Overall this week I had issues with the readings. Galston’s discussion of community was interesting, but it was limited to American conceptualizations of community. For me, this fundamentally undermines his arguments because they are aimed at what is essentially an international community space. However, Galston does contribute two important aspects to the discussion of online community. First, he justifies this concept of a virtual space, such as the MUD we read about two weeks ago, as a community space because the experience is real for the participant. Galston brings up an interesting question in his discussion of “place based” communities: are communities restricted to a physical space, or can they extend to a virtual space? My experiences in disCourse, Geocities, Facebook, Toytown and other online communities suggest that the virtual space can enhance physical place communities (in the case of Facebook and DisCourse) and create communities within virtual spaces (in the case of Geocities and Toytown).
Linton Weeks is arguing that Twitter is an online community, complete with all of the unpredictable behavior of members of a regular community. However, he brings up on interesting point: there is an added degree of narcissism within the virtual space - users can say anything (even the most inane comments) as a form of personal venting or ranting, but they don’t always recognize that these comments will be responded to. We see a new form of “crying wolf” developing on the internet. This is complicated by the “flat nature of text,” and its poor ability to communicate emotion and intent. The webcast suicide is an interesting case study, because it brings to light the idea of egging someone on to commit suicide. Are the eggers responding in such a way because they themselves don’t know how to respond to the situation and are attempting to diffuse the situation? Or are they so affected by what Susan Sontag described in “Regarding the Pain of Others” as a distancing through a virtual intermediary that they are unable to distinguish real violence from virtual or simulated violence?
I had issues with LaRose et al because the article is over ten years old. I immediately discount the relevance of this article because of its age - if this was still a true issue I’d expect that there would be more recent research. The article explores the notion that the internet causes depression. It’s an interesting idea, but really nothing is empirical so nothing can be shown to be conclusive. Ultimately the researchers came to the same conclusion which I did: If you’re the type of person to have superficial relationships in real life, then you may have these online. If you’re also the type of person to feel incredibly hurt that you have only superficial relationships and this leads to depression in real life, then this may also affect you in a virtual space. This was thought provoking, however. If the brain uses the same paths when communicating in the real world and when communicating in a virtual space - we have the same thoughts, the same thought processes- are our brains able to distinguish a difference between “real” and “virtual” when communicating?
While I appreciated Albrechtslund’s work to open a new dialogue on a non-hierarchical definition of surveillance, I’m not convinced that Albrechtslund isn’t just describing the internalized panopticon. He does have an important point about voluntary participation and surveillance in an online community. However, there is also an important point that he does not bring up which is that different communities have internalized different panopticons, that is, different communities have different social norms and thus will have different levels of what is private and what can be volunteered. Defining these boundaries is further obscured by the online community which is defining itself under completely different social norms.
Rosen describes the fundamental questions that all of these readings are asking. What are the results of the internet? What are the consequences of social networking and constant connectivity? How will this affect community in the real world and in the virtual environment?
The answer is: No one knows. But people have lots of ideas, positive and negative. And people have done research! Unfortunately, a lot of the results are contradictory, and ultimately it’s just way too soon to tell what’s going to happen.
Seriously, there are two readings that I absolutely don’t get. Bigge is one of them. I think he’s a post-modernist, and he’s really excited about “making strange.” Unfortunately, all he managed to do for me was make incomprehensible. I don’t see his argument, I don’t see his point, and I don’t see the strange.
Also, I just don’t get economics, economics majors, economics pHd’s, or economic theory. I think Umair is arguing that bloggers don’t litter the attention commons, they destroy the attention commons through mass-media which shares a space with all other media. I really want to understand this article, but I cannot link this article to anyone except Bigge, who also confounded me. I’m going to go with a deeply profound “??” for this article.
Lingering questions:
1. Bigge and Umair: What?
2. Have we all internalized the panopticon? That is, how do social norms mitigate or interact with our participation in online communities?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I appreciate your comment that the virtual space can enhance physical place communities and create communities within virtual spaces. For me, this is a more comprehensive look at SNS options that are available. I don't have any experience myself with the communities within virtual spaces that you named, Geocities and Toytown. From their names, they remind me of the video games that my kids used to play, the Sims, Harvest Moon and other role playing games. It seems that these sort of sites help make your imagination real, or at least give your imagination a picture to play off of.
ReplyDeleteConversely, do they limit the imagination? I'm thinking of the rich and vivid pictures that I have in my mind when I'm reading an excellent book - and then how flat the story seems when it comes out in a movie.
