Social Networks Are Inherently Good.

This is a TED presentation, filmed in 2010, by Nicholas Christakis on his research in social networks.  He uses a great deal of visuals and has some very interesting findings that are well explained in this presentation.  One of the most interesting visuals that he presents is a dynamic representation of a network, focusing on obesity, over a 32-year period.  Dynamic observations are always more useful then static ones.  Comparison of M13 to M14 revealed some possible trends that could not be observed without having two temporally separate samples to compare.  The presenter finishes his presentation with the closing conclusion that social networks are inherently good.  For the networks to sustain there must be positive connections, because negative ones would naturally disconnect.

http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks.html?source=email#.UtE3Z8RO_oB.email

I agree with the statement that social networks can only exist if they are “good”.   What comes into question is the definition of good.  What is good for some is not so good for others. Terrorists have very strong and complex social networks.  This is because they are united by what they consider to be “good”.  This could also be extended to any organization or network.  What the network members consider to be “good” for them and their desires will be what holds it together.  Of course if the members believe the network is harming them they will try and separate themselves from it.  So, yes I agree with the conclusion that the members of any social network will only remain in that network if it is good for the members.  Unfortunately good is not a universally accepted viewpoint.