A «social media» or a «social network»: what does the sociologist mean

Matveev Mikhail Sergeevich ORCID: 0000-0002-5378-6559 Postgraduate student, Department of Sociology and Political Science, St. Petersburg State Technical University 'LETI' 195276, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Kultury, 25, sq. 184 mikhail.matveev97@gmail.com

Introduction

Studying modern works in various scientific journals on the keyword "social network", it can be noted that in the Russian-speaking scientific community this term is equally applicable to a "social structure" consisting of a set of actors (individual or collective) and a set of relationships defined on it (a set of connections between actors) ^{[1, p. 4]} – that is, to a phenomenon that existed long before the advent of the Internet – and to "a group of Internet-based applications based on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, allowing the creation and exchange of user content" ^{[2, p. 61]}. Even the largest online encyclopedias in Russian on request vk.com He calls this resource a "social network" ^[3].

At the same time, the page vk.com In English, it informs us that this resource is a social media and a social networking service – "social networking service" ^[4]. This also applies to English–speaking researchers who clearly separate the concepts of "social networks" and "social media". In addition, network analysis or social network analysis (SNA) is actively developing in modern science, and scientists involved in it warn that their approach to the study of social structures is often not limited only to the Internet and social media, because the networks in which a person is involved exist in constant reality. In this sense, Internet connections can complement them or, thanks to the World Wide Web, new connections can arise, but in this sense, social media will act as a communication channel and platform for the formation of new virtual connections.

Thus, the terminological confusion that is characteristic of all new and popular concepts in academic circles is already obvious. The same thing, for example, was true for the term "big data" or Big Data. An empirical study of 1581 conferences and articles showed that the popularity of the term is due to its frequent use in a wide range of contexts and often does not correspond to the general meaning. As a result, its meaning is still vague, and this hinders the organized evolution of the subject ^[5]. The conceptual ambiguity also affects the term "social network", because there is a situation where one concept replaces three at once: social media, social network as a structure of social relations and social network service. Therefore, the purpose of this work will be to distinguish these concepts, but at the same time their unconditional relationship will be studied: the social network in the sense of an Internet resource and service is part of social media, and social networks as a set of relations of social actors are certainly present in the digital space and in web applications.

 Discussion

First of all, it is necessary to consider social networks as a metaphor for the structure of social connections, because this approach appeared long before the spread of the Internet. Moreover, L. Freeman is sure: scientists since the dawn of sociology have recognized the importance of connections uniting social actors and tried to "present the structure of social relations in the form of interconnected nodes and connections between them" ^{[6, p. 2]}. A network or structural point of view can be found in the works of O. Comte, E. Durkheim and F. Tennis, and G. Simmel. Moreover, Simmel's student L. von Wiese began to use the quasi-mathematical concepts of "points" and "lines" to depict the structure of interactions, and also used concepts such as "a system of relations" and "networks of lines between people" in his works.  In addition, thanks to anthropologist A. Radcliffe-Brown, the concept of "network" entered social science as a metaphor, as an "allusive description of the social structure" ^[7]. Being an admirer of E. Dukheim, he developed a structural point of view on social relations and argued that "social structures are as real as individual living organisms" [Ibid.]. According to Radcliffe-Brown, the network of actual, existing relationships is the social structure. In addition, the scientist is sure that a separate social connection between two people exists only within the framework of a wide network of social relations, with the participation of many other people.

These and many other theoretical developments were developed by the social anthropologist J. Barnes, who studied social connections in the parish of Bremnes in western Norway and for the first time consciously used the definition of "social network". In his work, he describes a construct where people are represented by a set of points, and the lines between them indicate who interacts with each other and how. Moreover, Barnes states that the network is not located within only one parish, but generally "has no external boundary" and "extends to the whole society" ^[8].

Thus, in 1954, the academic concept of "social network" appeared in science, which means a variety of actors and connections between them. Conceptually, this view of social reality assumes that society is not just the sum total of individuals. Rather, everyone is involved in relationship structures that provide different opportunities and carry limitations. In addition, society also does not consist of closely connected groups — like building blocks. Rather, it consists of a multitude of networked people.

Therefore, for sociologists who adhere to this point of view, the development and dissemination of the latest computer technologies is in many ways just a new channel of communication: people are already embedded in social networks consisting of colleagues, friends and relatives, the same is true for the virtual world, where social structures arise and are maintained. Digital technologies have only simplified the establishment and maintenance of connections, increased the number of possible contacts for each individual embedded in the network.  As B. Wellmann noted: "Computer networks are inherently social networks connecting people, organizations and knowledge" ^[9]. In addition, the researcher, following the principles of scientific rigor, clarified that the digital resources that were emerging in the 1990s, which allow individuals to communicate, should be called somewhat differently - computer–supported social networks (computer-supported social networks or online social networks), focusing on the environment where connections are formed ^[10].

That is, the first formal definition of social networking sites dates back to 1996. As T. Eichner and colleagues noted in their study, the term "social network" quickly became popular, its definition was highly cited, and it also had a long history of use and especially dominated the scientific literature from 2005 to 2009 ^[11]. There were also variations of it clarifying the communicative space: "social networking services", "online social network", "social networking sites". A key aspect in all these definitions was the idea, which was expressed in what became the most cited article in this field (according to Google Scholar) according to, that the purpose of such resources is to communicate with people who are already part of an individual's social network, as well as the ability to make their network visible due to the technical capabilities of sites, for example, a list of friends or the "mutual friends" function. That is, one's own social structure has become conscious and meaningful for each person ^[12]. 

