- “they are a-spatial” (200)
- they are “based on choice, in the sense that without restrictions of geography, people are much freer to choose who to establish and maintain contacts with” (200)
- “social relationships in networks sociality are a product of instrumentalism, in the sense that all kinds of networks exist because of some purpose, project, or goal” (200)
- “such technologically-enhanced ties are tenuous…Being an instrumental and not obligatory from of organisation, one cannot simply be born into a network and remain in it in perpetuity, one has to prove one’s relevance or useful to be included” (201)
- “social networks have no limits in terms of size and are thus open-ended. There no limits to many networks can be a part of” (201).
He ends by building on point 4: “communication becomes essential because social connection in networks have to be maintained, and thus consistently be renewed, reconstructed, refreshed and revalued” (202). Thereby, “contact [connection] more so than content” has become important.
According to Miller’s definition, networks seem more interested in the linkages between individual members while ecologies seems to be more interested in the whole. Networks, then, focus on individual part to individual part, while ecologies are part-to-whole or whole-to-part. Also, Miller emphasizes the aspatial quality of networks while physical locations matters to ecology.