I think the LaRose article did use empirical data through the surveying of students. It was odd in the way researches noted user frustration over the course of the study. If the experience of the the Internet was that painful as the way described in the article, rational people would stop using it.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably difficult to answer Rosen's questions in a general sense but maybe easier to answer when dealing with examples of online communities. It seems as though online communities have the ability to multiply impact in some cases like the way political parties, particularly democrats, have organized using online communities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou raised an interesting question concerning the effect of virtual life and real life communities. I have only been considering the possible influence of real social etiquette for online communities. I'll have to rethink other aspects!
ReplyDeleteYour point about the boundaries of personal and public expression in diverse communities was insightful. What would you say the social norms are for Facebook? It seems that there is no limit to the type of personal information posted. The more we reveal about ourselves, the more interaction we get from our "Friends." If what you said is true, and we do have trouble distinguishing real from virtual interaction, is that why there is a disregard for privacy? I've noticed that people make the same intimate comments that they would in person, if not more so. Is it different across cultural borders as well? I know you have a lot of experience and connection with German culture; do you notice a difference with the interaction on these types of sites with your German friends?
Just one more thing, you mentioned the ego-centric nature of some virtual spaces. I came across this article today that explores the narcissistic tendencies of Facebook. The author comments on the new fad of posting a note, "25 Random Things About Me." It's humorous how telling the article is: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1877187,00.html
@ Denise:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concern about imagination, and I think that's a concern that some of our authors have shared. This idea of always intermediating with visual representations in a virtual space: what will be the ultimate result of this? Also, how accurate are these visual intermediaries? It gets a bit philosophical and crazy when you start really digging into it, but for an example: How do you represent the color red? We all have our own associations - a stop sign, nail polish, anger, a sunburn, something hot. All of these associations come into it, and the more creative our associations the more imagination we have in our interpretation. So what will happen if we start kids off in a virtual space that links red to an apple, but only an apple?
I see as much potential for limitation as I see for growth in virtual spaces, which I suppose is true for physical spaces as well. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of these discussions, and how pedagogies and psychologies are applied to the virtual space to enhance this experience.
@ Denise - oops! I meant to clarify that Geocities began as a homepage-building site with chat rooms for various interest groups. It was eventually bought out by Yahoo and might now be Yahoo Homesteads or something like that. Toytown is an expatriate message board and all-around news, restaurant review, and entertainment information center for Germany. It's essentially a central space where a diverse English speaking community has gathered to keep in touch with other English speakers. This is an example of a virtual community which builds relationships and community within a physical space. What unites the users of this board is that they speak English as their first language, and they have moved to Germany. There are several boards for different regions. I use the one for Munich.
ReplyDelete@ Dean:
ReplyDeleteWhat I liked best about Rosen's article was the use of empirical data, and I really appreciated the level of understanding that they achieved regarding this question. While I can agree with the model which they developed, I also wonder if what they were really describing was the overall lack of ability to communicate in a web-based environment?
I've already made myself feel old several times by discussing things that I remembered happening "just five or ten years ago" with my students (it turns out that the Rodney King incident happened in the early 90's before most of my Freshmen students were born. *sigh*) so I'm going to now assume that you are my age and have had the same experiences that I have had. If you remember the original BBS systems, they had lively discussions (okay, and those empty hours of "Hello? Is anyone else here? Anyone? No? Okay, I'm going to go...." monologues....) but for new users there's always that sense of "Wow, everyone here knows each other, and I'm on the outside of this group. Do I dare comment?" which is really the hallmark of the new user. In that sense, I can see Rosen's point that the internet leaves the user full of anxiety, stress, and a lowered sense of self-confidence. Have you ever gone to a party and not known anyone? It's the same feeling.
Also, the early web pages weren't really friendly to the public at large. The concept of designing for mass-consumption really didn't start to properly evolve until 1997 or so, and even then it was slow going. Check out the Yahoo search page in the internet archive and you'll see what I mean. In fact, check out any of your favorite sites and see how they've begun to develop a more user-friendly design style over the years. It's kind of amazing and eye-opening. Also, if you strike some real gold, you'll see a site that went from pure text, to text with images, and then you'll slowly see user-centered design principles come in.
What this sort of thing will show is that users weren't really a consideration, and you had to be both confident enough to jump in with an established social group and chat, and tech savvy enough to figure out how to do it with minimal aid from the system. So ultimately, I can see Rosen's argument, and I can see why emails from friends would reinforce the use of the internet. But I'm wondering how much of this has been mitigated by developments in CMC (computer mediated communication)?
@ Carrie:
ReplyDeleteTo summarize my entire response to your comment: Absolutely!
