View - Tech4i2

Transcription

View - Tech4i2

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.
Deliverable No.
Relevant workpackage:
Nature:
Dissemination Level:
Document version:
Date:
EP-07-01-004
D1.1
WP1: Associating Policy Making and Social Media Group
Knowledge
R=Report
CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium
(including the Commission Services)
Final V2.0
28/06/2010
Page 1 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Editor(s):
Contributors and Reviewers
V. Diamantopoulou, Y. Charalabidis, E. Loukis, (AEGEAN), A.
Triantafillou, G. Sebou (ATC), Prof. Paul Foley, Annalisa Deluca,
Ian Wiseman (Tech4i2), T. Koutzeris (OBS)
E. Ferro (POLITO)
All user partners (CEGD, PIEMONTE, OBS)
Document description:
History
Version
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50 0.80
0.90
0.91 0.93
1.00
Date
1/3/2010
10/4/2010
15/4/2010
3/5/2010
15/6/2010
25/6/2010
30/6/2010
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
Reason
Pre draft version
Pre draft version
First overall draft of D1.2
Review to the First overall draft
Internal Versions
Final Version sent for internal review.
Internal Reviews
Final Version 1.00
Prepared / Revised by
AEGEAN
ATC, TECH4i2
ATC
All partners
ATC, AEGEAN, TECH4i2
ATC
All partners
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
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
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
6.
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 199
7.
ANNEX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 201
7.1
7.2
7.3
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 & 3.....................................................................................................................201
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 ...........................................................................................................................203
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
Execu
utive Sum
mmary
The paraadigm behind Web2.0 is to use the collective
c
con
ntributions of
o web userss by letting th
hem interactt
in comm
munities. Users join these communities becausse of commo
on interests and to find
d interestingg
content and contactts. Active participation by
b users leads to an accelerated deplloyment of new
n content,,
unication relations and patterns. Weeb2.0 is the evolution of the Interne
et towards a
applications, commu
pen, flexible and participatory platforrm for conteent, applicatio
ons and business modelss.
more op
In this context,
c
thiss deliverable
e titled as “Categorisat
“
tion of Web
b 2.0 Social Media and Stakeholderr
characteeristics” is deeliverable D1
1.1 of the PA
ADGETS projject and aims at analysin
ng the curren
nt landscapee
of web2
2.0 tools and
d platforms that
t
people use massiveely today in order to gett a better un
nderstandingg
and fulffill specific needs. More specifically, the presentt deliverablee examines tthe underlyin
ng tools and
d
platform
ms in Weeb 2.0 fo
or Commu
unication,
collaborration, sharing, reviewin
ng/Rating/Exxpressing
opinionss; in ordeer to deteermine how
w social
engagem
ment in these tools can
n be re useed in the
scope off policy makiing process as
a a policy ‘gadget’.
Based on this examiination, we have categorized the
k
t users’
underlyiing group knowledge
according to
capabilitties, users’ generated content as well as
users’ profiles.
o
thee policy
Moreover, this deeliverable outlines
t
organisations
making process of the three
Figure 1.1
1: The hetero
ogeneous zo
oo of Web2.0
0
d the current methods
participaating in the project and
[54]
which are using for the engagem
ment of the citizens and
ment presen
nts, based o
on the previo
ous examinaation, the most
m
suitablee
stakeholders. Finallyy, the docum
or the Policyy Making Pro
ocess as well as the mosst candidate themes for developmen
nt during thee
media fo
pilots’ period.
ollows:
This doccument is orgganized as fo
Section 1, presentss the rational and methodological approach of
o this delivverable, while section 2
presentss the most popular Weeb 2.0 media as well as
a the userss’ actions. SSection 3, describes thee
underlyiing group kn
nowledge which includees an analysis of the maain types of content as well as givee
some peerspectives relevant
r
to the purpose of these types of conten
nt. Section 4,, describes the results off
the Stakkeholders An
nalysis, which
h includes an
n analysis off a general caategorization
n of user pro
ofiles in Web
b
2.0 Sociaal Media, wh
hile section 5,
5 present based on the previous an
nalysis the im
mplications fo
or PADGETS.
The deliverable closees with the conclusions
c
a the relevvant annexess.
and
P
Page
5 of 228
8
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
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5
68: Internet users age 18 44 more likely than other to use Twitter .......................................... 172
69: Adults blogging over time..................................................................................................... 175
70: Age of collaborative bookmarking users .............................................................................. 176
71: Educational attainment of collaborative bookmarking users .............................................. 177
72: Educational attainment of collaborative bookmarking users .............................................. 177
73: Age groups and civic engagement activities......................................................................... 180
74: Political activity by income ................................................................................................... 180
75: Internet and broadband use by income ............................................................................... 181
76: Online/Offline civic engagement by different demographic groups.................................... 182
77: Online and Offline Civic Participation by Internet users ...................................................... 183
78: Social networking and Politics .............................................................................................. 183
79: Content sharing and creation during 2008 US elections ...................................................... 184
80: Use of online Government services...................................................................................... 185
191: The GoRequest iPhone application .................................................................................... 190
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
‘Standards, Interfaces & APIs for
inter platform communication in
Web2.0 Social Media’
D2.1 Deliverable
‘Padget Design and Decision
Model for Policy Making’
D4.2 Deliverable
‘Pilots Planning and
Preparation’
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 an
nd Structure of the Delivverable
t abovemeentioned objjective of this Deliverablle (gaining a better unde
erstanding off
In orderr to achieve the
aspects of Web 2.0 social
s
mediaa which are associated
a
w
with political communicattion and inte
eraction, and
d
oject, so thaat we can determine
d
w
which part of
o the social
in general with thee objectives of this pro
ment in thesse media can
n be exploiteed for the pu
urposes of our
o project aand how), we followed a
engagem
methodology consisting of three
e stages as presented in the
t followingg figure.
Figure 1.2: Metthodologicall Approach for
f D1.1
egorization of
o user capaabilities and user activitiies in Web 2.0
2 Social Meedia, in orde
er to identifyy
I. Cate
the ones that caan be exploited in this project
p
(i.e. aanswer to th
he question: what are ussers doing in
n
T stage is described in
n chapter 2 titled
t
‘Popular Web 2.0 media and user
u
actions’,,
thesse media?). This
whicch includes an
a analysis of
o the main Web 2.0 soccial media platforms and
d their servicces and userr
activvities.
egorization of
o content and
a knowled
dge that useers create through their engagementt in Web 2.0
0
II. Cate
Social Media, wiith the objecctive to identtify content related to th
he policy making processs (i.e. answerr
he question:: what kind of
o content are users creaating in thesse media?). TThis stage is described in
n
to th
chap
pter 3 titled
d ‘Underlyingg Group Kno
owledge’, which
w
includees an analyssis of the main types off
conttent one may come accross while surfing in Web
W
2.0 as well as an attempt to
o give some
e
persspectives to what is the purpose of these typess of content. Also, the rrelevant IPTSS studies aree
revieewed.
dy on the profiles of th
he people using Web 2.0 Social Media tools aand platform
ms today, byy
III. Stud
syntthesizing thee results of reelevant studies and repo
orts in international and ccountry level, in order to
o
deteermine the ccharacteristiccs of their users,
u
are ideentify the more suitable ones to be exploited in
n
the policy making process (i.e.
(
answer to the quesstion: who iss using thesse media?). This
T
stage iss
hapter 4 titled ‘Stakeholder Analyysis’, which includes an
n analysis of
o a general
desccribed in ch
cateegorization of
o user profiles in Web 2.0
2 Social Media.
M
Also, groups of ussers in the top
t Web 2.0
0
sitess per sector are presentted (focusingg on Social Media,
M
bloggging, collaboration bookmarking and
d
Virtu
ual Worlds). Based on this analysis the most su
uitable media for the Po
olicy Making Process aree
Paage 10 of 228
8
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
Communicate
Professional
networks
Events
management
Bloggin
Collaborate
Wikis
Social news
Share
Documents
sharing
Presentations
sharing
Livecasting
Review/Rate/Ex
press opinion
Product reviews
Business reviews
Community Q&A
Leisure
Social networks
Social network aggregation
Dating networks
Micro blogging/presence
Events management
Blogging
Social bookmarking
Wikis
Social news
Photography and art
sharing
Video sharing
Music and audio podcasting
Livecasting
Holiday reviews
Shops and restaurants
review
Entertainment reviews
Community Q&A
Democratic Engagement
Talk to your local MP
Blogging
Policy idea suggestions
Wikis
Social news
Livecasting
Public service review
Parliament activities’
monitoring
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
URL
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.
http://www.typepad.com/
Page 21 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Typepad
Logo
Main Features
Type
content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
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
of Text, video, music, photos
Accessibility
Political
Representation
10 (English UK, Japanese, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Finish, Belgian,
Dutch, English US)
Publish a blog
Create and edit posts
Build a community
Upload photos
Web browser and mobile phone
N/A
Page 22 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Xanga
Desscription
Xanga is a website that
t
hosts w
weblogs, pho
otoblogs, and
d social netw
working
X
origins can be trraced back to 1999, wheen it began as
a a site
profiles. Xanga's
for sharin
ng book and music review
ws.
http://ww
ww.xanga.co
om/
URLL
Loggo
Maain Features
Typ
pe
con
ntent
Avaailable
Lan
nguages
Use
er
Enggagement
All Xaanga memb
bers receive a "Xanga Site", a web site made up of a
weblo
og, a photoblog, a videoblog, an au
udioblog, a "Pulse" (min
ni blog),
and a social netw
working profile.
Mem
mbers also haave the optio
on of joining or making bllogrings (gro
oups).
off Text, pho
otos, videos
3 (English
