There are several common threads discussed in this session's readings. That the internet is often thought of and defined by physical plane space or place-based terminology is intriguing. The ability to bridge the distances intrinsic to the physical plane is part of what makes SNSs and other elements of social computing so appealing to many. In "Does the Internet Strengthen Community," William Galston states that "...computer-mediated communication can be understood as raising to a higher power the kinds of non-place-based relationships and associations that have existed for centuries in industrialized societies." LaRose et al clearly found, at least in college students, that the social aspects of computing could mitigate signs of depression by providing access to the RL communities that they may have left behind. This is reflective of points made in our Session 1 readings and again in the article "Reformulating the Internet Paradox," that the online social environment is frequently used to supplement and enhance real world relationships and existing social structures.
The Galston article tries to define community, and in so doing determines that there is a sort of easy in, easy out element to "voluntary communities" that might cause users to simply "exit," or leave an online space rather than "voice" their concerns, issues, etc. He describes this scenario as risking our ability to learn to use and grow our voices, especially politically. In another article, Ryan Bigge shows how much effort and time a user might put into their online "space." I believe that the amount of time and effort invested in a particular "space" might make some reluctant to simply up and leave, and in fact, make them fight to hold that space. For example, in "Social Responsibility and The Web: A Drama Unfolds," when her Tweet has RL consequences, Thordora continues to Tweet and seems to express anger that "her" online space might be patrolled by "big sister." There is also an example of "exit" here as Feelslikehome chose to "unfollow" Thordora...though she does express her reason with "voice."
These examples also address the concept of surveillance within online communities. I think it is clear that the Weeks article shows internal surveillance between members of an online community. It also shows that this online internal surveillance can impact RL experiences. The Bigge article discusses what I consider to be a kind of self-surveillance that he refers to as "digital gardening." In "Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissim," Christina Rosen compares the ability to create oneself online to painted self-portraits, a very intriguing possibility, and, I think, one of the most seductive elements of social computing. However, in "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance, Anders Albrechtslund shows us just how ephemeral the ability to control our self-portraits or our "spaces" really is. He notes that, online, friendships really can last forever because the information shared is typically stored someplace outside our own immediate control. Even if it were within ones own control, once something is shared, there is no knowing who has linked or copied or printed it in some other space, physical or virtual, in or out of context. Does anyone remember that old fable about King Midas and his donkey ears? (go here for a refresher: http://www.readprint.com/chapter-925/Thomas-Bulfinch)
There was so much in these readings! I thoroughly enjoyed them and the arguments raised. I caught myself wondering about the differences between the experience on an open SNS with little or no special interest focus and the experience in a more exclusive environment like a special interest site. I already have a Facebook page in my own name. Though I have only been on for a little over a week, I already find myself trying to be very self-contained and practicing my own self-surveillance. Some of my "Friends" are family, some are from church, some from a former place of work, and still others people I knew in high school. The information I would wish to allow these different groups access to is very different, so I cannot use this forum to post anything I might not want any one of these people, or anyone that might "friend" me, to see. It is great because I can feel close to those among my family and good friends who are also on Facebook while I am so far from home, but there is also a limiting element, at least for me.
