Clay Shirky
( Archive | Home )

Liz Lawley
( Archive | Home )

Ross Mayfield
( Archive | Home )

Sébastien Paquet
( Archive | Home )

David Weinberger
( Archive | Home )

danah boyd
( Archive | Home )

Guest Authors
Recent Comments

pet rescue saga cheats level 42 on My book. Let me show you it.

Affenspiele on My book. Let me show you it.

Affenspiele on My book. Let me Amazon show you it.

Donte on My book. Let me show you it.

telecharger subway surfers on My book. Let me show you it.

Ask Fm Anonymous Finder on My book. Let me show you it.

Site Search
Monthly Archives
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline


« Charging for Media Streams from Live Events and Live Blogging | Main | Google Acquires Dodgeball »

May 8, 2005

The Significance of "Social Software"

Email This Entry

Posted by danah boyd

I’ve been meaning to write a paper on “The Significance of ‘Social Software’” for some time, but… In the meantime, i’ve written an abstract for public criticism.

In 2002, Clay Shirky (re)claimed the term “social software” to encompass “all uses of software that supported interacting groups, even if the interaction was offline, e.g. Meetup, nTag, etc.” (Allen). His choice was intentional, because he felt older terms such as “groupware” were either polluted or a bad fit to address certain new technologies. Shirky crafted the term while organizing an event - the “Social Software Summit” - intended to gather like minds to talk about this kind of technology.

Although Shirky’s definition can encompass a wide array of technologies, those invited to the Summit were invested in the development of new genres of social technologies. In many ways, the term took on the scope of that community, referring only to the kinds of technologies emerging from the Summit attendees, their friends and their identified community.

The term proliferated within this community and spread on all fronts where this community regularly exercises its voice, most notably the blogosphere and various events, including the O’Reilly Emerging Technologies Conference (Etcon). These gatherings, most notably the social software track at Etcon serve to reinforce the notion that social software primarily refers to a particular set of new technologies, often through the exclusion of research on older technologies.

Although social software events include only limited technologies, people continue to define the term broadly. Shirky often uses the succinct “stuff worth spamming” (Shirky, 10/6/2004) while Tom Coates notes that “Social Software can be loosely defined as software which supports, extends, or derives added value from, human social behaviour - message-boards, musical taste-sharing, photo-sharing, instant messaging, mailing lists, social networking” (Coates, 1/5/05).

Given the emergence of blogging over the last few years and the large audiences of many involved in the community of social software, this term and its definitional efforts have spread widely, much to the dismay - if not outrage - of some. The primary argument is that social software is simply a hyped term used by the blogosphere in order to make a phenomenon out of something that always was; there are no technological advances in social software - it’s just another term that encompasses “groupware,” “computer-mediated communication,” “social computing” and “sociable media.” Embedded in this complaint is an argument that social software is simply a political move to separate the technologists from the researchers and the elevate one set of practices over another. Shirky’s term is undoubtedly political in that it rejects other terms and, in doing so, implicitly rejects the researchers as irrelevant.

While the term social software may be contested, it is undeniable that this community has created a resurgence of interest in a particular set of sociable technologies inciting everyone from the media to entrepreneurs, venture capitalists to academics to pay attention. What is questionable, and often the source of dismissal from researchers, is whether or not the social software community has contributed any innovations or intellectual progress.

In this paper, I will explore the contributions of social software. I will argue that there have been notable technological advancements, but that their significance stems from the rapid iteration of development in ongoing tango with massive user participation. In other words, the advances of social software are neither cleanly social nor technological, but a product of both.

I will explicitly address three case studies central to the narrow scope of social software - Friendster, blogging and Flickr. I will discuss how tagging, audience management (such as ACLs) and articulated social networks are neither technological advances nor social features, but emerge as a product of collective action and network affects. While parts of these technologies have been built in research, the actual advances are impossible to construct in a laboratory due to the sociological effects necessary for maturation.

Social software represents a new generation of social technology development - a generation that is dependent on moving beyond the laboratory and into mass culture. Its manifestations are already staggering - ABC declared 2004 the Year of the Blog as blogging challenged everything from political discourse to identity production. Social networking services in the hundreds have motivated millions of people worldwide to construct and negotiate profiles and grapple directly with the social awkwardness of being more public than one thought. By allowing people to easily stumble upon the work of others, media sharing services have prompted new ways of organizing information and playing with the intention of producing media. These advancements complicate critical theoretical ideas about the nature of the public(s), the role of relationships in sharing, and the collective desire to organize information.