h etc)
Comm
ment on web
blogs
Uploaad photos an
nd videos
Join groups
g
Send – receive e mails
Web brow
wser, mobile
e phone
Acccessibility
http://new
wpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/storagee/working papers/RHUL PIIR
Political
NPCU_Wo
orking_Paper
presentation
n
Rep
05_Ansteaad_Chadwick__Parties_Electtion_Campaiggning_Internett_Comparativve.pdf
LiveJourn
nal
Desscription
URL
Loggo
Maain Features
LiveJou
urnal is a virttual community where Internet
I
useers can keep a blog,
journal or diary. LivveJournal is also the nam
me of the freee and open
n source
t
was designed
d
to
o run the LiveJournal virtual
server software that
unity. LiveJou
urnal's differrences from other bloggging sites incclude its
commu
WELL liike featuress of a selff contained community and some
e social
networrking featurees similar to
o other sociaal networkin
ng sites. LiveeJournal
was staarted on Aprril 15, 1999 by Brad Fitzzpatrick as a way of keep
ping his
high school friends updated on his activitiess.
http://w
www.livejou
urnal.com/
Eacch journal entry has its own we
eb page, w
which includ
des the
com
mments left by other u
users. In add
dition, each user has a journal
pagge, which shows all of his or her mo
ost recent journal entriess, along
Paage 23 of 228
8
PADGETS D1.1.doc
LiveJournal
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Text, photos, videos
32
Post to journals
Leave comments
Post photos
Send receive messages
Upload videos and photos
Join a community
Create a community
Find friends
Web browser, mobile phone (access to LiveJournal by installing the
Windows mobile application on a mobile device)
On April 22, 2009, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev opened his
own blog on the LiveJournal service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveJournal
List of the politicians who are users in LiveJournal:
Garry Kasparov, username garry_kasparov, a Russian former World
o
Chess Champion, writer, and political activist.
Boris Berezovsky, username platon elenin[, a.k.a. Platon Elenin, exiled
o
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.
Valeria Novodvorskaya, username vnovodvorskaia, prominent
o
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
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.
https://www.blogger.com
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.
41 (English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Chinese,
Japanese, Korean etc.)
A user can post text, photos and videos to his blog
Create a team blog
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
Political
Representation
to Blogger email address. He can even use the Blogger Post Gadget to publish
posts directly from his iGoogle homepage.
Some groups have been created dealing with politics in this service.
The sussex Politics Blog
http://thesussexpoliticsblog.blogspot.com/
The Co operative Party
http://politicsforpeople.blogspot.com/
2.4.1.2 Micro blogging / Presence applications:
Twitter
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
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.
http://www.twitter.com
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.
Text messages
6 (English, Italian, Spanish,German, French, Japanese)
Send messages
Read messages
Search for people
Follow lists of authors instead of following individual authors
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
Twitter
Political
Representation
nothing to use, accessing it through SMS may incur phone service
provider fees.
Twitter was used by candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential
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
Twitter
including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
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://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
Twitter
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://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://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://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.
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/
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://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.
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/
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://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://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.
Page 31 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Twitter
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
Twitter
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
Twitter
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Facebook is a social networking website owned by Facebook Inc.
http://www.facebook.com
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
Facebook
Type
content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
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.)
of Text, video, photos
63
Invite friends
Chat with friends
Upload photos and videos
Tag
Poke
Post free ads
Send gifts
Play games
Join groups
Organise social gatherings
Mobile (iPhone, blackberry, Nokia S60 devices, Motorola Droid), web browser
Page 35 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Facebook
Polittical
Representation
In USA
A in the 5th January of 2008
8 Democratic and Republican debates to
ook place.
In thaat day faceebook in co
ooperation with
w
the AB
BC and Saint Anselm
Collegee allowed useers to give livve feedback frrom the debattes. Members joined in
groupss of the two parts
p
of the debate
d
and orrganized topiccs of discussiion. Over
1.000.0000 users installed the application “US po
olitics” in ordeer to take parrt in these
groupss. This use of facebook showed how popular the service was and how
immed
diate the resp
ponse of peop
ple and the general
g
involvvement in ele
ections of
2008 http://abcnew
h
ws.go.com/Tecchnology/Polittics/story?id==3899006&page=1
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/topic..php?uid=618
87779654&top
pic=3582
http:///abcnews.go.ccom/Politics/sstory?id=4091
1460&page=1
http:///www.cbsnew
ws.com/storiess/2008/11/04
4/politics/uwirre/main45685
563.shtml
In Greeece, the four political parties
p
that obtained
o
thee greater maajority of
votes in elections of 2009 did have a homeepage in faceebook. They also had
suppo
orters and groups in wh
hich they promoted theeir plans, vid
deos and
photos of their speeeches and ttried to attraact as more u
users as posssible
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/neadh
hmokratia
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/pagess/63661884/1
17484026282
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/pagess/ KKE KOMM
MOUNISTIKO K
KOMMA
ELLADA
AS/117263823056
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/group
p.php?gid=599
95388839
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/group
p.php?gid=325
534672292
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/georgge.a.papandreeou
In Enggland the leaaders of Lab
bour, Conservvatives and Greens had pages in
facebo
ook promoting themselvess through vid
deos, photos and conversaations on
their wall
w
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/labou
urparty?v=app
p_2513891999
9#/labourpartty?v=wall
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/conseervatives
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/thegrreenparty#/th
hegreenparty??v=wall
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/pagess/Tony Blair/1
11845614865##/pages/Tonyy
Blair/1
11845614865??v=wall
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/David
dCameron#/DavidCameron?v=info
http:///www.faceboo
ok.com/pagess/Caroline Luccas/89483602
263#/pages/C
Caroline
Lucas/8948360263??v=wall
Qzone
Desccription
URL
Logo
o
Main
n Features
Qzone is a social networking
n
website, wh
hich was creeated by Teencent in
2005.
http://q
qzone.qq.com
m
A user can writee blogs
p diaries
A user can keep
nd photos
Sen
Paage 36 of 228
8
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Qzone
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
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.
Text,photos,music
1 (Chinese)
Write blogs
Keep diaries
Send photos
Listen to music
Web browser
A mobile version is available at extra cost
Accessibility
Political
Representation
N/A
MySpace
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.myspace.com
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
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
Text, videos, photos, music
15
Search for friends, find old friends, make new friends
Upload pictures & videos
Add music
Send messages
Create groups, join groups
Post to forums
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
e
communicate with,, and view the profiles of,
o other meembers. Add
ditionally,
ution and MySpace
M
developed a mobile versio
on of MySpaace for a
UIEvolu
wider raange of carriiers, includin
ng AT&T, Vod
dafoneand Rogers Wireleess.
Polittical
Reprresentation
During the
t
2008 preesidential eleection in the United States, candidatees set up
MySpacee profiles, preesumably in an
a effort to atttract youngeer voters. Mosst profiles
feature photos, blo
ogs, videos, and ways fo
or viewers tto get involved with
hese politicians' profiles on its front paage in the
campaiggning. MySpacce features th
"Cool Neew People" seection, on whaat appears to be a random rotation.
Many po
olitical organizations have created MySp
pace accountss to keep in to
ouch with
and expand their membership basse. These rangge from larger organization
ns like the
John Birrch Society an
nd the ACLU ((American Civvil Liberties Un
nion) to smaller locally
focused environmentalist groups and Food Not Bombs
B
activissts.
A lot of interested
i
artticles have possted at MySpaace, like:
Com
mmunity brroadens online campaign activity by launch
hing site
devvoted to U.S. presidential contest.
http
p://www.pcwo
orld.com/article/129987/m
myspace_enteers_politics.html
MySSpace now available
a
in C
China minuss politics and
d religion
http
p://texyt.com//China+MySpace+censorsh
hip+politics+reeligion+064+m
monitor
The Future Presid
dent, on Your Friends List
http
p://www.nytim
mes.com/200
07/03/18/fashion/18myspace.html
Wiindows Live Spaces
Desccription
URLL
Logo
o
Main
Feattures
Windows Live Spacess (MSN Spaces) is Microsoft's
M
b
blogging and
d Social
T site wass originally released in eearly 2004 un
nder the
Networkingg platform. The
MSN Spacees name to co
ompete with
h other social networkingg sites.
http://spacces.live.com
A user can add or delete
d
featurres.
The useer can drag and drop sections of hiss Windows LLive Spaces profile
p
to
make itt look just th
he way he waants.
There are
a several different
d
layo
outs to choo
ose from, to design the Windows
W
Live Sp
paces profilee and many different th
hemes. The colors of just about
anythin
ng on the pagge can be ch
hanged.
Window
ws Live Spacces has an IM
M program that
t
the user can use rigght from
his Win
ndows Live Spaces
S
profile, which letss you keep in touch with
h friends
easily.
hoto album to Windowss Live Spaces profile
A user can add a blog and ph
page.
deo to Wind
dows Live Sp
paces profilee hosted
A user can add music and vid
elsewhere.
onality of Windows Live Spaces
S
includ
des:
To sum up basic functio
Paage 39 of 228
8
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
of Text, photos, videos, music
Type
content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representatio
