• No results found

Online neighborhood communities - The design of social capital

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Online neighborhood communities - The design of social capital"

Copied!
69
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Online neighborhood communities

The design of social capital

University of Amsterdam

Master New Media & Digital Culture - Master’s Thesis

15 August 2016

Supervisor: dr. B.G.M. de Waal

Second reader: dr. J.A.A. Simons

Jan-Jaap Heine

10645322

(2)

Table of contents

1.

Foreword ... 4

2.

Abstract ... 6

3.

Introduction ... 9

3.1 Platforms and neighborhoods ... 9

3.2 Methodology ... 10

4.

Platforms and activity systems ... 12

4.1 Introduction ... 12

4.2 Platforms and neutrality ... 13

4.3 Activity systems ... 14

4.4 Conclusion ... 15

5.

Social Capital ... 16

5.1 Introduction ... 16

5.2 Forms of capital ... 16

5.3 The decline of social capital in the United States ... 17

5.4 Forms of social capital ... 18

5.5 Weak ties, strong and absent ties ... 19

5.6 Transformation ... 22

5.7 The domains of social capital ... 23

5.8 Conclusion ... 24

6.

Online neighborhood communities ... 25

6.1 Introduction ... 25

6.2 Preconditions ... 25

6.3 Potential benefits of neighborhood platforms ... 27

6.4 Potential risks ... 28

(3)

6.4.2 Trolling and racial profiling ... 29

6.4.3 The dominance of institutions ... 30

6.5 Conclusion ... 31

7.

Platform comparison ... 33

7.1 Introduction ... 33

7.2 Nextdoor ... 34

7.2.1 Introduction ... 34

7.2.2 Feature analysis ... 36

7.2.3 Sub-conclusion ... 42

7.3 Gebied Online ... 44

7.3.1 Introduction ... 44

7.3.2 Feature analysis ... 44

7.3.3 Sub-conclusion ... 51

7.4 WABP (Whatsapp Buurtpreventie) ... 52

7.4.1 Introduction ... 52

7.4.2 Feature analysis ... 54

7.4.3 Sub-conclusion ... 56

8.

Conclusion ... 58

9.

Discussion ... 62

10.

Bibliography ... 65

(4)

1. Foreword

One of the many readings during the MA New Media & Digital Culture was an initially rather abstract and mystical essay by Czech philosopher Vilém Flusser with the illuster title “The city as Wave-Trough in the Image-Flood”. After reading and rereading the text a number of times, things started to make some sense: On top of - or rather parallel to - the physical, visible and tangible world, there is an - equally real - fabric of information flows. The more information is exchanged, the denser the fabric, creating a gravitational pull that in fact constitutes cities.

Written in 1988 - years before the advent of the World Wide Web and social network sites, Flusser imagined urbanism and human subjectivity (becoming an individual) as flows of information. Rather than a noncommittal, optional way of looking at the world, Flusser imperatively presented his view as inevitable and almost as a form of art, despite any futile feelings of loss of personal space and personal agency.

In my early years as online media lecturer at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, I handed out an assignment to my ‘Internet Strategy’ students: design a community network for Meerbergereiland, a fictitious artificial island at the East of Amsterdam, where - even prior to construction of the houses - future residents can form a close and well-functioning community in order to achieve a liveable and successful new neighborhood. I could not foresee the fact that seven years later, I would be writing my MA thesis on almost the exact same subject. I suppose the exciting unity of technology, media and society has been a leitmotif for me for a longer time than I thought.

Combining a full-time job and an academic master’s program has not been easy. While there have been many moments of inspiration and fascination, there have also been moments of doubt and near-exhaustion. Choosing this path has not only have had consequences for myself; it would have been completely impossible without the endless patience and support of my wife Paula, and the playful inspiration by my son Mart and my daughter Rozemarijn. The lecturers at the University of Amsterdam have opened my eyes and roused my curiosity. I would especially like to thank Bernhard Rieder and Niels van Doorn for their animated and at times even passionate lectures and workshops. They helped me to be curious, to disagree, to admire and sometimes to detest, and then - in a few cases - to begin to thoroughly

(5)

understand texts and theories. One of their first tips on how to deal with difficult theories was ‘do not despair’. I have taken this to heart, more often than I expected. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Martijn de Waal, my thesis supervisor for being patient and understanding, providing structure and confidence, and to Jan Simons, who not only kindled my curiosity for new urbanism during his elective in the second semester, but who is also my second reader.

Applying some of the new knowledge and skills in my work as a media lecturer at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences is going to be an ongoing challenge, to which I am looking forward.

Hilversum, August 2016

(6)

2. Abstract

Platforms

Platforms are mediating more and more different aspects of social life. In their representation of these social activities, many platforms are capturing our thoughts, intentions and activities through often carefully selected grammars of action:

formal, but also inherently limitative descriptions of social life. While most platforms are intentionally content-neutral, there is also a tendency to capture data in the most structured way possible, which coincides with the tendency towards monetization of content. Highly structured content is more easily commodified, contributing to the commercial success of platforms. At the same time, rigid grammars of action may not reflect the broad spectrum of social activities and desires.

Social capital

Social capital is both a pre-condition to achieve effective social processes, and an outcome of these processes. It can be formed as a result of the connection between two or more densely linked and highly similar persons. This bonding process reinforces the connection, leading to emotional support and life satisfaction, but effectively shuts out new people and new viewpoints. Connections between more loosely linked people or groups of people are equally capable of producing elements of social capital: the introduction of new skills, knowledge and ideas, as well as an increased sense of community, safety and connectedness. It is part of a circular process, one that continually needs to be nurtured and maintained.

Social capital can be considered as an indicator for the potential of community initiatives (including online neighborhood platforms). A number of aspects of social capital emerge from literature: 1) safety, 2) support and reciprocity, 3) association and 4) mobilization and action. Some of these aspects are linked to ‘bonding’ social capital; others are associated with ‘bridging’ social capital.

Online communities

After establishing that social capital can be formed both in the physical and the virtual world, it is interesting to see how online communities contribute to the feeling of connectedness, safety and shared goals in the physical world. While most forms of bonding social capital are formed in friend-oriented social networking sites,

neighborhood platforms are mostly associated with the creation of bridging social capital between weak(er) links. However, in order to be successful, online

(7)

communities require a certain level of pre-existing social capital, as well as a critical mass of active users. Active content production is an important precondition for success. In order to achieve this, platforms need to constantly recruit, socialize and mobilize new members, as well as keep existing members satisfied.

