The Knesset Research and Information Center Parliamentary Use of Social Network Sites The Knesset Research and Information Center Kiryat Ben Gurion, Jerusalem 91950 Written by: Roy Goldschmidt March 28, 2011 Tel: 02 – 6408240/1 Approved by: Sharon Sofer, Team Leader Fax: 02 – 6496103 www.knesset.gov.il/mmm This paper, written at the request of Yotam Yakir, Head of the Knesset Media and Public Relations Division, examines parliamentary use of social network sites (hereinafter: Social networks)1. It presents information and data on the use of social networks in Israel and the world, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the use of social networks by parliaments and parliamentary committees and brings examples of such use among the world's parliaments. It should be noted that parliamentary use of social networks and social media is a relatively new development, thus very little empirical research material is available in the field. The subject is due to be discussed at a seminar of the European Center for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD) in May 2011. Background2 The Internet is used today for numerous applications, including viewing, downloading and uploading of content (text, audio and video), writing and reading emails and ordering and purchasing various services, both private and public. The high availability of the Internet, the low cost of use, the array of content and formats and especially the vast amount of information provided on it, have made the Internet a dominant space for discourse. Serving today as a key tool for work, entertainment and communication, the Internet is a reflection of society, which uses it while simultaneously shaping its development. Much has been written about the emancipation from the "gatekeepers" of the traditional media (editors, publishers, distributors, etc.) that has been enabled by the Internet. In contrast to the clear distinction that existed in the past between writer and reader, producer and consumer, authority and layman – the Internet in general, and particularly the individual's tools of expression, such as talkbacks, blogs and private websites, have created an arena that challenges the media hegemony and the ownership of knowledge. The writer is no longer a sole authority; he is exposed to continual criticism on the part of his readers, who may cast doubt on the information provided by him and on his positions and bring alternative information to the same reading public. As opposed to the unidirectionality and asymmetry characterizing the traditional media, the Internet enables decentralization of the balance of power; it provides the general public with a virtually unmediated means of public self-expression, using simple tools available at a low cost in a variety of formats. At the same time, researchers have pointed to the development of new "gatekeepers" in the form of centralized websites and search engines that filter, organize and in fact edit the content to which the vast majority of users are exposed. According to this approach, the 1 The Term "Social Network" may, in its broader sense, refer to the social construction of relations between different individuals and/ or organizations. In this paper the term refers to online social network sites or services. 2 Knesset Research and Information Center, Talkbacks in the Israeli Public Discourse, Roy Goldschmidt, August 22, 2006 [Hebrew]; Knesset Research and Information Center, Surfer Content and Responsibility of Webmasters, Roy Goldschmidt, May 11, 2008 [Hebrew]. The Knesset Research and Information Center Page 2 of 19 ultimate freedom of information that is supposedly enabled by the Internet is an illusion, since, still today, the choice of the content to which we are exposed and the intensity of the exposure is in the hands of a limited number of parties who are not free from bias. It is customary to describe an evolution of sorts of the Internet, in which the first stage, called "Web 1.0," was characterized by static media: content producers versus content consumers. In this stage, the Internet operated mainly by applying the traditional forms of media on the Web platform, and user participation in the process was mostly limited to reactivity. The second stage, called "Web 2.0," was characterized by more dynamic media, with a less definite distinction between content producers and content consumers. The user became an active partner in the design of the Web content, and his participation in the process changed from pure reactivity to interactivity. In other words, patterns of dialogue and mass interaction began to emerge. 1. Social Networks Boyd and Ellison define social networks thus: "Web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site"3. Social networks allow users to create a profile according to personal attributes (such as age, location, areas of interest and other personal information), to upload images and to use a wide range of applications which are constantly being developed. Furthermore, networks for the most part allow users to communicate with each other and to respond to the content of other users. There are a huge number of social networks, each enabling slightly different applications, which were created for or target specific groups. Some were set up for an ethnic, religious, gender-based or political group, while others came to serve groups with similar socio- economic characteristics even if this was not the original intention of the network's creators. Social networks are set up on a variety of grounds, such as shared areas of interest, promoting professional connections, contact between participants from the same background, and more. According to Boyd and Ellison, social networking on the Internet began in 1997, with the establishment of the SixDegrees.com website, which closed in 2000. From 2003 and onward, social networks became widespread, causing other content and social media sites, 3 Danah M. Boyd and Nicole B. Ellison, Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship, Journal of Computer-Mediate Communication, 2008 (13), p. 211. The Knesset Research and Information Center Page 3 of 19 such as Flickr, YouTube and music websites to adopt features of social networks, such as the definition of friends or subscribers, design of personal pages, information sharing, talkbacks, etc. Facebook is currently the largest social network on the Internet. According to information published on the Facebook site, this network, which was set up in 2004, has more than 500 million active users, half of whom log into Facebook every day. About 70% of Facebook users live outside the United States, and the site has been translated into more than 70 languages. The average user has around 130 friends. Some 200 million users use Facebook by means of their mobile phones4. Google estimates put the number of unique visitors5 to Facebook at more than 300 million per day and at around 590 million per month6. A recently published study7 found that 57% of Web users in the United States, accounting for 42% of the total population of that country, used Facebook in February 2011. Approximately 90% of US citizens who use social networks also use Facebook. The number of Facebook users in the United States is expected to grow in 2010-2011 by 13.4%, following a 90% growth in 2008-2009. The number of adult (age 18 and up) users of the Twitter microblogging service8 in the United States stood at 16.4 million at the end of 2010, equivalent to 7% of the total population, 9% of Internet users and 14% of social network users. As to social networks in Israel, there is no single reliable and accepted index for measuring their rate of use. We present below data from a TIM survey and from Google which indicate that not only has surfing the Internet become so ubiquitous in Israel that it is considered part of the daily routine, but use of social networks is also highly prevalent and does not appear to be a passing trend. According to the TIM semiannual survey from December 2010, there are an estimated 4.67 million Internet users (ages 13 and up) in the entire population (Jews and Arabs); 82.5% of Jewish households are connected to the Internet, and 76% of all Internet users have a 4 Data on Facebook website, viewed: March 9, 2011. 5 Based on a "unique user" index, a surfer who logs into a particular website several times during a given period will be counted as one unique user. 6 Data from Google website though Google Ad Planner, viewed: March 25, 2011. 7 Emarketer, Facebook Reaches Majority of US Web Users, February 24, 2011, viewed: March 23, 2011. Mashable, Nearly Half of Americans Use Facebook; Only 7% Use Twitter [STUDY], February 24, 2011, viewed: March 23, 2011. 8 The term "microblogging" describes an application (similar to a blog) that enables the user to post very short updates of up to 140 characters, hence "micro." The Knesset Research and Information Center Page 4 of 19 personal profile on at least one social network, compared to 68% profile owners in December 20099. Figure 1. Social Network Membership – Percentage from Total Number of Jewish Users Ages 13 and up (Source: TIM Survey)10 שיעור (%) Age החברות by ברשת Membership חברתית )Network באחוזיםSocial( לפי גיל 91 86 86 88 09 דצמבר 09December 74 דצמבר 10 64 December 10 60 47 13-17 18-29 30-49 +50 As is apparent from Figure 1, the percentage of social network users is similar among two age groups (13-17 and 18-19) and decreases as the user's age rises.