Social Networking Sites

   In 2014 an LA based photographer, Viktorija Pashuta, released a shoot titled What if Guys Were Social Networks?, which featured eight male models dressed and styled to embody the aesthetic and concept of eight different social media networks. It's funny to think that a digital platform could be translated into a carefully tailor outfit and some hair accessories slapped on hot guy ( on that note: hey Twitter, @ me ), but just by virtue of being rooted in social exchange and self expression it's undeniable that there is a certain feel and culture to the different social networks that can be subsequently translated into stylistic fads that are coded in the same socio-cultural demographic.

In some cases, this coding is deliberate. Take, for example, LinkedIn. From it's outset, LinkedIn advertised itself as being the social media network for working world; a place where professionals but established and aspiring could connect for everything from exchanging advise to seeking jobs. LinkedIn's identity was carefully established from the start and while there may be less professional ongoings in some corners of the site, just like Pashuta's Mr. LinkedIn, the network is meant to communicate a business feel, even to the point where user profiles are designed to read ( and download ) like a resume.

In other cases, the development of a social network's culture is accidentally. Facebook was originally meant to be the social platform aimed at college students, to the point where, in it's early days, registration required an academic email ending in .edu. Now it's been inundated with users that span demographic from tweens to your distant Aunt Beverly who lives in Tennessee and comments every photo with some variation of 'god bless'. Facebook is one of the most inclusive and casual of the social networking sites, as well as the largest. This probably has a lot to do with it's simple user interface and it's versatility. Like Twitter it's allows for a feed of short text posts visible to all, but it also offers the capacity for direct replies and commenting, easy p2p messaging, creation of public and private groups, e-vites, and a bigger focus on personal photos and videos.

Meanwhile, Twitter's claim to fame is essentially entirely the short form text post. With it's limited content count, it seems strange that this site has the popularity it does, but there's something compelling and creative about how people condense their opinions and wit down to 140 characters. And while Twitter does lend itself nominally to the inclusion of images and videos, what really makes it stand out over other social networking sites is the use of the #hashtag. Twitter single-handedly launched the hashtag craze, which is so prevalent now that it's used in everything from rap lyrics to everyday non-digital life ( yes I'm one of those people. #dontjudgeme ).

Most of the aforementioned networking sites, with the arguable exception of Facebook, have a strong leaning towards textual content. In contrast, Tumblr's become home to the hip media consumer who consider themselves artsy. Although it's been called a 'blog' by many,Ttumblr's focus is far more on graphics than it is on text posting. Unlike Facebook, whose visual content is focused on imagery of the self (including family, friends, and surroundings), Tumblr's visual content is focused more on the arts: classic, but more commonly those of entertainment media. Primarily responsible or the rise of the gif and 'gif reactions'. While text posts are used on Tumblr, their popularity pales in comparison to the image sets and photographs and graphic manipulations that dominate the platform.

With the way that culture and purpose varies from networking site to networking site, operating on just one ( as many companies are learning ) is become ultimately ineffective. Most people utilize at least three different sites, and many use far more. Maybe we should consider the idea that interacting with each other face to face would be more economical?