Platform comparison

The comparison of three online neighborhood platforms in the Netherlands

demonstrates both similarities and differences. Nextdoor, a large and established (at least in the United States) platform, is highly structured using predefined categories and values. Its user-friendliness and positive terminology makes it attractive for residents to share information and exchange favors. There is a strong emphasis on ‘supply and demand’ and on crime prevention. The information flows between typically weak links, creating bridging social capital: relatively loose network nodes are connected with other nodes, allowing new knowledge and skills to enter the network. Nextdoor has not introduced a revenue model in the past years, but the design of the platform as a capture model, and the carefully acquired critical mass of members allow the company to start generating revenue.

Gebied Online is a co-operative of online local communities using the same platform. They form a non-profit organization that aims to connect people with ideas to people or local organizations with the potential to realize these ideas. There is more

emphasis on projects, events and the mobilization of local capacity than on individual value. This approach is reflected in the design and the grammar of the platform: features that promote association and participation are foregrounded, and there are many options for adding unstructured documents.

Finally, Whatsapp Buurtpreventie (Whatsapp Neighborhood Watch) is an ‘organizing shell’ around the Whatsapp messaging service: neighborhoods can register their local Whatsapp crime prevention groups, and provide additional information. The

website’s owner is not involved in the administration of actual Whatsapp groups, but does offer guidelines, consultancy and a webshop selling street signs, stickers etc. Although Whatsapp neighborhood watches focus on crime prevention only, they are usually very successful in reducing burglaries. The collaboration between neighbors and the resulting feeling of safety create new social capital. The lack of a formal user interface complicates the comparison with the other platforms. This is compensated by the ground rules, which every group is exected to adhere to. These ground rules are based on the SAAR principe (signal, alarm, app, respond), and also include guidelines to prevent misuse of the service (i.e. racial profiling).

(8)

none of them produces all forms. The design choices and the selected grammars of action reflect their objectives, which partially overlap.

The findings from this inventory highlight the potential creation of social capital through interface design, and do not describe the effectiveness of the communities. Further research into the impact of neighborhood platforms could produce

interesting insights in how the actual needs of neighborhoods can be met, and how the full potential of local communities can be unlocked.

(9)

3. Introduction

3.1 Platforms and neighborhoods

In an era in which there seem to be online platforms for almost every aspect of social life, a somewhat new category of platforms is emerging: hyperlocal online

communities aiming to deal with the different contemporary challenges of neighborhoods. These platforms and their features are capable of creating and shaping private and public spaces, and the design principles of platforms can have great consequences for the characteristics of the private and public spaces they create. Much has been written about the connection between social network sites and the creation of public spaces (Mejias 2009), including the affordances of their

features: what are platforms capable of producing? Mejias raises his concerns about the privatization of public space and the commodification of social life, which appears to become an economic asset in stead of the economy being part of the

social. Neighborhood platforms can be considered as a category of social network sites, but with very specific objectives, often directly aimed at influencing the way people live together in and with their neighborhoods. My assumption is that neighborhood platforms have the affordance to create forms of social capital in geographically delimited areas, where social capital can be defined following Robert Putnam as referring to “the collective value of all ‘social networks’ (who people know) and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other

(‘norms of reciprocity’)” (Putnam 1995). The way in which platforms do this, and the forms of social capital they are able to create, depend on a number of factors. Unable to measure the actual impact of neighborhood platforms in terms of social capital within the scope of my thesis, I will instead focus on the affordances of the user interface of different neighborhood platforms to create different forms of social capital. This results in the following research question:

“How are indicators for social capital represented by the user interfaces and the functionality of online neighborhood platforms (in the Netherlands)?”

Although hyperlocal online communities in their current form may be a new

phenomenon, there is a long history of ICT-related initiatives in neighborhoods. One of the reasons why neighborhood platforms are becoming popular and (potentially) successful, is the fact that all pre-conditions are now met, and this is a direct result of so-called Community Informatics initiatives over the past decades: initially creating a

(10)

solid infrastructure, then achieving an adequate level of computer literacy as well as the massive embrace of social networking sites throughout virtually all layers of society. Many authors have written about the Digital Divide (see Mejias 2010,

DiMaggio et al. 2001) as the chasm between people with access to computers and the internet, and those without. It appears that the digital divide in this sense has largely dissolved with broadband internet penetration approaching 100%. At the same time, digital divide is not only concerned with access, but also with the question who participates and who doesn’t (Mejias 2009). This is a particularly important question when platforms become increasingly mandatory and exclusive places to receive information and to participate in social processes.

In choosing to focus on different aspects of social capital and the way these aspects are represented within the user interfaces of online neighborhood platforms, I expect to gain more insight in the way platforms both represent social processes, and at the same time attempt to shape these processes. Although a complete overview of the impact of platforms on neighborhoods would include more variables and a more quantitative approach, this thesis could provide a starting point for further research.

3.2 Methodology

Literature review

The main objectives of the literature review were to make an inventory of relevant academic discussions on the topics of 1) platforms and platform politics, 3) online communities and 3) social capital.

Drawing from literature, I am proposing four forms or aspects of social capital (see chapter 5). These forms are the basis of a comparison of three online neighborhood platforms in the Netherlands.

Platform comparison

The four forms of social capital that I derived from available literature represent the complete range of potential social capital in neighborhoods. In order to assess the representation of social capital in Dutch online neighborhood communities, I have compared three different platforms:

1. Whatsapp Buurtpreventie (via wabp.nl) 2. Nextdoor.nl

(11)

Each platform is analyzed following these steps: 1. Establishing relevant features

2. Description of features:

• what functionality is offered to users, • how are their actions made visible and

• what form of social capital is the feature indicative of

As will be described later, Whatsapp Buurtpreventie is an organizing shell around the Whatsapp messaging platform, rather than an autonomous platform. The platform analysis will focus on the website functionality rather than the messaging

functionality offered by Whatsapp.

The analysis of Nextdoor will focus on the Dutch website (nextdoor.nl), which is divided into separate (and well-shielded) neighborhood sites. In order to analyze the platform in the most neutral way, I have decided to use the demo environment, which has all the functionality of a live neighborhood site, but lacks the bias of specific neighborhood characteristics. Nextdoor also uses an Android and iOS app, with the same functionality as the website, but this analysis will be restricted to the browser version, in order to optimally compare the three platforms (which do not all have corresponding smartphone apps).

Gebied Online is a platform with several implementations for communities or

neighborhoods. The core functionality is equal for all implementations; variations are mostly limited to website design. For the analysis, I have focused on the

implementation for the Knowledge Mile (Wibautstraat area in Amsterdam). Since the Knowledge Mile project uses a shell around the core functionality of Gebied Online, I have used the underlying website (community.knowledgemile.org), which has all the original Gebied Online functionality.

