4 39.8 36 19.2 2.8 0 Delicious.com USA 5 8 20 32 18 14 4 UK 3 16 33 21 17 7 3 Germany 4 5 44 17 21 6 3 Italy 3 10 44 28 12 5 0 Spain 2 7 54 28 6 2 0 France 6 2 32 33 20 7 0 EU5 average 3.6 8 41.4 25.4 15.2 5.4 1.2 Digg.com USA 10 9 19 28 19 12 4 UK 8 18 31 22 13 6 2 Germany 7 8 39 17 22 5 2 Italy 6 13 37 28 12 4 0 Spain 4 11 57 20 6 2 0 France 11 5 27 33 18 5 1 EU5 average 7.2 11 38.2 24 14.2 4.4 1 Facebook.com USA 17 7 14 21 25 12 4 UK 10 12 31 24 13 7 3 Germany 13 13 26 21 16 7 4
Page 219 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
AGE GROUPS SOCIAL MEDIA 0 17 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55 64 >65 Italy 6 9 34 26 16 6 2 Spain 7 7 45 26 10 5 1 France 20 15 18 23 14 8 2 EU5 average 11.2 11.2 30.8 24 13.8 6.6 2.4 Flickr.com USA 13 8 19 23 21 12 4 UK 9 16 27 23 16 8 3 Germany 12 8 27 23 21 6 3 Italy 6 12 34 28 14 4 1 Spain 8 11 45 24 8 3 0 France 15 5 22 30 19 8 1 EU5 average 10 10.4 31 25.6 15.6 5.8 1.6 Friendfeed.com USA 3 12 24 35 15 8 3 UK 0 20 42 16 18 4 0 Germany 0 5 51 20 20 5 0 Italy 1 10 49 28 9 3 0 Spain 0 7 71 19 4 0 0 France 0 0 40 33 23 4 0 EU5 average 0.2 8.4 50.6 23.2 14.8 3.2 0 Friendster.com USA 27 8 15 19 23 6 2 UK 11 21 40 13 10 4 2 Germany 29 13 18 14 20 5 0 Italy 8 15 43 22 9 3 0 Spain 11 18 54 18 0 0 0 France 29 5 27 20 18 0 0 EU5 average 17.6 14.4 36.4 17.4 11.4 2.4 0.4 Hi5.com USA 19 8 28 20 18 5 2 UK 8 15 43 18 10 4 2 Germany 12 12 21 21 21 7 5 Italy 9 15 37 19 14 4 1 Spain 13 11 42 20 10 3 1 France 17 10 26 24 16 6 1 EU5 average 11.8 12.6 33.8 20.4 14.2 4.8 2 Last.fm USA 21 11 16 21 19 9 3 UK 10 20 26 20 14 8 3 Germany 16 15 26 15 18 6 2
Page 220 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
AGE GROUPS SOCIAL MEDIA 0 17 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55 64 >65 Italy 8 16 32 24 15 4 1 Spain 8 12 46 24 8 3 0 France 25 6 17 28 16 6 1 EU5 average 13.4 13.8 29.4 22.2 14.2 5.4 1.4 Linkedin.com USA 3 4 16 28 28 17 4 UK 2 8 32 27 18 10 3 Germany 2 4 35 27 18 8 5 Italy 2 7 31 38 16 6 1 Spain 2 6 43 36 8 4 1 France 5 4 37 28 14 11 1 EU5 average 2.6 5.8 35.6 31.2 14.8 7.8 2.2 Livejournal.com USA 12 16 23 23 16 8 2 UK 6 27 30 17 12 6 2 Germany 9 9 34 26 16 4 2 Italy 6 25 36 21 9 4 0 Spain 5 22 47 18 6 2 0 France 21 4 20 26 24 4 0 EU5 average 9.4 17.4 33.4 21.6 13.4 4 0.8 Myspace.com USA 34 8 12 16 20 6 2 UK 10 21 30 19 13 5 2 Germany 16 16 20 20 18 6 2 Italy 6 14 37 23 14 4 1 Spain 7 13 49 19 8 3 0 France 18 9 22 26 18 6 1 EU5 average 11.4 14.6 31.6 21.4 14.2 4.8 1.2 Netvibes.com USA 5 10 23 34 16 10 3 UK 0 18 39 19 15 6 3 Germany 3 3 48 16 20 5 6 Italy 0 14 36 33 13 5 0 Spain 3 6 52 27 8 3 0 France 6 4 31 31 18 10 2 EU5 average 2.4 9 41.2 25.2 14.8 5.8 2.2 Ning.com USA 15 9 17 25 20 11 3 UK 11 20 28 20 13 6 2 Germany 18 9 22 21 21 6 3
