For many hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, online networking has become enmeshed in our daily lives. However, it is a decades-old insight from a study of traditional social networks that best illuminates one of the most important aspects of today’s online networking. In 1973, sociologist Mark Granovetter showed how the loose acquaintances, or “weak ties”, in our social network exert a disproportionate influence over our behaviour and choices. Granovetter's research showed that a ...

For many hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, online networking has become enmeshed in our daily lives. However, it is a decades-old insight from a study of traditional social networks that best illuminates one of the most important aspects of today’s online networking. In 1973, sociologist Mark Granovetter showed how the loose acquaintances, or “weak ties”, in our social network exert a disproportionate influence over our behaviour and choices. Granovetter's research showed that a significant percentage of people get their jobs as a result of recommendations or advice provided by a weak tie. Today our number of weak-tie contacts has exploded via online social networking. “You couldn't maintain all of those weak ties on your own”, says Jennifer Golbeck of the University of Maryland. “Online sites, such as Facebook, give you a way of cataloguing them”. The result? It's now significantly easier for the schoolfriend you haven’t seen in years to pass you a tip that alters your behaviour, from recommendation of a low-cholesterol breakfast cereal to a party invite where you meet your future wife or husband. The explosion of weak ties could have profound consequences for our social structures too, according to Judith Donath of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. “We're already seeing changes”, she says. For example, many people now turn to their online social networks ahead of sources such as newspapers and television for trusted and relevant news or information. What they hear could well be inaccurate, but the change is happening nonetheless. If these huge “supernets” - some of them numbering up to 5,000 people - continue to thrive and grow, they could fundamentally change the way we share information and transform our notions of relationships. But are these vast networks really that relevant to us on a personal level? Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Oxford, believes that our primate brains place a cap on the number of genuine social relationships we can actually cope with: roughly 150. According to Dunbar, online social networking appears to be very good for “servicing” relationships, but not for establishing them. He argues that our evolutionary roots mean we still depend heavily on physical and face-to-face contact to be able to create ties. Online social networking may also have tangible effects on our well-being. Nicole Ellison of Michigan State University found that the frequency of networking site use correlates with greater self-esteem. Support and affirmation from the weak ties could be the explanation, say Ellison. “Asking your close friends for help or advice is nothing new, but we are seeing a lower of barriers among acquaintances”, she says. People are readily sharing personal feelings and experiences to a wider circle than they might once have done. Sandy Pentland at Massachusetts Institute of Technology agrees. “The ability to broadcast to our social group means we need never feel alone”. (Adapted from The Official Cambridge Guide to IELTS)

What topic does the passage mainly discuss?