(12)

4. Platforms and activity systems

4.1 Introduction

An increasing number of real-life activities are influenced or even mediated by technological platforms: social network sites have become important places for cultural exchange and political discussion, almost exclusively as a result of user-generated content (Langlois et al. 2009). This applies not only to the exchange of ideas and information, but also to formerly physical procedures: meetings are more often than not planned using online planning tools such as ‘Datumprikker’, romantic (or less-romantic) relationships are formed through matching profiles on Tinder-like apps, holiday pictures are shared via Instagram and car boot sales have largely been replaced by online classified ad sites like Marktplaats. Although the platforms serve different purposes, most of them are used to find ‘matches’: supply meets demand, opinions meet endorsements (or objections), extraversion meets curiosity and destitution meets support.

An important thrust for this platformization of day-to-day life is the advance of web 2.0 technology: online tools have become increasingly easy and intuitive to use, offering clean and simple user interfaces to often complex processes, which have been hidden in the tools’ technological backgrounds. The relative ease with which software is connected to other software, and content and information can circulate on the web through application programming interfaces (APIs) have further entrenched online platforms in contemporary society. At the same time, the obscured back-end of online technologies raises questions on how this circulation of data and content is being captured and potentially re-channeled as marketable data.

While interacting with platforms, users are in fact interacting not so much with a computer, but with culture encoded in digital form (Manovich 2001). This means that the representation of reality through the interface of the platform is significant for the intended outcome of the interaction, according to the platform’s creator: the mandatory reciprocity (or lack thereof) of friendship structures in social network sites is highly indicative of the representation of reality that best suits the business objectives. Simple design choices are capable of maneuvering users towards certain preferred actions. As we will see later on, The Nextdoor platform employs explicit buttons and links to ‘thank’ other members for their contributions and to ‘welcome’ new members to the network: both are voluntary actions, but explicitly offering them as part of the standard vocabulary helps in creating a positive, appreciative

(13)

atmosphere. This suggests that interface design choices can be manipulative or at least suggestive.

4.2 Platforms and neutrality

According to Gillespie (2010), platforms present themselves as “neutral content intermediaries which are open, neutral, egalitarian and progressive support for activity”

This way, platforms attempt to evade responsibility for illegally published, sexist, racist, violent or otherwise undesirable content, while maximizing business

opportunities. By carefully maneuvering into an optimal position for users, clients, advertisers and policymakers, they can “both pursue current and future profits, strike a regulatory sweet spot between legislative protections that benefit them and

obligations that do not, and lay out a cultural imaginary within which their service makes sense” (Wyatt 2004).

In the last decade, several online social networking services have re-positioned themselves as ‘platforms’ rather than ‘websites’. The growth of mobile internet usage and the subsequent app ecology may have contributed to this shift, but there seem to be more fundamental reasons for this ‘platformization’ (Helmond 2015): the ‘luxury’ of a neutral position that - as mentioned earlier - provides room for maximum profits and minimal liability (Gillespie 2010), as well as the opportunities for social media platforms to extend into the rest of the web (Helmond 2015). By transforming from websites to platforms, numerous social media services have strategically changed their functionality to include social buttons, widgets and APIs to extend into the online world outside their own platform (Helmond 2015). These technologies enable external websites and other platforms to include content and/or functionality, such as ‘Like’ buttons, social bookmarking functionality and options for sharing and commenting. As a result, the ‘outside world’ is made ‘platform-ready’, enhancing the influence of the original platform. Many platforms offer APIs which enable the exchange of data between the platform and other connected services. These APIs are often highly regulated by the platform: it is Facebook who decides what data can be transferred from its platform to another, and what data can be transferred from another platform to itself. Additionally, it can decide at any moment to change the rules, as recently happened to the Instagram API: numerous websites, apps and tools that were connected to Instagram via their API suddenly stopped working, and no alternatives were offered, causing derivative business models to become inoperative, and making new media research considerably more problematic. While the exchange

(14)

of data and content through APIs may appear to represent an open ecology, much of the ‘Walled garden’ critique, which became popular in the mid 2000s is still mostly valid. The walled garden concept portrays platforms as “virtual gated communities” (Watkins 2010) where content is locked up to prevent free flows of information. The introduction of APIs (although strict and unilaterally enforced) may have opened the gates a little, making the garden’s walls semi-permeable (Helmond 2015) but only by installing heavily armed guards.

Linked to the walled garden critique are critical remarks about the commodification of free labor: while virtually all value within social networking sites is created by its users, this value is exclusively monetized by the platform owner.

4.3 Activity systems

Philip Agre (1994) introduces the notion of ‘activity systems’ and the capture model, which describes “the situation that results when grammars of action are imposed upon human activities, and when the newly reorganized activities are represented by computers in real time”.

Grammars of action can be seen as the phenomenon when descriptions of real life situations are transformed into inscriptions onto real life: activity systems (such as social networking sites) are modelled after real life, but in their formal and

protocological description of activities, choices are made as to which activities are, and which are not represented in the system. The most often mentioned example of this is the fact that Facebook decided to use a ‘Like’ button but not a ‘Dislike’ button. The limited grammar of the platform is therefor determinative of the social processes that can occur through the system.

Agre argues that “while different logics can be implemented in a grammar of action, there may be a general tendency towards market forms. Technology, here, does not specify activities in detail, but rather enables and shapes the way people can negotiate relationships directly” (Agre 1994).Activity systems, through their grammatized data structure, place user generated content into usable and unambiguous data models, ready (or as ready as possible) to be turned into datasets with optimal value. Mejias (2009) describes this tendency to capture data in structures as nodocentrism, the tendency to capture all things into nodes, in order for networks to see them, understand them and discard everything that is not a node as useless and basically non-existent. He proposes the notion of the paranode: entities outside the network, creating new and unrestricted options for alternative forms of social organization and subjectification (Mejias 2009).

(15)

Figure 1: Facebook’s attempt at enriching user’s posts by suggesting users to add pre-defined activities, emotions, friends and places

4.4 Conclusion

Platforms are mediating more and more different aspects of social life. In their representation of these social activities, many platforms are capturing our thoughts, intentions and activities through often carefully selected grammars of action: formal, but also inherently limitative descriptions of social life. While most platforms are intentionally content-neutral, there is also a tendency to capture data in the most structured way possible, which coincides with the tendency towards monetization of content. Highly structured content is more easily commodified, contributing to the commercial success of platforms. At the same time, rigid grammars of action may not reflect the broad spectrum of social activities and desires.