In this paper, I will explicate those advances and unpack their implications both for digital social life and for our shared knowledge project. I will also argue that technological research’s unwillingness to account for the advances, contributions and challenges of social software have significantly limited their own advancements. While social software’s advances must be acknowledged, I will also present some of the limitations of the current approach - namely its inability to fully understand the sociological implications of its advancements. Reflexive failures limit the potential of social software since so much of its significance comes from the interplay between the technology and the use. Herein lies a question of our responsibility as researchers - when should we simply study these emergent technologies and when she we directly involve ourselves with the iteration?

Allen, Christopher. 2004, October 13. “Tracing the Evolution of Social Software” Life with Alacrity.

Shirky, Clay. 2004, October 6. “Blog Explosion and Insider’s Club: Brothers in cluelessness.” Many-to-Many.

Coates, Tom. 2005, January 5. “An addendum to a definition of Social Software.”

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software


1. Koranteng Ofosu-Amaah on May 8, 2005 1:09 PM writes...


I was reflecting on this a couple of months ago in People, Processes and Things...

The terms that have been used about software that aids collaboration have all been unsatisfactory. They have been mostly opaque terms (groupware, knowledge management etc) overloaded and hyped by marketing teams. Correspondingly also, lots of software in this area has been unsatisfactory even if very useful for some groups whether it's mailing lists, usenet. The flight to a quality term like "social software" that people like Clay Shirky have spurred in recent years is an exercise to escape the stigma of the reigning software. I heartily endorse that effort but when I pass the hungry salesmen in the corridor that are trying to sell software for my company, I know that that effort will be in vain. If it's between their year-end bonuses and calling something "social software", you know what's going to win. Thus I predict that our vocabulary for software that supports groups, organizations and communities will continue to be contaminated.


The only difference in the emergent software is that there is much of it is web native and that can leverage the managed serendipity and delightful scale of the (for now relatively open) web platform whereas previously this type of software was typically vertically-integrated (e.g. Lotus Notes, Groove etc)

Permalink to Comment

2. paolo on May 9, 2005 3:50 AM writes...

I totally agree with your sentence "Social software represents a new generation of social technology development - a generation that is dependent on moving beyond the laboratory and into mass culture."
I'm PhDing about Recommender Systems (and their augmentation using trust relationships between users) and I see that it is at least 10 years that we researchers speculate about algorithms able to increase performances of 1% but we were not able to create a deployable system in which to gather a real and vibrant community on which to test hypothesis. Usually, people that are not researchers are not interested in filling unuseful, nobody-will-read papers but are interested in deploying for real something useful. And I don't think there is lack of "thinking" about such projects: usually developers wander around in chats, mailing lists, forum, so if people want there is a big amount of "research" (I think we researchers usually consider speaking with non-researchers as a waste of time and hence, in general, we don't spend time "researching" in chats, mailing lists, ... This is very bad)
Social Software is nothing but, as you said, "doing the research on the wild"., from a technical point of view, is very very simple. But you can easily see the difference it made! If you compare it with the thousands of iper-funded academic projects that, often, just produce a totally-unusable buggy prototype nobody will ever play with and heard of, then I think you have the definition of social software.

A possible suggestion for academic projects could be: "always create an open system, always release you software as free software, always expose open APIs, always try to find other researchers/people involved in similar projects and interact with them, in order to target a big community and not laying your project in a closed closet, always create a project chat channel and presidiate it, always create mailing lists, always create a blog and post thoughts about your projects on it, from the very very beginning, don't fear someone else will steal our work)...
I'm really looking forward for your paper.

Permalink to Comment

3. jim wilde on May 9, 2005 9:16 AM writes...


As far as open research, check out the hundreds of people on that have bookmarked research papers on folksonomies, tagging, bookmarking. As a lurker or direct participant in open source, the ideas and insights from non-techs or non-IA's are insightful to say the least. My current fav is since I have developed an inexpensive tool - Ideascape - for enterprise blogging that also minics the tagging/bookmarking functions of The tool is based on OSS (free) and is offered as a service.

This might be a little off topic. I struggle with businesses to adopt the new "social software", not only because it is new, but because of the "social awkwardness of being more public than one thought". So, any research the bridges the gap between usefulness and social software will find a big interest.

Follow the tag "socialsoftware" and the bookmark of the current page on to accelerate your research.

Permalink to Comment

4. Jon Garfunkel on May 11, 2005 2:16 AM writes...

You wrote about the "social awkwardness of being more public than one thought."

I don't see this as a core part of social software at all; it's a misinterpretation, because so many blogs are so revealing. Those are not necessary the values for many organizations. I would instead suggest Constructive Media -- which overlaps with social software. Also, as we both develop in Drupal, our work probably overlaps.

Permalink to Comment


TrackBack URL:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Significance of "Social Software":


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
"The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
knowledge access as a public good
viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"