Page 221 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
AGE GROUPS SOCIAL MEDIA 0 17 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55 64 >65 Italy 10 15 34 24 12 4 1 Spain 8 11 42 24 10 4 0 France 21 6 20 27 20 6 1 EU5 average 13.6 12.2 29.2 23.2 15.2 5.2 1.4 Reddit.com USA 6 12 29 27 14 9 3 UK 4 20 32 20 15 6 2 Germany 0 5 50 18 20 7 0 Italy 0 14 43 25 18 0 0 Spain 0 11 67 22 0 0 0 France 16 0 23 34 18 9 0 EU5 average 4 10 43 23.8 14.2 4.4 0.4 Stumbleupon.com USA 8 12 21 28 17 10 4 UK 6 20 32 18 15 8 3 Germany 3 7 43 17 22 4 3 Italy 0 16 44 30 10 0 0 Spain 0 10 64 21 6 0 0 France 8 0 32 36 18 6 0 EU5 average 3.4 10.6 43 24.4 14.2 3.6 1.2 Tagged.com USA 28 5 12 18 28 7 2 UK 15 16 33 17 13 4 2 Germany 8 12 24 20 22 9 4 Italy 4 12 38 16 24 5 0 Spain 14 10 41 19 11 4 2 France 14 16 23 18 24 5 0 EU5 average 11 13.2 31.8 18 18.8 5.4 1.6 Twitter.com USA 10 9 18 27 20 11 3 UK 6 14 32 22 15 7 3 Germany 7 7 34 21 19 8 4 Italy 4 12 35 30 12 5 1 Spain 4 10 54 23 7 2 0 France 11 4 25 31 19 8 1 EU5 average 6.4 9.4 36 25.4 14.4 6 1.8 Vimeo.com USA 8 11 21 26 18 12 4 UK 6 20 31 20 15 7 2 Germany 6 10 36 19 21 6 3
Page 222 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
AGE GROUPS SOCIAL MEDIA 0 17 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55 64 >65 Italy 6 11 37 28 12 5 0 Spain 4 9 53 23 7 4 0 France 12 6 25 31 17 7 1 EU5 average 6.8 11.2 36.4 24.2 14.4 5.8 1.2 Wikipedia.org USA 13 6 15 22 24 15 4 UK 10 13 26 24 15 9 3 Germany 12 8 19 24 21 11 6 Italy 7 10 26 29 20 6 1 Spain 10 10 36 27 12 5 1 France 18 6 20 27 15 12 2 EU5 average 11.4 9.4 25.4 26.2 16.6 8.6 2.6 Wordpress.com USA 15 8 18 24 20 11 3 UK 12 18 28 21 13 6 2 Germany 13 9 25 23 21 6 3 Italy 7 11 30 28 17 5 1 Spain 9 10 39 27 10 4 0 France 19 5 21 28 19 7 1 EU5 average 12 10.6 28.6 25.4 16 5.6 1.4 Xanga.com USA 21 18 17 19 16 7 2 UK 9 32 26 17 11 4 0 Germany 23 17 31 12 17 0 0 Italy 0 24 52 24 0 0 0 Spain 0 27 58 15 0 0 0 France 28 0 20 32 20 0 0 EU5 average 12 20 37.4 20 9.6 0.8 0 Education Household income SOCIAL MEDIA 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bebo.com USA 41 9 38 9 3 9 46 29 9 5 2 UK 31 7 55 5 3 22 13 7 6 38 15 Germany 70 12 19 0 0 40 18 10 20 7 4 Italy 16 73 0 12 0 54 19 17 10 0 0 Spain 23 26 26 21 4 57 16 9 14 4 0 France 40 5 27 12 15 15 18 31 23 9 4 EU5 average 36 24.6 25.4 10 4.4 37.6 16.8 14.8 14.6 11.6 4.6