(16)

5. Social Capital

5.1 Introduction

As described in the previous chapter, the objective of many platforms is to bring together supply and demand, like-minded people and other potentially valuable nodes. Analogous to the transformation from mass media to networked and social media, where the number of people expressing ideas potentially equals the number of people who receive them, a similar change can be seen from formal institutional ways of communicating to more democratized processes. This includes peer-to-peer exchange processes, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, co-operatives and other private initiatives that can operate successfully without requiring the support or even the approval of corporations, governments and other institutions. When applied to online communities, I would like to suggest the notion of social capital as output, and as the measurement for success.

Forrest & Kearns (2001) explain a renewed interest in social cohesion and social capital by a bottom-up view of the creation of social cohesion as a result of social interaction at local level and the social capital it produces.

Many authors have written their own definition of social capital, while many others refer to Robert Putnam’s archetypical definition: “Social capital refers to features of social organisation such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and co-operation for mutual benefit. Social capital enhances the benefits of investment in physical and human capital (Putnam, 1993)”. Other authors, such as Lyn Simpson (2005) emphasize the circularity of social capital by describing it as an outcome as well as a prerequisite.

5.2 Forms of capital

In his essay “The forms of Capital”, Pierre Bourdieu makes a distinction between three expressions of capital: economic, cultural and social. Whereas he describes economic capital as the accumulation of materialized labor, cultural capital as the level of - intentional as well as unconscious - exposure to cultural expressions; social capital is seen as the degree of being connected to valuable and durable relationships, offering part of the collectively owned ‘capital’, which can take a multitude of shapes (Bourdieu 1986). Central in his description of the conservation of social capital is the (historical) notion of consecration, the institutionalized affirmation of belonging to a social entity such as family, nobility or other forms of social institutions, whose

(17)

underlying objective seems to be to endlessly reproduce in order to survive. The symbols used in the consecration process function as a token of recognition, and emphasize the strength of the ties within the group, as well as the boundaries of the group, outside which the exchange of knowledge, gifts and genes must not take place, unless after close consultation with the entire group. Bourdieu stresses that “the reproduction of social capital presupposes an unceasing effort of sociability, a continuous series of exchanges in which recognition is endlessly affirmed and reaffirmed.” (Bourdieu 1986). Given the time at which this statement was made, it clearly did not have online communities in mind, but as with many statements about social capital, the same principles apply to online counterparts: actual social capital can be the result of online activity, and in order to conserve this generative function, online communities require endless affirmation and reaffirmation.

5.3 The decline of social capital in the United States

Although Bourdieu’s description of social capital and its preconditions may sound outdated, it does help to explain the shift in perception of declining social capital, often expressed as a sense of loss, concisely articulated by Robert Putnam in his often-quoted essay “Bowling Alone”. The supposed decline of social cohesion in America’s neighborhoods is illustrated by the observation that, while the number of Americans who play bowling is increasing, the number of bowling teams is in constant decline. The United States have had high levels of association, its people constantly forming and nurturing social institutions in all aspects of life: religion, schools, sports, hobbies and local civic associations. A notable decline in the

“vibrancy of American civil society” over the past decades can be observed (Putnam 1995). Since 1960, there has been a sharp drop in election turnout, in attendance in “meetings on town or school affairs”, in volunteer work and in engagement in

political parties. At the same time, the distrust in the government and authorities has risen at an equally sharp rate. This is no coincidence: Putnam observes a strong correlation between associational membership and trust.

Historically, social capital is anchored in three ties of community: 1) shared spaces, 2) close kinship links and 3) shared religious and moral values. (Forrest & Kearns 2001). According to Putnam, a number of developments coincide with the decline in social capital in the United States: 1) the growing participation of women in the labor force, effectively decimating the available time to spend on civic organizations and activities, 2) increased mobility due to the availability of cheap cars and

(18)

divorce rate, and 4) the effect of technological innovation on the way people spend their free time, with the protagonistic television set, replacing other - more social - forms of leisure.

There are, however, some organization that grew dramatically against the odds. Putnam mentions the American Association of Retired Persons, which grew from 400,000 members in 1960 to 33 million members in 1993. However, looking into the nature of these clubs, it appears that they function mainly as powerful lobby

organizations, while their members are hardly socially connected to each other, even to the degree that Putnam proposes a new category for associations to be invented:

tertiary associations, where the connections between members are vastly absent: the

ties are only to common symbols, leaders, or ideals. Another substitute for ‘classic’ associational forms are support groups, such as self-help groups and hobby clubs. According to Putnam, although these groups do appear to represent social capital, they contribute to personal benefits rather than community benefits. (Putnam 1995). Fukuyama sees a similar development: it is not so much dis-association, on the contrary; he suggests that associational activity has increased, but in different shapes, and in particular: more locally based, and less institutional (Fukuyama 1999).

Putnam’s essay has been criticized for a number of reasons, varying from being nostalgic and conservative to being oversimplified and unscientific. In a personal response to some criticism, he admits that Bowling Alone is not his greatest

academical work, but emphasizes the amount of attention his essay has amassed, as well as his personal quest to find solutions to the further decline of social cohesion. In 1996, he predicts that “the internet won’t do the trick”. It is interesting to see - twenty years later - whether or not the internet has ‘done the trick’, and what ‘the trick’ exactly means.

5.4 Forms of social capital

Social capital has been defined and discussed by many authors. In general, it can be said that it has two forms: bonding and bridging (Burke et al. 2010).

Bonding social capital

Bonding social capital is associated with groups of people with already strong connections, such as family members and close friends. Activities that promote this form of social capital will primarily reinforce existing - often emotional or affective -

(19)

relations. Bonding social capital is associated with the perception of emotional support, lower levels of loneliness and a greater satisfaction with life.

Bridging social capital

Bridging social capital applies to situations where the ties are weaker, such as neighbors and colleagues. Bridging social capital is especially important, both as a prerequisite and as a result of connections in situations where relations are loose and diverse. These new connections may provide new knowledge, skills, perspectives and insights that otherwise would not have emerged.

Wellman et al (2001) offer another, perhaps more useful distinction: 1) network capital, 2) participatory capital and 3) community commitment. Network capital encompasses the relations with both friends and family (previously described as ‘bonding’) and neighbors and colleagues (‘bridging’) which provide tangible and intangible benefits to the individual: affection, emotional support, goods and services and a sense of belonging. Participatory capital focuses on involvement and

participation in political and social organizations, aiming at bonding, achieving common goals and expressing ideals. Finally, community commitment explains the willingness of people to mobilize their social capital, depending on their attitude toward community.

An increase in social capital may - depending on which sort - have direct social benefits, including improved public health, a decrease in crimes and - as a result - and increased sense of safety. The increased commitment to a community creates the ability to mobilize collective action (Phulari et. al 2010) and eventually even

positively affects the performance of local and regional governments (Putnam 1996). Conversely, a decline in social capital leads to opposite results, causing disorder, distrust and a lower level of participation, which reaffirms Bourdieu’s statement that social capital needs to be endlessly nourished.

