# Reading Response (Set 3)

### *Social Has a Shape: Why Networks Matter*
While fax machines are *pretty* useless now, the VERY first fax machine was **entirely** useless. It was created to be a means of communication with other machines. The first one, therefore, held no value as there was no way for it to do its intended purpose as no other fax machines existed yet. Their value is derived from their communicative ability. This principle can then be taken into a larger conversation about social networks.

Is it really a social network ... if people are not social? What exactly does it mean to *be* social? Rheingold wrote, "social cyberspaces [...] are small-world networks, because they are electronic extensions of human social networks". Perhaps since the framework is there in a social network, there is still value in its communicative ability? Even if people are not using it to communicate? 

While social networking existed prior to the creation of social media platforms and the internet itself, analysis of social networks really took off in the digital age as there is so much information readily available to be studied. From texts to blogs to post to photos to videos and more, the internet has provided the opportunity to really learn more and more about the ways in which people communicate.

One thing I really enjoyed about this reading was the analogy of people serving as nodes in a network is a good way to wrap my head around the concept -- connecting a new technological concept to something that already makes sense in my head. I really appreciate when articles make me understand new information in a way that encourages me not to just consume it, but to remember it long-term.

I am curious to know if anyone in this class has previously taken [Social Networks](https://catalog.northeastern.edu/undergraduate/arts-media-design/communication-studies/#coursestext) here at Northeastern and if they have any input on this reading that we would all benefit from.