They define “social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”

So then, the precise difference between SNS and other kinds of CMC ismaking your network visible. For them, this key difference “can result in connections between individuals that would not otherwise be made and these meetings are frequently between ‘latent ties’ (Haythornthwaite, 2005)”

I used to feel that various SNS platforms were variations on a theme; being differentiated by target market, different widgets, privacy settings and, of course, the cultural perceptions and all the perks of ‘belonging’ that came along with it. boyd and Ellison suggest that “Structural variations around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that SNSs differentiate themselves from each other.” Though we can speak of structural variations and code, I still wonder to what extend cache, or better put, cultural capital really influences the SNS that we choose.

The example that first springs to mind is LiveJournal. LiveJournal, I think, does a decent job at combining all the most pertinent features of the blog necessary for diarying (emotion, location, and other indicators of intimacy) along with the networking aspects of SNS in the friends features.