Social networks, as we know, are modes of representation of groups of social actors. While modes of representation of social structures, networks can also express power structures implicit in these groups. From my point of view, every social group has some kind of hierarchy and some kind of structure may consist of either implicitly or explicitly. A power relationship, for Foucault, is a relationship of domination of individuals on other individuals or institutions and other institutions. This power is legitimated by a particular social group in different ways. We could imagine, for example, that in a social network on Twitter, people with the greatest number of followers would have more power in the network, since it could influence a larger number of individuals. This connection would, therefore, cause and consequence of the legitimacy of a structure of power there expressed.
The purpose of this post is to draw attention to a discussion that often take for granted: one where the social networks on the Internet is democratic in principle and democratizing our relations. Not quite. Internet social networks are also hierarchical and dependent relationships of influence and power. There is also domination. There are also social contract. When choosing who the next Twitter or accept requests for friends on Orkut, pesamos carefully the advantages and disadvantages of this relationship and decide whether or not to the others. Many of these networks may be highly centralized, where a single individual is the connector and filter the information to all.
Read all (in portuguese): http://twurl.nl/5kw0z3