Page 223 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Education Household income SOCIAL MEDIA 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Blogger.com USA 9 10 46 24 11 13 27 27 19 10 4 UK 8 24 43 17 8 33 8 8 6 24 20 Germany 56 14 29 0 1 39 18 10 18 8 6 Italy 8 61 4 26 1 38 21 19 14 5 3 Spain 16 23 31 23 7 38 23 16 16 4 3 France 23 6 29 19 23 12 17 21 34 9 6 EU5 average 22.2 25.6 27.2 17 8 32 17.4 14.8 17.6 10 7.6 Chatroulette.com USA 16 10 46 21 7 18 32 24 16 7 3 UK 13 21 49 11 6 41 7 7 5 19 21 Germany 56 15 29 0 0 42 18 7 20 9 4 Italy 10 59 7 25 0 40 15 25 15 5 0 Spain 14 27 33 20 6 42 25 12 14 4 3 France 34 6 26 16 19 13 18 30 22 10 6 EU5 average 25.4 25.6 28.8 14.4 6.2 35.6 16.6 16.2 15.2 9.4 6.8 Classmates.com USA 10 19 48 17 6 4 25 38 18 12 4 UK 9 15 47 15 14 22 7 9 9 32 22 Germany 58 17 25 0 0 48 18 12 22 0 0 Italy 0 55 0 45 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Spain 0 23 45 33 0 58 42 0 0 0 0 France 18 0 33 24 24 0 24 36 40 0 0 EU5 average 17 22 30 23.4 7.6 45.6 18.2 11.4 14.2 6.4 4.4 Delicious.com USA 6 8 47 26 12 19 31 20 18 7 5 UK 4 36 36 16 7 45 8 7 4 19 17 Germany 38 11 51 0 0 47 20 8 14 4 7 Italy 6 59 5 30 0 43 14 27 10 3 3 Spain 7 29 27 24 12 35 26 12 16 6 4 France 13 4 31 21 31 17 20 22 24 9 8 EU5 average 13.6 27.8 30 18.2 10 37.4 17.6 15.2 13.6 8.2 7.8 Digg.com USA 13 10 41 28 8 15 27 25 19 9 4 UK 12 22 48 11 7 38 10 9 5 23 16 Germany 48 14 37 0 1 49 22 7 13 4 4 Italy 10 68 4 18 0 42 21 23 10 2 2 Spain 12 30 33 18 6 41 25 12 16 5 2 France 24 4 33 18 20 18 20 27 24 6 4 EU5 average 21.2 27.6 31 13 6.8 37.6 19.6 15.6 13.6 8 5.6
Page 224 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Education Household income SOCIAL MEDIA 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Facebook.com USA 20 14 40 17 8 7 26 34 18 11 4 UK 11 11 56 14 8 18 8 9 9 31 26 Germany 60 14 24 1 1 30 17 12 21 9 12 Italy 18 51 5 24 3 41 17 14 17 5 5 Spain 20 16 30 26 8 41 20 14 14 4 6 France 42 6 20 14 18 8 13 29 29 14 8 EU5 average 30.2 19.6 27 15.8 7.6 27.6 15 15.6 18 12.6 11.4 Flickr.com USA 14 12 42 23 8 13 28 28 18 10 4 UK 11 18 52 12 6 28 9 8 7 28 21 Germany 58 13 28 0 1 37 17 10 22 8 6 Italy 12 62 4 21 1 42 19 19 14 4 2 Spain 17 22 33 22 5 40 22 16 15 3 3 France 30 5 28 17 21 13 17 25 30 9 5 EU5 average 25.6 24 29 14.4 6.8 32 16.8 15.6 17.6 10.4 7.4 Friendfeed.com USA 3 5 57 26 8 29 32 15 14 6 4 UK 5 46 32 11 6 61 7 5 3 12 12 Germany 36 11 53 0 0 63 16 5 10 0 5 Italy 5 60 3 31 2 41 14 28 12 3 2 Spain 5 41 26 16 13 38 26 