n
48
Invite friends
Send – receive mails
Send photos and videos
Web browser, mobile phone
Philippines star 'sorry' in election campaign row. Philippine talk show host Kris
Aquino has apologised after she provoked a fellow celebrity into launching a
campaign against her presidential candidate brother Benigno Aquino.
http://arabia.msn.com/News/entertainment/AFP/2010/March/1281006.aspx?
ref=rss
Habbo
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Habbo is a social network focused on teenagers.
http://www.habbo.com
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Text
31
Play games
Join groups
Make friends
Communicate with others
Web browser
In this social network users have the ability to appear in their profile’s
page if they are interested in politics or not
http://www.habbo.com/tag/politics
Orkut
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.orkut.com
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Text, photos
48
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
Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, Android, Windows mobile,
Blackberry, Nokia Symbian , Java Samsung LG and Sony Ericsson phones)
India’s election campaigns. Parties, candidates and NGOs (non
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.friendster.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
12
Make friendships
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
A political forum has been created and it is called politicalarena.com. In
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
URL
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.
http://www.hi5.com/
Page 44 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
hi5
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Text, photos, music
40
Invite friends
Create personal photo albums and set up a music player in the profile
Post comments
Recently, an article was published at site of HI5, which is referred to a
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
Logo
http://www.tagged.com
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".
7 (English, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, German and Bahasa
Melayu)
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
Web browser (very limited functionality on iPhones, Blackberries and
other mobile devices)
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Page 46 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Tagged
Political
Representation
N/A
Vkontakte
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
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.
http://vk.com/
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.
Text, videos, photos
19 (English, Russian, Ukrainian, Azerbaijani, Spanish, Portuguese, German,
French, Chinese, Polish, Hungarian, Slovak, Serbian, Greek, Albanian,
Romanian, Czech, Belarusian, and Georgian)
Invite friends
Send messages
Chat with friends
Express opinions
Make offers
Make questions
Play games
Join groups
Page 47 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Vkontakte
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone)
Socialisation sites Vkontakte.ru and Odnoklassniki.ru could be
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
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.
http://www.flixster.com/
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.
Text, photos, videos, movies
1 (English)
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
Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, Blackberry, Palm Pre, Adroid)
Page 49 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Flixster
Political
Representation
In this social website a group has been created dealing with politics.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tbgpolitics/
Netlog
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
http://www.netlog.com
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.
Text, photos, videos, music
29 (Afrikaans, Albanian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese, Croatian,
Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew,
Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian,
Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish)
Add friends
Join groups
Share videos, photos
Post blogs
Send – receive messages
Publish music playlists
Play games
Add events
Chat
Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, iPod Touch)
A group has been created at Netlog, in which are posted politic
articles. The link is:
http://en.api.netlog.com/groups/politics/myfriends
Page 50 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
LinkedIn
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
http://www.linkedin.com/
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.
Text, photos
6 (Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese and Spanish)
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
LinkedIn’s site has published different articles, which are referred to
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
http://www.mylife.com/
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.
Text
1 (English))
A user can find and keep in touch with friends and relatives
Web browser
N/A
Page 52 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Classmates.com
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.classmates.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Text
4 (English, German, French, Swedish)
Users can post or read comments that are written in the community
board and receive information about the upcoming reunion
View the profiles, videos and photos, biographies, interests,
announcements
Web browser
N/A
MyHeritage
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.myheritage.gr/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
34 (English, Spanish, Portuguese, Portuguese, French, Chinese, Japanese,
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)
Invite other family members
Share photos and videos
Post to forums
N/A
Odnoklassniki
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
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.
http://odnoklassniki.ru/
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
Text, photos
2 (Russian and Ukrainian)
Page 55 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Odnoklassniki
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Upload photos
Chat
Web browser
N/A
Ning
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.ning.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
25 (Czech, Deutsch, English, Greek, French, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian,
Polish, Portugese, Roumanian, Slovenian, Swedish etc.)
Create a social network
Share photos, videos
Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone)
N/A
Bebo
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.bebo.com/
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
Type
content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
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.
of Text, photos, videos
7 (English, Polish, German, French, Dutch, Spanish and Italian)
Send – receive messages
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
This service is used by grouping dealing with politics, some political parties have
Political
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.badoo.com
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
12 (Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese,
Russian, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish)
Instant messaging
Chat with others
N/A
Mixi
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://mixi.jp/
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.
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
"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.
Text, photos, videos, music
1 (Japanese)
Send and receive messages
Page 61 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Mixi
Enggagement
Acccessibility
Pollitical
Rep
presentation
n
Wrrite in a diaryy
Reaad and comm
ment on otheers' diaries
Orgganize and jo
oin communities
Invvite friends
Upload videos
Web brrowser
N/A
Skyrockk
Desscription
URL
Loggo
Maain Features
Typ
pe of conten
nt
Avaailable
Lan
nguages
Use
er
Enggagement
Acccessibility
Pollitical
Rep
presentation
n
Skyrockk.com is a so
ocial networrking site. Skkyrock.com b
began as a blogging
b
site, Skkyblog.com, founded by Skyrock CEO
O Pierre Belllanger in December
2002. In May 2007,, after aband
doning the Skyblog.com brand, Skyro
ock.com
unched as a full
f scale soccial network..
was lau
http://sskyrock.com
m/
Skyrockk offers its members
m
a free, person
nal web spaace where th
hey can
create a blog, add a profile, and exchange messages with other reggistered
s
for meembers who
o create
membeers. The sitee also offers a specific space
blogs showcasing th
heir original musical com
mpositions.
Text, photos, video
os, photos
7 (French, English, German,
G
Duttch, Italian, Spanish
S
and Portuguese))
Creeate a blog
Excchange messsages
Chaat
Join
n groups
Seaarch for peo
ople, articlees, groups, artists, mussic, photos, videos,
pro
ofiles, web, blogs
b
Web brrowser, mob
bile device (iP
Phone or iPo
od Touch)
Blo
ogs and textt messages spread call to violence. The banne
ers and
bulllhorns of protest are being replaced in
n volatile French
neiighborhoodss by mobile phone messsages and SSkyblog, a Web
W site
hossting messages inflamm
matory enou
ugh to prom
mpt three criminal
c
pro
osecutions th
his week.
http
p://www.nytimes.com/200
05/11/08/worrld/europe/08
8iht blogs.htm
ml?_r=1
A few
f
promineent French p
political institutions havee opted to create
c
a
Skyyrock Blog as a preferrred tool to
o communiccate messagges. An
exaample is la HALDE,
H
the n
nation’s High
h Authority o
on the Fight Against
Paage 62 of 228
8
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Skyrock
Discrimination and Exclusion.
BlackPlanet
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
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.
http://www.blackplanet.com/
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.
1 (English)
Make friends
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
Political
Representation
Barak Obama, the President of the United States, has a personal website in
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
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.
http://www.myyearbook.com/
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.
Text, photos
1 (English)
Page 64 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
myYearbook
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Invite friends
Create a new group
Send and receive messages
Play games
Web browser
A tab has been made in myYearbook (myMag Forums >Culture >News&Politics),
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Buzznet is a photo, journal, and video sharing social media network. Marc
Brown, Steve Haldane, Kevin Woolery and Anthony Batt. founded
buzznet.com.
http://www.buzznet.com/
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
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
1 (English)
Share millions of photos, videos and blog posts
Create and post journals
Add friends
Create groups
Send messages
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.
Accessibility
Political
Representation
N/A
Google Buzz
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Google Buzz is a social networking and messaging tool from Google,
designed to integrate into the company's web based email program,
Gmail.
http://www.google.com/buzz
