I remember when I first got into Cranford High School; my older sister was a part of a social network called “the streetlight.” This was basically a Facebook that was limited to only our town and generally didn’t have but a few from just outside the town’s borders. I was transitioning into HS in 2003. My sister used the site to keep in touch while not at school, but I was “too young.” She just wanted to exclude me and I of course knew that. The main purpose of the site was to generate forums and let people know about keggers and things of the sort. The local police force caught on to this site within a year or two and it really slowed down the usage of it after several parties got busted up. Being the middle class suburban town Cranford is, this was exclusive to local users. After the cops caught on to the website and its purpose, usage moved more so to MySpace and then Facebook.
I personally never had a MySpace so I cant speak to the amount of ghetto-ness associated with it. I know that it was mostly used for random hookups and following bands. I joined Facebook in 2005 or 2006 and I can agree with a quote from the article, “Facebook seems more clean to me.” What I didn’t realize up to now is the amount of difference that people actually saw between the two sites. As Boyd mentions, “Slowly, a distinction emerged. Those who adopted MySpace were of different backgrounds and had different norms and values than those who adopted Facebook. White and more affluent individuals were more likely to choose and move to Facebook. Even before statistical data was available, the language teens used to describe each site and its users revealed how the division had a race and class dimension to it” (Boyd 3-4). This makes sense to me now having the understanding I do of what MySpace was for.
Knowing this tendency to be true, “birds of a feather flock together” (Boyd 12), I can say that the difference in users between the two sites makes good sense to me. Especially in a town like Cranford, where it is super ‘cliquey,’ everyone wants to be doing what everyone else is, and doing it better. Its like how certain people play Warcraft and certain people play Starcraft. They are in their own cliques. They have independent chats on Facebook and whatnot about personal preference and techniques and all that. Although after reading about Warcraft influencing players to spread viruses and how to do so in order to do the most damage, my views on video games resulting in violence have changed. All games and life situations are built around being in groups. There is a certain inclusiveness and exclusiveness to all the we do, whether its attending a certain college, playing a certain RP game, being on a specific social network, or working for a certain company. People that want to be associated with a certain something, will do things to make themselves fit the part.