11 16 6 4 France 7 5 36 20 32 26 23 19 21 6 7 EU5 average 11.6 32.6 30 15.6 10.6 45.8 17.2 13.6 12.4 5.4 6 Friendster.com USA 27 12 44 13 5 12 36 30 13 6 3 UK 15 14 55 10 6 34 9 16 7 23 12 Germany 74 11 15 0 0 41 16 6 25 7 5 Italy 17 66 5 12 0 50 13 17 7 0 13 Spain 28 26 24 23 0 48 27 14 11 0 0 France 41 3 29 10 18 25 15 30 17 8 4 EU5 average 35 24 25.6 11 4.8 39.6 16 16.6 13.4 7.6 6.8 Hi5.com USA 21 19 49 8 3 12 41 34 7 4 2 UK 16 17 48 11 8 36 10 15 6 18 14 Germany 72 10 15 0 3 40 22 9 20 5 4 Italy 22 63 5 9 1 54 21 11 9 3 2 Spain 37 18 28 13 4 55 19 14 8 2 2 France 41 6 23 17 13 12 20 30 21 13 4 EU5 average 37.6 22.8 23.8 10 5.8 39.4 18.4 15.8 12.8 8.2 5.2
Page 225 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Education Household income SOCIAL MEDIA 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Last.fm USA 23 12 42 16 7 13 30 31 16 8 3 UK 13 14 55 12 6 28 8 9 6 28 21 Germany 62 18 20 0 0 37 18 9 22 7 6 Italy 17 59 3 21 0 48 18 17 11 4 2 Spain 21 23 31 19 5 49 18 13 14 3 2 France 41 4 26 13 16 13 17 26 28 11 5 EU5 average 30.8 23.6 27 13 5.4 35 15.8 14.8 16.2 10.6 7.2 Linkedin.com USA 4 10 34 38 14 11 19 24 21 16 10 UK 4 22 40 20 14 21 7 7 6 22 36 Germany 38 13 47 0 1 35 18 11 18 7 12 Italy 6 45 3 44 2 31 16 23 19 6 6 Spain 6 22 29 29 15 26 21 16 20 5 11 France 13 4 23 20 40 10 15 19 33 12 12 EU5 average 13.4 21.2 28.4 22.6 14.4 24.6 15.4 15.2 19.2 10.4 15.4 Livejournal.com USA 16 10 46 21 7 19 33 23 16 7 3 UK 10 24 44 15 6 41 10 8 5 23 14 Germany 39 14 48 0 0 60 14 5 14 4 3 Italy 13 70 3 14 0 60 15 12 10 2 2 Spain 15 35 27 20 4 49 22 13 13 3 0 France 32 4 30 14 20 26 14 24 26 6 4 EU5 average 21.8 29.4 30.4 12.6 6 47.2 15 12.4 13.6 7.6 4.6 Myspace.com USA 32 12 43 9 3 6 39 36 11 6 2 UK 11 14 59 11 5 30 9 9 7 27 18 Germany 71 13 16 0 0 37 17 10 22 7 6 Italy 13 64 4 18 1 46 19 16 12 4 3 Spain 21 24 29 21 5 51 19 12 12 3 3 France 35 5 25 16 18 11 18 27 27 12 5 EU5 average 30.2 24 26.6 13.2 5.8 35 16.4 14.8 16 10.6 7 Netvibes.com USA 5 6 48 30 10 24 30 18 15 8 5 UK 6 35 35 16 8 43 7 8 4 16 22 Germany 31 12 56 0 0 43 20 8 12 6 10 Italy 6 68 0 26 0 43 21 24 12 0 0 Spain 8 30 30 22 10 33 27 12 18 5 5 France 12 4 30 24 30 12 19 21 31 9 7 EU5 average 12.6 29.8 30.2 17.6 9.6 34.8 18.8 14.6 15.4 7.2 8.8