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.
40
Page 66 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Google Buzz
Languages
User
Engagement
Start conversations
Share links, photos, videos, status messages
Sent comments
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.
Accessibility
Political
Representation
N/A
Google Wave
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://wave.google.com
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
Type of content
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.
Page 68 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Google Wave
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
40
A wave is a conversation with multiple participants
participants are
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.
Web browser, mobile phones (Android or iPhone)
N/A
2.4.1.4 Social network aggregation:
FriendFeed
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://friendfeed.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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)
10 (English, Persian, German, Spanish, French, Japanese, Russian,
Simplified Chinese, Turkish, Italian)
Invite friends
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.
Web browser, mobile phone )iPhone optimized web interface)
/
Page 70 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Events:
Meetup.com
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Meetup.com (also called Meetup) is an online social networking portal
that facilitates offline group meetings in various localities around the
world.
http://www.meetup.com/
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.
Text, photos
1 (English)
Find and join groups of common interest
Web browser
From 2002 to 2004, Meetup.com was one of the fastest growing online
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
July 2009. Users are required to have a Google Account in order to use the
software.
http://www.calendar.google.com
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).
Text
40
Users can view, add, and drag and drop events from one date to
another
Invite other people to events of the user’s calendar
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
Political
Representation
2.4.2
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.
N/A
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://wikipedia.org/
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
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Text, photos
240 active editions (272 in total)
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
Create an article
Upload images and multimedia
Edit wikipedia pages
Join groups
Page 74 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Wikipedia
Political
Representation
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.
N/A
2.4.2.2 Social bookmarking (or social tagging):
StumbleUpon
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/
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
Type of content
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.
Page 76 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
StumbleUp
pon
Avaailable
Lan
nguages
Use
er
Enggagement
1 (Engliish)
Acccessibility
Pollitical
Rep
presentation
n
Web brrowser
N/A
Disccover and shaare great websites
Con
nnect with frieends
Join
n groups
Delicious
Desscription
URL
Loggo
Maain Features
Typ
pe of conten
nt
Avaailable
Lan
nguages
Delicio
ous (formerrly del.icio.u
us, pronoun
nced "delicious") is a social
bookm
marking web
b service fo
or storing, sharing,
s
and
d discoverin
ng web
bookm
marks. The site
s
was fou
unded by Joshua Schacchter in 2003 and
acquireed by Yahoo! in 2005. It is headquarttered in Sunn
nyvale, Califo
ornia.
http:///delicious.com/
Delicious uses a non hierarch
hical classification system in
n which userss can tag
eacch of their bookmarks with
h freely chosen
n index termss (generating a kind of
folksonomy).
A combined
c
view
w of everyone's bookmarkks with a giveen tag is availaable; for
insstance, the URL "http://deelicious.com/ttag/wiki" disp
plays all of th
he most
reccent links taggged "wiki". Its collective nature makees it possible to view
bookmarks addeed by other ussers.
Delicious has a "hotlist"
"
on its home page and "popularr" and "recentt" pages,
hich help to make
m
the webssite a conveyo
or of internet memes and trends.
t
It
wh
is one
o of the mo
ost popular so
ocial bookmarrking servicess. Many features have
con
ntributed to this, including the website'ss simple interfface, human readable
r
UR
RL scheme, a novel
n
domain name, a simp
ple REST like A
API, and RSS feeds
f
for
weeb syndication
n.
Usee of Deliciouss is free. The source code of the site iss not availablle, but a
useer can downlo
oad his or her own data th
hrough the site's API in an
n XML or
JSO
ON format, or export it to a standard Nettscape bookm
marks format.
All bookmarks posted
p
to Delicious are pub
blicly viewablee by default, although
a
ported bookm
marks are
useers can mark specific bookkmarks as privvate, and imp
private by defau
ult. The public aspect is emp
phasized; the site is not foccused on
oring private ("not shared") bookmarrk collectionss. Delicious linkrolls,
sto
taggrolls, networrk badges, RSSS feeds, and the
t site's dailyy blog postingg feature
can
n be used to display
d
bookm
marks on weblogs.
Text
1 (Engllish)
Paage 77 of 228
8
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Delicious
Use
er Engagemeent
Acccessibility
Pollitical
Rep
presentation
n
Users can
c tag each of their boo
okmarks with
h freely chossen index terms
Web browser, mob
bile phone
http://d
delicious.com/search?p=po
olitics&chk=&context=recent%7C%7Clan
nguage&
fr=del__icio_us&lc
2.3 Social news:
2.4.2
Digg
Desccription
URL
Logo
o
Main
n Features
Type
e of content
Available
Langguages
Userr
Engaagement
Digg is a social newss website and
d was launch
hed to the w
world on December 5,
detzky, and JJay Adelson.
2004, byy Kevin Rose,, Owen Byrnee, Ron Gorod
http://diigg.com/
Digg is made for people to disscover and sh
hare content ffrom anywheere on the
mitting links and stories,, and voting and commeenting on
Internet, by subm
subm
mitted links an
nd stories. Votting stories up
p and down iss the site's co
ornerstone
functtion, respectively called digging and bu
urying. Manyy stories get submitted
s
everyy day, but onlyy the most Du
ugg stories appear on the frront page.
In Jully 2005, the siite was updatted to "Version 2.0". The neew "version" featured
f
a
friends list, the ab
bility to "digg"" a story with
hout being red
directed to a "success"
page, and a new interface designed by web
b design company silverorange. The
site developers
d
haave stated thaat in future veersions a moree minimalist design
d
will
likelyy be employed
d.
On Monday
M
June 26,
2 2006 versiion 3 of Digg was
w released w
with specific categories
c
for Technology,
T
Sccience, World
d & Business, Videos, Entertainment and Gaming
as well as a View All section w
where all cateegories are merged. Digg has
h grown
largee enough that submissions sometimes create a suddeen increase off traffic to
the "dugg"
"
websitte. This is refeerred to by so
ome Digg useers as the "Digg effect"
and by
b some othe
ers as the sitee being "dugg to death". However, in many
m
cases
storie
es are linked simultaneoussly on several popular bookmarking site
es. In such
casess, the impact of
o the "digg effect" is difficult to isolate aand assess.
On August
A
27, 200
07, Digg alterred its main interface, mosstly in the pro
ofile area.
The domain
d
"diggg.com" attractted at least 236 million vissitors annuallyy by 2008
accorrding to a Com
mpete.com su
urvey.
Text, Pho
otos, videos
41
A useer finds an artticle, image, or video onlinee and submits it to Digg.com
m
A useer participatess in the collab
borative edito
orial process b
by Digging the stuff that
he likkes best.
If a user
u
finds stories with bad
d links, off top
pic content, o
or duplicate entries,
e
he
can click
c
“Bury.”
Paage 78 of 228
8
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Digg
A useer can invite friends or find friends on Digg and add th
hem to his frie
ends list.
A useer can send his
h friends (D
Diggers or non
n Diggers) thee stories thatt he Diggs
throu
ugh e mail.
A useer can share his
h opinions b
by commentin
ng on stories,, images, and videos as
well as Digging and
d Burying com
mments by oth
her users.
Acce
essibility
Polittical
Reprresentation
2.4.3
3
Web bro
owser, mobile phone (iPh
hone,Android
d)
Digg has its own taab about polittics.
politics
http://digg.com/p
Somee posts:
o
We had eigght years of Bu
ush and Cheneey, Now you gget mad!?
China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier Killer’
o
Is Social Seccurity Compleetely Doomed?
o
A History of Anti Govern
nment Rage an
nd Violence
o
US Co
ongressman Tries
T
Digg for Politics
http://www.readw
writeweb.com
m/archives/us__congressman
n_digg_for_po
olitics.php
Platform
ms for Sharin
ng
Example
es of the mosst popular so
ocial sites forr multimediaa & sharing in
nclude.
2.4.3
3.1 Photog
graphy and
d art sharing:
devianAR
RT
Desscription
URL
Loggo
Maain Features
Typ
pe of conten
nt
Avaailable
Lan
nguages
DevianttArt (official typeset as d
deviantART; commonly
c
abbreviated as
a dA) is
an onliine commun
nity showcassing variouss forms of user
u
made artwork.
a
Scott Jaarkoff, Matthew Stephen
ns, Angelo Sotira
S
and otthers, first laaunched
it on August
A
7, 200
00. DeviantA
Art, Inc. is heeadquartered in the Holllywood
area off Los Angeless, California, United Statees.
http://w
www.devian
ntart.com/
DevianttArt aims to
o provide a place for an
ny artist to exhibit and discuss
works. Works aree organized in a comp
prehensive ccategory strructure,
ng photography, digitaal art, trad
ditional art,, literature, Flash,
includin
filmmaking, skins for
f applicatio
ons, Furry an
nd others, along with exxtensive
oadable reso
ources such as
a tutorials and
a stock ph
hotography. "Fella,"
downlo
a small robotic cat character,
c
is the official DeviantArt
D
m
mascot.
Text, im
mages, films, literature
6
Paage 79 of 228
8
PADGETS D1.1.doc
devianART
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Explore over 100 million original works of art
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
Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone or iPod Touch device)
This site has its own forum about everything related to politics. Some posts which
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.flickr.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Photos, videos
8 (Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish)
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
Web browser, mobile, e mail, various free third party desktop programs
Group in the service that focuses on politics
http://www.flickr.com/groups/britishpolitics/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/worldpolitics/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeministergr/
Photobucket
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://photobucket.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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
1
Upload all photos, videos, and images for free
Make photo slideshows to share with friends
Host and share photos, videos and albums
N/A
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
through Google Labs. For Windows 98, Windows Me and Windows 2000,
only an older version is available.
http://picasa.google.com/
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.