5.5 Weak ties, strong and absent ties

When the creation of social capital is studied as a process within networks where the individual people are seen as nodes, it is important to take a closer look at the links between the nodes. Connections between individual ‘nodes’ in social networks can be classified as 1) strong ties, 2) weak ties, and 3) absent ties (Granovetter 1973).

(20)

know each other well such as relatives and close friends. Information exchange - will mostly reinforce the existing relationship. Strong ties are associated with bonding social capital.

Figure 2: strong and weak ties, (Wikipedia 2016)

Ties are weak when the connection is more loose and diverse, as is the case with neighbors, friends-of-friends or acquaintances. At first sight, weak ties appear to be less valuable, since they represent more distant connections. However, Granovetter argues that especially these weak links contribute greatly to the creation of social capital, because they create new, unexpected connections outside of the ‘bubble’ of strong ties. They bring (groups of) people together who would otherwise not have met, bringing new views, contacts and insights and bridging social circles. The density of networks is thus not indicative of the potential for social capital. Research by Granovetter suggests that well-functioning weak ties (somewhere between ‘absent’ and ‘strong’) amongst neighbors leads to lower crime rates and a subsequently

increased feeling of safety. Research in the Netherlands suggests that connections between neighbors are among the weakest ties possible: only 20% of the respondents spontaneously mentioned neighbors as parts of their direct social network. At first sight, these numbers appear to indicate that links between neighbors are weak and therefore of poor quality, but research indicates that weak ties in neighborhoods are especially effective in producing benefits for the neighborhood (Gesthuizen 2009). Mejias (2009) argues that ties that are most effective at creating social capital have the greatest chance of overcoming scarcity. This suggests that efforts to improve social cohesion in neighborhoods should focus on the creation and maintenance of weak links. The increased attention for local communities and the emergence of online neighborhood communities suggests that fostering connections between weak ties and the subsequent potential value creation is gaining traction, and new

platforms are emerging to offer their services, ranging from sharing platforms, neighborhood watches and discussion groups. These platforms usually build on Granovetter’s ‘Strength of Weak Ties’ theory (1973) which implies that weak ties are

(21)

virtually always part of triads of stronger ties. This means that there is almost always a possible weak tie between people (effectively negating the existence of ‘absent ties’), and the actualization of these potential connections can be encouraged by showing the network. Social network sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn use this theory extensively in their recommendation for new connections. This application of

network theories is known as ‘transitivity’ and enables not just recommendations for new connections, which promote bridging social capital, but also provides tools for commodification of networks and online surveillance (Mejias 2009).

Figure 3: LinkedIn’s ‘People You May Know’ recommendations.

(22)

5.6 Transformation

Wellman et al suggest that Putnam’s description of the decline of social capital is not so much a disappearance but rather a metamorphosis from offline to online

associations (Wellman 2001). The most essential difference is that Putnam’s notion of civic engagement depends on a unifying physical activity, such as Putnam’s ubiquitous example of bowling (Blanchard et al. 1998) whereas virtual communities rather produce social capital by exchanging information or social support.

Granovetter’s theories on the strength of weak ties appear to apply to both real-life and virtual environments: virtual ties, present in online social networks, appear to follow similar rules as their offline counterparts, although the ties’ characteristics may need to be redefined (Memic 2009).

This research, albeit limited in approach, suggests that online platforms are capable of reproducing social processes: the creation of social capital - especially the in the ‘bridging’ category - appears to occur even in virtual environments. Although many of the Social Network Sites’ recommendation mechanisms appear to be built (partially) around Granovetter’s interpersonal ties theory, the characteristics of the ties may be subject to a change of definition: does ‘friending’ a friend’s friend constitute a weak tie, or an absent tie?

According to Putnam’s theory of social capital, virtual social networks would not be able to contribute to the creation of social capital because the physical density of the network supposedly contributes to the essence of social cohesion. Blanchard

however, argues that - as long as virtual networks are physically based

(neighborhoods, villages, cities) - virtual communities are complementary to face-to-face networks, which contributes to the growth of social capital, especially by

promoting participation and supporting connections between weak ties (Blanchard et al. 1998). The exchange of relevant and valuable information in dense networks is both a results of, and a precondition for social capital. The denser the network, the more likely information will flow. Virtual communities which are geographically dispersed are expected to generate less social capital.

The rapid growth of hyperlocal neighborhood networks, both offline (neighborhood watches) and virtual (online neighborhood platforms) indicates the demand for such local networks.

(23)

5.7 The domains of social capital

In order to understand, and possibly measure social capital, it is important to identify indicators or domains. Several authors have attempted to create useful divisions, using different starting points.

Wellman (2001) proposed the three forms of social capital as mentioned earlier: 1. Network capital (benefits to the individual within a network)

2. Participatory capital (involvement and participation in groups) 3. Community commitment. (willingness to mobilize social capital)

Focusing rather on the needs of the community, Beate Völker (in Gesthuizen 2009) lists the objectives of every neighborhood:

1. Stimulation (entertainment),

2. Comfort (convenience, sense of security/safety), 3. Affection (social contact) and

4. Status (receiving respect).

Forrest & Kearns (2001) have devised a list of eight domains of social capital, being 1. Empowerment (the sense of being involved in processes that affect you, being

able to initiate change),

2. Participation (taking part in social and communal activities and events), 3. Associational activity and common purpose (working together in formal and

informal groups for the benefit of the group),

4. Supporting networks and reciprocity (cooperation between individuals and organizations aiming at mutual or unilateral gain with the implicit

expectation that support will be given when needed),

5. Collective norms and values (sharing common values and norms of behaviour),

6. Trust (between residents and local organisations), 7. Safety (feeling safe and unrestricted by fear) and

8. Belonging (feeling connected to co-residents and the area, feeling a sense of belonging to the place and its people).

(24)

Drawing from these authors, I have attempted to create a new classification for elements of social capital:

1. Safety & trust

Feeling safe and secure, building trust within community

2. Network support & reciprocity

Giving & taking

3. Association & participation

The willingness to form groups and take collective action

4. Empowerment & political organization

The opportunity, ability and willingness to initiate and actively support local (political) action

In the following chapters, these four elements will be used to describe and analyse different neighborhood platforms.

5.8 Conclusion

Social capital is both a pre-condition to effective social processes, and an outcome of these processes. There is a general consensus that social capital is part of a circular process, one that continually needs to be nurtured and maintained. Social capital can be formed as a result of the connection between two or more densely linked and highly similar persons. This bonding process reinforces the connection, leading to emotional support and life satisfaction, but effectively shuts out new people and new viewpoints. Connections between more loosely linked people or groups of people are equally capable of producing elements of social capital. The connections form bridges between formerly unconnected nodes in the network, enabling the introduction of new skills, knowledge and ideas, as well as increasing the sense of community, safety and connectedness.