However, since 2010, in the English-language scientific literature, researchers have begun to use mainly the term "social media" ("social media"), which was first used in 1994 ^[10]. This is primarily due to the technical development of the Internet and the advent of Web 2.0. Now more attention is paid not to people, but to those new communication formats provided by the World Wide Web. M. Castels highlighted the unique characteristics of Internet communication, where he placed special emphasis on multimedia and interactivity – the broadcast material can be of a variety of formats, and its individuals can be both recipients and senders of it ^{[13, p.183]}. In addition, a terminological hierarchy was formed at this time: now social media sites are understood as one of the types of social media, and entertainment platforms, as well as multimedia and others are present in the typology ^[14].

As for the Russian-speaking approach, the concepts of "social network", "social networking site" and "media" are often identified. As R. Dukin noted, scientists study social network services, and social media, through the optics of "network theory", that is, "considering them, first of all, as real communities of people" ^[15] and focus specifically on communication, which generates social connections.

Therefore, first of all, it is worth distinguishing between the concepts of "social networking site" and "social media". As noted by Ch. For example, in works in Russian, even those resources whose main purpose is not communication are also classified as social networks, for example, video hosting ^[16]. Along with "social networking sites" there are other categories: photo hosting, audio hosting of online media, blogs, microblogs, online encyclopedias. Therefore, for example, in a broader formulation, we can say that the portal vk.com It is a social media (social media). But is it possible to say that he is also with a social network, without additional clarifications? It seems to us that there is not.

In this case, it makes it difficult to study the meaning of social media for social networks, in the classical, "non-digital" understanding of the latter term. Social media influence the formation and development of all social relations, and make their own adjustments to the structure of even "offline" social networks. Most of the social activity can take place even outside the website, but the platform continues to be an intermediary for users connected to it. In addition, virtual connections have properties that differ from "classical" social connections, since it is impossible not to take into account the properties of the environment in which they are formed. In this sense, social media is even a factor for a new form of social transformation – virtualization. D. V. Ivanov defined the properties of the virtual environment: immateriality of impact, conditionality of parameters and ephemerality ^[17]. To the listed characteristics, two more can be added: creation – virtual reality is created as a result of actions in a constant reality, as well as interactivity – created reality is quite capable of interacting with the real world and its subjects. For example, such a property of the environment as the conditionality of parameters states that the objects in it are artificial and changeable. This determines the nature of Internet connections: it is not specific individuals who participate in the process of their formation, but their constructed virtual images, that is, a stable identity system is impossible. In the real world, on the contrary, it is obvious that a person will be able to accurately recognize who he communicated with earlier. In addition, on such platforms, it is technically feasible to manage your own Internet image (publishing certain photos and information in your personal profile), as well as choosing a communication space: this is the "private messages" section, comment blocks. In addition, patterns of social interaction are also unique: communication is carried out in the form of text, images or videos, which, for example, do not take into account aspects of non-verbal communication. This increases the risk of misinterpretation of messages. And finally, the technical capabilities of Internet resources allow you to cut off any virtual connection literally "with one click of the mouse", this raises related questions about the level of social control, because in the Internet space you can violate the established social norm, leave the virtual community and build a new network of contacts. Thus, by saying "social network", it is possible not to take into account the properties of virtual social connections, which differ from relationships from the constant of reality. Table 1 below will take into account the similarities and differences between the two types of networks, which will make it necessary to clarify the term.

 Table 1. The main characteristics of the two types of social networks

From the comparative analysis, the specifics of the implementation of this term in the conditions of virtual space are noticeable, but, of course, it is still "actors and a set of connections between them." 

Conclusion

Thus, summarizing the above, there is no doubt that the term "social network" appeared long before the emergence and widespread use of digital technologies: first of all, a structural view of social reality was found in the works of classics, especially in the materials of G. Simmel. Secondly, at the suggestion of A. Radcliffe-Brown, the "network" began to be understood as a metaphor for a certain set of social relations. Thirdly, J. Barnes clarified the term by adding the word "social". From that moment on, the concept took its place in the dictionary of sociological terms.

However, it is important to understand that according to the comparative analysis, the networks that are forming on the Internet have a number of fundamental differences from the real ones. Therefore, it is necessary, first of all, when talking about a certain resource, to clarify the environment where social interaction takes place – the "social networking site", in order to avoid terminological confusion. This also makes it impossible not to separate the "social network site" and the "social network", since virtual social networks, although isomorphic to analogues from constant reality and are a set of relationships between actors within the network, have essential and unique characteristics directly arising from the properties of the environment.

A secondary analysis of data on the history of the use of terms has shown that there are certainly trends in science related to the use of certain words, in many ways this is due to the establishment of a certain "terminological paradigm" – Highly cited articles set the direction in which the scientific field is moving. But, on the other hand, it is impossible not to note a more fundamental trend – this is the growing popularity of Internet platforms as an object for sociological research. Because these resources are direct evidence of the ongoing processes of digitalization and virtualization, which are one of the key sources of fundamental changes in modern society. And it is for a more accurate analysis that rigor in the wording and choice of terms is necessary.