Photos
38 (Bulgarian, Filipino, Japanese, Slovak, French, Finnish, Latvian,
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)
Upload photos
Share photos
There are uploaded photos about politics in general
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=politics&psc=G&filter=1#
Page 83 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Fotolog
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
Fotolog is a photoblog website based on web 2.0 and it is owned by Hi
Media Group.
http://www.fotolog.com/
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
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Text, photos
12 (Basque, Catalan, Czech, Dutch, English, French, Italian, German, Polish,
Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish)
Accessibility
Web browser
Mobile service is accessible via Web enabled phones at
http://m.fotolog.com.
N/A
Political
Representation
Upload a photo
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
Page 84 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
2.4.3.2 Video sharing:
YouTube
Description
URL
Logo
YouTube is a video sharing website. In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was
bought by Google Inc.
http://www.youtube.com
Main
Features
Registered users are permitted to upload an unlimited number of videos.
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
YouTube Mobile Application for Windows Mobile and Nokia S60 Phones
y
Political
Representa
tion
“Queen Uses YouTube to Break Down Stereotypes.” Queen Rania of
Jordan, the current queen consort of King Abdullah II, has launched a
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.skype.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
an analog line available as a backup.
23
Make voice calls over the Internet
Instant messaging
File transfer
Video conferencing
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
Representation
N/A
Ustream
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.ustream.tv/
Ustream is a site, which is connected with twitter, facebook and youtube, so
photos, videos and data are exchanged.
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
1 (English)
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Web browser, mobile phone (iPhone, Android)
Users can watch streams live
Users can broadcast videos
Upload photos
Users can interact, such as vote in polls, rate, chat etc.
During the 2008 United States presidential election, the website was used by
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
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.
http://www.last.fm/
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.
Text, music, videos
12 (English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portugese,
Swedish, Turkish, Roumanian, Chinese)
Page 90 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Last.fm
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Users can create custom radio stations and playlists from any of the
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
Web browser, iPhone and iPod Touch’s discussions
Because of recently financial courses, anyone can watch a video of Greek
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
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.
http://www.scribd.com/
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.
Text
1 (English)
Explore documents
Search for documents
Read documents
Download documents
Write documents
Publish documents
Share documents with others
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
Representation
2.4.4
N/A
Platforms for Review/Rate/Express Opinion
2.4.4.1 Product reviews:
MouthShut.com
Description
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://www.mouthshut.com/
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
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
1 (English)
Accessibility
Political
Representation
Web browser, mobile phone (Users can send SMS based reviews)
/
Write reviews
Upload and share photos
Post blogs and diaries
Share virtual gifts
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
review, and local search web site of the same name.
http://www.yelp.com/
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.
Text, photos
1 (English)
Search for reviews, events, special offers, lists
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
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
Accessibility
Political
Representation
N/A
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
URL
Logo
Main Features
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.
http://answers.yahoo.com/
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
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Text
12
Ask questions
Answer questions
Vote for best answers
Browse, rate and comment on questions and answers
Several celebrities and notables have appeared on Yahoo! Answers to ask
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
URL
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.
http://wiki.answers.com/
Page 96 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
WikiAnswers
Logo
Main Features
Type of content
Available
Languages
User
Engagement
Accessibility
Political
Representation
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.
Text
6 (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Tagalog)
Ask questions
Answer questions
Post messages in community forums
Web browser
N/A
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
No.
Name
1
2
3
Skype
Facebook
Wikipedia
4
Qzone
5
Yahoo!Answers
6
Google Buzz
7
Google Calendar
8
Google Wave
Windows Live
Spaces
YouTube
Habbo
Orkut
MySpace
Twitter
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
12
Photobucket
TypePad
Vkontakte
Flixster
Netlog
Focus
Voice calls
General
encyclopedia
Cultures/Foreign
Languages
Q&A
Social
networking and
messaging tool
A free time
management
web application
Software
application
General
Video sharing
General
General
General
Miscellaneous
Image, videos,
slideshows,
photo sharing
Image hosting
Blog hosting
General
Miscellaneous
General
Top
Popularity
Worldwide
Worldwide
US
China
Open
Open
open
Unique
Users
521.000.000
370.000.000
310.000.000
Multilingual
Support
23
63
272
open
200.000.000
1
Registration
ALEXA
260
2
6
10
Worldwide
open >13
200.000.000
12
1.658.727
Worldwide
open>18
150.000.000+
40
N/A
Worldwide
open>18
150.000.000+
40
N/A
Worldwide
open>18
150.000.000+
40
N/A
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Brazil, India
Worldwide
US
open
open
open >13
open >18
open >13
open
120.000.000
120.000.000
117.000.000
100.000.000
80.000.000
80.000.000
48
22
31
48
15
6
5
3
6.545
60
17
12
Political
Representation
Basic
Category
Sharing
Communication
Collaboration
Communication
Review/Rate/Ex
press Opinion
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Sharing
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Sharing
Mostly in US
US
Russia
Worldwide
Europe , Canada
open
open >13
open
open >13
open >13
75.000.000
75.000.000
65.000.000
63.000.000
61.000.000
1
10
19
1
29
54
170
38
1.018
209
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Page 98 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
No.
Name
20
21
22
23
LinkedIn
Bebo
Flickr
MyLife
24
25
Scribd
MyHeritage
26
WikiAnswers
27
Odnoklassniki
28
29
Blogger
Badoo
30
hi5
31
Yelp.com
32
Mixi
33
34
Fotolog
Skyrock
35
BlackPlanet
36
37
38
myYearbook
LiveJournal
Tagged
39
40
Digg
Ning
Top
Popularity
Professional
General
Photo sharing
Miscellaneous
Document
Sharing
Miscellaneous
US
Worldwide
Worldwide
US
open >18
open >13
open >13
open
Unique
Users
60.000.000
56.000.000
55.000.000
51.000.000
US
US
open
open
50.000.000
47.000.000
1
34
239
2.953
Q&A
Cultures/Foreign
Languages
News
Bookmarking
General
Mostly in US
open>13
46.300.000
6
136
Russia, Ukraine
open
45.000.000
2
95
Worldwide
Europe (Spain)
India,
Central
Africa, Latin America
open
open >18
41.000.000
37.000.000
41
12
7
179
open >13
35.000.000
40
51
Focus
General
Business ratings
and reviews
Cultures/Foreign
Languages
Photo sharing
General
General for Black
Community
Connecting with
Friends
General
General
News
bookmarking
General
Registration
Multilingual
Support
6
7
8
1
ALEXA
42
341
34
1.481
US
open
25.000.000
1
281
Japan
South America
Spain
France
invite only
24.323.160
1
85
open
open
22.000.000
22.000.000
12
7
227
111
US
open
20.000.000
1
2350
US
Russia, US
US
open >13
open
open
20.000.000
17.564.977
16.000.000
1
32
7
851
81
137
USA
Worldwide
open
open>13
14.000.000
13.000.000
41
25
100
127
Political
Representation
Basic
Category
Communication
Communication
Sharing
Communication
Sharing
Communication
Review/Rate/Ex
press Opinion
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Review/Rate/Ex
press Opinion
Communication
Sharing
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Collaboration
Communication
Page 99 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
No.
Name
41
42
43
44
45
Friendster
Last.fm
Buzznet
deviantART
Meetup.com
46
Classmates.com
47
StumbleUpon
48
Delicious
49
50
51
52
53
MouthShut.com
FriendFeed
Xanga
Ustream
Picasa
Focus
General
Music
Music
Arts
General
Connecting with
Friends
Web site ranking
and discovery
News
Bookmarking
Consumer
generated
reviews
Social aggregator
Miscellaneous
Video sharing
Photo sharing
Top
Popularity
Southeast Asia
US
US
Worldwide
US
open >16
open
open
open
open
Unique
Users
13.000.000
11.000.000
10.000.000
9.040.962
6.817.111
Multilingual
Support
12
12
1
6
1
US, Canada
open >18
6.700.000
6
799
US
open
5.500.000
1
204
Worldwide
open
5.100.000
1
367
India
Worldwide
Hong Kong, US
USA, Japan
India, Indonesia
Registration
open
open
open
open
open
3.200.000
2.400.000
2.200.000
2.000.000
N/A
1
10
3
1
38
ALEXA
146
310
736
97
526
2.316
705
768
512
889.746
Political
Representation
Basic
Category
Communication
Sharing
Communication
Sharing
Communication
Communication
Collaboration
Collaboration
Review/Rate/Ex
press Opinion
Communication
Communication
Sharing
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
Communicate
Work/Business
Professional
networks:
LinkedIn
Events
management:
Google Calendar
Bloggin: TypePad,
Xanga, LiveJournal,
Blogger
Leisure
Social networks: Facebook,
Qzone, MySpace, Windows
Live Spaces, Habbo, Orkut,
Friendster, hi5, Tagged,
Vkontakte, Flixster, Netlog,
LinkedIn, MyLife,
Classmates.com,
MyHeritage, Odnoklassniki,
Ning, Bebo, Badoo, Mixi,
Skyrock, BlackPlanet,
myYearbook, Buzznet,
Google Buzz, Google Wave
Social network
aggregation: FriendFeed
Democratic Engagement
Talk to your local MP:
Facebook, MySpace,
Windows Live Spaces,
Habbo, Orkut, Friendster,
hi5, Vkontakte, Flixster,
Netlog, LinkedIn, Bebo,
Skyrock, BlackPlanet,
myYearbook, Twitter,
MySpace
Blogging: Xanga,
LiveJournal, Blogger
Events management:
Meetup.com
Page 101 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Collaborate
Wikis: Wikipedia
Social news: Digg
Share
Documents
sharing: Scribdt
Presentations
sharing: Scribdt
Livecasting: Skype,
Ustream.tv
Review/Rate/Ex
press opinion
Product reviews:
MouthShut.com
Business reviews:
Yelp.com
Community Q&A:
Yahoo!Answers,
WikiAnswers
Dating networks: Tagged,
Badoo, BlackPlanet,
myYearbook
Micro blogging/presence:
Twitter
Events management:
Meetup.com, Google
Calendar
Blogging: TypePad, Xanga,
LiveJournal, Blogger
Social bookmarking:
StumbleUpon, Delicious
Wikis: Wikipedia
Social news: Digg
Photography and art
sharing: Photobucket,
Flickr, deviantART, Picasa,
Fotolog
Video sharing: YouTube
Music and audio
podcasting: Last.fm
Livecasting: Ustream,
Skype
Holiday reviews:
MouthShut.com
Shops and restaurants
review: MouthShut.com
Entertainment reviews:
MouthShut.com
Community Q&A:
Yahoo!Answers,
WikiAnswers
Policy idea suggestions
Social news: Digg
Social bookmarking:
Delicious
Photography and art
sharing: Picasa, Flickr,
deviantART
Video sharing: YouTube
Music and audio
podcasting: Last.fm
Livecasting: Ustream
Community Q&A
Yahoo!Answers
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
2
http://www.lademocrazia.it/regionali2010/
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
4
http://www.govtech.com/gt/423688
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
http://data.gov.uk/apps
7
http://www.tellthemwhatyouthink.org/api/
8
http://codeforamerica.org/
6
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
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
e 4 46: Sociall media by age groups (EEU and US)
Sourrce: authors’ ela
aboration
The figu
ure overpagee provides th
he education
nal characteristics of useers of the 25
5 social med
dia in Europee
and the US. The agggregate agee profiles forr the 25 social media site
es are differrent. In Euro
ope 50.1 perr
o lowest levvels of educaation (limiteed and high school). In
n the US thee
cent of users are frrom the two
mprise only 2
26.9 per cen
nt of all userrs. Howeverr, it must bee
proportiion of users from these groups com
noted th
hat comparisons betweeen age or sttage of educcation and the
t differentt educationaal systems in
n
Europe and
a the US can
c be fraugh
ht with difficculties.
are aged
d between 2
25 and 44. In
n the US the
e figure for the
t same agee group is 51
1.9 per cent of users. In
n
Europe only 20.8 peer cent of ussers of the 25
2 social meedia sites aree over the age of 45. In
n the US thee
proportiion is 23.1 peer cent.
In Europ
pe Linkedin (14.4 per ceent) and Frieendfeed (10.6
6 per cent) are the mosst popular sites for mostt
educatee group (grad
duates). In the US Linked
din (14 per cent),
c
Delicio
ous and Wikipedia (both 12 per cent))
are the most
m populaar for this gro
oup.
Pagge 151 of 228
8
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
e 4 48: Sociaal media by education
e
(EEU and US)
aboration
The figu
ure above prrovides the wealth
w
charaacteristics off users of the
e 25 social m
media in Eurrope and thee
US. Thee aggregate age profile for the 25 social
s
mediaa sites are siimilar amonggst the wealthiest three
e
categoriies, but veryy different amongst
a
thee least wealtthy. In Euro
ope those in
n the two leeast wealthyy
categoriies make up a far greaterr proportion of users (Europe 54.2 peer cent and 4
44 per cent in the US).
In Europ
pe Livejournaal (47 per ceent) and Friendfeed (46 p
per cent) aree the most popular sites for the leastt
wealthy group. In the US Friend
dfeed (29 peer cent) and Myspace (24
4 per cent) aare the mostt popular forr
up.
this grou
At the other
o
end of the scale in Europe the most
m populaar sites for th
hose in the h
highest incom
me group aree
Linkedin
n (15 per cen
nt) and Faceebook (11 peer cent). In the US Linkkedin (10 per cent) and Wikipedia
W
(5
5
per centt) are the mo
ost popular for
f this group
p.
Pagge 153 of 228
8
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
Figu
ure 4 50: Soccial media byy income (EU
U vs US)
aboration
Pagge 155 of 228
8
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
Facebook.com
Hi5.com
Myspace.com
Wikipedia.org
Friendster.com
%
47.6
42
42
41.4
39.6
Top 5 Male
Friendfeed.com
Reddit.com
Stumbleupon.com
Digg.com
Delicious.com
%
83.2
81.2
81
79.8
78.6
Top 5 Under 24
Bebo.com
Friendster.com
Xanga.com
Last.fm
Livejournal.com
%
32.8
32
32
27.2
26.8
Top 5 Over 55
Wikipedia.org
Linkedin.com
Blogger.com
Facebook.com
Netvibes.com
%
11.2
10
9.2
9
8
Lowest two educational
groups
Bebo.com
Hi5.com
Xanga.com
Friendster.com
Tagged.com
%
60.6
60.4
60.2
59
57.4
Highest two
educational groups
Linkedin.com
Classmates.com
Delicious.com
Netvibes.com
Friendfeed.com
%
37
31
28.2
27.2
26.2
Page 156 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
Lowest two income
groups
Xanga.com
Classmates.com
Friendfeed.com
Livejournal.com
Reddit.com
Highest two income
groups
Linkedin.com
Facebook.com
Wikipedia.org
Twitter.com
Last.fm
%
71.8
63.8
63
62.2
60.8
%
25.8
24
21.4
18.2
17.8
Facebook.com
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Highest
income
Lowest
income
Y
Y
Y
Highest
education
Lowest
education
Y
Linkedin.com
Xanga.com
Over 55
Under 24
Y
Friendfeed.com
Friendster.com
Male
Female
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.
Y
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
Type
Unique vistors
(excluding US)
Alexa traffic
ranking
Technology
platform
Facebook.com
Social
Networking
610 million
2nd
Web, mobile, app,
gadgets OK
Friendfeed.com
Social
Networking
2.8 million
721st
Web, mobile, app,
Friendster.com
Social
Networking
11.6 million
266th
Web, mobile, app,
gadgets OK
Linkedin.com
Social
Networking
40 million
29th
Web, mobile, app,
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
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
14
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)
23
Source: [4.50]
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
www.netmums.com
22
www.deafgateway.info
23
The chart in Figure 4 51 contains a misprint – 40% should read 47%
21
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
20
80
Average
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.
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 convverse pattern
n emerged with
w social m
media use. Those
T
in the two lowest educational
nt of all userss. Only 21.8 per cent of u
users came from
f
the two
o
categoriies in Europee comprised 50.1 per cen
most educated groups.
b continues to be popullated largelyy by youngerr generation
ns, 44 per ceent of the ad
dult Internett
The web
populatiion in the EU
U25 is between 16 and 34 years old
d, but they only
o
constitu
ute 34.3 perr cent of thee
populatiion (between
n 16 and 74)), see the figu
ure below. This
T graphic is thought to
o be the firstt to comparee
the pop
pulation profiles of diffe
erent age groups with the profiless for Interneet use, interaction with
h
governm
ment and usee of social media
m
(data fo
or the first three categories was taken from Eurostat for the
e
EU25, daata for social media use was
w derived from Googlee Ads)
The figu
ure below sh
hows in relation to the age distribution of interrnet and online governm
ment servicee
users in the EU25 it would be a mistake to regard the online
o
populaation as representative of
o the entiree
U25. The internet might facilitate intteraction witth citizens, but it will be important
i
to
o
populatiion of the EU
ensure that
t
other m
methods are used
u
to enab
ble a more representativ
r
ve cross secttion of the population
p
to
o
take parrt in policymaaking activitiies.
This obsservation is m
most important in relatio
on to the usse of social media.
m
This has a distrib
bution that iss
much skkewed towarrds uptake by
b younger age groups. 51.9
5
per cen
nt of all sociaal media useers are underr
35.
ommentatorrs have sugggested social media is no
ot just for th
he young an
nymore. They argue thatt
Some co
older ad
dults have em
mbraced soccial media, making
m
sociall marketing a viable tooll for reaching more than
n
just teen
ns and youngg adults. Our research su
uggests that this assertio
on is probablly incorrect.
Source: Eurostat and Goo
ogle Ads analyysis
EU25: Perrcentage disttribution in different
d
agee groups for the populattion, use of the
t
Internet, interaction wiith governm
ment and use of social meedia
Pagge 187 of 228
8
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
ASBOrometer
Better Birmingham
CFA Country Fire
Authority
CFA FireReady
Citizens Connect
Contact Senators
eJournal
email my Member of
Parliament
Facebook and
Government
Federal Housing
Administration
Description
Platform
Provides maps and graphs of local anti social behaviour for a
location input by UK users
Allows Birmingham, US citizens to report problems in their area.
iPhone App
Information about fires, weather, links to fire reports, general fire
news in Australia
Provides maps, fire warnings and information about fires in the
Victoria area, Australia
Tool enabling Boston, US residents to capture information about
the state of the city and share that info with City Government
Provides access to the email addresses, phone numbers and
addresses of US senators. Also provides information for two
staffers of each senator.
Published by United States Department of State Bureau of
International Information Programs. Publishes new policy,
meetings, polls and poll results
UK users insert home postcode and can then send a message and
attach pictures to their MP
To show governments how they can best use Facebook. Articles,
examples etc
Information on US Federal Housing Administration housing and
mortgages
Facebook
iPhone App
iPhone App
iPhone App
iPhone App
Facebook
iPhone App
Facebook
Facebook
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
technologies to create more effective, efficient and
collaborative government
iBurgh allows the residents of Pittsburgh, US to stay in touch
with their city government by reporting incidents conveniently
and quickly, even while residents are on the go.
Gives direct access to US government representatives' twitter,
phone, address, wikipedia, email, website
Shows users most wanted criminal and missing children. Provides
a direct link to the FBI to give information
Links to information, news, questions, polls, government
updates.
Information about the fire service, photos and news of recent
fires and rescues.
Connects directly to the Port Authority Police Department, New
York when citizens spot suspicious behaviour.
Scottish government outlines of new policy, information, news,
statistics.
The Upcounty Regional Services Centre, Montgomery County, US,
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.
Relevant information and news items concerning US veteran's
health concerns.
Twitter
iBurgh
iCongress
Most Wanted
OpenGov, US
Orange County Fire
Authority, US
New York Port
authority
Scotgovweb
Upcounty Regional
Services Centre
Veterans Health
Administration
iPhone App
iPhone App
iPhone App
Twitter
Facebook
iPhone App
Twitter
Facebook
Facebook
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
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
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
[45]
7.2 References for Chapter 4
[4.1]
[4.2]
[4.3]
[4.4]
[4.5]
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
Anderson, J.Q., Rainie, L. (2010). The Future of the internet. PewInternet. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/topics/Future of the internet.aspx
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
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
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
[4.6]
[4.7]
[4.8]
[4.9]
[4.10]
[4.11]
[4.12]
[4.13]
[4.14]
[4.15]
[4.16]
[4.17]
http://cis.washington.edu/usimpact/2010/03/22/opportunity for all groundbreaking study
reveals how people use internet access at the public library/
Beland, D. (2007). The social exclusion discourse: ideas and policy change. The Policy Press. 35
(1), 123 139.
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.
Bollen, J., Pepe, A., Mao, H. (2009). Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and
socio economic phenomena. International World Wide Web Conference.
Boyd, D. (2010) Stream of Content, Limited Attention. Retrieved from