Social capital can be considered as an indicator for the potential of community initiatives (including online neighborhood platforms). A number of aspects of social capital emerge from literature: 1) safety, 2) support and reciprocity, 3) association and 4) mobilization and action. Some of these aspects are linked to ‘bonding’ social capital; others are associated with ‘bridging’ social capital. In the next chapters, the aspects of social capital will be applied to a feature analysis of three online

(25)

6. Online neighborhood communities

6.1 Introduction

As mentioned earlier, ICT-based community initiatives date back to the 1970s. The popularization of computers and in particular the widespread adoption of the world wide web have stimulated the evolution of these networks into ‘hyperlocal’

community networks, defined by (increasingly small) geographical boundaries. While much of the research on social networking sites was focused on large-scale sites and platforms like MySpace and Facebook, and indeed these platforms have been appropriated by a wide variety of social groups such as university classes, sporting clubs and neighborhoods, there appears to be a shift towards specific single-issue and/or local platforms. The launch of platforms such as EveryBlock.com in 2007 and Nextdoor.com in the United States in 2011 has been an important catalyst in shifting the focus to local or even hyperlocal communities. The increased interest in the creation of local social cohesion is reflected in the steady supply of

neighborhood-oriented websites and apps, as well as their growing user base. Several studies - although often limited to Facebook and other large social

networking sites - confirm the relation between the use of online communities and the perception of social capital, both ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding’. In other words,

Facebook users feel connected to a wider circle of useful information, and experience more emotional support from ‘friends’. Additionally, they are typically more socially trustful, more likely to participate in civic activities and less lonely. (Burke et al 2010)

6.2 Preconditions

Successful online communities are characterized by high levels of active participation in the community. Active participation in this context means actively posting new content and responding to others. This is an ongoing process that needs to be

stimulated and nurtured (Schuler 1994, Capece et al 2011). Lopez et al (2015) indicate that a number of online neighborhood sites and apps such as EveryBlock (a

hyperlocal news, classified ads, police reports and reviews platform) and Favortree (a gamification app that promoted doing favors to neighbors by growing a virtual tree) were launched in the United States in recent years, only to be discontinued a few years later, typically due to low volumes of new content and low levels of

(26)

their failed predecessors, focus on maximizing user engagement, by actively inviting as many new members as possible (or enthuse existing members to do so), or by involving third parties such as city governments who use the platforms as official communication channels. Nextdoor has official partnerships with both city governments and local authorities (Lopez et al 2015). This is also known as the startup paradox: in the first phase of new networks’ life cycles, there is only a small number of users to create content that will attract new members. In later phases, new users must be actively recruited and ‘socialized’, and encouraged to contribute and stay loyal, and - perhaps most importantly - try to cultivate an appropriate network behavior (Kraut et al. 2010)

Successful neighborhood initiatives both require and produce social capital. This implies that a certain degree of social capital (or at least some of its elements as described in Chapter 5 needs to pre-exist in order to produce new social capital through community platforms. (Simpson 2005).

In older theories on sustainability of Community Informatics projects, an important element was the foundation of a physical infrastructure: the widespread presence of telecommunications infrastructure such as (broadband) internet cables, the level of connectivity and the availability of computer equipment (Simpson 2005). Especially in rural areas in the United States, this foundation has not always been ubiquitous, although the past years have seen a significant growth (internetworldstats.com). Internet penetration in the Netherlands has always been among the highest in the world. In 2005, 83% of the Dutch population had internet access, which has increased to 97% in 2013 (CBS Statline 2016), only slightly higher than the US

percentage of 95.1% in the same year (Statista 2016). It is safe to say that the physical infrastructure layer, albeit still an obvious necessity, rarely forms an obstacle in community informatics initiatives. The rapid adoption of smartphones with high-speed mobile internet connections have only added to a nearly 100% internet access coverage, especially in the Netherlands (CBS 2016). The second layer of Simpson’s model of sustainable CI initiatives (see figure 5) are ‘soft skills’, originally linked to project skills, education, leadership and planning, but when applied to online communities, computer literacy, online social skills and network etiquette are more obvious examples. Although the dexterity level of these aspects may vary, large groups of all layers of society have at least some experience with participation in online communities: 76,7% of all Dutch residents over 12 years old use social media; if people over 65 years old would be subtracted, the percentage would be significantly

(27)

higher. (CBS 2016) My assumption is that similar percentages apply to the use of local online communities.

Figure 5: Elements of sustainable CI initiatives from a social capital perspective (Simpson 2005)

The next layer in Simpson’s model, after physical infrastructure and soft technology is ‘social infrastructure’. This applies to existing networks (both virtual and physical), the presence of community groups, the level of volunteerism and especially the availability of ‘change agents’ or ambassadors. Most online communities have some kind of ambassadors, either as

• ‘Founding members’: the members who actually initiated a group, • ‘Top members’: typically the most active or productive users or • Moderators, administrators or community managers

When these three layers are functioning well, the fourth layer, ‘social capital’ should be the result of CI (Community Informatics) initiatives, as well as the fuel for maintaining the network, or for subsequent initiatives.

6.3 Potential benefits of neighborhood platforms

Depending on the functionality and the use of an online community, there is

potential for the creation of either ‘bonding’ or ‘bridging’ social capital. Those online communities that are built around existing networks of friends and relatives and other people who usually share many similarities, tend to add to bonding social

(28)

capital, intensifying the existing relations and in a certain sense strengthening the walls around the networks. While this does increase trust, the self-validating character of these ties prevent the enrichments of new ideas and viewpoints (Simpson 2005). Communities with more focus on weaker relationships such as neighbors and colleagues, contribute to bridging social capital. Existing circles are not necessarily reinforced, but they are connected to other circles, creating

unexpected and often useful new connections that may add to the sense of being connected, to a feeling of safety and security, and to the willingness to reciprocate: individual acts of helping within an online community are amplified by the visibility within the network and contribute to the sustainability of the online community. Making favors visible demonstrates the potential of the network, and is likely to enhance norms of reciprocity (Blanchard et al. 1998). It also proves the affordance of the platform as a whole to create and sustain social capital. Ideally, online

communities maintain a balance between weak and strong ties and the associated forms of social capital. An optimal combination can muster high levels of trust and commitment from large parts of the community, mobilizing a wide range of skills and knowledge, described as capacity building: building the preconditions for successful social participation. The result of active participation in online networks may be an increased willingness to participate and contribute to the development of one’s community (Gannon 1998).