To compare, I took advantage of a new feature at BN.com called My B&N. Here one can create an account with a profile and avatar and enter into functions within Barnes & Noble community where "It's All About You". Go to http://www.barnesandnoble.com/my-bn/ for an introduction to the program. My B&N does have a privacy option that does allow one to keep one's Profile and everything attached for Private viewing only. This provides a certain measure of control in that the only viewer would be oneself, and, of course, the company's "Just for you" advertising software. And the Library feature alone is one I would enjoy privately. When one opens one's profile to public viewing, one can still choose to post reviews anonymously. I haven't had an opportunity to join a book discussion, but I have posted a review and followed links to other people's profiles. The organization, specialization, and, yes, ego-centric focus of the feature make making friends harder, but that's not really the purpose of the site. The purpose is to have an easy point of entry into the activities of the Barnes & Noble community where people comment on and discuss books, music, and film. I suppose it would be possible to come away with actual "friends" if one participated in enough discussions and posted one's contact info in one's About Me. For the purposes of this class and because I want, and feel comfortable enough, to try the more public features of the site I have marked my profile as public. Here is the link to my public profile: http://my.barnesandnoble.com/Limetree-profile/?showVisitorView=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the link to the Barnes & Noble site. I am an avid reader and am involved in a monthly book club with a group of friends (I'm talking about a real life group meeting). I really like this B&N site but - here's my preference showing - even though it's a great site, I don't think it even comes close to our book club where close friends have potluck dinners and discuss our most recent book selection over a glass of red wine. It's a good site though and I plan to use info from here to take back to our group.
ReplyDeleteThis relates to your point from the Galston article and your reference back to our session 1 readings that the online experience enhances real world relationships and experiences.
In your response this week you talk about the "forever" aspect of the information because of its potential to be copied, linked, stored or forwarded somehow. Although we have an electronic medium that can fling this information across the world now, there seems to be a connection to archeological finds such as petroglyphs, communication on shards of pottery, hieroglyphics on the insides of pyramids and whatnot that also have permanence. I think we always have had the capability to make information permanent, it just seems that there is more quantity now - but how permanent will it be? Rocks and stones certainly keep well, paper not so well. Digital? Maybe our records won't be as permanent as we think.
In my opinion, these days, it is very hard to hide information from certain groups of people simply because it is easy for them to form relationships with others whom you may not know and who could give them information that eventually would lead them to you. For instance, you could be related to Person X, and Person X happens to be a friend of Person Y (you do not know this person); however, that person is a friend of a friend of ... Person Z (by coincidence). So here, in this situation, how do you protect the information that only family is supposed to know from falling into the hands of your friends who got them from others? This scenario is one of the main reasons why I hesitate to put even not-so sensitive information online; I would never know who exactly is reading them. However, one solution to this dilemma would be an "all or nothing" approach: put online only the information you want _everyone_ to know. Of course, this option could severely limit to what you want floating around in cyberspace.
ReplyDeleteGlad you enjoyed this session's readings; I've always thought that like privacy concerns, the persistence of online information is something most people ignore until it comes back to bite them. I posted something about my childhood memories of Disneyland in 1996, and as often happens, the original site on which I posted it is gone, but other sites harvested it and added it to their collections, and it still comes up occasionally--good thing I had a fairly unadventurous childhood!
ReplyDeleteYour Facebook experience was echoed by several other folks--the privacy risk outweighed the reward of interaction. B&N is more of a content-centric, as opposed to people-centric, community, where the risks and potential rewards are different. Understanding more about how those structures operate is one of the things I hope everyone takes away from this course.
The question of permanence of information online is interesting. I have had an opposite experience of Dr. Gazan. Recently I wanted to look at some old photos that I had burned onto a CDR a number of years ago. To my dismay the files were corrupted and almost all the photos were lost. I remembered that I had posted a number of them online but unfortunately the account had expired and the photos long since purged. Oh well, I learned my lesson, make lots of copies. But not of stuff you don’t want people to know, haha. I’ve seen a lot of comments from my classmates that show a lot of concern with online privacy and I’m starting to wonder what have you all been doing, ^_^, (I’m just joking.)
ReplyDeleteInteresting and scary how much information is stored for later use. I was a member of an online forum that stored all of your postings and responses for 1year. You could even search postings from other members as far back as a year. Some expressed their concerns about having so much past information available. I found it to be interesting to read my own postings over the year and see how my opinions may have changed and the progression of my own personal growth. I also found it helpful to learn more about the other members. I never though to actually copy and save my posting like a diary, but when I read the archive it was like reading diary entries.
ReplyDelete