http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/Web2Expo.html
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.
Boyd, D. (2006a). Friendster lost steam. Is MySpace just a fad? Apophenia Blog. Retrieved from
http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay.html
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
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
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
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
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
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]
[4.19]
[4.20]
[4.21]
[4.22]
[4.23]
[4.24]
[4.25]
[4.26]
[4.27]
[4.28]
[4.29]
[4.30]
[4.31]
[4.32]
[4.33]
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2008). Online social networks: research
report. Retrieved online
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/onlinesocialnetworks
Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J. (2007). The Internet in Britain 2007. Oxford Internet Institute –
University of Oxford.
Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J., Gerber, M.M. (2009). The Internet in Britain 2009. Oxford Internet
Institute – University of Oxford.
European Commission. (2009). Benchmarking i2010: Trends and main achievements. COM(2009)
390.
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
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
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
Ferro, E., Molinari, F. (2009). Making Sense of Gov 2.0 Strategies: ‘No Citizens, No Party’.
Proceedings of EDEM 2009. September 7 8, Vienna.
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.
Forrester Research. (2009). European Technographics Benchmark Survey, Q2 2009, 25, 932.
Retrieved from http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/profile_tool.html
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
Greene, M. (2009). Justifying Social Marketing Spending. Forrester Research.
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
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.
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
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]
[4.35]
[4.36]
[4.37]
[4.38]
[4.39]
[4.40]
[4.41]
[4.42]
[4.43]
[4.44]
[4.45]
[4.46]
[4.47]
[4.48]
[4.49]
[4.50]
Horrigan, J. (2009). Home Broadband adoption 2009. PewInternet. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/10 Home Broadband Adoption 2009.aspx
Horrigan, J. (2009). Wireless Internet use. PewInternet. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/12 Wireless Internet Use.aspx
Horrigan, J. (2008). Use of cloud computing applications and services. PewInternet. Retrieved
from www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/262/report_display.asp
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
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.
Jones, S. (2009). Generations Online in 2009. PewInternet. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations Online in 2009.aspx
Kaplan, A., Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
Social Media. Business Horizons. 53 (1), 59 68.
Kountzeris, A. (forthcoming). Trends in advanced internet services use in Europe and Greece.
Observatory for the Greek Information Society.
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=
Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social networks websites. PewInternet. Retrieved online
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults and Social Network Websites.aspx
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
Lenhart, A. (2009). The democratization of online social networks. PewInternet. Retrieved from
www.pewinternet.org/.../41 The Democratization of Online Social Networks.aspx
Lenhart, A., Fox, S. (2009). Twitter and status updating. PewInternet. Retrieved from
www.pewinternet.org/.../Twitter and status updating
Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Fallows, D. (2004). Content Creation Online. PewInternet. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/Content Creation Online.aspx
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
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
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]
[4.52]
[4.53]
[4.54]
[4.55]
[4.56]
[4.57]
[4.58]
[4.59]
[4.60]
[4.61]
[4.62]
[4.63]
[4.64]
[4.65]
Lerman, K. (2007). User participation in social media: Digg study. International Conference on
Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.
Li, C., Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world Transformed by social technologies.
Forrester Research.
Li, N., Chen, G. (2009). Analysis of a location based social network. 2009 International
Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. 263 270.
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
Loof, A., Seybert, H. (2009). Internet usage in 2009 – Households and Individuals. Eurostat: Data
in Focus 46/2009.
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
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
Maia, M., Almeida, J., Almeida, V. (2008). Identifying user behavior in online social networks.
European Conference on Computer Systems. 1 6.
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
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
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
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
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
Office of Communications. (2008b). Ofcom’s Response to the Byron Review. Retrieved from
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/telecoms/reports/byron/
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]
[4.67]
[4.68]
[4.69]
[4.70]
[4.71]
[4.72]
[4.73]
[4.74]
[4.75]
[4.76]
[4.77]
[4.78]
[4.79]
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
Rainie, L. (2010). Internet, broadband, and cell phone statistics. PewInternet. Retrieved from
www.pewinternet.org/.../Internet broadband and cell phone statistics.aspx
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
Riley, E. (2009). Reaching Empowered Women Through Social Media. Forrester Research.
Riley, E. (2009). Redefining Attribution in the Social Computing Era. Forrester Research.
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.
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.
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.
Smith, A. (2009). Internet as a diversion. PewInternet. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/16 The Internet as a Diversion.aspx
Smith, A., Rainie, L. (2008). The internet and the 2008 election. PewInternet. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/252/report_display.asp
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
Smith, M., Hansen, D.L., Gleave, E. (2009). Analyzing Enterprise social media networks. 2009
International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. 705 710.
Young Adult Library Services Association. (2006). Social Networking and DOPA. Retrieved from
www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ifissues/positive_uses.pdf
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]
[4.81]
[4.82]
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
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/
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
SOCIAL MEDIA
Unique Visitors
Unique Users
15000000
5600000
3500000
1100000
GENDER
W
M
66
34
55
45
Germany
38
62
Italy
Spain
28
38
72
62
France
26
74
37
63
62
36
38
64
Germany
30
70
Italy
30
70
Spain
38
62
30
32.8
70
67.2
Bebo.com
USA
UK
EU5 average
Blogger.com
USA
UK
73000000
41000000
21000000
8100000
France
EU5 average
Chatroulette.com
USA
6700000
2600000
2000000
620000
43
57
38
62
Germany
22
78
Italy
Spain
18
15
82
85
UK
France
24
76
23.4
76.6
66
48
34
52
Germany
28
72
Italy
34
66
Spain
36
64
28
34.8
72
65.2
55
45
30
70
Germany
13
87
Italy
Spain
21
26
79
74
France
17
83
21.4
78.6
EU5 average
Classmates.com
USA
UK
19000000
6700000
17000000
6200000
France
EU5 average
Delicious.com
USA
UK
EU5 average
8200000
5100000
2900000
1200000
Page 214 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
Digg.com
USA
Unique Visitors
Unique Users
25000000
12000000
14000000
5100000
GENDER
W
M
43
57
UK
30
70
Germany
17
83
Italy
18
82
Spain
France
18
18
82
82
20.2
79.8
60
40
UK
55
45
Germany
Italy
45
45
55
55
EU5 average
Facebook.com
USA
1100000000
370000000
490000000
130000000
Spain
45
55
France
48
52
47.6
52.4
EU5 average
Flickr.com
USA
110000000
37000000
55000000
14000000
55
45
UK
45
55
Germany
32
68
Italy
38
62
Spain
France
41
32
59
68
37.6
62.4
EU5 average
Friendfeed.com
USA
3800000
2400000
990000
430000
57
43
UK
28
72
Germany
Italy
11
21
89
79
Spain
15
85
France
9
91
16.8
83.2
EU5 average
Friendster.com
USA
14000000
2400000
13000000
740000
57
43
UK
45
55
Germany
45
55
Italy
34
66
Spain
France
48
26
52
74
39.6
60.4
55
45
UK
43
57
Germany
38
62
EU5 average
Hi5.com
USA
50000000
35000000
5000000
1800000
Page 215 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
Unique Visitors
Unique Users
GENDER
W
M
Italy
Spain
34
50
66
50
France
45
55
42
58
55
41
45
59
Germany
36
64
Italy
28
72
Spain
34
66
EU5 average
Last.fm
USA
UK
24000000
11000000
7600000
2600000
France
EU5 average
Linkedin.com
USA
82000000
41000000
42000000
16000000
32
68
34.2
65.8
50
50
UK
41
59
Germany
26
74
Italy
Spain
32
32
68
68
France
28
72
31.8
68.2
55
43
45
57
Germany
28
72
Italy
34
66
Spain
36
64
France
22
78
32.6
67.4
66
34
48
52
Germany
45
55
Italy
Spain
38
41
62
59
France
38
62
42
58
52
30
48
70
Germany
13
87
Italy
22
78
Spain
30
70
EU5 average
Livejournal.com
USA
UK
26000000
6800000
16000000
2300000
EU5 average
Myspace.com
USA
210000000
80000000
140000000
41000000
UK
EU5 average
Netvibes.com
USA
UK
France
EU5 average
2400000
1200000
390000
170000
21
79
23.2
76.8
Page 216 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
Ning.com
USA
Unique Visitors
Unique Users
37000000
17000000
13000000
4600000
GENDER
W
M
64
36
UK
43
57
Germany
38
62
Italy
38
62
Spain
France
45
32
55
68
39.2
60.8
34
66
UK
24
76
Germany
Italy
12
15
88
85
EU5 average
Reddit.com
USA
5100000
2400000
2800000
1000000
Spain
19
81
France
24
76
18.8
81.2
EU5 average
Stumbleupon.com
USA
11000000
6200000
5500000
2400000
52
48
UK
32
68
Germany
12
88
Italy
16
84
Spain
France
19
16
81
84
EU5 average
19
81
Tagged.com
USA
28000000
16000000
8100000
2800000
64
36
UK
52
48
Germany
Italy
38
24
62
76
Spain
45
55
France
36
64
39
61
EU5 average
Twitter.com
USA
150000000
54000000
80000000
21000000
60
40
UK
43
57
Germany
26
74
Italy
26
74
Spain
France
32
26
68
74
30.6
69.4
50
50
UK
32
68
Germany
21
79
EU5 average
Vimeo.com
USA
18000000
8300000
920000
320000
Page 217 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
Unique Visitors
GENDER
Unique Users
W
M
Italy
Spain
26
30
74
70
France
22
78
26.2
73.8
52
45
48
55
Germany
38
62
Italy
38
62
Spain
43
57
EU5 average
Wikipedia.org
USA
UK
550000000
310000000
160000000
56000000
France
EU5 average
Wordpress.com
USA
210000000
110000000
59000000
21000000
43
57
41.4
58.6
57
43
UK
45
55
Germany
34
66
Italy
Spain
38
43
62
57
France
34
66
38.8
61.2
66
50
34
50
Germany
43
57
Italy
32
68
Spain
36
64
France
21
79
36.4
63.6
EU5 average
Xanga.com
USA
UK
4600000
2200000
2000000
630000
EU5 average
SOCIAL MEDIA
AGE GROUPS
25 34
35 44
45 54
0 17
18 24
55 64
>65
USA
41
8
11
16
16
6
2
UK
38
14
18
Germany
Italy
17
10
11
18
19
35
15
10
4
1
22
22
20
14
7
0
4
0
Spain
9
18
46
18
10
0
0
France
EU5
average
24
5
20
23
23
4
0
19.6
13.2
27.6
20
15.4
3
1
Bebo.com
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
SOCIAL MEDIA
AGE GROUPS
25 34
35 44