This may also afford the creation of the fundamentals for developing powerful local leadership. (Simpson 2005). Eventually, according to Putnam (1996), “the norms and networks of civic engagement also powerfully affect the performance of

representative government”.

While online communities certainly are not the only means to create and maintain social capital, they do play an increasingly important role, since many social processes have been complemented or even supplemented by virtual counterparts. The potential impact of online platforms justifies a thorough analysis of the way they work, as well as the risks they involve.

6.4 Potential risks

Despite the great potential of online communities, there is a range of factors that may negatively impact its outcomes.

(29)

6.4.1 Lurking

Lurking - passively consuming the content on social, without any form of engagement with the content - is generally considered the second-lowest level of participation (Li 2007), after complete inactivity. While seemingly unproductive, Rafaeli et al (2004) argue that lurking should not always be seen as dysfunctional behavior. “People lurk because that is what they enjoy doing, because they have nothing to say or because they are just learning about the community” (Nonnecke in Rafaeli et al 2004). Although a certain minimal level of active participation is required to maintain a lively community, a high participation level applies primarily to the quantitative aspect: group size matters more than a high level of active participation. This is especially relevant for the commercial success of advertisement-backed platforms: to advertisers, the level of engagement with the group is less important than the amount of exposure to online ads. More advanced forms of platform monetization, such as the commodification of rich data sets, rely not just on high volumes, but on high levels of engagement and user activity. It can be expected either way that

neighborhood platforms, both commercial and non-profit, will actively try to maximize the group sizes: for each platform, a critical mass of active participants is required to create meaningful conversations, where meaningful can have different characteristics.

6.4.2 Trolling and racial profiling

Another risk of online communities is formed by trolling (intentionally provoking discussion by posting highly polarized and often insulting replies online) and other forms of negative behavior. There is only a thin line between ‘harmless’ trolling and public expressions of sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination. In the past years, several social network sites have introduced real-name policies, which means that a user’s real name must either be known to the platform’s administration (but pseudonyms can be used in public profiles) or real names must not only be known, but also used in profiles. When - verified - real names are known to a network administrator, his or her data can be used in cases of unwanted or illegal activity on the network, which can typically be flagged by other members. Despite these efforts to discourage uncivil behavior, especially in neighborhood-related online

communities, the risk of racial profiling (emphasizing ethnic background over other characteristics) has proven to be very real.

(30)

Figure 6 : Facebook post on trolling and negativity on Nextdoor

After repeated reports of candid forms of racial profiling on Nextdoor.com, advocacy groups Neighbors for Racial Justice and 100 Black Men urged Nextdoor to

strengthen the prevention against racial profiling (Vincent 2016). Despite Nextdoor’s usually neutral position, not taking an active role in the moderation of member posts, the company decided to take action, and change the input forms for reporting

suspicious behavior - at least for an initial test population.The form now includes questions that actively encourage members to describe non-racial characteristics of suspects, such as clothing, and other details that may help to distinguish this person from other similar people Additionally, a new option allows potential racial profiling to be flagged for reporting. (Vincent 2016). Other platforms seem to become

increasingly receptive to criticism, although this usually does not involve changing the functionality, but rather relates to taking down specific groups, posts or accounts after having been flagged as offensive.

6.4.3 The dominance of institutions

According to Coleman (2008), the technology of platforms offers affordances for participation, but its models are defined and limited by the politics of the institutions that develop and provide the technology. Mejias describes this phenomenon as dual processuality: the highly controlled technological systems simultaneously enable scale expansion and scale reduction. Mejias mentions a number of examples of

(31)

contradictory phenomena, caused by the predominance of corporate ownership of social network services: with increasing user freedom (creation of content, formation of groups etc) comes an increased corporate determination: the platform owner decides what features are offered and changed, what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and what the terms and conditions are and may become. With increased opportunities for user-generated content comes the extensive commodification of collaboration. With a larger diversity of voices comes a rigid set of tools and a rigid set of rules, decided by the corporation.

Mejias is concerned with the “control of the modes for transforming information into action”. He mentions eight rules of communication, which are descriptive of network behavior. These rules are then programmed into normative rules, effectively limiting any freedom of network behavior, and becoming dominant models of social (Mejias 2009) or technological (Vatrapu 2009) subjectification. The dominance of these models, according to Mejias, forms an obstacle to the formation of alternative forms of social organization.

He argues that transitivity - the assumption that weak ties are almost always present between triads of strong ties (see chapter on weak and strong ties) is used not only for commodification by powering recommendation ‘engines’ and targeting ‘ideal audiences’; it also leads to surveillance, or at least the ubiquitous potential for surveillance.

In the feature analysis in chapter 7, three different platforms will be compared. The platforms differ on two levels: ownership (corporate, co-operative, or

‘re-appropriated’) and emphasis: the domain of neighborhood activity they are most associated with.

6.5 Conclusion

Although social networking sites have been around since the early 2000s, large-scale, dedicated platforms for neighborhoods are relatively new. After establishing that social capital can be formed both in the physical and the virtual world, it is

interesting to see how online communities contribute to the feeling of connectedness, safety and shared goals. While most forms of bonding social capital are formed in friend-oriented social networking sites, neighborhood platforms are most associated with the creation of bridging social capital between weak(er) links. However, in order to be successful, online communities require a certain level of pre-existing social capital, as well as a critical mass of active users. When properly maintained, and

(32)

constantly nurtured, networks can grow and proportionally add more value: active content production is an important precondition for success. In order to achieve this, platforms need to constantly recruit, socialize and mobilize new members, as well as keep existing members satisfied. Although most platforms see themselves as neutral intermediaries, active participation in these networks is not obvious, and explicit efforts to promote participation are not uncommon.

(33)

7. Platform comparison

7.1 Introduction

Several online neighborhood community initiatives have emerged in the past few years, varying in size and scope. In many cases, existing social media and messaging platforms such as Facebook and Whatsapp have been appropriated in the form of (typically closed) groups in which neighborhood-related information is shared, leveraging on the already intensive and frequent use of these networks.

