Social network services (SNSs) provide the functions for both the management of social networks and information diffusion. We considered SNS networks as the networks that embrace both the strong links formed through the making-relationship function and the weak links formed through the sharing function. For identifying the structural role of each link, we constructed the SNS networks using Twitter data and analysed them focusing not on nodes but on links of the networks at a component level and at an ego-network level. More than 200,000 tweets were randomly sampled through the streaming API of Twitter. As a result, we found that weak links formed through the sharing function play a more important role in maintaining the range of information diffusion and provide more structural advantage in acquiring and controlling information than the strong links formed through the making-relationship function.
KwakHLeeCParkHMoonS. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference (WWW ’10), 2010, pp. 591–600.
2.
SunERosennIMarlowCLentoT M. Gesundheit! Modeling contagion through Facebook news feed. In: Proceedings of the third international ICWSM conference, 2009, pp. 146–153.
3.
HwangYShimH. Opinion leadership on Twitter and Twitter use: Motivations and patterns of Twitter use and case study of opinion leaders on Twitter. Korean Journal of Broadcasting2010; 24(6): 365–404.
4.
SuhBHongLPirolliPChiE H. Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting Retweet in Twitter network. In: Proceedings of social computing (socialcom), 2010 IEEE second international conference2010, pp. 177–184.
5.
YangZGuoJCaiKTangJLiJZhangLSuZ. Understanding retweeting behaviors in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference: Information and knowledge management, 2010, pp. 1633–1636.
6.
boydDGolderSLotanG. Tweet, Tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In: Proceedings of system sciences (HICSS), 43rd Hawaii international conference, 2010, pp. 1–10.
7.
RecueroRAraujoRZagoG. How does social capital affect retweets? In: Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 2011, pp. 305–312.
8.
ParkNJeongJ. Who retweet and why? Retweeting motivation factors and socio-demographic variables’ influence on retweeting. Journal of Media Economics and Culture2011; 9(3): 95–132.
9.
GranovetterM. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology1973; 78(6): 1360–1380.
10.
ChangDGhimG. The structure and dynamics of the Korean Twitter network. Journal of Communication Research2011; 48(1): 59–86.
11.
TeutleARM. Twitter: Network properties analysis. In: Proceedings of electronics, communications and computer (CONIELECOMP), 20th international conference, 2010, pp. 180–186.
12.
boydDMEllisonNB. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication2007; 13(1): 210–230.
13.
O’ReillyT. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies2007; 65(1); 17–37.
14.
LeeMKimO. Differential cognitive processes of relaying a message in Tweeter’ retweeting function. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies2011; 55(4): 331–357.
15.
ZhaoWXJiangJWengJHeJLimEPYanHLiX. Comparing Twitter and traditional media using topic models. In: Proceedings of 33rd European conference on IR research: Advances in information retrieval2011, pp. 338–349.
16.
AchananuparpPLimEJiangJHoangT. Who is retweeting the Tweeters? Modeling, originating, and promoting behaviors in the Twitter network. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems2012; 3(3): 1–30.
17.
BurtR S. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992, pp. 25–30.
18.
GilbertEKarahaliosK. Predicting tie strength with social media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2009, pp. 211–220.
19.
ParkCLimSChaSLeeIKimJ. Formation of weak ties in social media. Journal of Korea Contents Association2014; 14(4): 97–109.
20.
PanovichKMillerRKargerD. Tie strength in question & answer on social network sites. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work, 2012, pp. 1057–1066.
21.
JuenYKangJ. The effects of various types of social capital on political discussions in online communities: The case of candlelight vigil. Journal of Cybercommunication2010; 27(3): 177–226.
RosenmanE T. Retweets – but not just retweets: Quantifying and predicting influence on twitter. Master’s thesis. Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, 2012, pp. 18–20.
GalubaWAbererKChakrabortyDDespotovicZKellererW. Outtweeting the twitterers – Predicting information cascades in microblogs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on online social networks, 2011, pp. 1–9.
27.
SohnD. Social network analysis. Seoul: Kyoungmoon, 2002, pp. 162–164.
28.
BorgattiSPEverettMGJohnsonJC. Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE, 2013, pp. 14–17.
29.
RomeroDMKleinbergJ. The directed closure process in hybrid social-information networks with an analysis of link formation on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 2011, pp. 138–145.
30.
De NooyWMrvarABatageljV. Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek, 2nd edn.New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 161–165.
31.
ZhangHLiZ. Weighted ego network for forming hierarchical structure of road networks. International Journal of Geographical Information Science2011; 25(2): 255–272.
32.
KimY. Social network analysis, 3rd edn.Seoul: Parkyoungsa, 2011, pp. 76–79.
33.
BurtRS. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
34.
UmM. Nonparametric statistics for social workers. Seoul: Jipmoon, 2007, pp. 271–274.
35.
JeongD. Social statistics. Jeju: Jeju National University Press, 2004, pp. 152–165.
36.
PutnamRD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000, pp. 15–28.