45 54
0 17
18 24
55 64
>65
Italy
4
12
31
29
Spain
6
11
41
29
16
7
1
9
4
France
EU5
average
10
5
24
0
32
18
9
2
6.6
10.2
31
26.2
16.4
7.2
2
USA
14
UK
8
17
20
25
17
6
2
33
33
14
8
3
1
Germany
Italy
12
0
11
17
34
36
16
30
21
14
5
4
2
0
Spain
5
12
56
16
6
3
0
France
EU5
average
15
11
25
25
17
5
1
8
16.8
36.8
20.2
13.2
4
0.8
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
France
EU5
average
0
0
0
0
57
42
43
39
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
2.4
39.8
36
19.2
2.8
0
Chatroulette.com
Classmates.com
Delicious.com
USA
5
8
20
32
18
14
4
UK
Germany
3
4
16
5
33
44
21
17
17
21
7
6
3
3
Italy
3
10
44
28
12
5
0
Spain
2
7
54
28
6
2
0
France
EU5
average
6
2
32
33
20
7
0
3.6
8
41.4
25.4
15.2
5.4
1.2
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
Spain
6
4
13
11
37
57
28
20
12
6
4
2
0
0
France
EU5
average
11
5
27
33
18
5
1
7.2
11
38.2
24
14.2
4.4
1
USA
UK
17
10
7
12
14
31
21
24
25
13
12
7
4
3
Germany
13
13
26
21
16
7
4
Digg.com
Facebook.com
Page 219 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
AGE GROUPS
25 34
35 44
45 54
0 17
18 24
55 64
>65
Italy
6
9
34
26
Spain
7
7
45
26
16
6
2
10
5
France
EU5
average
20
15
18
1
23
14
8
2
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
Italy
12
6
8
12
27
34
23
28
21
14
6
4
3
1
Spain
8
11
45
24
8
3
0
France
EU5
average
15
5
22
30
19
8
1
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
France
EU5
average
0
0
7
0
71
40
19
33
4
23
0
4
0
0
0.2
8.4
50.6
23.2
14.8
3.2
0
USA
27
8
15
19
23
6
2
UK
Germany
11
29
21
13
40
18
13
14
10
20
4
5
2
0
Friendster.com
Italy
8
15
43
22
9
3
0
Spain
11
18
54
18
0
0
0
France
EU5
average
29
5
27
20
18
0
0
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
Spain
9
13
15
11
37
42
19
20
14
10
4
3
1
1
France
EU5
average
17
10
26
24
16
6
1
11.8
12.6
33.8
20.4
14.2
4.8
2
USA
UK
21
10
11
20
16
26
21
20
19
14
9
8
3
3
Germany
16
15
26
15
18
6
2
Last.fm
Page 220 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
AGE GROUPS
25 34
35 44
45 54
0 17
18 24
55 64
>65
Italy
8
16
32
24
Spain
8
12
46
24
15
4
1
8
3
France
EU5
average
25
6
17
0
28
16
6
1
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
Italy
2
2
4
7
35
31
27
38
18
16
8
6
5
1
Spain
2
6
43
36
8
4
1
France
EU5
average
5
4
37
28
14
11
1
2.6
5.8
35.6
31.2
14.8
7.8
2.2
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
France
EU5
average
5
21
22
4
47
20
18
26
6
24
2
4
0
0
9.4
17.4
33.4
21.6
13.4
4
0.8
USA
34
8
12
16
20
6
2
UK
Germany
10
16
21
16
30
20
19
20
13
18
5
6
2
2
Italy
6
14
37
23
14
4
1
Spain
7
13
49
19
8
3
0
France
EU5
average
18
9
22
26
18
6
1
11.4
14.6
31.6
21.4
14.2
4.8
1.2
Livejournal.com
Myspace.com
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
Spain
0
3
14
6
36
52
33
27
13
8
5
3
0
0
France
EU5
average
6
4
31
31
18
10
2
2.4
9
41.2
25.2
14.8
5.8
2.2
USA
UK
15
11
9
20
17
28
25
20
20
13
11
6
3
2
Germany
18
9
22
21
21
6
3
Ning.com
Page 221 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
AGE GROUPS
25 34
35 44
45 54
0 17
18 24
55 64
>65
Italy
10
15
34
24
Spain
8
11
42
24
12
4
1
10
4
France
EU5
average
21
6
20
0
27
20
6
1
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
Italy
0
0
5
14
50
43
18
25
20
18
7
0
0
0
Spain
0
11
67
22
0
0
0
France
EU5
average
16
0
23
34
18
9
0
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
France
EU5
average
0
8
10
0
64
32
21
36
6
18
0
6
0
0
3.4
10.6
43
24.4
14.2
3.6
1.2
USA
28
5
12
18
28
7
2
UK
Germany
15
8
16
12
33
24
17
20
13
22
4
9
2
4
Tagged.com
Italy
4
12
38
16
24
5
0
Spain
14
10
41
19
11
4
2
France
EU5
average
14
16
23
18
24
5
0
11
13.2
31.8
18
18.8
5.4
1.6
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
Spain
4
4
12
10
35
54
30
23
12
7
5
2
1
0
France
EU5
average
11
4
25
31
19
8
1
6.4
9.4
36
25.4
14.4
6
1.8
USA
UK
8
6
11
20
21
31
26
20
18
15
12
7
4
2
Germany
6
10
36
19
21
6
3
Twitter.com
Vimeo.com
Page 222 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
AGE GROUPS
25 34
35 44
45 54
0 17
18 24
55 64
>65
Italy
6
11
37
28
Spain
4
9
53
23
12
5
0
7
4
France
EU5
average
12
6
25
0
31
17
7
1
6.8
11.2
36.4
24.2
14.4
5.8
1.2
USA
13
6
15
UK
10
13
26
22
24
15
4
24
15
9
3
Germany
Italy
12
7
8
10
19
26
24
29
21
20
11
6
6
1
Spain
10
10
36
27
12
5
1
France
EU5
average
18
6
20
27
15
12
2
11.4
9.4
25.4
26.2
16.6
8.6
2.6
Wikipedia.org
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
France
EU5
average
9
19
10
5
39
21
27
28
10
19
4
7
0
1
12
10.6
28.6
25.4
16
5.6
1.4
USA
21
18
17
19
16
7
2
UK
Germany
9
23
32
17
26
31
17
12
11
17
4
0
0
0
Italy
0
24
52
24
0
0
0
Spain
0
27
58
15
0
0
0
France
EU5
average
28
0
20
32
20
0
0
12
20
37.4
20
9.6
0.8
0
Xanga.com
1
2
Education
3
4
5
1
2
USA
41
9
38
9
3
9
46
29
UK
Germany
31
70
7
12
55
19
5
0
3
0
22
40
13
18
Italy
16
73
0
12
0
54
19
Spain
23
26
26
21
4
57
16
9
14
4
0
France
EU5
average
40
5
27
12
15
15
18
31
23
9
4
36
24.6
25.4
10
4.4
37.6
16.8
14.8
14.6
11.6
4.6
SOCIAL MEDIA
Household income
3
4
5
6
9
5
2
7
10
6
20
38
7
15
4
17
10
0
0
Bebo.com
Page 223 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
SOCIAL MEDIA
1
2
Education
3
4
5
1
2
Household income
3
4
5
6
Blogger.com
USA
9
10
46
24
11
13
27
27
19
10
4
UK
Germany
8
56
24
14
43
29
17
0
8
1
33
39
8
18
8
10
6
18
24
8
20
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
EU5
average
23
6
29
19
23
12
17
21
34
9
6
22.2
25.6
27.2
17
8
32
17.4
14.8
17.6
10
7.6
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
Spain
10
14
59
27
7
33
25
20
0
6
40
42
15
25
25
12
15
14
5
4
0
3
France
EU5
average
34
6
26
16
19
13
18
30
22
10
6
25.4
25.6
28.8
14.4
6.2
35.6
16.6
16.2
15.2
9.4
6.8
USA
UK
10
9
19
15
48
47
17
15
6
14
4
22
25
7
38
9
18
9
12
32
4
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
EU5
average
18
0
33
24
24
0
24
36
40
0
0
17
22
30
23.4
7.6
45.6
18.2
11.4
14.2
6.4
4.4
Chatroulette.com
Classmates.com
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
Italy
38
6
11
59
51
5
0
30
0
0
47
43
20
14
8
27
14
10
4
3
7
3
Spain
7
29
27
24
12
35
26
12
16
6
4
France
EU5
average
13
4
31
21
31
17
20
22
24
9
8
13.6
27.8
30
18.2
10
37.4
17.6
15.2
13.6
8.2
7.8
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
France
EU5
average
12
24
30
4
33
33
18
18
6
20
41
18
25
20
12
27
16
24
5
6
2
4
21.2
27.6
31
13
6.8
37.6
19.6
15.6
13.6
8
5.6
Digg.com
Page 224 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
1
2
Education
3
4
USA
20
14
40
17
UK
Germany
11
60
11
14
56
24
14
1
Italy
18
51
5
24
Spain
20
16
30
26
France
EU5
average
42
6
20
30.2
19.6
USA
14
UK
Germany
SOCIAL MEDIA
5
Household income
3
4
1
2
5
6
8
7
26
34
18
11
4
8
1
18
30
8
17
9
12
9
21
31
9
26
12
3
41
17
14
17
5
5
8
41
20
14
14
4
6
14
18
8
13
29
29
14
8
27
15.8
7.6
27.6
15
15.6
18
12.6
11.4
12
42
23
8
13
28
28
18
10
4
11
18
52
12
6
28
9
8
7
28
21
58
13
28
0
1
37
17
10
22
8
6
Italy
Spain
12
17
62
22
4
33
21
22
1
5
42
40
19
22
19
16
14
15
4
3
2
3
France
EU5
average
30
5
28
17
21
13
17
25
30
9
5
25.6
24
29
14.4
6.8
32
16.8
15.6
17.6
10.4
7.4
USA
UK
3
5
5
46
57
32
26
11
8
6
29
61
32
7
15
5
14
3
6
12
4
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
EU5
average
7
5
36
20
32
26
23
19
21
6
7
11.6
32.6
30
15.6
10.6
45.8
17.2
13.6
12.4
5.4
6
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
Italy
74
17
11
66
15
5
0
12
0
0
41
50
16
13
6
17
25
7
7
0
5
13
Spain
28
26
24
23
0
48
27
14
11
0
0
France
EU5
average
41
3
29
10
18
25
15
30
17
8
4
35
24
25.6
11
4.8
39.6
16
16.6
13.4
7.6
6.8
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
France
EU5
average
37
41
18
6
28
23
13
17
4
13
55
12
19
20
14
30
8
21
2
13
2
4
37.6
22.8
23.8
10
5.8
39.4
18.4
15.8
12.8
8.2
5.2
Facebook.com
Flickr.com
Friendfeed.com
Friendster.com
Hi5.com
Page 225 of 228
PADGETS D1.1.doc
1
2
Education
3
4
USA
23
12
42
16
UK
Germany
13
62
14
18
55
20
12
0
Italy
17
59
3
21
Spain
21
23
31
19
France
EU5
average
41
4
26
30.8
23.6
4
UK
Germany
Italy
Spain
France
EU5
average
SOCIAL MEDIA
5
Household income
3
4
1
2
5
6
7
13
30
31
16
8
3
6
0
28
37
8
18
9
9
6
22
28
7
21
6
0
48
18
17
11
4
2
5
49
18
13
14
3
2
13
16
13
17
26
28
11
5
27
13
5.4
35
15.8
14.8
16.2
10.6
7.2
10
34
38
14
11
19
24
21
16
10
4
22
40
20
14
21
7
7
6
22
36
38
13
47
0
1
35
18
11
18
7
12
6
6
45
22
3
29
44
29
2
15
31
26
16
21
23
16
19
20
6
5
6
11
13
4
23
20
40
10
15
19
33
12
12
13.4
21.2
28.4
22.6
14.4
24.6
15.4
15.2
19.2
10.4
15.4
USA
UK
16
10
10
24
46
44
21
15
7
6
19
41
33
10
23
8
16
5
7
23
3
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
EU5
average
32
4
30
14
20
26
14
24
26
6
4
21.8
29.4
30.4
12.6
6
47.2
15
12.4
13.6
7.6
4.6
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
Italy
71
13
13
64
16
4
0
18
0
1
37
46
17
19
10
16
22
12
7
4
6
3
Spain
21
24
29
21
5
51
19
12
12
3
3
France
EU5
average
35
5
25
16
18
11
18
27
27
12
5
30.2
24
26.6
13.2
5.8
35
16.4
14.8
16
10.6
7
Last.fm
Linkedin.com
USA
Livejournal.com
Myspace.com
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
France
EU5
average
8
12
30
4
30
30
22
24
10
30
33
12
27
19
12
21
18
31
5
9
5
7
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
1
2
Education
3
4
USA
17
11
49
17
UK
Germany
14
69
20
10
48
20
12
0
Italy
16
61
3
19
Spain
20
24
30
20
France
EU5
average
35
5
26
30.8
24
8
UK
Germany
Italy
Spain
France
EU5
average
SOCIAL MEDIA
5
Household income
3
4
1
2
5
6
7
12
26
27
14
8
3
7
0
35
39
9
18
8
10
5
22
24
6
18
4
1
48
18
17
12
3
2
5
44
22
14
12
3
3
15
20
14
20
29
24
9
4
25.4
13.2
6.6
36
17.4
15.6
15
9
6.2
8
43
32
8
22
26
20
20
8
3
8
29
42
15
7
43
10
8
4
20
15
37
17
46
0
0
60
17
5
13
0
6
8
8
76
32
0
33
16
20
0
8
42
46
21
28
26
14
11
12
0
0
0
0
32
4
30
15
18
16
21
23
28
8
3
18.6
31.6
30.2
13.2
6.6
41.4
19.4
15.2
13.6
5.6
4.8
USA
UK
10
7
8
27
53
48
22
12
7
6
16
43
32
9
24
8
17
5
7
20
3
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
EU5
average
18
3
32
21
26
22
21
24
20
6
8
15.2
30.4
32.6
14
7.8
43
16.4
14.8
13.4
7
5.8
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
Italy
69
14
20
61
11
10
0
12
0
3
52
55
18
19
8
11
15
8
3
4
4
4
Spain
40
16
28
14
2
51
17
20
8
2
2
France
EU5
average
39
8
18
20
15
17
22
30
18
10
3
34.8
22.6
27.6
10.4
4.8
40.4
18.4
16.6
11.2
8.2
5.4
Ning.com
Reddit.com
USA
Stumbleupon.com
Tagged.com
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
France
EU5
average
13
23
28
4
28
31
21
19
9
23
39
15
24
19
14
23
15
28
4
9
4
6
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
SOCIAL MEDIA
1
2
Education
3
4
5
1
2
Household income
3
4
5
6
Vimeo.com
USA
11
10
46
26
8
18
28
24
18
9
4
UK
Germany
8
44
28
17
46
37
12
0
7
1
37
45
8
17
7
7
5
19
25
6
17
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
EU5
average
26
5
29
17
23
14
17
26
28
9
6
20.8
27
29.6
14.8
7.6
36
16.8
14.6
15.8
9.4
6.8
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
Spain
16
20
54
19
4
30
25
25
1
6
35
37
19
22
18
16
20
17
5
4
3
3
France
EU5
average
34
7
24
16
19
8
15
24
35
12
6
29.4
21.4
26
15.8
7.2
25.2
16
16.2
21
12.4
9
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
EU5
average
33
5
26
17
19
12
17
27
30
10
5
28.6
23.2
26.8
14.8
6.8
31.6
17.8
15.6
17.6
10.2
7.6
USA
23
9
46
15
7
16
37
26
13
6
3
UK
Germany
15
67
24
9
47
24
8
0
5
0
47
53
8
22
8
0
4
25
18
0
15
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
EU5
average
45
0
31
11
13
24
22
30
24
0
0
32.6
27.6
25.8
10.2
3.6
54.2
17.6
7.6
14.2
3.6
3
Wikipedia.org
Wordpress.com
Xanga.com
Page 228 of 228

View - Tech4i2

Transcription

Similar documents

Can I use the document camera as a webcam for Skype (and other

Kiosks And photo Labs. With The METAZA

Marchbanks, Earl - USS Frank E Evans Association

DIVERTIDOSOS MEDIA KIT

our 2015 Guide to Advertising on ThePrizeFinder.com

Lawlor`s Personal Branding Checklist

DOS EQUIS

marketing launch kit - Music Choice Home Page

BETWEEN THE COVERS RARE BOOKS

PowerPoint Sunusu