Where do you like to hang out online? Do you like the (relatively) clean lines of Facebook or the busy-ness of MySpace, the professionalism of LinkedIn or the casualness of Twitter? Are you aware that your choice of social network is indicative of your social status? Apparently, the invisible castes that delineate the social classes in the real world also apply online.

Nielson Claritas recently conducted a study on the demographics four different social networks (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter) and found that affluent, highly educated people congregate on Facebook, while less affluent, less educated people favour MySpace.

According to the study, nearly 23% of the people on Facebook earn more than $100,000 per year; nearly 42% earn more than $75,000. 37% of MySpace users earn less than $50,000, while only 28% of Facebook users fit into this salary bracket.

Mike Mancini, vice-president of data management for Nielson, says that MySpace users “tend to be in middle-class, blue-collar neighbourhoods … They’re on their way up or perhaps not college educated”. Facebook users, on the other hand, tend to live in upscale suburbs, are aged 45-64 and have high levels of education. LinkedIn, which is primarily aimed is business professionals, also featured prominently with users aged 35-49 and who earn more than $100,000 per year (38%), in fact, Nielsen says there is a correlation between Facebook and LinkedIn users. Interestingly, Twitter uses also appear to be the more affluent in society.

So what, you say. Tell us something we don’t instinctively know.

Well, according to danah boyd (who, according to CNN.com, doesn’t capitalise her name) this divide is problematical in that it allows segregation to spill over from the real world into the world online, which detracts from the whole “everyone is equal on the net” theory. “The Internet is not this great equaliser that rids us of the problems of the physical world — the Internet mirrors and magnifies them. The divisions that we have in everyday life are going to manifest themselves online,” says boyd.

Sara Perez, technology writer and blogger, shares boyd’s sentiments. Because people are creatures of habit, and they like what they know, they tend to socialise online with the same people they know offline. Studies have already shown that white people tend to friend mostly other white people, and black people friend other black people. Unless you’re circle of friends offline is multi-cultural and multi-racial, you’re unlikely to cross the race divide online.

Jason Kaufman, research science fellow with the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, is more optimistic. He believes that social networks have the potential to overcome social and racial prejudices. He says, “I think it’s fair to say that the Web has great potential to at least mitigate everyday tendencies towards self-segregation and social exclusion.”

One of the biggest problems with the clear difference in demographics, according to boyd, is that the cycle of segregation is self-sustaining. She gives the example of universities that only advertise on Facebook, they advertise because they know that Facebook users are more likely to go to university, or the parents of university-bound children, who are likely to be affluent and highly educated themselves, will see the ads and investigate. The kids on MySpace aren’t exposed to the ads; they won’t be prompted to think about higher education options and are more likely to follow their parents into blue collar jobs.

It’s only one example, and it’s a little extreme, but it highlights the potential pitfalls of social stereotyping online.

Enter Twitter, the saviour of the online masses. We already know Twitter makes it very easy to follow people whose interests and social status differ from your own. All it takes is one interesting tweet to catch your eye and you’re willing to give their Twitter feeds a try. You may unfollow them later, but basically, Twitter helps to knock down caste walls. Relationships on Twitter are casual, you don’t feel like you’re making a solid commitment when you follow someone, unlike Facebook or LinkedIn, where you’re almost honour bound to interact more socially. The casual nature of Twitter naturally lends itself to a willingness to experiment with your social circle.

I’ll be the one to say it: Twitter lets you follow people that you’d be too embarrassed to add to Facebook. So, in a way it does knock down walls, but, unless you go that extra step and mix up your online social connections from all networking sites, you’re still pandering to social stereotypes. Keeping your friends in separate boxes is never cool, whether you’re online or off.

Social networking by the numbers:
Users with household income above $75,000
Facebook — 41.74 percent
MySpace — 32.38 percent
LinkedIn — 58.35 percent
Twitter — 43.34 percent

Users with household income under $50,000
Facebook — 28.42 percent
MySpace — 37.13 percent
LinkedIn — 17.34 percent
Twitter — 28.36 percent

Female users
Facebook — 56.33 percent
MySpace — 56.69 percent
LinkedIn — 48.11percent
Twitter — 53.59 percent
Users aged 18 to 24

Facebook — 10.27 percent
MySpace — 15.46 percent
LinkedIn — 3.99 percent
Twitter — 9.51percent
Users aged 35 to 49

Facebook — 31.54 percent
MySpace — 29.09 percent
LinkedIn — 43.64 percent
Twitter — 34.02 percent
Source: The Nielsen Co.

Related Posts

  1. Search engine and social media market share statistics for 2009
  2. Search Engine and Social Media Market Share Update
  3. Does social media give you the edge in the job market?
  4. Social networks and Google results: A bigger and better way to follow your friends.
  5. Hacking social networks – stolen identities

Tags: , , , , ,