Page 226 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Education Household income SOCIAL MEDIA 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ning.com USA 17 11 49 17 7 12 26 27 14 8 3 UK 14 20 48 12 7 35 9 8 5 24 18 Germany 69 10 20 0 0 39 18 10 22 6 4 Italy 16 61 3 19 1 48 18 17 12 3 2 Spain 20 24 30 20 5 44 22 14 12 3 3 France 35 5 26 15 20 14 20 29 24 9 4 EU5 average 30.8 24 25.4 13.2 6.6 36 17.4 15.6 15 9 6.2 Reddit.com USA 8 8 43 32 8 22 26 20 20 8 3 UK 8 29 42 15 7 43 10 8 4 20 15 Germany 37 17 46 0 0 60 17 5 13 0 6 Italy 8 76 0 16 0 42 21 26 11 0 0 Spain 8 32 33 20 8 46 28 14 12 0 0 France 32 4 30 15 18 16 21 23 28 8 3 EU5 average 18.6 31.6 30.2 13.2 6.6 41.4 19.4 15.2 13.6 5.6 4.8 Stumbleupon.com USA 10 8 53 22 7 16 32 24 17 7 3 UK 7 27 48 12 6 43 9 8 5 20 15 Germany 36 15 49 0 0 52 18 6 15 4 6 Italy 5 71 4 20 0 49 14 28 10 0 0 Spain 10 36 30 17 7 49 20 8 17 5 0 France 18 3 32 21 26 22 21 24 20 6 8 EU5 average 15.2 30.4 32.6 14 7.8 43 16.4 14.8 13.4 7 5.8 Tagged.com USA 25 18 50 6 2 5 45 38 8 4 1 UK 12 8 71 6 4 27 16 14 7 22 14 Germany 69 20 11 0 0 52 18 8 15 3 4 Italy 14 61 10 12 3 55 19 11 8 4 4 Spain 40 16 28 14 2 51 17 20 8 2 2 France 39 8 18 20 15 17 22 30 18 10 3 EU5 average 34.8 22.6 27.6 10.4 4.8 40.4 18.4 16.6 11.2 8.2 5.4 Twitter.com USA 11 10 49 23 8 13 31 26 16 9 5 UK 7 21 50 14 7 31 9 8 7 25 21 Germany 50 13 35 0 1 37 19 10 19 7 8 Italy 8 63 4 24 1 46 17 19 12 4 3 Spain 13 28 28 21 9 39 24 14 15 4 4 France 23 4 31 19 23 15 19 23 28 9 6 EU5 average 20.2 25.8 29.6 15.6 8.2 33.6 17.6 14.8 16.2 9.8 8.4
Page 227 of 228 PADGETS D1.1.doc
Education Household income SOCIAL MEDIA 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vimeo.com USA 11 10 46 26 8 18 28 24 18 9 4 UK 8 28 46 12 7 37 8 7 5 25 17 Germany 44 17 37 0 1 45 17 7 19 6 6 Italy 12 61 3 23 0 44 18 20 12 3 2 Spain 14 24 33 22 7 40 24 13 15 4 3 France 26 5 29 17 23 14 17 26 28 9 6 EU5 average 20.8 27 29.6 14.8 7.6 36 16.8 14.6 15.8 9.4 6.8 Wikipedia.org USA 16 14 35 24 12 10 22 32 20 12 5 UK 12 15 51 13 9 20 8 8 7 31 26 Germany 65 12 21 0 1 26 16 15 26 10 7 Italy 16 54 4 25 1 35 19 18 20 5 3 Spain 20 19 30 25 6 37 22 16 17 4 3 France 34 7 24 16 19 8 15 24 35 12 6 EU5 average 29.4 21.4 26 15.8 7.2 25.2 16 16.2 21 12.4 9 Wordpress.com USA 16 10 43 22 9 14 27 28 17 10 4 UK 15 18 48 11 8 29 9 8 6 26 22 Germany 60 13 26 0 1 37 19 11 21 7 6 Italy 14 59 3 23 1 41 20 17 16 4 2 Spain 21 21 31 23 5 39 24 15 15 4 3 France 33 5 26 17 19 12 17 27 30 10 5 EU5 average 28.6 23.2 26.8 14.8 6.8 31.6 17.8 15.6 17.6 10.2 7.6 Xanga.com USA 23 9 46 15 7 16 37 26 13 6 3 UK 15 24 47 8 5 47 8 8 4 18 15 Germany 67 9 24 0 0 53 22 0 25 0 0 Italy 16 69 0 15 0 84 16 0 0 0 0 Spain 20 36 27 17 0 63 20 0 18 0 0 France 45 0 31 11 13 24 22 30 24 0 0 EU5 average 32.6 27.6 25.8 10.2 3.6 54.2 17.6 7.6 14.2 3.6 3
Page 228 of 228