And now to expand:
What the varying security levels on facebook indicate to me is that there is an interesting mix of social / security awareness and social norms in the mix. On the one hand, there is the overall concern about security and privacy, which is set at different levels for different individuals even within the same social circle. This might be the result of individuals deciding that facebook is private from the internet at large, and really what are the statistical odds of someone signing on to facebook, trolling social networks, and finding people with public profiles so that they could mine their data? Or it might be the result of users who are unaware of security settings, or who can’t be bothered to find out how to work them.
We also find what should be termed “friendly security leaks” - friends who post in public forums (such as the wall) with messages of “Hey, have a great time in Chicago! Three weeks in the Windy City! When do you leave again? Oh, and did you say no one would be at your house, located at 123 Elm Street...?”
This scenario provides us an excellent opportunity to explore social norms in facebook. If the user replies on the wall with “Yeah, totally out of town, and here’s the security code for my house, there’s beer in the fridge...” then the social norm for this group is one of both trust and openness. However, if the other user deletes the wall post and replies by private message clarifying their travel details we see another social norm and also a correction to the social norm. What is acceptable to this user is a much tighter level of privacy and security, and by erasing the wall post the user is making a clear and public correction to their friend. In addition, by PM’ing the user to clarify travel details they are reinforcing the desired behavior. In this case, I think that the person posting too much information about another user either doesn’t distinguish between real and virtual interactions, or just has a different concept of security and so doesn’t realize that they are overstepping.
I agree with your statement that the more we reveal the more interaction we get. I wonder if this is a practical aspect of social computing (that is, by saying “I’m watering my plants” we give others an opening for conversation) or if it is a narcissistic aspect of social computing (that is, by posting we’re actually using attention-seeking behaviors). I’m not sure how you would verify either of these scenarios! :)
Finally, with regard to sharing across other cultures. I took an extremely unscientific and informal survey of all of my facebook friends who are from Europe. You see as much divergence among their information as you do among any social network, I suspect. I think the level of information divulged varies depending on how they are using facebook. Some of my friends are astronomers who travel all over the world on 1-3 year contracts and they have a lot of information on facebook so that friends and family can keep in contact with them. Other friends have almost no information listed and communicate primarily through email, phone calls, face to face conversations, etc.
Excellent point about the difference between American v. international ideas about community, but it's a generalization that I can accept, until he makes more outrageous claims based on it. SNSs like MySpace have become popular internationally, so at least the data can have validity.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like I wasn't the only person with issues about the time at which some articles were published, especially the link to depression. However, I don't think that it's too soon to tell what's going to happen, but the Internet and how we use it is evolving too fast for study. That could also explain why results can be contradictory -- what was true yesterday could be different today. I suppose that makes me wonder if the constant evolution will continue to keep researchers baffled or if it will ever reach a stable state.
In your response to Carrie, you gave a good example of how friends can unintentionally post information about you online that could be exploited. I don't think there's a "solution" to your scenario, except that users will learn to use the system differently as time goes by. When MySpace was accused of being used by sex offenders, the most the creators could do was ban users whose names matched those of sex offenders, and limit underage interaction to other underage users. This is obviously pointless against someone who didn't use their real name or lied about their age. It will eventually fall on both parental guidance and teens to understand the potential pitfalls and learn to avoid them. Awareness is a good first step.
@ Karhai:
ReplyDeleteI'm still not convinced about Gaston's argument or the data gathered as a result of it. I'm rather curious now to explore the interactions between community conceptions and SNS usage. Carrie asked some pointed questions about German use of facebook and other SNS's. On the surface facebook usage appears to be the same across cultures. But I'm wondering if looking at entire nations is too specific, and a smaller community needs to be studied? For example, for someone who grows up in London which is experiencing increasing crime rates and loose community ties because of the large population, do they limit the information that they post to facebook? Do they limit the number of friends that they have? Do they prefer having strong personal ties with someone before adding them to their virtual profile? Or do these users do the opposite - take refuge in a virtual landscape to secure the community they do not experience in real life? What about someone from a small community, such as our own outer island students? Do they trust more than others because the community experience they have had biases them towards accepting large groups of people and trusting that they will be kept safe?
I'm not sure that we're considering all of these variables at the moment. I've read through the Technorati "Report on the Blogosphere" but they're recording large trends - the global perspective of blog usage. But I haven't found any good sources for small-community studies. I don't think anyone will be able to come to grips with the internet until we have this kind of data available to us. Hmmm, do I smell a large-scale study and grant proposal? ;)