(34)

Whatsapp Buurtpreventie (WABP) launched in 2015 as an organizing website for existing and new neighborhood watch groups on messaging platform Whatsapp. Additionally, new platforms were introduced, specifically aimed at (hyper)local communities. In 2016, US-based platform Nextdoor launched in the Netherlands and in 2015 the co-operative Gebied Online was founded, aiming to offer customizable community websites to neighborhoods in the Netherlands. These three platforms offer comparable services to geographically delimited groups, although the emphasis of the functionality is different for each platform: WABP is primarily focused on crime prevention, Nextdoor’s emphasis is on creating liveable and safe

neighborhoods, and Gebied Online (or rather the local implementations of the platform) is primarily meant to connect people with ideas to people with the means to realize the ideas. Although all three platforms are free of charge for users, they have different business- and organization models: WABP charges a consultancy fee when neighborhood watch groups or municipalities ask for advice, and it operates a webshop with street signs, stickers etc. Nextdoor is anticipating on a future revenue model, in which hyperlocal recommendations and classified ads are expected to be key components, and Gebied Online consists of a non-profit co-operative, that

charges moderate fees to cities or neighborhoods who want to use their platform. Any revenue will be used to maintain and improve the platform. All three platforms presume to satisfy the needs of neighborhoods, but their foundations and the way they operate are different, which makes them interesting to compare. The

comparison will take ownership, size and business model into consideration, as well as differences in user interface design and the affordance for creating social capital.

7.2 Nextdoor

7.2.1 Introduction

Nextdoor was launched in 2011 by Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary and Prakash

Janakiraman as a “free online platform specifically designed to foster neighbor-to-neighbor communication” (nextdoor.com 2016). Funded initially by venture

capitalists Benchmark Capital and Shasta Ventures, and valued at $1,100,000,000 in March 2015 (nytimes.com 2015), the platform does not generate revenue as of 2016, but plans to do so by introducing a hyperlocal supply-and-demand marketplace for goods and services, not unlike Craigslist in the US, or Marktplaats.nl in the

Netherlands, with the added value of local recommendations from within the neighborhood, which increases the trustworthiness of sellers and buyers.

(35)

As part of a strategy to expand the service globally, in January 2016, Nextdoor introduced the platform in the Netherlands as Nextdoor.nl. According to Nextdoor’s global CEO Nirav Tolia, the choice for the Netherlands was inspired by the Dutch being early adopters of technology and their strong neighborhood identity

(nextdoor.com 2016). In October 2015, Amsterdam’s alderperson Kajsa Ollongren went on a working visit to San Francisco and specifically Silicon Valley to discuss business opportunities by positioning Amsterdam as ‘Startup City’ and emphasize the favorable business climate (amsterdam.nl 2016). The delegation also met with

Nextdoor to discuss mutual benefits. Soon after the visit, the headquarters of Nextdoor Europe opened in Amsterdam as a stepping stone to a further roll-out in European countries, and a pilot of 93 Dutch neighborhoods was started. In February 2016, the platform was officially launched in the Netherlands.

In August 2016, Nextdoor.com claims to be active in 108,000 neighborhoods in the United States with more than 10,000,000 users. Additionally, more than 1,300 municipalities are connected to Nextdoor, using it as a communication channel with residents, either for community engagement, emergency preparedness and crime prevention (Nextdoor.com 2016).

Nextdoor’s smartphone app usage saw a 717% increase in 2015, on par with Airbnb’s app, which made Nextdoor the number 4 in fastest growing apps in the United States (Statista 2016). The feature analysis of Nextdoor will focus on the Dutch version, and specifically the public demo version. Nextdoor is active is more than 2,000

neighborhoods in the Netherlands.

Privacy and ownership

All profile information and user generated content is stored by Nextdoor and may be used in the United States and other countries. Data from non-US members are stored by Nextdoor EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) in Ireland, in order to comply with the EU Data Protection Directive. However, personal information may be exchanged within the Nextdoor ‘family of companies’ (Nextdoor USA, Nextdoor EMEA and future sister companies), and may be transferred to other entities prior to or at the time of a future acquisition by another entity (nextdoor.com 2016)

(36)

7.2.2 Feature analysis

Relevant features

The key functionality of Nextdoor is very similar to other social networking sites. The website is accessible only after registering and signing in. Every member has a basic personal profile which can be complemented with rich details. The website revolves around a chronological activity timeline or newsfeed with updates from users within the same neighborhood or surrounding neighborhoods. Members can read the updates, thank the author or respond to the update. Members can post their own updates, using a number of categories and features.

In short, key features are: 1. creating member profile 2. browsing content 3. posting content 4. engaging with content

1. Creating member profile

After creating a username and a password, an address verification process follows, making sure that new members are actual residents of the neighborhood. This is done either through an invitation code or by receiving a verification message on a registered phone number. This is an important step in building a safe and trusted environment. New members can complete their profile with the usual contact details, but also additional details about family composition, pet ownership (including the name, breed and profile pictures of your cat, dog or other pet). New members are also asked to indicate what they think about their neighborhood. The pre-defined list of neighborhood characteristics reveals a great deal about the intended vocabulary of the platform. Members are asked to provide information on their skills and expertise, in order to facilitate future exchange of favors, and their interests.

Key feature: creating member profile

Feature Description

Invitation code: Verifying that new members are actual residents of the neighborhood, with the objective to exclude unwanted outsiders and create a safe and trusted environment.

Indicative of : Safety & trust

(37)

Opinion about neighborhood: Description of neighborhood exclusively in positive terms, creating a positive and friendly attitude in the network. Indicative of:

Safety & trust

Add skills information: Indicate skills and expertise in order to facilitate future exchange of favors

Indicative of:

Network support & reciprocity

Privacy settings: Being able to control if street and/or house number can be seen by other members.

Indicative of: Safety & trust

Privacy setting (2): Being able to indicate the preferred way of being contacted by neighbours.

Indicative of: Safety & trust

2. browsing content

After signing in, the activity timeline - or news feed – is visible. All updates from members of the same neighborhood are presented in chronological order. Updates can have a number of different categories. There are no specific features when browsing content, with one exception: when a member posts an urgent warning, immediate e-mails and/or text messages are sent to all other members in the same

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

I OF A SECOND ORDER DIGl'],AL FILTER SEC'rJON WIT!! STABLE OVERfLOW BEHAVIOUR. Fahmy EEA 79-42055 SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF LIMIT CYCLES IN

Bearing in mind one of the original reasons for conducting this study, namely identifying the effects of web communities that could help immigrants in a new host

Met dit onderzoek wordt beoogd inzichtelijk te maken welke informatie over bezoekers en hun waardering voor groene ruimte nuttig is voor beheerders en

Hoewel uit het onderzoek duidelijk is gebleken dat natuurbeleving in online communities rond natuurgebieden door de meeste leden hoog wordt gewaardeerd, is verder

Lastly, the expected influence of “perceived affectedness by the financial crisis” on the relationship between “consideration of future consequences of one’s

Information quality and social usefulness are significant influencers for member loyalty for the case study included in this research.. These findings form the fundament for a

Whereas the studies conducted by Matarasso and Small were introducing a list of social impacts regarding the participation in arts projects or impacts festivals in general can have

The research question in this paper is: How do connectors, mavens and salesmen influence the process towards a tipping point in an online community in order to make a